Quote from here:
“Now that's not to say that something couldn't turn up in
the future where I think: 'Oh flip, you know I was right in the beginning and
I'm wrong now'.”
Interesting, isn’t it? Very interesting we would say.
Post Scriptum:
Just to show a use of the expression in the “middle of the night”. The above was taken from Netflix.
Post Scriptum:
Just to show a use of the expression in the “middle of the night”. The above was taken from Netflix.
Not wanting to distract from the interest that the comment of the post absolutely has but hasn’t it been also interesting over the years that Mr Amaral is the only person who is not “allowed” to have an evolving opinion about an investigation from which he was pulled out of because he denounced external interferences, or in other words, he realised that there were significant efforts to fool him and his investigation?
ReplyDeleteSounds like he believes Operation Grange are searching for the truth, unlike Leicester Constabulary. Gamble is a good barometer as to what the McCanns are thinking. I would strongly suggest they believe it's almost all over.
ReplyDeleteLet's prepare ourselves for big surprises.
We remind readers that pressuring to have the McCanns questioned in the UK without being under the request and supervision of the Portuguese authorities, is to have the case closed forcefully:
ReplyDeletehttp://textusa.blogspot.com/2018/10/section-9.html
It's amazing how many people still believe Gerry McCann was walking around Praia da Luz with a dead body in his arms. He would have to be a fool to do such dangerous thing, and Gerry"s a lot of things but he's no fool. The body would have already been safely hidden by then, too risky otherwise.
ReplyDelete“Oh flip” is something you’d expect a person to say about a very minor concern, like “Oh flip, I’ve left the washing out and it’s starting to rain.”
ReplyDeleteI think Mr Gamble was being polite with the F word he chose.
If he was wrong about this case, he was seriously wrong and had a great deal of influence in the case with his secret Scoping report, which seems to have been shared with Martin Brunt and others.
Unpublished Anonymous at 11 Mar 2019, 17:20:00,
ReplyDeleteAs we at the blog fully believe that Maddie died accidentally on May 3, at around 18H30, we don't publish comments supporting death before May 3.
We have also shown that we don't believe in both sailing events, that of the kids being taken out to sea, however near the sand it may have allegedly been and that of the 2 Tapas men going sailing.
The first, we believe it was simply the over-egging of the pudding in terms of beach activities, to show that they really had great activities lined up for the kids. We don't rule out that the kids were taken to the beach to play in the sand.
About the adult sailing, we believe that it was to an alibi created for them to not be where they were had been.
The Paraíso pictures seem absolutely natural to us and the fact that the McCanns do not appear in them is simply because they were somewhere else.
At 18H30, or thereabouts, both Kate and David Payne acknowledge that Kate was in the apartment with the kids. We have no reason to believe they are lying in this, and that would mean that when the Paraíso pictures were taken, Kate was at 5A.
https://twitter.com/McCannFacts/status/1102883894674841600
ReplyDeleteKilla Dog 🌐 @McCannFacts
Due to market forces, I am withdrawing from commenting on #McCann and will only view the tag once a week from now on. For those that wish to communicate in the meantime I can be contacted on michael.walker1000@hotmail.com XXX
2:49 am - 5 Mar 2019
*****
“Market forces”? How interesting…
And we haven’t been the only ones noticing that “The Club” has reduced its activity to a trickle…
:)
DeleteI seem to think you predicted his path not so long ago?
DeleteUnsurprisingly, 'walker' is still going, at my last viewing having a lite saber (spelling deliberate) battle with Spring Heeled Jack himself, Tony Bennett. It seems that far from his/her 'I dont read troll blogs' mantra, he's dropping little sentences in tweets for attention here.
Deletehttps://twitter.com/Jules1602xx/status/1105447638319665152
ReplyDelete00The Jules... 🕵️♀️ 🐌 🌸 🐌 🌸 🐌 🌸 @Jules1602xx
Replying to @zampos @Heavy_Dave and 2 others
Do you feel that you have a sense of entitlement to see everyone's pics..? You have no idea what pics were seen..
Just because we only see a few in the files.. Same as Textusa.. Like a bloody pic of a table helps what happened to Madeleine.. #McCann
5:37 am - 12 Mar 2019
*****
What a bloody incompetent man Mr Rebelo must be! He submitted to the Public Ministry for dispatch only “a few” of the pics. Kept the others for himself. For what? Decoration purposes for his house?
“A bloody pic of a table helps what happened to Madeleine..”, because the FACT that it never existed shows that there were no Tapas dinners as stated by the T9, the Tapas staff and guests (namely Carpenter, Balu, Berry and Wilkins).
The fact that there were no dinners (except for “something” on Thursday) means there was no neglect.
The fact that there was no neglect makes abduction impossible.
The above does not help understand what happened to the little girl? We think it does.
“A bloody pic of a table” that Jules says she has and that since Jan 19 she said she was going to publish together with e-mails that will prove its existence but has to date failed to do so. We are waiting.
https://twitter.com/JBLittlemore/status/1105479232208191489
DeleteJ B Littlemore @JBLittlemore
Replying to @Jules1602xx @zampos and 3 others
There are many photos in PJ files. And who knows what else investigators wanted to see or retain. And you are correct - the alleged absence of the table proves nothing in respect of M's fate. Most doubters do not believe abduction, regardless of dining facilities!
7:42 am - 12 Mar 2019
https://twitter.com/Jules1602xx/status/1105480299725623298
00The Jules... 🕵️♀️ 🐌 🌸 🐌 🌸 🐌 🌸 @Jules1602xx
Replying to @JBLittlemore @zampos and 3 others
I happen to think there are other pics we've not seen too JBL...
The table scenario is just something some loon has attached himself to.. I'm thinking he was made to eat off his lap as a kid, whilst a BRT was available!! :)
7:46 am - 12 Mar 2019
****
Oh, look who came to Jules’ rescue on the PJ having withheld pictures from the files: JBLittlemore!
Why is this self-claimed “doubter” obsessed with denigrating the Portuguese, the Portuguese justice system, first their courts and now the Public Ministry and the PJ?
To accuse the PJ to retain evidence from the Public Ministry is a very serious accusation to make. It goes beyond incompetence as to do something like that would mean that but could also be taken as the PJ not trusting the Public Ministry with sensitive information.
The files had ALL the evidence available so the Public Ministry for it to make the correct decision.
Besides the serious accusation made, it is all quite insulting to the intelligence of all who follow the case. The PJ would fill the files with “meaningless” pictures but would withheld the pictures in which the group would appear having dinner like they were supposedly having when Maddie was allegedly abducted. Seriously?
Unpublished Jules at 12 Mar 2019, 18:25:00
DeleteYou have 3 questions to answer. Until you do that find somewhere else to write your nonsense.
By the way on January 19 this year you said (our caps) “THEY’RE GOING TO GET #owned 😂”
That’s future tense. That contradicts you saying we have seen the BRT. We are waiting for you to publish what you said you were going to publish AFTER January 19.
You saying 1,000 times or more the lie that we have seen the BRT won’t make it true. We have seen a BRT but not THE BRT. You say you spoke to 3 photographers and that you have the proof, we’re simply asking to see what you promised you would show all of us.
By the way... why have you closed your "@jules1602x" Twitter account (because you were going on holiday) and then opened up a "@jules1602xx" one with the same snails and flowers symbols the closed account had?
DeleteRe photos not being included in files. It is accurate to say that photos in the files are MENTIONED and not included. For example the material contributed by the Fosters. The question is whether PJ ever received those - or were they, like original Balu/Berry interviews, received in UK and snobbishly not sent over as they were deemed irrelevant in the UK?
DeleteAnonymous 12 Mar 2019, 23:42:00,
DeleteWhy speak of the Fosters, why not address the elephant in the room and speak of Dianne Webster's photos of the Tapas dinners she says she took?
If evidence is not in the files it is only for one of 2 reasons:
- The PJ did not consider it relevant to be presented to the Public Ministry for decision on the case;
- The PJ did not receive it from the UK.
Taking into account the quantity and variation of photos in the files, it's a fair assessment to make that the PJ included ALL the photos it received (an absurd possibility: someone handed over a picture of a dog without any connection to the case, then to not include it in the files would be a reasonable decision to take but even so...).
Whatever the PJ did not receive from the UK, it did not retain. And whatever is in the UK is not part of the PJ Files and the only what is processed in Portugal is legally valid there.
To say the PJ has retained relevant evidence from the Public Ministry is to make a very serious accusation.
We remind readers that Watcher/NotTextusa called the timing of the Smith sighting into question.
ReplyDeleteAs Watcher in his post of March 14 2018 on the McCann Case discussion forum. He would then copy this post ipsis verbis to his blog as NotTextusa.
He wrote that whilst he believed the Smith party to be entirely sincere, he regarded their time estimate as just that - an estimate.
He concludes that the Smith sighting was unlikely to be before 22.20 at the earliest and possibly as late as 22.35 and raises the possibility that their timeline is out by a whole hour.
What’s your point?
ReplyDeleteIt would mean that Gerry’s alibi was worthless, or couldn’t you work that out?
Anonymous 12 Mar 2019, 16:18:00,
DeletePlease explain how the Smith sighting taking place at 22:20/22:35 instead of when the Smiths say it happened in the PJ Files, would "mean that Gerry’s alibi was worthless".
So there's no doubt, NotTextusa's exact wording on this:
“However, considering that the point where they crossed paths with the ''Man carrying child'' was about five minutes after leaving Kelly's I think it is safe to hypothesize that this was unlikely to be before 22.20 at the earliest, and possibly as late as 22.35”
Thank you.
Are you serious?
DeleteThe Smith sighting was estimated as 22.00. Witnesses place Gerry at the Tapas then. A later time, when people were running about like headless chickens, leaves him without an alibi. It’s obvious, isn’t it?
Anonymous 12 Mar 2019, 17:47:00,
DeleteSo, to understand, the alarm is given at 22:00. It takes less than 5 minutes to walk from 5A to the Smith sighting location.
At the earliest NotTextusa says, at 22:20, that would mean that at 22:15, Gerry picks up Maddie, in the middle of the confusion of “headless” chickens” and walks towards the Smiths. He’s seen at 22.20 and then does what? Drop the body and walk back? He needs to head to wherever, so let’s give him 10 minutes for that?
At 22:30 then he starts to return. Takes him 15 minutes to get back (5m + 10m), and it’s 22.45 when he returns. Between 22:15 and 22:45 no one sees that the girl’s father is missing, nowhere to be seen near the scene of the crime.
But NotTextusa says it could be as late as 22:35. Same reasoning. Leaves crime scene at 22:30, returns at 23:00 and no one notices he’s not there?
What about all the witnesses that arrived after the alarm? No one noticed the father was missing? That is rendering his alibi worthless? Are you serious?
And by the way… what alibi? Who has EVER questioned the presence of Gerry in the crime scene between 22:15 and 23:00? No one has. So why does he even need an alibi for that?
Placing the Smith sighting at 22:20/22:35 is to give Gerry an alibi exactly because no one questions his presence in the crime scene between 22:15 and 23:00.
Plus, what NotTextusa does is to throw in uncertainty in what the Smiths have said. He casts doubt on the reliability of what they have said. He says they are sincere but are not reliable.
He does with the Smiths what he’s tried to do with the dogs, discredit them while being nice. With the dogs he says they are good but their alerts are meaningless, with the Smiths he says they are sincere but their recollection of that night should not be trusted.
One rhetorical question, do you really believe that you are fooling anyone? Rhetorical as in we really don’t want you to answer.
The PJ ruled out the Smith sighting being Gerry because they had several witnesses who placed Gerry at the Tapas at 22.00.
DeleteIf you can't see how a later sighting puts him back in play, you are beyond help
“The PJ ruled out the Smith sighting being Gerry” and we’re the ones beyond help??? 😂😂😂
DeleteFrom the PJ final report
Delete"Some time later, the witness alleged that, by its stance, the
individual who carried the child could be GERALD McCANN, which was
concluded when he saw him descending the stairs from an airplane, pages
2871, 3991 and following and 4135 and following. It was established that
at the time that was being mentioned, GERALD McCANN was sitting at
the table, in the Tapas Restaurant "
The PJ's own words. I thought you were supposed to know this stuff?
Anonymous 12 Mar 2019, 22:48:00,
DeleteNow, why on earth wouldn’t we publish your comment???
It’s fantastic. It’s so amazing that the reason we didn’t publish it last night was because we didn’t want anyone else to reply to it before we did.
In fact, it’s so brilliant that we’re not going to reply to it yet.
It’s a known fact that Mr Amaral defends the thesis that Smithman is Gerry McCann and he defends the Smith sighting timeline as is in the files.
With your quote from the PJ Files, which you have put up to defend NotTextusa’s position by attempting to explain why he casts doubt on the Smith’s timeline of their own sighting, you are clearly accusing Mr Amaral of contradicting the files.
So we will address your comment later and we’re not replying to it yet because we first want to hear the opinion on this from those die-hard fans who simultaneously support, or so they say, NotTextusa, Mr Amaral and the PJ Files.
What have Mr Thompson, Jules, JBLittlemore and Silverdoe to say about this?
Will they show themselves to be total hypocrites by pretending they didn’t read this when we all know they have?
https://twitter.com/JBLittlemore/status/1105801803483017217
DeleteJ B Littlemore @JBLittlemore
Replying to @Jules1602xx
Good question. As is why do some followers of the case prefer to look at the random imaginary pictures in their minds than at the solid scenery in front of their eyes? #Mccann
5:04 am - 13 Mar 2019
https://twitter.com/Jules1602xx/status/1105803323377152000
00The Jules... 🕵️♀️ 🐌 🌸 🐌 🌸 🐌 🌸 @Jules1602xx
Replying to @JBLittlemore
Like trying to work out times of pic from a shadow.. ? Or lack of folk walking around.. Or what automobiles are in a pic.. ? That type of thing JBL.. ? #McCann
5:10 am - 13 Mar 2019
https://twitter.com/JBLittlemore/status/1105805071441371137
J B Littlemore @JBLittlemore
Replying to @Jules1602xx
Well, yes. And also to do with imagining clothes are different colours & lengths to those worn etc., or imagining things weren't where they were & vice versa. You know the score ; ) #Mccann
5:17 am - 13 Mar 2019
*****
Talking about us but not addressing the challenge. 😂😂😂
And resorting to what one has to resort when one is unable to contradict what one knows to be true but so much wishes it wasn’t so… 😂😂😂
Oh, and Jules... you forgot the lack of boats! The lack of boats!
