Thursday, 16 August 2018

The help and the tennis - comments continue VII

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”;
- “The help and the tennis – comments continue VI”. 


  1. Good to see that the FB Justice forum has thrown its full weight behind the plastics pollution that infests the oceans. It was the world's worst kept secret that they were never here about the mccanns but to promote awareness of this terrible environmental disaster. Over the past few years all they've talked about is fishes and whales and plastic bags and what we can do to save them.
    I know that you would be first to join me in thanking them for such dedicated unstinting work over the past four or so years to make our oceans safe for the inhabitants. It's people like that, who dedicate their whole lives to thinking about the planet, we should applaud and forgive for being insulting know-alls stalking your blog and savaging you relentlessly for no good reason other than them being bullies.


  2. Textusa, I am assuming you have passed your theories and research onto Operation Grange - can you tell us what feedback you have had from them, if any?

    1. Anonymous 4 Aug 2018, 13:52:00,

      No, COMPLETELY impossible to get any feedback from Operation Grange as we haven't and won't contact them.

      We trust that they - or the PJ - can read us online. No delusions of grandeur on our part, just assuming that they, even if just out curiosity, can read what we have written online.

      After all, is Sonia Poulto to come up with a YouTube video went online to research, we imagine the police will do the same.

      We don't intend to substitute the authorities in any way. What we have written is public and as we have justified each statement we have made, we believe that if anyone who has the duty to undergo a legitimate investigation doesn't need to contact us to understand on what we have based everything we have said.

      However, you should go over to NT's blog and ask that same question. It is a very pertinent question to be asked there as we'll show soon. If he hasn't sent his conclusions to the authorities then it shows, once again, the hypocrite he is.

  3. Yes, cos it’s standard practice for police to respond to members of the public with feedback on their submissions regarding an ongoing investigation, eh?

    Perhaps you could improve on this pedestrian effort to expose, fingerpoint and ridicule with another smug and loaded question. But I doubt it.

  4. Quite a few years back I got an email from Operation Grange, replied and got then a phone call, just because I had left on Crimestoppers a post saying that a lady had looked into a bin early morning of May 4 and that it could be interesting to ask her what she saw, if she saw anything since the waste truck had already passed. The PO thought I was a witness.. I said I just was a reader. You surely read that book, I said, mentioning the title and the author. He said "no". When I said that the author was the lady who lifted the bin's lid, there was a very long silence. I felt sorry for the PO.

    From our FB:

    Maureen Hopkin: I really, really don't know what is what anymore. I've followed the McCann case for all the years since she 'allegedly', was 'abducted'. To start off with, I was so, so sad, ashamed as a Brit, concerned she had died, vile thoughts of you know what, that I really was with the parents' on this. I did contribute to the fund, I did believe the fairy tale of abduction. Then....truth overcame lies. There was no abduction, jemmied shutters, break ins, blah de blah, and I started to really watch the tv appearances of those two McCann parents.. I followed (and contributed to the groups) so a troll I was according to one PG, , then the PJ files.... the truth was glaringly obvious. I've been on n seen many groups, some bad, some fake, some really interesting, but as I do not do Twitter, n. never have (or will) the NT crap group is, to me, suspect and I do not want to know. I'll just follow the Textusa blogs. HOWEVER , one persons name crops up. I do not know him, or if it is a soc name, BUT, Ben Thompson really had a go at me over joining a Maddie group. I don't know him, don't like his filthy language, don't understand 'why me', as I have never tweeted, I won't go into the rants he had about me, (loopy), I just want to understand what he is all about. but then, is it worth it.?. I'll follow Textusa. Ben T, will carry on, carrying on, (without swearing, I hope), n the hope for Justice for Madeleine will continue

    Maria Santos: Maureen Hopkin, I inform you that Mr Thompson, together with the entire Admin of the Justice for Madeleine FB group have been banned from my pages. I will take this over to the blog.

    1. Maureen Hopkin: Blood n Sand. No wonder he had a 'go' at me. Is this his 'only name'.?. cos I've had more than one 'BEN' calling me over, thankfully, I'm not a tweeter., but now I dunno who to trust, but why is my concern. Why, why, why. just why. ?? Can we not all just get back to the concern over where is Madeleine McCann, how anything happened, and who got involved.?. or am I just stupid.?

      Maria Santos: Maureen Hopkin, because the truth of "where is Madeleine McCann" and how and why she is ‘where’ she is now, and how and why it was decided for her to be ‘where’ she is now, involves many stakeholders who feel that what they may lose with the truth being outed deserves they block that outing themselves.
      If they blocked the truth overtly, they would never win sympathisers, so in order to “take the water to their own windmill” as the Portuguese say, they pretend to want the truth but are watching attentively so they can block it at every turn.
      As an example of pretending to be what one isn’t, recently we had a person appealing to people to join in the fight to save the planet, when saving the planet was the last thing on his mind when he made that appeal.

  6. From NT’s blog:

    “Pseudo Nym22 July 2018 at 13:49
    I didn't know that, what a disgusting man [Nick Townsend]. I can't believe any of his associates truly think he speaks a word of truth - yet they stand by him, and praise him. That's the difference between those who want to find out the real facts, and those who seek to either hide them, or invent the ridiculous.

    ...and the likes of Bennett and Textusa wonder why the only places they're welcome, are their own pits.”


    Mr Ben Thompson,

    Please provide ANY proof that we are in ANY way associates of Mr Nick Townsend.

    Please note that although Mr Ben Thompson cannot agree with NT about whether the body leaves (Mr Thompson says it does) or not (NT says it doesn’t) a physical residue which then becomes the source from which the cadaver scent is emitted from, he’s perfectly in synch with NT in trying to associate our name with that of Mr Bennett.

    And now Mr Ben Thompson falsely associates our name with one Nick Townsend.

    As we have said before, Mr Nick Townsend is the “new Orlov” and we will be speaking of Mr Nick Townsend soon to show how VERY IMPORTANT he has become to the case.

    If one disregards that they are about Nick Townsend, we would say that that the relationship between NT and his associates or “lick-spittle gang”, is accurately described by Mr Thompson’s own words: “I can't believe any of his associates truly think he speaks a word of truth - yet they stand by him, and praise him. That's the difference between those who want to find out the real facts, and those who seek to either hide them, or invent the ridiculous.”

    1. Mr Ben Thompson has once again NOT answered the question put to him:
      “Bugsy‏ @TheBunnyReturns
      Textusa seems to hate the fact that many see links to them and Bennett. Well let's see:
      Both accuse antis who disagree with them of having multiple accounts.
      Both disagree with the findings of Amaral and the PJ.
      Both lie, and seek to con others.
      No similarities then, yeah?
      9:45 am - 5 Aug 2018”

  7. Can't help wondering why these twitter and FB spats are not covered via PM or DM. I would presume that the other side who are in cohorts know each other so having all in open view seems very strange. Why not orchestrate from the shadows?
    Keep up the exposure of the duplicity and stage managed outrage designed to keep it within the T9 circle ladies.

    1. Anonymous 5 Aug 2018, 09:35:00,

      Sometimes, going public is the only way for one to get leverage.

      Other times, going public is the best way for one to take away from one's opponents their leverage.

      Another times, going public is simply the best way to defend one's interests.

  8. Just a thought, doesn't have to be published. Is their a connection between 'orlov' and malinka, maybe ?

    1. Anonymous 5 Aug 2018, 11:17:00,

      We don't know as we don't know who Orlov is other than being, if we are to believe Mr Ben Thompson and in this instance we see no reason not to, a friend of his for years.

      And apparently s/he's a friend of Sade Anslow as well, although we don't know how long this friendship has been going on.

      Orlov was just someone used by Mr Ben Thompson as an excuse to go hostile on us.

      Only Orlov knows if s/he is ok with this, we know we wouldn't be if a friend of ours used our name to pursue an objective outside our friendship. If this was done with Orlov's knowledge and consent, then evidently s/he is fine with it.

      Answering your question directly, at this point in time we have no reason to establish any connection between Malinka and Orlov.

    2. Orlov was a vocal critic of Malinka and his crowdfunding. So, no. I can’t imagine Orlov having a problem with Ban contacting to correct about his identity in the first instance. Unfortunately, even though Ben told he didn’t want a public debate about it, he went on to do just that when had the audacity to dismiss him. At this point - and certainly at the very latest when you said here that you were mistaken - it stopped being about Orlov, as think was clear to all. So I'm not sure it matters to know if he is ok with what's happened since, as he's not central to any of it. Besides, isn’t this all academic now anyway?

  9. Very valid point raised by the Frog in the following tweet:
    Green Leaper‏ @FragrantFrog
    Replying to @AlleyCat666x @Anvil161Anvil16 @nicktownsend12
    Would you want your children to harbour suspicions against you, based on public opinion, re. a crime you haven't committed but may never be able to prove same?
    5:17 pm - 4 Aug 2018


    We will simply quote ourselves from our post “The Third Option”:

    “6. The McCann twins
    There’s a huge moral reason to not go for the Third Option , the McCann twins, Sean and Amelie.

    The Sun’s article #2, “Kate McCann: 'The twins know all about her disappearance and they want Maddie back'”:, is very clear that Kate says the twins know all.

    To know all, we suppose is for them to know exactly what happened. And if they know exactly what happened then that means they know what was, is and will be a farce and what wasn’t, isn’t and won’t be.

    The implementation of the Third Option would mean a farce in which only their parents would take the fall.

    And because the Third Option involves an unknown someone – the unknown abductor – in this farce no one would be accountable for their sisters’ death. If, as Kate implies, the twins know who should be accountable then the farce would be particularly cruel to them.

    Let’s for a minute imagine that it was Kate (we are NOT saying it was her just describing a possible scenario) who accidentally killed her daughter. We have said before that we think the accident happened when she was in the apartment accompanied by David Payne and that it happened in the middle of a heated episode between the two.

    In this scenario, the twins knowing this, how would they feel about seeing their mother take alone the full burden of the blame while David Payne continued his life as if nothing of what happened had to do anything with him?

    Worse, what if in what we propose above wasn’t Kate but David who accidentally killed Maddie? What would the twins feel then but him walking away unscathed?

    Their parents would have to carry forever the stigma of negligence, something Kate has told us the twins know was not the case, they know their parents were never negligent.

    Will the Establishment have the courage to punish further these two really innocent bystanders, Sean and Amelie, already collateral victims who have had their sister taken away from them?

    Will the Establishment have the courage to burden these two children with a stigma they would have to carry for the rest of their lives? A burden they would carry with the added weight of knowing, as Kate tells us they do, that their parents would be unjustly punished by the state.

    Even if they aren’t old enough now to fully understand all that Kate tells us they were told, they will soon reach an age at which they will.

    Very soon they will reach an age they will really know without Kate having to tell us they do. Probably the very reason why Kate McCann is asking for closure now.

    It’s up to the Establishment, or the state, to know if it has the courage to do that.”

  10. Modesty aside, we think that one of our qualities was to never underestimate our critics. But sometimes we must. Not that we want to but because they force us to do so, so sheer is their stupidity, so staggering is their dumbness, to the point of being admirable.

    Stupidity, unlike intelligence, is limitless but sometimes some do seem to make it as their personal mission in life to find its limits, which is stupid as that is stupid in itself. But as stupid as they are, they go about it with full dedication and absolute commitment.

    We ask readers to revisit our comment at 31 Jul 2018, 11:30:00, where we transcribed comments from NT’s and chose to leave them in its pure and original form so readers can savour all, allowing them to appreciate all in full, to take it all in”.

    Basically Anonymous, clearly NOT from the lick-spittle gang questioned NT about the sedation theory defended in that blog.

    And in one or the responses, NicK/Anon had this precious gem to say at 30 July 2018 at 15:18: “The checks didn't always happen...the group were in kellys after all.”

    When we read the above our jaw dropped. How could someone supposed to defend to the last breath under the penalty of excommunication and to be burned at the stake, the absolute sanctity of the statements in the PJ Files of ALL those outside the T9, say something so, so utterly stupid?

    But as said, because it’s true, stupidity is limitless. So Nick/Anon decided today to repeat it:

    “Nick Kolwaski
    You can have a staged abduction and genuine neglect...was plenty of evidence to suggest they were left alone. At least one night where the group was seen at Kellys. Plus lets face it...harm is more likely to come to a child neglected than one that isn't.”

    Do note how hard neglect is being pushed.

    About the group being seen at Kelly’s, we have following questions for Nick/Anon:

    On which night or nights, were the T9 at Kelly’s?

    Why do you think the Tapas staff lied about the T9 being always, every night, at Tapas?

    Why hasn’t anybody from Kelly’s bar reported the T9 drinking there?

    Are you accusing the Kelly’s staff of covering up for them? Why do you think they would?

    Have you any evidence they were in Kelly’s on the night or nights you say they were? If so, have you informed the PJ?

    How long have you known this and who told you? Were you in Kelly’s bar or was somebody you know?

    Why hasn’t NT jumped down your throat like a rabid dog and ripped you apart for daring to call the Tapas staff liars?

    Why hasn’t NT jumped down your throat like a rabid dog and ripped you apart for daring to implicate innocent people, the Kelly’s staff, in covering up for the T9?

    We will be waiting for your reply.

    About Nick/Anon stating twice – one of them in his blog – that the group was seen at Kelly’s, we have following questions for NT:

    Why haven’t you jumped down Nick’s throat like a rabid dog and ripped him apart for daring to call the Tapas staff liars?

    Why haven’t you jumped down Nick’s throat like a rabid dog and ripped him apart for daring to implicate innocent people, the Kelly’s staff, in covering up for the T9?

    Is this the best that your human resources were able to hire?

    We know you don’t like us nor do you like our opinions but we will tell you anyway that the latest 3 shills hired are even more below par than the ones before them.

    We guess that it’s starting to be hard to find accomplices willing to help you with your disgusting, immoral and amoral work of hiding what really happened in the death of a 3 yr old girl.

    1. How does Nick KNOW there was/or wasn't 'neglect on at least one night?' Was he there? What of the other nights? How does he know they were in Kelly's; where did he get that from?

    2. Mind boggling that Nick, in the same sentence, says the checks didn’t always happen!!

    Jules... 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿‏ @AlleyCat666x
    Replying to @Cerb32 @nicktownsend12 @FragrantFrog
    I can kind of see what you're trying to say.. But as I've said, most of what's on here, is in the public domain.. What about the impact on GA's daughters..? #McCann
    6:04 am - 5 Aug 2018


    You go and wash your mouth, you evil woman. How DARE you speak of the suffering of Sr Amaral and his family?

    And do stop the little game of trying to be validated as an anti by having debates with Nick Townsend.

    The tactic of picking a fight with a pro-envoy has been used so many times before, including recently when Nick Townsend was used to no avail to validate another one of you as an anti, that’s gone beyond pathetic.

  12. I can validate Jules as an anti. She is one of the best anti debaters we have ever had and I have been lucky enough to be in groups with her and Admin with her the past couple of years. Very unfair of you calling her names like that!!

    1. Sally,

      We don’t know who you are nor your qualifications to validate anyone as anti.

      @AlleyCat666x/Julie Chrimes finds NT (Not Textusa) blog full of facts and is promoting it on the Justice for Madeleine FB group:
      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

      A so-called fact-filled blog that states the following:

      “A woman walks into a room wearing a strong and distinctive perfume. That perfume can still be detected in the air even after she has left. Why? Because the gaseous molecules produced by the scent linger in the air and attach to surfaces.
      It is exactly the same with cadaver odour. Or the scent of blood. A dog may alert to the presence of residual scent even though the source of the scent is no longer there.
      So could a blood dog alert to residual scent? Yes of course. Does that mean blood was found in the apartment? No, of course not.”

      So according to this so-called fact-filled blog, the dogs alerted to the respective scents but the alerts are absolutely meaningless.

      And this:

      “I am going to assume that either you haven't read the forensic reports or you didn't understand what you were reading. And despite the fact that I have explained this about 20 times, you don't listen, so you never learn.
      So I will say it again. There is no ''desperate need'' to prove something which is already there, in the reports. Yes, the dog alerted. However, none of the samples/residues collected tested positive for blood. I'll try explaining it to you again in the faint hope that you might take it in this time.
      Several methods were used to try to detect biological residues, including the use of UV light sources and chemicals which attach to blood residues and glow in the presence of UV.
      Nothing was found which gave a positive reaction for blood.
      Spots which had the potential to be blood were also recovered and tested. None gave a positive reaction for blood.
      Not a single residue tested positive for blood.
      Now - at this point you will doubtless be jumping up and own screeching "But the dogs, but the dogs...!!!"
      As has been explained to you about 8 billion times, and as you fail to grasp even when provided with scientific papers on the subject, there are a number of possible explanations for this.
      The first is that, as demonstrated in the carpet squares study, half of which you clearly didn't understand, odour is a result of gaseous molecules released by a substance reacting with receptors in the nose. In order for any substance to smell, it must be capable of releasing molecules into the atmosphere. Does a lump of steel smell? No. Because it cannot release molecules into the air.
      Okay so far?
      So, here are the possibilities:
      1. The dog alerted to residual odour, the source of the odour being no longer present (possible)
      2. The dog alerted to odour from residues which were present but the residues were not sufficient to give a positive reaction for blood (possible, but unlikely - the tests are pretty sensitive)
      3. The dog alerted to microscopic traces of blood but it cannot be confirmed because all that could be recovered was tiny fragments of DNA which could not be assigned to any bodily fluid (possible)
      4. The dog recorded a false-positive response (unlikely, based on comparable situations in controlled conditions)
      Does it matter? Not really, no. Without confirmation of the dog alerts, it cannot be relied upon.”


    2. (Cont)

      The so-called fact-filled blog states again that the dogs alerts cannot be relied upon.

      Note, not the question is not whether the blood detected was or not from Maddie (that is indeed what forensics would have to corroborate or not and they don’t EITHER way) but that the fact that the blood dog alerted in the apartment, it doesn’t necessarily mean there was any blood, from any person in the apartment even though Keela alerted there, says the so-called fact-filled blog.

      Anyone posting things, including in the Justice for Madeleine FB group, to show how reliable the dogs are, are just in fact, according to this fact-filled blog, just “jumping up and own screeching "But the dogs, but the dogs...!!!"” stupidly as the dogs according to it prove absolutely nothing.

      People who show how reliable the dogs are being stupid as the fact-filled blog sates that “a decomp dog only tells you that the products of human decomp are in the air, not how they got there or to whom they belong”.

      Could Pam Gurney or any other pro make a greater effort to undermine the dogs’ credibility than this so-called fact-filled blog? Not seeing how.

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

      Read @AlleyCat666x tweets when debating with Nick Townsend and how that possibly be from someone who subscribes the so-called fact-filled NT’s blog? Then why the blatant contradiction?

      To the outside reader, it seems that Nick Townsend is the one defending NT’s position and she’s the one fighting it. So why does she promote NT’s blog so passionately?

      If Jules is a true anti, we find that her enthusiasm for NT can only come from ignorance, because it would only show she has not read NT and so should issue immediately apologies to Sr Amaral and his family, to her readers both on FB and Twitter, for ever having promoted NT’s blog and delete immediately all the NT blog promoting posts she has published in the Justice for Madeleine FB group.

      And evidently stop promoting NT.

      If she’s not a true anti, then she should apologise for mentioning the suffering of Sr Amaral and that of his family because of this case.

      We will see what she does next.

      The death of a 3 yr old girl, and the obstruction of the justice and the respect she’s owed, is not a Sunday conversation to have over a garden-fence and gossip with the neighbour.

    3. Paul Rees, has published an interesting picture in this post at Justice for Madeleine FB group.

      It says:
      “journalism 101 lesson: “if someone says it’s raining & another person says it’s dry, it’s not your job to quote them both. Your job is to look out of the f**cking window and find out which is true””

      One cannot defend that the dogs are useless and reliable at the same time.

      One cannot defend that a body leaves a physical residue that releases scent in the air and defend that it doesn’t.

      One cannot support that the dogs indicate without a doubt the locations they signal at the same time support that they are just picking up scents that could have come from anywhere.

      Very simple and straightforward. Those who do, simply have to explain why they do it.

      J B Littlemore@JBLittlemore
      Replying to @AlleyCat666x
      EVRD did not alert to missing uneviscerated piglets in 5a or at any other alert point. One believe he should have & did alert to the odours he was trained to identify. it may be they were at floor level, or on a shelf or fabric, but not randomly pervading the air in 5a. #Mccann
      12:15 am · 5 Aug 2018

      Jules... 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿‏ @AlleyCat666x
      Textusa.. Wtf are you on about.. I believe in GA.. I don't believe Nicholas.. How you've got i believe Nicholas from my tweets, is beyond unbelievable.. I don't believe NT is Walker.. In fact, i find that hilarious, and so does 99.9 % of us.. Have a nice day... #McCann
      11:57 am - 5 Aug 2018


      Please say where we have said that you believe in Nick Townsend.

      We have said that you believe in NT, and have showed FACTUALLY in what NT believes in his blog, the blog you have stated is filled with fact.

  13. Textusa 5 Aug 2018, 11:33:00
    Anonymous 5 Aug 2018, 11:17:00 and
    Anonymous5 Aug 2018, 14:42:00

    Thank you both.
    Obviously no link then. No tie. At the time it seemed, what was thought to be Malinka, after he stopped tweeting, orlov appeared.

    More than a few arrive on your blog to read, Textusa. Total Pageviews no less than 3,089,780 Looking forward to your posts.

