Sunday, 22 July 2018

The help and the tennis - comments continue VI

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 posts “comments continue” posts, 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.

Links to the previous “comments continue” posts:
- “The help and the tennis – comments continue”;
- “The help and the tennis – comments continue II”;
- “The help and the tennis – comments continue III”;
- “The help and the tennis – comments continue IV”;
- “The help and the tennis – comments continue V”.


  1. As in the previous post we allowed it to overcome the 200 limit of comments, bringing over to this post 2 of the last comments (and deleting them there):

    Textusa22 Jul 2018, 19:11:00

    Elaine Strachan: Maria thank you for explaining that so succinctly. It is a question asked on every Madeleine related page/forum and the explanations given differ.
    This however makes sense to me.
    It can't go on indefinitely So, worst case scenario, Op Grange is shelved; Can the P.J. then bring about a trial (with the held back parts of the P.J. files and 🤞 new evidence such as DNA for example. We are 11 years on so if there are any samples left (?) technology has progressed so far that it could be possible to do tests that weren't available then.
    Just an example.
    Apologies for the long winded question but I have never had a straight answer. Thanks and a great post



    Not a long-winded question at all, but one that concentrates so many questions in just one. Apologies for the late reply but it required some research before answering, which I will try to do to the best of my knowledge which is limited.

    About if the case can go on indefinitely. A subject not many have looked into but is of the utmost importance.

    On the UK side, I think it can as there no statute of limitation as there is no legally-determined period, known as prescription, for criminal lawsuits to have to be brought within. So, legally, Operation Grange can go on indefinitely.

    In Portugal, it’s different, as for crimes that have a sentence of more than 10 years, there’s a prescription period of 15 years. Between 5 and 10, it’s 10 years, between 1 and 5, 5 years and 2 years in all other cases.

    Within the process, there is no statute of limitation for the investigation phase.

    That means that the case may remain open up to the day the prescription determines its forceful archiving. Forceful because it is forced by law.

    As sidenote, the fact that the case is still open in Portugal, means that it’s being considering the possibility of a crime that may result in a sentence superior to 10 years.

    Note, the word CONSIDERING. So, jumping to the conclusion that the PJ has assumed that it was a murder is wrong and such a conclusion is wrong to be made. However, as in theory the case MAY involve a kidnapping with the intent to kill - which does carry a sentence to over 10 years - is the reason why the PJ investigation is still open.

    However, if it comes to the conclusion – and this is the important detail – that what in fact happened carries a sentence below 10 years (involuntary homicide, for example) then the case is immediately archived without a trial as it has prescribed.

    From the above, there is one certainty, on May 3 2022, the Maddie case can no longer be investigated in Portugal. That is what the law states.

    Until then, it seems to me that both investigations can remain open.

    Again, in theory, whatever one does, supposedly doesn’t affect the other as they are from independent and sovereign nations. So when you ask that if “Op Grange is shelved; Can the P.J….?” you are questioning something that, in theory, you shouldn’t.

    Likewise, in theory, one should not ask if “PJ is shelved; Can the OG… ?”

    Whatever happens to one, in theory, should not affect the other in any way.

    If one archives the case, why should the other? Portugal and the UK are sovereign nations, independent justice systems, so what happens in one does not affect the other.


  2. Textusa22 Jul 2018, 19:12:00


    And if to those saying that they are interlinked because the crime may be inter-territorial – which it isn’t, it happened in Portugal - then Interpol should be the one leading the investigation, and it’s not.

    Note, I’m speaking only in theoretical terms, as everyone knows both investigations are linked. Why? Because it’s a political case.

    But it’s a political case that can only be solved OFFICIALLY by the police because it has on its base a criminal occurrence.

    Both police forces are then the tools that the respective politicians MUST use to solve this particular political problem.

    This understood, then one can understand that “new evidence such as DNA for example” will be just a PR move as the excuse to be used to “justify” why the case has taken so long to be “solved” when it was solved in 2007.

    The PJ Report is clear in saying that the McCanns were involved in disposing Maddie’s body and covering up that fact. Certainly the PJ would not write that lightly in 2007. It certainly thought that would be sufficient to charge and prosecute the McCanns. The magistrate who had the legitimacy to decide thought otherwise was we know.

    So to answer your question, IF a green light is given to go for the truth, we believe your words “if there are any samples left (?) technology has progressed so far that it could be possible to do tests that weren't available then” will be officially used.

    An indication to that effect was Andy Redwood’s visit to the INML in Coimbra. It was an evident message that “new scientific evidence” is what will finally break the case.

    Sr Amaral has stated that there are 4 hairs at the INML in Coimbra:…/…/sys-significant-moves.html

    From there can certainly come the possible results from “tests that weren't available then” and the truth be outed if there’s political courage to allow it.

    All is political but politicians must realise that time is running out. As it is, if we are right about what we believe happened to Maddie – an accident followed by obstruction of justice – there will be no prosecution of trial in Portugal as it carries a sentence below 10 years.

    The investigation will come to the conclusion that it was it and as it has prescribed, it will close the case. No spectacle.

    But at least truth will be outed. We do not seek punishment, we seek justice.

    But, as we said above, in 2022 it will be definitely closed. No official truth can be reached. Even if in the UK the case continues and the truth will be officially outed, that will represent a huge insult to Portugal.

    Hope I have answered.

    Now we must correct you son something you said: “with the held back parts of the P.J. files”.

    There are no held back parts of the PJ Files. We have debunked that in our post

    To confirm this, the Deputy Attorney General (AG) Melchior Gomes makes a statement about the files being withheld are about sex offenders. Nothing else withheld.

    Please don’t feed this urban myth.

    1. Comments on FB:

      Sandra Crawford: Maria Santos so you are saying that someone who commits a murder which goes unsolved, although with possible perpetrator on file, can go free after 15 years and never be charged?

      Sandra Crawford: Or, does it apply that, because the case was shelved, that the prescription time would begin only if it were opened up again as a live investigation?

      Maria Santos: Sandra Crawford, 15 years is the prescription time. So the answer to your first question is yes.
      From the time the crime happened. So the answer to your second question is that it has nothing to do with the process being, open or shelved.

      Elaine Strachan: Maria I can't thank you enough for go on into such detail. That is the first time I've ever heard it explained as clearly.
      Thank you also for pointing out what I said about files being held back. This is GENUINELY the first time anyone has pointed that out and it is accepted as fact in many forums.
      Even on Twitter, a very well known anti with a lot of followers told me directly that there were other witnesses that saw Madeleine on the 3rd (in a discussion about date of death) and said that there was at least 20 and their statements have been held back like all the other pages.
      So, as i suspected then, that answer was a lie to almost FORCE me into looking at anything before the 3rd.
      I have no set theory on the date but I don't approve of being lied to just so I don't explore other theories.
      I am shocked but I am eternally grateful for that information. I will be posting on Twitter about it to see what others think.
      Again; many thanks Maria

  3. As we have informed, the comments in the previous post have reached 200. Anne Guedes has asked to reply about her opinion that Sr Amaral was manipulated into believing that Robert Murat should be considered as an arguido. This is the comment she has submitted:

    “AnneGuedes23 Jul 2018, 00:50:00
    I beg to reply.
    It is clear from his book that GA attempted to appear as un-manipulable.
    I don't believe GA started to find RM suspicious because he offered himself as a translator. That would be too stupid. Didn't GA say that he never believed Jane T's story ? Anyhow Jane T never said that the hypothetical abductor was wearing glasses. And GA noticed immediately that RM had glasses on.
    What I think is that GA is so proud that he would never admit that he was manipulated by anyone. Why doesn't he mention Lori Campbell? We know that she alerted the LC who alerted the PJ.
    Remember that GA left the MC clothes go to the laundry because he was scared of the diplomatic consequences if those clothes were retained.
    I know from a serious source that he didn't let Ricardo Paiva send the MC kids' milk packs to analyse, for the same reason.


    Anne Guedes,

    We quoted you Sr Amaral’s own words from his book (our caps).

    To us it’s pretty clear that he was surprised that a translator who had offered himself [“Yes! He came to the GNR on Friday morning OFFERING HIMSELF AS A TRANSLATOR”] wasn’t checked [“but have you at least checked this guy out? Does he have criminal or police priors? (…) Nothing! He seems to be clean… I didn’t know his house was this one… I wasn’t part of the team that visited it. You’re right… the house is in the direction of the route taken by the eventual abductor… What are we going to do?”)] and that surprise makes him be suspicious about Robert Murat.

    So much so that he decides to tell the officer he’s talking to: “I’m going to Portimão, we will see what exists about him. Keep him busy and go on talking to him to create empathy. We have to know about the life of this individual!”

    Continuing to quote Sr Amaral from his book, our caps:

    “By mobile I communicate what has happened. The Faro director is arriving at the department for the morning meeting and this will be one of the issues to discuss. THE DECISION WAS TAKEN TO KEEP MURAT WITH US: HE WILL CONTINUE TO SERVE AS A TRANSLATOR ONE OR MORE TIMES. Not being able to set aside the hypothesis of Madeleine being alive, in that or another house, we have to be quick. The analysts are working on the information relative to Robert Murat. He’s of British nationality, is 33 yrs of age, and separated. The wife and daughter, of Maddie’s approximate age and appearance, live in England. He has come to mention this fact to a British journalist, who at once doubted his intention to help the police. Murat lives in the house of Vila da Luz with his mother for several years, spending some periods in England, from where he arrived on May 1, from Exeter, with a scheduled return for May 9. This return has been delayed because, according to him, he was interested in helping the police in the search for Madeleine. HIS BEHAVIOUR BECOMES SUSPICIOUS. He speaks of similar cases that happened in the UK, seems to know them in detail. THERE ARE REPORTED FACTS THAT DESCRIBE AN UNUSUAL CURIOSITY IN THE INVESTIGATION, HE HAS SHOWN INTEREST IN THE IDENTITY OF EVENTUAL SUSPECTS, THE PLANNED STRATEGY BY THE INVESTIGATION’S COORDINATION AND THE DILIGENCES THAT WERE TO TAKE PLACE. In the contacts with the investigators he shows knowledge as to the way the Ocean Club works as well as the tourists’ routines. He has tried, in a furtive way, to look at the police files. On the other hand, his mother had set up a stand near the access to the Tapas restaurant, we don’t know if with philanthropic intent or of collection of information. He may have accessed sites of sexual nature, unknown if of adults or children.”

    If you see stupidity, we don’t.

    If you see manipulation, we don’t. We see a rational decision by a competent professional.


  4. (Cont)

    “What I think is that GA is so proud that he would never admit that he was manipulated by anyone” and yet has no problems in “Remember that GA left the MC clothes go to the laundry because he was scared of the diplomatic consequences if those clothes were retained. I know from a serious source that he didn't let Ricardo Paiva send the MC kids' milk packs to analyse, for the same reason.”

    Lori Campbell is mentioned in the book in these words “He has come to mention this fact to a British journalist, who at once doubted his intention to help the police”.

    However, the question that one must ask is why Lori Campbell is not mentioned in the files. All others who pointed a finger to possible suspects are in the files. Carpenter, TS, Derek Flack, Yvonne Martin, etc are all in the files. Even one who has produced an e-fit who we are still to see, Carol Tranmer-Fenn.

    So, the only reason there isn’t anyone in the files pointing the PJ towards Murat, is because the suspicions against this man were born within the investigation itself. Sr Amaral explains it quite clearly.

    Could you please expand on your “that he didn't let Ricardo Paiva send the MC kids' milk packs to analyse”. First time we’re hearing about the milk packs and do find it very strange that Sr Amaral wouldn’t include that detail (as he included so many others) in the book.

    Also, if you could, please explain what information would the milk packs provide that would be useful to the investigation? That Maddie drank from them? Why would that be strange?

    Also, whether you agree or not if the PJ should have apologised to Mr Murat (we see no reason why they should), JillyCL is very clear in saying that they did apologise and have even said he was cleared.

    We are waiting for her to confirm both of those clear statements. If she fails to do so, then she’s simply not telling the truth.

  5. Hi Textusa, the only person,CEOP, Big Jim Gamble,Leicestershire Police force had a 90% profile as to likely to have abducted Madeleine McCann,this was the only person they Honed in on,The "Patsy" who arrived from the UK on 1 st May 2007(International Rescue)Madeleine was still supposed to have not disappeared from apartment 5a Ocean Club until 3 May 2007,was it about to be pre -planned or was already in operation?

    The answer may well lie in the Text messages and phone calls between certain parties,that operation Grange have examined,but these apparently only become useful if determining "Bungling Portugal Burglars" close proximity to phone mast pings,(UK Police,we want their DNA,DCI Andy Redwood)but the Tapas group didn't use their phones according to pinky,Clarence Mitichell?

    Yet there are certain pings from phone masts involving Tapas friends,that, Operation Grange must have uncovered during the metaculous Bungling Burglar scenario,No they are Not suspects,yer see,but every other tom dick or Harry is,geddit?

    Yet Two person's who were arquido's phones suddenly operated on the same evening in close proximity,just another coincidence,"Did You know Robert Murat before Madeleine disappeared,(Gerry) cough,I'm Not going to Answer that" quickly turns and is followed by Clarence Mitchell,Not relevant?

    The only suspect(Patsy) JT in a parked van apparently identified Robert Murat then retracted Twelve months later in April 2008 statements,UK Police were there on Both occasions,enter Colt Severs?

    Top flight UK Metropolitan Police Service work,now being investigated by IOPC,DPS once again on charges of likely to,"Pervert the Course of Justice"?

    Yet in September 2018, the same Police force are to bring Eleven Counts of Perverting the Course of Justice and One of Fraud,by obtaining money by deception to Child sexual abuse cases he was involved in?

    So how are you to trust UK Metropolitan Police Service evidence,whilst they are being investigated on the same charges,Perverting the course of Justice?

    The blind,leading the blind, scales of justice?

  6. Interesting Twitter exchange:
    If SY were legit they'd interview #mccann, Tapas crew, Murat, Kennedy, Mitchell. And that does not take 3 years & £10m to spot the culprits.
    5:58 pm · 25 Apr 2015
    Laffin@Mirror again@veniviedivici
    Replying to @DaveHallCoLtd
    @DaveHallCoLtd They have interviewed Murat !
    5:59 pm · 25 Apr 2015
    Replying to @veniviedivici
    @veniviedivici Then interview him again properly & get why he altered his statement 18 times. #mccann
    6:00 pm · 25 Apr 2015
    JillyCL @JillyCL
    Replying to @DaveHallCoLtd
    @DaveHallCoLtd He didn't. Are you bullshitter Bennett? #JustAsking @veniviedivici #McCann
    6:57 pm · 25 Apr 2015
    Replying to @JillyCL
    @JillyCL @veniviedivici Take that back! Are you Irma Greses? #mccann
    6:58 pm · 25 Apr 2015
    JillyCL @JillyCL
    Replying to @DaveHallCoLtd
    @DaveHallCoLtd I've only ever had ONE Twitter a/c & ONE Twittername. You, on the other hand are clearly a sock. #McCann @veniviedivici
    6:59 pm · 25 Apr 2015
    Replying to @JillyCL
    @JillyCL @veniviedivici At least it fits whereas your imperious DON'T DISS MURAT wore thin years ago & get a new bucket 4 your head. #mccann
    7:01 pm · 25 Apr 2015
    JillyCL @JillyCL
    Replying to @DaveHallCoLtd
    @DaveHallCoLtd @veniviedivici Murat was cleared long before the case was shelved & the police apologised to him. #SuckItUp #McCann
    7:03 pm · 25 Apr 2015


    As our readers know, we believe that Operation Grange interviewing the McCanns and “Tapas crew, Murat, Kennedy, Mitchell” would kill instantly the case, so we couldn’t be in more disagreement with @DaveHallCoLtd about that.

    But it is interesting to note that JillyCL insists that Murat was cleared (before the case was shelved) and apologised to him.

    We would really like the confirmation of that because we are really under the impression that didn’t happen. We’re still waiting to be enlightened.

    And we also would like to know how does JillyCL know under what legal status (she states they were just witnesses) were the Murats, Robert and Michaela) questioned years after the case was shelved.

  7. The intervention of Lori Campbell was very well documented in the media but not in GA's book. In a letter dated of May 6
    the LC informed the PJ that Lori Campbell, from the tabloïd Daily Mirror, reported a man whose behaviour raised her suspicions (he wasn't happy with a photographer making a picture of him). Later she stated in front of cameras that RM reminded her of the British murderer Ian Huntley (Soham murders).
    LC didn't "doubt RM's intention to help the police", she thought she had found the "usual suspect". Incredible but true.

    I think that most of these British journalists sent to PDL envied RM's fluency in English and Portuguese. Had he realized that he might have been more discreet.

    GA's words shouldn't be considered as true just because he wasn't fairly treated (by his hierarchy).
    It wasn't fair to put in his book the ugly accusations made against RM.
    It wasn't fair to describe the Gaspar statements. He could just have mentioned that those statements curiously took 6 months to reach Portimao, without describing them.
    It wasn't accurate to say (a familia Smith) reconhecem aquela pessoa, sua forma de transportar o filho ao colo e de andar é Gerald MC, com um grande grau de certeza, a pessoa que..because that's not what Martin S said.

    I can't say who told me about the milk packs that Ricardo Paiva wanted to analyse (the MC kids drank milk before going to bed, the packs were still in the flat when GA and RP went there), but I've no reason to doubt. I was told this only because I suggested that Paiva was possibly manipulated by KMC...

    I never revealed any secret about this case. Not out of virtue, just because I know nothing thay anyone doesn't know !

    1. Anne Guedes,

      Thank you for correcting us. In fact the Lori Campbell is well documented as per link you attached. And we believe we have used it in the “World is a stage” posts.

      And it confirms that when he says “The analysts are working on the information relative to Robert Murat. He’s of British nationality, is 33 yrs of age, and separated. The wife and daughter, of Maddie’s approximate age and appearance, live in England. He has come to mention this fact to a British journalist, who at once doubted his intention to help the police.”

      The letter is dated of May 6, speaks only of a ROB (or ROR). On May 11, does not make any connection to what makes him suspicious and to Lori’s letter to Leics police (again, if she was in Luz, why not address directly the PJ?).

      From his words, its clear that it is he who suspects Murat, not from any letter. It’s clear that it’s because he realises there is a translator working for the police and not cleared for the task.

      Note, when on May 6, or little thereafter, the letter arrives it’s natural to be ignored as it was assumed that all translators would have been checked and would have been requested.

      Murat offered himself. That was what made Mr Amaral to become suspicious and that only happened on May 11.

      In fact Inspector Varandas confirms this, as on May 11 he reports that he finds Murat’s behaviour suspicious. Varandas does not mention Lori Campbell anywhere, as he should have if the suspicions of the PJ had come from British influencing as you clearly state.

      If Sr Amaral had been influenced by Lori’s letter, what would be the harm in admitting it? He seems to be the kind of man who would say that he had been fooled into it by the British and highlight that fact if that was what had happened, to further reinforce the British interference in the case that he so passionately defends.

      Yet, his words are clear, it was in him the suspicions against Mr Murat came from.

      Again, you have had your say, we have had ours, and readers can judge for themselves who they think is right.

      We cannot see any reason for the milk packs to be left out of the PJ Files or of his books his book if they existed. Sorry but to us it seems more of a FOAF (friend-of-a-friend) story than anything else.

      By the way, can you justify the discrepancy between Robert Murat’s statement and the one from Stephen Carpenter pertaining where they first met? Carpenter says it was on the corner of Murat’s property and Murat says it was by his gate. We have personally been there and can tell you that it’s impossible from someone at the gate (or near it) inside Mura’s property to see, much less speak to someone coming from Tapas to where Carpenter was staying along the route he says he walked.


    2. (Cont)

      You say “It wasn't fair to describe the Gaspar statements. He could just have mentioned that those statements curiously took 6 months to reach Portimao, without describing them.”

      If we recall, the Gaspar statements are in the PJ files, so why shouldn’t Mr Amaral mention them in his book?

      I’m not sure why you think it unfair to mention what the Gaspars said. It was a potential lead that involved Gerry McCann and David Payne but not one we consider relevant, as the Gaspars continued to socialise with the McCanns after observing this strange gesture and comment.

      And for Mr Amaral to refer to them and the delay, without context, would make little sense as he was no longer in the investigation when they arrived AS REQUESTED by the Portuguese authorities. However, he had every right to question why they weren’t forwarded immediately.

      If one makes a statement as a witness, one can only expect it to be brought up in a court open to the public and one may be called to give evidence on oath. If it’s true, there is nothing to be ashamed of.

      You also say “It wasn't accurate to say (a familia Smith) reconhecem aquela pessoa, sua forma de transportar o filho ao colo e de andar é Gerald MC, com um grande grau de certeza, a pessoa que..because that's not what Martin S said.

      Yes it was accurate. In September, when Mr Smith’s memory was jolted by Gerry McCann coming down the stairs of the plane, Mr Amaral was still the head of the investigation. And saying “with a great degree of certainty” is a subjective and personal judgement made by Sr Amaral about Martin Smith’s “60 to 80%” certainty that it was Gerry McCann, so that’s what Martin S said.

    3. "If Sr Amaral had been influenced by Lori’s letter, what would be the harm in admitting it?"
      No harm, except for a macho police officer. I don't believe for a second that GA would have admitted to have been fooled by a supposed to be she-journalist.

      GA's "words are clear", yes, but I don't believe the suspicions came "from him" as he righty didn't believe JT's story and noticed immediately the glasses (so why would he be interested in the Murat villa ?)

      I can't justify the discrepancy you mention, Textusa. Actually I was never interested in RM, I may be wrong but I think that what happened to MMC was an in camera drama.

      I don't think that the milk packs are necessary (if they existed, as I was told, it was a pity that they weren't analysed for sedative substance). The laundry confessed mistake is enough to inform about how GA felt under diplomatic pressure (imo "felt" much more than "was").

      The Gaspar statements arrived after GA left. As they weren't taken into account under his coordination, he shouldn't have put them in his book. Moreover, as (I agree with you) they're not relevant.
      Can you imagine the Payne kids reading those statements ?
      As I said it was absolutely his right to question the delay, but shouldn't have suggested paedophilia (reinforced by the busy body lady, sorry I can't remember her name).

      I don't agree, Textusa, it wasn't the family S who thought Smithman could be GMC, as GA suggests it. It was only Martin S. Besides it wasn't the way Smithman walked, nor the way he was carrying the child. It was his comfortless holding the child.
      Imo this was due to gravity exerced on a dead weight. As GMC went down the stairs a similar strength worked as the very asleep child hardly held his father.

    4. Anne Guedes,

      The fact that you can't justify the discrepancy I mentioned is very important in terms of the involvement of Murat in the case, as BOTH Murat and Carpenter agree that it was Carpenter who introduces Murat as a translator.

      Unfortunately for both, the way they describe they met each other doesn't match and is impossible to match.

      When you say "Moreover, as (I agree with you) they're [teh Gaspar statements] not relevant" you certainly don't agree with us!