DeleteAnd of TV crews! You know, all that media storm that was supposed to be there but wasn't...
I wonder where JBL draws the line with his: "at the solid scenery in front of their eyes" comment? Does he mean the two sniffer dogs that alerted to blood and cadaver in the McCann apartment (which he tries to dilute) or to the 'solid scenery' that would indicate the children were sedated? He does protest too much at his words been transposed to this blog but thinks nothing of ripping into this blog on twitter. (All in the best of fun, of course).
DeleteWhy have you blocked my reply? The quote is from the PJ final report, are you trying to hide it from people?
ReplyDeleteAnonymous 12 Mar 2019, 23:46:00,
DeleteSee our reply at 13 Mar 2019, 08:47:00.
“It’s a known fact that Mr Amaral defends the thesis that Smithman is Gerry McCann and he defends the Smith sighting timeline as is in the files.
ReplyDeleteWith your quote from the PJ Files, which you have put up to defend NotTextusa’s position by attempting to explain why he casts doubt on the Smith’s timeline of their own sighting, you are clearly accusing Mr Amaral of contradicting the files.”
You are obviously too stupid to grasp the point. The PJ concluded that ‘Smithman’ couldn’t be Gerry as there were witnesses who placed him at the Tapas at 22.00.
If the Smith timing was later, the alibi doesn’t stand up. I can’t be bothered trying to explain it again if you just can’t grasp it.
Similar expressions for "I don't have an answer, you know I don't have an answer and everyone knows I don't have an answer":
Delete- You're beyond help;
- I'm not your clerk;
- Do your own homework;
- I can’t be bothered trying to explain it again if you just can’t grasp it.
At least Jules and Silverdoe are trying to come up with something:
Deletehttps://twitter.com/xxSiLverdoexx/status/1105816204038541314
SheLLxx 💯 #MMJC @xxSiLverdoexx
Replying to @Jules1602xx @JBLittlemore
During the 'confusion' he could have been anywhere Jules, more so if there was an earlier alert, which in itself is damning. Meaning they left it even longer to call the PJ too.....
It keeps bugging me.
6:01 am - 13 Mar 2019
https://twitter.com/Jules1602xx/status/1105818409391063041
00The Jules... 🕵️♀️ 🐌 🌸 🐌 🌸 🐌 🌸 @Jules1602xx
Replying to @xxSiLverdoexx @JBLittlemore
Well Gerry #McCann was missing more than most before and after 'official' alarm..
6:10 am - 13 Mar 2019
https://twitter.com/xxSiLverdoexx/status/1105819364450816000
SheLLxx 💯 #MMJC @xxSiLverdoexx
Replying to @Jules1602xx @JBLittlemore
@TandemVipera filmed it Jules... http://genreith.de/gerrysrun
Where Smithman was heading? It would have taken no time at all to get to.
Is it really impossible for G #mccann to go there and back in under 20 minutes?
6:14 am - 13 Mar 2019
https://twitter.com/Jules1602xx/status/1105821384356315138
00The Jules... 🕵️♀️ 🐌 🌸 🐌 🌸 🐌 🌸 @Jules1602xx
Replying to @xxSiLverdoexx @JBLittlemore @TandemVipera
Let's not forget Gerry was extremely fit.. I'd say he could have done it in 15...
6:22 am - 13 Mar 2019
https://twitter.com/xxSiLverdoexx/status/1105822516751290369
SheLLxx 💯 #MMJC @xxSiLverdoexx
Replying to @Jules1602xx @JBLittlemore
I'm with you there Jules, easy to do if he runs back or just walks back fast.
Why would Mrs Smith's statement also be held back when, considering she spoke to him? Saw him more up close than the others iirc?
6:26 am - 13 Mar 2019
https://twitter.com/Jules1602xx/status/1105823852272205824
00The Jules... 🕵️♀️ 🐌 🌸 🐌 🌸 🐌 🌸 @Jules1602xx
Replying to @xxSiLverdoexx @JBLittlemore
Of course it's easily done.. But let facts get in the way...
Well they obviously had their reasons.. We could sit here & make something up..That usually helps!! 😏
6:32 am - 13 Mar 2019
https://twitter.com/xxSiLverdoexx/status/1105825108000677888
SheLLxx 💯 #MMJC @xxSiLverdoexx
Replying to @Jules1602xx @JBLittlemore
Oh, forgot about that Jules....I find it complete hypocrisy that I got 'dissed' for supporting Amaral's thesis whilst they then use it to back up Smithman..... 🤔 Yet indications of sedation and neglect a no no?
Should I have put a ''facts disclaimer'' up before Hand? #mccann
6:37 am - 13 Mar 2019
*****
Gerry was in a hurry (let’s forget that he pauses and zig-zags when crossing with the Smiths). He knows what he wants, he knows what he needs, he knows what he has to do. He’s in a strange town, walks somewhere fast (because he’s fit), dumps the body somewhere in the dark somewhere in a town he doesn’t know and hurries back (because he’s fit).
All after the alarm was given.
We remember better defences of the abduction in the early days.
Anyway, point missed by both: why is Mr Amaral dissing the files?
We could sit here & make something up..That usually helps!! ��
DeleteFor Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum(b) even their own irony is lost on them!
Comment we have censored:
ReplyDelete“Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Very interesting comment":
you really are a bit slow on the uptake aren't you? and i suspect delaying answering whatever the other reply was so that you can do a little research first, hmm? ;-)
now here's another one to blow your mind.. what if the time the alarm was raised wasn't 10pm? Just like two witness statements suggest? Then Smithman could still be Gerry.
Keep your mind open.. (censored).
(censored)
B.A.
Posted by Anonymous to Textusa at 13 Mar 2019, 15:15:00"
*****
So at what time was the alarm given?
Could this B.A be the same B.A. Baracus who spouts vile crap over on the abandoned NT Blog? So abandoned, in fact, even the rats have decided not to move in.
ReplyDeleteAmy T helps both parents search the apartment and asks if M’s shoes are still there. After this, the outside search takes place.
ReplyDeleteG went to reception after 20 minutes had passed, according to Amy.
Emma Knight is called at 22.17, then a 10 minute search. Before leaflets given out, she went to apartment and G returned shortly after.
John Hill arrived around 10.40, estimated from timings he describes. 15 minutes later, he is at the apartment, where he sees parents, so around 11pm
McKenzie the witness sees G on the balcony using his phone at 11pm.
Considering the theory the Smith sighting was one hour out. How does it fit with the above scenario?
When Amy searches, there is no trace of M, so her body had already been removed and G is back in the apartment with K.
G goes to reception and is seen at apartment by Emma on his return, probably no later than 10.45.
Helder, the receptionist says he was informed between 9.30 and 22 that child missing and phoned GNR.
Shortly after, John Hill and child’s father arrived at reception.
Taking NT’s suggestion that Smith sighting could be 22.35 (alarm raised by K around 22.00)-when G is seen at the table. G then has to go to apartment where M’s body is still in situ (!), find a hiding place that involves going through the streets where people may have started searching and be back before Amy’s visit to the apartment and the outside searches she refers to. Then appear at reception shortly after the alarm, according to Helder.
Of course, it relies on the witnesses being truthful, which NT insists is the case, as I understand. Ben T did have a blog which questioned the nannies’ statements, since deleted, so he presumably agrees now with NT.
Remember when you used to think a BRT wasn't in the Tapas in 2007?
DeleteAnonymous 13 Mar 2019, 17:49:00,
DeletePlease explain your comment and why you addressed it to 13 Mar 2019, 17:25:00.
Asking because being a BRT denier since 2010, I must say that until March that year I fully believed in the Tapas dinners. So very curious as to the reason of question.
As to the reason why we want to know why you addressed it to Anon, from his/her comment we see no reason for it but it will be up to him or her to reply to your comment.
Meanwhile, could you answer these 2 questions?
This is examining somebody else’s theory, not giving one’s own.
DeleteNT believes the tapas dining. His theory is based on that.
The questions are for him to answer about the logic of his own theory.
I don’t believe the dining scenario.
I believe M died earlier that evening and her body was moved much earlier than 10pm.
It must be obvious that I don’t think for one second that M’s body was left in the apartment until G returned after the alarm was raised.
That’s just absurd.
Anonymous 13 Mar 2019, 17:49:00,
DeleteEven though Anonymous 13 Mar 2019, 17:25:00 (13 Mar 2019, 18:28:00) has replied, we still would like to hear your reply to our questions, thank you.
NT and followers like BA are clearly trying to muddy the waters and create doubt about the Smith sighting and the timing of events on May 3rd.
ReplyDeleteIf anyone is following him and claims to be a supporter of GA, they are either deluded or deliberately joining in the stirring.
Anonymous 13 Mar 2019, 17:44:00,
DeleteBA comments frequently at NotTextusa's blog.
Unpublished BA posing as Anonymous at 14 Mar 2019, 10:01:00,
DeleteEnough of your nonsense. Go whine where you usually like to whine.
Don't think you will get the "last word in" by stating the obvious.
NT places the Smith sighting after the alarm (BTW we noted you have not given the "new alarm time") and that contradicts the files and Mr Amaral.
Plus you have accused, by using NotTextusa's theory, of Mr Amaral contradicting the files as he defends that Smithman is Gerry.
We are still waiting to hear from the die-hard NotTextusa fans, like Mr Thompson, JBLitlemore, Jules and Silverdoe on that.
And if they don't agree with NotTextusa we want to see a public display of vitriol against him and his blog as being "against GA and the PJ Files" is the excuse they give for directing abuse in our direction.
https://twitter.com/AndyFish19/status/1105962797417017346
DeleteAndy Fish @AndyFish19
Replying to @Chinado59513358
Does anyone on the #McCann support the Swinging garbage that you & your 2 chums push on here to deliberately cause shit & take folk away from the facts?
& to answer your Q, then I don't agree with NT on that.
Pretty much everything else though.
Cheers.
#WUM
3:44 pm - 13 Mar 2019
*****
At least Mr Fish has answered.
Now we wait for the vitriol. Or is NotTextusa AGAIN entitled to special treatment (namely, he can use gross language, can be genderless (some – very close to him – have tried to convince others that he’s a woman! LOL) and is allowed to remain “courageously” anonymous) and even though he goes clearly against the PJ Files, disses Mr Amaral by implying that he contradicts them, he gets another “get out of vitriol” card?
https://twitter.com/Chinado59513358/status/1105953148202635265
ReplyDeleteChina doll @Chinado59513358
Anyone on the #McCann going to support NotTextusa on this? NT says that the Smith sighting was unlikely to be before 22.20 at the earliest and possibly as late as 22.35 and raises the possibility that their timeline is out by a whole hour.
3:05 pm - 13 Mar 2019
https://twitter.com/grand___wazoo/status/1105956468652761089
The Grand Wazoo @grand___wazoo
Replying to @Chinado59513358
Perhaps these two chaps?
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D1klisyXgAEvdEa.jpg
3:19 pm - 13 Mar 2019
https://twitter.com/jules999x/status/1105964891825934337
Jules ♡ @jules999x
Replying to @grand___wazoo @Chinado59513358
Tex and Whispering... ? Lol..
3:52 pm - 13 Mar 2019
*****
Each one has their way of respecting Maddie’s memory. Some try and find the truth about what happened to her, others make sick jokes around her death.
https://twitter.com/Anvil161Anvil16/status/1105974401735028737
ReplyDeleteWhispering @Anvil161Anvil16
Replying to @grand___wazoo @jules999x @Chinado59513358
Never fear (!) you’re already on one. Just a gentle reminder; original thread was about Smithman/Tapas timelines. Thanks for fucking it up. #mccann
4:30 pm - 13 Mar 2019
The Grand Wazoo @grand___wazoo
Replying to @Anvil161Anvil16 @jules999x @Chinado59513358
I suppose my periodic detraction will change the natural path of truth beyond redemption? 🙄
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D1k3P2VXQAEopsI.jpg
4:36 pm - 13 Mar 2019
https://twitter.com/jules999x/status/1106102509767151616
Jules ♡ @jules999x
Replying to @grand___wazoo @Anvil161Anvil16 @Chinado59513358
WBA supporters.. ? 😂
12:59 am - 14 Mar 2019
https://twitter.com/grand___wazoo/status/1106107114676736000
The Grand Wazoo @grand___wazoo
FollowFollow @grand___wazoo
More
Replying to @jules999x @Anvil161Anvil16 @Chinado59513358
😁
Anyhow, stop “fucking up” a thread which begs for support.
China & Co mustn’t realise that it’s they who have driven people away from looking at anything they suggest, by trying to pass off the wacky “swinging” theory as fact, as there’s no evidence & it detracts from files
1:17 am - 14 Mar 2019
https://twitter.com/jules999x/status/1106109353948602368
Jules ♡ @jules999x
Replying to @grand___wazoo @Anvil161Anvil16 @Chinado59513358
Our work here is done.. 😎😂😂
1:26 am - 14 Mar 2019
*****
The thread speaks for itself.
To some discrediting the Smiths is perfectly acceptable, or at least not worth debate. Calling that discrediting out is to distract from the files.
Back to the “pinkie days” of 2008/2009. The exact same tactics.
https://twitter.com/Chinado59513358/status/1105996052161806337
ReplyDeleteChina doll @Chinado59513358
Oh well .. I tried. Ask a perfectly reasonable & polite question on the #McCann & you get trolled for it. Off to bed now. Sweet dreams all. 😌
5:56 pm - 13 Mar 2019
https://twitter.com/xxSiLverdoexx/status/1105996426155360258
SheLLxx 💯 #MMJC @xxSiLverdoexx
Replying to @Chinado59513358
Says the troll who's purpose of their other post was to purely promote and goad - Hope you see Madeleine every second your eyes are closed.
Shame on you for being just another who uses her tragic story for sick kicks.
5:57 pm - 13 Mar 2019
https://twitter.com/Chinado59513358/status/1105998281006551040
China doll @Chinado59513358
Replying to @xxSiLverdoexx
Now you’ve sincerely hit rock bottom. How disgusting can you get wishing that I’d see a dead child every second that my eyes are closed?
Are any of your friends going to come out & say how despicable YOU are for saying that to a lady who’s circumstances YOU don’t know
6:05 pm - 13 Mar 2019
https://twitter.com/xxSiLverdoexx/status/1105998949209595905
SheLLxx 💯 #MMJC @xxSiLverdoexx
Replying to @Chinado59513358
Really? How is that rock bottom? Madeleine really seems to be touching your nerves....How weird.