  14. With respect could I ask why are you praising Green Leaper whilst condemning the very obvious anti Jules?
    I cannot work it out for the life of me. Jules is DEFINITELY anti and because she likes another persons blog should make no difference on the person she is and she has a good heart a lot of patience and actually was upset when you shunned her so please where's the logic here and where does Madeleine come in to this back and forth? She doesn't. Jules debates against the pros in favour of Amaral AND Grime's and Eddie and Keela - IMO? This is getting silly now and it does seem like you are IMO trying to say otherwise about Jules and it's unfair she's a genuine lovely person who doesn't deserve this just because she speaks elsewhere you don't approve of. That to me is just, WITH RESPECT, Unfair....

    1. Nora Batty,

      Thank you for your comment.

      Let us ask you this question: if Jules was promoting a blog that defended that there had been indeed an abduction, would you consider her to be an anti?

      Well, why do you consider her to be one when she promotes a blog that discredits the dogs?

      We have shown very clearly above what defends the blog she has promoted with enthusiasm and which she considers to be filled with fact.

      We all make mistakes, but as far as we know her posts promoting NT’s blog continue up on Justice for Madeleine FB page even though she has acknowledged what we have written. Why? Maybe because it was no mistake?

      One thing is for people to have different opinions on whether there was or not swinging, negligence, sedation, paedophilia, death before the 3rd. All these have in common 2 things: there was no abduction and the dogs are reliable.

      With those 2 common things differences are to be discussed, debated and respected.

      However, defending a blog that doesn’t consider the dogs reliable is for us the same thing as defending a blog that defends abduction. It’s not a question of differences but of being in opposing sides.

      Please show us where we have sided with the Frog, because with the exception of 1 tweet, we haven’t. And we have made it very clear that we haven’t in our comment at 7 Jul 2018, 18:57:00:

      “To our readers, both to those who support us and to those who dislike us, let us be very clear that we are in no way siding with the Frog. The Frog decided to share with us something and we are simply acknowledging that. What motivated the Frog to do this, is a Frog’s exclusive decision in which we played no part.
      We are non-believers when it comes to thinking that an enemy of my enemy is a friend of mine.
      We don’t side with anyone but truth. If someone is, truly, for the truth then we side with that person. Once that same person shows that they were only pretending to side with the truth, we drop them instantly as some have found out.”

      The only tweet we have sided with the Frog is this one:
      “Green Leaper‏ @FragrantFrog
      Replying to @AlleyCat666x @Anvil161Anvil16 @nicktownsend12
      Would you want your children to harbour suspicions against you, based on public opinion, re. a crime you haven't committed but may never be able to prove same?
      5:17 pm - 4 Aug 2018”

      We have explained why in our comment at 5 Aug 2018, 11:22:00.

      You say Jules was upset because we shunned her? Well we’re not upset because she’s shunned us:
      “Jules... 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿‏ @AlleyCat666x
      Replying to @xxMichelleSxx @TheBunnyReturns
      Well I've certainly learnt something new today.. What about Textusa, and their favourite fragrant aka the Frog.. What does that make Textusa.. He is that far up Frogs arse, that Frog is ready to burst.. #McCann
      11:10 am - 5 Aug 2018”

      The difference between us and her is that we don't mind what people call us. We have been called names for 10 years now and people continue to insist in visiting us.


    2. (Cont)

      We put out opinions out there and let them be scrutinized by every person who reads them. We don’t mind that our words are reproduced elsewhere by both our supporters and our critics.

      We trust people’s eyes, and if they think we’re pros, so be it. If they think Jules is right, so be it. All we can do is what we have done from the day we began to today and hope to continuing doing: act according to our consciences and say what we say with the conviction that only honesty can provide.

      So when Jules accuses of being the Frog, we don’t mind:
      “Jules... 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿‏ @AlleyCat666x
      Replying to @FragrantFrog @nicktownsend12
      Noooo, you and Textusa praise each other.. Unless, hold on, are you Textusa...
      2:55 pm - 5 Aug 2018”

      We trust people read Jules and read us and then make up their own minds and decide whether she’s telling the truth or not.

      If they decide she’s telling the truth, they should feel grateful for the warning; if they decide she’s not, then they have to wonder why she says what she says.

      About whether Jules is an anti or not, as we said, she hasn’t retracted her support for NT.

      You want to know how is the ONLY way that one is CERTAIN one wins a chess game? Very simply by playing the black and the white pieces at the same time. That way one always, but always wins.

      All one has to do is convince the audience that the player playing the white pieces is opposed to the player playing the blacks. Once the audience is convinced, victory is certain although one knows that neither player is playing the colours of the pieces in front of them on the board but one’s colours.

      That’s why occasionally there are sent what we pro-envoys, people who have the mission to validate others as white-piece players and so convince the audience.

      Why have we condemned Jules? Because she crossed a line which we find unacceptable to have been crossed: Mr Amaral’s children.

      We find disgusting and totally disrespectful that those who know the truth, or are associated with those who know the truth and are blocking it refer to Sr Amaral’s suffering because of the case.

      We will not accept that these people speak of his daughters. They should have the minimum decency not to.

    3. This is the beauty of life - You get to choose personally what and who you like.
      People, in my book, are allowed to make their own choices and like something one may not? I have friends who like certain things, even certain things I may not agree with, it's a part of life, and even in the social media world it should be the same applied.
      I myself have asked the pros and even two head pros "What about the pain the witch hunt has caused Amaral's family over the years"
      It's true. What about his family? I saw that convo, that is ALL Jules said, with respect, I saw it myself, and I have asked the same thing.
      Goncalo Amaral AND his family were put through hell too weren't they? Why should that be unforgivable? I don't understand it.....
      I am not here to cause trouble or to pick sides in some "War" I'm here because one lady is being picked on because she likes something you do not....I try to show respect to all and I wouldn't defend anyone if I thought for one second they were nasty or cruel - Jules has definitely not been from what I see daily. No one has a right to tell anyone to like or not like anything In my humble opinion, and I view that vice versa. Genuine question You do realise some of Jules comments contain sarcasm? Dryness? Like with the reply to Frog? She has more patience than I dealing with the pros, All I am saying is I still don't find anything wrong here except constant digging at one woman...I just find it all sad to see. You find NT disrespectful that is your choice, the choice you are entitled to. Jules and anyone else should be entitled to think otherwise without being dragged into a personal war...IMO with respect that seems to appear to be but thank you for your reply.

    4. NT, Ben and the lot of them have it as part of their DNA this: No one is going to tell what I can f**king read or not read. Or who I can follow, mate! But I can say what everyone else is allowed to read and what not to read!
      Same attitude wants the case closed. Maddie is just collateral damage to the protection of ‘the Realm’

    5. Nora Batty,

      It seems that Jules has endorsed fully what NT says about the dogs:
      “Jules... 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿‏ @AlleyCat666x
      Tex, this is my last reply as we're clearly getting crossed wires.. I totally understood where NT is coming from regarding the dogs.. You obviously don't.. He just words it better than some of us, but it all amounts to the same thing.. Your spat with NT is yours.. #McCann
      1:47 pm - 5 Aug 2018”

      It’s up to you Nora Batty, according to Paul Rees’ picture, to put your head out the window and see if it’s raining or if it’s dry.

    6. Textusa,
      They won’t face the fact that to condone or support NT is to betray Maddie. If they bother to look closely they’ll see that the whole purpose of that blog is to smother the facts from the PJ files, to diminish the dogs findings. To rubbish the value of cadaver residue. To almost say that Maddie McCann was never in 5a. The other purpose is to blame or prosecute the parents and close the case — covering up the part others played in PDL that fateful month.

    7. I'd like to clarify something if I may? I Said I am pro independent choices I am condoning nothing other than a human beings right to choose what they do and do not like, I am Pro Madeleine, always have been, all I can say is Jules is a lovely lady - If I see an injustice even via a friend I say with respect and I respect the hard work you do, but Jules is right, your issues with NT are yours, we're not all going to agree. Surely you see that? If we all agreed it would be a very boring world. I admire you for standing by your belief's - Just because Jules agrees with or likes something you do not, it does not make her evil or anti truth or anti Madeleine. I'm sorry you feel that way but it is hard enough against the pros and McCann camp let alone against each other too.
      We should be more united and I find it sad that we are not. As I said, it is not for me to comment on NT and I wouldn't either if it were reversed, if you're looking through clear glass you don't have to poke your head through the window to see if it's raining or dry :) Thank you very much for your time.

    8. Nora Batty.

      We see that although we have said that it was raining, you stuck your head out the window and decided that Jules was the one to be right when she said it was dry.

      We respect your decision even though we don’t agree with it.

      However, we would like to point out 3 things:

      Firstly, justice is not and cannot be based on liking but only on facts.

      It’s not a question of liking if the dogs are reliable or not, it’s a question of being factual if they are reliable or not.

      In fact, the discussion around the dogs is legally pointless. The Portuguese justice system has already decided that they are:
      “2. On 1st instance, it was given as proved the following factual matter:
      6. The dogs of the British police “Eddie” and “Keela” detected marks of odour of human blood and of cadaver in the apartment 5-A of the Ocean Club (al AR).
      7. The dogs of the British police “Eddie” and “Keela” detected marks of odour of human blood and of cadaver in the automotive vehicle rented by the AA. Kate MacCann and Gerald MacCann after the disappearance of Madeleine (al. AR).”

      So, legally, when one supports those like NT who say that the dogs don’t prove from where the scent they alert to is coming from, one is going against a legal decision made in a legitimate court of law.

      Facts are facts and true justice can only be based on facts.

      Secondly, we would like to say that there’s no one in the world that hasn’t been fooled. And no one who has been fooled, has been fooled knowingly.

      We will quote ourselves from our post “The TRUTH”, which we recommend you visit:

      “Truth on the other hand although not only convicts the T9 it also involves many others in the obstruction of justice and body concealment. TRUTHmongers cannot allow that.

      Are all those out there who don’t subscribe to Textusa TRUTHmongers?

      Obviously not. Fortunately there are many truth-seekers. Good-hearted tenacious people.

      Unfortunately many of them have been influenced by TRUTHmongers in such a manner that it makes it hard for them to let go of beliefs created through time.

      Also, it’s also very hard to “part ways” from “friends” made while seeking for the truth. To come to terms that one can no longer trust in those one trusted.

      Much easier to fool someone than to convince someone that s/he has been fooled, as Mark Twain said.

      We understand that.

      Unfortunately TRUTHmongers also do and exploit it very effectively. A TRUTHmonger is only a “Knight of TRUTH” with the help and support of the truth-seekers. Ultimately these are who give them their credibility.

      A voice needs echoing and without them, s/he is only a seller of nothing, striking the same piano key endlessly because the tune s/he is limited to play demands the tune be of a single note.

      We trust the readers’ capability to tell the difference between truth-seekers and TRUTHmongers.”

      Thirdly, we believe you must have mentioned many times Sr Amaral and his family. And we’re perfectly happy with it.

      We have no reason to believe that you’re not a truth-seeker. Hearing you speak of them is not offensive.

      What we will not accept is that people we know are here to deceive, like we believe Jules is (we know you disagree) to speak about them. That to us is a line they should have the decency to not cross.

    9. ''In fact, the discussion around the dogs is legally pointless. The Portuguese justice system has already decided that they are:
      “2. On 1st instance, it was given as proved the following factual matter:
      6. The dogs of the British police “Eddie” and “Keela” detected marks of odour of human blood and of cadaver in the apartment 5-A of the Ocean Club (al AR).
      7. The dogs of the British police “Eddie” and “Keela” detected marks of odour of human blood and of cadaver in the automotive vehicle rented by the AA. Kate MacCann and Gerald MacCann after the disappearance of Madeleine (al. AR).”

      Is that not precisely what NT said, and which you complained about yesterday? That the dog alerts to the scent it has been trained to detect, but can't tell you how the scent got there or who it came from? The court said the dogs alerted to blood and cadaver. That's what NT says.

      it seems to me you are trying to misrepresent the court, here.

      It's also really offensive to say that people who don't agree with you are ''here to deceive'', especially when you still haven't produced any evidence to back up your claims

    10. "Facts are facts and true justice can only be based on facts."

      Which brings us back to the problem - your claims are not based on facts. You have never produced any evidence at all to back up your claims about swinging, and that is your central thesis. You even ducked out on answering the question about how many agree with you.

      So if true justice can only be based on facts, where does that leave you?

    11. Anonymous 6 Aug 2018, 12:10:00,

      No, and you know it's not.

      NT says (our caps) “a decomp dog only tells you that the products of human decomp are in the air, NOT HOW THEY GOT THERE or to whom they belong".

      Means that NT the scent could have come from ANYWHERE in the house as it wafted around for months there after the body was taken.

      We and the court by saying "marks", say the locations where the dogs alerted ARE the locations where the body was. Marks are the physical residue that the body leaves and that NT denies.

    12. Anonymous 6 Aug 2018, 12:18:00,

      We'll ask you the same question we have asked Anne Guedes: what evidence you think could be expected to be found that would convince you that there was swinging?

    13. Textusa 6 Aug 2018, 12:47:0,

      Talking about demanding proof. Hope you have gone over to NT to demand from him proof of his sedation theory.

      And as NT has hosted without any correction to date Nick’s comment about Kelly’s bar, we also believe you should go there as well to demand the substantiation of this.

      Interesting that it's only us who have to prove incontrovertible evidence of something that Anne Guedes has stated that "by privacy rule no evidence [of swinging] should be available".

      About the topic being discussed, that the dogs point to locations from where physical items emit the scent they are trained to pick up, we have provided more than enough evidence, so please read the blog.

    14. I don't think you really understand this whole ''marks'' business, do you?

      The dogs alert to physical remains, sure, but they can also alert to residual scent. I have never seen NT deny ''physical residues'', like you are claiming, I just think he understands it a lot better than you.

      Please don't do that "What evidence would you expect to find?" cop-out again; If you are saying ''facts are facts'' then tell us a fact. Swinging isn't a fact. You have no evidence of it. Therefore unless you want to change your mantra to "Justice can only be based on theories" you're a bit stuck, aren't you?

    15. I'm asking you what evidence, what facts, support your theory.

      You said "Facts are facts and true justice can only be based on facts.", so I would like to know what they are, in terms of your theory.

      You can't get out of things by telling me what I should demand from NT. I am asking - not demanding - what your evidence is and what facts support it. Surely you can answer that?

    16. You don't appear to have read Martin Grime's report, so let me help you out

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

      That seems to be exactly what NT is saying, not what you are saying. It is also completely false to claim that the dogs cannot alert to residual scent ALONE. This has been proven in studies. So I'm afraid for all your indignation, NT is clearly the one who gets it and you are clearly the one who doesn't.

    17. Anonymous6 Aug 2018, 13:02:00

      "I have never seen NT deny ''physical residues''"

      That made us laugh out loud.

    18. Anonymous 6 Aug 2018, 13:11:00,

      Funny how the demand of proof is unidirectional and works only in our direction.

      Everything we have presented, we have justified. With too many words, to some. But it's there.

      Now, we ask you go ask evidence from NT simply because as a matter of principle, we think those who demand from us should be the first to welcome questions about the statements they make.

      Now, we won't waste any more time with you, the blog must move forward and yes, you can take all your unpublished comments over to NT, after all isn't that the raison d'etre of his blog?

    19. Oh Anonymous 6 Aug 2018, 13:20:00,

      You are killing us with laughter!

      "It is also completely false to claim that the dogs cannot alert to residual scent ALONE. This has been proven in studies."

      Before you make yourself look even more foolish, please go and read NT.

      He says that the cadaver scent is made up of ONLY airborne molecules, and when the body is taken away it doesn't leave any physical residue from which this scent is emitted from.

      So, according to him, the scent the EVRD dog picks up are these airborne molecules left by the body months before.

      In fact, what NT says, is that EVRD dogs ONLY alerts to residual scent.

      Please, the nest time you mention "studies" please provide links to them.

    20. Anon fighting Textusa and defending NT, so you agree that Keela alerted to blood residue in samples taken from behind the sofa?

    21. Anonymous last published at 6 Aug 2018, 13:20:00,

      Please read our comments:

      The one at 4 Jun 2018, 18:55:00

      The 2 starting at 4 Jun 2018, 23:21:00

      And the 12 starting at 9 Jun 2018, 19:58:00

      Thank you.

    22. Textusa : "justice is not and cannot be based on liking" +
      Textusa 5 Aug 12:52:00 : SUPER !


    Quite a serious accusation!
    Assaulting sexually M, killing her by accident.
    Then other comments about drugging her.
    Blacksmith is a big fan of McFadden as well as NT and Ben is a friend of hers too.
    Do NT, Blacksmith and Ben agree with this tweet?

      Madeleine CaseTweets 🌐‏ @McCannCaseTweet
      Madeleine CaseTweets 🌐Retweeted Madeleine CaseTweets 🌐
      If Gerry #McCann was sexually assaulting Madeleine with Friend Dr Payne, surely that would be a reason to hide Madeleine's body even after an ACCIDENT? IT'S time people STOP walking on egg shells around Dr. GASPAR police statement
      Madeleine CaseTweets 🌐added,
      9:43 am - 5 Aug 2018

      Interesting, that some people can say anything and are not questioned about it from high-demanding people:
      Madeleine CaseTweets 🌐‏ @McCannCaseTweet
      Replying to @anotherviv
      I am always weary of Maddie dying from overdose , then drugging twins after?? Reason why I tend to believe nasty slap, falls behind sofa ...but.... you know me, I'm open We all know Maddie died, how? We are throwing darts
      10:22 pm - 29 May 2018

      Isn’t it interesting, that someone who FALSELY accuses us of: “What do you make of Textusa thinking it's ok to hit kids, in fact no, what do you make of Textusa encouraging it?” is perfectly comfortable to be besties with someone using the word “nasty” to qualify a slap.

      On what is that qualification based on?

      If one googles the meaning of the word “nasty”:
      adjective: nasty; comparative adjective: nastier; superlative adjective: nastiest
      very bad or unpleasant.
      "plastic bags burn with a nasty, acrid smell"
      synonyms: unpleasant, disagreeable, disgusting, distasteful, awful, dreadful, horrible, terrible, vile, foul, abominable, frightful, loathsome, revolting, repulsive, odious, sickening, nauseating, nauseous, repellent, repugnant, horrendous, hideous, appalling, atrocious, offensive, objectionable, obnoxious, unpalatable, unsavoury, unappetizing, off-putting, uninviting, dirty, filthy, squalid; More
      behaving in an unpleasant or spiteful way.
      "Harry was a nasty, foul-mouthed old devil"
      synonyms: unkind, unpleasant, unfriendly, disagreeable, inconsiderate, uncharitable, rude, churlish, spiteful, malicious, mean, mean-spirited, ill-tempered, ill-natured, ill-humoured, bad-tempered, hostile, vicious, malevolent, evil-minded, surly, obnoxious, poisonous, venomous, vindictive, malign, malignant, cantankerous, hateful, hurtful, cruel, wounding, abusive; More”

      Based on what has @McCannCaseTweet to qualify the slap as ‘nasty’?

      Unless, of course, it’s just a simple exercise to stoke up the hatred against the McCanns. Then people are surprised that those fighting to have the truth about what happened to Maddie are called haters by the media.

      As the Portuguese say “for one, all pay”. In a collective, the reputation of one (or in this case a few) is the reputation of the rest, even if they don’t deserve it in any way.

    2. Crazy stuff - don't forget she says Maddie was sexually assaulted then murdered to keep her quiet!

      Now getting very dark in terms of accusations
      Isa McF (McCannCaseTweet) has liked this tweet

    4. Anonymous 6 Aug 2018, 21:12:00,

      Thank you. Bringing it over to the blog.
      Seeking justice‏ @justice4maddie
      Replying to @McCannCaseTweet
      Sadly I too feel Maddie lost her life because of a sexual assault ,#mccann knew a lot of dirty people #Payne #Freud to name but 2 #PoorMaddie ,IMO Maddie had started telling people about what she was being made to endure #SheHadToGo
      10:16 am - 5 Aug 2018


      Say that a 4 yr old was sexually assaulted and no one questions you.

      Say a 4 yr old is about to go to the police – maybe the solution to the crime was that Maddie wandered off alone out of the apartment to go denounce her parents to the GNR and on realising there was none in Praia da Luz, started to walk towards Lagos and got lost – and no one questions you.

      Mention swinging and get jumped on.

  16. Firstly, thank you against for your reply, secondly, I have not been fooled by anyone, I am not familiar with NT's past history with yourself so I Cannot comment on an issue I am not familiar with, that I refuse to be dragged into - I said my piece, Jules is a good person, so that brings me to thirdly.The greatest lesson in life is to know that even fools are right sometimes - IF I am wrong I am wrong, but I like to believe in people. I believe in Goncalo Amaral, Eddie and Keela and Grime's and the truth and that one day Madeleine will get justice. I am simply saying this - One thing doesn't make someone a bad person as a whole. Jules is a good person in my humble opinion that is all if you feel otherwise, that is your choice, all I can say is what I know as facts, I do go by facts, the files, and by Amaral's words himself, I am not a blogger, I have nothing to gain for myself, I want it to be Madeleine's, Amaral's and Brenda's and any victims sadly made a long the way in 11 years, ALL deserve justice one day. I simply stuck up for my friend nothing more, nothing less, thank you for your replies, have a good day.

  17. I apologise I mean "Again" not "Against"

  18. NT has all along been trying to say that it can't be proven that a body was in the living-room, in the bedroom and on the flowerbed 'just because' the dogs alerted in 5a. That has a name: dog-dissing.
    Those defending NT have no shame.