      We think them to be VERY RELEVANT. We consider them VERY RELEVANT not because of the truthfulness of their content (which we very much doubt it is) but because:

      1) These statements exist;

      2) Of the intent of their content is to put a paedo blemish on Gerry and Payne;

      3) It would be important to know who told the Portuguese they existed;

      4) It would be important to know why did the British accept to satisfy this particular request and send them.

      "Can you imagine the Payne kids reading those statements ?" Tha same can be said of the McCann twins.

      Is the guilt to fall on Sr Amaral for telling what witnesses said knowing full well they were saying in a criminal process or on those who said it? If what they said is truthful then no one has to feel guilty, as sometimes truth is unpleasant.

      We're supposing you're including in your reprimand Yvonne Martin who also does all she could to point a paedo finger towards Payne.

      It they lied, it's on their conscience of those who lied and they don't deserve any consideration.

      So we understand and FULLY support their inclusion in Sr Amaral's book.

      Mr Smith says it was the way Gerry came down those stairs was what jolted his memory. Nothing to do with discomfort (watching the images, it's just that of a man normally holding a sleeping child coming down a stairs). Like hundreds of men we have seen in our lives.

      The discomfort and the dead weight are your words. What we understand from his words is that he saw before his eyes a repeat of something he had seen before, which was the man that night in Rua da Escola Prmária.

      When speaking of that sighting in May Mr Smith he doesn't mention any discomfort, just that he saw a man carrying normally a child appearing to be asleep. Exactly like the one he saw in September coming down those steps.

    5. The Gaspar statements were in PJ files.
      GA’s book was available after PJ files were released. He may have been aware that the statements were included and would be made public.
      When Mrs Gaspar in particular made her statement, she made it in the knowledge she could be called as a witness and that the children of 2 families would be affected. If she invented this story, it would indeed be an appalling thing to do. If she merely added her own interpretation to a salacious conversation about adult behaviour and interpreted it as referring to their children, she should have been clear she wasn’t sure what the conversation was about.
      To blame GA for the hurt to the children seems unfair.

    6. GA's book was published (JULY 24) before the PJFiles were released (AUGUST 4) and, after some time, translated.

    7. Including the core of the Gaspars' and Martin's (shamefully anonymous) denunciations in his book was neither dignifying GA nor explaining what happened to MMC nor clarifying the first 6 months of the investigation.
      I hope the Payne, the MC and the Murat children never read GA's book.

      Textusa, I know that you believe a child was borrowed to play MMC's part in the Smithman episode, I don't (and I think that MMC had been dead for at least 3,5 hours at 10pm).

      "When speaking of that sighting in May Mr Smith he doesn't mention any discomfort, just that he saw a man carrying normally a child appearing to be asleep."
      No. "Discomfort" doesn't come out of my imagination.
      He (Martin Smith) adds that he did not hold the child in a comfortable position". MS MAY 26

      "Mr Smith says it was the way Gerry came down those stairs was what jolted his memory."
      MS didn't say it was "the way GMC came down the stairs"
      He said he was 60-80% sure
      He did say that the rest of his family didn't have the same feeling, except for his wife.

  8. It seems DaveHall really doesn’t agree with JillyCL AND Ben Thompson:
    (The picture of this tweet reminds us of our July 6 2012 post “The Murat/Brunt Get-Together”

  9. Interesting twitter exchange:
    Mari Welzel‏ @umweltbuerger
    FO needed the services of an Interpreter on Monday 30th. Robert Murat gets a phone call takes the first flight out and arrives in PdL Tuesday, 1.05.2007; now logic says with FO involved, 'a disaster' was in operation and Thursday, 3 May they set-up a simulated abduction. #mccann
    12:55 am - 24 Jul 2018
    Weiss #BDS‏ @w_nicht
    Replying to @umweltbuerger
    He is not a proffessional interpreter. Far as I know. (sad emoticon)
    1:01 am - 24 Jul 2018
    Mari Welzel‏ @umweltbuerger
    Mari Welzel Retweeted Weiss #BDS
    My understanding is that he had the language skills and that he had worked in such a capacity before, ( notice that he says very little about #mccann ) my thinking is FO paid him, that he signed a secrecy document that he may not reveal ANYTHING, he was asking Qs/nosy for FO ?
    1:08 am - 24 Jul 2018
    Weiss #BDS‏ @w_nicht
    Replying to @umweltbuerger
    I have been doing work where we needed interpreters. We Never used anything than proffessionals. Not some random people who can do it. This was a criminal case. A big mistake.
    1:12 am - 24 Jul 2018
    Mari Welzel‏ @umweltbuerger
    Mari Welzel Retweeted Weiss #BDS
    It is interesting to read about it. Textusa is discussing at the moment. That was one of the first things Gonçalo Amaral asked about. … Textusa 23 Jul 2018, 19:20:00 #mccann
    1:16 am - 24 Jul 2018


    Mari Welzel‏,

    Could you please inform us from where you got that the “FO needed the services of an Interpreter on Monday 30th”?

    Thank you.

  10. a) Who is FO ?
    b) I don't read (on twitter) about swinging ? Is it allowed to speak about that ?
    c) I think Insane and C° are on holliday.

    1. Anonymous 24 Jul 2018, 15:51:00,

      a) Foreign Office

      b) There are people speaking of swinging on the internet. What happens is that the vocal bullies will do their best to "ridicule" and "shame" whoever dared voice such an opinion. Slowly things are evolving and swinging is becoming harder and harder to silence.

      c) Don't know. They must be reading Kate's book. No one before them has, so they must be thinking on what will be the best way to break such a novelty to the public.

    2. They 'read' Kate's book to give themselves an air of authenticity. As if Kate's book has never been dissected before, and as if the general public don't already know that it's full of smoke and mirrors and lies. Meanwhile their real intention is to either blame it all on Kate and Gerry McCann but hide the machinations which led to the hoax. Hoping too, I see, that the case will just fade out. Oh my, we're bored with it now, they seem to be saying. The excitement is over!

  11. Hello Textusa

    Suddenly I've gone all quiet.

    I have my information in a row but I have no idea where I posted this.
    I am absolutely certain the sequence of events of the 30th follow UK FO in PT requiring the services of an interpreter and so on. When I eventually find it I can let you know. K9, you'll be reading here : asking on twitter :)

    The sequence is certain, I do remember the moment I tied up the FO with RM.
    There is a connection. I may find it.

    Kind Regards,

    1. Mari,

      When you can, it will be useful.

      Thank you

  12. Hello Textusa

    Here interesting :

    Wednesday, 19 December 2007
    Murat recommended as translator by British diplomatic staff

    Staff from Bill Henderson's office suggested the name of Robert Murat as a reliable translator who could be used in the police inquiry, the days following Madeleine McCann disappearance. Murat was already known among diplomatic staff, as he had recommendation letters from Norfolk Police, where he worked for Bernard Matthews, one of the largest poultry farm companies in UK, which employs hundreds of Portuguese workers. The fact that Robert Murat has acted, before, as translator for Norfolk Police, and the recommendation issued by Bill Henderson's office, at the time the British consul in Algarve, took police to accept the suggestion, according to PJ sources. After Murat was named a formal suspect, Police went through all translations he has done, checking its accuracy, but no problem was found, according to the same sources. Bill Henderson retired from his diplomatic post and went back to UK in August.

    Kind Regards, :)

    1. Mari,

      Thank you!

      That is interesting by itself. Very interesting indeed.

      But what we were hoping to know, is the possible fact that his "services" (what services is another thing we would like to also know, although we suspect)were requested by the FO on April 30th. Before Maddie's disappearance.

      What is stated above, as far as we can understand, covers the afterwards.

    Madeleine CaseTweets 🌐‏ @McCannCaseTweet
    Replying to @SadeElisha86 @PollyGraph69
    Sade , there is however stalling, the 15 year limit can be stalled as it is now if case remains open, I believe I posted the law pages awhile back
    12:57 pm - 24 Jul 2018


    As far as we know and were able to research this is false.

    We will let this person translate to her audience the following:

    “1. A prescrição é uma causa superveniente extintiva da responsabilidade criminal, que, fundando-se no decurso do tempo, afecta o apuramento do crime e a responsabilidade criminal de um determinado agente, extinguindo-a.
    2. A prescrição não é um pressuposto processual, pois não afecta meramente a relação processual penal, embora também o faça. É a extinção da responsabilidade criminal por prescrição que determina a extinção do procedimento criminal.”

    We would like to see “the law pages” that she believes she published a while back. If we are wrong, we will be very happy to correct ourselves for having said that the Maddie case prescribes in Portugal on May 3 2022.

    May this person also use this opportunity to clarify everyone where her investigations about that English handwritten “PAID” on an alleged Portuguese paper about the supposed fact the McCanns had paid all costs related to the process, has led her. We are all curious.

      Madeleine CaseTweets 🌐‏ @McCannCaseTweet
      Replying to @SadeElisha86 @PollyGraph69
      Yes, it is complicated, but we are really in great shape now. With case open and no arguidos, it's like we are stopped in time. If Judiciaria made McCanns arguidos then clock would start up with deadline. Good stuff right now (emoticon heart)
      5:10 pm - 24 Jul 2018


      If this was true, the Sá Carneiro process would still be open today. It isn't.

      To those who don't know Francsico Sá Carneiro was only a Portuguese PM who died in a plane crash in Lisbon under very suspicious circumstances on Dec 4 1980.

      Not a single arguido was named and the process prescribed when the law said it was to prescribe.

  14. Dear Textusa

    The words of RM that he was at his sister's house when he received the phone call and booked the next flight back to PdL still escapes me.

    It is so clear I made a natural, spontaneous deduction after reading :

    "Staff from Bill Henderson's office suggested the name of Robert Murat as a reliable translator who could be used in the police inquiry, the days following Madeleine McCann disappearance"

    that he would be employed by the FO, they needed a TRANSLATOR, he books an urgent flight to PT on Monday 30th.

    That RM received the phone call on the Monday, 30th that is the most staggering, sobering piece of information. It also means that Wayback's CEOP grab seems as realistic as it can be.

    There is much to say. I am writing to you as I see it.

    (I would like to add that although RM denied any presence several people saw him on the evening of 3 May Rob O'B did not want to change his statement, the fact that he saw RM in person that evening).

    Thank you for your thorough investigations; I read your blog with great interest.

    Kind Regards :)


    1. Mari,

      Thank you.

      We believe that Murat was indeed summoned to Praia da Luz but not because of his translating capabilities.

      Maybe because his presence was needed in Luz because someone important was expected to be present that week, the week a child happened to have been killed accidentally? Speculating, of course.

      We do not believe in anything about the WBM and the controversy about a page set-up before Maddie died. We believe it to have been a glitch as we explained in our post "Sigh...":

      Thank you for your collaboration and support!

    2. Hello again, Textusa,

      It all fits too perfectly, I know but I am slightly mesmerised by the co incidences.

      Thank you for the link. It is three years since we learnt about the WBM that raised so much interest. If the pair were an app we would have had regular updates. It is not up to them that much we know now.

      Looking forward to more posts by the Textusa Sisters.

      Kind Regards,

  15. The Leicestershire police were already operating unlawfully in PDL on the weekend of the 5/6th May.

    Neither the PJ or British media knew they were there, receiving orders direct from the McCanns.

    Therefore when Campbell telephoned the Leicestershire police in England on Sunday 6th May, the Leicestershire police in the UK could not act and inform their officers on the ground in PDL of this lead about Murat, as it would expose their dishonesty and deceit, so they sent an email to be picked up by the PJ on Monday 7th May.

    In her TV Interviews (still available) with Sky and others, Campbell is at pains to state she first reported her suspicions on Monday 7th May, the day Leicestershire police officially arrived in PDL, thus covering up their illegal activities.

    They never realised the PJ would release the emails exposing their dishonesty. GA and the PJ were lied to from the outset from the Leicestershire police and nothing has changed.

    Who got at Campbell to make her change the date and surely OG must have interviewed her about perverting the course of justice.

  16. When we are wrong, we are wrong and we have no problems in admitting it.

    The principle is simple and we recommend: when one recognises one has made a mistake and one seeks to correct it, one not only does not diminish oneself as, on the contrary, one is elevated as one hasn’t passed on a chance to further educate oneself.

    Only when one is wrong, knowing one is wrong, persisting in being wrong, grasping at straws to find the most absurd arguments to try to justify what is evidently wrong, is one diminished before all those who is reading the absolute nonsense one is writing.

    It’s not even a case of being stubborn. It’s to be either stupid or malicious. In the Maddie case, it’s usually the latter.

    And when we said that the Maddie case was? prescribed on May 3 2022, we were wrong.

    As we will show, we could debate that we weren’t “that much” wrong or that our conviction was honestly based and so our mistake was not exactly a mistake.

    It was a mistake and we are here to assume it was.

    And we will explain exactly where we were wrong and hopefully answer all our questions about the prescription periods in the Maddie case, within the limits of someone who does not have any legal qualifications other than the capability of reading and having due to life’s crossroads some fluency in legalese, more specifically in Portuguese legalese.

    We said that if a crime that carries a maximum sentence to 10 years, so it prescribes after 15 years. That is absolutely and totally correct.

    That is said in 1. a) of the Art 118º of the Portuguese Penal Code (PPC).

    As in the same article, in 2., it also states that “for the purpose prescribed in the previous number, to determine the maximum term applicable to each crime, the elements concerning the type of crime are taken into consideration, but not the aggravating or attenuating circumstances”, what we said that the investigation considering that the Maddie case may involve a crime that carries a sentence superior to 10 years, means that its prescription period is that of 15 years, was also absolutely correct.

    Where were we incorrect? In being unable to have separated in our analysis what we are certain has happened to Maddie with what is considered OFFICIALLY by the Portuguese justice system (PJS) to have happened to her.

    We know that Maddie died on May 3 2007. However for the PJS that was not proven even though in the police report it is stated that the police thinks that McCanns concealed her body (so think her dead).

    However, the police is only responsible for the investigation, after which they hand over the case to the public ministry (which they did in the Maddie case in July 2008), where a magistrate legitimately decides whether the case should continue and be prosecuted, be closed or be archived. As we know the Maddie case it was decided to be archived.

    In the Maddie case, during that stage, the PJS decided that there was not enough evidence to prosecute but also that it was not clear that the arguidos of the process were not involved.

    So, legally, Maddie is still alive. Officially, the possibility of her being alive, goes from the possibility of having just having wondered off by herself to have been a victim of a planned kidnap with the intent to kill. All hypotheses are legally open.

    And this fact takes us to the fundamental aspect in question: determining from when does the 15-year prescription period start.

    And this is where we were wrong in our assessment. As we know she died on May 3 2007, we added 15 years to that and said the case would close on May 3 2022.


  17. (Cont.)

    But OFFICIALLY, the PJS doesn’t “know” that she died, in fact, as to the PJS there’s a possibility she’s alive, it must assume she is. Officially, it’s simply unknown the criminal framework of what we come to know to be as the “Maddie case”.

    The disappearance of a child does not constitute a crime by itself, it’s the reasons that have led to that disappearance that may or may not constitute a crime.

    Maddie has disappeared, that’s a fact but the reasons – the crime if there is one – she disappeared are yet to be determined by the PJS.

    1. of Art 119º of the PPC states clearly that “The term of prescription of the criminal proceedings runs from the day when the act has been consummated.”

    As legally the PJS has not determined what was Maddie’s fate other than that she has disappeared and remains missing that means there is no date of consummation, no date from when to start the prescription period.

    In our opinion, the Maddie case falls under the category of a “continued crime”, and in these 2. b) of Art 119 of the PPC states that the prescription period starts when: “In continued crimes and habitual crimes, from the day when the last act was practised”.

    As we are still to know officially the day when that last act was practised, we will only know when the PJS determines Maddie’s fate and subsequently if there was or not a crime and if there was a crime what maximum sentence it carries.

    In practical terms means the prescription period for the case has not yet started.

    However, 1. a) of Art 121º of the PPC is clear to state that:
    “1. The prescription of criminal procedure is interrupted:
    a) With the constitution of arguido;”

    We have had 3 arguidos in the case, so logic dictates that one can only interrupt something that exists, so the prescription period must have started sometime to have been interrupted.

    Now, before we explain how this fits into the process we must explain something about the translation of legalese into Portuguese, more specifically what the terms “suspension” and “interruption” mean in terms of prescription periods.

    Suspension means to stop time. If during a period, the prescription period is suspended, it means that after that suspension the time starts to be counted from the day before the suspension took place.

    Interruption, is in English to restart. An entire new prescription period starts. So, with the constitution of the arguido, a new period starts.

    The McCanns, when made arguidos in September, started then a new prescription period. They “interrupted” whatever period came before that constitution and started a new one.

    As those familiar with the case know, being an arguido is far from being guilty, and if one is to translate it correctly, not even a suspect but a person with the possibility to become a suspect.

    What does that mean in terms of prescription period?

    That if sufficient evidence is found against an arguido to charge him and make him become a defendant and if that evidence stands in court, then the calculation of the prescription time begins on the day he was constituted an arguido.

    On the other hand, if no evidence is found (meaning that the possibility of that person really being a suspect was indeed none) then it’s as if nothing happened in the prescription period.


  18. (Cont)

    Let exemplify using an invented case. A Mr X will be found murdered with a knife on the back on January 1 2020. In terms of prescription period, as the crime is clear, murder, and the sentence it carries is over 10 years, the prescription period is 15 years after the crime was consummated: the PJS will have until January 1 2035 to prosecute the crime.

    Exactly a month later, on February 1 2020, a Mr Y is constituted arguido.

    At that moment, the prescription period is INTERRUPTED and a new one begins that day.

    Means that the PJS will have until FEBRUARY 1 2035 to prosecute the crime. The prescription period, 15 years after the day Mr Y, was constituted arguido.

    A month later, on March 1 2020, the police will find that there was no reason for Mr Y to be an arguido and so his arguido status is lifted. This now means that PJS will have until January 1 2035 (the prescription period before Mr Y was constituted arguido) to prosecute the crime.

    Now transporting this to the Maddie case. Until Murat was constituted arguido there was no prescription period as it was a “continued crime” with no “last day when the last act was practised”.

    With the constitution of Murat as an arguido the prescription period started. Of how long? We don’t know. The minimal the law states is 2 years. It was up to the police in the investigation phase and the public ministry in the prosecution one to make sure that all criminal procedures are done within the time period that will apply once things are clear and what crime was in question.

    With the archival of the process in July 2008 – and subsequent lifting of the arguido status off Murat and the McCanns, not because they were cleared but because there was not enough evidence, according to the deciding magistrate, to prosecute any of the arguidos – the prescription period returned to what it was before Murat was constituted arguido: waiting the determination of the starting of the prescription period.

    Note, this has nothing to do with the case being opened or archived but with the fact that there has to be a date to start counting (which in Maddie’s case there isn’t) and the maximum sentence that is applicable (which in Maddie’s case there isn’t).

    Also note that this has nothing to do with the ridiculous suggestion that the PJ are playing games in naming people arguidos or not.

    This has only to do with 2 factors: what crime took place to determine how long the prescription period is to be and what day it starts to count.

    As the Maddie case is a “continued crime” with no “last day” determined, the PJS can constitute arguidos as many times as it deems necessary to determine those 2 factors above.

    We hope the readers can now see how wrong we were and how positive this is for the case.

    We wrongly said that in case there was found enough evidence to charge Kate McCann and or David Payne with manslaughter they wouldn’t be charged because it had prescribed as the sentence was below 10 years.

    If such evidence is found, then either or both are constituted arguidos and the prescription period starts to count from that date. Which means, if that is the case, they will be prosecuted and if the evidence stands up in court, tried and sentenced.

    No prescription date because Maddie’s fate is OFFICIALLY unknown.

    In terms of prescription, having hoaxed an abduction is useless for whoever killed accidentally McCann.

    But very important as well, and this goes to a whole lot of people, this absence of prescription period also applies to obstruction of justice.

    ALL those who have obstructed justice will be accountable as well, as their crime will only start to have a prescription period at the same time as those who will be constituted arguidos for her death. Interesting, isn’t it?

    They will be as criminally accountable for what they did on the day the PJS determines on which day is the prescription period to start to be counted as they were in May 2007.

    1. We have to make a correction to our comment about the period of prescription. It doesn’t change anything of what we have said, as it doesn’t apply to the Maddie case, at least not yet.

      It’s about the terms ‘suspend’ and ‘interrupt’ in legalese, more specifically about the first.

      We said: “Suspension means to stop time. If during a period, the prescription period is suspended, it means that after that suspension the time starts to be counted from the day before the suspension took place.”

      This is incorrect. It doesn’t mean to stop time. It means to suspend the counting of time. Very different.

      Artº 120º of the PPC is very clear about what is the longest time suspension periods can have according to the circumstances that originated them. We won’t list them because, as we said, suspension does not apply to the Maddie case currently.

      To exemplify with an invented example. A crime with sentence below 5 years happened, which means that the prescription period is of 2 years.

      Let’s suppose this crime happened on Jan 1 2018. Prescription period ends on Jan1 2020. But for some reason on March 1 2018 there is a suspension to the period is determined. At that point, the criminal procedures had already gone its terms for 2 months.

      Now supposing that the motives for the suspension are determine to no longer justify it on July 1 2018. Suspension means that time (4 months) between March 1 and July 1 is not to be counted for the purpose of prescription period. The counting restarts on July 1.

      That means this process has now a new prescription date of May 2020 (4 months added to the original prescription date).

      Our apologies, but as we said, changes nothing to what we have said: currently the Maddie case has no prescription period, as it’s waiting the determination of the date from which it is to begin.

    2. From our FB pg:

      Maureen Hopkin Maria......Just a thought tho, if no body or remains are ever found of Madeleine, does that affect anything.?. It seems to us all that this sweet child died and was then taken from the scene. A thorough job 'appears' to have been done regarding the removal of her body and what happened after, and Gerry has said 'find the body'. If there is never anything discovered, doesn't this affect any dates, but also this WOC status, who can actually declare Madeleine deceased.?. (imo and nothing whatsoever to do with your excellent piece, I'd search Rothley, but that is entirely my opinion).

      Maria Santos Maureen Hopkin
      If no body or remains are ever found of Madeleine, as far as I could ascertain, as there is no date from which to begin counting the prescription period, the case won’t have a prescription period.
      If a body is found, then the penal framework can be determined and with the knowledge of what maximum sentence may be in question, the prescription date is set, the clock starts running.
      It may stop immediately, or not even start, if when the body is found the causes of death are determined to be purely accidental after having wondered off alone from the apartment doing. Then, the case is immediately closed.
      So, your suggestion, with which we agree that “a thorough job 'appears' to have been done regarding the removal of her body and what happened after” in terms of prescription dates does not affect in any way the prescription dates, at least that we could find.
      The WOC status has no legal value in Portugal. Like the Portuguese arguido status has no equivalent in the UK, we don’t think there the equivalent of WOC in Portugal.
      As always, if someone more qualified can help clarify this subject better, we will gladly stand corrected.