Will you try to cause divide with me too? Like you've done Jules?
Madeleine is the victim here. NOT you - You are just using her to troll. THAT'S wrong.
6:07 pm - 13 Mar 2019
https://twitter.com/Chinado59513358/status/1105999396674719745
China doll @Chinado59513358
Replying to @xxSiLverdoexx
Too late. After what you said to me EVERYONE can see what a vile creature YOU are.
6:09 pm - 13 Mar 2019
*****
A moral story for someone who keeps playing the “offended virgin” role…
Mum: Please pick up that plate.
(Boy picks up plate)
Mum: What do you think will happen if you throw the plate on the floor?
Boy: It will break…
Mum: Throw the plate on the floor.
(Boy throws plate and plate breaks)
Mum: Now say sorry to the plate.
Boy: Sorry, plate.
Mum: Did that fix it?
Boy: No.
Mum: Do you now understand the lesson?
https://twitter.com/xxSiLverdoexx/status/1105986744917331969
ReplyDeleteSheLLxx 💯 #MMJC @xxSiLverdoexx
Replying to @Chinado59513358
Why does it bother you who supports NT or not?
It's none of your business. Unlike you I don't self promote like a fraud.
5:19 pm - 13 Mar 2019
*****
So why does it bother so much those who support our blog?
PS. We don’t see Silverdoe reacting when Mr Thompson tweets, as is his right to do, links to his blog. Isn’t that self-promotion?
Why does it bother Textusa supporters who supports NT?
DeleteThe clue is in the name of his blog!
I think you are wasting your time with Jules & Co. Doesn’t matter what you say, she still looks for a joke reaction on twitter. She’s weird.
DeleteShe seems angry on the blog but pretends to be all funny and coquettish on twitter because there she has a small audience, Silver, Karen, JBL, Wazoo and Frog.
Look at that photo of the wooden table with round chairs attached. That’s her level, childish, she doesn’t care – once she gets a laugh from her group.
They've been exposed for the laughing stock they are so bound to be rather salty.
DeleteNetflix to release a documentary on Maddie tomorrow and only tomorrow. I assume that you are aware and perhaps don't wish to comment on it, but just in case. The trailer looks like the usual propaganda.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tBnarCTOiCY
NotFrog
NotFrog,
DeleteEven though we are commenting as little as possible publicly, as you might imagine we are playing close attention to all that is happening recently.
We have made an assessment of it and up to now the pieces of the puzzle have been falling into place smoothly and that is as far as we are willing to say right now because even though our entire audience is made up of 4 plus 2 bots, we have the feeling that expressing our opinion about it would be something that some of our critics would really, really like to read.
That doesn't mean we won't be making comments here and there about what has been published as you will see.
NotFrog,
DeleteFor example, this comes from the side of our critics but the question raised IS very interesting and pertinent (we have censored the tweeter’s name as we find it highly distasteful and we think such vulgarity has no place in any debate, much less in one regarding the death of a little girl):
https://twitter.com/annienonymouss/status/1106178386915921921
(censored)@annienonymouss
Replying to @Joyousb90 @Jules1602xx
The "Our Lawyer will be watching" kinda gave it away ....Last place on earth either he or she want to be right now is in a court of law answering q's under cross examination ...any half decent brief would slice em a new arse
6:00 am - 14 Mar 2019
https://twitter.com/JBLittlemore/status/1106198716418007046
J B Littlemore @JBLittlemore
Replying to @annienonymouss @Joyousb90 @Jules1602xx
Not a truer word spoken, sir. ; )
7:21 am - 14 Mar 2019
https://twitter.com/annienonymouss/status/1106213565114081282
(censored)@annienonymouss
Replying to @JBLittlemore @Joyousb90 @Jules1602xx
Strangely @saunokonoko who's podcasts are causing such a stir has incurred no such "warning shot" across his bows AFAIA....strange that eh ....bluffing it ain't cutting it 😏🤔
8:20 am - 14 Mar 2019
Look who has come to support of NT’s Smith sighting an hour later:
ReplyDeletehttps://twitter.com/FragrantFrog/status/1105998299335671813
Green Leaper @FragrantFrog
Replying to @Chinado59513358
Without knowing how many drinks the Smiths had in Kelly's Bar the true time of their alleged sighting is speculation.
Don't have nightmares.
6:05 pm - 13 Mar 2019
*****
Why are we not surprised?
So not only is Frog calling the Smith family liars, she/he also seems to know that they all drank copious amounts of alcohol rendering them unable to tell the time .. even though there was a pregnant lady & children in the group.��
DeleteNT’s comment explains his theory in great detail and very succinctly
ReplyDelete“Grow the f.. up, you daft twat.”
Now I understand perfectly why the Smith sighting undermines G’s alibi.
I’m sure others are now equally clear.
This expression has clarified everything.
Whenever I’m contradicted about any opinion I hold, in future I’m going to use these words against my opponent and that will convince them I’m correct.
Anonymous 14 Mar 2019, 17:10:00,
ReplyDeleteIndeed.
We will do the same. It has been shown regarding swinging:
- what is in the files – the search and the hundreds of results for “swing” in the computers, the parties of sexual nature in Saint Phunurius and the need for Jane Tanner to stress that they weren’t swingers;
- what Barra da Costa has said – and had to retract under the threat that he would be subject to disciplinary action for saying it;
- what an Anonymous tweeter said unprovoked and unchallenged has said;
- the need for Bridget O’Donnell, Jez Wilkins’ partner, felt, like Jane Tanner did, to stress in an article that there was no swinging.
We stress that all of the above goes beyond the stated by Anne Guedes that no swinging evidence was expected to be found. We would say the above exceeds largely the “expected to be found”.
So the next time Jules or Silverdoe ask for proof of swinging, we will use this as a reply:
“Not Textusa 14 Mar 2019, 14:03:00
Grow the fuck up, you daft twat”
Like you, we are certain that will convince them we’re correct.
Comment received which we have censored:
ReplyDelete"Not Textusa has left a new comment on your post "Very interesting comment":
I didn’t post about it on here, (censored referring to both Anonymous 14 Mar 2019), (censored referring to blog authors)took it upon himself to refer to it. If it’s too difficult for you to understand, you can ask about it in the place I posted it.
Posted by Not Textusa to Textusa at 14 Mar 2019, 17:37:00"
Comment received which we have censored:
ReplyDelete"Not Textusa has left a new comment on your post "Very interesting comment":
I didn’t post about it on here, (censored referring to both Anonymous 14 Mar 2019, 17:10:00), (censored referring to blog authors)took it upon himself to refer to it. If it’s too difficult for you to understand, you can ask about it in the place I posted it.
Posted by Not Textusa to Textusa at 14 Mar 2019, 17:37:00"
NT, I read it I read it last year on Mc Case Discussion Forum, not on your NT blog, but it didn’t explain how it fits with G’s movements. Did G return to the apartment where a dead M had been left, in order to take her into the streets? How does that fit in with what Amy said about speaking to both parents before G went to the tapas reception?
ReplyDeleteOnce you suss who the frog is,you'll understand the muddying of the waters.
ReplyDeleteWe inform our readers that we have just published a Post Scriptum with something from Netflix.
ReplyDeleteWhat, so 9.30-10 pm early May in Luz is the middle of the night?
Deletehttps://twitter.com/cattywhites2/status/1106625077540470791
ReplyDeletecathywhites @cattywhites2
Replying to @Jules1602xx @douglas_jack and 2 others
Only lies are the ones perpetuated by the antis. Wot the dogs alerted to came back inconclusive. Even Grimes said wot they find has to be verified by forensics. It wasn’t, simple as that
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D1uFo1PW0AAJ3Bs.jpg
11:35 am - 15 Mar 2019
https://twitter.com/Jules1602xx/status/1106626091551199233
00The Jules... 🕵️♀️ 🐌 🌸 🐌 🌸 🐌 🌸 @Jules1602xx
Replying to @cattywhites2 @douglas_jack and 2 others
How could Eddie's alerts be verified without a body...? Mr Grime would have looked pretty stupid if #MadeleineMcCann turned up.. Alive.. Think about it...
#McCann
Alerts from dogs entered into proven facts at the Supreme Court ruling..
11:39 am - 15 Mar 2019
[Tweet like by Isabelle McFadden]
*****
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
JBLittlemore... what say you?
DeleteNotTextusa... what say you?
Mr Thompson... what say you?
And it continues!
Deletehttps://twitter.com/Jules1602xx/status/1106626091551199233
00The Jules... 🕵️♀️ 🐌 🌸 🐌 🌸 🐌 🌸 @Jules1602xx
Replying to @cattywhites2 @douglas_jack and 2 others
How could Eddie's alerts be verified without a body...? Mr Grime would have looked pretty stupid if #MadeleineMcCann turned up.. Alive.. Think about it...
#McCann
Alerts from dogs entered into proven facts at the Supreme Court ruling..
11:39 am - 15 Mar 2019
https://twitter.com/LoverandomIeigh/status/1106630751494246400
Rebecca ©️ @LoverandomIeigh
Replying to @Jules1602xx @cattywhites2 and 2 others
It wouldn't only take a body to corroborate dog alerts pet.
As it is, there is ZERO corroboration from the dog alerts belonging to #MadeleineMccann
She has every right to be treated as #Missing Agree?
#McCann
11:58 am - 15 Mar 2019 From South Dublin, Ireland
https://twitter.com/Jules1602xx/status/1106634221223849984
00The Jules... 🕵️♀️ 🐌 🌸 🐌 🌸 🐌 🌸 @Jules1602xx
Replying to @LoverandomIeigh @cattywhites2 and 2 others
Eddie's would.. If Keela didn't alert.. We all know the dogs alerts produced forensics..
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JOHN_LOWE.htm
#MadeleineMcCann #McCann
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D1uN7lsWkAYM0--.jpg https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D1uN8l3XcAEpcF_.jpg
12:12 pm - 15 Mar 2019
*****
Are Rebecca and JBLittlemore the same person? Of course not but from the above one would think they were…
Of course we could not let these precious nuggets go unnoticed:
Deletehttps://twitter.com/Jules1602xx/status/1106682388317388800
00The Jules... 🕵️♀️ 🐌 🌸 🐌 🌸 🐌 🌸 @Jules1602xx
Replying to @Shannon30266019 @cattywhites2 and 4 others
Try reading what was stated in proven facts in 2017..
Now stop wasting my time.. You've clearly jumped on something you have no clue about.. I've been more than patient with you.. Night night now love..
3:23 pm - 15 Mar 2019
*****
https://twitter.com/Jules1602xx/status/1106682744065740801
00The Jules... 🕵️♀️ 🐌 🌸 🐌 🌸 🐌 🌸 @Jules1602xx
Replying to @cattywhites2 @McCannCaseTweet and 4 others
Proven facts were stated in it.. Are you that thick...?
3:25 pm - 15 Mar 2019
*****
https://twitter.com/Jules1602xx/status/1106683383118204930
00The Jules... 🕵️♀️ 🐌 🌸 🐌 🌸 🐌 🌸 @Jules1602xx
Replying to @Shannon30266019 @cattywhites2 and 4 others
From 2014 as per your video.. Yes.. Do you understand what proven facts mean...?
3:27 pm - 15 Mar 2019
*****
Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear… now what will JBLittlemore say? That he’s thick? That he doesn’t understand what proven facts mean…?
About Netflix, that has so many, many, many nuggets we shall start just by asking this:
ReplyDeleteAfter the May 4 imagery - where he appears as one of the very few people engaged in searching fro Maddie - and now the Netflix's straw hat and car stories and parachute picture, plus the was no mention of the questions the PJ asked to be put to him about being seen in the 5a stairwell and his subsequent swabbing for DNA, how many will continue to say they believe with a straight face that Neil Berry was just a "detached bystander"?
How many will continue to pretend to ignore that he’s more closely linked with the McCanns than they have acknowledged?
From 4 years ago:
http://textusa.blogspot.com/2015/01/two-men-and-baby-cot.html
We are witnessing Sandra Felgueiras being slugged heavily what she said. Being accused of doing a 180º on Mr Amaral.
ReplyDeleteWe at the blog do not like to read books by their covers and do like to speak after thinking things out.
We would like our readers to consider this: what if she’s not lying but only making a wrong interpretation of an answer to a question put by her to Mr Amaral?
We said that the fact that Frog had a picture with a higher resolution of the Event esplanade, initially shown by CMTV, told us there was a Judas in the Portuguese side of things. In fact we later said “Judases” meaning there were more than one.
Understanding the scope and the large number of people committed to perpetuation the hoax, one must then consider all possibilities.
Let’s imagine the possibility that she obtained the information she said she obtained from a Judas source within the PJ – directly or indirectly – who told her that it had come from Mr Amaral directly and it was for her.
A Judas who she had as someone Mr Amaral trusted TOTALLY.
A Judas who on telling her “Amaral told me to give you this…” would have the same meaning to Sandra Felgueiras as having received the information directly from the hands of Mr Amaral himself.
Do remember that Mr Amaral said he knew there was a leak in the PJ. And the high resolution picture of the Event esplanade proves that there are Judases.
When confronted by Sandra Felgueiras with the falsehood of the information, Mr Amaral evidently denied it as he had nothing to do with it.
From Sandra Felgueira’s point of view, this denial could sound like Mr Amaral doing a 180º on the issue.
Not saying it was, not saying it wasn’t.
We can only go by gut feeling. We’re not seeing Mr Amaral leaking false information and we’re not seeing Sandra Felgueiras, knowing the scrutiny her words would be subject to, to go on video and tell something against Mr Aamarl that she did not believe it to be true.
At least think about it before running and crucifying Sandra Felgueiras.
https://twitter.com/Andy_Wolf1877/status/1106743282963496961
ReplyDeleteAndy Wolf @Andy_Wolf1877
For those of you who have seen the @NetflixUK @netflix garbage about poor little Madeleine #mccann who #netflix have decided to get on board with propagandising to assist in covering it up, how does it compare to these predictions made a long time ago by Textusa blog??
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D1vxEOTX0AEZxRm.jpg
7:25 pm - 15 Mar 2019
[Picture attached says the following:
“What we know this far:
- Nick Pisa, who has produced previously a documentary for Netfilx, has written pro-McCann articles in the Sun;
- Netflix has announced that it is going to produce a documentary on Maddie;
- Netflix was, according to the Ghoul Tour blogger, in Luzto talk with David S Jones;
- David S Jones has assumed being co-authorto Malinka's book;
- Malinka has alleged that he was tortured by the PJ in 2007.