  19. Well, it seems that Mark Williams-Thomas, a well-known Hoax supporter (note, we did not say Mc supporter BUT Hoax supporter) is, it seems, a horrible man. Not us saying, the press:

    It seems the “McCann curse” has struck again,

    To all those currently working to promote the Hoax – as in blocking the truth in any way, shape or form, in a passive or active manner, both on the internet or other media – this may be food for thought.

    As the Spanish say, “Yo no creo en brujas, pero que las hay, las hay”

      Jonathan King‏ @KingOfHits
      Let me repeat - I do not accept the #SurreyPolice "apology". Mealy mouthed words and cover ups will not bring #BreckBednar, #MillyDowler, the #Deepcut kids, #Laurence, #Deniz, #Rob, #Amelie, #Marsha back to life. Rotten to the core.
      11:12 pm - 6 Aug 2018


      I wonder if Sr Amaral will accept apologies when the time comes from ALL those who have wronged him and his family.

    Whispering‏ @Anvil161Anvil16
    Whispering Retweeted SadeElisha
    It’s not about dissing the dogs. It’s about cadaver scent ‘wafting’ like perfume — anywhere and everywhere. Hence, easy to take a line that dogs alerting is futile, as cadaver residue ‘floats’. #mccann #shills
    Whispering added,
    2:56 am - 7 Aug 2018



    We’re afraid you’re wrong.

    By “taking away” a capability the dog has, when he does have it, it is to diss the dogs.

    The capability, in this case, which NT insistently denies, is to point the location from where the scent is being emitted from.

    In the case of the EVRD dog, he points to a general area. We have already explained that this is due to the intensity of the cadaver odour being stronger than that of blood, so the dog is able to pick up the scent further away from the emitting source than the blood dog has of picking up the blood scent. As Mr Grimes explained, in unventilated areas, there can be a cumulative effect of the scent in an area away from the emitting source – there remains one – but in these cases, and in these cases only, BOTH the source and the accumulated odour are within the unventilated area. So,in unventilated area, the area signalled by the dog is bigger.

    The opposite phenomenon happens in ventilated areas, like the living-room and backyard. There, because the scent Is dispersed, the scent picked up by the dog has to be nearby the emitting source.

    In the case of the blood dog, as it is not a strong odour, the dog only picks It up near the emitting source.

    Reason why it’s is said that the EVRD dogs points to a general area and the blood dog to a point. But the general area of the EVRD alert is not him picking up in the living-room and the source to be in the dining-room (ventilated area, so source was somewhere behind the couch) nor the alert in the bedroom came from other than from the bedroom (a not as ventilated area as the living-room).

    1. Textusa: I was concentrating more on the 2nd part of the dogs findings and the distortions by those who want to argue about the reliability of the residues left, etc. Their attempts to diminish these findings is the equivalent of saying using EVRD dogs (then and now) is almost futile. The dogs are experts at what they were trained to do. They have shown that death happened in 5a. I believe that death to be that of Maddie McCann. Of course, in a round-about-way, dissing the cadaver/blood evidence is the same as dissing the dogs. Which is their objective.

    2. What are you calling "dining room" (vs living room) in 5A, Textusa ?
      And how do you know that the bedroom was not as ventilated as the living room ? 4 families lived in that flat after the MCs and perhaps they were ventilating bedrooms, unlike the MCs, as any doctor would recommend.

    3. Anne Guedes,

      Dining-room, the table where the camera was photographed, living-room, the couch area where both dogs alerted and the blood spatters were found.

      Agree with you but was playing devil's advocate. However, even if the bedroom ventilated, as like you we believe it was, it only reinforces the fact that the body left a physical residue from which the cadaver scent was emitted.

      When the dogs walked into the apartment,the area behind the couch was much more ventilated than the bedroom. Thus Martin Grime to have called out the attention of the possibility - a mere possibility, of the item emitting the scent not to be in the corner where Eddied signalled.

      However, all points to the cupboard as Martin Grime by mentioning it, acknowledges as the most likely place from where the scent was being emitted from.

    4. Could you provide quotes from Martin Grime agreeing with your ''explanation'' about the intensity of odour, Textusa?

    5. From our "FB Anon":

      "I must be one of your dim-witted followers Textusa, as I really don't understand what NT is saying.... He says this: 'The dog is trained to alert to a scent - it can't tell you who's dead or where they have been resting.....' So is he really suggesting that someone ELSE died in 5A and it's their odour floating around the apartment? Or that the furniture in 5A came from an old people's home? Or are we back to the ancient burial ground again?? What a shame I'm not as intelligent as his good friend Nick, who even though he put his foot in it with the info about Kelly's bar, and who also spells things incorrectly and has bad grammar, NT still has him as a faithful follower."

    6. he is saying 'it can't tell you who's dead or where they have been resting'.

      is that difficult to comprehend?

    7. Anonymous 8 Aug 2018, 14:17:00,

      So, the locations where the dogs alert are irrelevant, is that it?

      In practical terms, according to NT:

      - inside the apartment the EVRD dog alerted in the living-room and the bedroom but these locations are meaningless as the body could rested in them but could also have rested in the bathroom, kids' room, corridor, kitchen and dining-room;

      - outside, the dog alerted to the flowerbed but that location is meaningless because the body could have rested in any other corner of the backyard or in the adjacent backyard.

      Are we reading what NT has said correctly now?

    8. From our "FB Anon":

      "Oh dear, I seem to have upset NT, so much so that he's had to go into full patronising mode, to really put me in my place. Of course I understand that the dogs can't tell us who died, but the dogs have indicated that there was a dead body in the living room and bedroom of 5A. The only person the police suspect of dying in the apartment is Madeleine McCann. The Ocean Club have confirmed that no-one else died in 5A. Yet, NT seems to be suggesting that there is some other explanation for cadaver odour being present, now why is that?"

    9. From our "FB Anon":

      "NT is so patronising that he's even called me "dear": “I am not dog-dissing, dear. I'm stupid twat-dissing” 😂
      A whole post dedicated to me! How honoured and proud of myself I am right now!"

  21. If there’s no problem whatsoever – as our critics adamantly say there isn’t – in being outed as a swinger, because it’s legal and no one would care or pay attention if one was a swinger or not, then why this?

    Article from May 15, 2007:

    “Família pede indemnização a Barra da Costa e à RTP

    A família McCann está a equacionar a apresentação de uma queixa-crime contra o criminalista Barra da Costa e a RTP pelos danos morais eventualmente causados pela afirmação de que os pais de Madeleine estariam envolvidos num esquema de troca de casais (swing). Barra da Costa e o canal público de televisão correm o risco de ter que pagar uma indemnização milionária aos pais”


    “Family seeks compensation from Barra da Costa and RTP

    The McCann family is considering filing a criminal complaint against the criminalist Barra da Costa and RTP for the moral damages eventually caused by the claim that Madeleine's parents were involved in a couple-swapping scheme (swing). Barra da Costa and the public television channel run the risk of having to pay a compensation in the millions to the parents.”

    1. No complaint was filed against BdC, likely because it would have been counterproductive. Asking for a compensation would have fed the speculation with substance. As for rumours, denying only makes it worse.
      SM needs more secrecy, imo. After all "Bob & Carole & Ted & Alice" is 40 years old..

    2. And… wow! The National Directorate of the PJ was going to take disciplinary action against Barra da Costa!

      A lawsuit and facing disciplinary action in his job!

      No wonder he APOLOGISED:

      “The National Directorate of the Polícia Judiciária are reportedly preparing to take disciplinary action against Barra da Costa, a criminologist and former PJ investigator.
      He has been a thorn under the skin of the McCanns this week with his incessant criticism of the family and is apparently being forced to tone down his attacks.
      Speaking on RTP state television on Sunday, he insinuated that Kate and Gerry McCann were swingers.
      Basing his comments on a source “who knows things” he speculated that Madeleine’s disappareance could be linked to “an act of revenge from other swingers”.

    3. An "act of revenge from other swingers" sounds like a very daft notion! Revenge for what?

    4. Anne Guedes,

      Do you have any information that the disciplinary process filed against Barra da Costa would be counterproductive?

      The point being made is that accusing someone of swinging is libellous. Because it is defamatory. A defamation that may imply compensation in the millions, so damage to reputation is very significant.

      You may not agree, however society does. Or as I just said on FB in reply to someone who just said that it was just about money:

      "Maria Santos Swinging is legal and no one raises an eyebrow about it anymore, it cannot be considered libel. Or can it? I may want money, but I can't exactly take you to court just because you accuse me of having said good morning to you one day..."

    5. Anonymous 7 Aug 2018, 16:55:00

      Interesting to see how whenever swinging is mentioned someone immediately either jumps in to minimise the social condemnation of swinging and the reputational damages it causes to those outed.

      This time, as minimising the libellous importance of being accused a swinger is impossible as both articles are clear, it was to pick up on a sentence from the second article that Maddie’s death “could be linked to “an act of revenge from other swingers”” and say that it was daft.

      But is it daft?

      The article was published on May 19. On that day the computers belonging to Murat and Malinka were being forensically examined and the word “swing” was the only common one searched in all 9 computer drives:
      Coincidence? Maybe not.

      On May 19, the motive for her death is not clear. Couldn’t have been some revenge between people who happened to be swingers. Not because of swinging but because they were human beings and human beings do commit crimes for various reasons.

      If we are right, that Maddie was killed during a heated argument between Kate and David, she was killed by people we believe to be swinging during that week. Were they engaged in swinging when accident happened? No, we have already clarified that we believe it was not the case and swinging was only involved in the accident because it was the topic from which the heated argument came from.

      To extrapolate “an act of revenge from other swingers” the be an act of revenge from other swingers because of swinging, is in our opinion, daft.

      The point that comes across from BOTH articles, as we have said to Anne Guedes, is that accusing someone of swinging is libellous. Why? Because it highly damages a reputation in the current day society, which is very judgemental pretending not to be.

    6. Sorry - to clarify. I was primarily asking what the 'revenge' mentioned was. It can be read a few ways: Revenge for something - perhaps for the accident to Maddie which could have exposed swinging. Or for something else entirely... His comment could be read that Maddy was disappeared by others outside the circle of Tapas, etc. Or am I reading it 'daftly.' :)

    7. Why didn’t Mcs sue him?
      IMO, maybe because under financial threat, he would reveal more about what his informant had told him?
      Would it have required a criminal court hearing with evidence on oath?
      Something the Mcs have always avoided.
      Agree that accusing someone of swinging is libel, like accusing someone of adultery, nothing about being legal but to do with personal reputations.

    8. I ignore whether BdC wanted his 15' or gullibly spread a rumour, but screaming unsupported facts over the rooftops wasn't obviously politically correct.
      The "source who knows things" and mainly the "act of revenge" are laughable.

    9. Anne Guedes,

      So you're calling Barra da Costa a liar.

      But you do agree that accusing someone of being a swinger without being able to prove it, is libelous and one can be prosecuted for spreading such a rumour?

      Or could it be that Barra da Costa was not lying but simply backtracked not because he wasn't spreading a rumour but because even though he was telling the truth he knew that if taken to court he would not be able to prove something because it was something that "by privacy rule no evidence [of swinging] should be available"?

    10. Did I say BdC was a liar ? Was the "source who knows things" a swinger ? The least one can say is that he was risk-taking by claiming without evidence something that wasn't general knowledge (had it been and could he relate the fate of MMC to the swinging practice, he would have gone further, don't you think ?).
      I don't mean that there was no swinging in PdL, perhaps there was, I only mean that there's no evidence there was afaik and moreover no evidence that MMC's accidental death was changed into abduction because of the swinging activity that had to remain secret.
      Once again I think that SM activities are much less tolerated. The architect you quoted once was attracted by pornography and filmed himself, quite a different matter.
      I know many under 40 young people who have extremely open relationships, nobody blames.

    11. Anne Guedes,

      No, you didn't call him a liar but a you did say he was claiming something without evidence. Quite unprofessional of him, we would say, so much so, that he was to face disciplinary action.

      Interesting you use the expression "risk-taking". Why? If the phenomenon is acceptable, then where would be the risk?

      As a sidenote, when we first spoke of the architect, you said that no one cared what he did, and that you didn’t even remember him, and yet you now bring him up as example. It’s a fact that he, committed a crime, and that was the fact that he filmed without the consent or knowledge of the women he was with.

      But it was not because he committed a crime that the tapes became famous. And spread like wildfire. I remember a friend walking into work that day with 6 copies of the “Tal & Qual” of that day. At 09.00, there were no more copies for sale.

      Then if you don’t remember, the actual tape came out on the “black-market”. No internet then. It was VHS copied from VHS. Then, society was divided between those who had seen the “cassete do T” and those that hadn’t yet.

      Then, If you remember, there were initiation parties, gatherings of people just to watch it for the first time, an initiation ceremony to be able to come out and be able to say “I’ve watched the cassete do T!”.

      And was it this because he committed a crime? No, because it was him and he was performing a lewd act. Just like any celebrity sex-tape that now exists all over the internet. And, again, if you remember, there was a rumour that involved was a minister’s wife, which I’ll refrain to say the name because as it was never proved and we respect the privacy of people.

      But because he was, with the social status he had, in the tape, plus the possibility of one of the women who didn’t show their faces be a minister’s wife, was what caused the exponential spreading of the tape throughout Portugal and caused irrecuperable damage to his reputation to this day.

      But using your own words, where is the illegality of being “attracted by pornography and filmed himself”? As illegal as swinging and practiced by many more people than those who practice swinging.

      What we want at this point, is to establish the serious implications that it is to be outed as swinger. Especially in the case of one being a prominent member of society. It is social-death.

      It’s so serious and reputational compromising that it’s enough for one to seek legal action in case one sees oneself being accused of being a swinger (as exemplified by the Publico article).

      Do you agree with this statement?

    12. Textusa, yes, I said that BdC claimed something without evidence, because "a source who knows things" just makes me laugh. Unprofessional of him, sure it was, he might have been a believer of the source who knows things.
      "Risk taking", because being faced with disciplinary action was possible.
      About the architect, I remember the case because you made me to a few months back ! It's yet sort of fresh in my memory, thanks to you. I only saw a very bad quality picture on a newspaper's manchette, at the corner of the street. How would I have known about a minister's wife or social sessions to watch the video tape et patati et patata, I do not socialize with those people.
      Do you know what happened to Arquitecto T ? Is he having a miserable life far away ? Were they friends the people who proscribed him ?
      I find this so trivial compared to, for instance, the Madoff case.

    13. Anne Guedes,

      About what has happened to Architect T, we think this article from the FLASH magazine answers fully your question:

      What has happened to the controversial Tomás Taveira?

      April 29 2018, at 20:10

      The architect of Amoreiras saw his reputation and career decline in 1989, the year the contents of some private films were released. After staring in the biggest post-April 25th sex scandal, Taveira retired from public life.

      Who does not remember Tomás Taveira, the architect who signed the Amoreiras project, one of the most controversial in the capital in the 1980s? If at the time he was one of the most mediatic figures in the country and also one of the most controversial, 33 years after the inauguration of the Amoreiras complex Taveira, now 79 years old, disappeared from Portuguese public and social life.

      But the truth is that the year of the "disgrace" of the well-known architect, who also came to be nicknamed the "pope" of Portuguese postmodernism, occurred in 1989. The publication of the contents of the famous tapes - films of his sexual encounters with several women, some well-known from the national jet-set of the time, ended up determining the beginning of the decline of his career and his public life.

      If until then, the architect circulated comfortably in the highest spheres of Portuguese society, from the spreading of the films - that still today are accessible in pornography sites - Tomás Taveira began to be seen like 'persona non-grata'. And gradually, and despite having continued to work and sign projects - lost media and notoriety.
      The sexual scandal of the pornographic tapes took on a media curiosity never seen before. The material where Tomás Taveira was seen to have sex with several women, some of them allegedly figures of high society, was "offered" to the newspapers.

      The magazine 'Semana Ilustrada', whose editor was called André Neves, published the photos of the intimacy of Taveira’s intimacy, but the announced 'continuation' ended up never seeing the light of day. Also the Spanish magazine 'Interviù' "picked-up" in the subject but its distribution in Portugal was canceled. The controversy ended up motivating an intervention by the Prime Minister Aníbal Cavaco Silva.

      Besides the decline of his career, Tomás Taveira saw the end of his marriage with Amarílis Cristina, with whom he had two children.”

      Ironically, FLASH magazine is one of those magazines that specializes in promoting the glamour of the Portuguese high-society, the kind of magazine the Portuguese used to call “Pink Magazines”, in which before the scandal he and his wife appeared VERY frequently and that after the scandal they stopped appearing completely.

      Note, the article was written this year. It does speak of his work but the majority of the article is about the sex-scandal he was involved in.


    14. (Cont)

      As you can see, the article states clearly that this was not circumscribed to ‘perverted’ fringes of society but it was a scandal that rocked the society as a whole.

      You are one of the few people who are able to say “how would I have known about a minister's wife or social sessions to watch the video tape et patati et patata, I do not socialize with those people.”

      There is money or material wealth, which I don’t think he’s short of, and then there’s reputational wealth which he’s broke ever since as the article clearly shows.

      We could speak how sex-scandals killed socially people. Another one coming immediately to mind was that of the singer of the girls-band “Doce” based only on a rumour. But as the Portuguese say about rumours, “there’s no smoke without a fire”.

      It’s just the people saying that when a ‘rumours’ such as these circulate, they may contain exaggerated details but it’s always based on a truth.

      We noted that you didn’t answer the question we put you so we will rephrase it and ask again:

      Do you agree with the following statement: in case one sees oneself being accused of being involved in a sex-scandal, like that of being a swinger, the damage of one’s reputation is so serious and compromising to the future of one’s social life that it’s sufficient for one to seek legal action (as exemplified by the Publico article?

    15. With U.K. law, I don’t think any compromising photos of anyone who didn’t consent to their publication could be published. I’m not sure of the law on this, but it’s my understanding.
      Publishing photos online of a partner in a compromising situation is classed as revenge porn.

    16. Thank you, Textusa, for making me know Flash magazine. I had no idea, but if one had asked me whether such magazines existed in Portugal, I would have answered "probably".
      I doubt that the news may be taken without a pinch of salt. I continue to consider the supposed T sex scandal as a tempest in a glass of water, even if protagonists were filmed (by T likely) without (?) their consent.
      The idea that I have of swinging is that consent is the rule. On that topic it is like SM. You can object that there is consent and consent and certainly there is.
      About the statement, the problem is that I don't see swinging as a sex scandal in itself (a certain press makes it so), unless the rules are not respected or changed during the practice.
      I agree that reputation has become a serious issue and it might be interesting to reflect on this.
      Definitively I think that seeking legal action would have been a really bad idea.
      Perhaps you know why the MCs finally renounced (as they renounced a legal action against "Crime" (? Or a name of that kind).

    17. AnneGuedes 8 Aug 2018, 16:44:00,

      Thank you for your reply.

      We are preparing a reply Anonymous 8 Aug 2018, 12:02:00, in which we may answer some of your questions.

      However you have said something in your comment which is fundamentally wrong and must be corrected and it has to do with consent:
      “… even if protagonists were filmed (by T likely) without (?) their consent.
      The idea that I have of swinging is that consent is the rule. On that topic it is like SM. You can object that there is consent and consent and certainly there is.”

      What you say above is absolutely correct so we’re not accusing you of misleading in any way, however by linking the consent in swinging with the consent of the filming of the tapes you are comparing 2 different things.

      The sexual acts in the tapes, were as consensual as the ones in swinging, consensual.

      No need to explain why it’s strictly prohibited to take images in swinging events. If someone leaked images from the inside of a swinging event, s/he would be committing the same crime as Taveira did filming without consent consensual sex acts.

      Another thing that needs to be clarified is that you seem to separate SM from swinging. SM, like swinging, is consensual between adults. From our research, it is with somewhat frequency that light SM is included in swinging parties. No one is obliged to do SM as no one is obliged to do anything they don’t explicitly want to do. Those for whom SM is not their cup of tea, simply have their fun in what it is and for those whom it is, they are free to engage in it. As you say, what is relevant are the two key words of swinging: adult and consent.

      About if being a “a tempest in a glass of water”, I must say that you are the first Portuguese resident that I ever spoken to that had not been aware of the Taveira scandal. For some reason there’s the rhetorical question in the article: “Who does not remember Tomás Taveira?” And the controversy spoken of in the article is not about his architecture, which we agree that within the architectural world are controversial – I personally don’t like it. The controversy in the article is about the scandal.

      The fact that the Prime-Minister had to speak publicly about the case, shows that it was this scandal was a severe storm. So severe that 39 years later, Tomás Taveira hasn’t recovered and we very much doubt he ever will.

    18. Thank you, Textusa, for sending the MFB's article. I wouldn't have been sure about the minister involved in the conflict of interests scandal, but I remember very clearly o que foi o projecto jornalistico of O Independente.
      CS was very wrong to speak publicly about the case, as wrote VPV
      "It has here to be clarified that the unpleasant architect Taveira is not a public person. A celebrated person is not a public person : what the architect Taveira does or does not do in his office does not affect any outside that office".
      I wrote "without (?)" because there no evidence those women or part of them ignored they were filmed. I find it hard to believe that they did, if their sexual partner was also the film maker.

    19. Anne Guedes,

      Having had the advantage (?) of seeing the tape back in the day, I can assure you that it’s evident. In those days the concept of “spy-cams” was only used by the intelligence services. The camcorders were significant in size. One of the “debates” when watching the tape was where he had put the camera without it being spotted by the women.

      For personal reasons, one team member is not available at the moment which means that the reply to Anonymous 8 Aug 2018, 12:02:00 is being held up (nothing controversial, just needed to go through the usual team approval process) so unlikely to be published tonight.