  19. THANK YOU, TEXTUSA. For this post. All your work.
    In it : good news.
    We are still waiting for political green light.
    When green light : with whom and-or what will the PJ and UK police start ?
    Forensics : The hairs ? McCann ? D. Payne ? A reconstitution ? Who and why ask for that ?
    Any way : good news today, many thanks, Textusa. Good night !

    1. There'll be no green light,what is to be gained,why would it be important after this time for a conclusion,who will it benefit? the problem is and they never factored it in is how to close it,rock and a hard place.


  20. From NT’s blog

    Sade Anslow24 July 2018 at 15:40
    Ah, JB, here you are (smiling emoticon)
    Can you shed your light on the discussion of Portugal's statute of limitations (or their version of) as well as maximum sentences? Please, if you would.

    And isn't it ashes to ashes, funk to funky? Or I've been lied to my whole life, tut!

    john blacksmith25 July 2018 at 04:41
    Hello Sade. I hope you're OK.

    The answer is I can't shed any light. From 2009-2015 I worked with the Amaral group and really needed to develop at least a basic appreciation of Portuguese law, discussing it with a number of knowledgeable Portuguese people as well as reading up.

    I found I couldn't understand it, in the sense that I found it completely unpredictable, however carefully one studied specific situations. It drove me nuts.

    And then one day I finally understood: the Portuguese themselves do not understand their own law. I am not being trite or funny.

    There are a lot of reasons, most of them revolving around the bolting-on of (infinitely arguable) Human Rights law after the Salazar dictatorship ended. Before that Napoleonic law had been bolted onto genuinely medieval law in the nineteenth century. "Bolted on" means the old laws, including the medieval, were added to, not repealed completely. The result is a nightmare and a disgrace to a democratic country: the one requirement of democratic law above all is transparent predictability.

    Amaral was ambushed successfully because almost nobody in Portugal knew about the law that Duarte used to get him until it was too late, and that pattern was repeated a number of times from 2009-2015. After Amaral won his appeal I was repeatedly assured by Portuguese people that that was the end of the legal road for the McCanns. Finish.

    Within weeks it was announced that the McCanns were asking for the judgement to be set aside. When I asked the Portuguese how this fitted in with the "end of the road" they were unable to answer. They hadn't known anything about it.

    Portuguese law is for expert, specialist lawyers and academics, not for the population at large, who avoid using it whenever they can, preferring to use private and informal methods - don't ask - if they possibly can.

    The result is that even asking intelligent Portuguese people about legal hypotheticals is a complete waste of time; when someone as unintelligent and wrong headed as Textusa is added to the mix, the only advice to give is - don't bother with it.

    You will note, by the way, the length of time a simple "libel" case like Murat's has taken to come to a decision. Justice delayed is, of course, justice denied.


    It seems that after the high interest shown the about Portuguese law, even going as far as asking Blacksmith to satisfy it, it seems they now don’t seem to want it.

    Of the above, we ask readers to disregard the praise Blacksmith gives us. It fills us with pride but it was not it that we want to call the attention to.

    It’s also not to how bigoted Blacksmith is to the entire Portuguese justice system and all its professionals. It was just one more bigoted comment that NT allowed to be published.

    We published the above comments because of the following words from Blacksmith: “From 2009-2015 I worked with the Amaral group…”

    Very interesting and completely unsurprising. It will be something we will return to on a later date.

  21. Hello Textusa
    Is it correct what Cristobell says about how you arrived at your swinging theory on her latest blog entry?
    I just read it and was rather surprised. Quite cross too I might add.

    1. Anonymous 27 Jul 2018, 09:12:00

      As far as we could see this is what Cristobell has said:

      “Textusa is a joke. Astonished sooooo many bought into her batshit crazy theory that there was a swinging holiday in PDL in May 2007. It is absolutely laugh out loud funny. Only people who don’t have sex, or who have been doing it in the missionary position with one person forever, would believe in a ‘swinging holiday’. It just doesn’t happen. And it certainly doesn’t happen when you have babies, toddlers and the mother in law with you. Those who don’t have sex, have to imagine what those who do have sex get up to, and, as can be seen with Textusa, they let their imaginations run wild.”

      Cannot see there any explained path to have arrived at any theory, much less the swinging one.

      For someone who has publicly claimed that she has never crossed with the swinging world, Hutton certainly has certainties she shouldn’t have about where, how and under what strict circumstances swinging happens.

      We have responded, to her claim of “impossibility of swinging” in a post called “Swinging FMS”, the acronym standing for Frequently Made Statements.

      To exemplify how ridiculous her statement is, let us just ask this question: are there swingers in the UK who have children? The answer is an obvious, yes.

      Next question: on the days or nights they go swinging, what do they do with their children? Answer, they either hire a nanny or take the children to be taken care of by family members. They make arrangements for their children to be taken care of while they are swinging.

      Is that sick, perverted or unthinkable?

      So what is the problem in taking the children on a swinging holiday, having made the arrangements for their children to be taken care of?

      We say the children were taken care of by the Mark Warner childcare service, manned in exaggeration for that time of the year, for some reason, as we demonstrated in our post “Tourism diet”.

      The absurdity of the argument falls is highlighted when people say it’s acceptable for the parents to “deposit” the children at the crèche so they can have some alone time but that same reasoning becomes absurd when that alone time becomes sexual activity with other couples who are also having their alone time as well!

      That leaves “the mother in law with you”. Who says mother-in-law was a swinger? She could not be, she could have simply have come along for relaxation, or to visit some friend residing nearby?

      And what is she was a swinger? Is there an age limit to enjoy sex? The only constraint would be to be swinging in the same location as her daughter.

      From the exaggerated number of guests for that time of year, as we explained in our post “Missing people” it would be impossible for the swinging to have taken place in a single location, unless they hired some sort of pavilion and were setting on breaking the world record for the most number of people having sex at the same location.

      As we’re not aware that happened, it is obvious there were multiple swinging locations, and people broke up into small groups in various locations, such as St Phunurius like we showed in our post “Maddie & swinging”

      So IF Dianne Webster was a swinger, which is only her business, it would be natural and not at all sick, perverted or unthinkable for her to have engaged in that alternative lifestyle in a different location from her daughter and son-in-law.

      About what “Only people who don’t have sex, or who have been doing it in the missionary position with one person forever” think or don’t think, we’re afraid we can’t answer as we don’t know. But it seems that Hutton does.

      How I arrived at the swinging theory is very clearly explained in the original post to which these comments belong to: “The help and the tennis”

    2. Oh My my - this made me laugh, Textusa. Well done! Hilarious. Me thinks Hutton's swan song is a rather hate-filled salvo. Much like the bitch-fest on NT/Insane/Walker's blog where the words 'praise from Blacksmith' is lost on them. They've never heard of irony.

    3. About swinging
      My friend used to babysit for swingers. She was rather naive and didn’t realise at first, as they didn’t announce it when they asked her to babysit. It only dawned on her later
      But she was happy to do it

    4. The (my) difficulty with your swinging hypothesis, Textusa, is that it doesn't explain MMC's accidental death nor why it required an abduction cover up.
      Why not just get rid of the body in such a way that it wouldn't be recovered, which was simple (as proven by what occurred) ?
      Why telling that ridiculous abduction story through the jemmied window and shutter, the first effect of which was precisely to attract the media attention ?
      Do you think that the media would have reacted to the abduction scenario had they been informed that a child disappeared after being left alone in an open flat ?
      The more MW manager said that there was no sign of breaking-in, the more the rumour spread, as expectable since refutation reinforces a rumour.

      Have you an idea of the number of people who are "in the know"? (not including you since your hypothesis is based on no evidence, afaik)

      Your site has more than 3 millions visitors. How many of them, according to you, visit your site because they share your conviction?

    5. Anne Guedes,

      Before we reply to your questions, to which we will, we think it's important to clarify something so we understand each other.

      You say "since your hypothesis is based on no evidence, afaik".

      Could you please tell us what evidence you would expect us, or anyone for that matter, to find that would prove, or at least convince you that there was a swinging event involving many people, some of which very powerful VIPs in Praia da Luz during that period of time?

    6. According to you, Textusa, MMC's fatal accident couldn't be brought to light because the following investigation would have revealed the presence in PdL of some eminent persons engaged in swinging activities, then interferring with their right to privacy.
      You ask what evidence I would expect. I guess that by privacy rule no evidence should be available. Then I don't see actually how you can base your hypothesis on anything else than probability. It seems to me that the number of knowing people would help in that assessment.

    7. Anonymous 27 July @ 11:54:00

      What did your friend expect when she was asked to babysit..."Hi, would you mind looking after little Johnny whilst we go a-swinging."
      And how did it "dawn on her later" ? Really ?!

    8. We remind readers that DE F is just one of the many readers who came by with sugar-coated comments but after we exposed him/her, went over to NT to show his/her support.

      The question is quite stupid because if it later dawned on this person then the answer to the first question is quite obvious: they didn't say anything similar to "Hi, would you mind looking after little Johnny whilst we go a-swinging."

      How and when it did dawn we do hope the Anonymous 27 Jul 2018, 11:54:00 will answer.

      Just also wanting the rest of the readers to keep up with the negative connotations that is permanently given to swinging. And then these same people say that being outed a swinger doesn't an iota. As if.

      DE F, while we wait for Anonymous 27 Jul 2018, 11:54:00 to reply, if swinging didn’t matter at all, what would be the problem of the couple asking said person "Hi, would you mind looking after little Johnny whilst we go a-swinging."? Why, if it’s no different from going ball-room dancing, would it be different from asking “"Hi, would you mind looking after little Johnny whilst we go dancing."?

      Then would you put a “Really ?!” No, you wouldn’t. So why do you put one just because it involves swinging? Have swingers something to hide or not? Be consistent please.

    9. Textusa @ 13:22:00
      Firstly, not sure what you mean by (a) sugar-coated comments and (b) your "exposure" of me. What did you "expose" that I had hidden ?
      The act of swinging, rather like the use of a prostitute, whilst not unlawful, is not the type of activity one might wish to be in the public domain.
      My "Really ?!" comment was the absurdity of the post, not the act of swinging so please desist in interpreting my words incorrectly, It is my understanding that you are more intelligent than that

    10. DE F,

      When we spoke of your sugar-coated comments we were talking about you, not to you. NT supporters are not welcomed here and was we told you in our last communication, your comments are filtered, so before submitting them do remember to save them to if they don't get published you can go over to his blog and whine.

      Thank you you for continuing to reinforce the judgemental negative connotation that people have with swingers, now comparing it with prostitution, no less.

      The absurdity is a question asking if someone said "Hi, would you mind looking after little Johnny whilst we go a-swinging." from a comment that says very clearly "as they didn’t announce it when they asked her to babysit".

    11. DEF,
      As I recall, the first time she babysat they went out, as one would expect, but on some occasions, they entertained couples who went to other rooms. She was young and naive and had never heard of swingers, but she wasn’t stupid either and figured out what was happening. She was expected to entertain the kids and put them to bed whilst the adults had a party.
      I think in those days it was referred to as wife-swapping, which is a rather demeaning term, as it suggests trading commodities.
      I can only imagine they relied on her discretion as they didn’t tell her what was happening or swear her to secrecy. She didn’t tell me who they were or where they lived. Just they seemed an ordinary family.

    Elaine Strachan‏ @strackers74
    Replying to @may_shazzy @Joyousb90 and 4 others
    It doesn't really matter who knew what. If anyone knows what happened and is withholding the truth they are as bad as any 'abductor'/murderer etc. Does no-one have a conscience? (tearful emoticon) #McCann
    12:36 am - 27 Jul 2018



  23. Tesxtusa: On the legalese front, and on all fronts: I wanted to say (and I'm sure I speak for everyone who is genuine about finding the truth) how appreciative we all are on the forensic work you have done over the years; the time and energy spent in trying to understand the implications involved; understanding the lies, the subterfuge, the hoax. Whilst others are busy searching and destroying, team get on with the purity of truth. It means a lot to me, to know you are there as a constant, ploughing away. Despite (and perhaps because of) the putrid and vicious lies, abuse and assaults you have undoubtably received over many years.

    1. Some of those putrid comments, of course, come sugar coated - and those are the worst. At least NT doesn't pretend!

    2. They pretend to know different.

  24. Have just read this on NT’s blog by Lesly Finn:
    Lesly Finn27 July 2018 at 18:27
    'Could you please tell us what evidence you would expect us, or anyone for that matter, to find that would prove, or at least convince you that there was a swinging event involving many people, some of which very powerful VIPs in Praia da Luz during that period of time?'

    Amazing. Disregarding the dreadful grammar she is saying that there is no proof of swinging. Which we know, of course.

    Oh dear, indeed!

    Wonder what Lesly’s Portuguese grammar is like?
    She obviously accepts NT’s foul language and misogyny without question.
    You only missed out ‘were’: Some of whom (not which) were there. Very minor.
    What a petty and vile woman Lesly has turned out to be!
    Some people might argue you could use some of which but the point being made is petty.

    1. The NT gang should be careful. Many of their twitter supporters use questionable grammar and punctuation and probably don’t have enough money to eat lobster and drink expensive Chablis on a regular basis. Some may be struggling financially.
      They are coming across as snobby and elitist.

    2. Anonymous 28 Jul 2018, 12:05:00,

      Lesly Frances Finn may have had the advantage of a good education and no financial problems before she joined the grammar police but others may have had to deal with financial hardship and a struggle to educate themselves.

      That shouldn’t prevent them from having their say, whatever their views.

      Even those who disagree with us, providing they can justify their views without resorting to personal abuse.

  25. From our "FB Anon":

    "From NT's blog: 'Here's the thing: this was a massive story which resulted in half the world's press camped on the doorstep for months. Many were from the sort of papers that would pay a fortune for any bit of dirt they could get their hands on. ' Hasn't NT maintained that swinging is no big deal to us Brits - now he's saying that it's a 'bit of dirt that papers would love to get their hands on' So which is it?"

  26. From NT’s blog:

    “Nick27 July 2018 at 17:23
    Anne guedes...bless you. How you calmly make your point is admirable. Like i said text you loon...a theory is evidence based conclusion. As you have no evidence you don't even have a theory. You have the waffle of bullshit merchant.”


    We would like to remind Anon/Nick of this comment of his on NT’s blog:

    “Nick13 June 2018 at 15:29

    Now i'm getting it in the neck. Look i'm not posting over there textusa as you have deliberately not put up my whole post about my position, or been honest about nts theory. I'll put it here where everyone can see and take across if you want. I( and nt as i can see) think that the mc canns are at least guilty of concealing madeleines death. I think kate sedated the kids and probably the groups kids. With madeleine dying either accidently or due to overdose a plan was hatched to fake an abduction. If it was found the kids were drugged the docs would lose custody,their jobs and in the mc canns case, their liberty. Now why would a pro mc cann think that??? I don't doubt what the dogs found put courts rely on corroboration...thats how it is. I am not dissing the dogs and because i disagree with your swinging theory i am a pro. I want the trith out whatever it may be but obviously the evidence is not strong enough to jail the mc canns. And to ex army anon on your just proved my point about the shit analogy. To find the bomb maker you needed to do the bomb forensics to track them know...secondary evidence. Not circumstamtial.”

    Also, on Jun 5 2018 Anon/Nick ssubmitted the following comment as Anon, which we didn’t publish:
    “Its not up for debate that eddie had a weak alert at the floor bed [what is not debatable is that you have yet not provided any evidence that would stand up in court that “eddie had a weak alert at the floor bed “ (we’re still waiting), which is something that you have now stated 3 times counting this one]. Its surely about what you can corroborate through forensics. Without that there is zero evidence no matter what the alert. There is a batter than good chance the dogs alerted correctly as a double false positive is highly unlikely…but without the full forensic backing it is uncorroborated. It is that simple. really don’t think anyone including nt doubt she died in that apartment…its what you can prove in court. Being devils advocate nt’s theory is plausible. Sedation of the kids followed by concealment of corpse. And as he rightly points out barring a corpse or confession never going to be solved. A group of doctors sedating their kids and hiding the body of one of the children to protect what would have loss of their jobs in disgrace… possible removal of their kids by ss and for jail time for possible manslaughter and corpse concealment. Makes more sense than swinging…way more.”

    Also on Jun 5 2018 you submitted the following comment also as Anon, which we didn’t publish:

    “Actually nts theory is that maddie did die in the apartment. I find his theory that all the tapas kids were sedated and maddie died due to a reaction to an increased dose. All the docs had to go in on a pact because had it coma out about the sedation their jobs would be lost- they faced removal of their kids by the ss…obstructing the burial of a body and for the mc canns jail time for manslaughter too. Makes sense too me… especially when as he admits it can never be proved unless body found or confession. buy it way more than swinging as it shows how much more they had to lose and why it would be a decision made in the timescale most agree on. The sedation angle shows what they had to lose. I fail to see where nt says the dogs lied… its what can be backed up in court. Dogs alerts were not,for whatever reason,properly backed up forensically therefore they are uncorroborated. We all know it is massively likely the dogs alerted to maddies…but that alone is not enough.”


  27. (Cont)

    Again, on Jun 22 2018 you submitted the following comment this time as Anonymous, which we didn’t publish:
    “that information is available on his blog. In summary (if i remember correctly) he thinks Madeleine is dead, died in the apartment and was quite possibly the victim of over sedation. This whole thing about ‘dissing the dogs’ is ridiculous. He is saying the dogs can alert to the scent of cadaverine [hasn’t NT told you that’s NOT cadaverine??? Oh, he’s going to call you ignoramus so much… do be prepared!] after the body has been removed; that’s it - nothing more!!”

    So, Nick/Anon, please provide the evidence as per your “evidence based conclusion” thesis required, according to you, to even have a theory that Maddie was sedated at the time of her death.

    We also think (sorry, you can’t contradict us there) that when the twins were in the cots after Maddie’s death – to be precise when Kate checked with the back of her hand if they were breathing – they were indeed sedated.

    But that happened after the alarm, so after Maddie disappeared. And we say they were sedated exactly because Maddie died, in order to keep them quiet and avoid them requiring any attention from the adults who needed to be fully focused in solving the problem of dealing with Maddie’s unfortunate and tragic accident.

    Again, Nick/Anon please provide the evidence that Maddie was sedated before her death (or even sedated). Remember it has to stand in a court of law.

    We are supposing that you will ask NT to provide similar evidence.

    If both or either of you fail to provide such evidence than we are supposing that you accept to be called a WBM and that you also accept that NT is also called a WBM.

    Evidently WBM does not stand for Wayback Machine but to what you said in your comment at 27 July 2018 at 17:23.

    1. It's only evidence when Nick and his cohorts say it is.

  28. Comment we have received from Su, which we have censored:

    “su28 Jul 2018, 18:24:00
    I loved your blog when you posted posts which contained information and insight.
    Nowadays it is like a visit to 3 arguidos forum.
    Who gives a dam what these (censored) say.”

    1. Su,

      Respect your criticism. We hope to, very soon, explain why we have been sometimes gone into “3 arguidos mode” as you say.

      We know it’s unpleasant and you and our readers must trust our judgement and understand that that we’re not dealing with just any (censored).

      These (censored) are a very well organised group and not only a character (NT), although we believe are led, on the internet front, by him. A group involving a well-known blogger and a FB group that claims having 38K members (now, just a little below that), so as we said not just any old (censored)

      Just to give you an example, Pseudo Nym/TheBunnyReturns/Ben Thompson is another person who agrees fully with NT and his sedation theory that has absolutely no evidence supporting it. Comment on NT’s blog:

      “Pseudo Nym3 June 2018 at 09:22
      Excellent points, especially drawing attention to the fact that there is no record of anybody stating Kate had directly discussed concerns about the twins being sedated. It's inconceivable to think that such a vital and indeed sensational revelation would have been forgotten.
      I'm with you on your conclusion. I think it's a very plausible theory that the McCanns engaged in damage limitation. Had sedation been a factor then, as you stated, both Kate and Gerry's careers would be finished for good. The rest of the practising members tapas 7 wouldn't come out of it very well either (by the by - perhaps). One or both parents would certainly be looking at a jail term, the loss of the twins, and without a career, the splendid family home wouldn't have vehicles McCann parked upon the drive, nor would they live in it either. It's not only plausible that had such a tragic event happened, a course of action whereby an attempt to conceal Madeleine's body, and lie about the events leading up to, and certainly after the 3rd, was required, it's understandable given what was at stake. Before the wittering wally accuses me (in several lengthy keyboard killing pages of waffle) of excusing the McCanns with that last sentence, I'm not. It makes a hell of a lot more sense than a salacious swinging theory though, doesn't it.”

      This is not a forum/blog spat but an effort to nip in the but the tactics of this group. The fact that we have made them gather on Not Textusa Hill indicates that they are making a last push.

      The fact that you and other readers have not heard of many subjects that we think they planned would be the hot topics to be discussed on the internet and are simply limited to posting stuff with the blatant objective of stoking up the hatred (justifying fully we be called haters by the press – not a coincidence) against the McCann (an effort to muster the lynching mob to pressure the government into archiving the process), tells us that although outnumbered we are being successful.


    2. (Cont)

      Mind you this group is not limited to those we have just referred to but also include who participate in the various fora on the internet.

      We felt that we had to put on hold our reply to Anne Guedes (which we are hoping will spawn an interesting debate) but on being informed that NT and his lick-spittle gang had gleefully jumped on Anne Guedes’ comment as if a new messiah had arrived:
      NT: “The estimable Anne Guedes, to whom we all owe a debt of gratitude..”
      Sade Anslow: “Fantastic comment by Anne Guedes.”
      Nick: “Anne guedes...bless you”
      Lesly Frances Finn: “Amazing”

      To clarify lick-spittle: A slimy grovelling and devious person who will do anything to get ahead in their life and career including accepting an order from the boss to lick a big green greasy lump of spit in the hope of promotion or a pat on the head.

      So, we felt it was the right time to go into what you have defined as “3 arguidos forum mode”, put on hold the reply to Anne Guedes and start to expose this group.

      This is not personal as we are not against one single person but a group. A group of people we have come to the conclusion that have the objective to deceive people about the Maddie case.

      As we said, we aren’t just dealing with blog and forum spats. We have recently publish info about the legal situation about statute of limitations in Portugal and also the European Investigation Order. We hope you had the opportunity to read and understand the implications.

    3. I now understand why NT argued no blood was found. If his theory is that all the T8 children were sedated, the finding of blood would not fit this scenario.
      I’m waiting for the proof of this to be provided.
      It’s one thing to say they lied to help their friends, but it’s a step further to accuse them of doing something illegal to their own children.
      By illegal, I mean sedating them to the extent they slept without waking for hours, unsupervised and unconscious. That must be regarded as a criminal offence and they must have gone prepared with enough medication, so it was premeditated.
      I don’t believe this is what happened as I believe Keela alerted to blood residue.

    4. 09:34
      A big thank you to Nick for explaining NTs theory so clearly, as it’s never been explained before, to my knowledge!

    5. Anonymous 29 July @ 09:34:00
      So, let me get this right. Based on your statement, if one is sedated, then somehow, all of one's blood is somehow removed from their body so that they cannot bleed or let blood ? How utterly ridiculous !!