Putting all the above pieces together, one can only come to the conclusion that the Netflix program is to sell the PJ as a violent police and Mr Amaral, the Maddie investigation coordinator, as a torturer.
To do that, we think they are going to exploit Mr Amaral's suspended sentence.
It will NOT be shown that Mr Amaral had nothing to do with the alleged torture.
It will NOT be shown - we have mentioned this before- that IF this torture ever happened and from it resulted Leonor Cipriano's confession, then that means Portugal has held prisoner a victim of torture. She should have been released immediately and wasn’t.
That it will NOT be shown that not only Leonor Cipriano was not released immediately as she should have been, as she saw her sentence being extended due to having lied in court.
What will think will be highlighted is that PJ inspectors were convicted of torture and the man heading that particular investigation was Mr Amaral.
The same Mr Amaral who then led the Maddie investigation.
The same investigation, from the same torturing police force and led by the exact same man who is now said, in the first person, to have tortured a "collateral damage".
See where this is going?
The PJ are the baddies, so the McCanns, however negligent they were and were, the goodies.
Portugal, pictured as the country with torturing police, will once again be slandered and its image within the EU further damaged by the Maddie case then it already is.”]
*****
Thank you, Andy_Wolf1877! Much appreciated!
We would also like to take the opportunity to ask Belfast Banshee not to like tweets that praise us. Have some decency.
A synopsis of what we said Netflix would be:
Deletehttps://mobile.twitter.com/McCannFacts/status/1106786102017486849
Killa Dog 🌐 @McCannFacts
Big Hard Convict Amoral: Kicking the chair away of a young frightend Russian immigrant. Still, braver than what he did to Cipriano. #Netflix #mccann
10:15 pm - 15 Mar 2019
Does anyone know if NT has replied in his blog to my question about him moving the Smith sighting to a hour later and Amy T being with the parents?
ReplyDeleteI don’t visit his blog because I’m scared of being tracked so genuine question.
How do those who believe G found M dead when he checked around 9pm, after a fall resulting from over -sedation, some of the same people who support NT’s later Smith sighting, marry the 2 theories?
G finds her dead at his 9.05 check, can’t move her because Jez appears, returns to tapas and tells the group and gets Matt to make another” check”.
They all behave normally, (including the mother just told her child is dead) as far as the staff are concerned, and G (said, only by the group) is there at 10pm.
K agrees to go back and find her “missing” and raise alarm, with M’s body still inside. He then goes back for M and finds a place to hide her, without a car or any outside assistance. He is seen by the Smiths carrying a dead M between 10.22 and 10.35, or even as late as an hour after the time of Smith sighting.
G manages to do this and be back before Amy arrives at the apartment to help them search and make a visit to reception with John Hill. Then be seen on the balcony by 11pm.
Not my theory. Just an attempt to square a circle, not very successfully.
Maybe the death by sedation theorists in NT camp can do a better job?
https://youtu.be/Ds6yw3f1Bmk
DeleteFirst 20 mins relevant. G o D saying she spoke to Smith for an hour including Panorama lying that he had withdrawn his statement. Also told her he was 80/90% certain the man he saw was G.
Anonymous 16 Mar 2019, 17:24:00,
DeleteThank you!
It couldn’t be clearer. Very important to stress that she drove to his home and spoke to him personally.
Very interesting conversation 😊😊😊😊:
ReplyDeletehttps://twitter.com/FragrantFrog/status/1106887182961250305
Green Leaper @FragrantFrog
Replying to @Tassie666 @may_shazzy and 48 others
McCanns didn't use any of Murat's cars.
4:57 am - 16 Mar 2019
https://twitter.com/strackers74/status/1106909802628894720
Elaine Strachan @strackers74
Replying to @FragrantFrog @Tassie666 and 48 others
Just a van parked on his driveway perhaps 🤔
6:27 am - 16 Mar 2019
https://twitter.com/FragrantFrog/status/1106910295711252480
Green Leaper @FragrantFrog
Replying to @strackers74 @Tassie666 and 48 others
The VW belonged to Jenny. The McCanns didn't use any of the Murat vehicles, end of.
6:29 am - 16 Mar 2019
https://twitter.com/strackers74/status/1106911102531706881
Elaine Strachan @strackers74
Replying to @FragrantFrog @Tassie666 and 48 others
I didn't say the McCann's drove the vehicles. "Used" for a purpose doesn't mean they went anywhere near it.
6:32 am - 16 Mar 2019
https://twitter.com/FragrantFrog/status/1106912148452720641
Green Leaper @FragrantFrog
Replying to @strackers74 @Tassie666 and 48 others
So you mean they just rang the bell at Casa L & said "Hi. You don't know us but do you mind if we store a dead body in one of your cars?" 🤣🤣🤣
6:36 am - 16 Mar 2019
https://twitter.com/strackers74/status/1106917174453649409
Elaine Strachan @strackers74
Replying to @FragrantFrog @Tassie666 and 48 others
Did I say the McCann's did this? Did I mention a dead body? I could have meant rotting meat & dirty nappies 😊
I think the #McCann's were barely, if at all, involved in the aftermath.
6:56 am - 16 Mar 2019
https://twitter.com/FragrantFrog/status/1106918515641143296
Green Leaper @FragrantFrog
Replying to @strackers74 @Tassie666 and 48 others
By implication, you did.
7:01 am - 16 Mar 2019
https://twitter.com/strackers74/status/1106919499838697472
Elaine Strachan @strackers74
Replying to @FragrantFrog @Tassie666 and 48 others
Nope, what you THINK I implied shows something niggled you.
What my opinion actually is, I stated at the end of my last tweet. Touchy 🤔
7:05 am - 16 Mar 2019
https://twitter.com/FragrantFrog/status/1106924206082703370
Green Leaper @FragrantFrog
Replying to @strackers74 @Tassie666 and 48 others
So why was Murat involved in the aftermath iyo?
7:24 am - 16 Mar 2019
https://twitter.com/strackers74/status/1106925842742034433
Elaine Strachan @strackers74
Replying to @FragrantFrog @Tassie666 and 48 others
I think Murat was a fixer who tried to help & underestimated how far the British Govt would go once he'd served his purpose (patsy).
Imo
7:31 am - 16 Mar 2019
And it continued and it continued to be so very interesting:
Deletehttps://twitter.com/FragrantFrog/status/1106924206082703370
Green Leaper @FragrantFrog
Replying to @strackers74 @Tassie666 and 48 others
So why was Murat involved in the aftermath iyo?
7:24 am - 16 Mar 2019
*****
https://twitter.com/strackers74/status/1106926315398201344
Elaine Strachan @strackers74
Replying to @FragrantFrog @Tassie666 and 48 others
Murat allowed the vehicle to be used. I don't know just how involved he was after that but he was involved. Not in Madeleine's demise, but he was involved imo.
7:32 am - 16 Mar 2019
[Here we disagree with Elaine Strachan, we believe that the vehicle we believe was used was from the Ocean Club, so in our opinion the Murats allowed only access into the property of vehicle and body in that order. We agree fully that Murat had nothing to do with Maddie’s demise]
*****
https://twitter.com/FragrantFrog/status/1106927288019505153
Green Leaper @FragrantFrog
Replying to @strackers74 @Tassie666 and 48 others
Used for what, exactly? The dogs didn't alert to it, either for a living or dead child.
7:36 am - 16 Mar 2019
[The vehicle in question was nor searched by the dog, so no reason for the dog to have alerted in the property as all traces that the body may have left when there would have been in that vehicle
https://textusa.blogspot.com/2015/05/cadaverine.html]
*****
https://twitter.com/strackers74/status/1106991517363781634
Elaine Strachan @strackers74
Replying to @FragrantFrog @Tassie666 and 48 others
Used for temporary storage and/or moving to another location.
I wasn't there Frog, obv this is all just imo but Murat's phone calls to Brunt for 1 raise a lot of questions.The T7 miraculously all suddenly agreeing they saw him after Tanner sighting. What is your opinion on him?
11:51 am - 16 Mar 2019
*****
https://twitter.com/FragrantFrog/status/1106995941939310593
Green Leaper @FragrantFrog
Replying to @strackers74 @Tassie666 and 48 others
But the cadaver dog didn't alert there...
Murat had contact with several journos according to his phone records, not just Brunt.
Other people claim to have seen him there on night 3rd....did Tapas 7 know he had told PJ he was at home when they made statements (RO 15/5 at 1700hrs)
12:09 pm - 16 Mar 2019
[We would really like to see the proof of this, as either we missed it or we have missed it: “Murat had contact with several journos according to his phone records”
Also interesting would be to see the statements of those claiming to have seen him BEFORE Mr Amaral decided to put Murat under surveillance. Once this surveillance operation was in place, the British police were informed and then by coincidence people started popping up to say they had seen Murat…]
*****
https://twitter.com/strackers74/status/1107016505923960832
Elaine Strachan @strackers74
Replying to @FragrantFrog @Tassie666 and
Didn't alert to the van that was no longer there you mean?
I wasn't referring to Jenny's van. That was your assumption.
These ppl are far from stupid. I obv have no idea if I'm right so pls don't think I can't be swayed, I'm just voicing my opinion & well aware I could be wrong.
1:31 PM - 16 Mar 2019
*****
https://twitter.com/FragrantFrog/status/1107017797979303937
Green Leaper @FragrantFrog
Replying to @strackers74 @Tassie666 and 48 others
Which van are you talking about, then?
1:36 pm - 16 Mar 2019
(Cont)
(Cont)
Deletehttps://twitter.com/strackers74/status/1107021038351802368
Elaine Strachan @strackers74
Replying to @FragrantFrog @Tassie666 and 48 others
A hypothetical van made available to remove anything from a blue bag to a pink blanket or cleaning products i.e. any sort of evidence that would prove there was no abduction and sadly, that the dogs alerts were correct. Imo. How do you Madeleine was taken? On foot?
1:49 pm - 16 Mar 2019
[We disagree again with Elaine Strachan again. The blue bag was in the apartment when the PJ arrived and it was removed from there when they were there (photos of the closet with and without said bag taken that night).
Also disagree with pink blanket but agree fully with “cleaning products” and would add clothes soiled with blood, from Maddie and from others who cleaned the apartment that night]
*****
https://twitter.com/FragrantFrog/status/1107022637031518209
Green Leaper @FragrantFrog
Replying to @strackers74 @Tassie666 and 48 others
The "blue bag" is a suitcase!! Pink blanket was given to GNR dogs for scenting. Where were cleaning products obtained? When did hypothetical van leave Casa L?
On foot initially, possibly to nearby property, then a vehicle.
1:55 pm - 16 Mar 2019
*****
We had to read the last tweet 3 times before we convinced ourselves that we had read what we had read.
But before explain why let’s answer Frog’s questions in it, apologies to Elaine Strachan who has done quite a brilliant job:
“Where were cleaning products obtained?” – in the Baptista supermarket, the exact same place they allegedly bought NZ wine.
“When did hypothetical van leave Casa L?” – after the PJ left, obviously.
However the reason we had to read this tweet more than once was this:
“On foot initially, possibly to nearby property, then a vehicle”.
Is the Frog recollecting the events that night?? Because if she is, we agree with her TOTALLY!
https://twitter.com/FragrantFrog/status/1106887812018774016
ReplyDeleteGreen Leaper @FragrantFrog
Replying to @EricaCantona7 @may_shazzy and 48 others
Amaral repeated his libel, that's why. He's now been stitched up like a kipper so McCanns can sue him in a UK/US court........
4:59 am - 16 Mar 2019
*****
Frog,
1. Why are ignoring Netflix? To sue Mr Amaral they will have to sue Netflix as well, so please do mention it when threatening him with legal action.
2. Will this be before or after the McCanns file the case in the ECHR they say they have/will? If it’s after, then that will be after 2021, right?
Wow! Frog has stated that the purpose of the Netflix series was to stitch GA up like a kipper, so that the McCanns can sue him?
DeleteIsn’t that suggestion libellous in itself, unless there is proof that was the intention?
How would that help their search for M and how would that be perceived by the general public? From the comments I’ve seen, this would only add to the doubts many have expressed about them.
This is the clearest statement of intent by Frog. I shouldn’t be shocked, as she used to be like this back in the day, but I am.
Anyone who engages in banter with her is equally shocking.
I haven’t heard what GA said, but unless he accused them of murder, or said something that hasn’t been alleged before, I can’t see why they would sue him.
DeleteAnonymous 16 Mar 2019, 21:39:00,
DeleteAs far as we have seen, he has not said anything new and some footage is from 2017 for the 10th anniversary.
What we think is bothering the McCanns is that this was the first time the British public has been able to contact first hand with the "Amaral reality".
This was like having his book published in the UK. Only Netflix has a much larger audience worldwide than any book may have if published only in the UK.
That is the reason why we think they are making these legal threats, that are empty as they would have to sue Netflix as well.
I realise it was aired outside Portugal but would they really invite him to speak for the purpose of setting him up to be sued?
DeleteI agree it’s the programme makers who would be sued.
There are rumours the delay in release was about legal issues.
Maybe they had to cut some material.
Suing would just draw more attention to the allegations against them.
But Frog is a barometer of their mindset.
Not watch the netflix documentary myself but the consensus coming across comments left on fb and news comments is more that it's helping to stitch the McCann's up, that and making sure the public hear about the funding every six months and reminding them exactly how much has been spent to raise anger.
Deleteit is worth remembering netflix is owned by Sky....rolling coverage of Brenda,Martin Brunt etc...even the first news clip is a BBC one.
ReplyDeleteNo it isn't, it has nothing to do with Sky. But the 'docu-series' is made in connection with Paramount TV, a massive Hollywood subsidiary.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
Deletehttps://twitter.com/FragrantFrog/status/1107054823625707522
ReplyDeleteGreen Leaper @FragrantFrog
Replying to @CarlaSpade
Good evening, Carla. What have you learnt from the Netflix documentary so far? Did you hear the Portuguese journalist say they sat at exactly the same table the Tapas 9 used each night?
4:03 pm - 16 Mar 2019
*****
Yes, we saw it, funny the rest of the gang didn’t say anything about it.
The journalist’s name is Felícia Cabrita.