      However, following that reply we intended to follow it up by asking ask you a very, very stupid question, which I’ll take the opportunity and ask it before said reply gets team approval and will immediately apologise for asking it.

      Tommy Sheridan is a Scottish politician who started defamation case against the publishers of the News of the World in Edinburgh on 4 July 2006. He was awarded £200,000 in damages.

      It’s all in the following link and the headings of “Election to the Scottish Parliament”, “Defamation action”, “Hidden video”, and “Perjury conviction”:

      Other reading material:

      The stupid question is this: why do you think Tommy Sheridan went to court, was it because he was being accused of being a swinger or because he was caught drinking champagne?

      The reason why we’re asking this very, very, very stupid question is because someone – everyone knows who – asked wherever had anyone sued for being accused for being a swinger in the UK.

      We published the Wikipedia the link above.

      The reply from that someone – everyone knows who – was that it was evident that it was because he was caught drinking champagne.

      Do you agree with us that it was because he was accused of being a swinger, or with that someone – everyone knows who – that it was because he was caught drinking champagne?

      Once again our apologies.

    20. £200,000 for drinking champagne??? LOLOLOL
      And you're the fantasist!

    21. Textusa, TS might have gone to court just because he was accused of cheating on his wife by visiting Cupids swingers' club. He might have adored his wife and feared to lose her (or her money).
      I think that the MCs' motive for suing GA wasn't money (this was Isabel Duarte's obsession), but keeping in peoples' minds the (virtual) image of an alive MMC.

    22. Presumably the women didn’t consent to the video being made public.

    23. Anne Guedes,

      Thank you for your reply and making it clear that it wasn't about the champagne.

      I believe that if I were a judge and on hearing a case about a man in front of me asking for a compensation for damages to his love for his wife after having visited a swingers club, I would simply tell him "you should have thought about it before you went there, shouldn't have you?"

      If a man feels he needs a court to prove to his wife that he was in a swingers club 'just looking' then the problems of his marriage are not solved in a court of law, and much less would said court sentence the defendants to pay him £200,000 because of such a motive.

    24. Judges must remain in their role and avoid being moralists, Textusa.
      TS was accused by the NotW, had he denied it would have spread, he had not much choice. Had he not asked for compensation, that would have looked fishy. He could have given the money to some noble cause (what happened to it finally ?).

      You perhaps should have highlighted that TS claimed to be a teetotaller. There was a cocaine story as well.

    25. Anne Guedes,

      Not being a moralist. One cannot go gamble and then sue the casino for having lost the money. A judge not accepting a damage suit on that basis is neither promoting or condemning gambling, simply pointing out that one should accept the consequences of the choices one makes.

      Very much like we defend that should happen with ALL those who have and continue to feed the hoax that has obstructed justice and disrespects the memory of a little girl and was the reason for the suffering of the Amaral family.

      You seem to be confusing a swingers’ club with a strip club. One does not go to a swingers’ club to drink (yes, there are drinks there) but to practise swinging.

      The admission is highly restricted and single men are not welcomed. Swinging is done by couples. And if the idea is to openly share with one’s partner the intimacy with other couples, infidelity – the presence of someone there cheating (being unknown to his/her partner) goes against the spirit intended and is not welcomed.

      The defamation suit was clearly about being accused of swinging. To state otherwise intentionally is to simply to be gaslighting.

    26. What does a moralist if not "pointing out that one should accept the consequences of their choices" ?

      I never fed the abduction hoax and always thought that leaving justice do its work was the only chance to repair the deteriorated social fabric.
      I don't understand what you mean by "disrespecting the memory of a little girl" and the idea of "justice for Madeleine" doesn't make sense to me. This little girl, during her short life, was more cherished than many are.
      Imo the hoax isn't (couldn't be) the responsible for the suffering of the Amaral family.

      Textusa, do you know why BdC thought that the swinging story would help explaining the disappearance of MMC ? And why finally the MCs didn't sue him ?
      Things are never simple, we are complex beings.

    27. Anonymous 8 Aug 2018, 12:02:00

      In Portugal it is very much the same:

      From RTP, Jun 19 1990:

      “Lisbon, André Neves, director of Semana Ilustrada magazine, is condemned by the Boa Hora Court od Time for the abuse of freedom of the press, for improper use of images taken from video about Tomás Taveira, architect.”

      In Publico, Nov 14 2008:

      “The Taveira case
      In the national bibliographic database of the National Library, however, there are other records, still in 1989, in other areas. Among them are Sorte, Euromode, Grande Encontro (fashion), bem como O Caso, Agenda da Semana, Euro Notícias, Euro Semana, Sorte, Mariana e Semana Ilustrada (classified as general information). All of them had as director André Neves.
      It is in this period of great productivity that the scoop of his life would arrive in the hands of the publisher. At the end of the summer of 1989, André Neves manages to obtain access to a domestic video of the architect Tomás Taveira, in which he had sexual relations with several women. The question was to choose the publication to spread the story. The Semana Ilustrada turns out to be the chosen one.
      The famous tapes passed through other media, but no other had the audacity to publish as André Neves did. At the time a cautionary order was ordered to stop the scandal, it was too late: the magazine was already on the stands. Tomás Taveira's intimate images appeared on the cover and inside pages of the magazine, accompanied by small texts. In the editorial, in turn, the courage of that work was exalted, as if it were a crusade for good customs. Andre Neves boasted that he had not given in to "pressures"; of having kept the magazine's "commitment" with readers and with the truth "; of having allowed public opinion to condemn the architect for his "dirty acts."
      The publication would raise a criminal case and civil damages, of Tomás Taveira against André Neves, for abuse of the freedom of the press. The architect would still be able to have an acórdão from the Lisbon Court of Appeal to stop in the future, that various media companies from publishing anything about the episode.”

      The Taveira case is quite useful to understand because it has, in our opinion, things that help us understand the Maddie case. The first and most obvious is that however open-minded a society says it is, a sex-scandal represents a social-death as it destroys completely the reputation of whoever is caught up in it.

      But as we will show there are other aspects that are useful to understand the Maddie case.

      Before we get to them, we think it’s important that our readers understand what happened and why there was such a national interest in it – with exception of Anne Guedes – and which continued for years.

      As reported above, the public first took knowledge of this case by knowing there were images printed in a magazine.

      Very few people saw a copy of that Semana Ilustrada. I didn’t, and know no one who has.

      Now, I recollect that in the Tal & Qual – a friend from work came in that day with various copies – Taveira’s identity was not revealed and spoke only of a famous person. The faces of the pictures were blurred (Anne Guedes, the reason why Tal & Qual was not sued).

      Getting the Semana Ilustrada off news-stands quickly was quite effective

      Only later, would I learn, don’t remember where nor how, but I do believe either on that day or the next one, rumours started that the famous person involved was Tomás Taveira. Rumours, as the Portuguese say, where there’s smoke there’s a fire and it was confirmed that it was.


    28. (Cont)

      The issue would have probably died there – uncertain what damage would it have on Taveira’s reputation then, as based only on a rumour of consensual sex act between her and a football player that caused her ending up needing hospital treatment, ended the career of a well-known singer part of the of a very popular girl’s band at the time – but the fact of the matter is that it didn’t.

      Rumours started to circulate that there was a video-tape going around from where the printed images had come from. Again, a rumour that turned out to be true.

      How did the tape find its way into the hands of André Neves, the magazine publisher?

      We will never know because André Neves has never revealed the name of his source.

      But the rumour – again a rumour – was that it was out of revenge from a friend (?) of Taveira, who knew these tapes existed and stole them from his house. And then took them to Neves and as says the Publico article, to other media companies

      Revenge against what? We don’t know but we don’t think that using the word revenge is daft.

      It’s not daft because the proof that there was something more than money involved behind the leaking of the tape is that it was literally leaked to the public. Then there was no internet, so the propagation of the tape was done by successive copies. Thus the absolute lack of quality in the image in the versions still found online.

      It was the spreading of this tape that made this a national scandal.

      It started with a “there is a tape of Taveira!” which quickly evolved into a “have you seen the Taveira-tape yet?” to the final “what, really, you haven’t seen It yet?”.

      This to say that it was clear that the idea behind the leaking of this sex-tape had a very clear objective: to hurt seriously Tomás Taveira. How? By involving him in a sex-scandal.

      And it was very effective because as we have said, a sex-scandal is a social death and the more important on is the greater is the blow as society’s. Taveira was (probably still is, as people don’t change) a very vain man. He and his wife were continually promoting themselves in the so-called jet-set through very frequent appearances in magazines dedicated to this.

      They stopped appearing abruptly and became a persona non-grata in any social event that required the visibility of its guests. The social downfall was swift and merciless

      Another thing we would like to point out was the swiftness with which the sentence was given. This started in the summer of 1989 and in June the following year André Neves had been sentenced.

      But what we would really like to highlight is the crime that went unpunished.

      All that was shown in the sex-tape was legal and consensual, the only illegality was for Tomás Taveira to have filmed himself with the women without their consent to be filmed.

      But none of the women ever came forward to file a complaint.

      Why, didn’t they complain? For the obvious reason that they would draw attention to themselves, thus further shaming themselves publicly.

      Very quickly, the names of the women whose faces appeared started to circulate, fortunately something that time has erased. But there was a curiosity to know who the women were, especially the desire to confirm if indeed one of them was the minister’s wife.

      No court process, no matter how closed the doors were, would protect their names and it would be a situation of their word against his as he could easily say that they had consented to the filming, that the camera instead of being behind some books hidden from sight, was in front of them and the women knew and agreed they were being filmed.

      One thing is the truth, another completely different is what can be proven in court. Does it make it less truth?

      This means that legally, the videos were filmed under the consent of the women.

      One has to watch the videos to see that it isn’t so. But legal reality does not always match up reality


    29. (Cont)

      If we were now to be asked to provide evidence that the women were filmed without consent, we wouldn’t be able to provide it.

      The women remained silent not because they tacitly agreed that there was the disputed consent but because they chose to protect themselves. To protect their reputation.

      Very much like with swingers, who are not victims or have committed any crime, but to protect themselves and their reputation from a “Taveira effect” they are willing to be silent before a crime

      To now state that because “you can’t provide evidence that there was no consent, so there was consent” would be enormously unfair to the women on the sex-tape.

      There are things and situations, especially those involving the reputation and privacy of people, that simply cannot be proved. Even if those women had stepped forward, they could not prove they had not consented.

      So when our critics demand from us that we provide evidence of swinging they know there is none possible to provide. One person who quickly realised that in our opinion was Barra da Costa. He knew he couldn’t provide “the evidence” (the Tommy Sheridan case is the proof that in such cases it’s practically impossible to provide evidence – as the fact that a person is in a swingers club doesn’t necessarily mean that one is swinging but simply could be there as a mere observer) to his claims so he backed down

      But another thing our critics know, is that not being able to provide evidence doesn’t mean that it didn’t take place. Like the women in the sex-tape, the fact that it cannot be proven that there was no consent, doesn’t mean there was consent.

      What swingers may fear the most is not the scandal as much as the mockery and sniggering and the resultant assault on their dignity.

      One just has to look at the level of schoolboy humour in the gifs and graphics on the subject of swinging in the McCann case that target us.

      Imagine how the status of the people involved would be affected by the laughter and sniggering behind the hands.

      Questions like “Are you a cross -dressing swinger?” illustrate the sort of attitude that could be expected. And is in life outside the internet people are not this brazen, these kinds of questions are left unsaid but are made with the avoidance of eye-contact or by the total avoidance of contact.

      It's said that children are cruel to each other, but one just has to try to fall out of the established norms of public behaviour to fully understand that this behaviour never leaves people as they age.

      Aggravated by the fact that the prejudice children don’t have is acquired and just gets worse with the passing of the years.


    30. (Cont)

      The next thing we would like to highlight is the fact that Taveira did go to court – and unsurprisingly won the case.

      In cases involving sex-scandals, only in a nothing to lose situation does one avoid the discretion that silence provides.

      That’s why when Anne Guedes thinks that the McCanns seeking legal action against the swinging accusation would have been a really bad idea, we agree with her.

      It would be very-counterproductive indeed just like it would have been so for the women in the Taveira sex-tape and why they were wise to remain silent.

      The level of the accusation made by Barra da Costa never reached, not by miles, the national proportions like it did with Tomás Taveira. Barra da Costa never placed the McCanns between a rock and a hard place.

      In fact, his apology – or better said with him backtracking – stopped the defamation right there and then.

      And by then, the McCanns enjoyed the help of a friendly media, something that Taveira never had in his case.

      Taveira was forced to go to court as he had nothing to lose, unlike the McCanns who would have lots to lose if they tried, as it would only bring visibility to something that visibility is the last thing desired.

      In case the case the Barra da Costa’s swinging accusation would have reached the level of notoriety as did the Taveira sex-tape, then in a nothing to lose situation we’re not seeing any other option than them going to court where they would likely win as swingers came forward to testify, it would be extremely hard, not to say impossible to prove that they were swingers.

      Which, as we said, wouldn’t mean that they weren’t. Like with the Taveira sex-tape, where legally there was consent to film but we know that to be not the case.

    31. AnneGuedes 9 Aug 2018, 12:10:00,

      Where have we been moralists? We have used a gambling example to prove a point but have not passed on any moral judgement about gambling itself. It’s factual that the vast majority of people who gamble in casinos lose money, that’s the way the casinos make money.

      “…one should accept the consequences of their choices” isn’t that just a basic principle of justice?

      When justice deprives a person of their freedom as a result of what that person did, it’s simply applying the legal consequences to the choice that person made when committing the felony. Nothing to with morals only with accountability.

      If anyone has been a moralist here it was you with your “How would I have known about a minister's wife or social sessions to watch the video tape et patati et patata, I do not socialize with those people”, as if there was something wrong with socialising with people who gather to watch a pornographic tape, which is something that if there are no minors present is absolutely legal.

      The hoax is responsible for the suffering that the Amaral family went through.

      Independent if one believes the hoax was limited to the McCanns and the abduction or if one, like us, believes that the hoax involves a lot more people and of which the abduction hoax is but a part.

      It’s factual that the Sr Amaral was kicked out of the investigation because of it and ended up having to go through the legal process which meant him losing his marriage, abandoning his career and living for years without his assets.

      Without the hoax that would have never happened.

      If it’s proven that only the McCanns are responsible for the hoax, then it’s only on the McCann’s consciences the suffering to Mr Amaral and his family went through.

      If it’s proven that the true hoax is not only the abduction but the obstruction of justice, then that suffering is on the conscience of all those who have helped and are helping, in whatever degree, the hoax to continue.

      If there is obstruction of justice, as we believe there is, then "justice for Madeleine", has been halted and that to us is "disrespecting the memory of a little girl".

      We think Barra da Costa thought that the swinging story would help explain – not be responsible for – the disappearance of Maddie MC because he realised that the group was integrated in a large swinging group and as abductors don’t appear below the stones, as the Portuguese say, the logical conclusion to make was that the disappearance was somehow linked to the group of people who knew the parents and the parents knew them for reasons to be determined.

      We believe that when he made the comment he was not certain of anything but simply pointing out to where he believed would the answer as to why Maddie disappeared be most likely found.

      Other than that, THEN, we don’t think any other relationship could be established between the swinging event and Maddie’s disappearance other than the likelihood of a swinger – so nothing to do with the swinging event per se – being responsible for it for whatever reasons, and the most logical one being some sort of revenge against the McCanns.

      The linking of the swinging event with the disappearance of Maddie – what in our opinion is the real hoax, the one we say is responsible for the suffering of Sr Amaral and his family – could only be made upon realising that a large number of witnesses were lying.

      We have answered why we think the McCanns didn’t sue Barra da Costa in our reply to Anonymous 8 Aug 2018, 12:02:00.

    32. Not only GA and his family but also the life of Brenda Leyland. RIP Brenda.

    33. Not according to the judgment - perhaps you should read that?

      You seem to know a great deal about swinging - is this from personal experience?

    34. Why have you referred to the Taveira case, which has nothing whatsoever to do with swinging?

    35. Anonymous 9 Aug 2018, 16:08:00,

      What judgement?

      The only one we've heard of was on the eventual damages caused to the McCanns by Sr Amaral for writing a book when, according to the McCanns they had been cleared.

      If you did read the Acórdão, Anonymous 9 Aug 2018, 16:08:00, things didn't go well for the McCanns as the Portuguese justice system made it VERY CLEAR that they hadn't be cleared.

      That was the subject-matter of the McCann v Amaral trial in Lisbon, so why bring it up when we're discussing the possible implications of swinging in the case?

      A lot of our critics seem to disagree on whether swinging is something they are entirely relaxed about or feel disgusted by. Do make up your minds, please.

      Comments like yours that imply that only a swinger would know about swinging are patently ridiculous, when the same people claim paedophilia or over sedation is at the heart of the Maddie case.

      Are they speaking from personal involvement or their general knowledge of the issue?

    36. Anonymous 9 Aug 2018, 16:30:00,

      Because it shows very clearly how being involved in a sex-scandal damages significantly one's reputation.

      The parallel is easy to establish, as those outed as having been in Praia da Luz swinging would see themselves involved in a sex-scandal as NT has explained so well: "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."

    37. The judgement in the Sheridan case, not Amaral

    38. Anne Guedes,

      As we showed in our post “The paedo-offensive”, Natalie Rowe wrote some very informative words about what means to be a member of a VIP swinger group:

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

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

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

      As an Anonymous said in our post “Why?”:

      “Anonymous15 Mar 2018, 22:54:00
      What is so infuriating is the attitude that there would not be a cover-up of the swinging activities of a small group of people who were nobody special.
      That’s very true- IF it was confined within that group. But what you are saying it’s precisely because the activities in PdL were not confined to that small group and that people of higher prestige were also involved.
      As Natalie Rowe described, participants were initiated and blackballed if they failed to maintain the absolute discretion required from them.”

      What Natalie Rowe doesn’t speak of is that the “Anything against the rules and you were immediately black balled” rule did not only apply to swingers but ALSO to the staff supporting the event.

      Absolute discretion was certainly also demanded from all those who were not swingers but just working people in that chateau who were there just to do a job, make sure all went smoothly and satisfy all non-sexual related needs of the guests.

      If there was a VIP swinging event in Praia da Luz involving VIPs such as “judges, lawyers and politicians” and others from other highly prestigious professions (e.g. doctors, architects, etc.) in Praia da Luz, do you believe there would be a rule similar to that chateau’s “black-balling” one in place, which would be extended to both the swingers there as well as the supporting staff to the event from Mark Warner and Ocean Club?

      We believe there would be. One rule we believe is still in place today, 11 years later.

      People from the UK so important who would justify the arrival Control Risk Groups to make sure that the required discretion was absolutely safeguarded, would certainly make the meaning of “black-balling” a very palpable warning not to be played with.

      Would you expect for any guest to break this pact of silence openly and overtly? We wouldn’t.

      Would you expect for any worker, regardless of that meaning they would lose or not their jobs afterwards (the loss of a job is not as serious as losing a job and not be given another one anywhere else), to break this pact of silence openly and overtly?

      They would be known for having talked to the police when they knew they shouldn’t have.

      We believe that those who spoke to Barra da Costa, spoke under the assurance that their names would never be known and we would speculate they were swingers not happy to see Robert Murat being thrown vicious and mercilessly under the bus when they knew he had nothing to do with what happened with Maddie’s death while watching those who did have, those who were involved in the accident that caused the little girl to lose her life, were not only being protected but all appeared as if they were going to walking away scot-free.

    39. I still don't understand what kind of justice you want for MMC, Textusa, if you agree that she died accidentally. Justice for her remains that should decay properly in a churchyard, expecting the resurrection day, instead of feeding crabs or whatever ?

      As concerning Gonçalo Amaral, how can you suggest he was a manipulated puppet. He received no orders to spare the poor parents, it just didn't pass his mind, in the first weeks, to suspect those photogenic, so catholic (like him) British doctors (whereas he suspected immediately the precarious Portuguese Leonor). That was his biggest mistake.
      Nobody forced him to leave the PJ and he shouldn't have, because he obviously liked his job very much.
      He left the PJ in order to brush his honour by writing a book. But his book, which doesn't say more than the PJFiles on the MC case, omits unfortunately to question the system that allowed his dismissal.

      It seems that losing his wife wasn't a drama, she might have plaid some part in the controversial inheritance, eventually also in the accumulated debts. But that's hearsay. The only thing I know, because GA tells it in his book, is that she waited all day and a part of the night for her exhausted husband to be back because she wouldn't touch her dead little dog. The other revealing (imo) detail is the unnecessary open letter she sent to Kate MC.

    40. About the consent, could you elaborate a bit to justify what otherwise would only be a "feeling" that the Tavira partners ignored they were filmed ? They had sexual, not romantic, relations, after all they also might have liked to watch.
      How do you know that it is not one of these women who stole the video tape and made sure it was spread ? Since the faces were difficult to identify.. Out of vengeance, why not, what Medea did was pretty much worse.

    41. Textusa, do you think that so many witnesses would have been interviewed, had MMC officially fallen from the balcony, breaking her crown ? This kind of domestic accident happens daily, it's no breaking news, hence not mentioned in the media.

      Why do you think BdC was told about PdL swinging ? Did it make sense to inform him ?
      Do you exclude that BdC was one of the swingers ?
      Have you determined where was the château scene ?

    42. “I still don't understand what kind of justice you want for MMC, Textusa, if you agree that she died accidentally. Justice for her remains that should decay properly in a churchyard, expecting the resurrection day, instead of feeding crabs or whatever ? “
      What do you think Textusa & others are doing on the internet? What are you doing here then Anne?