    6. DE F,

      Where has Anonymous 29 Jul 2018, 09:34:00, said anything similar to “, if one is sedated, then somehow, all of one's blood is somehow removed from their body so that they cannot bleed or let blood”?

      What Anonymous 29 Jul 2018, 09:34:00 said was “I now understand why NT argued no blood was found. If his theory is that all the T8 children were sedated, the finding of blood would not fit this scenario.”

      We agree fully with him/her. And it doesn’t take a genius to understand what s/he is saying is that if she died of over-sedation from what did she bleed?

      You jump straight to alive and sedated equals not having blood. If she was alive, sedated and asleep, why bleed?

      If she was suffocating due to sedation when found and struggling to breathe, the only thing blocking the airways would be her relaxed tongue having flipped backwards and any doctor knows that situation is quickly solved by lying patient sideways and pulling tongue out. So from what would she bleed in that situation?

      If she was dead due to sedation when found, irrelevant or not if a dead person bleeds or not, what was the reason to make a wound in her flesh if she was already dead?

      Please tell us under what sedation scenario you have Maddie bleed, thank you.

      Anonymous 29 Jul 2018, 09:34:00, apologise but we felt we had to intervene. Please do reply to DE F as you wish.

    7. In my comment about sedation and blood:
      If M was over-sedated and died in her bed, then there would be no blood.
      If she was woozy from sedation but fell over and died, it’s likely there would be blood.
      But as NT believes sedation but no blood found, he is saying she died without physical trauma?
      As no cadaver or blood detected on her bed, her body must have been removed quickly as neither dog alerted to her bed.
      I’m assuming NT’s theory must be a quick removal from her bed after death from over-sedation.

    8. Give him time to think it out,its a fluid process.

  29. VERY INTERESTING tweets:
    Green Leaper‏ @FragrantFrog
    Replying to @SadeElisha86 @TheBunnyReturns and 3 others
    I was asked if I wanted to join your gang, that's all. If you'd followed the convo from the start you'd realise that.
    5:30 pm - 28 Jul 2018
    SadeElisha‏ @SadeElisha86
    Replying to @TheBunnyReturns @FragrantFrog and 3 others
    Textusa believes NT is walker, and that frog is walkers right hand man. So as far as Textusa is concerned, frog is very much already in "the gang". Hard work innit?!
    5:38 pm - 28 Jul 2018


    Firstly, we do believe that the Frog was “invited” to join “the gang” and we believe the Frog refused. And this to us confirms “the gang” exists.

    Secondly, and to be very clear:

    - Yes, we believe that NT was (account closed) Walkercan1000 and is now Bale2N on Twitter.

    - No, we don’t believe the Frog is “is walkers right hand man”. Never. We also don’t believe that the Frog ever belonged to “the gang”. About the Frog being NT/Walker’s right-hand man, if under different circumstances, we’re certain that the Frog would laugh out loud just from reading that.

    Thirdly, we believe that those interacting with the Frog on Twitter know perfectly well who the Frog is.

  30. Anonymous 29 Jul 2018, 10:17:00,

    NT has detailed his theory in 2 comments (at 3 June 2018 at 08:41 and at 08:42 that we have merged below as they evidently are just 1 comment) he made on in his blog. Remember this is a theory by someone who has stated very clearly that “what I will not do is support or endorse someone making claims which are not supported by the evidence”:

    “Not Textusa3 June 2018 at 08:41
    Thanks Ben :)
    What you say is absolutely right. There are so many warning bells going off I've skipped over some to prevent a Textusa-length article emerging.

    Here's just one –
    You have unconscious twins on your hands. You think they may have been drugged by the 'intruder' who has taken their sister. You don't know when they were drugged, but according to your timeline it has to be within the last hour.

    So how do you know that what you are observing is not about to get worse? It could be a drug which is slow-acting, it could be a slow-release preparation, designed to keep releasing the drug over a prolonged period. They are unconscious now, but maintaining their own airway, but you were worried enough to keep checking them, so who is to say that in half an hour they might not be a lot worse?

    As for the language barrier, It would take me about 2 seconds of gesturing to convey the need to take these children to a hospital immediately.

    So there is a number of ways to interpret the information in Kate's book.

    1. It's an exaggeration for the book, and there was never really a question that the twins had been drugged

    This is something of a non-starter, because of the testimony of independent witnesses to the fact that the twins were spark out. These were people who were either so struck by the failure of the kids to respond to the pandemonium around them that they registered it as abnormal or put it in their statements, or who observed Kate obsessively checking the twins again and again.

    2. They did raise it with the police, but nothing was done.

    Another non-starter for me. There is no account of that evening that mentions Kate's 'suspicion' that the twins had been drugged. And this for me is the crucial part - there is NO ACCOUNT where it is mentioned. Not Kate's, Gerry's, any of their friends, or any of the english-speaking people they encountered, and none of the Portuguese. Nor is it mentioned in either the written timeline they handed to the police or in the contrived account they handed to the police before the second round of interviews. In that account the child seen by Tanner was "possibly drugged" and yet again there was absolutely no mention whatsoever of the events or the thought processes Kate describes in the book, or what caused them to arrive at the conclusion that she ''might have been drugged''


    1. Had an abductor targeted MMC and come equipped to sedate the kids in order to work peacefully, whatever he administrated had to have a flash effect, not a lasting one.
      Only an halogenated ether like Sevoflurane acts quickly and powerfully but only for a few minutes.
      This could by no way explain that the twins were sleeping like logs hours after.
      If the twins were sedated, which seems very likely, they for sure weren't sedated by a stranger. As I said before BZDs work well to erase memories.
      Wasn't KMC, as an expert in anaesthetics, expected to say a bit more than "yes I do", when asked if she thought the kids were sedated ?

    2. AnneGuedes, do you believe they were knocking out the children night after night? Only the Mcs or all others as well?

    3. I believe they (the whole group) never "knocked out" their kids. A sensible individual wouldn't do that just to be able to have a quiet dinner.
      I find it plausible that the twins were exceptionally given BZD like Valium (if they saw or heard what happened to their sister, in order to make them forget).

  31. (Cont)

    3. This brings me to what to me is a hypothetical but perfectly logical conclusion from the information given.

    For obvious reasons, this is necessary under the circumstances.
    Hypothetically, one of the people responsible for the child knows what the child has been given, how much, and that they will be fine after they sleep it off.

    Now, if that was to be the case, it still raises massive issues, including the fact that the children had been drugged and not monitored which is a career-ending thing. It would however explain why no hospital admission was sought.

    There is an even worse scenario, where Madeleine had indeed been subject to the same process but something had gone wrong (and I think we can dispense with the idea of an abductor here because no child is unlucky enough to be drugged by someone close to her AND abducted by a stranger on the same night)
    What we would have to conclude in that hypothetical situation is that the person who administered the drug knew of the role it had played in Madeleine's disappearance and yet trusted to luck that the twins would be okay, rather than own up and say "Okay, I gave them A,B or C. They need to go to hospital" in effect playing Russian Roulette with their lives.

    I shall leave you with one thought.

    Kate is not recorded by any witness, British or Portuguese, as asking or demanding a doctor/hospital for the twins, or reporting her suspicions that they had been drugged, although she claims in the book that she did.

    But she was able to make herself understood well enough to ask for a priest at 3.00am.

    Personally, If I have two drugged infants I'd rather have a toxicologist. Just sayin'”


    Please also note that NT has before shared these thoughts about the case, more specifically that he thinks the rest of the Tapas group was NOT involved:

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

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

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

    1. So I’m wrong in thinking NT said all of T8 children were sedated and Nick has got the wrong end of stick? Maybe NT should put Nick right if he’s purporting a theory he has invented but ascribed to NT. Why didn’t NT clarify this at the time Nick commented on his blog?
      Very confusing


      Have I got this right?
      Isabelle believes neglect is alibi.
      She’s a friend of Ben and Blacksmith.
      Blacksmith is a friend of NT.
      NT believes the children were left alone.
      Nick on NT blog says NT believes all the children were sedated, but he’s got that wrong?
      Blacksmith believes the children were left alone?
      Ben believes the children were left alone?
      Trying to establish who believes what and why certain people who are friends can hold dissenting views without any problem, yet others are shouted down if they have a different opinion.

  32. Nick/Anon has replied in NT’s bolg:

    “Nick29 July 2018 at 00:47
    Hahahaha....oh my sides. Once again textusa cuts down what i wrote...this time to anne guedes as the full post actually points out why i thank ms guedes. As for the sedation theory...well the pj certainly seemed to think that occurred based on EVIDENCE they collected you wankhanded jizzbucket text. Does your swinging- round table theory come from a guilt complex because you were involved in an orgy in ikea years ago and are projecting like a mad woman?”


    Nick WBM,

    Please do tell what part of your comment we cut down in our comment at 28 Jul 2018, 17:59:00:
    “Nick27 July 2018 at 17:23
    Anne guedes...bless you. How you calmly make your point is admirable. Like i said text you loon...a theory is evidence based conclusion. As you have no evidence you don't even have a theory. You have the waffle of bullshit merchant.”

    Are you lying or simply not paying attention?

    Please provide the quote from the PJ Files that backs up your statement “As for the sedation theory...well the pj certainly seemed to think that occurred based on EVIDENCE they collected”. We would really like to know where it is in the Files that the PJ thought that Maddie died because of sedation.

    Failing to do so, just confirms that you are indeed a WBM.

    And talking about you being a WBM, we’re still waiting to provide proof that will hold up in court that Eddie gave a weak alarm in the backyard as you stated 3 times.

    About your anger issues, we can only recommend that you take heed of your friend’s following words:
    "Bugsy‏ @TheBunnyReturns
    Replying to @xxMichelleSxx @The_Truth_II
    There's only one reason people lie, then get angry when others see right through them.
    Question is, why do these sick freaks feel the need to blatantly lie about the case of a 3 year old girl, and those who fight for the truth? #McCann
    8:09 PM - 24 Jul 2018"

    1. Nick still hasn’t clarified if it’s his theory or if it’s NT who believes all the children of the Tapas 8 were sedated.
      It’s very important to have absolute clarity about who is the originator of this theory and who also supports it.
      The bad language - is it catching disease on NT? - is unnecessary and avoids answering this question.

    2. My local IKEA doesn’t seem to do orgies. All I’ve seen in the bedroom section is bored husbands and partners being asked their opinions on the duvet covers.

    3. Anonymous 29 Jul 2018, 18:15:00,

      Please speak for yourself and for your local IKEA. The IKEA near where NT lives, wherever it may be, seems to promote swinging parties as part of their quality assurance process of its furniture.

      Instead of taking the opportunity either to support in any way Nick about the sedation theory or to back up with evidence his sedation theory, this is what he replied specifically to that particular comment from Nick:

      “Not Textusa29 July 2018 at 01:09
      I believe that is actually how Ikea tests the robustness of it's furniture”

    4. Anonymous 29 Jul 2018, 17:32:00,

      NT has replied to you. Has even made a separate post to accommodate his reply to your comment:

      “Sunday, 29 July 2018
      Fucking idiot [Post title]

      Just taking a break from laughing to post this, from the lunatic's interminable comments page

      [Quoting blog] Anonymous29 Jul 2018, 17:32:00
      Nick still hasn’t clarified if it’s his theory or if it’s NT who believes all the children of the Tapas 8 were sedated. [end quote]
      So what? Why is that the business of some anonymous troll?

      [Quoting blog] It’s very important to have absolute clarity about who is the originator of this theory and who also supports it. [end quote]
      Is it? Why? Here's a radical idea - form some ideas of your own, you clueless twat, rather than stalking around the internet like a special-needs weasel, trying to peer into other people's heads

      [Quoting blog] The bad language - is it catching disease on NT? - is unnecessary and avoids answering this question. [end quote]
      Really? Well, as it clearly bothers you, I suggest you fuck the fuck off you fucking fucknugget.
      And have a nice day, etc. (8 x laughing emoticons)”


      To all those promoting NT as an anti, we will simply quote again Ben Thompson: “There's only one reason people lie, then get angry when others see right through them. Question is, why do these sick freaks feel the need to blatantly lie about the case of a 3 year old girl, and those who fight for the truth?”

    5. And, it seems it's retribution time.

      After Ben Thompson promoting him on the Justice for Madeleine FB group and on Twitter, it has now come the turn for NT to promote Ben Thompson's blog on his blog.

      We think this is a first. We have never seen him promote any blog by written by another.

      Until now he has only promoted the many ones he has created.

    6. Charming! Mr Angry.
      By the way, I’m no shrinking violet as I’m used to hearing swearing, having worked with people who break the law.
      The last time someone told me to F off was yesterday, when I remonstrated with two 14 year old boys for harassing an elderly neighbour.
      But that’s 14 year old boys for you.

      There’s not going to be an answer to this question
      I, therefore, assume sedation of all of the tapas children is NT theory.
      NT demands explanations from others but refuses to give explanations himself.

      Ben T said Mcs children sedated over more that one night - he says nights, in his 2015 blog and M either fell or died from overdose.
      So where did the medication come from?
      Did they bring it with them, or did they purchase it in PdL as they never ventured further than the village? Wouldn’t the local pharmacy remember being asked for sedatives? I’m sure powerful sedatives can’t be purchased over the counter.
      They only made the decision to leave the children after arriving in PdL, so why take sedatives with them?
      What did the Oldfields do, as they didn’t have a monitor?
      Why was M crying for a prolonged period, according to Mrs Fenn, if she was sedated?
      And why did she ask why nobody came when she cried?

      There’s a song called “There are more questions than answers- and the more I find out, the less I know”

  33. Textusa, how about you answer Anne's question, rather than demanding evidence from others? I think you've stalled for long enough.

    1. Anonymous 29 Jul 2018, 16:06:00,

      All Anne Guedes' questions will be answered.

      We are the ones who decide the course the blog follows. It will be up to Anne Guedes to complain in case she feels we have ignored her.

      It pleases us that the current topic is making you unhappy.

      Meanwhile, you can entertain yourself with digesting her reply to our question of what swinging evidence she would expect to could be found: "You ask what evidence I would expect. I guess that by privacy rule no evidence should be available."

  34. "We would really like to know where it is in the Files that the PJ thought that Maddie died because of sedation."

    And I think we would all like to know where it is in the files that the PJ thought Maddie died because of swinging.

    1. Anonymous 29 Jul 2018, 16:15:00,

      Please quote us saying that "the PJ thought Maddie died because of swinging."

      We on the other hand have quoted Nick saying that the PJ thought that Maddie died because of sedation.

      Let us quote him again in case you missed it:

      "As for the sedation theory...well the pj certainly seemed to think that occurred based on EVIDENCE they collected..."

      Nick, we're still waiting. We're very patient.

  35. Lots of anger management issues from the swinging naysayers. Mirroring the attitude towards the dogs. Instead of going on their merry way they continue to try and pollute which tells you much sisters. An organised front, most probably. Truth seekers, highly highly doubtful. Out to deceive and steer, it certainly appears that way. Your continued exposure of the game being played by the players involved is appreciated. Swinging really is hitting a nerve again. People will go to great lengths to hide their dirty little secret (which is how it will be construde around the watercooler). Legal it may be, but to neighbours, friends and colleagues it is a huge black stain on ones reputation and we can't have that can we.


    What do NT, Ben and Blacksmith think about Anne’s dismissal of the Gaspar statements and her view that GA shouldn’t have mentioned them in his book?

    1. Sorry, Anonymous 20:36, I only said that GA shouldn't have alluded in his book to the Gaspar statements' graphic content. It's obvious that the fact those statements were retained by the LC is in itself unacceptable, discrediting the British claims that they would give any needed assistance !
      I find this Gaspar question very interesting, but not because of the miserable story told, a bit late don't you think or did Ms Gaspar know that it was just bad taste words, not potential facts?
      I think that those statements escaped the British censure, which is why they are in the PJFiles. But why did they escape ? I may be wrong, but I have a feeling that the LC ignored that the statements were sent to Ricardo Paiva.

    2. Anne Guedes,

      "I think that those statements escaped the British censure, which is why they are in the PJFiles. But why did they escape ? I may be wrong, but I have a feeling that the LC ignored that the statements were sent to Ricardo Paiva".

      The Gaspar statements were sent "as requested"/"tal como solicitado". No escaping whatsoever. Sent intentionally to the PJ via official correspondence:

      Quoting ourselves from that post:

      “This is what it says: “Annexed, follow the statements by Arul and Katherina Gaspar, as requested”.

      We will even put this phrase in its original Portuguese so that nothing gets lost in translation: “Em anexo, seguem os depoimentos da Arul e Katherina Gaspar, tal como solicitado”.

      The 2 very important words: “as requested”.

      “As requested” immediately rule out an accidental sending of the statements. The Gaspar statements were specifically requested and in response were specifically sent.

      “As requested” also means that on the UK side of things, quite a few people were involved. The request was received, the request was analysed and the sending of the statements approved, the statements were retrieved from where they were, supposedly, since May 16 and lastly each page was fed into a fax machine and no one introduces by accident 10 pages into a fax machine.

      This also tells us the statements did not arrive “under other papers”. They arrived after the document to which they were annexed. Nothing accidental, all intentional and most importantly, nothing strange about it as would be strange if it wasn’t so.

      The “as requested” put together with the questionnaire that was sent for David and Fiona to respond to, shows us clearly there was a significant increase in what the PJ knew about the Majorca holiday.

      In July they only knew of rumours which they, according to GA, tried to clarify without success. Then they didn’t know the identity of participants nor any detail. Between then and October, they know the specifics about who gave the statements and that Payne was at the centre of them. Why else are the Paynes brought back into the spotlight out of nowhere, if not because of that?

      The “as requested” shows that PJ has the knowledge that both Katherina had Arul Gaspar have given statements. It is not a quest wondering in what way they could help the investigation. It is adamant: SY send us the statements from the 2 Gaspars, please, the ones we know you have, thanks.”


      Please understand that comment is meant to set the record straight on this sensitive issue of the case and not to deviate in any way from the important topic we’re currently dealing with which is to have Nick and NT provide the evidence they claim they always have for every statement they make about the case.

      As promised, after we deal with NT and his gang of lick-spittles, we will come back to you Anne Guedes, on all the topics you’ve raised, and if you wish including this one. For now, let’s keep to NT’s sedation theory.

      Thank you for understanding.

    3. Ok, Textusa, but I have more to say about the Gaspar question apart from the fact that I obviously never thought that the GS were sent accidentally.


    McFadden disagrees with sedation, her opinion is in direct contradiction to NT and Ben.
    But more in line with Blacksmith who refers to K’s temper and lack of control.

    1. Isabelle McFadden thinks M died as the result of a “nasty little slap”

  38. And finally, Nick/Anon has produced the evidence that will certainly and without a minimal doubt stand up in any court of law to back up his (he has now owned it) death by sedation theory.

    On NT’s blog:

    “Nick29 July 2018 at 15:20
    Its my theory. Based on occams razor. Doctors leave young kids do you ensure they stay sleeping? And you have an specialist in keeping folk anaethetised in your company. It seems the simplest explanation to group parents together...fear of removal of their kids. It makes more sense than swinging...ya nosey fucknugget”


    Let’s recap what this individual has said before about theories and simplest explanations, shall we?

    “You got that textusa? You theories mean jack. They are merely your opinions. Stop asking what i think. As the death of a child is the issue making wild uneducated leaps of logic on faulty premises is ridiculous. I don't know with certainity what happened...but unlike you i don't make claims i do. As you are the one stating opinion as fact the onus is on you to provide evidence to back it know the kind of stuff that will stand up in court. I make no claim to knowing what happened in 5a but i can smell your bullshit across the atlantic.”
    Nick/Anon July 8 2018 14:24:

    “By now you would realise its not what you or anyone thinks...its what can be proved. Nice try at driving a wedge there. Why don't YOU tell us what was signalled in the backyard...then produce the hard forensic evidence that would stand up in court.”
    Nick/Anon, Jul 8 2018 20:45:00

    “Like i said text you loon...a theory is evidence based conclusion. As you have no evidence you don't even have a theory. You have the waffle of bullshit merchant.”
    Nick/Anon July 2018 at 17:23

    Nick/Anon, we remind readers, is a prominent member of the Justice for Madeleine FB group and a fierce supporter of NT and commentator on his blog.

    Another frequent commentator in both is Lesly Frances Finn.

    That FB group has 8 admin, all of whom have explicitly shown there, in the posts supporting him, their full support for NT.

    Of the 8 admin, Ben Thompson, Sade Anslow and Julie Chrimes have shown on NT’s blog their full support and admiration.

    There is a 4th commentator on NT, ‘Cat’, who is quite easy to see s/he is also an admin of that FB group, as it’s easy to see who it is.

    1. To have readers start to understand the relevance of this “gang” and to realise that this is far from a blog/forum spat or any sort of personal feud, we ask the reader to become just for a moment a newcomer to the case.

      The Justice for Madeleine FB group claims to have approximate 38K members (whether that is true or not is a debate for another time), so it’s natural that this group will be the one of the first a newcomer would come across.

      If the reader visits this site, it basically has imagery that fuels hatred against the McCann, with photoshopped images of Kate looking like a vampire, portraying the McCanns – especially Kate – as the worst parent in the world, etc.

      Promoted inside, in some of their posts is NT’s blog. Highly praised by the groups admin and many of its readers.

      Some of which well-known names of the Maddie world. To think that that is indifferent for the newcomer, it’s not as when s/he comes across these names again they show to knowledgeable of the case, so there that “NT” should be taken into account.

      The newcomer follows the link and finds a blog filled with swearing and equal hatred for the McCanns. And finds the names of those from the 38K FB group again bowing in admiration to this vileness.

      We simply ask this question, wouldn’t the reader if as a newcomer to the case then be absolutely convinced that the internet is indeed filled with McCann haters as the media reports?

      There are so many choices make that are wrong and some even foolish. That’s why the human being makes mistakes and learns from them. However, the choice in deceiving others into making wrong choices, that is never a mistake, never done by accident.

      To use an expression used by a popular Portuguese radio show to end one if its short programmes: “For now, it’s worth to think about this”.

    2. Textusa, you right now made me aware of the existence of The Justice for Madeleine FB group. Through your description, which newcomer will have the curiosity to visit this group ? Why would newcomers visit your site in search of groups like that ?
      I wonder why you spend so much time and write so much about that kind of site. What do you hope to achieve ?

    3. Anne Guedes,

      You stating that only today you heard of "The Justice for Madeleine FB" is not exactly a compliment to that group claiming to have almost 38,000 members.

      About what we are hoping to achieve, we hope that at the conclusion of the process things will be clear.

      For now, under the pressure of showing the evidence they so much demand from us about their sedation theory, with which you like us seem to disagree with, and acknowledging that pressure by showing that they do read what is written here, "the gang" prefers to concentrate their attention Mr Bennett and a 2 yr old article about pyjamas.

      That tells us that we are steering our ship well.