The explanation for what she said is the exact same one that justifies Mr Amaral pointing an arrow to a small table that evidently does not seat 9.
Oh, by the way, that same arrow does NOT point to the location where the large round table is in the Event esplanade photo which you have unsuccessful and ridiculously tried to pass it on as the BRT and which attempt you just made all cascade into being revealed what really was happening in Luz on May 4. For that, all truth seekers must be grateful to you.
What we didn’t see was Felícia Cabrita trying to deceive viewers with phony imagery of a table that never existed as we have seen being done by a British journo. Have you found that higher quality resolution images to THAT Brunt’s phony table?
Interesting to see the Frog so upbeat 24 hours after the Netflix episodes were aired (to which, we remind readers, the McCanns gave a VERY stern preemptive wag of the finger, something they hadn't done with Mark S's podcasts) whilst in other quarters the gloom is so thick that one could spread it on a toast!
ReplyDeleteFrom what we have been able to read, the general consensus in the comments on social media is pretty damning to the McCanns, but the Frog just seems so, so happy. Interesting, isn't it?
Maybe the frog is upbeat because their name got a mention.
ReplyDeleteAnon 17 Mar 2019, 09:27:00,
DeleteThe Frog does say this:
https://twitter.com/FragrantFrog/status/1107058564688957440
Green Leaper @FragrantFrog
Replying to @CarlaSpade
Now, now, Carla. Your own flawed opinion is not more relevant than that of someone who was there in the aftermath.
Did you spot me btw?😆
4:18 pm - 16 Mar 2019
However we would link the apparent elation more to the fact linked to a question that we haven’t seen anyone ask yet (if someone has, our apologies).
And that question is… why on earth were all 8 episodes released on the same day?
Can anyone name another TV series, Netflix or otherwise which aired in its entirety and for its premiere all on the same day?
Didn’t anyone else find this odd?
In fact Netflix almost always (if not every time) releases the whole series at the same time. I've had a Netflix account for a while, and this occurs often. It's a bit like you publishing a series of blogs with one theme, and deciding to hold back publishing any of them until they're all complete, then publishing all of them on the same day.
DeleteNetfilx does splurge a whole series at a time. Not always but it can happen. Creates media event.
DeleteMaybe they wanted to get them all out before some legal injunction was obtained after the first, stopping them from broadcasting the rest; an expensive loss of revenue and production costs.
DeleteCut some of the riskier material, delaying the anticipated release date, but with enough time to show the entire series. Once it’s out there and people have kept transcripts and extracts, it’s too late to act against it.
It seems to have the hallmarks of a less than the expected professional slickness, judging only from the critiques and extracts I’ve read, not having seen the series in their entirety.
“DO NOT PUBLISH...” identified reader at 17 Mar 2019, 15:54:00, at 17 Mar 2019, 15:59:00 and at at 17 Mar 2019, 16:43:00.
ReplyDeleteWe have removed our aggressive comment 17 Mar 2019, 12:31:00 due to the respect that we have for you.
Please confirm that this tweet is not from you:
“https://twitter.com/annienonymouss/status/1107220598852382720
(censored) @annienonymouss
Replying to @Jules1602xx
I haven't watched it Jules , nor will I .....I should probably point out that Netflix has a parent company - Sky! ...yes the very same "Sky" of Brenda's rolling news reel & Brunts raincoat
3:02 am - 17 Mar 2019”
To explain, due to the similarity to the comment to which we replied, this tweet was the sole reason why we made the assessment we did.
If this is you, which we cannot possibly believe that to be the case and reason why we deleted the comment, then there are no words that would express our disappointment.
We will be waiting for your reply because this really needs to be cleared up.
DO NOT PUBLISH identified reader at 17 Mar 2019, 17:20:00 and at 17 Mar 2019, 17:21:00,
DeleteAs you might imagine we are very, very happy to apologise to you. Very happy indeed.
When we read your first “DO NOT PUBLISH” comment we made the exact same assessment you did.
As you know, and all our readers will now understand, our aggressiveness in the comment we have now deleted was directed at the messenger (who we thought it was) and not at the message.
The content of your comment is incorrect, as you have recognised privately, as the link between Netflix and Sky has only to do with subscription services. It’s a mistake that is natural to make.
😊
***DO NOT PUBLISH***DO NOT PUBLISH*** at 17 Mar 2019, 17:46:00
ReplyDeleteIt’s not your comment we are referring to. We haven’t replied yet to yours due to lack of available time (fortunately, friends and family do have priority) but will soon.
About the comment in question all has been clarified.
“***DO NOT PUBLISH DO NOT PUBLISH***” Anonymous at 17 Mar 2019, 13:34:00,
ReplyDeleteWe have not looked into footballer’s links nor will we. Not because we are disrespecting your input as we recognise that in today’s society footballers are no longer people who have come from low classes and made tons of money. Today they are influencers and desired in the higher circles of society.
However, unless they have launched into businesses like Beckham and Ronaldo, footballers do not hold the power that those who are Deciders in this game hold. Even in the examples given, we doubt they hold such power of influence in the corridors of power.
So, if we believe that this was indeed a VIP event, there could have been footballers who would want to protect their reputation as much as anyone that was there.
But the point is we don’t want to know who was there swinging. And we feel no one should. It’s a private matter. We have nothing against swingers and we respect fully their lifestyles, as it’s a consensual activity between adults.
What we want to know, or better, understand the reason is why the cover-up existed. That cover-up not only has disrespected Maddie, as it affected Mr Amaral and his family, denigrated the Portuguese authorities and the Portuguese justice system, not to say the entire country. The same denigrating effects can be said to the British authorities, the British justice system, and to the entire UK.
We only want to have acknowledgement and accountability. For example, we are fully aware that what we believe happened that night in criminal terms, involuntary, unplanned and unpremeditated homicide, does not even carry an effective prison sentence in Portugal. Not even with the obstruction of justice.
It may be in the law but the maximum terms for prison sentences in Portugal in all crimes must involve damning circumstances. This, from what we have been able to ascertain, even though we were not there and we can only speculate,
But from what we have speculated, those involved in Maddie’s accidental death need not be extradited as they can be judged in absentia, so light would the sentences be.
The stated above about denigrating is amoral and immoral but not criminal. Not even the tearing apart of Mr Amaral’s family and career. But we have the right to know. That’s the justice we seek.
From the evidence we have seen and analysed, as our readers know, we have come to the conclusion that the amoral and immoral consequences derive from swingers wanting to protect their reputations. And to do that they simply steamrolled over the memory of a little girl, over a man and his family and over the credibility of 2 nations.
We don’t want names of who was swinging but we would like to know who was responsible for the hoax. Are they swingers as well? Some of them probably.
Only understand fully what happened can society dissuade others from repeating what was done. Isn’t that the role of justice in society?
We have to apologise to our readers. We mentioned the crimes of involuntary, unplanned and unpremeditated homicide and obstruction of justice but forgot to mention the most serious of all crimes that we believe that happened: occultation of body and that we believe has a maximum prison sentence of 2 years in Portugal.
DeleteWe believe that these 3 crimes could be put on trial with the defendants not being present, just represented by their lawyer.
Of course, there’s the problem that the case is a very high profile one but that is a problem of credibility of the justice system, of the media, even of the countries that let things get out of hand but not of justice itself.
Justice is represented by a blindfolded woman.
With the passage of time, maybe Mcs would have to be prosecuted for homicide, as the evidence for accident like immediate confession and any evidence that may have supported that confession have now gone.
DeleteIf that was the case, they would have to appear and defend their case. Then it might be possible for a lesser charge to be put to them.
Given the case is now so high-profile, a court hearing might be considered the only way of dealing with it.
All hypothetical.
Anonymous 18 Mar 2019, 11:03:00,
DeleteA crime is judged according to what happened, the moment it happened. What you are mentioning are what in Portuguese law are called “aggravatings and attenuatings”. Things that happened before, during and after the crime that may aggravate or attenuate the criminal responsibility of the defendant.
Reason why there are minimum and a maximum times in sentences in the law. For a judge to hand out the maximum sentence for a crime, that means that all possible to aggravate the crime occurred.
For example, even though the law contemplates a maximum of 10 years for abandonment of a child resulting in her death (it goes from 3 to 10 yrs), the Chinese couple who went out gambling and left their toddler son in an apartment and who fell off the balcony to his death, was sentenced to 5 yrs suspended sentence.
What you mention may aggravate it but the crimes remain what they were the moment they were committed.
However, one cannot set aside the high profile of the case. As an example, even though 2019 the crime of domestic violence has taken the importance it should have (an absurd number of Portuguese women have lost their lives already this year) before it wasn’t given the visibility it should.
However, Portugal has had for many years now the ongoing process of domestic violence that involves a TV personality and a former minister of domestic violence. We don’t think there’s the faintest possibility of an effective prison sentence but because it involves who it involves, each session makes public news.
So, regardless of the light sentences involved, it would be unrealistic to think that the McCanns would not have to be present.
It would (we hope will be) a huge embarrassment for all, as in pure legal terms it would be what the Portuguese call “the mountain gave birth to a mouse”. We are just highlighting another absurdity of this case. If it wasn’t for the occultation of the body, in legal terms it’s all about how so many are running away from almost nothing.
So, one can only conclude that it’s not a question of legality what has motivated the hoax.
Obviously, not being legal experts, we stand corrected on what we have said.
Agree, but I doubt any police force would accept a death where no body found and after 10 years would be able to accept it was an accident, even if that’s what they thought.
DeleteThey would need to test that by a hearing of defence evidence.
If the defence to homicide succeeded, then a lesser charge could be accepted.
Otherwise people could commit murder but claim it was an accident when no body was found but an arrest followed and they agreed to plead guilty to causing a death.
Unless K and G tell the police where the body is, murder would have to be the first consideration?
If they say she was cremated, then they could be said to have disposed of evidence of murder.
But if a witness, say K and DP said what happened and both were consistent, maybe accident would be accepted?
If I were a prosecutor, I’d go for a homicide charge as a starting point.
Anonymous 18 Mar 2019, 11:44:00,
DeleteWe think you are confusing the stages of the process: the investigation and the eventual trial.
What we have written is surpassing the investigation stage. We believe in certain crimes happened and that when it gets to go to court, the police have done the investigation and have put together a process that allows the prosecution of what happened, nothing less, nothing more.
The starting point for a prosecutor is a closed process. In Portugal the charges must be clear, one cannot charge a dozen oranges in the hope of getting 7 or 8. It’s the matter of fact produced by the investigative process that determines how many oranges will be charged.
Look at the process as going by stages. When in investigation, it’s the matter of fact that is being determined. Then the prosecutor, looking at the determined matter of fact, decides what matter of law has been broken and determines what to charge. If the matter of fact says it’s 7 oranges, then 7 oranges it will be and not 6 or 8.
Then it’s up to the court to decide what matter of fact from the investigative process is proven and what is not and what is not. Once that decided it applies the law. It would be unthinkable for the matter of law brought up by the prosecution not to be correct but it’s only applied if the respective matter of fact linked to it has been decided proven, as is logical.
This means that what we have said assumes that the police were able to present enough evidence to prove the matter of fact. As we have explained before, the Portuguese system tries it’s best not to rely on confessions (they play only the attenuating effect that we have spoken above) but rather prefers to construct the case without the intervention of the defendants.
In this particular case, we would say that a “surprise” forensic result would be sufficient for that to happen.
Hope to have clarified and thank you for your inputs!
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-46570264
DeleteBecause our systems are so different, Portugal having inquisitorial system and U.K. adversarial, we struggle to understand the different approaches to offences.
Here, a confession would be enough, backed with some evidence to ensure the person was truly confessing and not because they were covering for somebody else, or attention seeking with mental health issues.
In Portugal, a confession has no role, as I understand.
In U.K., murder may be initial charge but a plea of guilty to manslaughter may be subsequently accepted.
Maybe the McCanns initially considered how the matter would be dealt with under U.K. law and responded accordingly. By the time they were advised by the Portuguese lawyers, they were already committed to the abduction?
Or maybe it was just that their reputations and careers would be affected.
There are so many legal differences including arguido status, witness statements... that it’s difficult to even for non-specialist lawyers to understand.
https://www.expressandstar.com/news/crime/2018/12/11/millionaire-businessman-admits-manslaughter-following-rough-sex-session/
DeleteThis explains it better how it works here.
Different to Portugal.
In reply to the comment that resulted in a lot of back and forth on “DO NOT PUBLISH” comments yesterday, Anonymous initial comment raised the possibility of Netflix being linked to Sky.
ReplyDeleteNow that we know the comment was made in good faith and not to muddy up waters, in one of the “DO NOT PUBLISH” comments the commentator recognised that there wasn’t, we feel we should clarify this issue as it shows something that has been waved by the Frog has a total bluff. Not even a bluff, so weak it is.
First, Disney buying 21st Century Fox:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/21st_Century_Fox
“On July 27, 2018, 21st Century Fox shareholders agreed to sell the company to The Walt Disney Company for $71.3 billion, following the spin-off of certain businesses. The sale will include key assets such as 20th Century Fox, FX Networks, National Geographic Partners, and its international networks.”
https://observer.com/2018/08/disney-fox-sale-netflix-hulu-amazon-streaming/
"Last Friday, shareholders from both Disney and 21st Century Fox voted to approve Disney’s $71 billion purchase of Fox’s film and television assets. (...) But Disney’s real motivation in this market resetting move was to better compete with Netflix in the long-term."
So, just in terms of sizes, Disney swallowed 21st Century Fox to compete with Netflix. Just to have an idea about who Frog is saying the McCanns are thinking of going legally up against.
And do compare the size of these monsters with the size of Sky. Compared with them one is reminded of the song “Puff the magic dragon”. Note we are not saying Sky is small, just saying the others are much bigger.
And to clarify, this is the link between Sky and Netflix:
https://news.sky.com/story/sky-and-netflix-agree-european-partnership-deal-11271587
“The owner of Sky News has moved to bolster its customer experience further by signing a partnership deal with Netflix.
Sky plc said its subscribers using the ultra HD Sky Q platform in the UK and Ireland would have access to a new Sky subscription pack containing full Netflix content in the coming year.”
Only about subscriptions.
About specifically the Maddie doc:
https://deadline.com/2017/12/pulse-films-access-to-the-un-1202220453/
“The New York and London-based company has been bolstering its non-scripted business over the last couple of years. Former Channel 4 commissioner Emma Cooper recently landed an eight-part true-crime series investigating the disappearance of British child Madeleine McCann for Netflix. The doc is is being made in association with Viacom-owned Hollywood studio Paramount Television and will shine a light on the three-year-old’s disappearance in 2007 with interviews with key figures and investigators.”