    43. What do you think I'm doing, Anonymous 11:19 ?

    44. Anne are you saying that what GA has gone through was his fault and that of his wife?

    45. Anne, I’m 11:19. Why do you always answer a question with questions, always moving the goal-posts? I think you are here to rubbish any investigation, using intellectual discourse. Seems to me you’ve gone nasty because swinging came up... I’m here to find out what happened to Maddie and if I can help out, to know the truth about what happened to her is to serve her the justice she has been denied. What about you?
      I think GA is a very honourable man and doing his job and bears no blame about what happened to him. Neither does his family and frankly find it offensive you insinuating it!

    46. I prefer to speak in terms of free will as opposed to determinism or fatalism. The MCs imo made a bad choice with their abduction story, they weren't forced to, were they ? One has to admit that it worked very well, so far..
      GA imo made a bad choice leaving the PJ, he wasn't forced to, was he ? It didn't work well for him, I hoped that wining the lawsuit would help him to make a new start, but I even ignore whether he at least got his assets back.

    47. Anonymous 13:59, I sent 14:31 before your post was published.
      I don't think I always answer questions with questions, I have no power to "rubbish any investigation" and I have nothing against swinging hence your accusing me of "going nasty" isn't acceptable.
      Basically, and to answer your question, I read Textusa's posts to try and understand. Sometimes I oppose certain facts, sometimes I just give my opinion. I'm not the insinuating kind.

    48. Anne Guedes - winning the lawsuit as you put it, took many many years. I'm sure it was bittersweet and we know took a huge toll on Amaral and his family. But you 'even ignore whether he got his assets back' - what's that supposed to mean? Also, Amaral 'didn't have to leave' perhaps but I'm sure you'd agree he was shoved...? Just what is your point here, on this blog besides sucking in all the air?

    49. Anne Guedes,

      We’re in August so communications between team members are not easy to maintain, reason why we are being “slow” in answering.

      You have made a statement that needs urgent clarification: whether Sr Amaral had a choice – or quoting you “GA imo made a bad choice leaving the PJ, he wasn't forced to, was he ?”

      Sr Amaral was taken off the investigation when he was pursuing 2 lines of investigation that we deem to have been essential to the discovery of the truth: reconstruction and bringing over Mr Smith again after he said he recognised Smithman as likely to be Gerry McCann after seeing him coming down the stairs of the plane.

      He was indeed shoved off the investigation. That’s factual. So, if we’re going to talk about choices, he could have chosen to be manipulated and go along with the hoax. He didn’t and he was kicked off the investigation.

      Here he had a choice: see himself be insulted and take it lying down, or defend his honour. You seem to say that not having opted for taking it lying down was a bad option, we disagree we think he made the right and honourable choice.

      Note, he was put into the position of having to make this choice because of all the people who knowing EXACTLY what happened pretended and continue to pretend they don’t and by doing so helped and continue to help the continuing of the hoax that was materially and morally responsible for the suffering the Sr Amaral and his family went through.

      Having been put into this position, of hearing his name being slandered across the British media without any lifting of any finger from the Portuguese authority to defend him is part of that suffering. The defenders of the hoax – or legally speaking, the obstructers of justice – began to make him suffer before he took the decision of writing the book.

      Once the choice, the only choice you can criticise him for, to defend his honour, then he HAD TO leave the police. Note, a deterministic ‘HAD TO’. To be clear again, the choice was whether to defend the honour, but to defend it there was no choice in having to have left the police.

      As an ACTIVE duty police officer he could not write the book, the only way he found to fight the accusations of incompetence that were made against him. Saying that he only repeated what was in the PJ Files, is to be extremely unfair to the man. He didn’t know if the files would be released to the public. We know the law states that once closed or archived a process can be requested for viewing but as there are, also according to the law many exceptions for this to happen (like for example the pages that were taken out to protect the paedophiles investigated) there could have been a dispatch stopping the files from being released publicly. He didn’t know, no one did.

      The release of the files, only showed that what he wrote – the book was published before they were released – was true and in the files, except the falling-off the couch scenario which isn’t in them.


    50. (Cont)

      So, in practical terms, to answer your question “GA imo made a bad choice leaving the PJ, he wasn't forced to, was he ?”, is yes he was forced by law, unless you think he should have opted to take the abuse he was being subject to.

      We consider very inappropriate your mention of Sr Amaral’s wife. She’s an innocent bystander and we prefer that you and readers keep her out of the discussion. We consider her and their daughters to be victims and will not accept any comments referring to Sr Amaral’s private life.

      While we prepare the reply to you, could you please answer objectively these questions that we have put to you?

      #1 - Do you agree with the following statement: in case one sees oneself being accused of being involved in a sex-scandal, like that of being a swinger, the damage of one’s reputation is so serious and compromising to the future of one’s social life that it’s sufficient for one to seek legal action (as exemplified by the Publico article?

      #2 - If there was a VIP swinging event in Praia da Luz involving VIPs such as “judges, lawyers and politicians” and others from other highly prestigious professions (e.g. doctors, architects, etc.) in Praia da Luz, do you believe there would be a rule similar to that chateau’s “black-balling” one in place, which would be extended to both the swingers there as well as the supporting staff to the event from Mark Warner and Ocean Club?

      #3 - Would you expect for any guest to break this pact of silence openly and overtly?

      #4 - Would you expect for any worker, regardless of that meaning they would lose or not their jobs afterwards (the loss of a job is not as serious as losing a job and not be given another one anywhere else), to break this pact of silence openly and overtly?

      It would be important for us to know where you stand on these questions so we know best on how to proceed.

      Thank you.

    51. #1 - Do you agree with the following statement: in case one sees oneself being accused of being involved in a sex-scandal, like that of being a swinger, the damage of one’s reputation is so serious and compromising to the future of one’s social life that it’s sufficient for one to seek legal action (as exemplified by the Publico article?
      Personally, Textusa, as I'm not interested by any social life that would ostracise me because I was involved in swinging sex-scandal, I would assume my sex-life and blame those who dare to invade people's privacy and condemn it.

      #2 - If there was a VIP swinging event in Praia da Luz involving VIPs such as “judges, lawyers and politicians” and others from other highly prestigious professions (e.g. doctors, architects, etc.) in Praia da Luz, do you believe there would be a rule similar to that chateau’s “black-balling” one in place, which would be extended to both the swingers there as well as the supporting staff to the event from Mark Warner and Ocean Club?
      I suppose so since people participating in such an event obviously do it if and only if their privacy is protected.

      #3 - Would you expect for any guest to break this pact of silence openly and overtly?
      It would be self-destructing, wouldn't it, the guest who breaks the secrecy rule is twice the target of blame.

      #4 - Would you expect for any worker, regardless of that meaning they would lose or not their jobs afterwards (the loss of a job is not as serious as losing a job and not be given another one anywhere else), to break this pact of silence openly and overtly?
      Workers must be very, very well paid to keep silent. Frankly I don't see those 9, who negotiated a lower price because there was no listening service and didn't invest that discount on babysitters, ready to pay a fortune for swinging with VIPs.

    52. AnneGuedes 10 Aug 2018, 20:21:00,

      Thank you for your replies.

      As said, team is currently "disbanded" so will take slightly longer to answer your questions starting with your comment at 10 Aug 2018, 01:41:00.

      Let me tell you that you have raised a very interesting point in #4 which is important to clarify and which we will as soon as we can.

  22. It seems that both Nick/Anon and NT have overlooked to answer the questions we put to them at 5 Aug 2018, 12:52:00 about Nick/Anon stating that the group was seen at Kelly’s bar.

    Maybe NIcl/Anon was referring to this article:

    Now it’s available only to subscribers, but we mentioned it our post “EastEnders, WestEnders & NoEnders”, published May 1 2010:

    “I call to your attention Kelly's Bar not because of Mr. Smith, but because of both Drs. McCann: “Kelly's Irish Bar, three minutes' walk from the Mark Warner Complex where the McCanns stayed, is -- allegedly -- one of the places visited by Gerry and Kate McCann during their brief stay on the peninsula.”

    Kelly’s is managed by a Mary from Donegal, and the father of her son worked at Chaplins. Once again, pure coincidence. But looking at these two establishments one discovers what seems to be, after tennis, the second most popular activity in PdL: Quiz Night!!!”
    From that post we would also like to highlight this comment:

    “IRONSIDE1 May 2010, 12:46:00
    Independent careful with words...Mary, manager of Kellys Bar
    'They could have brought their children with them to Chaplins....'

    Is Mary saying she has knowledge they were in sounds very much like it...”

    Fascinating that Nick/Anon who hasn’t read Kate’s book yet would know such a detail.

    So we ask the same questions again. For Nick/Anon:

    On which night or nights, were the T9 at Kelly’s?

    Why do you think the Tapas staff lied about the T9 being always, every night, at Tapas?

    Why hasn’t anybody from Kelly’s bar reported the T9 drinking there?

    Are you accusing the Kelly’s staff of covering up for them? Why do you think they would?

    Have you any evidence they were in Kelly’s on the night or nights you say they were? If so, have you informed the PJ?

    How long have you known this and who told you? Were you in Kelly’s bar or was somebody you know?

    Why hasn’t NT jumped down your throat like a rabid dog and ripped you apart for daring to call the Tapas staff liars?

    Why hasn’t NT jumped down your throat like a rabid dog and ripped you apart for daring to implicate innocent people, the Kelly’s staff, in covering up for the T9?

    And for NT:

    Why haven’t you jumped down Nick’s throat like a rabid dog and ripped him apart for daring to call the Tapas staff liars?

    Why haven’t you jumped down Nick’s throat like a rabid dog and ripped him apart for daring to implicate innocent people, the Kelly’s staff, in covering up for the T9?

  23. Publish it or not, up to you Textusa ! Since you published a post saying I'm "sucking in all the air"... Aren't you frightened by your fans ?
    "He was indeed shoved off the investigation. That’s factual."
    "So, if we’re going to talk about choices, he could have chosen to be manipulated and go along with the hoax. He didn’t and he was kicked off the investigation."
    Let's not rewrite history. GA wasn't kicked off because he refused to be manipulated. He said something that probably was true, but it didn't belong to him to state it publicly. He suggested that he thought it was off the record... Let's admit that he wasn't careful.
    I don't think that GA was better off because he was about to crack the case. He wasn't, certainly not with his MI5 suspicion, the coffin and the frozen body. The reconstitution wasn't his idea and Martin Smith offered himself to go back to PdL.

    I think that GA was put aside because the UK tabloïds had started to discredit GA with the supposed Cipriano torture episode and were picturing him as the cop obsessed with criminal mothers.
    Not promoting him was humiliating him, a terrible feeling for the marialva he is.

    1. Do you seriously believe that Amaral was taken off because of the comment he made about the British police? Do you expect Textusa readers to believe that too?

    2. "According to a British correspondent, the Prime Minister personally called Stuart Prior to ask for confirmation of my dismissal."

    3. Anne Guedes,

      See no reason for you to think that we are frightened by our readers. But, like we say to those who say we are pros or cross-dress swingers or whatever, we will say to you that you are free to think we are. Have no problems whatsoever about that.

      We respond to ourselves and our consciences only and to no one else.

      Besides, our 6 fans are so brainwashed by us - according to "some" of our critics - that it would be absurd for us to fear them.

      About where we agree or disagree with Sr Amaral in the case, we will address in a future date.

      Currently we are addressing about swinging in the Maddie case as you in your comment at 27 Jul 2018, 16:29:00 that "your hypothesis is based on no evidence, afaik" and we're trying to explain on what facts and indications we have construed our theory.

    4. Oh I was just wondering. Some people hate to be worshipped. Some people love others contradicting them, because it is like this they progress (and imo that's true).
      I have no idea, and don't want to have, of what kind of person you are, Textusa, I just have a feeling that you're a guy, through the way you express your thoughts. But it's rather irrelevant.
      What I do observe is that if one questions your theory, immediately lots of voices surge to annihilate the sceptic ! Funny ? No, sad.

      And I'm gobsmacked that your swinging theory (which could be true, but could as well have nothing to do with the disappearance of MMC's body) is so attractive that some of your readers are obfuscated when someone dares to question it.

    5. Anne Guedes,

      All we can say is that we have 13 unpublished comments from the "other side" and reading them it could be said that they are obfuscated when someone dares to question you and immediately "lots" of voices surge to annihilate the sceptics.

      But then that wouldn't be a very analytical way of analyzing things, wouldn't it?

      Neither our readers nor your new fans are obfuscated.

      We trust that both who read us and them are able to come to their own decoded, untangled, clear, logical and independent conclusions.

  24. Why does GA become the subject !?? Forget it. He has done his job and he had every right to put to paper his thoughts, every word. Leave him out of the argument. He has suffered enough, he is set free of that darned couple who have the support of those who share their boat and they are still free. Leave GA in peace.

    1. We inform our readers that we won't be accepting expressions such as "that darned couple" to refer to the McCanns.

      To be very clear, we nurture no sympathy for them but as we have explained, we believe that a lynch-mob style campaign to have the population profoundly hate the McCanns and so convince the government that as the couple is paying a price, Operation Grange can close without conclusion as the McCanns have been punished.

      We refuse to participate in such a campaign and so won't accept any reference to the McCanns that involve any kind of "hate-speech".

      Thank you for understanding.

    2. Thank you for saying this, Textusa. As you, I nurture no sympathy for the MCs (I would get bored after 10 minutes conversation), but "hate-speech" must be avoided at all cost in order to have the social fabric repaired.

  25. Thank you, Textusa 10 Aug 2018, 21:33:00

    That was perfect. If 'darned' is too strong I offer alternative words, maybe be 'the uk's ornaments of the century' embellishing is a lot of work, though, so I'll stop there.

    In the Bennett case it's probably years ago now, it was amusing that the judge repeated the words that offended the couple, the exact words became common knowledge, repeated often and without a blink now.

    I come back to read, often, looking forward to your thoughts.

    Please leave GA in peace !

  26. I have been following the case since the disappearance of Madeleine. After about 3 years I stopped following it (discussing it online etc) as it was way too frustrating. I then started looking at it a couple of years later and found the Textusa site. It was the only site that didn't tie itself into knots and had a clear theory based on police files. I read all the detailed posts on how conclusions were reached. I read the forensic examination of statements from the police files. I could find no reason whatsoever to not believe in the theory proposed here. It made everything make sense, including the 'game moves' being made in the wider context. I think there are many connections between those who were down in the Pd L area which included 'adult lifestyle parties', golf connections, property and wealth connections... a bunch of well connected adults hoping to enjoy some time doing 'adult'things whilst their kids were taken care of properly. If Madeleine hadn't died they would have finished their holiday and we wouldn't be any wiser. Everyone happy. In fact they would have probably had many more similar experiences since 2007, enjoying themselves discretely. It wasn't a big deal. At all. It only gets to be a big deal when someone 'prominent in society' worries that their name is in the headlines under 'SEX SCANDAL'. I', sure they regret their decision to hide the death in the way that they did.... but at the time they were scared. It is plain to see that Textusa is on the right track with theories and observations - obvious by the reactions..

  27. For all those making a REAL effort to link us with Mr Bennett, here is something for you:
    Also on CMOMM, how they treat newcomers. This guy had made just ONE post.. #mccann
    2:29 PM · Aug 9, 2018

    Picture attached says the following:

    Re: New members please put your questions here
    by Guest on 05.08.18 1:11
    I Don't know where else to post this. I've come to all this fairly recently so please be kind. Why is it presumed that the cadaver detected by the dogs is Madeleine? If an intruder had been attacked and killed wouldn't this explain everything? Maddie crying, involvement of others in the disposal of the body? Keeping maddy away from others in fear of what she might say.
    Could the taking of maddy have been in revenge? So easy to then plant evidence in the open car boot? [bold] Am I being completely stupid here? [end bold] Or does this explain the anguish and the inconcistencies in the statements?

    Moderator warning
    Yes, I believe you are – either that or your reason for registering with CMOMM is disingenuous.
    Consider this a warning, clean up your cat or ….

    Re: New members please put your questions here
    by Guest Today at 16.23
    It is usual to welcome new members to a forum. Instead I have been admonished with no indication as to what rule or protocol I have transgressed. Please remove me and all my details from this site as I do not wish to be associated with such rudeness and arrogance.


    On this instance we agree FULLY with CMOMM.

    Introduction of preposterous theories by newcomers is a common pro tactic and this is a humdinger.

    But please note how the pushed “fact” by NT that EVRD dog’s alerts DON’T indicate the location of where the body rested fits so nicely theories like these.

    Also note the attempted explanation for the alerts in the Scenic: planted evidence.

    1. Also to note is how outraged @DaveHallCoLtd is with they way this newcomer was treated.

      Does he subscribe this theory?

      By the way, DaveHall is like a dog with a head stuck in a garden bush and body on the lawn for all to see, thinking he has fooled everyone and no one can see that he's Orlov.

  28. Anne Guedes,

    Just to clarify that your new fans are up in arms, foaming at the mouth to protect you, let's just sum up what the 13 unpublished comments say:

    1. Swinging is stupid, hence Textusa’s refusal to answer Anne about how many people agree with them.
    2. Maddie’s death could be a revenge
    3. Perhaps Textusa could you provide evidence of swinging?
    4. Evidence, please
    5. Where does “cross-dressing” come in?
    6. Where does “cross-dressing” come in?
    7. We can’t draw parallels between the Taveira story and Maddie as it bears no resemblance with consensual swinging.
    8. As there’s no evidence of swinging so you Textusa can claim there was swinging?
    9. Anne, Textusa has made it clear there’s no evidence of swinging.
    10. Evidence please.
    11. What a nerve you have to ask what Anne is here for!!
    12. What a nasty person you are for saying that Anne is sucking up the air!!
    13. What is Anne doing here?! Textusa speaks Portuguese and didn’t go to the court!

  29. What are those quotations for, Textusa ? I don't need protection, do I ?
    I welcome critics, unfortunately they're rare, insults are easier.
    The way GA was treated by his superiors was miserable, but I beg the right not to worship him. I had an important question, and I did ask him outside the court of justice in October 2013. He knew that I was not a journalist and that his more faithful supporter knew me, so if he didn't answer or actually tried to divert the question (towards the Cipriano case), it was because the question disturbed him. I was amazed, but that helped me to understand the way GA handled the MC case.

    Some statements should be imo clarified. For instance Anonymous 12:36 describes this site as "the only site that ... had a clear theory based on police files". Is there anything in the PJFiles that points to swinging being the reason why MMC's accidental death was changed into abduction ?
    BTW, what does GA think of Textusa's theory ?

    1. To show that we don't receive only comments from who you have called 'obfuscated' readers and be accused of withholding comments not supportive of you.

      As we said, we are in the process of explaining on what our theory was construed and evidently the PJ Files play a significant part in it as we will show.

      But we would like to take the opportunity to ask you what version of events does the PJ Files support?

      We haven't asked Mr Amaral what he thought of us or of our theory.

  30. Nothing to do with 'worshipping' AG. You meet the man for a rare few minutes and you base your judgment on his hestitation when he doesn't know you from adam ? What explanation do you think he owes you ? How short-sighted you are ! GA owes you nothing ! He worked hard and has suffered every insult imaginable, financial hardship, now here you come and expect him to take you into his confidence and you add your opinion of those few minutes ? !!

  31. Do not publish identified reader at 08:50,

    Due to personal reasons of all team members, will only be able to reply to your comment sometime tomorrow.

    Thank you for understanding.

    1. Do not publish identified reader at 11 Aug 2018, 20:50

      There are no sacred cows in this case. To be clear ‘sacred cow’ comes from a Portuguese expression “não há vacas sagradas” and has nothing derogatory about it as it expresses that there’s no one above criticism or opposition. No one is untouchable.

      Not even Sr Amaral is a sacred cow in this blog. We profoundly respect the man and seeking to find the truth about the case, is our way to compensate him and his family for the suffering they went through caused by all those who have helped and are helping continuing of the hoax.

      Some, like the McCanns, were openly against him but the hoax could not have survived without the help of those pretending to be on his side when all along all they intended was for him and everyone else not to know why Maddie’s death has been covered up all these years.

      And to protect that they were willing to watch him and his family suffer while they pretended they cared for him when he was in that situation because they collaborated in putting him in that situation. What we have called the Fake Florence Nightingales.

      But our respect for him does not mean that he didn’t make mistakes. And we point them out whenever we see he was wrong – without resorting to personal judgements of calling him a Marialva or making absolutely personal assessments like him leaving information out of his book out of some kind of “Machism” pride – with the absolute certainty that under the circumstances no one would have done any better.

      His courage, his professionalism, his determination and his honesty whilst heading the investigation against forces (both enemy AND “friendly”) that it would have been inhuman to be asked of him to understand a fraction of them, much less their entirety, deserve the highest praise.

      And after leaving the investigation, we admire his determination and resilience in restoring his honour. It was quite a painful process to watch people who we knew had put or helped put him in the necessity of having to defend his honour – paying for it the price of his family, his career and for years that of his assets – shedding tears for him. We are firm believers that consciences do catch up with people.

      We are continuously insulted, anonymously and by named bloggers and Anne Guedes has been rather rude to us. If your certainty is correct, then she’s free not to comment in our blog any more, as it’s her choice and her right.

      It would only show that she takes offence easily and can’t take any opposing views, as we have not seen her be insulted, only being opposed. Passionate words have come from people who defend Sr Amaral and others have questioned her motives. Aren’t they entitled to?

      Our comments to Anne Geuedes, even though addressed to her are open letters to our readers.

      Answering one of her questions which NT deems to be of the utmost importance, we don’t know how many pageviews are by people who agree with us, by people who disagree with us or by people who just happened to find the blog by accident and have never returned is something impossible to estimate and we honestly didn’t understand the question but here was the answer.