  39. 5 years ago it took me 2 hours to choose TEXTUSA among others blogs.
    Her clarity, well documentated posts, photos, graphics, her logical analyse, her déductions, sense of humour, search for the truth, intellectual honesty, great culture, patience etc... That's what I love in Textusa blog.
    Also I understand perfectly her rythm of writting, the way she managed with politic, Twitter, MSM, her methodologie is very unique, etc...
    5 years ago, when beginning to read Textusa, (posts at random), it took me 2 months (a daily reading- 4/5 hours per day- to UNDERSTAND that the BIG Round Table never existed, nor the TAPAS dinners.(Implemented)!
    Excuse me, Textusa but I CAN't believe your are ONLY 3.
    Thank you, have a good afternoon.

    1. Anonymous 30 Jul 2018, 15:29:00,

      Wow, what a compliment!! Thank you!

      Yes, we are only 3. But we have had through the years people helping us a lot "offline". Without them we wouldn't have to be able have gone this far.

      However, and that is why we write "we", the 3 of us take full responsibility for the grammar and spelling mistakes we make as what is written here by "Textusa" has been agreed and approved only by the team.

  40. "her rythm of writing, the way she managed"
    So Textusa is the name of the team which could be composed by a mixture of men and women.
    It is a curious tendency we have to attribute a gender to avatars (as pseudos are incorrectly named). I always wondered why people assumed that Textusa was a lady.

    1. Anne Guedes,

      You of all people, we thought you would know what a heteronym was.

      For all other readers:

      That picture saying “To those raising suspicions about my anonymity because it may have a hidden agenda behind it, let me confess to having clearly an agenda. It’s public, not hidden. It’s called HOPE” is not a meme picked off the internet. It was made by me.

      Textusa is anonymous as a demonstration that any citizen can exercise citizenship, do his/her best to right a wrong without seeking notoriety.

      As I replied a long time ago to the question "Who are you?", I can be that grey dull person sitting next to you on the bus this afternoon.

      If you wish to call me a he, please feel free to join the narrow minds of the likes of Ben Thompson, Tony Bennett and PeterMac. To them, gender seems to be important.

    2. What about cross gender?
      There are quite a few people who say you are a cross dressing male swinger.
      How they know that I dont know, but they seem pretty sure to me . It would also explain why you seem to know so much about swinging.

    3. Anonymous 30 Jul 2018, 18:29:00,

      Thank you (and DE F) for helping to continue to reinforce the reality of the highly negative moral and judgemental perception of swinging.

      The more you people continue the harder it makes for all those trying to "honestly" say that swinging doesn't matter because it's legal, bla, bla, bla...

      In fact, now you are making them look real ridiculous, aren't you?

    4. So if one believes swinging lies behind this, one must be a swinger.
      Does that mean anybody who believes paedophilia is involved is a paedophile, or those who believe it was sedation sedate their own children?
      Why is swinging singled out for this false reasoning?
      By that reasoning Barra da Costa, the PJ inspector, was a swinger. Wonder what he would think of this line of reasoning?

    5. "But this was to be found only after we had drawn the net curtains again on pieces dealing with the latest accusations against Bill Clinton, and the delightful story of how a Seventies wife-swapping session cost Richard Branson his greatest love."

      "In his autobiography Branson tells how he lost his first wife, Kristen, to the rock star Kevin Ayers, as the result of a wife-swapping party. Described, inevitably, in yesterday's Adultery News, the setting was his "romantic houseboat in London's Little Venice. Cushions were scattered on the floor. The scene was set for swapping and seduction." And, apparently, alliteration. Nevertheless, all readers of Adultery News now know to avoid houseboats with floor cushions."

      From the article

    6. Apologies, just realised that a wrong link was put above.

      This is the correct link:

    7. The literary concept of heteronym, as Pessoa used it, doesn't have much to do with its linguistic meaning. Amazingly, in French, "pessoa", translated by the pronominal "personne" (nobody) is an heteronym of "la personne" (somebody).

    8. Just thought that French allows to play with words around Pessoa : Nobody and so many human beings at the same time !

  41. Your spot on with what is written about “the gang” both NTs blog and the Facebook justice group do insight hate for the MCs. The blog of NTs is abusive in the extreme. Birds of a feather and all that, they seem to want to bad mouth everyone with an opinion that differs from theirs.They have to be right at any cost. It appears their aim is to cause confusion. If didn’t know any different and had stumbled on the Facebook group before reading your insightful blog I would have got no further.....I’d have ran a mile from the hatred that is shown against the MCs. Your blog, I’m pleased to say is responsible, respectful and insightful. Thank goodness Textusa can be relied upon to give a balanced argument. Looking forward to when the much missed weekly blog is back.

    1. Totally agree with you, I thank you for saying in good english what I think.
      Also for your résumé of the spirit of Textusa : Textusa is "responsible, respectful and insightful".To me it is fantastique to have such a mind.

  42. From our "FB Anon":

    "NT et al are really going for it with their theory that the McCann and the rest of the T9 are the worst parents ever, sedating and neglecting their children whilst they all went out eating and drinking every night. Except they didn't ALL go out did they? Fiona Payne says in her rogatory: "I'm trying to think if anyone was ill on the Sunday night actually, because we had a bit of illness in the group as well and there were nights, I think, every night there was somebody who was sick actually. " So why would they all be sedating their children if there was always an adult back at the apartments? NT has also said that if there was swinging going on, the tabloids would be desperate to dish the dirt. But the papers had a juicy story: well off doctors neglect their children to go off boozing then a child goes missing......yet no criticism from the UK press - why?"

  43. We have just been informed of the following post on NT:

    “Monday, 30 July 2018
    Announcement [Post title]
    I would just like to make it clear that, while I welcome the exchange of views, I won’t be publishing posts which attack other people who post here, or permit any flaming or forum wars

    I’m not going to make a big thing of it or embarrass anyone. Just bear it in mind, okay?

    Not Textusa at 07:01”


    So, a man who creates a blog with the name of another blog preceded by a big “NOT”, calls himself “Not Textusa”, apparently has after 5 years discovered that he is a pacifist at heart and upon reflection, disregarding completely all the blogs he has opened attacking left, right and centre other people on forums/blogs and twiiter, and so he doesn’t want any more “forum wars”.

    In fact, he won’t permit or allow it in his blog!

    Maybe because during the process of rebranding his name, part of a wider campaign which we are in the process of showing, he made the mistake of pinning his colours and those of his lick-spittle gang to an outlandish theory and now with nowhere to go, decides to close down debate and do up a post that says: no fighting!!!

    We cannot see any better sign that we are steering our ship in the right direction.

    Not Textusa, sorry but your white flag will be ignored. We will continue to do what we think we should, if not for anything else, we promised Anne Guedes that.

  44. DO NOT PUBLISH Anonymous at 30 Jul 2018 17:01 and 17:02,

    Thank you for the information! It will take a while to digest but it seems HIGHLY interesting.

    So interesting that scared of clicking by mistake "Publish" button, have saved your comments separately and have deleted them from our inbox.

    You of all people will find interesting a comment that we are to do soon about Blacksmith. When we do, we would certainly like to hear your feedback!

    In the future, to identify you may we use the name 'Not Frog'? ;)

    Not Frog, we will get back to you on this. Thank you!

  45. What an interesting tweet:
    P_R #FBPE 🇪🇺 🇬🇧 🏳️‍🌈#NHSLove‏ @PeritaRisus
    Adults only, eh? << taps nose >> #McCann #Swinging
    5:01 am - 30 Jul 2018

    The image attached refers to this Daily Mail article:
    The picture besides the title “Richard Branson launches ‘adults-only’ cruises” has on top “Book your kids’ babysitter now!!”


    The hashtags #mccann and #swinging together on a tweet by an admin of the Justice for Madeleine FB group!

    And liked by @TheBunnyReturns!

    This tweet was retweeted by @1matthewwright1:

    This @1matthewwright1 tweet was not only liked by @TheBunnyReturns as was also liked by @AllyCat666x, which is the twitter handle of Justice admin and NT promotor Julie Chrime!

    1. Just a reminder to our readers:

      This was from the era when it was called wife-swapping.

    2. So what is your point?

      We all know swinging happens, as does Dogging, swinging's cheapskate cousin. That still doesn't explain your insistence that it was happening in PdL or the ridiculous notion that people would commit a crime to avoid, at worst, a bit of social embarrassment.

    3. Now, isn't it about time you stopped dicking about, and answered Anne?

    4. NT (at 31 Jul 2018, 10:18:00)

      After swearing on all that was sacred to him, even making a declaration on his blog (is it still up there?) that he would NEVER, EVER, EVER again comment in our blog (yes, we caught him lying about that and he has commented so many times since – as anonymous both published and unpublished – that we have lost track) NT goes back on his word and comments openly under his ID.

      Another sign our ship is sailing well.

      Comparing swinging with dogging, although not as bad as what DE F did when he compared swinging with prostitution, is almost as bad.

      Swingers know each other. They know, even if it’s the first time they are interacting with other people, these people have passed a strict filtering. Unlike in dogging, they don’t appear out of nowhere for sex.

      In swinging, one has to be accepted. Not only must one obey rules, but one must meet certain standards. Of health, obviously but depending on the circles in question of wealth and status.
      Dogging is just having sex with strangers, who literally appear out of nowhere or wait in designated areas like vultures.

      Also, in swinging there is a balance between genders in swinging whilst in dogging it’s basically a multitude of men and one woman.

      Note, dogging is as consensual (and legal) as swinging so we will not criticise those who have chosen to engage in it but it’s like comparing Chablis and lobster (swinging) with a glass of water and stale bread (dogging).

      DE F, ‘Anonymous 30 Jul 2018, 18:29:00’ and ’Anonymous 30 Jul 2018, 18:29:00’ (and other very derogatory comments accusing me of being a swinger) have made you “at worst, a bit” in your “at worst, a bit of social embarrassment” statement sound really ridiculous, haven’t they?


    5. (Cont)

      But then you expect people to believe that it makes perfect sense that an accidental sedation, done by a couple of upper-middle class doctors (just wish one of them understood something about sedation, or there was a doctor nearby who did), who inexplicably were able to summon on the next day the British ambassador to the Algarve (and later also show they were able to twist around their little fingers the entire British establishment), would not only be able to silence the result of an eventual autopsy done in one of the hospitals in the Algarve and then because they would lose their jobs because of it, decided to fake an abduction.

      By the way, did you know that recently a young British boy died in the Algarve?
      “GNR police launched a routine investigation but said everything was pointing towards his death being a tragic accident.” We know nothing more of this tragedy, nor do we need to know.

      Does it cross anyone’s mind that however negligent his parents were – and we are not saying they were, just raising the hypothesis to prove a point – they would lose their jobs in the UK?

      Under your non-sensical scenario, unless the McCanns drugged Maddie with the intent to kill, it would have been accidental. A family tragedy and treated as such. With respect by all.

      By the way, when are you thinking of providing us with the evidence that backs up your theory that Maddie died of over-sedation.

      But returning to swinging, would you please answer our “FB Anon”:
      "From NT's blog: 'Here's the thing: this was a massive story which resulted in half the world's press camped on the doorstep for months. Many were from the sort of papers that would pay a fortune for any bit of dirt they could get their hands on. ' Hasn't NT maintained that swinging is no big deal to us Brits - now he's saying that it's a 'bit of dirt that papers would love to get their hands on' So which is it?"

      Why would something that would only cause “at worst, a bit of social embarrassment” be “a massive story which resulted in half the world's press camped on the doorstep for months. Many were from the sort of papers that would pay a fortune for any bit of dirt they could get their hands on”?

    6. NT (at 31 Jul 2018, 10:19:00)

      Like we explain to all our readers, it’s us who determines what we publish, when we publish.

      We will answer Anne’s Guedes questions. But prey tell, in case we may forget to address any issue that you may wish to see clarified, which of Anne Guedes’ questions you wish to see so urgently answered?

      Warning, do not come up with questions of your own using Anne Guedes’ name. Quote her. Tell us, from what she has asked, which ones are, according to you, the pressing ones that urge a reply.

      Any questions of your own, you have had 5 years to put them in your blog.

      Do take into account that Anne Guedes has already stated the following: “You ask what evidence [of swinging] I would expect. I guess that by privacy rule no evidence should be available.”

      If you do not comply, we’re afraid we will have to make you sit in the naughty step and not publish your comment.

      To sum up today’s class, we are expecting from you:

      - Questions from Anne Guedes that you want to see urgently replied;
      - Evidence that stands up in court that backs up your sedation theory;
      - Answer “FB Anon’s” question.

    7. If the Mcs, on one night only, over sedated M and caused her death, they may have received some sympathy. But wouldn’t that be a charge of some form of homicide?

    8. Anonymous 31 Jul 2018, 13:23:00

      One thing is sympathy and respect, another is accountability. There would be sympathy as you say and respect for their pain as we say.

      We have never suggested the McCanns wouldn’t be accountable. Nor are we suggesting the parents of the poor child who died in the pool won’t be accountable of any wrongdoing IF there was any wrongdoing on their part (repeat we have only raised the hypothesis to prove a point), which we truly hope there wasn’t.

      What we know about the pool accident is that the investigation is ongoing. Nothing else. And we say that we don’t, as a society, need to know any further.

      Returning to the McCanns and let’s take aside the fact the British ambassador showed up the next day and supposing they would be a normal couple who had a child die by accident due to over-sedation.

      As the body would then not present major lesions, the authorities would take the body to the local hospital for an autopsy. The normal investigation would start and it would be determined that the cause of death was over-sedation. If the McCanns had confessed outright, saying that it was because she had been a pain during the previous nights and they decided to sedate her that night to get finally a night’s rest, and the drug in question would not be illegal and feasible for the parents to have then the process would run its terms and probably they would be allowed to return to the UK and wait to be called to court where they could be represented by a lawyer.

      All discreet and all according to the law. A small piece on the news and forgotten the next day. No danger whatsoever of loss of job. Only expect a huge wave of solidarity when they returned home from their friends and local community. That’s it.

      Now let’s bring in their power to summon ambassadors. Then, the discretion would be total.

      Note, and this is important, we’re not implying any wrongdoing on the part of the Portuguese authorities. Of the above we’re simply taking off, and even that only possibly, the small piece of news. The investigation would run its terms, the couple would return to the UK and the trial take place without their presence. Not seeing anything different than a suspended sentence for the case. End of it.

      If sedation was the scenario, the above would be what would have happened and the world wouldn’t have known the name of Maddie McCann.

      In our opinion, the problem was that the body presented lesions not explained by a domestic accident. Over-sedation would be a domestic accident.

      With a body with lesions not possible to explain with a domestic accident meant that for things to be discreet they would have to obtain the collaboration of the Portuguese GNR and PJ to overlook what they would have seen and that would not have been a wise thing to ask.

      One of many reasons why the over-sedation scenario is ridiculous. Not even their authors could take it over the first hurdle.

  46. NT, AFTER we refused to accept his white-flag begging (our comment at Textusa 30 Jul 2018, 17:26:00) he has now amended the post:

    “Monday, 30 July 2018
    Announcement [Post title]
    I would just like to make it clear that, while I welcome the exchange of views, I won’t be publishing posts which attack other people who post here, or permit any flaming or forum wars

    I’m not going to make a big thing of it or embarrass anyone. Just bear it in mind, okay?


    Postscript for the hard of thinking.

    Clearly, that was a bit difficult to understand for some. Let's try again.

    Don't start arguments with other posters on here or attack them . When it comes to Textusa, Baldylocks, Turdi or any of the other shysters, fill your boots.”


    The insistence of trying to associate us with Mr Bennett. Trying really hard aren’t they?

    As also “any of the other shysters” are included, all are included.

    So basically, NT likes to do posts about nothing. He will not “permit any flaming or forum wars” with the exception of the all the forum, blog and twitter users that he was engaging into “flaming or forum wars” with.

  47. When someone who is not from the “Lick-spittle gang” comments on NT’s blog, this is what happens. We were going to make some remarks about it but chose to leave it in its pure and original form so readers can savour all, allow them to appreciate all full, to take it all in. Enjoy:

    Anonymous30 July 2018 at 03:17
    So, the doctors must have taken enough sedatives with them from the UK to put a horse to sleep. Correct me if I'm wrong - is Nick saying that they drugged the children every night to make them sleep so they could go out and dine? And what of their 'checking routine.' Was it to make sure the kids were still breathing? What of Maddie crying for hours, according to Mrs Fenn? Perhaps the sedative had worn off and they needed to 'up' the dosage the following night... It's absurd.

    Not Textusa30 July 2018 at 03:53
    Whereas the idea of a wandering abductor knowing the precise dose to keep the twins asleep until morning, AND doing a ‘dry run’ the day before makes perfect sense.....

    Anonymous30 July 2018 at 05:47
    Who said that?

    Nick30 July 2018 at 15:18
    The checks didn't always happen...the group were in kellys after all. Yes i'm saying they were making sure the kids didn't get out of bed. Gerry had tried to negoiate a discount when the holiday was booked as regards to the baby listening service situation at the ocean club. They went with the express idea of leaving the kids alone. Madeleine was said to be a light sleeper...she would have to be kept asleep. Now had it been an abduction or accidental death the tapas 7 had no need to cover for the mc canns...they had to be involved with what was going on. Yes i think the kids were sedated...what on earth in absurd about that when they have an anaethetist in their ranks. Sure has hell makes more sense than swinging. If the scenario i prpose is remotely correct...they all stood to lose their jobs...and potentially their kids. That to me is what the "pact" is about. And i wouldn't be surprised if the pj think the same. Unfortuneately mistakes were made but thats for another discussion another day. Oh and btw anon...kate pushed the dry run theory in madeleine iirc

    Nick30 July 2018 at 15:25
    And just to add they could have taken sedatives with them in any container as long as ot was in hold luggage...where are you getting the "horse" analogy...its small children who need a small dose. Yes i think they went with the intention of sedating their kids and it wouldn't require that much to do it.

    Nick30 July 2018 at 15:27
    Pps anon...yes they upped the dosage the next night imo...with a tragic outcome.

    1. As per your request:

      Anonymous31 Jul 2018, 14:11:00

      I’d like to know what sedatives are being referred to, when Nick says the Mcs took sedatives with them.
      Sedatives that could keep the kids unconscious for hours.
      Surely it wouldn’t just be the McCanns’ 3, as the other tapas children had to be kept from waking.
      Antihistamines could be used to make kids drowsy, but couldn’t be relied on to keep them from waking for the whole evening and sometimes antihistamines have the opposite effect on children.
      My friend was sedated for a major operation recently. He was fully unconscious during the process but was supervised throughout by an anaesthetist. Sedation lasted for about 90 minutes.
      There’s no way, IMO, that doctors would take the risk of using unsupervised sedation for a much longer period, over 4 nights.
      K’s nonsense book does suggest a trial drug run by the “abductor” but she’s just over -egging the pudding IMO.
      I agree with Anne that the twins were probably sedated after M went - in my view, lightly, so they could be handled without being woken, and weren’t left on their own, but I doubt it was any memory - blocking sedation.
      My friend didn’t lose any memory of what happened immediately before or after his operation.
      Compare the 2 scenarios
      They could use the night crèche or pay a nanny to babysit, at no great expense. They were prepared to pay for sports coaching, after all.
      They could plan before they left the U.K. to sedate all the children and leave them unattended, without knowing beforehand whether there was a place to eat within sight of their apartment.
      The sedation theory doesn’t add up to me.

    2. Anonymous 31 Jul 2018, 14:11:00,

      To clarify this you say "They could use the night crèche or pay a nanny to babysit, at no great expense. They were prepared to pay for sports coaching, after all.", the night crèche was FREE:

  48. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

    2. Comments above were transferred as replies to our Textusa 31 Jul 2018, 11:30:00 comment as requested by Anonymous 31 Jul 2018, 14:11:00.

  49. A post on FB from Lesly Frances Finn:
    Aletheia's footsteps for Madeleine McCann

    DO NOT read NotTextusa's blog
    DO NOT comment there if you DO read it
    You will be labelled a Troll
    You will be repeatedly named and accused (as Ben Thomson, Sade Anslow, John Blacksmith, Julie Chrimes, Lesly Frances Finn have)
    You will be labelled as being part of a conspiracy
    You will be accused of being anti-Truth for Madeleine
    Your past posts, comments and/or Tweets will hunted down to be (selectively) used as proof of your unworthiness
    GOOD PEOPLE - Let the following comment carried over from Textusa blog be an example of your fate should you:
    1) Disagree with Textusa
    2) Agree with something that NotTexusa posts on his blog

    Then she published our comment at 19 Jul 2018, 00:19:00 in which we said she was no longer welcome in our blog and why: “By siding with NT you have lost all rights to publish anything in our blog”.

    First, let’s clarify that we have never accused those named (Lesly Frances Finn you forgot to mention Nick – any particular reason?) or anyone of trolling. The rest of the accusations seem appropriate.

    Why are not posting this because of Lesly Frances Finn’s opinion of us. In fact, the more she disses us, the more positive publicity we get.

    The new-found wave of Textusa-dissers forget that NT has an advantage of 10 years over them in trying to put us down, in trying to convince people not to visit our blog but for whatever reason, our 6 readers insist on revisiting us!

    We are posting this because of one person who have liked this post. That person is Cheryl Lavinia Moncrieffe.

    And why?

    Because she, together with Ben Thompson is named as an “Additional researcher” in Sonia Poulton’s video “The McCanns and The Police [Part One]” (at 45:31)

    Until today, we hadn’t heard a single opinion from Cheryl Moncrieffe about the case.

    But today we got to know that Cheryl Moncrieffe, Sonia Poulton’s additional researcher and Ben Thompson’s colleague in the project, is in favour of Lesly Frances Finn’s appeal that people are to avoid reading 'Not Textusa' because of a blog with 3 authors and, at best according to the same 'Not Textusa', 6 readers, may see them do it.

    Isn’t that interesting? We think it is.

    1. Comments on Aletheia’s page:

      “Tracy Mathews: She’s [Textusa] not bonkers & she’s certainly not an idiot. I’d like to see some of those who call her names do even a quarter of the research that she’s done over the years. Textusa doesn’t say these things lightly, they’ve seen firsthand how the opposing side works & tries to discredit them. You have to ask yourself why would they do that? Is it because Textusa is on to the truth & the pros in disguise as the antis want to distract from that at all costs? May I suggest that you read Textusa’s blog as I did to understand the reasons behind what is being said.

      Ben Thompson
      Yes, he [Textusa] is. Clearly you believe the rubbish he says about NT being a pro, NT is an anti, and has been around since day 1. Ask Blacksmith, or many other antis. They see right through the utter nonsense Textusa writes. Tell me, have you ever checked that what they’re saying is the truth, or do you judt take what an anonymous person tells you at face value?
      Textusa is a liar, a fraud, and a devious coward.”


      Ben Thompson,

      In terms of anonymity could you please tell us the difference between Textusa and ‘Not Textusa’?

      Why ”do you just take what an anonymous person tells you at face value” but at the same time don’t take what another anonymous person says if anonymity is so important for you to trust a person?