One just has to read the names to understand that they may have a lawyer or two working for them to make sure that when something is put out, ALL legal risks have been scrutinised.
A couple of deuces is what the Frog holds in her hand and is trying to bluff her way over a royal flush on the table when she makes the legal threats against Mr Amaral.
https://twitter.com/CraigMurrayOrg/status/1107433387768328192
ReplyDeleteCraig MurrayVerified account @CraigMurrayOrg
Replying to @CarlaSpade @TandemVipera
Have you read all the evidence closely. She [K Gaspar] couldn't quite believe she had heard what she did. Decided to give them the benefit of the doubt. Until the disappearance brought it all tumbling back. All very human.
5:07 pm - 17 Mar 2019
*****
Benefit of a doubt? To infant rapists? And allow one of them to bathe her kids? And continue to meet up socially on birthday parties with them? All very human? In what planet?
https://twitter.com/JBLittlemore/status/1107631342660055046
ReplyDeleteJ B Littlemore @JBLittlemore
Replying to @FragrantFrog @strackers74 and 48 others
Who opened the window and shutter? Can you advise please? Or who didn't - and why you assert it? MET dealt with the man walking away from 5a with a child - why still persist with this?
6:14 am - 18 Mar 2019
*****
For registry, JBLittlemore believes that Tannerman is real and that Tannerman is Dr Totman.
A most interesting dialogue between 2 of the most interesting characters out there:
ReplyDeletehttps://twitter.com/FragrantFrog/status/1107644008627662849
Green Leaper @FragrantFrog
Replying to @strackers74 @LoverandomIeigh and
I don't know what OG are looking at right now except it's not the McCanns.
7:04 AM - 18 Mar 2019
https://twitter.com/JBLittlemore/status/1107644722145869824
J B Littlemore @JBLittlemore
Replying to @FragrantFrog @strackers74 and
You don't know that either.
7:07 AM - 18 Mar 2019
https://twitter.com/FragrantFrog/status/1107645714744725505
Green Leaper @FragrantFrog
Replying to @JBLittlemore @strackers74 and
But you don't know that for certain, do you? :)
7:11 AM - 18 Mar 2019
https://twitter.com/JBLittlemore/status/1107646966903832576
J B Littlemore @JBLittlemore
Replying to @FragrantFrog @strackers74 and
Why would I answer that? ; ) Frog ... ; )))
7:16 AM - 18 Mar 2019
https://twitter.com/FragrantFrog/status/1107648346808832001
Green Leaper @FragrantFrog
Replying to @JBLittlemore @strackers74 and
You can't answer it, can you? But enough about that....I really have to go now.
7:21 AM - 18 Mar 2019
https://twitter.com/JBLittlemore/status/1107648677127118848
B Littlemore @JBLittlemore
Replying to @FragrantFrog @strackers74 and
I have answer I am not prepared to share with you dear. Quite simple ; ) Off you go then. Have a good day.
7:23 AM - 18 Mar 2019
https://twitter.com/Jules1602xx/status/1107238296114085890
ReplyDelete00The Jules... 🕵️♀️ 🐌 🌸 🐌 🌸 🐌 🌸 @Jules1602xx
Replying to @Heavy_Dave @AndyFish19 and 48 others
It's also good to note that whilst a lot of #McCann doubters deal in speculation & wild theories, there are as many that don't.. There's more than enough facts to deal with.. I'm embarrassed for some doubters..
4:12 am - 17 Mar 2019
https://twitter.com/MrDelorean2/status/1107247481581129728
Mr Delorean @MrDelorean2
Replying to @Jules1602xx @Heavy_Dave and 48 others
It must be embarrassing for you that Amaral agrees with Textusa that the DNA results were manipulated.
It leaves Not Textusa - the only anti I’ve ever read who understands the forensics - and those of you that follow him, in a bit of a bind.
#mccann
4:49 am - 17 Mar 2019
https://twitter.com/DavidHuddo/status/1107249771734097922
David Hudson @DavidHuddo
Replying to @MrDelorean2 @Jules1602xx and 47 others
@MrDelorean2 I don’t know whether DNA results were manipulated but it’s clear that Lowe’s final results expressed in a very misleading way. DNA results are all about probabilities and no attempt to guide police on liklihood ie were they looking in right or wrong direction
4:58 am - 17 Mar 2019 From Eybens, France
https://twitter.com/MrDelorean2/status/1107260365270863872
Mr Delorean @MrDelorean2
Replying to @DavidHuddo @Jules1602xx and 47 others
There’s nothing misleading about Lowe’s report.
If you recall, both the results and Lowe’s interpretation were agreed by two PT police forensic experts and Francisco Corte Real, VP of the National Pathology Institute, prior to his report being forwarded to prosecutors.
#mccann
5:40 am - 17 Mar 2019
https://twitter.com/MrDelorean2/status/1107260530778083328
Mr Delorean @MrDelorean2
Replying to @MrDelorean2 @DavidHuddo and 48 others
Or to put it another way, and to quote Not Textusa;
‘There is nothing wrong with the report. The problem is with you.’
#mccann
http://nottextusa.blogspot.com/2014/10/talking-out-of-her-arse.html …
5:40 am - 17 Mar 2019
*****
NotTextusa THE anti! Here is the proof.
This is a quote from ‘Debunker’ on Bigfooty, an Australian forum on 27/12/2012:
Delete“The anti McCannites claim abduction is impossible but then rely on evidence for timing that they elsewhere regard as fiction.”
Do readers recognise this quote, given NT’s recent revision of the Smith sighting timeline?
To note, ‘Debunker’ claims to have been thrown off both pro and anti sites for saying Mcs could have been involved in some way.
He quotes a lot of the same info NT does about dogs and carpet squares, false positives and negatives. Basically discrediting the dogs.
Sounds familiar?
Debunker. Honestbroker. I get confused as to who is who!
DeleteThere was a Debunker on U.K. Justice Forum who was thrown off the forum by John Lamberton, the chairman of the forum, in 2013.
Delete“Rogerandout had his account temporarily suspended last night due to the number of complaints we received about him.. We asked him to respond to the allegations that he was in fact Debunker using yet another proxy. This is his response in full.”
“ f.. off. I will return under another IP/ID. Every time I am banned it just winds up the pros. Soon you will ban any non- anti suspecting they are me. This is probably how all for a on the subject begin to crumble. The method works. Such fun ( as you have probably guessed by now Rogerandout is one of my many personalities ) “
Not sure if that Debunker addressed by Lamberton is the same Debunker on Bigfooty forum although interesting to note that Bigfooty Debunker stated that he had been thrown off both pro and anti sites.
“All for a on the subject..”
It’s not clear what he means. Is it a typo for a - all for one, or a typo for fora - plural of forum?
https://twitter.com/SamColber/status/1107554565459726336
ReplyDeleteSamColber @SamColber
Increasingly it looks as if opinions on SM are moving away from crazy explanations for MM's disappearance and towards criticism of the monitoring arrangements. Sense at last.🧐
#mccann
1:09 am - 18 Mar 2019
*****
This comment from a known pro about social media sums up exactly what the other side wants to hear: Neglect.
The ONLY way to make abduction possible.
Pretendies seem to be doing a good job. Or then, maybe not.
Does she include masked smelly man as a “crazy explanation for MM’s disappearance”?
DeleteOr rag-foot man maybe?
Unpublished Anonymous at 18 Mar 2019, 20:21:00,
ReplyDeleteThank you.
We were aware and were not surprised as the person concerned had written something months ago that indicated this outcome was expected.
We prefer not to comment any further. The least said the better.
Comment received that we have censored:
ReplyDelete"Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Very interesting comment":
A group of people on twitter asking “Who he?" is laughable. Of course they know who he is.
It’s’ (censored).
Posted by Anonymous to Textusa at 18 Mar 2019, 22:05:00"
Gemma O’Dherty stands, as she should, by her article:
ReplyDeletehttps://twitter.com/gemmaod1/status/1107778648604581889
Gemma O'Doherty @gemmaod1
Shameful from @Netflix @pulsefilms repeating the lies of the corrupt @BBC. The Smiths did NOT withdraw their statement as my interview with them confirms. The media cover-up continues but the public are no longer fooled. #McCann
#MadelineMcCannNetflix
https://gemmaodoherty.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/village-feb-2018-mccann-did-bbc-bend-the-truth.pdf
3:59 pm - 18 Mar 2019
Textusa give up watching the Netflix after the 2nd episode after reading negative reviews from commentators. One thing I suppose it showed is the main players are still there. Did you notice that Jez Wilkins got threw under the bus right from the very start. The Jenson sister was at pains to let us know she spoke to him outside the apartment immediately after the alarm was raised even though he says he was asleep in bed and was woken by a visit from one of the Tapas 7 informed and went back to sleep.
ReplyDeleteK
Worth re-reading to compare with what one of them appears saying in the Netflix documentary:
Deletehttps://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-504950/British-witnesses-We-saw-blond-men-balcony-Madeleine-apartment.html
British witnesses: 'We saw two blond men on balcony next to Madeleine apartment'
By FIONA BARTON, DAN NEWLING and VANESSA ALLEN
Last updated at 15:55 31 December 2007
Two British sisters gave a dramatic account of a pair of strangers watching the Ocean Club pool and tapas bar hours before Madeleine McCann vanished.
In an exclusive interview, Jayne Jensen and Annie Wiltshire told how they saw two blond men in their 30s, standing on the balcony of an empty apartment only a couple of doors away from the McCanns' flat in Praia da Luz.
And they provided further evidence that Robert Murat, the first official suspect in the case, lied about his whereabouts on the night Madeleine disappeared.
Mrs Jensen, a 54-year-old businesswoman, says she saw Mr Murat outside the McCann apartment half an hour after the alarm was raised.
The expatriate estate agent claims he was at home with his elderly mother all night, but it has emerged that a British barrister on holiday with his wife and children has corroborated Mrs Jensen's account.
Although the two sisters contacted Portuguese police within hours of Madeleine's disappearance, their evidence was ignored for six months.
The women met police three times within 24 hours, tried to find out who the strangers were themselves and made several follow-up phone calls to the authorities.
But it was not until six weeks ago that a formal statement was finally taken.
The two women, both divorcees from Maidstone, Kent, spent 11 hours with British police officers providing details of their evidence and later met private detectives from Metodo 3, the agency employed by the McCanns to find their daughter.
They intended to remain anonymous but when their names were leaked to a Portuguese newspaper and they found themselves wrongly accused of waiting eight months before coming forward, they decided to reveal the truth.
The sisters said they were immediately struck by the behaviour of the two men on the balcony.
The pair, tanned and in Bermuda shorts, were standing outside the patio doors of a groundfloor apartment, which had been unoccupied all week, and were looking out over the resort's family swimming pool and restaurant area.
Mrs Wiltshire, 58, a mother of two, said: "It was odd because I hadn't seen them before. In May the resort wasn't busy.
"There were only about 60 of us staying in the apartments and you got to recognise all the other people.
"One of the guys was walking down the steps and as I looked at him, he walked back up and started talking to the other one.
"They had a view of the whole Ocean Club and the McCanns' apartment. It just showed how easy it would be for anyone to use those balconies to watch the area. It has haunted me ever since."
That evening - May 3 - Madeleine disappeared from her bed as her parents, Gerry and Kate ate dinner with seven friends in the tapas bar.
The sisters, who helped search for the child that night, went to police the next day to report the sighting of the strangers and their concerns.
Mrs Wiltshire, who went on holiday with her sister to recover from a cancer operation, said: "The theory is that Madeleine could have been targeted. This story proves how easily it could have been done but the Portuguese police were not interested.
"It makes you wonder if there are more of us out there who have tried and not succeeded in reporting things they saw but have given up.
"They might not have been as persistent and tenacious as us but we were determined to get the information to the police somehow."
The two women had been in Praia da Luz for a week before the McCanns - Gerry, Kate, three-year-old Madeleine and two-year-old twins Sean and Amelie - arrived with a party of doctors for a short break.
(Cont)
(Cont)
DeleteMrs Jensen and her sister were in the same daily tennis coaching group as Mr McCann. It was organised by Mark Warner, the tour operator which manages the Ocean Club complex.
"We never met Kate," Mrs Jensen said. "And we never socialised with Gerry. We just played tennis."
On the evening of May 3, the sisters ate in the same tapas restaurant as the McCann party.
Neither of them remembers the doctors being rowdy or drinking heavily that night, as other witnesses have suggested.
Mrs Jensen, a bar manager, said: "They were not noisy or dominating the restaurant. They were just a party of friends enjoying a meal."
The sisters finished their dinner and left to walk down into the village for a nightcap.
"We were on the way to the bar when we heard the hue and cry about a missing child," added Mrs Jensen.
"The Mark Warner staff were being called on their phones and everyone thought it was a child who had wandered out of her room, looking for her parents.
"Apparently it had happened before and there was a drill they carried out. I left Annie in the bar and came back up to the apartments to see if I could help. It was only then I realised the scale of the search.
"I went straight into the creche area and checked the play area and Wendy House but found nothing."
It was then that Mrs Jensen saw 34-year-old Mr Murat for the first time. She saw a man light a cigarette as he stood on the street corner opposite the McCanns' ground-floor apartment.
She said: "I had semi-given up smoking and was thinking I could do with a cigarette when this bloke just along the pavement from me lit up. I noticed him but didn't think anything more of it."
A middle-aged barrister, a nearneighbour of Mrs Jensen in the holiday complex, has told police that he spoke to her at the time and also saw Mr Murat.
The next day, said Mrs Jensen, Mr Murat introduced himself to her and her sister.
"It was hideous when we realised that the little girl had not been found. It really began to hit home that something horrible had happened.
"I thought maybe she had fallen down a manhole, or hit her head. I didn't think she had been taken at that point and we helped search bins and scrubland."
As they and the other holidaymakers combed the area, Mrs Jensen met another member of her tennis coaching group, TV producer Jez Wilkins.
"Jez told me it was Gerry's daughter we were looking for. I hadn't realised before that moment.
"Jez said that he knew Gerry had checked the children because he had met him coming back from the apartment."
As the hours passed without any sighting of Madeleine, Mrs Wiltshire became increasingly concerned about the strangers she had seen the day before.