      We do what we can do and that is to put up the pageviews (not number of visitors) something NT, who was so worried about the question above, seems shy to do same.

      We don’t run polls, we seek only to satisfy our consciences and do our anonymous duty of citizenship and we’re not after popularity.

      We write only for our 6 readers, and without associating Anne Guedes with her supporters over at NT, we are very grateful that we’re not popular in some quarters. Really happy and really couldn’t be more grateful.

      We will continue to explain to her why we believe the “abduction hoax” was a decision to avoid a sex-scandal involving very prominent members of UK’s society who were swinging in Luz.

      If Anne Guedes continues or not to reply, it’s her choice.

      However, we feel that it’s our duty that we should clarify to our 6 readers all her questions and correct some statements that she has made.

    2. "And to protect that they were willing to watch him and his family suffer while they pretended they cared for him when he was in that situation because they collaborated in putting him in that situation. What we have called the Fake Florence Nightingales."

      Disgusting, heartless cowards IMO you should name and shame them !
      Hope their consciences do eat their insides out ! It's the least they deserve.

    3. I think I can guess Marialva is an insult related to a place, but don’t know what it means
      A person from a place where inhabitants are said to be stupid or vain?

    4. I thought it mean a vain person, or a ladies man, a kind of Don Juan?

    5. Meaning of "Marialva":

      #1 Google:

      1. relating to or in accordance with the riding rules laid down by the Marquis of Marialva.
      "rode with m. elegance"
      2. a person who rides well on horseback; excellent horseman.
      3. (derogatory, pejorative derogatory) an idle living individual whose interests are bullfighting and horses.
      4. (derogatory, pejorative derogatory) upper-class farrista. [‘farrista’ comes from ‘farr’ which means party, so the translation for ‘farrista’ would be party-goer]

      1. Relative to the rules of riding in ‘gineta-style’.
      2. Made according to the dress code of the Marquis of Marialva.
      male noun
      3. Seductive; conqueror of women; Don Juan.
      4. [Old] Good horseman.
      5. One who, being of good family, only lived with fado singers, rentors and other despicable people.

      1. (History) Respecting the precepts and rules of riding gineta-style;
      2. It is said of him who is very womanizing or seductive;
      3. (Old) Designation attributed to a good horseman;
      4. (Pejorative) Denomination of a very conquering or seductive man;
      5. (Pejorative) Subject belonging to an illustrious family, whose life is based on idleness and dedication to horses or bulls.

    6. What an insulting thing to say. Even if true, nothing to do with his professional role. If he had debts, the same is true.
      Is this where Stop the Myths got some of their stories about him owing money to his brother, being a wife-beater...?

  32. Just skimming through the comments as I’ve been unable to visit for a week or. So not sure if this is relevant but just wanted to point out that the reason Tommy Sheridan took NOTW to court was because he knew that some of their evidence had been procured from phone hacking and he would know that they were unable to stand it up with admitting to criminal activity. It should also be noted that Sheridan was later found guilty of perjury in his defamation trial. Andy Coulson was also prosecuted for his denials of hacking in the original trial. This was abandoned mid-trial as it was deemed that his evidence alone did not make a material difference to the outcome. Sheridan still enjoys a lot of support from Scottish separatists. I suppose the swinging itself doesn’t trouble people too much. He’s a slimy bugger though. Met him once in my mid-twenties and could see why women would be attracted to him but the smarm just sort of oozed out of him. As we say in Scotland, “his patter was sh*te”


    1. Zora,

      I hope you realise you have just given strength to our argument. There was indeed allegation of perjury and even allegations of witness intimidation.

      From what we were able to read about the perjury:

      “In 2006, Tommy Sheridan, formerly convenor of the Scottish Socialist Party (SSP), successfully sued the newspaper News of the World for defamation after they printed a series of articles containing allegations that an MSP had had affairs and visited a sex club. Sheridan was awarded £200,000 in damages, which he has still not received pending an appeal. Controversy over the case led to a split in the SSP shortly afterwards, with Sheridan forming a breakaway party, Solidarity.
      In August 2006, a number of SSP activists came forward to claim that Sheridan had held meetings with them, where he made admissions inconsistent with his evidence in the court case, in particular admitting that he had had affairs and visited a swingers' club in Manchester. In October 2006, the News of the World released a videotape which showed Sheridan admitting that he had visited the club, and admitting that he had admitted this to the SSP Executive.
      On 2 October 2006, the Procurator Fiscal decided that there were grounds for an investigation into perjury, and instructed Lothian and Borders Police to proceed. In February 2007, the Crown Office asked Lothian and Borders Police undertake a full inquiry after receiving a preliminary report, which was scaled up in May 2007, with the number of officers assigned to the case doubling to 20.
      During late 2006 and early 2007, the police interviewed several SSP members and other witnesses, and seized computing equipment that had been used to type the minutes of SSP meetings.
      In December 2007, Tommy Sheridan was charged with perjury. During February 2008, six more people were charged with perjury: Graeme McIver, John Penman, Pat Smith and Rosemary Byrne (all members of Sheridan's new party Solidarity who had been at the disputed SSP executive meeting of November 2004) plus Sheridan's wife, Gail and her father, Angus Healy.
      Also in February 2008, Gail Sheridan was suspended from her job as a flight attendant with British Airways over the alleged theft of miniature bottles of alcohol. Later in the year she was cleared of the allegations of theft and re-instated to her job with BA. In 2010 she took voluntary redundancy from that job.”

      And about witness intimidation:
      “On 10 October 2006, BBC News reported that Grampian Police were investigating a claim by Fiona McGuire, who had been a witness in the trial for the News of the World, that she had received a death threat through the post. In a statement to the BBC, Sheridan said: "I utterly condemn any threats to Fiona McGuire or any other individual".
      On 26 August 2007, the Sunday Herald reported that John Lynn had been questioned by detectives about allegations of witness tampering. Lynn is reportedly an associate of Paul Ferris, a reformed criminal who has become friendly with Sheridan. The report said Helen Allison, who claimed in court that she saw Sheridan having sex in a Glasgow hotel [do note another accusation of sexual nature], had been approached by Lynn who asked her not to give evidence. Lynn was once jailed for 17 years for shooting an Ulster barman.”

      However the defamation suit started before both the perjury in question and the witness intimidation:


    2. (Cont)

      “Hearings in Sheridan's defamation case against the publishers of the News of the World began in the Court of Session in Edinburgh on 4 July 2006. Unusually in Scottish civil proceedings, the case was heard before a jury.
      The jury heard allegations that Sheridan had visited a swingers clubs in Manchester and engaged in adulterous affairs with two women. Sheridan, who claims to be a teetotaller, reportedly drank champagne and consumed cocaine during an extramarital liaison. Sheridan denies drinking the champagne and the claim of substance abuse. Eleven members of the SSP's executive committee testified that he admitted in an Executive committee meeting to attending a swingers club with women, but another four members of the SSP who were present at that Executive meeting backed Sheridan's claim that he made no such admission at that meeting.”

      So both perjury and witness intimidation happened AFTER the defamation started and were in consequence of it.

      Interesting that Anne Guedes called to our attention that we didn’t mention that he was a teetotaller and that there were drugs involved but she didn’t pay attention that both these “non-sexual” accusations were within a “sexual-accusation” of adultery outside his alleged visit to the swingers club!

      Note that in the initial paragraph it speaks only of the visit to the swingers club and of adultery. Reading on, it’s implied that the champagne and the cocaine was during one of the adulteries mentioned.

      The strength you have given to our argument is that if either party required to allegedly resort to perjury and/or witness intimidation, then the damages arising from being involved in a sex-scandal were very significant, reason why the trial was mainly around sexual and reputational topics:

      “On 14 July 2006, Sheridan sacked his legal team and announced that he would represent himself. His cross-examination of witnesses was described by one left commentator as "sickening", singling out the cross-examination of Katrine Trolle: "Sheridan questioned her about their sexual history, which included visits to Cupids with Sheridan and group sex encounters with him and his brother-in-law, Andrew McFarlane. When she stated that she was embarrassed about her past, but that she was telling the truth, Sheridan unflinching brandished her as a perjurer, plotter and gold-digger. [...] I still find it astonishing, and not a little dispiriting, that anyone on the left – any decent human being in fact – could justify traducing a female socialist’s character in court, not once, but twice, in order to protect a leading socialist politician’s false reputation."”


      “The minutes included a discussion by the party's executive committee about a recent article that alleged a married MSP had visited a swingers' club in Manchester. According to the minute, Sheridan admitted that he had in fact visited the club on two occasions, in 1996 and 2002, with close friends. Some of those present at the meeting gave evidence that they had heard Sheridan acknowledge he had been "reckless" in his behaviour which had, with hindsight, been "a mistake" and that "his strategy was to deny the allegations". Sheridan claimed this minute was not accurate.”

      If swinging itself doesn’t trouble people too much then why “acknowledge he had been "reckless" in his behaviour which had, with hindsight, been "a mistake"”?

      Let’s look at what said the news report on the day the defamation suit began:

      “Published: 2006/07/04 18:16:18 GMT

      Sheridan starts defamation action

      Former Scottish Socialist Party leader Tommy Sheridan has begun his £200,000 defamation action against the publishers of the News of the World.


    3. (Cont)

      Mr Sheridan, who arrived at the Court of Session with his wife Gail, has launched the action over articles by the Sunday newspaper in 2004.

      These claimed that the Glasgow MSP had committed adultery, was a "swinger" and had participated in orgies.

      He said this was "untrue" but the paper said it was "substantially true".

      'Exposing hypocrisy'

      The News of the World had also claimed that while Mr Sheridan said he was teetotal, he had drunk champagne.

      After a jury of five women and seven men had been sworn in, junior counsel Alistair Clark, for News Group newspapers, said the News of the World was a newspaper "which prides itself on campaigns and exposing hypocrisy on the part of public figures".

      In his opening speech, Mr Clark said evidence would be heard about a swingers club in Manchester called Cupid's - where people went for casual sex - which Mr Sheridan was said to have visited.

      He told the jury they would also hear about a party at a leading Glasgow hotel, where Mr Sheridan was alleged to have been seen having sex with a woman - not his wife.

      The lawyer also promised witnesses who would tell about their affairs with the MSP and about a meeting of the Scottish Socialist Party when Mr Sheridan resigned as their leader, saying he wanted to spend more time with his pregnant wife.

      The trial later heard claims that Mr Sheridan admitted visiting Cupid's club on a couple of occasions in previous years with close friends.

      The claim came from first witness Allison Kane, 38, who said he made the admission at a private meeting of the SSP's executive on 9 November 2004.

      News of the World lawyer Michael Jones QC told the court the newspaper published an article on 31 October 2004, with the headline: Married MSP Is Spanking Swinger.

      The article carried details of how an unnamed politician in the Scottish Parliament had allegedly gone to a swingers club, enjoyed threesomes and being spanked by lovers wearing red PVC gloves.

      Another article carried claims by News of the World columnist Anvar Khan that she had a "kinky fling" with a married Scottish politician.

      'Honest and decent'

      The special meeting of the SSP's top brass was called less than two weeks after those allegations were published.

      Ms Kane, the party's national treasurer, told the court there was "some concern the article may be referring to Tommy".

      She said that after Mr Sheridan left the meeting on 9 November 2004, 19 members of the party's executive voted unanimously to force him to resign.

      When Mr Sheridan's counsel, Richard Keen QC, questioned Ms Kane, he said six "honest and decent" members of the SSP had a different recollection of the meeting.

      There was no admission from Tommy Sheridan about visiting the swingers' club, said the lawyer.

      Instead there was a "cabal" trying to oust him.


    4. (Cont)

      The jury heard that the SSP later voted to keep the minutes of the meeting confidential and they were only handed over to the court after one of those present, Alan McCombes, had been found in contempt of court and the SSP reversed their earlier decision.

      The trial continues.”

      Very clearly sexually oriented trial with Tommy Sheridan’s reputation on the line. Do note that those having versions that benefitted the plaintiff are called “honest and decent”. Why? Weren’t all the sexual allegations against Sheridan within legality? They were.

      As we have said, to try to diminish the importance of the sex-scandal in this trial is to simply be gaslighting.

      We would like to highlight the following passage from the Wikipedia page (our caps):

      Sheridan’s rise and FALL are dealt with in two works of political analysis: DOWNFALL by his erstwhile colleague Alan McCombes (2011), and Tommy Sheridan, FROM HERO TO ZERO by Gregor Gall (2012).”

      Now, and to make the link with this trial with the Maddie case, with all due respect to Tommy Sheridan, there’s a question that has to be asked: in terms of political “food-chain” who is Tommy Sheridan? No one.

      We’re not diminishing his importance but trying to contextualise his importance in regards with the Maddie case.

      Did he have enough importance to justify the entrance of Control Risk Groups in the swinger club before he entered? We would say he didn’t because if he had such an importance, the story would never have leaked.

      Did he have enough importance to mobilise the entire UK establishment to close ranks and shamelessly protect him? The trial proves that he didn’t.

      So now, one has simply to imagine what had to be the importance of those present in Luz for things to have happened the way they did.

    5. I was neither trying to add strength to your argument - as I said, I was skimming through comments and to be honest an still not sure what your argument IS - nor was I ‘gaslighting’. I was merely adding some context for those who probably didn’t click on all your links and for those who are perhaps interested in the phone hacking scandal, which was still to unfold at that time. Sheridan knew fine and well that much of the NOTW story was true but also knew that they wouldn’t admit to hacking in court, so were unable to prove much of it.

      What was he more embarrassed about? The swinging? Or the adultery. If he were a single man, his attendance at Cupid’s would have raised barely a titter. If he’d been swinging with his wife, what would be the reaction? Again, a bit of tittering no doubt, but it wouldn’t have been nearly as scandalous as the adultery.

      Of course he wasn’t protected! He was/is an avowed socialist who would like to see the breakup of the UK, spent time in jail long before this case for defying a court order related to his anti poll tax protest and has been arrested at Faslane for his anti-nuclear protests. Added to that, the party he co-founded and led, the SSP, was beginning to enjoy electoral success. Hardly an establishment luvvie! I’m more inclined to believe that the swinging and adultery were uncovered as a result of establishment-sanctioned efforts to take him down. He was well known to have an eye for the ladies, and I’m not surprised that he’s an adulterer given the impression I got of him in the space of just a few minutes. So his sex life would have been an obvious place to start.

      What was there to protect anyway? There was no missing child and no one hurt, other than his family/wife. It’s hardly unusual for a politician to be forced to resign in light of a sex/adultery scandal.

      So no, it’s not a question of his importance vs that of the McCanns. It’s an extraordinary story - the swingers’ club, the adultery, the defamation case, the £200k payment despite him having been later found to have lied, the phone hacking, the predicament of the newspaper having to conceal their own illegal activity, subsequent trial of Coulson in light of his own likely perjury and the breakup of the political party Sheridan was central to creating.

      It’s not that I’m trying to “diminish the importance” of the swinging, as you seem to have decided, just trying to provide a fuller picture in order to demonstrate that, swinging or no swinging, it is in no way comparable with the McCann case and tells us absolutely nothing about their protection or anything else.


  33. Just a quick update on Nick/Anon’s and his “Kelly saga”, from NT’s blog:

    Nick 6 August 2018 at 12:11
    What comment about kellys bar textusa?
    That the group was seen in there. Thats not a myth. They had been there without the kids. Stop diverting you tool

    Nick 6 August 2018 at 12:18
    Also meant to add the point was about neglect and how being in kellys bar without the kids means that it was probable they were alone. Btw textusa you stalking bint...that comment was on fb..not nts blog. So
    1 its not his problem to correct me if i'm wrong(if i am feel free to prove it)
    2 you can't even get that right. I mean i'm flattered at my age to have a stalker...

    Nick 8 August 2018 at 09:56
    I have bad spelling is atrocious...and apparently the tapas brigade weren't in kellys...yet i still understand how scent works.
    So how fucking stupid does that make you matey? :)

    Nick 10 August 2018 at 10:52
    Like i was saying...Anne couldn't be reprimanded by textusa. So rather than answer the question set by Anne she has waited for the attack hounds to come to her rescue. Btw textusa...there is no issue. I was under the impression that as the children were not at kelly's bar some had been left alone. If i am wrong then so be doesn't change the fact that
    1 you still haven't Annes question
    2 you can't or won't understand scent
    3 are a fucking disgrace allowing attacks on a woman on your blog who has done more to get FACTS out there than almost anyone. One can almost smell the jealousy. Or to put on textusa language....Anne says textusas theory is shit,but textusa put it in her mouth,tasted it and realised she was eating shit-but rather than admit to eating shit she declared it to be chocolate :)



    We have never said that any of the Tapas children were at Kelly’s. We have never said that the McCanns being at Kelly’s was a myth. We believe that they were at Kelly’s and WITHOUT the children.

    So, AGAIN we ask you:

    On which night or nights, were the T9 at Kelly’s?

    Why do you think the Tapas staff lied about the T9 being always, every night, at Tapas?

    Why hasn’t anybody from Kelly’s bar reported the T9 drinking there?

    Are you accusing the Kelly’s staff of covering up for them? Why do you think they would?

    Have you any evidence they were in Kelly’s on the night or nights you say they were? If so, have you informed the PJ?

    How long have you known this and who told you? Were you in Kelly’s bar or was somebody you know?

    Why hasn’t NT jumped down your throat like a rabid dog and ripped you apart for daring to call the Tapas staff liars?

    Why hasn’t NT jumped down your throat like a rabid dog and ripped you apart for daring to implicate innocent people, the Kelly’s staff, in covering up for the T9?

    And AGAIN we ask NT:

    Why haven’t you jumped down Nick’s throat like a rabid dog and ripped him apart for daring to call the Tapas staff liars?

    Why haven’t you jumped down Nick’s throat like a rabid dog and ripped him apart for daring to implicate innocent people, the Kelly’s staff, in covering up for the T9?

    But now we have a new question for NT: after having mentioned the McCanns at Kelly’s for 4 times now (1 time on JFM FB, 5 times on your blog), shouldn’t there be by now - since you just won’t jump at Nick’s throat like a rabid dog and rip him apart for daring to implicate innocent people, the Kelly’s staff, in covering up for the T9 - at least one simple correction from you? You know, to avoid having him continue to make a fool of himself.

  34. “I thought you might like to see this
    For a couple of weeks now, Textusa has been refusing to answer questions posed by Anne Guedes. Anne, as many of you will know, is the lady we all have to thank for her many translations and in particular of her coverage of court proceedings in the McCann v Amaral case.

    I hope Anne won't mind if I paraphrase her, but basically she asked two things:

    1. What actual evidence is there to support Textusa's swinging theory?

    2. How many people agree with her?

    Textusa has refused to answer these. In general she has thrown up a variety of smokescreens, demanding answers from others on completely unrelated topics before she will answer Anne's questions.”


    Question #1, Anne Guedes has answered it herself at 28 Jul 2018, 01:17:00:

    “You ask what evidence I would expect. I guess that by privacy rule no evidence should be available."

    NT rest assured that we will continue to explain to Anne Guedes and the rest of our readers how we construed our theory based on the mainly on the files.

    Question 2, we answered at 12 Aug 2018, 13:05:00:

    “Answering one of her questions which NT deems to be of the utmost importance, we don’t know how many pageviews are by people who agree with us, by people who disagree with us or by people who just happened to find the blog by accident and have never returned is something impossible to estimate and we honestly didn’t understand the question but here was the answer.”

    1. I too struggle as to why this is an important question. It seems irrelevant to me. How on earth could you possibly know what your readers opinions are? What difference would it make to your conviction, or anyone else’s for that matter. Facts show by your page count that people do come to read your blog. Questions are welcomed and answered coherently.
      Arguments for and against your reasoning are put forward and there is, mostly, polite debate. I find the blogs, questions and answers very informative.

  35. A moment that may seem of humour but it is food for thought. This is a comment we received, that is evidently from Nick/Anon which we didn’t publish until now:

    “Anonymous11 Aug 2018, 22:06:00
    I think Textusa is wrong.
    Having read the translation of the files (by Anne Guedes)and Textusa blog, and others ,I come now to this (my) conclusion* :
    During the week little Madeleine "disappeared", T9 had a "Stage de poterie" made in Algarve.
    Everybody knew that : expats, Ocean Club, Mark Warner, PJ, MI5/6,ambassador, governments etc... But it was and is still a big secret.
    *I will soon explain my theory on a new site. Based on what you can't see clearly in the files and in Textusa blog.

    PJ did not searched "stage de poterie" on the computers ? Why ?”

    Warning, any attempt by the reader to decipher the above is made at the reader’s own risk. We will not comment on content other than to say that it only confirms that the straws that are critics are grasping at are getting smaller and smaller.

    However we would like to comment on the style. Please scroll up and see other comments by Nick/Anon and it can easily be seen that this comment is from him.

    Now please compare the style above with the one in a comment published in NT’s blog also, allegedly, from Nick/Anon:

    “Nick10 August 2018 at 15:19 i thought she's held off to let others attack Anne. Why on earth does Anne need to answer those questions textusa. You have presented a premise-Anne has questioned evidence for that premise. Cut out the political/civil service debating style of answering a question with a question. Its cringe inducing as you are not very good at it”

    Evidently not the same person. The style is clearly from NT.

    Why have we published these comments and what are we asking readers to think about?

    That this shows that we are before an organised team who share passwords accounts.

    This makes the debates around whether this nick is the same person behind that nick to be a pure waste of time, a distraction.