      Or do you know who NT REALLY is? If so, since when?

    2. The continuing of the debate over at Aletheia’s:

      Tracy Mathews:
      Ben😊 , I don’t need to ask anyone, I have eyes & ears to determine things for myself thanks. I’ve read a lot of Textusa & I have to say what SHE says makes an awful lot of sense to me

      Tracy Mathews:
      Also Ben, what actual evidence do you have that Textusa is a liar, a fraud & a devious coward?

      Ben Thompson:
      Oh capital letter, that must make you right (it definetly doesn’t). Plenty of evidence as it goes.
      [Provides link to NT’s blog]
      I’m not here to spoon feed anyone, you can read or ignore) for yourself – it’s up to you. Unlike Textusa, I certainly won’t be stalking your every comment wherever you may choose to post, copying to it to a tedious list of nonsense, and pretending it’s “very interesting”
      [Provides link to NT’s blog]

      Ben Thompson:
      … and coward, because the devious old goat keeps demanding answers from myself and others, knowing full well they’ve blocked all those they’re making demands of. Where do you suggest we answer these demands?
      Hi Textusa still stalking me I see. Why don’t you tell your readers how you manage that (and why) whilst you have us all blocked?
      I’ll say again for the umpteenth time. If you so desperately want answers, come and get them on an open platform, not your now utterly ridiculous blog.
      It’s a sad old do when you claim to be on holidays, yet all you do is stalk people on the internet.

      Aletheia's footsteps for Madeleine McCann [Lesly Frances Finn]: Tracy Mathews: .... I used to follow Textusa and believed much of what was written there. Then I realised that piece by piece he was systematically demolishing testimony/evidence from the files .... the Tapas table, where the group ate out each night, the circumstances of the Smith sighting, Mrs Fenn's statement, the statement given by a young girl, the creche records,. At times it is very subtle but his dumbing down of PJ investigation while pretending to support Amaral is amazing. But you are free to believe and read wherever you like ..... as are the rest of us. You will not be blocked for disagreeing or voicing your beliefs here as I and others have from Textusa.

    3. Ben Thompson,

      If “Unlike Textusa, I certainly won’t be stalking your every comment wherever you may choose to post” then it seems obvious that the answer to your question “Where do you suggest we answer these demands?” is “wherever you may choose to post” isn’t it?

      We don’t mind or complain people stalking what we say- NT has done it for years and please quote where we have whined about it – because we don’t have any problem in seeing reproduced anywhere what we say. Why should we? Our consciences are clear. You on the other hand seem bothered that we’re reading what you write. Why?

      About you and others being blocked from my FB page, it’s true and inform you that I have blocked and unfriended anyone who has commented in support of NT in Justice for Madeleine FB page. The last time I looked, it was made up of 29 people. 8 are admin, that leaves 21 readers blocked. Out of a group claiming, repeat claiming, to have almost 38K members (remember when you had over 38K?) it seems to us that only an insignificant percentage of your members support you supporting NT.

      If those 21 readers represent a majority, then we think the almost 38K figure needs revision…

      Please quote us where we have said we were on holiday.

    4. Lesly Frances Finn,

      Please state SPECIFICALLY what you disagree with what we have SAID (you just have to quote us) in any of the following subjects you state clearly that we have “systematically” demolished:
      - the Tapas table, where the group ate out each night;
      - the circumstances of the Smith sighting;
      - Mrs Fenn's statement;
      - the statement given by a young girl;
      - the creche records.

      “You [Tracy Mathews] will not be blocked for disagreeing or voicing your beliefs here as I and others have from Textusa”, pity that from your moral clay pedestal you didn’t remember to mention the fact that Justice for Madeleine have deleted all our posts there. We are very glad they did, just highlighting your double standards.

  50. Hi Textusa, I really enjoy your blog and I hope you resume business as usual soon. There are some unsavory characters that's for sure but isn't a pissing contest exactly what they want? Regards, Jane.

    1. Jane Cook,

      Thank you for enjoying our blog!

      We wouldn’t use the expression you used to describe what we consider to be the exposure of people who have been deceiving others for years about the Maddie case.

      You just have to read what Lesly Frances Finn has accused us of doing and which we have assumed that we have:
      “You will be labelled as being part of a conspiracy
      You will be accused of being anti-Truth for Madeleine
      Your past posts, comments and/or Tweets will hunted down to be (selectively) used as proof of your unworthiness”

      The process of curing a disease is always unpleasant, especially when it has been for years allowed to settle and spread.

      You evidently may not agree with our methodology. But as the Portuguese, as one cannot “please both Greeks and Trojans” we can only appease our consciences and trust our instincts and follow the path we feel we should and that is the path we will follow.

      If you note, you continue to deal with the facts of the case. We are discussing the FACTS that contradict the sedation theory without having to resort to insult or abusive language (yes, we have recently used a strong-language acronym – WBM – but we simply returned it to its sender, Nick/Anon). We have answered ALL our questions and those we have not we have noted them and promised to return to them. And we will.

      You may not yet fully comprehend the importance it has for the case the fact that the NT blog has been rebranded. He, and his higher echelon wanted it to be rebranded as a credible anti – for that they relied on the help of the Justice for Madeleine FB group – and we have been able to rebrand it into the new JATYK.

      Those familiar with the case will know exactly what we mean. ’JATYK by bb1’ bashed (or bashes?) Sr Amaral. ‘JATYK by NT’ bashes us. The style is similar. Empty, hollow, filled with angry and foul language, demanding but never providing, repeating, repeating and repeating that we have lied but never providing where we lied.

      Has JATYK/bb1 affected in any way Sr Amaral’s credibility? No, no matter how hard they tried. Why? Reason was on his side.

      As we said, curing a disease is always unpleasant but fortunately our 6 readers seem to continue to accept and approve our tactics. Interestingly, the readership of the blog has increased lately.

      About the comments we bring over, it’s simply to show the hypocrisy of our critics. We does not cross our minds to convince those who we know don’t want to be convinced. But that doesn’t stop us from bringing over snippets of the hypocrisy of the like the Lion King’s hyenas are giggling and patting themselves when talking not only between themselves but only to themselves.

      Lastly, we ask you that you or any other readers don’t use any urinary analogies in our blog. We prefer to leave the acute urological problem that seems to be happening over at NT, there. Whatever of that nature happens in NT, we prefer that it stays in NT.

    2. Thank you Textusa - I think my comment may have been lost in translation! A 'pissing contest' is a figure of speech and it really means if someone is childish and egotistical there's no point in engaging with them because they'll simply keep trying to 'piss' higher and higher and on it goes... I take your point, you have to stand up to bullies but there are people who really just want to disrupt and it's hard to know how to handle them without falling into the 'pissing contest' trap. Apologies for the repetion of the metaphor and good luck to you, you really have done a good job of bringing the injustice of this case to a wide audience - and there's the rub!

  51. Well done NT!

    You have been a good boy!

    We said in our comment at 31 Jul 2018, 12:31:00:
    “To sum up today’s class, we are expecting from you [NT]:
    - Questions from Anne Guedes that you want to see urgently replied;
    - Evidence that stands up in court that backs up your sedation theory;
    - Answer “FB Anon’s” question.

    NT has answered FULLY and OBJECTIVELY to what was required from him concerning the first request. From his blog:
    “The question
    From Anne Gueddes
    [quoting the blog] Have you an idea of the number of people who are "in the know"? (not including you since your hypothesis is based on no evidence, afaik)
    Your site has more than 3 millions visitors. How many of them, according to you, visit your site because they share your conviction? [end of quote]”

    We are rather disappointed that these are the questions that NT thinks need an urgent and pressing reply but we respect that they are. We should always encourage good behaviour.

    So let’s make a deal. We PROMISE you NT that we will stop whatever topic we will be discussing at the moment to answer the questions above from Anne Guedes FULLY and OBJECTIVELY but only after you finish today’s homework and reply FULLY and OBJECTIVELY to the other 2 things that were required from you:
    - Evidence that stands up in court that backs up your sedation theory;
    - Answer “FB Anon’s” question.

    Until you do that, we will answer those questions – because we will – when we feel we should. Meanwhile, we will maintain the ship on the course we have set.

    1. Let me add, in order to perhaps clarify things, that if, concerning the swinging, I need some detail supporting it, it is as the nails' mark Thomas required to believe. Nevertheless I'd be gobsmacked.
      But once in my life I observed "with my own eyes" that something I couldn't believe was real. I never forgot it and it has helped me to keep always an open mind.
      Now it seems to me that there are 2 different swinging situations. One within the group (that possibly could explain the disposal of the body, due to family's reactions) and one among people present in PdL for those activities.
      The first would be more plausible than the second imo.

    2. I am one of the many visitors to Texusa’s blog. Textusa has no way of knowing what my conviction is! Nor has s/he asked. What i can tell you is that I will continue to read this blog because it is the only one, as far I see that actually addresses points/issues that I see as relevant/important to me, answering in full, with arguments for and against the points/issues raised. It’s methodical and well reasoned. Whether I agree fully or partially is irrespective. The blog is a great source of gaining information.

    3. I asked for a feeling, of course, not a survey. It would be interesting to know which are the "addressed points/issues that you see as relevant/important to you, answering in full etc."

      So you visit Textusa's blog to gain information, not to attend controversial debates ?

    4. AnneGuedes,

      As we published Anonymous 1 Aug 2018, 14:06:00 at the same time as your comment at 1 Aug 2018, 13:38:00, very much doubt that that s/he was addressing you.

    5. And Anne Guedes,

      When controversial debates provide information, are they or not a valid reason to come here?

    6. Controversial debates provide food for thought, not information, imo.

  52. Over on the locked ward, Not Treatable and his explosive experts have cracked open an old box of fireworks. Squibs to be precise. It's raining hard. They try to ignite the damp fuses using a clapped-out Zippo, lob them over an imaginary wall or find a crack in the window pane to shove them through. Of course, most of the fireworks never ignite, some even explode in their hands. But that, too, is satisfying for these inmates. They guffaw, giggle and curse as they return to their dark corners. The night closes in. Somewhere, in the darkness, there's a muffled cry.

  53. In the Aletheia’s FB thread (a very interesting thread indeed), Mr Ben Thompson makes a very serious accusation:

    “Ben Thompson:
    What do you make of Textusa thinking it's ok to hit kids, in fact no, what do you make of Textusa encouraging it?”


    Mr Ben Thompson,

    Please quote us where you have said that “it's ok to hit kids” and quote us where we have encouraged it.

    If you fail to provide it (in whatever platform of your choice including ours) you confirm that you are a liar that will stoop as low as use lies about violence against children to achieve your goals whatever they may be.

    To the rest of readers, please don’t worry that this does not offend us – those offended by ridiculous accusations are ridiculous themselves – but please don’t discard this as a vulgar and disgusting insult from a vulgar and disgusting individual.

    This is the typical use of what today is known as “fake news”. It doesn’t matter if it’s true or not, it only matters is that it is uttered.

    Coming back to a newcomer arriving and reading such a vile accusation and on witnessing the flock of supporters sticking behind Ben Thompson where this was written, what would s/he think of Textusa, Ben Thompson and the debate around the Maddie case online?

    The aggressiveness, the rudeness, the vileness all have a very clear objective. As Joyousb90 has so well succinctly put it:
    “Joyce B 💚‏ @Joyousb90
    Replying to @TheBunnyReturns @GlynisWinestein @zampos
    Its the downright bloody rudeness in some of these replies that make me, and others, hesitant to ask questions or comment!!!
    10:24 am - 28 Jul 2018”

    We, as readers know, just kick off the abuse to the side and continue walking our path.

    Do provide the proof to back up the vile accusation you have made against us, Mr Ben Thompson.

  54. Why give so much importance to nobodies like Ben and Lesly?

    1. Anonymous 1 Aug 2018, 19:54:00,

      Thank you for the question.

      We think that at this point in time we can clarify a little of where we are heading with our ship with what has been called “controversial” debate.

      Ben Thompson is the flagship of a FB group that, as we have repeatedly stated claims to have almost 37,441 members (very recently they were well over 38,000).

      It doesn’t matter whether it’s a real number or made up of bought fake profiles, it’s unquestionable that it’s an impressive number. It impresses any newcomer. If they search Maddie case related groups, there’s this group that stands out with that number of members.

      Ben Thompson is named as an additional researcher in Sonia Poulton’s recent video.

      Sonia Poulton’s video, is basically – not only as we’ll point out soon – a mouthpiece for Colin Sutton on social media.

      Colin Sutton who has had the national media’s ears, both newspapers and TV.

      Colin Sutton who disses Operation Grange and pressures for the Met to question the McCanns, we believe knowingly aware that it will kill any prosecution of the case in Portugal.

      Both dissing the Met and pressuring the questioning of the McCanns have the same objective: archive the case.

      Colin Sutton who has publicly said that the parents had nothing to do with Maddie’s disappearance and that the Morocco lead should be followed.

      Colin Sutton who said on TV that “we put in there…” when speaking about the contents of the CEOP report, apparently assuming he co-authored it.

      If he didn’t co-author, then it was clear by the way he spoke about its content he was familiar with it. That would mean that someone (please don’t forget we think he from CEOP shared the report with him.

      Colin Sutton was the name who Jim Gamble knew in 2010 - even before Theresa May was Home Secretary - that would head the review on Maddie’s case, the review that would be Operation Grange.

      Jim Gamble was in CEOP not the Met, and certainly wasn’t a senior Met police officer but Colin Sutton says it was Met officer who warned him about the future review.

      Are all the pieces fitting? To us, they do.

      Now place NT/Walker/Bale and Blacksmith between Sutton and Poulton and that’s what we think the food chain looks like – note, we are leaving many names out, but we are currently only showing this particular section of it. And of this section we will show other names.

      As far as we could ascertain, Lesly Frances Finn is just a fierce foot-soldier and only her conscience can answer why she’s so engaged in blocking the truth.

      Summing up, Ben Thompson is indeed an attention-seeker and we agree with you that he’s just a small cog in the machine.

      But a machine is made up of cogs, and it’s from these small pieces that one has to unravel all so that the engine can be understood.

      In this instance, the machine being the campaign that was launched in the summer of last year but was really set to go after Nigel Nessling’s sentencing.

      It stumbled on that major obstacle that was Gemma O’Doherty’s article.

      We like to think that we’ve stopped this campaign growing legs.

  55. From the Aletheia’s FB thread (a very interesting thread indeed):

    “Aileen Peebles:
    Just to be very clear....I support Textusa 100% and question those who do not without being able to provide any counter argument. As Gerry said "" confusion is good". Those who seek a simple solution to a complex situation are being at best unrealistic and at worse complicit.

    Ben Thompson:
    Yes, for Textusa. You say you support him 100%, that much is obvious given the fact you run tittle tattling. If you actually read the Not Textusa blog, they DO provide a counter argument. Problem is, you don't want to accept the fact that the megalomaniac is wrong on many many things. Do not forget, Textusa started all this with his false outings of others. You can, as I'm sure you'll pass all this on, tell Textusa that he can demand answers from all those he attacks as much as he wants, but how are any of us to reply when we're blocked from every platform they use?

    You're being conned by the lunatic. By the way, Gerry didn't say "confusion is good", ask your pal.”


    “Do not forget, Textusa started all this with his false outings of others.”

    We are supposing that this matches up with what Ben Thompson has said on NT’s blog at 22 July 2018 at 15:19:

    “NT, you're absolutely correct. Textusa promoted you as the devil incarnate for so long, when all you'd actually done is laid out their lies for all to see. It was indeed her totally incorrect "outing" of you that caused Textusa's own problems. Only recently they admitted they "didn't care" that I was right when I told them, in private and POLITELY (there's a clue there to one of your lies Text) that they were wrong. I'm in no doubt they already knew they were wrong, but simply couldn't cope with the fact that more than one person didn't worship the ground they walked on, and so, they set about amalgamating all their critics into one super hater.”

    In other words, the Orlov episode.

    In the episode in which, after Walkercan1000 saw he’s account suspended (another tweeter reported the account but we think the mistake of posting private info too obvious to be a mistake), we thought that the Meerkat was the new NT twitter account. Then, Ben Thompson waltzed into my FB PM to say something. We say “something” because it’s important to understand that it was and is taken as a mere “something”. We confirm that this “something” was indeed Ben Thompson trying to tell me that Orlov was not NT.

    It was not Ben Thompson who made us correct our hand on the Meerkat. It was someone who we respect and respects us who informed us.

    Immediately, by the importance given to the Meerkat, a character no one had ever heard of before – we were told that he has been around for years but only sticks his head out from time to time – shows very clearly that using him to justify whatever is simply grasping at straws. When Meercat writes absurd and ridiculous things expecting others to believe in them, it can only be considered to be disrespectful of the intelligence of one’s readers. Orlov has absolutely no importance and to give him any other than the one he has is simply the attempt to create an alternate and convenient reality.

    As said, when Ben Thompson barged into my PM, for me he was there to tell me something and I didn’t care what that something was. To be clear. If Ben Thompson had been there to confirm that Orlov was indeed NT, I would have had the exact same reaction. As I have defied him and will defy him again, he can quote the words I said from that private conversation that I didn’t believe that Orlov was not NT. Go on, Ben Thompson prove to the world that I was really upset and refused to grasp the fact that I was wrong about Orlov being or not NT.


  56. (Cont)

    Like we said in our comment to tell Lesly Frances Finn to go comment somewhere else at 19 Jul 2018, 00:19:00: “Like we didn’t care that it was correct what Ben Thompson was trying to tell us (that Orlov was not NT) when he barged arrogantly into my PM under some sort of assumption that he was entitled to abuse and the abused was supposedly to feel privileged to have been abused by him.”

    But very important in the comment above is that Ben Thompson, after accusing us of having lied multiple times in the comment we made to Lesly Frances Finn and being defied to produce them lists ONE of the many alleged lies: “in private and POLITELY (there's a clue there to one of your lies Text)”. According to Ben Thompson we lied when we said “he barged arrogantly into my PM”.

    Now, as the readers know, we have repeatedly asked for our critics to list our lies. Up to now, only Sade Anslow has listed one: we saying that NT was Walkercan1000. Now we have Ben Thompson listing another: he didn’t barge in arrogantly into my PM, he did it politely.

    Both issues - us having the opinion that NT is Walker and Ben’s Thompson’s politeness – are, as the reader is aware of critical importance to the case. NOT.

    Let’s see who the liar is then, Mr Ben Thompson. This is what we said at 8 Apr 2018, 00:37:00 (our caps):
    “Today, Mr Thompson, after having dissed and supporting the insult, decided today to go to into my PM on FB, POLITELY AS HE STATES, and start to talk to me as if he hadn’t been part of the needless dissing, as usual on length and writing style.”

    Let we not only recognise that Mr Ben Thompson was polite as we will add that he was friendly, even very friendly.

    In fact Mr Ben Thompson has chosen to out his exact words when barging into my PM in a comment in our blog at 9 Apr 2018, 16:50:00:
    "Hi. Firstly, how are you? Well I hope.
    Just been reading your latest blog. I see you've come to the conclusion that Alexsander Orlov "the meerkat" on Twitter, is the Insane character. I can guarantee 100% that they're not. I've known the person behind the meerkat acct for over 4 years. I've spoken to them personally, worked with them, and know exactly who they are. I'm sure you'll understand me keeping their identity to myself, as I'm not one to break a confidence. I thought it best to pm though, as I don't want to get involved in a public debate over it. Just hope you take me at my word, and correct the misinfo."

    Very friendly indeed as can be seen and we have never denied. Is this in conflict with us saying that he barged arrogantly? No, on the contrary, it only confirms the arrogance as this friendliness came after he had advised the readers of the Justice for Madeleine FB group that it was a waste of time to read us.

    Such duplicity, not only shows arrogance, or as we said in “some sort of assumption that he was entitled to abuse and the abused [me] was supposedly to feel privileged to have been abused by him”, as it shows how treacherous and shameless this character is.

    Want to know another person who also barged politely, friendly and arrogantly into my PM on FB after having insulted us on Justice for Madeleine FB group? Lesly Frances Finn. Like with Mr Ben Thompson, we told her then that we were not interested in hearing whatever she intended to tell us, true or not.

    What would we like the reader to retain from this other than the duplicitous nature of Ben Thompson? The Orlov incident. It happened at 9 Apr 2018, 16:50:00, two months after Gemma Doherty published her article. Do remember that date.

    Orlov has no importance but it turns out to that the Orlov incident has. For starters, it was when Ben Thompson says “Textusa started all this with his false outings of others”

    ‘Orlov’, ‘Not Textusa’ and ‘Walkercan1000’ are all anonymous characters. We are still to understand who we are outing.

    1. "Very friendly indeed as can be seen and we have never denied. Is this in conflict with us saying that he barged arrogantly? No, on the contrary, it only confirms the arrogance as this friendliness came after he had advised the readers of the Justice for Madeleine FB group that it was a waste of time to read us.

      Such duplicity, not only shows arrogance, or as we said in “some sort of assumption that he was entitled to abuse and the abused [me] was supposedly to feel privileged to have been abused by him”, as it shows how treacherous and shameless this character is."

      You have just confirmed that he was telling the truth, though. He wasn't abusive, you were.

    2. Anonymous 2 Aug 2018, 03:06:00,

      Before we reply in full, could you please tell us where we have said that Mr Ben Thompson was abusive in the private conversation which we have named as "the Orlov incident"?

      Thank you.

    3. I'm not going to play word games with you
      "“Like we didn’t care that it was correct what Ben Thompson was trying to tell us (that Orlov was not NT) when he barged arrogantly into my PM under some sort of assumption that he was entitled to abuse and the abused was supposedly to feel privileged to have been abused by him.”

      "barged arrogantly" "Entitled to abuse"

      I'm not prepared to argue over semantics. The message seems perfectly polite and calm, but you created quite a different impression.

      I have to be honest, I can see why he is upset, and I'm finding your comments really nasty

    4. My understanding is that Mr. Thompson dismissed/ridiculed Textusa's blog as 'not worth reading' then sometime later privately contacted Textusa to 'politely' point out that such-and-such was not such-and-such and could Textusa please correct this assumption on her blog. So, Textusa is meant to thank Mr. Thompson for this correction, knowing that Mr. Thompson has been more that vitriolic towards her blog. Are we being serious?

    5. Anonymous 2 Aug 2018, 03:06:00 and at 11:08:00,

      "The message seems perfectly polite and calm". Disagree totally. It doesn't seem. It IS. As we said, friendly, very friendly. Only way too friendly for someone who had previously abused and sponsored abuse against the blog.

      "I'm finding your comments really nasty". Oh, you misread! It wasn't us who said "What do you make of Textusa thinking it's ok to hit kids, in fact no, what do you make of Textusa encouraging it?" (we have still to read anywhere on what basis he has made this nasty - to be polite - accusation), it was Mr Ben Thompson.