She said: "I didn't know if it was significant or not but I needed to tell the police in case it helped.
"I got a member of Mark Warner's staff to get a policeman to come and see me and told two officers about the men I had seen.
"I told them they were blond and one had curly hair. One was stockier than the other and they had obviously just opened the gate and walked up to the balcony.
"I showed the policemen the balcony and as I was explaining the circumstances, Robert Murat appeared and started translating for me."
Mr Murat was acting as an unofficial interpreter for the police and Mrs Wiltshire assumed he was part of the police force.
Later that day, she and her sister bumped into him again and he asked them if they needed any more help with the police and whether they had remembered anything else.
Mrs Jensen said: "He said he was helping the police because he lived locally and he was very helpful."
That evening, the two sisters joined the barrister and his wife for a glass of wine on the balcony of their apartment.
(Cont)
(Cont)
DeleteThey were discussing Madeleine's disappearance and the apparent failure of the police to set up a crime scene when Mr Murat walked past, saw them and joined them uninvited.
Mrs Jensen said: "He was wearing a blue T-shirt and jeans and he said he needed to go home and change because it had been a long day, which was odd, because he had already changed out of the clothes he had been wearing earlier."
After Mr Murat left, the barrister told the sisters he found him "odd".
His wife was distraught about Madeleine's disappearance and the couple were desperate to leave the resort. Their names have not been revealed.
Mrs Jensen insists she is not conducting "a witch hunt" against Mr Murat.
"It was only after he was made an arguido (official suspect) that I realised any of this information could be important."
Other witnesses who have placed Mr Murat near the McCann apartment that night include Mark Warner nanny Charlotte Pennington, two tourists who contacted Metodo 3 independently and three of the McCanns' friends, Fiona Payne, Rachael Oldfield and Russell O'Brien.
But friends and family of Mr Murat insisted he was not there. His mother Jennifer, 71, said: "People who say he was outside Madeleine's apartment that night are telling lies.
"I challenge them to tell Portuguese police what they're telling the McCanns' investigators."
When Mrs Jensen got home, she made a number of calls to police and Crimestoppers. She gave them an outline of the sightings and was told someone would call her back but nobody did.
In September, the two women went back to Praia da Luz to try to make direct contact with the McCanns but as they arrived, Kate and Gerry were made official suspects and left to return to Britain.
The sisters admit they might have let things go at that point but the constant mention of Madeleine in the press kept nagging at them.
In desperation they finally e-mailed the McCanns' spokesman, Clarence Mitchell and told him what they knew.
Within days, they were contacted by Leicestershire police who apologised for the delay and sent an officer round to interview them.
"They were there for 11 hours, finishing at midnight and we finally got to sign a statement," added Mrs Jensen.
"All we wanted was to get the information to the right people. It is just ridiculous that no one would help us."
A spokesman for the McCanns said: "We remain extremely grateful to Annie and Jayne for making the efforts they have to get their information to us.
"They have been trying since day one and have only wanted to help Kate and Gerry find Madeleine.
"They are utterly credible witnesses and we are very grateful to them."
(Cont)
(Cont)
DeleteKate McCann hopes to return to Portugal once she has been cleared as a suspect in her daughter's disappearance, friends said yesterday.
Mrs McCann and her husband Gerry expect to be re-interviewed by police early in the New Year, and hope it will bring them a step closer to being eliminated as arguidos - official suspects.
The couple, both 39, would then be free to continue their campaign work and believe Portugal could still hold the key to finding Madeleine.
Once the lead story on every Portuguese television bulletin and newspaper, the case is now attracting less attention and an appeal by the McCanns would give the coverage fresh impetus.
But the couple cannot speak freely about the case while they remain arguidos as they are bound by the country's strict secrecy laws, which ban witnesses or suspects from talking about the case.
A friend said: "If they were to go to Portugal now it would seem like they were trying to put pressure on the police, and they don't want that.
"But if they were cleared as arguidos then it would change everything.
"They would be cleared in the eyes of the judicial system and technically in the eyes of the world, although they realise that there will always be some people who view them with suspicion."
And this, them being interviewed by Método 3:
Deletehttp://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=10045.210
Re: Did this finding get followed up by the PJ?
« Reply #210 on: August 24, 2018, 11:36:28 PM »
This article backs up what Misty said earlier. I have never tried accessing the Waybackmachine
http://whathappenedtomadeleinemccann.blogspot.com/2013/06/
"Peribañez interviews the ‘Jensen sisters’
An article by ‘Blackwatch’ on the old ‘Sargent’s Inn’ blog also refers to Peribañez; this time he’s interviewing the Jensen sisters, along with his co-worker Gary Hagland. Here’s an extract from Blackwatch’s article: “Playing Doubles: Jayne Jensen, Annie Wiltshire and the Missing Police Statements” (Author Blackwatch (of 17/04/2011 @ 14:09:49, in Business Environments, viewed 1057 times, extracted from waybackmachine)
QUOTE
Concluding a fresh look at some of the key witnesses in the case, I thought I'd flag up the account provided by Maidstone sisters, Jayne Marie Jensen and Annie Wiltshire.
The two sisters hit the headlines in the last week of December 2007 when the Daily Mail claimed that the pair had seen Robert Murat outside the apartment on the night of Madeleine's disappearance, contradicting Murat's claim that he was at home at this time with his mother. Their claims can be broken down into these basic points:
they allege they saw Robert Murat near the apartment complex at about 10.30pm, some 30 minutes after Kate McCann raised the alarm.
that Robert acted as their translator in their initial interviews with Police.
that although being interviewed by Police three times during those first few days, they were not asked to provide a formal statement until six months later when they spoke to Kent Police for 11 hours and also Gary Hagland and Julián Peribañez of Metodo 3.
that they were in the same daily tennis coaching group as Mr McCann.
that Robert had joined them briefly at their table on the night of May 4th to enquire if they had remembered anything else.
They also claimed to have seen two blond men earlier in the day Madeleine was reported missing.
The Daily Telegraph and Sky News both repeated the claims in subsequent days, the Daily Telegraph attempting to play down the claims of the sisters by suggesting that the police's failure to interview the pair had arisen as a result of them staying in another apartment block. But it's not a persuasive argument by any means. Several witnesses asked to provide formal statements were staying in different apartment blocks, including Neil Berry (in Block 6 across the road), Rajinder Balu and Jeremy Wilkins. Berry and Balu even mention having drinks with the two sisters Jayne and Annie in each of their respective statements.
And here's something else I don't understand; Neil Berry made THREE statements in all. He refers to two of the earlier statements in his final statement dated April 23rd 2008. However, both his May 7th 2007 and January 8th 2008 statements are missing from the final police files.
Secondly, the statements that Jensen and Wiltshire claim to have provided to DC Jo Godfrey and DC Bob Sidoli of Kent Police at the end of an eleven hour interview in October 2007 are also missing from the files.
Neil Berry was later asked to supply a buccal swab in response to a witness account that placed him in the stairwell of apartment 5A on the night of May 3rd. The account - provided in September 2007 by an Ocean Club employee - was subsequently transformed into a sensational exclusive for The Daily Mirror on September 29th: 'New Madeleine suspect seen in stairwell’…
UNQUOTE
Much more could be written about evidence given by Jayne Jensen and Annie Wiltshire. And what we are not told here or in any other newspaper account is whether Gary Hagland and Julián Peribañez interviewed the Jensen sisters before or after they gave their 11-hour account to Kent Police. I suspect very much that it was before."
There's a place where dogging goes on not far from where I live, all the locals know about it and the ones who live closest have campaigned to have cctv put in hoping to put people off going there. Like me they know what goes on there after dark and like me not one has yet to state they're not doggers and don't go there because there really is no need as they know the truth that they're not involved with those that do go there.
ReplyDeletehttps://twitter.com/JBLittlemore/status/1108016925861269504
ReplyDeleteJ B Littlemore @JBLittlemore
Replying to @MrDelorean2 @Jules1602xx and 48 others
Not suspects does not mean eliminated from the inquiry. Until you can define absolutely the nature of crime against M #Mccann & when precisely it occurred, only then can you begin to compile the elimination criteria. The PT SC clarified they have not been cleared/eliminated.
7:46 am - 19 Mar 2019
*****
And we thought JBLittlemore couldn’t care less about what the PT courts had to say…
About Netflix can anyone tell us in which episode does Dr Totman appear?
ReplyDeleteAnd while about it, we would also appreciate if someone could also point out in which one the "Woman-in-purple" also does.
DeleteOh, sorry to be a pain. And it will be the last for now...
DeletePimpleman/Spottyman, which episode, please?
Thank you.
George Harrisonman 6 @44.30, Totman (not named) 8@ 15.15, Spottyman 8 @ 20.25, Mask/Smellyman 8 @25.30.
ReplyDeleteDon't know about woman in purple or whether Totman was actually interviewed. May have missed it, but was losing the will to live by the end.
Doug D
Doug D,
DeleteThank you!
Interesting that Dr Totman is not named. We would say that he’s as equally important to “debunk” as was to say that the Smiths have changed their mind (we know this is not to be true).
Both are men seen with a little girl in their arms on the evening of May 3. Let’s play along with the Netflix story and let’s disregard Stephen Carpenter who is another man with a little girl in his arms near 5A at the time things may have happened.
Playing along with the story, both are men that may not be who they were thought to be. Correction, one may not be and the other isn’t. Smithman may not be Gerry (the documentary is very eager to stress the “fact” that he isn’t) but Tannerman, again according to the official story being rammed down our throats isn’t.
Andy Redwood was very clear, the man Jane Tanner saw was a guest. And that guest has come forward to identify himself, Dr Totman. So, according to the official story, the man seen by Jane Tanner is NOT a suspect. In terms of documentary, when playing the Tanner sighting, it should have been presented to show very clearly that fact. It isn’t.
But then that was part of the technique that has been used twice before. Simple, straightforward and they thought it would be effective. It worked so and so the first time (we were the first, if not the only ones to show that), the second time it flopped and now this third time we’re still letting the snow settle in the globe to understand if the flopping was intentional or if it was an absurd third try.
And to determine that we would like to ask you a question. And that is how many people do you know have watched the entire series?
To explain why we are asking, with you that makes 3 people we know who have watched all episodes. One literally shed tears of both sadness and rage.
We know of another who has reached episode 6 and is determined to finish it. That adds to 4.
We haven’t watched it, I have watched episodes 1 and 5 and have seen on the screen episode 2 but have to confess on hearing the Brit journo referring to the PJ officers as “scruffy little fellas” the vision blurred and the concentration went. Episode 5 made things worse. But that one was watched with full attention.
We have had 6 people who are asking us to watch it for them, as a favour.
That’s the reality on our side we would like to know yours and that of other readers. This is an important variable in terms of understanding the intensity and intent of the flop.
Ever since I saw the trailer, I've not had the stomach for it.
DeleteTextusa, what is recommended blog reading order for new starters to the blog, there is a lot here to read! Is there one blog that sums up your theory?
ReplyDeleteAnonymous19 Mar 2019, 22:13:00
DeleteOur answer would be to suggest with starting to read the PJ files. Without doing that, little will make sense.
There is no simplified version of this blog, so we’re afraid it will have to be the tedious slog of reading through all of the posts.
The potted theory is on the front of the blog.
Maddie is trending on google, but drops out, only to reappear with next set of newspaper reports. It’s not a subject I’ve heard anyone mention though
ReplyDeleteI’m following google trending and within 5 minutes M case has gone, pops up again and it’s just gone again!
It just doesn’t hold attention long enough to rise up the trending. Any other celeb gossip or Brexit knocks it off.
It trends briefly each day, then disappears as more important news or a showbiz story emerges.
I think it’s deliberate daily news feeds. But not going anywhere and unless it's to give the news the Mcs have been arrested, the public is tired of the subject. It has seen most of these stories before.
In a week of no news, it might have got some tabloid headlines, not now.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/mums-madeleine-mccann-claudia-lawrence-14161283.amp
DeleteThis old story regurgitated has started M case trending again on google
There is a link in article to Carol Tranmer-Fenn sighting narrated by Summers.
Nothing of course about trying to persuade her to agree to an e-fit recognition which she refused to do.
If I was the Mcs I'd be bricking it due to the change in the public mood, thanks to the parliament circus last week.Patience has run out for a lot of folk and if the crowds can be calmed or diverted for a while by someone been thrown to the wolves then the Mcs could find their time is up.
DeleteIf things continue as they are, we could have Operation Yellowhammer in place on Monday. That will stop M case trending.
Deletehttps://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/madeleine-mccann-netflix-documentary-viewers-16000391.amp
DeleteThe woman was identified, this was a Dave Edgar fiasco.
The stories being regurgitated do not follow up with regurgitated articles which debunk the original regurgitation:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/madeleinemccann/6003884/Madeleine-McCann-tycoons-family-perplexed-by-investigation.html
And to this question:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1206842/Why-did-Madeleine-McCann-detectives-ask-questions.html
Because he’s an idiot.
About Netflix... episode 1, can anyone explain why when reconstructing the dinner, they don't show the table being... round?
ReplyDeleteAfter all, if it was a reconstruction, why not get a round table, big enough to sit 9 extras and film them around it? Maybe because the sheer size of it would scream that no such object existed in the Tapas?
And then... can anyone explain why the table was set for only 7? Surely such a detailed production would know that there were supposed to 9 people, after all they do list them all during the episode?
Why only 7?
Oh, did anyone see any of the 2 baby monitors that were said to be there? Or, at least the important one, the one the Paynes used?
DeleteIt's not on top of the table. Maybe on the floor?
https://twitter.com/Jules1602xx/status/1108795847674920961
Delete00The Jules... 🕵️♀️ 🐌 🌸 🐌 🌸 🐌 🌸 @Jules1602xx
It had to happen.. 🤓
#McCann
#Netflix hadn't read Tex.. 😂
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D2M78JMWoAAcKYJ.jpg
11:21 am - 21 Mar 2019
[Picture attached is a screengrab of our comment at 21 Mar 2019, 15:54:00]
*****
https://twitter.com/rambojambo9/status/1108812218639024128
rambojambo @rambojambo9
Replying to @Jules1602xx
😁😂🤣🍽🍽🍽🍽🍽🍽🍽🍽🍽
12:26 pm - 21 Mar 2019
*****
https://twitter.com/Jules1602xx/status/1109013435776487425
00The Jules... 🕵️♀️ 🐌 🌸 🐌 🌸 🐌 🌸 @Jules1602xx
Replying to @rambojambo9
I counted those plates.. 😂
1:46 am - 22 Mar 2019
*****
https://twitter.com/rambojambo9/status/1109016221326950401
rambojambo @rambojambo9
Replying to @Jules1602xx
I knew someone would 😁
1:57 am - 22 Mar 2019
*****
We ask Jules, or anyone else, to tweet a screengrab of where in any of the episodes of the Netflix documentary those 9 plates appear.