    More than one person can use a single nick. One only needs to have the password access to the account and that is easily shared.

    So, by telling a fellow gang member to log into one of them and by engaging with him/her using that other nick in a live convo, one is able to convince others that the other nick is from a different person (because at that moment, it is).

    Then the fellow gang-member can just log out, and the person can continue to use the 2 accounts after having “proved” that “the 2 nicks mean different people”.

    The evident style discrepancy between the 2 comments above from supposedly the same person show that it is all a game of smoke and mirrors. What matters is to know that we are before a well-organised gang.

    Fortunately, less and less people are willing to shamelessly disrespect the memory of a little girls and shamelessly disrespect the suffering inflicted on Sr Amaral and his family and so it is becoming harder and harder to find new recruits to do such a soulless work.

    That’s why infantile mistakes like the one above, are being made with more and more frequency.

  36. From our "FB Anon":

    "This is about the NT gang so not sure if you want to use it..... I've seen a comment from Lesly Frances Finn on the Justice for Madeleine FB page that states that the statements from the Tapas employees PROVE that the T9 were in the Tapas bar every evening therefore proving that neglect did happen. "Nick" says the T9 were in Kelly's Bar some evenings (although he now seems to be backtracking) so surely that then PROVES that the Tapas staff were lying? According to the JFM admins, they don't tell you what to think or believe, except when it comes to Textusa's theory, which they can't accept...Why not?"

  37. Having read today for the first time some pages* of the Anne Guedes Blog : "Madeleine etc..." after hearing her on 'L'heure du crime' (Jacques Pradel), I understand Mme Guedes wants to proove positively and not by default....".
    About the truth being exposed...her " tout le monde aurait à y gagner..." : Who is this "tout le monde" ? UK ? Portugal ? McCann ? Payne ? T7+2, OC ? Guests ? Expats ? Gordon Brown ? David Cameron ? Theresa May ? OC Nurses ? Democracy ? Madeleine ? Swingers ? Me ?
    + I am not "tout le monde", nor (...".it's amazing how people"), "people".
    I don't think Voltaire, Freud, Lacan, Dalaïlama, will help Theresa May to find a solution.

    David Payne, why were you in appartment 5A ? To help ?

    *I will continue, very great job, I admire.

    -I hope my comment will be approved. Les 3 précédents n'apparaissent pas sur votre page. Une fausse manœuvre de ma part ?
    One of your 6 readers.

    1. Anonymous 13 Aug 2018, 19:16:00,

      Having checked also the spam box we can assure you that we have not received any other comments from you!

    2. Thank you, Textusa. Sorry, très désolée de vous avoir causé ce travail en plus.
      Vous m'êtes vraiment très, très précieux. It is always a great plaisure to read you.
      MERCI, Textusa.

  38. From our "FB Anon":

    "I've not really looked at the JFM FB page before - it's quite an eye-opener. Apparently blogging anonymously is bad when Textusa does it but when Not Textusa does it - no problem! You can have all sorts of outlandish theories on there including "that Madeleine McCann had Kabuki Make-up Syndrome and that's why Kate couldn't bond with her" (yes.....really) Again, no problem! Mention swinging though and you're obviously a complete and utter lunatic!!"


    Anne Guedes’ theory.
    Scroll down
    A man meets a wandering M, kills her and puts her in a bin!
    Does she really propose this theory now?

    What about the man Smith saw, who Anne believes was G carrying M?

  40. Anne Guedes,

    About your comment at 10 Aug 2018, 01:41:00.

    You said:
    “I still don't understand what kind of justice you want for MMC, Textusa, if you agree that she died accidentally. Justice for her remains that should decay properly in a churchyard, expecting the resurrection day, instead of feeding crabs or whatever ?”

    We don’t call it justice but respect in wanting “for her remains that should decay properly in a churchyard, expecting the resurrection day, instead of feeding crabs or whatever”.

    It is also known as proper funeral, a respect that Maddie is owed and that has been denied to her.

    Even if her family have paid her the due respects, and the body has been given a proper funeral, society has not come to terms with what has happened to her body as legally, as we have explained when speaking of prescriptions times, she is still alive and legally she has simply disappeared for unknown reasons.

    The whole society was engaged in searching for her, so she became their child as well and society deserves to find closure on this issue and that can only be achieved when said society knows what her fate really was and where were her remains have been laid to rest, or where her ashes have been scattered in case she has been cremated – not saying she was or that she wasn’t.

    Society wanting to know what happened to her body has nothing to do with justice but with respect, for her and for the society whose heart went out to her.

    For us, using your words, there’s a huge difference between “her remains that should decay properly in a churchyard, expecting the resurrection day” which would mean the due respect having been shown and “feeding crabs or whatever” which would mean an uncertainty as to the fate of her remains.

    Not establishing that difference is a total disrespect for all those who risk their lives in recovering bodies from the sea, bottoms of cliffs, submerged cars, etc. These heroes (what more selfless act can a human being do for another?) do this knowing they are not saving any life and yet they risk their own to ensure the deceased and is given the dignity of a proper burial and his/her family find closure.

    About the justice we want for Maddie. It’s the DUTY of a sovereign state to clarify to society FULLY of what has happened to a missing person and it has the DUTY to do all that it is possible to do to achieve that total clarification.

    Equally, it is the RIGHT of every citizen to demand from the sovereign state – through its legitimate legal agents – the fulfilment without reserve of that DUTY the state has.

    That’s the reason we are here. To demand that both states do their DUTY about Maddie McCann

    Her disappearance happened in Portugal, so, we would like the Portuguese justice system to answer the 6 questions we have put in our post “Maddie’s Pandora’s box”:

    “1. Why did the case take so long to solve?

    2. Under what circumstances (with whom, why, when, where and how) did Maddie die?

    3. If Maddie died in the apartment, why was body taken away from it?

    4. If Maddie died in apartment and her body taken away, where was it taken to between 10pm – 4am and subsequently on the following hours and days?

    5. What happened to Maddie’s body and who and why they helped for that to happen?

    6. Who protected the McCanns and why were they protected the way they were?”

    We only wish for these questions to be answered satisfactorily. We seek no punishment, as that is up to the legal entities to decide if there is to be any or not and for us to accept any decision it makes.

    Once these 6 questions are answered satisfactorily by the Portuguese justice system, we evidently hope that that the answers will be such an embarrassment to the UK that the only way it will have to save face will be to prosecute to the fullest extent of the law the 2 crimes committed in the UK: the fraudulent fund and obstruction of justice.


  41. (Cont)

    About the last, we do hope that all those who have committed the crime of obstructing justice, both all those all those who knowing what happened have expressed publicly purposefully misleading statements to obfuscate the public opinion from knowing the truth as well as all those who paid and were paid to enable and promote the hoax be prosecuted by the legitimate entities of their respective countries.

    You said:
    “As concerning Gonçalo Amaral, how can you suggest he was a manipulated puppet. He received no orders to spare the poor parents, it just didn't pass his mind, in the first weeks, to suspect those photogenic, so catholic (like him) British doctors (whereas he suspected immediately the precarious Portuguese Leonor). That was his biggest mistake.”

    Please quote us where we have said he was manipulated. We have not. We used the term in the hypothetical “choice” that you said he had and we said he didn’t.

    If he hadn’t fought back, which he did, THEN and only THEN would it have meant that he had been manipulated. So, unlike you have stated, we have NEVER suggested he was a manipulated puppet.

    Hope you realise that you are insulting Sr Amaral’s professionalism when you say that he was fooled by the “good looks” of the McCanns (you say he believed in them because of their looks – in clear contrast with the “ugly” Leonor Cipriano who you say he suspected of immediately).

    As far as we can remember, Leonor Cipriano was not immediately arrested and just like the McCanns she made a TV appearance asking for the safe return of her missing daughter and like the McCanns enjoyed public sympathy. She was only arrested days later.

    To say as clearly as you have said that Sr Amaral allowed himself to be influenced by the McCann’s outward appearance, means that it’s you who is accusing him of being an easily manipulated puppet, not us.

    The huge and very relevant difference between the Cipriano and the Maddie investigations is that in one of them the investigators faced, literally, the resistance of the entire 2 national establishments AND many “common people” around him from focusing the investigation where it should have been focused: the parents. Nothing to do with their appearance but only how strongly the hoax was being protected and supported.

    That does not mean that from very early on, Sr Amaral and his team didn’t suspect of the McCanns. The book is quite clear that they did, only all was done to stop the PJ from acting on that suspicion.

    Then – we have speculated that it was after the body was cremated – mysteriously the PJ was allowed to suspect of the parents – the authorisation for the dogs to come to Luz, being the clearest example of this – but then in September all went back to not being authorised to suspect of them again.

    This to show that the investigation was influenced from the outside, not to say manipulated. How much of that manipulation was Sr Amaral able to perceive, we don’t know but we would say very little as he had no way to know that the entire legitimate UK establishment and Praia da Luz had closed ranks against the investigation he was leading.

    You say:
    “Nobody forced him to leave the PJ and he shouldn't have, because he obviously liked his job very much.
    He left the PJ in order to brush his honour by writing a book. But his book, which doesn't say more than the PJFiles on the MC case, omits unfortunately to question the system that allowed his dismissal.”

    We have answered this in our comment 10 Aug 2018, 16:17:00.
    To that you replied with:
    AnneGuedes10 Aug 2018, 18:56:00
    “"So, if we’re going to talk about choices, he could have chosen to be manipulated and go along with the hoax. He didn’t and he was kicked off the investigation."
    Let's not rewrite history. GA wasn't kicked off because he refused to be manipulated. He said something that probably was true, but it didn't belong to him to state it publicly. He suggested that he thought it was off the record... Let's admit that he wasn't careful.”


  42. (Cont)

    Sr Amaral, in our opinion and we think also in the opinion of the vast majority of those following the case agree with us (please don’t ask for proof as we don’t have it, it’s just as you say a “feeling”) was kicked off the investigation because he refused to toe the line.

    The interview in which he said the investigation was being influenced by the British, was the excuse used to kick him off the investigation.

    If he had stepped out of line with that interview and there was no need to find an excuse to kick him off the investigation, things would have proceeded as expected:
    - if his higher echelon thought it serious enough, they would make him arguido of a disciplinary process (the only legal way to have taken him off the investigation in our opinion which did not happen);
    - if they thought it was serious but not enough for a disciplinary action, a phone call warning him that it was something not to be repeated would have taken place and as far as we know, it didn’t;
    - if they thought it wasn’t serious enough for a reprimand then a phone call asking what the hell did he think we was doing would have happened, and he says nothing about it in his book.

    None happened as far as we know.

    As he states on his book, on his birthday he was surprised with the news that he was no longer leading the investigation.

    By the way, according to the law, he was due a disciplinary action against him because as far as we know an active duty police officer without permission or being mandated by his command structure to speak to the media cannot give interviews about anything pertaining the PJ, much less about an ongoing process.

    So we guess that was the risk he took consciously, that of being subject to a disciplinary process.

    But that didn’t happen. Speculating, it didn’t happen because most likely he would have said all that was on his mind and that statement, with all its legal value could be used by him in the future.

    You also disagree with us when you say that he “omits unfortunately to question the system that allowed his dismissal” as by saying what he says about the way he was taken off the investigation he is, in our opinion questioning it.

    You said:
    “It seems that losing his wife wasn't a drama, she might have plaid some part in the controversial inheritance, eventually also in the accumulated debts. But that's hearsay. The only thing I know, because GA tells it in his book, is that she waited all day and a part of the night for her exhausted husband to be back because she wouldn't touch her dead little dog. The other revealing (imo) detail is the unnecessary open letter she sent to Kate MC.”

    It's hearsay but yet you wrote it helping it spread.

    We don’t know what tomorrow brings so we don’t know if their marriage was destined or not to break up, nor do we need or want to know. We respect FULLY their privacy.

    But of what we know of outside interference in that marriage that we believe could only influence it, we must speak.

    For example, the dead dog. Isn’t that an unacceptable pressure on any marriage when one of the partners is subject to threats from people who kill dogs to prove a point? We think it is especially when there are children involved.

    Then all the public humiliation Sr Amaral was subject to in BOTH in Portugal and in the UK. We will only refer 2 public names who didn’t exactly love Sr Amaral: Miguel Sousa Tavares and Fernanda Câncio.

    Both very influential and the last very close to the then Prime-Minister. Does that not strain a marriage, any marriage?

    Isn’t that more than enough reason for her to have written the open letter she wrote to the McCanns? We think it was, so we would never call it unnecessary.

    Add to that the process and the toll it took on him and his family, it’s evident that the Maddie case played a significant part – very negatively – on what this family went through.

    We will reply to your comments at 10 Aug 2018, 01:51:00 and 10 Aug 2018, 02:08:00 as soon as possible, after which we will retake our explanation on how we construed the swinging theory.

  43. Textusa thank you very much for all the work you have done on the case. I know the summer is the time that you take time out to spend with your family therefore to devote the time you have done over the last few months to the GMW shows how serious the attack on the blog has been. Thank you so much for your exposure of so many people that we previously thought of as white hats. A few I have been particularly disappointed in but such is life that we just have to accept that and be careful with out future dealings with it. It has been a struggle to keep up with some of the posting as i have had a family tragedy to deal with. Nonetheless I come here as often as I can because the grief involved has let me see the McCann case in a new light. I know now more than ever that the behaviour of the McCanns and the tapas friends was not normal behaviour in a such a situation and therefore must be directed by people in power who can easily detach themselves emotionally from the tragedy that unfolded. Your response to your opponents has been superb. They keep lining them up and you keep knocking them down. Just on the point of the tapas visit to Kelly's that slipped out in Insanes blog, during my recent visit to Lagos when I visited PDL we took one of those golf buggy type tours. The portuguise tour guide was very good and explained a lot of the history of the build up of PDL as a little Britian. She said that about 40% of the population was British and most of them came there 40 years ago buying property which was relatively cheap and which now worth a lot more money. The British Ex pat community more or less run the place owning most of the bars and cafes and they all tended to be long established with few newcomers. Most are well into their 60 and 70s now. She stopped the buggy at the back of another ocean club( not the one the child went missing from) to tell us the story. She asked us did we remember the story from back in 2007 which I had to lol at. She said the reason she stopped there rather than the ocean club which is now renamed the garden club was that the locals as in the Brit community kinda had a public ban on tour guides discussing the case, imagine that coming from a portuguise person in a part of Portugal. She said none of the portuguise believed the abduction story and said that it was widely known amoung the portuguise that they didn't dine in the tapas bar but in Kelly's. When I asked why people in Kelly's didn't report this her response was that it was an unusual ex pat community it was as if all were bundled together by the secret of what happened. She couldn't explain it better that to use a portuguise saying which she said translated into something one for one and one for all. She said the build up of the village over 40 years had allowed this to happen and the age group involved perhaps had much more to loss in breaking ranks than say if it had been a younger population who perhaps hadn't been together as long. They often depended on each other for their respective livelihoods. Personally I thought she went a long way in helping me understand if there was a secret to be keep why a village such as PDL was the village to do it in.


      Canine Truth‏ @K9Truth
      Interesting nugget from the Comments section of teXTusA about local knowledge of the T9 eating out in Kellys + not the Tapas Bar. It's not clear whether the author is referring just 2 the Thursday nite or to other nites as well. Makes you wonder how big the PDL omerta is. #McCann
      5:33 am - 14 Aug 2018
      Picture attached is a partial screengrab of K’s comment at 14 Aug 2018, 00:15:00, with “it was widely known amoung the portuguise that they didn't dine in the tapas bar but in Kelly's” underlined in red.


      Wonders the man who is part of the PDL omerta of how big the PDL omerta is.

  44. We also discussed the portuguise people living and working in PDL she said that the financial crisis hit the portuguise badly. Her own husband had lost his job and had started up the buggy tours. Everyone living there were very dependent on the tourist industry and consequently dependent on the Brits for their livilhood. A lot of the Brits who bought property 30 - 40 years ago had during their younger days spent part of the year in PDL and the other in Britian. Many had now retired fully to PDL with large British pension money that some of the poorer portuguise workers could only dream off. This give the British almost a colonial power over the workers. It made me understand more the reasons why 2 statements from ocean club workers would be almost identical

    1. K,

      Thank you for your comments. It is sad to read your words but for those of us who have been recently in Luz, not surprising.

      When team first visited Luz in 2015, as you can read in our post “Praia da Luz”, we intended to have lunch at Praia da Luz. But as we say in that post, we were surprised by it’s small size and after we did our walk and were standing in front of the “nanny building” in Rua da Escola Primária, one of the team members said, “I really dislike these Little Britain places and this is a Little Britain. Can we have lunch somewhere else?”

      Luz is like a Little Britain in this video:

      And so we went to have lunch in Sagres. Which turned out to be as quick to visit and ended up having lunch in Lagos.

      Basically, we got the sensation that there were 2 kind of people in Praia da Luz, the Brits who owned the place and the Portuguese, foreigners in their own land, poor and working for the Brits.

      And one feels watched, it’s a small town living under permanent suspicion because of Maddie. And when I returned there, I felt things had aggravated and from what you say (maybe because of what we wrote) things have gone worse, reading your words.

      If it’s because of us, they can relax and ease up on the “security” as we have all we need to know about Luz so it’s not in our plans to return there in the near future.

      Just to let you know that our take about the importance of the little uphill at the corner around building 5A is not forgotten but as you can read we are busy both replying to Anne Guedes’ questions and explaining how we construed the swinging theory. It is summer – having visitors coming over today and spending up to the rest of the week here – so things will be slow.

      It’s evident that both the Kelly’s and the Chaplins owners should have their statements in the files, even if they said that they had never seen the McCanns or the group before Maddie disappeared. That would be in the files and we would know what they told the PJ.

    2. Textusa, maybe you best hire a British housekeeper to help you out with visitors? Just saying...

    3. Interesting take on things in PDL,Bilton didn't get much joy did he,you can see why now.

  45. Anonymous14 Aug 2018, 00:15:00

    Anonymous14 Aug 2018, 00:40:00

    K, great to hear about your visit. It all makes perfect sense. Textusa has made us aware of people I blindly trust/ed as I expected they post for a child abandoned by her parents how cruel to act in a certain way for an agenda of which Textusa Sisters will reveal more but as we've seen, for one, they try to cry about OG, loud and clear.

    September is close soon we will know if the uk's sweetest celebrities have once more phoned the PM for more attention.

  46. The absence of the commas may cause confusion
    Anonymous14 Aug 2018, 10:05:00
    It is the people with the agenda to mislead who are crying about OG loud and clear

    1. Keep the faith,some one from Grange will soon get to play Oliver once again and ask Bumble at the Home Office, please sir can I have more.

  47. From our "FB Anon":

    "Why is when Textusa asks for justice for Madeleine, NT says " Fuck off and mind your own business" and "Fuck off loony"? (Oh what wit!) But when the Justice for Madeleine FB site calls for justice, that's all good? Another thing they don't seem to like on JFM is any mention that Robert Murat might be involved in the cover up, in fact two of the admins shut the discussion down. Incidentally those two admins regularly comment on NT's site and promote him on JFM - not that they're telling people what to think or believe of course!"

    1. FB Anon, I’m finding it very hard to believe JfM has the number of members they say they have.
      Posts there are getting only 10/20 likes and less than 10 comments average and both the likes and the comments come mostly from their admin.
      Also checked twitter and their admin have lower number of followers than expected. Ben Thompson only has 560 followers, Sade Anslow 240 and Julie Chrimes 185. The exception is Paul Rees who has 4,585 followers but he seems to tweet about things unrelated to case.
      Don’t know if the other JfM admin are on twitter. Something is not right.

    Bugsy‏ @TheBunnyReturns
    Replying to @ciabaudo
    Hi Al, great thread. I'd be interested to read your thoughts on Philip Edmonds. As you know, Edmonds - the nephew of Margaret Hodge - cut short his stay at the Ocean Club in Praia da Luz, flying home to Switzerland the morning after Madeleine #McCann was reported missing.
    4:24 am - 15 Aug 2018


    Mr Ben Thompson,

    Please provide evidence that Philip Edmonds left Ocean Club in Praia da Luz other than Stephen Carpenter having said it.

    Stephen Carpenter’s statement has more holes than a Swiss cheese:

    Stop feeding an internet myth. Thank you.

    1. Just one of many holes....
      Elaine Strachan‏ @strackers74
      "SC: Ah yes, yes and afterwards, humm with Murat well I just caught a glimpse of him on TV, it was rather my wife who phoned Philomena afterwards who then suggested that we contact the police support service." (Stephen Carpenter) Why did his wife have Philomena's number? #McCann
      4:28 am - 13 Aug 2018

    Whispering‏ @Anvil161Anvil16
    The little chat between Bugsy/Sade/Jules with NT's invention Mr. ‘Townsend’ is to turn NT into a credible anti-#McCann. 1st part: be seen to critisize Townsend; talk up & defend the dogs. 2nd part: introduce a ‘but’ to undermine the dogs.
    6:34 am - 15 Aug 2018


    A very good and correct analysis by Whispering. Thank you!

    We hope that those who are currently interacting, without an agenda, with both Nick Townsend and Bale2N realise quickly they are being played. Bale2N sides with Nick Townsend and this tag-team makes all those fighting them look like legitimate antis.

    Do check who interacts most with this Townsend individual and who gives him the most importance.

    It’s our duty to warn people, the decision to continue to interact with them or not is evidently theirs.