  57. 23 hours ago:

    Aletheia's footsteps for Madeleine McCann [Lesly Frances Finn] : Tracy Mathews .... I used to follow Textusa and believed much of what was written there. Then I realised that piece by piece he was systematically demolishing testimony/evidence from the files .... the Tapas table, where the group ate out each night, the circumstances of the Smith sighting, Mrs Fenn's statement, the statement given by a young girl, the creche records,. At times it is very subtle but his dumbing down of PJ investigation while pretending to support Amaral is amazing. But you are free to believe and read wherever you like ..... as are the rest of us. You will not be blocked for disagreeing or voicing your beliefs here as I and others have from Textusa.

    Just now:

    Aletheia's footsteps for Madeleine McCann: People are free to support Textusa's theories if they wish, but they are not endorsed here.

    Aletheia's footsteps for Madeleine McCann: Tracy Matthews has been banned from the page. Please take your personal grievances about other posters elsewhere. Any more will result in further bans. Thank you.


    Did not see any comment from Tracy Matthews on that thread that was not polite.


    1. Aletheia's footsteps for Madeleine McCann [Lesly Frances Finn]: Textusa has taken it upon himself to re-post everything that I say here on this blog. That tells you something I am sure.


      Let's think what other site re-posts everything that we say here on this blog and that Lesly Frances Finn is not only fine with it as she fully supports... anyone has a clue?

      Something we are sure would tell readers loads about it.

  58. Before Ben started a gender war with you, without respecting the wish of many, including those of his own group, to anonymise themselves as they need, he should have made sure that nobody in his own group in a similar position would be embarrassed by his performance.

  59. Anonymous 2 Aug 2018, 03:06:00 and at 11:08:00,We feel it’s our duty to explain the reason why we used the following words: “when he [Mr Ben Thompson] barged arrogantly into my PM under some sort of assumption that he was entitled to abuse and the abused was supposedly to feel privileged to have been abused by him”.

    First, it must be clear that “The Orlov incident” is only of public knowledge because of Mr Ben Thompson. Like we said in a comment in our post “The ambush”:

    “Textusa has left a new comment on your post "The ambush":
    We only spoke out because Ben put it on twitter.
    Public attacks can only be defended publicly.
    We had no wish to make it public.
    Please ask Ben to share the exchange with you privately with our blessing and so you can see the context of the exchange before you make any judgement.
    We also give our blessing to him to show the PM to his admin team.
    Posted by Textusa to Textusa at 8 Apr 2018, 10:58:00”

    How unpleasant it may have been, if Mr Ben Thompson had not decided to take to Twitter and reveal publicly parts of a private conversation, things would have ended when we both logged off that particular conversation.

    In the post “The ambush” we published a series of comments where we transcribed what had been commented about our posts in the Justice for Madeleine FB group.

    We deleted those comments and justified with the following:

    “Textusa8 Apr 2018, 23:40:00
    In response to an unpublished comment received we have decided to delete the conversations of those criticising us as we don’t want cause them embarrassment by publishing their comments on our blog.
    Whether they choose to retain them on the group is up to them.”

    As readers know, that FB not only decided to delete our posts from there, promote there NT’s blog and some of their most relevant admin and members went over to NT to support him openly.

    Also, please note that it seems that Mr Ben Thompson is taking the burden of being accused alone. That would be unfair to him as he was far from being the only one abusing the blog on that FB group.

    From all of the above, we have decided to resurrect the posts that we deleted. These had as an introductory comment the following comment, not deleted:

    “Textusa has left a new comment on your post "The ambush":

    This comment is informative.

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

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

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

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

    Posted by Textusa to Textusa at 8 Apr 2018, 13:03:00”

    1. Recovered reply #1 on comments made on JFM FB page to Textusa’s posts:

      “Textusa has left a new comment on your post "The ambush":

      Our friend could not find our post “Sutton is the name, meddling is the game”

      We will leave it up to the readers to decide the reasons for this having been – if indeed it did as it could be our friend who was simply unable to find it.

      Posted by Textusa to Textusa at 8 Apr 2018, 13:04:00”

    2. Recovered reply #2 on comments made on JFM FB page to Textusa’s posts:

      “Textusa has left a new comment on your post "The ambush":

      To the post “Very Important concessions”:

      Martina McCosker
      Phew, a bit long winded, do we really need to read all that to get to your conclusion? a couple of sentences could have explained your point . maybe it’s just me, way too much to digest, my brain is aching

      Ben Thompson (ADMIN)
      I’m not even going to bother. I’ve had a scan and the weekly obsession with Walker is a complete turn-off. Total waste of time, and exactly what they want. Disappointing.

      [Insertion: Deleted comment from Lesly Frances Finn (this was what was in the initial screengrabs and no longer in the most recent ones:

      Lesly Frances Finn
      Nothing has convinced me as yet:
      a) That OC were hosting a ‘swinging’ week,
      b) that OC did everything they could to hide this including messing with the creche records and guest booking forms
      c) that the Tapas group did not eat at the Tapas bar that week except on 3rd of May
      d) that on other nights they used professional baby sitter and ate downtown.
      e) that the group only ate at the Tapas bar once, on 3rd May to strengthen the ‘neglect’ story to explain Maddie’s disappearance
      and, last but certainly not least,
      f) that Gerry walked the streets that night carrying a LIVE child.
      So there’s no hope for me really is there? (sunglasses emoticon)
      Lynn Gilbert I agree with you on every…
      Lilith Evony I though I was the only on…
      Karen Johnston Thank you that now I …

      End of insertion]

      Paul Rees (ADMIN)
      I have to admit some confusion here. I believe Gemma is to write further articles about Madeleine’s disappearance, so why is her first piece being torn apart for perceived omissions without knowing what she will be covering in future?

      Paul Rees (ADMIN)
      Thank you Leslu (smiling emoticon) (thumbs up emoticon)

      I have to agree Lesly. The very same people who crow about nobody in the public eye taking this case on, are the first to tear anyone down who does. I’ll be honest, like you, I’m sure the only thing we took from her 1st article was the wonderful news that Gemma had spoken to Martin Smith and that his stance regarding his statement hadn’t changed. THAT, was very important, certainly not for me, but to many who perhaps were only accustomed to the usual spiel from the MSM, it was perhaps predictable, and correct, that she start with basics.
      I’m not about to be so naïve as to expect anything groundbreaking with assured confidence, but I’m certainly not going to pull Gemma down before she’s finished

      Christine Smith
      Agree Ben. People like Gemma, Colin Sutton and Sonia Poulton should be encouraged and supported and I believe the Smith sighting is important. The McCanns were desperate to play it down

      Ben Thompson (ADMIN)
      They absolutely should, Chrisine, Instead we’ve seen them attacked relentlessly, some far worse than others

      Bohden Chalawaka (ADMIN)
      I agree regarding Gemma uncovering the true about BBC covering up Smith sighting, which is effectively what they did, covered it up. It’s a huge step forward and this sighting out of all the supposed sightings is the one that should be thoroughly looked into. And further questions need to be asked as to who instructed the BBC to release false I formation and why.


      Posted by Textusa to Textusa at 8 Apr 2018, 13:04:00”

    3. Recovered reply #3 on comments made on JFM FB page to Textusa’s posts:

      “Textusa has left a new comment on your post "The ambush":

      (Cont comments on post “Very Important concessions”)

      Martina McCosker
      Equivalent of counting sheep…. (sleeping emoticon)

      Netty Estelle
      I literally can’t even

      Janette Bisrtwitle Lee
      I am a fan of Textusa and an avid reader of their blog – sometimes I have to re-read an article as they can sometimes be very detailed but they are also very informative. The writers of the of the blog are committed to outing the truth

      (Here was a comment from Lesly Frances Finn which has been deleted but if memory serves me right, she said that she also used to like to read Textusa but…)

      Paul Rees (ADMIN)
      Ain’t that the truth!

      Sade Anslow (ADMIN)
      Now I’ve read it, I’ll put my two pence in if I may (smiling emoticon)
      First of all I don’t see Gemma or her intentions being slated or put down here, in fact Textusa has gone to some effort to stress the very opposite.
      It is – as anyone familiar with the blog will know – Textusa’s belief that nothing in the media to do with the Maddie case is ever accidental, and that the driving forces behind the MSM tennis games are political (as we knw the very reason McCanns walk free today is political). In fact that stands for any decision made or not made in the case I think.
      So its not too crazy to consider whether Gemma has been leaned on in any way as this is what’s expected. And I don’t think that says anything about a person at all – certainly not a in a negative way so if Gemma was leaned on, all the more credit for her for continuing, albeit probably not to the level she herself would have liked.
      Analysis is not my strong point, but reading comprehension is, so yes I can see from Textusa’s analysis both Gemma’s and Walker’s tweets that it’s entirely possible something changed.
      That’s as far as I can go with it, because I don’t understand politics enough to pretend to have a clue.
      That being said, it is definitely huge that we’ve finally had confirmation that Martin Smith never changed his mind about the man he saw being Gerry McCann, and that the BBC lied about that. Conceded or not, it’s information that needed to be put out there, and if that was the only snippet Gemma was allowed I’d say it’s a job well done

      Kirstie Murray (ADMIN)
      Excellent analysis Sade, I think your right, Textusa does state many times that she does not disagree or criticise Gemma, but she has demonstrated through very detailed analysis of the tweets that something changed and based on past precedent it is not out to the realms of possibility that someone has leaned on her, but still she achieved something by establishing the Smith sighting at the forefront and remains independent and unchanged, and the BBC have admitted they made an error. (This is a pretty big breakthrough to get them to admit anything) look forward to seeing what else Gemma has in store for us and good for her taking this on.
      Certain parts of it I did confuse me. Especially adding in Ireland has Brexit but yes I would say it’s a political mess. This part is so sad. I wish Madeleine wasn’t constantly used by the establishment as a pawn. It is really simple - a little girl is at the heart of this and she needs justice.
      Overall it was interesting but a long and detailed read and parts of it I don’t follow but left wondering what happened between her tweets on the 7th - 28 Jan.


      Posted by Textusa to Textusa at 8 Apr 2018, 13:05:00”

    4. Recovered reply #4 on comments made on JFM FB page to Textusa’s posts:

      “Textusa has left a new comment on your post "The ambush":

      (Cont comments on post “Very Important concessions”)

      Sade Anslow (ADMIN)
      The bottom line of that I think is that Walker put out a tweet of the make up photo, seen as a warning, and from then Gemma's tweets changed, and the article didn't 'live up to' what the tweets had teased.
      But given the choice, would it really have been better to see the dogs mentioned, or anything else over the Smith revelation? If you look at the Panorama, they "debunked" that and everything else didn't they. Whereas with this, this is not only new, but the very opposite of what Panorama put out. So Gemma's debunked them right back, and they couldn't contest it. They had to correct it.

      Kirstie Murray (ADMIN)
      Excellent point Sade, you break it down in such a logical way! Thank you! I would like to see their discrediting of the dogs corrected too though. One thing at a time I guess!

      Paul Rees (ADMIN)
      Splendid posts Sade and Kirstie (similing emoticon) (thumbs up emoticon)

      I echo your praise, Paul, I can’t pretend to understand all I read on Textusa but do believe their intentions are good. Kind regards.

      Paul Rees (ADMIN)
      My fog is clearing (laughing emoticon)

      (Here was a comment from Lesly Frances Finn which was deleted and in which she said that her fog was being cleared too)

      Paul Rees (ADMIN)
      These two are now our Textusa translators when it gets too tricky Lesly (similing emoticon) (thumbs up emoticon)

      Posted by Textusa to Textusa at 8 Apr 2018, 13:05:00"

    5. Recovered reply #5 on comments made on JFM FB page to Textusa’s posts:

      “Textusa has left a new comment on your post "The ambush":

      To the post “The paedo-offensive”:

      No comments

      Posted by Textusa to Textusa at 8 Apr 2018, 13:06:00”

    6. Recovered reply #6 on comments made on JFM FB page to Textusa’s posts:

      “Textusa has left a new comment on your post "The ambush":

      To the post “The Pool Photo”:

      Maria Mc Cabe
      I didn’t realise it was that hot and sunny in late April in PdL? Hot enough for a dip in the pool?? Really?

      Posted by Textusa to Textusa at 8 Apr 2018, 13:07:00”

    7. Recovered reply #7 on comments made on JFM FB page to Textusa’s posts:

      Textusa has left a new comment on your post "The ambush":

      To the post “The ambush”:

      Lesly Frances Finn
      Having read the opening ‘stanza’ to this latest operatic work I have no intention of reading any further. With all due respect I am happy to be labelled among the stupid ones and have done with it.

      Vick Robertson
      Just one word… Logorrhea

      Karen Johnston
      (Image of boy sleeping over a computer, snot coming out of nose and drooling)

      Karen Johnston
      (Rolling eyes emoticon) Well I never how did Gez know someone was to leave the bar, he didn’t have the time to hang around & and he might have been there all night, especially waiting for a Irishman come out the pub (hand on chin emoticon) (LOL emoticon) Sorry for generalising but it is a joke & and my Dad was from NI

      Jackie Hankinson
      Gerry & CO had very recently visited Ireland before that holiday

      Sharon Wheatley (ADMIN)
      Who’s Insane

      Ben Thompson (ADMIN)
      Definitely NOT the Meerkat on Twiiter, I messaged textusa to let them know that they were incorrect about this, and was told “you know fuck all”. Well I do know, as do many others, so textusa can take their ego, their superior mind, and carry on peddling lies
      I won’t be posting or promoting your obsessive misinfo here again, Another ego maniac who can’t admit they’re wrong, and thinks everyone else is an idiot.

      Lilith Evony
      Textusa seem to have really gone way over the top and this latest missive is another example of getting nowhere fast….. I have stopped reading their blog, call it what you will, since they seemed to have gone towards the pro side recently…… Thanks for kicking them into touch

      Posted by Textusa to Textusa at 8 Apr 2018, 13:07:00”

    8. Above all recovered comments. From then on we don’t know on what date, all Textusa related posts have been deleted from this FB group.

      The chronology of events:

      On Feb 09 we published “Sutton is the name, meddling is the game” (NOT promoted on JFM FB group – why?)

      On Feb 16 we published “Very Important concessions”

      On Mar 2 we published “The paedo-offensive”

      On Mar 9 we published “Panorama or Propaganda?” (NOT promoted on JFM FB group – why?)

      On Mar 12 we published “Why?” (NOT promoted on JFM FB group – why?)

      On Mar 16 we published “28 Questions” (NOT promoted on JFM FB group – why?)

      On Mar 23 we published “The Pool Photo”

      On Apr 06 we published “The ambush”

      On Apr 09 “the Orlov incident” happened.

      Please read in the recovered comments. All before “the Orlov incident”.

      If Justice for Madeleine FB group supported our blog, then the question “who needs enemies when you have friends like this?” is totally befitting.

      Ben Thompson himself, but also as an admin of said group, promoted and helped promote the dissing and the abuse against the blog.

      Note, we are no whining, simply explaining from where the abuse that we complain about has come from.

      After the above happening for 2 months, the fact that he went into my FB PM all very friendly and polite, we having said “when he barged arrogantly into my PM under some sort of assumption that he was entitled to abuse and the abused was supposedly to feel privileged to have been abused by him” is FULLY justified

      For what we care, they can continue with their choice of dissing and abusing the blog there. It’s their right and one we absolutely respect and don’t complain. Our only attitude was to leave the group where we felt we were not welcomed.

      However, what we cannot accept is someone who participated the hate-fest above, to have the self-audacity, the arrogance and the shamelessness to write the following:

      “Pseudo Nym has left a new comment on your post "The ambush":

      Text, we supported you week in week out, always promoting your blogs, and giving members the option to read them, we did that for four long years. Not everyone in the group agreed with all that you wrote, many won't have even clicked the link, as happens with all blogs, but we supported you, and your right to be heard. Until last night, I even promoted your blog on my own.
      9 Apr 2018, 16:50:00”

      If we were so promoted, why weren’t the following posts, promoted in that FB group?

      “Sutton is the name, meddling is the game”

      “Panorama or Propaganda?”


      “28 Questions”

    9. It’s like we’ll promote you (and you should be grateful) or we’ll diss you and be grateful for that too. In other words we can dip in and out when we choose, finding it serious or amusing when the mood takes us. (This we call searching for the truth).

    10. We would like to make it clear that the criticism from comments above from the Justice for Madeleine had no weight in our judgement to include Ben Thompson and the Justice for Madeleine FB group in the “food-chain” we described in our reply to Anonymous 1 Aug 2018, 19:54:00.

      If we did that, it would mean we were making things personal and that would not be acceptable.

      We’re human and evidently it’s not pleasant to read unpleasant things about us but, probably due to 10 years of NT trying, we have developed a thick skin to evil and meaningless criticism.

      What has made us include them in that food-chain are:

      - the posts that were not published, do open them and compare their content with the “food-chain” and try to understand the reason why they were not promoted on that FB page;

      - the Sonia Poulton video, which we recommend readers to revisit and watch it attentively;

      - the relationship between this group and NT, when it’s said it happens;

      - the reasons stated by some members of the FB in question for falling out with our blog and have nothing to do with the comments above;

      - other reasons we will explain in due time.

      Just make it very clear that nothing moves us against anyone from the JFM FB group that doesn’t move us against who are in other sites, FB, Twitter or blogs who we have unfortunately come to the that they are not here for the truth.

      We are not saying anything surprising. We have over the years been consistent in saying that the internet is filled with people alleging they are here for the truth but only that part of it that involves the T9. The truth outside the T9 is fought tooth and nail to be stopped.

  60. From our “FB Anon”:

    “I think NT has put his foot in it with his latest post! He says: "It was 20th May 2007, less than three weeks since Madeleine was reported missing, and marked the start of Gerry McCann's blogs, with a full page article in the Sunday Mirror entitled "Day to day life for the McCanns"
    I have no idea how that article was 'sold' to the McCanns, but it has to rank as one of the worst ''bright ideas'' of all time.
    Clearly, it was designed to be a puff piece, describing what was happening with the McCanns and how they were spending their days, but it was so dreadful."

    "Clearly it was designed to be a puff piece" he says. Could he explain why a left wing national daily paper would be writing a puff piece for two neglectful, money grabbing, arrogant middle class doctors, who lost a child when out on the lash?”

  61. So basically you regard criticism as 'abuse' and you want to tell your readers which sites they must not visit.

    Yeah, I don't think so. Nobody tells me where I can and can't read

    1. Anonymous 2 Aug 2018, 15:21:00,

      Sorry, are you mistaking us for Lesly Frances Finn?

      Please say where we have told anyone "where I can and can't read". We have never said or suggested that people don't visit this or that site.

      We have said that NT's blog is disgusting but people who don't find it disgusting as well as those who do and are ok with it, are free to visit and comment there. We have no say nor should we have one.

      What one writes, here or there or anywhere on a public forum is public domain and can be used anywhere.

      We did not make an appeal "TO ALL GOOD PEOPLE" about visiting or not other sites. Lesly Frances Finn did.

      By the way, if she was making an appeal to all good people, why wasn't that Aletheia's post promoted on Justice for Madeleine FB group?

      That group frequently promotes Aletheia, and as they have, or so they say, over 37K members, so many more "good people" would have been warned.

  62. This twitter exchange is quite long but it’s PURE GOLD:
    Jules... 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿‏ @AlleyCat666x
    Replying to @nicktownsend12 @FragrantFrog and 2 others
    Grime & Eddie article before PDL.. Interesting article... #McCann
    11:09 pm · 31 Jul 2018
    Green Leaper‏ @FragrantFrog
    Replying to @AlleyCat666x @nicktownsend12 and 2 others
    "Business plan". LOL.
    4:38 pm - 31 Jul 2018
    Jules... 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿‏ @AlleyCat666x
    Replying to @FragrantFrog @nicktownsend12 and 2 others
    Out of the whole article, you pick on 2 words... LOL..
    12:16 am - 1 Aug 2018
    Green Leaper‏ @FragrantFrog
    Replying to @AlleyCat666x @nicktownsend12 and 2 others
    Here's one for you & your sidekicks. Based on the carpet squares experiment, why didn't Eddie alert to the back of the sofa itself? #mccann
    3:47 am - 1 Aug 2018
    Jules... 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿‏ @AlleyCat666x
    Replying to @FragrantFrog @nicktownsend12 and 2 others
    Sidekicks..? Whoever do you mean Froggy..? Eddie wasn't the blood dog.. Keela was trained to alert to the actual spot.. Keep up wench.. #McCann
    5:02 am - 1 Aug 2018
    Green Leaper‏ @FragrantFrog
    Replying to @AlleyCat666x @nicktownsend12 and 2 others
    Read Grime's verbal commentary on the alert in the lounge - or are you saying that Eddie only alerts to a very general area where he detects odour i.e. not the actual clothes he picked up with his mouth? #mccann
    6:50 am - 1 Aug 2018
    Jules... 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿‏ @AlleyCat666x
    Replying to @FragrantFrog @nicktownsend12 and 2 others
    Eddie and Keela tested the area before the clothes were put out.. No alerts.. Clothes put out, Eddie alerted.. #TheNoseKnows
    7:11 am - 1 Aug 2018
    Green Leaper‏ @FragrantFrog
    Replying to @AlleyCat666x @nicktownsend12 and 2 others
    Were the clothes taken from individual bags & laid out? Could unprotected PJ footwear be seen trampling all over the floor where the clothes were laid out? Why didn't Eddie alert to the sofa back, Jules?
    7:13 am - 1 Aug 2018
    Jules... 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿‏ @AlleyCat666x
    Replying to @FragrantFrog @nicktownsend12 and 2 others
    Which part at the back of the sofa Frog.. Now you're just being obtuse.. Next thing you will say is, cadaver scent wafted in from the "could be" ancient burial grounds under 5a...? #McCann
    7:27 am - 1 Aug 2018
    Green Leaper‏ @FragrantFrog
    Replying to @AlleyCat666x @nicktownsend12 and 2 others
    Remember the carpet squares which had had no direct contact with cadaver? If a cadaver was behind sofa for more than 10 mins, wouldn't that permeable fabric near floor level have absorbed cadaver odour just as the carpet squares did? #mccann
    7:30 am - 1 Aug 2018
    Jules... 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿‏ @AlleyCat666x
    Replying to @FragrantFrog @nicktownsend12 and 2 others
    Which carpet tiles...? It was a tiled floor.. LOL.. #McCann #NapTimeForFrog
    7:32 am - 1 Aug 2018
    Green Leaper‏ @FragrantFrog
    Replying to @AlleyCat666x @nicktownsend12 and 2 others
    I'm talking about the German Carpet tile 10 min test. You really need to ask your Saviour on a Stallion about this.
    7:35 am - 1 Aug 2018
    Jules... 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿‏ @AlleyCat666x
    Replying to @FragrantFrog @nicktownsend12 and 2 others
    Which one.. The fit one..?
    7:38 am - 1 Aug 2018


    1. Now I'm confused!
      If Jules is a NT supporter why is she bringing up the alert in the patio and mocking his wafting cadaver scent theory?
      She supports him but doesn't read him?!