Thank you.
There's no proof there were any independent witnesses in this gargantuan abduction hoax. Not one is believable, and it plays out like a creatively written script with very bad actors.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous 21 Mar 2019, 16:46:00,
DeleteWe disagree with you. We have no reason to think that namely the following witnesses are not independent:
- The Smiths;
- Carole Tranmer-Fenn:
- Maria Cecília Pereira Pires;
- Cecília Paulo Dias Firmino do Carmo;
- Mário Marreiros (when he places Neil Berry in Block 5 on the afternoon of May 3 - statement not in files but it can be deduced from the questions Neil Berry was asked).
https://twitter.com/saunokonoko/status/1108240591702286336
ReplyDeleteMark SaunokonokoVerified account @saunokonoko
Replying to @luke__cooper @Ninecomau
The work of the cadaver dogs was fascinating. The multiple 'alerts' made by the dogs seemed to have doubt cast over them because of DNA samples later judged to be 'inconclusive'. But the apparent 'inconclusive' nature of those results is rigorously tested in episode 5. #McCann
10:35 pm - 19 Mar 2019
https://twitter.com/aacg/status/1108366318523371520
AnneGuedes @aacg
Replying to @saunokonoko @luke__cooper @Ninecomau
The UK dogs' alerts have to be examined in conjunction to determine whether blood or residual scent. Even the blood sample was good enough to identify the owner, how could it prove death ?
6:54 am - 20 Mar 2019
https://twitter.com/KatrinKemmler1/status/1108837747937153041
ReplyDeleteKatrin Kemmler @KatrinKemmler1
Replying to @Jules1602xx
This round table always puzzled me. Several tables had to be put together in order to have 9 persons sit on one table. What shape did these seceral tables have to end up in a round table?
2:08 pm - 21 Mar 2019
https://twitter.com/Jules1602xx/status/1109013855114539010
00The Jules... 🕵️♀️ 🐌 🌸 🐌 🌸 🐌 🌸 @Jules1602xx
Replying to @KatrinKemmler1
Big Round table for 9.. Taken on the 4th May...
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D2QCOTIW0AAIIYu.jpg
1:48 am - 22 Mar 2019
*****
And Jules, the one who says she spoke with 3 photographers, the one who says she has pictures of the BRT, the one who has shared those pictures with some sort of inner circle, the one who on Jan 19 said she was going to own the blog with those pictures and e-mails, publishes a picture that was not even first published by her but by the Frog.
By the way, do our readers remember us asking if Kate McCann was a reporter?
Well, there is at least one Kate McCann on Sky News:
https://twitter.com/kateemccann
So, if we were to say that Kate McCann was indeed a reporter, that would be a 100% true statement.
But if we were to say that Kate McCann, Maddie’s mother was reporter, that would be absolutely false.
So to use Sky News’ Kate McCann’s name to try and convince people that Kate McCann, Maddie’s mother is a reporter, is to be deceitful, false, dishonest and disrespectful to the intelligence of others.
If one adds that one has come out publicly to say that one has pictures and mails that prove that Kate McCann, Maddie’s mother, is a reporter but refuses to publish any of them but instead keeps publishing pictures of Sky News’ Kate McCann to prove the point, one is just helping prove the point that Kate McCann, Maddie’s mother, is not a reporter, which everyone knows she isn’t.
The more Jules keeps on posting a picture of a big round table, trying to pass it on and the BRT, when everyone can see that it’s not, the more she helps us.
https://twitter.com/Jules1602xx/status/1108795847674920961
Delete00The Jules... 🕵️♀️ 🐌 🌸 🐌 🌸 🐌 🌸 @Jules1602xx
It had to happen.. 🤓
#McCann
#Netflix hadn't read Tex.. 😂
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D2M78JMWoAAcKYJ.jpg
11:21 am - 21 Mar 2019
[Picture attached is a screengrab of our comment at 21 Mar 2019, 15:54:00]
*****
https://twitter.com/aacg/status/1108809354852122624
AnneGuedes @aacg
Replying to @Jules1602xx
The oldest trick ever, focus on a detail and call the devil who will be too happy to accept the invitation.
12:15 pm - 21 Mar 2019
*****
https://twitter.com/Jules1602xx/status/1109013355879153664
00The Jules... 🕵️♀️ 🐌 🌸 🐌 🌸 🐌 🌸 @Jules1602xx
Replying to @aacg
That's true Anne.. I am a devil but not 'the' devil lol... x
1:46 am - 22 Mar 2019
*****
Interesting to consider that having 2 extra seats around a table is an insignificant detail.
And this, of course is not a detail:
https://twitter.com/aacg/status/1107090219625529347
AnneGuedes @aacg
Replying to @ProfilerPatB
How generous of you (not kidding) ! Have you noticed, ep. 1, 17'33, a man looking into a bin, clearly full, while everybody searches for a living child ? Isn't that weird or is it a hint ? #mccann
6:24 pm - 16 Mar 2019
And agree, there's a huge difference between being a devil and being THE devil.
Deletehttps://twitter.com/aacg/status/605494432432025600
DeleteAnneGuedes @aacg
Replying to @LoverandomIeigh
@LoveRandomleigh @winnower1 @nikki_plummer Weirdly the "convicted perjurer" thought Joana's [Cipriano] remains ended in a bin, not Madeleine's. Why ?
3:01 pm - 1 Jun 2015
*****
Where and when did Mr Amaral think this???
AG spoke to OG about her body in the bin theory.
DeleteAlthough not a fan of Shining in Luz, he explained it detail why this wasn’t a possibility.
I think the notion of G putting his daughter’s remains in a local bin on the night of May 3rd, when people said they were checking bins is nonsense.
Where is the proof that this was possible?
Have a look at the October 2007 dispatches docu,it tells of the bins not being searched to a degree that a body wasn't in one.
Deletehttp://my-mccann-thoughts.blogspot.com/2014/10/coincidences-you-decide.html
DeleteSee what AG says in comment here.
Anon 22 Mar 2019, 13:04:00,
DeleteSo you believe it’s possible Maddie was put in a bin, in a town strange to Gerry, him not knowing the schedule or nights bins were picked up but knowing he was about to report a missing child that would likely cause bins being searched and disregarding the possibility that particular bin - the one she would be left in - would not be used for the rest of that night by someone else residing nearby who would use it to throw out their own trash?
We imagine that you refer to this comment:
Delete"AnneGuedesOctober 11, 2014 at 1:42 PM
Nobody's commenting anymore on Richard Philips' page... Are posters afraid, in spite of anonymity, to be exposed like BL ?
I bet I'm on the list, I've been threatened twice by Isabel Duarte and once by a certain KMC... who publicly warned me that I was on top of the list and should better fear!
Ludicrous !
It reminds me of Kate MC wishing Gonçalo Amaral fear.
It must be terrible to be alone and fear.
I'd adore to be interviewed by SY. I still remember the long silence of the SY police officer who called me when I suggested that, reading "Madeleine", he would learn who lifted the lid of a bin, only one, when the sun started rising on the 4th of May.
I'll certainly never ever judge the MCs by any mean. I'm not interested at all by them, but the social phenomenon that they contributed to create is absolutely fascinating.
It is very understandable that they handled to the Met the dossier provided by their social media's observers, they're legitimately very worried with what their kids will discover on the Web. Luckily they're twins and will support each other.
The issue is just who told the media the identity of BL ? As she had chosen to remain anonymous, this was unacceptable.."
We haven't the faintest idea how someone on reading "Madeleine" will "learn who lifted the lid of a bin, only one, when the sun started rising on the 4th of May"
Does anyone know what passage of the book does this refer to?
Hi Textusa,you give the impression English is not your first language so let me help you,I'm anon @ 13:04,read again, I made no mention of beleiving the bin theory to be false or true,I mentioned the dispatch's docu nothing moor nothing less.
DeleteAnon 22 Mar 2019, 15:38:00,
DeleteEnglish may or may not be our first language – in principle we never confirm or deny anything that is said about who we are, what we are, etc – but we can spell believing and more.
So you don’t support the bin theory?
That’s good if so, because the bin theory dismisses the dog alerts in the car as meaningless. Something those supporting this theory from Anne Guedes (is there really anyone?) seem to have overlooked.
You like to try and twist peoples view to your's,I've not mentioned my beliefs,agreeing nor disagreeing is not set in stone.
DeleteAnon 22 Mar 2019, 18:14:00,
Delete"You like to try and twist peoples view", is a very familiar expression used against us in the past and, as the Portuguese say, when one has the fame, one should also have the gain, we will “twist” your words, and say you are making deliberate spelling mistakes to try and disguise who you are when it couldn’t be clearer to see who you are if you were waving a purple flag under a spotlight in the middle of a stage.
We asked you if you believed in the bin theory and you refused to commit yourself into saying if you did or didn’t. Where have we seen this before?
By the way the expression “You like to try and twist peoples view” is not a very intelligent one to use.
Firstly, it insults the intelligence of all those who read the blog (in favour or against) as you assume people reading are unable to see for themselves whether we have twisted or not anyone’s words.
Secondly, it shows you have no counter-arguments and you feel the need to resort to personal insult. “You like to try and twist peoples view” is something that middle school students use to end debates they know they have lost. Then, after saying that, they turn their backs and walk away.
Back to facts, YOU felt it necessary to point us in the direction of a documentary that indicated the bins in PDL had not been searched extensively.
Do you have any opinion about that suggestion?
The Dispatches programme of 2007 mentioned bins because Professor Barclay said it was a possible place to consider, but that was before the release of PJ files or GA’s book.
DeleteAt that stage, nobody in the media had full details of searches undertaken by the Portuguese police.
And the PJ were asked by Dispatches about the searches, but wouldn’t comment.
Presumably because the investigation was under the secrecy restrictions. Or possibly because they didn’t want to reveal anything that might hinder the investigation.
Bin reference regarding Joana C:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.portugalresident.com/2004/09/30/portimao-murder-arrest/
If the Ciprianos dismembered a body and put the parts in bins, it’s very different to putting an entire body into a bin in an area which will be searched immediately after the alarm.
Anonymous 22 Mar 2019, 12:51:00,
ReplyDeleteJoana Cipriano disappeared Sept 12 2004.
https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caso_Joana_Cipriano
The article dates Sept 30 2004 and says:
"At the time of going to press, officers from the PJ and the GNR, together with bombeiros and sniffer dogs, were still searching for the girl’s body in and around the sewers of the family’s home in Figueira. Residents in the neighbourhood apparently alerted police after a putrefying smell emanated from the drains.
Another possibility the police are pursuing is that the little girl’s body has been placed in a container or bin liner and deposited in a rubbish container. As a result, police are considering searching the Barlavento dump where the refuse from eight concelhos is disposed."
That's the PJ investigating every possible lead, it does not show that there was any conviction that bins were what was used by the Ciprianos to get rid of Joana's dismembered body.
Thankyou so much Textusa, since finding your blog after following many others your blog is the ONLY one that explains, well researched, answers every question i ask,i see that you get attacked all the time by antis lol and your an anti aswell, it prves one thing though, if these so called well researched antis have not wrote about the swinging hmmm now are these real antis are trying to distract us from the truth?
ReplyDelete''Does anyone know what passage of the book does this refer to?''
ReplyDeleteAnyone who had read the book wouldn't need to ask.
Anonymous 23 Mar 2019, 11:48:00,
DeleteOh, be merciful... and quote the passage? Please, pretty please?
Chapter 6
ReplyDeleteFriday 4 May. Our first day without Madeleine. As soon as it was light Gerry and I resumed our search. We went up and down roads we’d never seen before, having barely left the Ocean Club complex all week. We jumped over walls and raked through undergrowth. We looked in ditches and holes. All was quiet apart from the sound of barking dogs, which added to the eeriness of the atmosphere. I remember opening a big dumpster-type bin and saying to myself, please God, don’t let her be in here. The most striking and horrific thing about all this was that we were completely alone. Nobody else, it seemed, was out looking for Madeleine. Just us, her parents.
Doug D
Doug D,
DeleteThank you.
What we read above is a description of a search. We remind Anne Guedes' words:
"I'd adore to be interviewed by SY. I still remember the long silence of the SY police officer who called me when I suggested that, reading "Madeleine", he would learn who lifted the lid of a bin, only one, when the sun started rising on the 4th of May."
Would anyone reading that passage, drop the book in awe and shout "that's where Maddie was dumped!"? We don't think anyone would.
If the body had been dumped in THAT bin (note she doesn't say where the bin is nor give any detail as to where it could be) would she write that in the book?
And if we were to read her and stretch her words it could be argued that what she is describing is what she felt when opening that one particular bin, and that is why it stuck to her memory, and that means she may have opened all bins she encountered and not just that only one.
DeleteIf anything was more of a clue in K’s book it would be her ref to M “lying, cold and mottled on a big grey stone slab.”
DeleteAgain, no indication as to where, other than if follows a description of running to the top of Rocha Negra.
Was this a real memory or an attempt to divert attention to an irrelevant area?
http://goncaloamaraltruthofthelie.blogspot.com/2009/06/chapter-3.html?m=1
ReplyDeleteGA chapter 3
GA refers to searches of bins and other areas. The bins would be searched as a routine, so nobody with any sense would use a bin for disposal knowing this would happen and obviously they searched these places and nothing found.
They searched apartments, the beach area, checked yachts in the harbour-
After this, there was no theory that M had been disposed in a bin, taken by yacht, buried on the beach ....
http://goncaloamaraltruthofthelie.blogspot.com/2009/06/chapter-16.html?m=1
ReplyDeleteGA chapter 16
Dogs searched waste grounds, ruins, buildings abandoned or under construction, waterways, pipework, along the beach and under every bush.”
No mention of bins. Why would they search bins weeks later? They were searched at the time.
Does the above mean that GA believed she was hidden in pipeworks? No, it was just an extensive search of all possible areas.
If anyone was to ring OG as AG did and refer them to a bin reference because it was mentioned in the book, why not equally, to a pipeworks or a ruined building?