      Bugsy‏ @TheBunnyReturns
      Bugsy Retweeted Jules... 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿
      Ha! Textusa giving Whimpering the vote of confidence to claim this, has left them looking like a rounded spanner. Have they forgotten textusa doesn't care about the truth? Nick Townsend is HonestBroker & Ferryman. Not Textusa isn't. #McCann Dingbat!
      10:40 am - 15 Aug 2018


      Interesting. We say that NT is Walker/Bale and we are called liars and demanded evidence to prove it under the penalty of being put up against a wall and face a firing-squad.

      Ben Thompson can just say that Nick Townsend is HonestBroker/Ferryman.

      How does Ben Thompson know this? Does he know personally Nick Townsend/HonestBroker/Ferryman? If so, from where?

      Another interesting thing, is that Mr Thompson chose to engage himself on the “Towsend chat” thing but has chosen to not provide evidence that Philip Edmonds flew out of Praia da Luz on May 4.

      Mr Thompson, together with Jules are the 2 people who most like to debate with Nick Townsend. Coincidence?

    2. And Ben Thompson has given a first reply on NT’s blog:

      Pseudo Nym15 August 2018 at 10:07
      Great post NT, unfortunately it has caused Bruce and the Swingstein 6 to now accuse you of being Nick Townsend. So many names, so little time.
      For anyone in any doubt, let me just clear something up.
      Textusa is a colossal fraud. He actively seeks to accuse NT of being every bad guy since time began.
      I know exactly who NT is - and I'll never divulge that, not to anyone.
      I also know exactly who Nick Townsend is - I'll show that hand when I'm ready, and with proof.
      They are two entirely different people, with entirely different views.
      Still, the truth is only important to Textusa when it needs to be hidden.
      As for his continuing demands of myself I'll say it again.
      I'll answer all the questions you've demanded I answer, text. All you have to do, ya big yellow bellied fraud, is face me on an open platform, and answer questions I put to you, to me, to you. Get the idea?
      To his idiotic disciples, why not ask yourselves why he's so afraid to face me, or indeed anyone for that matter, then try to apply some logic to that.
      On second thoughts, what with whimpering's levels of deduction, they'd probably come up with a recipe for beef stroganoff, and a broken motivator.
      As you were :)

      Not Textusa15 August 2018 at 10:15
      ffs -anyone who knows me will be pissing themselves laughing. Literally. It's like accusing John Blacksmith of being Tony Bennett
      She is fucking nuts :)
      Thanks PN, and for your kind words - off for a read....


      So now, Ben Thompson not only knows who Nick Townsend/HonestBroker/Ferryman is (we will waiting patiently for you divulge your proof when you are ready) but also knows who NT is.

      “I know exactly who NT is - and I'll never divulge that, not to anyone.”

      NT replies to this comment and doesn’t deny this.

      For someone who has said that until the Orlov incident in April this year he wasn’t aware of NT’s existence or at least took very little notice of him, one must congratulate both on such a quick straightening of their friendship.

      Please note, it’s the same person who calls us cowards for writing anonymously but will defend with his life the anonymity of an anonymous blogger, who he highly praises.

    3. Who has ever heard of Nick Townsend on Twitter, until recently? No one.

      Nick Townsend appears out of the blue with this tweet on April 14 2018, which informs that he was around but… all his tweets have been deleted! How convenient!
      nick townsend‏ @nicktownsend12
      Account hacked (but not deleted) and tweets (all) deleted (apart from this one, made after the hack). All those I was following also deleted. Unreal.
      10:36 am - 14 Apr 2018


      It seems that this man is, or so has been said in certain quarters, obsessed with Martin Grime. Interestingly, if one researches up until Aug 2, one can verify that he has mentioned the word “Grime” in that period 107 times.

      But we would divide those 107 times in 3 groups:

      - Before Jul 19 (96 days) – 39 times with the following frequency: ((22-Apr (1 time), 23-Apr (1 time), 07-May (1 time), 08-May (1 time), 11-May (13 times), 23-May (3 times), 24-May (3 times), 30-May (1 time), 08-Jun (2 times), 11-Jun (3 times), 16-Jun (2 times), 20-Jun (1 time), 26-Jun (1 time), 27-Jun (1 time), 28-Jun (1 time), 30-Jun (1 time), 07-Jul (1 time), 10-Jul (1 time) and 17-Jul (1 time);

      - Between Jul 19 and Jul 21 (3 days) – 8 times with the following frequency: 19-Jul (4 times) and 21-Jul (4 times);

      - After Jul 21 (11 days) – 60 times with the following frequency: (22-Jul (4 times), 23-Jul (3 times), 24-Jul (1 time), 25-Jul (16 times), 26-Jul (3 times), 27-Jul (7 times), 28-Jul (6 times), 29-Jul (2 times), 31-Jul (4 times), 01-Aug (7 times) and 02-Aug (7 times).

      We are certain that after Aug 2, he has used the word Grime very, very often.

      Why have we separated the period of Jul 19/Jul21 is something we will explain later on. But for now, it is quite clear that there is one Nick Townsend before then and another after then in terms of “Grime obsession”.

      We have never said that Nick Townsend is NT. We have said that Nick Townsend is his creation. And as we have also said, to access and use an account, all one needs to know – or be given – is its password.

      That means that Nick Townsend is simply the person using that account at that moment and one of the people who may have used or use it may be indeed HonestBroker/Ferryman from the “pre-Facebook” days of the case. We wouldn’t be surprised.

      What has surprised us, is how Ben Thompson a prominent alleged anti all these years, knows NT and HonestBroker. He will show us one day. When he’s ready.

    4. Does this sound familiar?
      nick townsend‏ @nicktownsend12 … In the link I have highlighted the only part of the carpet-square experiment relevant to PdL. The experiment rested on the principle of cross-contamination of a death scent. No contact of bodies with carpet squares: death scent transmitted (more)
      1:43 am - 2 Aug 2018
      nick townsend‏ @nicktownsend12
      through sheets and air to the carpets. At PdL Grime ignored cross contamination and the carpet squares experiment illustrates just how easily and readily death scent is transferred. All items 'alerted to' in the gym out of the same bog-standard cardboard box.
      1:43 am - 2 Aug 2018

      If it does, it’s because it is.

      It’s like we are living in a bipolar world.

      On Twitter, Bugsy (Ben Thompson) and Jules (Julie Chrimes) attack the ideas they then defend on NT’s blog.

      Different audiences and different means of communication. On a blog, the information is more concentrated, easy to remember and recollect while on twitter it’s scattered and so harder to remember and to recollect.

      On Twitter it’s much easier to create baseless impressions. For example, a tweet like “I love knitting” makes one link that nick with knitting as that link is explicit, But, say 3 months later while talking about bulldogs, one’s brain continues to associate the nick with knitting but doesn’t remember where or why it does.

      A very effective tool to construct perceptions as content has very short “validity” period, so what is captured is what is being said at the moment, which may or not be consistent with what was said in the past nor with what will be said in the future.

    5. And an interesting tweet from the Frog:
      Green Leaper‏ @FragrantFrog
      Replying to @AlleyCat666x @Bale2N and 3 others
      But you & JBL do pick fights with Nick & pretend you believe in the dogs. whereas we know you really don't cos you support NT. Permission to start dissing dogs now. Did you notice how SYP referred to Eddie in that FOI request reply?
      3:45 pm - 15 Aug 2018

    6. And of course we could not let this gem on NT’s blog go unnoticed:

      Jules..15 August 2018 at 13:48
      I've just looked at Textusa, as my name was mentioned.. I'm actually shocked she believes Bale2 is the same person from the old Walker account.. She can't be that thick.. Surely..?

    7. I saw this morning a tweet from Bale saying something that Walker always used on twitter: My dog tells lies and he's a thief.
      Can't find it now. Can anybody find it?

    8. Ben Thompson has replied:
      Bugsy‏ @TheBunnyReturns
      Replying to @JBLittlemore
      It's just lie after lie from Textusa. Take a look at this screenshot, apparently - according to Textusa, nobody has ever heard of Nick Townsend on Twitter, until recently. Notice how Textusa uses one of Nick's lies, to back up his own. I'll get to that next. #McCann
      6:00 am - 16 Aug 2018
      J B Littlemore‏ @JBLittlemore
      FollowFollow @JBLittlemore
      Replying to @TheBunnyReturns
      He was on here as @NickTown12 previously. We've crossed swords a good while now... #Mccann
      6:02 am - 16 Aug 2018
      Bugsy‏ @TheBunnyReturns
      Replying to @JBLittlemore
      He was indeed. I drew attention to him lying about having an account "hacked". Textusa must have either conveniently missed that, or it didn't suit him to mention it.
      6:06 am - 16 Aug 2018
      Jules... 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿‏ @AlleyCat666x
      Replying to @TheBunnyReturns @JBLittlemore
      And here it is.. Joined 2012.. Take a look at nick townsend (@nicktownsend12):
      6:07 am - 16 Aug 2018
      Bugsy‏ @TheBunnyReturns
      Bugsy Retweeted Jules... 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿
      Do you see this @Anvil161Anvil16 You can take this to Textusa if you like, rub his nose in it, and tell him he was - yet again, wrong. You could also ask the pompous fraud feels the need to con his readers on a daily basis. Good find Jules, I wonder why Textusa couldn't do that?
      Bugsy added,
      6:14 am - 16 Aug 2018


      First thing to notice, is that Ben Thompson although saying that he will NOT reply unless in an open forum – whatever that is, when he thinks he has a shred of reason is very quickly to reply. A behaviour he shares with NT. It must be catching.

      We maintain that Nick Townsend has only appeared on the scene in April this year. Shortly after the Orlov incident.

      It’s a fact that Twitter says he joined in 2012. And we’re not doubting that. Many sock accounts are created every day and lay dormant until they are used. But @JBLittlemore says s/he has crossed swords with Nick Townsend “a good while now”. We maintain what we have said and continue to ask, who has heard of Nick Townsend before?

      He may have been around but was completely insignificant. And that is the point we’re making, that this character has only gained relevance after April 2018.

      Any previous relevance is only given by NT’s gang. It’s up to each one to decide for themselves if if what these people have to say is to be trusted.

      We maintain focus on what matters, how does Ben Thompson know who Nick Townsend is and how does he know who NT is and won’t ever divulge.

      Ben Thompson now that you’ve shown you’re quick on the reply button, do use it to answer these and other questions we have put you.

      Whispering‏ @Anvil161Anvil16
      Ben Thompson states on the NT blog : I know exactly who NT is - and I'll never divulge that, not to anyone.I also know exactly who Nick Townsend is - I'll show that hand when I'm ready, and with proof. They are two entirely different people, with entirely different views.1/2
      4:46 am - 16 Aug 2018
      Whispering‏ @Anvil161Anvil16
      #McCann 2/2 I seem to remember the same Ben Thompson (Bunny Returns) giving me two names in DM months ago! Odd, that.
      4:48 am - 16 Aug 2018


      Fancy that!

      Whispering, is it possible to know if this was before or after the Orlov incident (April this year)?

      Thank you.

    10. It was, in fact, on the 27th February of this year - 2018. (Whispering)

    11. It seems Mr Ben Thompson has left a slightly important piece of information about the Nick Townsend account:
      nick townsend‏ @nicktownsend12
      Account hacked (but not deleted) and tweets (all) deleted (apart from this one, made after the hack). All those I was following also deleted. Unreal.
      10:36 am - 14 Apr 2018
      Bugsy‏ @TheBunnyReturns
      Replying to @nicktownsend12
      I call bullshit! Your @NTown1976Nick account still has all your shameful lies about Martin Grime showing. You were using it two days before you switched to @NickTownsend12 #McCann
      4:24 pm - 23 Apr 2018


      On checking both accounts:
      nick Townsend
      Joined October 2015
      nick townsend
      Joined December 2012

      Unless there were 2 Nick Townsends talking about the case, it seems, Nick Townsend was using an account opened in 2015 while he had an account opened in 2012, dormant which he began to use on April 2018.

      Isn’t this so interesting?

      And the oldest tweet that we could find from the newest registered but first used Nick Townsend account was on May 16 2017

      In fact we were only able to find 9 tweets between this date and Nov 4 2017 (date from which Mr Ben Thompson starts to engage with this character):

      #1 - 16 May 2017
      @colinsutton -!Ah6JxQVZWy9_g2eKsbPIdwBub2-V … Hello Mr Sutton.Relieved you haven't joined Haverns. Wonder if this helps?

      #2 - 16 May 2017
      @colinsutton!Ah6JxQVZWy9_g2eKsbPIdwBub2-V … Mr Sutton. Please you've not washed up at Haverns, Does this make sense?

      #3 - 16 May 2017
      My apologies for sending you the same link twice, Mr Sutton. I am unused to twitter and wasn't sure my first attempt had gone.

      #4 - 13 Jun 2017
      George Osbourne, sacked for warning inflation would rise if we left the eu. Inflation has risen. We've not yet left the EU

      #5 - 24 Jun 2017
      Replying to @McCannCaseTweet
      I doubt Gerry has anything against dogs. But is against improperly deployed dogs.With good reason.

      #6 - 25 Jun 2017
      Replying to @dizzybird11 @McCannCaseTweet
      Properly deployed dogs dont pick stuff up or trample on stuff they are tasked to inspect (for example). Nor inspect the same stuff twice.

      #7 - 25 Jun 2017
      Thank you. If I can work out how to launch my own blog, I may expand on some issues, here.

      #8 - 6 Aug 2017
      Goncalo Amaral.Awash with money to wreck whatever is left of his lungs and liver with alcohol and fags until the end of his days. Marvelous.

      #9 - 15 Aug 2017
      Isis 'progresses' from burning people in cages to dissolving them in acid. Nice!#login

      As we said, a very insignificant character in the #mccann on twitter.

      nick Townsend‏ @Ntown1976Nick
      My apologies for sending you the same link twice, Mr Sutton. I am unused to twitter and wasn't sure my first attempt had gone.
      10:36 am - 16 May 2017
      Bugsy‏ @TheBunnyReturns
      Replying to @Ntown1976Nick
      Liar. You've had, and have, multiple accounts on Twitter. For a man who calls himself 'honest broker' you do n 'alf talk some shite. #McCann
      7:22 am - 15 Jan 2018


      It took 244 days for Mr Ben Thompson to call Nick Townsend (on his most recent but first used account @Ntown1976Nick) out as “HonestBroker”.


      Question remains, how did Mr Ben Thompson know that Nick Townsend (@Ntown1976Nick) was “HonetsBroker” a very well-known character from the pro-forums (very pre-Facebook times…)?

    Interesting that Gamble invited MWT to be a speaker at this conference, presumably.
    We all now wait to see what will happen about MWT following the collapse of the Jonathan King trial because of revelations that MWT was selling details of alleged victims.

    1. Anonymous 15 Aug 2018, 17:57:00,

      Brunt being fed info by MWT. Charlatans together.

    2. Anonymous 15 Aug 2018, 17:57:00,

      About King and MWT.

  51. Once again, we would like to correct ourselves.

    From our research we had been led to believe that the presence of single men – as in not accompanied by a woman – was basically not accepted in any swinging events.

    We visited the site of the Swingers Club Tommy Sheridan “admitted that he had in fact visited the club on two occasions, in 1996 and 2002, with close friends”, the Cupids Swinger Club at Manchester.

    As can be seen, “Single Males” are accepted:

    Opening Times & Admission Prices
    Single Male membership 6 months £50
    Single Male membership 12 months £75
    No membership required for couples
    No membership required for single females

    Wednesday (Eve)
    19.00 - Midnight (Couples & Single Ladies Only)
    Couples £20.00 Single Ladies Free

    Tuesday to Friday Daytimes
    Single Male (Member) - £15
    Single Male (Guest) - £40
    Single Female - FREE
    Couple - £15

    Sunday to Thursday Evening
    Single Male (Member) - £15
    Single Male (Guest) - £40
    Single Female – FREE
    Couple - £10

    Single Male (Member) - £25
    Single Male (Guest) - £50
    Single Female - FREE
    Couple - £20

    Single Male (Member) - £25
    Single Male (Guest) - £50
    Single Female - FREE
    Couple - £20


    Couples & Single Females DO NOT have to provide ID or have a membership.
    You may be asked to provide ID at club discretion

    Single Males MUST provide photo ID on first visit (mandatory with no exceptions) but DO NOT have to be a member.


    If you appear to be intoxicated you may be refused entry to the club. If you appear to be intoxicated whilst in the club you may be asked to leave the premises immediately. No abusive language or disrespect for staff or other guests will be tolerated and you will be asked to leave the premises immediately.

    The club has a ZERO tolerance to illegal substances or drugs of any type and if you are suspected of consuming them or to be in pocession of illegal drugs you WILL be asked to leave the club premises immediately and the relevant authorities may be informed.
    What should I wear??
    Well at Cupids it's pretty straight forward, we are a dress down club. This means that we request all guests to change when they come into the club

    Sexy as you Dare! - Sexy Underwear, Uniforms, Latex,
    Glamour Wear or simply a towel (We provide towels on arrival).

    Shorts, Boxer Shorts or Towel (We provide towels on arrival).

    First Time ?
    On arrival our very friendly and experienced staff will show you round, discuss etiquette and answer any questions you may have. If you are a couple it is helpful if you and your partner discuss your limits or intentions.
    If you have just come to watch or for atmosphere that is fine. If you are approached a polite "No" will see that you are left alone.

    In Cupids NO means NO and anyone breaking this rule will be barred from the club.

    If you are a couple looking for another couple, it is quite normal for you to sit and chat to other couples and during conversation, mention your interests or visit the "Couples Only" Room.

    If you are a couple and are looking for a single to join you, then this is the easiest scenario. Single guys are most eager to oblige and not offended in the least if you approach them.

    If you are approached by a single, he will not get right to the point, but will normally engage you in small talk conversation, but you can rest assured he is interested in joining you. If you are interested, ask him if he would like to join you in a private room.

    Serious swingers can have the time of their lives in our club. Just enter the open rooms for serious attention from anyone in there, but most will not begin until they get the indication that you require their attention.

    Looking for bi ladies? lots of couples have bi ladies looking for the same, just mention in conversation that the lady in your partnership is bi and is looking for the same.


  52. (Cont)

    Couples who come for the first time who just sit and expect to be approached without any input from yourselves may not enjoy their night, as regulars do not know what you are into; also they do not like to offend.

    The best approach is to give eye contact or make the effort to chat to others. It is normal to sit next to other people and introduce yourself, starting with with normal everyday conversation. If you find that they are regulars, ask them questions about the club and the best way to go about things, you will find them eager to help guide you in the right direction.

    In a nutshell, be friendly, polite and things will happen as everyone in the club are open-minded and are there to swing. Whatever their preferences, just relax and enjoy your evening.


    Alcohol and Drinks
    We are not licensed to sell alcohol but you are very welcome to bring your own.

    We have a good selection of soft drinks as well as tea and coffee.

    We ask that if you do choose to bring alcoholic drinks that you drink responsibly and with consideration for the other members of the club.

    We run a tab system and any items purchased, are paid for on departure.
    If you appear to be intoxicated you may be refused entry to the club. If you appear to be intoxicated whilst in the club you may be asked to leave the premises immediately.

    No abusive language or disrespect for staff or other guests will be tolerated and you will be asked to leave the premises immediately.

    Lockers - Secure Lockers are provided for all personal possessions

    Mobile Phones
    Mobile phones or cameras are not permitted in our club and must be kept in your locker

    The club has a ZERO tolerance to illegal substances or drugs of any type and if you are suspected of consuming them or to be in possession of illegal drugs you WILL be asked to leave the club premises immediately and the relevant authorities may be informed.

    We encourage safe sex and condoms can be purchased from the bar.

    There is plenty of on street parking outside and in close proximity to the club.


    As can be seen, Single Males are indeed accepted but are very much discriminated and on Wednesdays evenings they are not allowed. On that night only ladies alone and couples.

    Not that we have been lied to but we were not aware of the many kinds of swinging that exists.

    Anne Guedes in her comment at 10 Aug 2018, 20:21:00, unwittingly raised this point when she says “Frankly I don't see those 9, who negotiated a lower price because there was no listening service and didn't invest that discount on babysitters, ready to pay a fortune for swinging with VIPs.”

    The question of payment, which Natalie Rowe also speaks of in her book: ““…he was into swinging and took me with him to Paris, to a secret, exclusive and expensive club (the annual membership was several thousand pounds) called Cleopatra.”


  53. (Cont)

    On the internet we could not find a “Cleopatra Swingers Club” in Paris (which does not mean in any way that it doesn’t exist as Natalie Rowe does say it is secret) but we found one, shall we say, slightly more expensive than Cupids in Paris, Les Chantelles:

    “Should you decide to visit Les Chandelles, you can plan your day or night here with a full menu of 4-star eats. Evenings run around 300€ for single men to enter and dramatically less expensive for single women. Dress code is top designer…then it eventually becomes au naturel. Beautiful people are expressly welcome. And beautiful couples are a priority for the venue. Happy adventuring.”

    Again, single men allowed even though, again, discriminated.

    We will address later this “price tag” question later in one of our futures replies to Anne Guedes. For now, we would like to correct what we have said and acknowledge that although discriminated, in established swinging clubs, single males are allowed.

    Please note how these places enforce strict rules. Very strict rules. Comparing swinging with dogging like NT has tried, is indeed comparing Chablis and lobster with warm tap water on a sunny day and 4 day old stale bread.

    Please note that Tommy Sheridan is a Scottish politician. Manchester is not near Westminster. We would say that there appears to be no link between Tommy Sheridan and Manchester. If anyone knows of any we would be grateful if you would inform us and our readers.

    As can be seen above, no one, much less an unaccompanied man (or a group of unaccompanied men), enters a swinging club by mistake thinking it is just a “normal” bar or even a strip club.

  54. Interesting - MWT again


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.