  63. (Cont)
    Green Leaper‏ @FragrantFrog
    Replying to @AlleyCat666x @nicktownsend12 and 2 others
    Whichever one you consider to be the best one.... (grinning emoticon)
    7:39 am - 1 Aug 2018
    Jules... 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿‏ @AlleyCat666x
    Replying to @FragrantFrog @nicktownsend12 and 2 others
    Which one do you consider to be the fit one... (laughing emoticon) Curious...
    7:41 am - 1 Aug 2018
    Green Leaper‏ @FragrantFrog
    Replying to @AlleyCat666x @nicktownsend12 and 2 others
    You don't know him, he's Portuguese, (smiling emoticon)
    7:44 am - 1 Aug 2018
    Jules... 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿‏ @AlleyCat666x
    Replying to @FragrantFrog @nicktownsend12 and 2 others
    GA...?(crying laughing emoticon) (crying laughing emoticon) (crying laughing emoticon)
    7:46 am - 1 Aug 2018

    And then, right on cue (and expected), @nicktownsend12 tries to misinform:
    nick townsend‏ @nicktownsend12
    Replying to @AlleyCat666x @FragrantFrog and 2 others
    This is the experiment green leaper is referring to:
    7:49 am - 1 Aug 2018

    The link provided by @nicktownsend12 gives the following summary of the Oesterhelweg experiment:

    Cadaver dogs are known as valuable forensic tools in crime scene investigations. Scientific research attempting to verify their value is largely lacking, specifically for scents associated with the early postmortem interval. The aim of our investigation was the comparative evaluation of the reliability, accuracy, and specificity of three cadaver dogs belonging to the Hamburg State Police in the detection of scents during the early postmortem interval.
    Material and methods
    Carpet squares were used as an odor transporting media after they had been contaminated with the scent of two recently deceased bodies (PMI < 3 h). The contamination occurred for 2 min as well as 10 min without any direct contact between the carpet and the corpse. Comparative searches by the dogs were performed over a time period of 65 days (10 min contamination) and 35 days (2 min contamination).
    The results of this study indicate that the well-trained cadaver dog is an outstanding tool for crime scene investigation displaying excellent sensitivity (75–100), specificity (91–100), and having a positive predictive value (90–100), negative predictive value (90–100) as well as accuracy (92–100).”


    @AlleyCat666x is Julie Chrimes the latest Justice for Madeleine admin to go and join “NT’s Lick-spittle gang”. The Frog is… the Frog.

    @nicktownsend12, we would define as the “new Orlov”. Before we are accused that we’re implying that he’s the Meerkat, we are NOT. We are just calling as an “Orlov” someone who being unimportant has his importance suddenly and conveniently exaggerated.

    @nicktownsend12, is under this definition, the latest Orlov. On a later date we will speak of this character.

    Sending primary school students to do the job of a university graduate only gets one humiliated, doesn’t it, NT?

    Well spotted, Frog, well spotted. If cadaver odour does not come from a residue left by the body but only airborne molecules released from it when it was there... why weren't the absorbent couches NOT reeking of cadaver odour but the floor was? Destroys in one tweet NT's airborne molecule theory!

    Not wanting to take credit for it, we think we have mentioned it somewhere. If we haven’t, we had thought of it. But if we haven’t mentioned it, kudos to you for putting it in writing.


  64. (Cont)

    @nicktownsend12 jumped on the chance the Frog gave him and provides not just any link but link to THE summary of the Oesterhelweg experiment that NT has pushed for years as the only information about the experiment. Coincidence? We don’t think so.

    The Frog gave the opportunity for @nicktownsend12 to basically try and validate the notion that NT has pushed for years that it takes only 10 minutes after death for a body to contaminate surfaces as that summary speaks of “the contamination occurred for 2 min as well as 10 min”.

    But no, @nicktownsend12, as the Frog’s “Portuguese expert” would tell the Frog, the experiment green leaper is referring to is explained much better here:

    As we showed in our post “The reliability of the cadaver dogs”

    It disproves the “10 minute” period for contamination to happen. In fact, the summary linked by @nicktownsend12 does already disprove it as it speaks of a “PMI < 3 h”.

    But only a few understand that ‘PMI’ stands for Post-Mortem Interval. A time of death less than 3 hours. If for contamination happened as quick as 2 minutes, why set the experimental limit of less than 3 hours? Of course, it wouldn’t make.

    But the paper linked above is clear. The contamination times mentioned refer to the beginning of the experiment and not to the time of death as both bodies had deceased over a 100 minutes before, well within the PMI < 3 h set for the experiment.

    Now Frog, behave.

    That “your Saviour on a Stallion” of yours was clearly a foul play. Must show you a yellow card for that!

    We won’t show the red card you deserve for that other violent play, otherwise we would spoil the entire game, wouldn’t we?

  65. Another Twitter gem from the Frog:
    Bale2LiverpoolNil‏ @Bale2N
    Replying to @TonyMiles73 @AlleyCat666x and 3 others
    Is it true you’ve stopped fiddling with your kiddies? Like Mum did to you? XXX
    10:26 am - 2 Aug 2018
    Jules... 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿‏ @AlleyCat666x
    Replying to @Bale2N @TonyMiles73 and 3 others
    10:33 am - 2 Aug 2018
    Bale2LiverpoolNil‏ @Bale2N
    Replying to @AlleyCat666x @TonyMiles73 and 3 others
    He knows who I mean.
    10:36 am - 2 Aug 2018
    Jules... 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿‏ @AlleyCat666x
    Replying to @Bale2N @Cerb32 and 2 others
    Do you have to use that line, to anger someone.. It's not nice is it..?
    10:50 am - 2 Aug 2018
    Bale2LiverpoolNil‏ @Bale2N
    Replying to @AlleyCat666x @Cerb32 and 2 others
    I don’t do nice. I’m not nice. Interesting no criticism of the Arsehole. XXX
    10:54 am - 2 Aug 2018
    Jules... 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿‏ @AlleyCat666x
    Replying to @Bale2N @Cerb32 and 2 others
    You unblocked him to insult him.. I don't agree with any of it, but the line you use is very naughty, and you know it.. It's easier to be nice.. Be nice.. XXX
    10:57 am - 2 Aug 2018
    Green Leaper‏ @FragrantFrog
    Replying to @AlleyCat666x @Bale2N and 2 others
    You should be preaching that to NT.(laughing hard emoticon)
    10:59 am - 2 Aug 2018
    Jules... 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿‏ @AlleyCat666x
    Replying to @FragrantFrog @Bale2N and 2 others
    What's NT said..?
    11:01 am - 2 Aug 2018
    Green Leaper‏ @FragrantFrog
    Replying to @AlleyCat666x @Bale2N and 2 others
    He's just really mean to Textusa & others.
    11:06 am - 2 Aug 2018
    Jules... 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿‏ @AlleyCat666x
    Replying to @FragrantFrog @Bale2N and 2 others
    11:07 am - 2 Aug 2018

    Green Leaper‏ @FragrantFrog
    Replying to @AlleyCat666x @Bale2N and 2 others
    You read the blog so you know.
    11:10 am - 2 Aug 2018
    Jules... 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿‏ @AlleyCat666x
    Replying to @FragrantFrog @Bale2N and 2 others
    Tbh Frog, i find it full of facts.. They seem to know what they're on about.. They don't go down the wild theory lines..
    11:17 am - 2 Aug 2018


    Foreword: we find @Bale2N’s comment utterly disgusting and do not wish to make any humour with it. However, we must include it as it is essential to provide context. It must be said that as Walkercan1000 this individual has made this heinous statement repeatedly before and certainly with this new handle as well.

    When the Frog stepped in, it made us laugh out loud.

    1. Jules finds NT full of facts?? Like when he says he dismantled all Tex's theories?
      Of course!
      “bullshit, bollock, crap, liar”
      That’s his dismantling and his facts!

  66. What's going on over at Death Star??
    Darth Vader gone all green and asking people to save the planet? What???

    1. Anonymous 3 Aug 2018, 11:04:00,

      Quite the veering off (where have we heard this before?), wasn’t it?

      On July 31, this was said in that interesting Aletheia thread:

      “Zora McCartney:
      I understand that Sade but there comes a point when it becomes counterproductive surely? Textusa is like a dog with a bone. And I’m sure on some level that she is also defending herself against a blog that calls itself Not Textusa. Wouldn’t you? Wish one of them, no matter who, would pull back a bit and try to get back to the much bigger picture. Anyway, I’ve said all I can say without knowing the minutiae, so I’m done.

      Sade Anslow:
      NT actually did, and was writing about the case more, there was some great discussion. She couldn't stand it and started with this "gang" conspiracy rubbish.
      Quite happy to never mention Textusa again as long as she stops accusing me of being part of some kind of MI5 get up.”

      So, we’re the ones stopping NT getting on with writing about Kate’s book, sorry, the case.

      The following day, on May 1, NT publishes a post about Kate’s book, sorry, the case. He’s back on track, dealing seriously with the case!

      But then, the very next day, Aug 2, he distracts his readers to defend the planet! At least, this time it wasn’t us who derailed him from the case! It was he who veered (where have we heard this before?) right when he was sinking his teeth back on Kate’s book, sorry, the case.

      But there are bigger issues than the Maddie case, right? And NT’s blog is known for not (NOT) being narrow focused!

      Everyone knows the biggest (NOT) threat that our planet faces and that most (NOT) people associate with global warming is the release of balloons and lanterns.

      If only the world could set aside their concerns about what damages Power Plants, Transportation, Farming, Deforestation, Fertilizers, Oil Drilling, Natural Gas Drilling, Garbage and Volcanic Eruptions and instead focused on the REAL (NOT) problem that is the release of balloons and lanterns.

      NT has decided to stop all and take this pressing problem head-on!

      And as everyone knows, it’s August, that particular (NOT) time of the year in which people, all over the world remember Madeleine by (NOT) releasing balloons and lanterns. Who can forget the great launch this time last year? The Atlantic was so filled that it stopped maritime traffic around the UK for weeks!

      An acute problem as people who live in seaside towns like Rothley, tend to exaggerate the release of balloons and lanterns in memory of Maddie at this time of the year.

      All to just write one sentence: “If you are thinking of remembering Madeleine by releasing balloons or lanterns, please don't.”

      Or to be more precise and how that sentence should be read: If you are thinking of ‘remembering Madeleine’ by ‘releasing balloons or lanterns’, please don't.

      A stern warning: DON’T!

      Ms Sade Anslow, promised to share NT’s concerns for the planet but as far as we know, hasn’t yet.

      But before her, Mr Ben Thompson also promised to share and like the good errand boy he is, kept his promise and has shared it:

      And guess who liked that tweet? The Frog! Go figure.

      It’s a sad reality when to send a message, some people are as evil as abusing the genuine concern of good people for truly noble causes, to do that

      But then, when has ever a dishonest player ever played honestly?

      Or a manipulator cared about those he's manipulating?

    2. And this from NT’s blog (our caps):

      “Nick2 August 2018 at 23:45
      Shared. Never understand the chinese lantern thing...”

      Not Textusa3 August 2018 at 01:25
      Thanks Nick - no me neither, tbh. ESPECIALLY AT THE MOMENT when everywhere in Europe is tinder-dry, IT WOULD BE MADNESS. There has been a number of fires attributed to them already, IT'S ONLY A MATTER OF TIME UNTIL ONE RESULTS IN A TRAGEDY. “


      Now the 3 put together “especially at the moment” “it would be madness” “it's only a matter of time until one results in a tragedy”.

      Almost make up a coherent sentence, don’t they?

      If someone was so worried about forest fires, why then link up a video of the oceans? Why not put up one of forest fires? There are so many of them all over the internet…

    3. And another glorious Twitter thread:
      Jules... 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿‏ @AlleyCat666x
      I will issue it for you.. After repeatedly offending & receiving a number of yellow cards, Frog & Nicholas have been issued a red card.. Plus most of us are sick of scoring penalties now... (crying laughing emoticon)
      #HandBall #Obstruction #OldestSwingersInTown #McCann
      4:19 am - 3 Aug 2018
      Green Leaper‏ @FragrantFrog
      Replying to @AlleyCat666x
      We'll be appealing the one match ban. (crying laughing emoticon) (crying laughing emoticon) NT, on the other hand, has had to resort to saving the planet to redeem himself for all the mean, mean things he's written. All in Madeleine #mccann 's name, of course. …
      4:44 am - 3 Aug 2018
      Jules... 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿‏ @AlleyCat666x
      Replying to @FragrantFrog
      Appeal denied.. Firstly you wrote in green biro.. Secondly you haven't done enough to save the planet... #NTRocks #FrogIsFrog #WhistleBlown #McCann
      5:19 am - 3 Aug 2018
      Green Leaper‏ @FragrantFrog
      Replying to @AlleyCat666x
      It's up to Textusa to judge the appeal, not you. (upside-down smiley emoticon)
      5:30 am - 3 Aug 2018
      Jules... 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿‏ @AlleyCat666x
      Replying to @FragrantFrog
      We will level it out and ask the 'fit' one... (crying laughing emoticon)
      6:10 am - 3 Aug 2018


      Jules/Julie Chrimes, do keep up. It’s not the ‘fit’ one. It’s ‘Saviour on a Stallion’.

      Frog, as you know any appeal must be based on something. We will wait to see what EVIDENCE you will present before taking a decision.

      Very, very serious words indeed:
      “…for all the mean, mean things he's written. All in Madeleine #mccann 's name, of course.”

    4. And ALL OF SUDDEN, now NT seems to have lost all his concerns about the safety of the planet. As quick as it came, this urge seems to have gone.

      We will present the reader with 2 possible timelines of what happened:

      Timeline 1:
      July 31, Sade Anslow complains that we don’t let NT get on with the case and he so much wants to do that;
      Aug 01, NT writes about Kate’s book, sorry, the case;
      Aug 02, NT stops caring about the case and writes about saving the planet against threat of releasing lanterns and balloons;
      Aug 03, NT stops caring about the planet, and bumps up an old post from us.

      Timeline 2:
      July 31, Sade Anslow complains that we don’t let NT get on with the case and he so much wants to do that;
      Aug 01, NT writes about Kate’s book, sorry, the case;
      Aug 02, NT stops caring about the case and writes about saving the planet against threat of releasing lanterns and balloons;
      Aug 03, we expose what the real intention of the ‘save the planet post’ was about: to send a message;
      Aug 03, NT stops caring about the planet and bumps up an old post from us.

      Which one does the reader think is the real one?

  67. As they say, the devil is in the detail.

    As a long time reader, I am pleased to have stuck with the blog through what seemed like a deviation from the important issue of uncovering the truth. It appears that these 'petty' online squabbles are far from it.

    As this puppet show is exposed for what it is, I do wonder- what next?


  68. People seem to enjoy NT’s analyses of Kate’s book and now Gerry’s blog. Fair enough. From the little bits I’ve seen on Twitter, they echoed much of what I’ve thought when I read them myself way back or analyses we’ve seen before elsewhere e.g. lazzeri lies in the sun and such like. All well and good if it strikes a chord with people. I don’t have a problem with these posts in themselves. But to me they lack credibility precisely because of the blog name and its raison d’etre. If NT would like to get on with posting facts and observations like these of the McCanns utterings and behaviours, it might be more effective and less divisive if he didn’t do it from under an anti-textusa banner.

    I tried to be as conciliatory as possible the other night as I’m genuinely concerned about the wider ramifications on innocent parties of the conduct of some of those involved. (I first contacted you about this when the whole Orlov situation was escalating into something more uncomfortable than the original case of mistaken identity). But i feel it’s too late for that. I’m still baffled though, as to how YOU are the aggressor in all this according to those who are on an anti-textusa, or a NOT Textusa crusade, one which has not just been confined to arguing against your theories but has become unnecessarily personal and vitriolic. Are you supposed to sit back and bask in the privilege and say nothing by way of response?

    I would like to stress while I’m here that most of the people around Ben, the ones that I know anyway, whom I adminned with for a long time, are decent and honest and not into sowing division.

    Anyway, I will leave you and the team to your weekend. Stay cool and hydrated in the heat. Just make sure to be kind to the environment and the ocean and recycle any plastic water bottles.


    1. Zora,

      Must say we disagree totally where you say "People seem to enjoy NT’s analyses of Kate’s book ". Only those nurturing hatred for the McCanns and we’re are doing our best to stop that.

      As far as we know, in history no justice has ever been delivered by public lynching.

    2. I don’t find those posts especially hateful or liable to incite hatred or to appeal only to those who harbour hatred. The posts from casual posters on, say, The Sun fb page whenever they post a news article about the McCanns, are much more hateful and befitting of your public lynching concerns.

      I’m not exactly a fan as I’m sure you know. But, given that we only ever see them getting the soft soaping treatment from Lorraine Kelly etc, it’s left up to members of the public to point out the blatant hypocrisies and absurdities that have gone unchallenged all these years. If that encourages new people to reassess their misconceptions or confirm for those who already have doubts that it’s not wrong or taboo to cast a critical eye over the words and actions of this couple, then that’s no bad thing imo. The problem though, then becomes the issue of where these people might look for further, reliable information and brings me back to my original point. If he REALLY wants to be left in peace to write bona fide “anti” material, it would be more effective in my view, if he were to do it from a more credible platform.

  69. Verdi on JH is also highlighting dangers of balloons to the environment.
    What a coincidence!

  70. From Aletheia’s very interesting thread on Jul 31:

    “Ben Thompson
    Hi Pauline. Basically Textusa had a big diva fit because he was outing antis incorrectly, and calling them pros. When I pointed this out politely, in private, they were abusive. They've since admitted they were wrong, but also said they didn't care.
    This episode led me and others to the blogger known as "Not Textusa" that Textusa had always told others was the devil incarnate. As it turns out though, NT was just another anti Textusa was trying to frame as a pro. The reason being, that NT had been showing proof week in week out, that Textusa was a fraud, and a con artist. You can read their posts here:
    [links Nt’s blog]
    The language is colourful, but the facts are all there.
    [links Nt’s blog again]”

    From the above, we would like to highlight this: “This episode [the Orlov incident] led me and others to the blogger known as "Not Textusa" that Textusa had always told others was the devil incarnate.”

    As we have pointed out and have asked readers to retain, the Orlov incident happened on April 8. This year.

    The above does not fit with what Mr Ben Thompson said on April 9 on our blog:

    “Pseudo Nym has left a new comment on your post "The ambush":
    Text, we supported you week in week out, always promoting your blogs, and giving members the option to read them, we did that for four long years. Not everyone in the group agreed with all that you wrote, many won't have even clicked the link, as happens with all blogs, but we supported you, and your right to be heard. Until last night, I even promoted your blog on my own.
    9 Apr 2018, 16:50:00”

    Are people expected to believe that after having supported our blog “for four long years” and after “even promoted your blog on my own” Mr Ben Thompson only after April 8 realises that NT was not “the devil incarnate”? Really. Ludicrous is a word that comes to mind and if we were asked to describe what he’s attempting to do, we would say he’s calling people stupid.

    Not once in 4 years, was he curious to go and see what Not Textusa had to say? Really? Or was it that he did go there but was so brainwashed by us that he was unable to see for himself NT’s words with the clarity that he’s able to see them now?

    If that is the case, it only means that Mr Ben Thompson is easily duped, easily brainwashed, incapable of reading for himself that “NT had been showing proof week in week out, that Textusa was a fraud, and a con artist”. If that is the case, then Mr Thompson is someone incapable of forming an own opinion, so who is to guarantee that now, fragile as he is, he’s not under the spell of NT as he was in the past under ours?

    Orlov, who no one had heard of until December last year – and has for quite a long time stopped using that name – is made to be of an importance to the case simply to justify Mr Ben Thompson to have discovered the new anti, the Messiah who was hidden right in front of our eyes, NT.


  71. (Cont)

    Does the reader think Orlov is so insignificant that giving him the importance Mr Thompson gives him would be ridiculous?

    Well, guess again then. Because there’s another character to whom Orlov was so important that it triggered in her that “anti-Textusa” lightbulb moment:

    “Sade Anslow18 May 2018 at 15:51
    Yes, and I was - for a considerable amount of time – her [] only defender on that FB group [Justice for Madeleine]. I tried to highlight her main points ignoring the waffle, believing there was some valuable intention at least. Her refusal to consider my 'word' on the Meerkat accusation really was the end for me. For me, people I respect and trust (and vice versa) play a huge part in my considerations in the case, whther
    ...whether In regards to facts or just hearsay. She disregarded that, and it was then I woke up to the fact that facts were the last thing on her mind.”

    Hopefully this has been another piece of the puzzle that fits nicely in the overall “food chain”. The piece being that of the inexplicable sudden veering into an overt and brazen fierce anti-Textusa attitude by the Justice for Madeleine FB Group since the beginning of this year.

    Was Orlov that important? Of course not. The veering was unprovoked.

    Or better said, there was no veering at all, just a ‘coming out of the closet’ move that the campaign to bring back negligence required – oh, you like us thought that everyone was by now convinced that there was no negligence as negligence was something needed for there to be an abduction? it was an alibi? Think again, as it’s also needed for the sedation scenario.

    Some people participating in the campaign outside this group must start to revise their opinion on negligence or at least stop voicing it

    The campaign that also has to promote the hatred against the McCanns. To have the case archived and then wail about the case being archived when it was evident that the parents were guilty of sedating the children while they went on the lash and weren’t even questioned by Operation Grange, corrupt and designed to protect the McCanns from day one!

    Oh why, they will cry, oh why was there be no justice for Maddie?? They’ll cry and they’ll wail and they’ll make a lot of noise. All the noise needed to be made to dominate the social media until the issue dies away and is but an unpleasant memory in people’s minds.

    Then they will head for the nearest bank and deposit their 30 silver coins – in whatever shape of form in which they were paid.

    1. Just out of curiosity, Sade Anslow’s comment above was in a convo with ‘Cat’ who we are certain is a certain admin of the Justice for Madeleine FB Group and made then this comment:

      “Anonymous17 May 2018 at 23:51
      I should have made clear in my above post I have no idea about NT's gender as I may have assumed male whilst making a point.

      This FB group seems to live obsessed with gender, don’t they? As if Marie Curie was a man and Albert Einstein a woman they would have less impact on humanity.

  72. "when it was evident that the parents were guilty of sedating the children"
    Evident ???????

    I'd like to understand what the so often claimed "justice for Madeleine" means exactly, as almost everybody admits that the child died accidentally. Does it imply punishing those who concealed her body ?
    As if they had not a major reason to do so ?

  73. Interesting tweet that came in the sequence of those in the thread we published in our comment at 3 Aug 2018, 14:59:00:
    Cerb32‏ @Cerb32
    Replying to @FragrantFrog @AlleyCat666x
    Excellent! With you and Nick on a 1 day ban, I'll be in with a chance of winning the sash this week. Well done, Jules. First, you prove that I'm not married to Philomena, then you feed me admittedly hideous #faggots and now you've removed the competition. The sash is mine #mccann
    6:54 am - 3 Aug 2018


    “…and now you've removed the competition”. We’ll wait and see what time will say about that.

  74. We have published a new "comments continue" post.

    We ask readers to start commenting there, as Blogger only allows 200 comments per comment page.

    Thank you.


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.