Returning to the subject of jurisdiction and whether the McCanns should be interviewed by Operation Grange, as many voices, including Colin Sutton are suggesting, we are taking the discussion in steps.The reason, is that we expect to be bombarded with questions and contradictions.If we don’t get that bombardment, then something is wrong with our critics who said what we had said to be complete nonsense. We are now giving them the chance to criticise and/or correct us.if we showed our arguments as a whole, the expected bombardment would happen on all fronts and then we would run the risk of missing to respond to something. By doing it in steps we make sure that doesn’t happen.Also, if we get a fair criticism or correction, we can consider before making any false assumptions at the next step. Build our case on solid blocks.We will start with the police caution in England and Wales.PeterMac on CMOMM argued that an interview under police caution and arguido status is “EXACTLY the same” (our caps, he wrote it in bold).We disagree. Whilst there may be some similarities, such as the right not to answer questions and have a lawyer present, similarity does not mean the same.https://www.gov.uk/arrested-your-rightsAnd, so we’re not accused of not using information provided, the links published by Insane in his blog:https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/592547/pace-code-c-2017.pdfhttps://www.gov.uk/government/publications/notice-of-rights-and-entitlements-english-revised-by-pace-code-c-2014The wording of the caution is:“You do not have to say anything. But, it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence.”The caution is a warning that adverse inferences can be drawn by a jury in court when the defendant has exercised the right of silence when questioned under police caution. This includes not stating any alibi, not answering questions as to presence at a time or place, about substances or objects found...In other words, In the UK exercising the right to silence can have negative consequences in court. Any lies that were told under caution can be used as evidence.We will look at arguido status as the next step and make comparisons.But first, let’s see if there’s any disagreement about this summary.
Common Law is the origin of the right to silence, more precisely American Law. The CJEU and the ECHR sort of imported it in juridical systems in which the basic right not to testify against oneself had no part. However it is not an absolute right.
https://www.noticiasaominuto.com/pais/1011325/diretor-nacional-da-pj-abandona-cargo-ja-ha-substitutoLuis Neves vai ser o novo director da PJ.
Not to publish identified reader at 15 May 2018, 16:29:00,Unfortunately, we maintain that the decision is with the political powers.Let's hope time proves us wrong. That would make us very happy!!
Pedro do Carmo will go back to the Public Ministry.I saw Luis Neves in court, he's the kind of person nobody notices. Kate MC understood on August 8 that she would lose any arm wrestling against him.
https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/343916/Maddie-mum-begs-court-Let-me-clear-my-name/ampSeems to me he was gaining their confidence but didn’t believe them?
Luis Neves didn't say that "GA's conclusion that MMC was dead was accepted by the parents" (Mr Lawton wasn't in Lisbon). He said that the MCs were the first to talk of death (that was to convince the PJ to let the hair device hunter to come to PDL).
Actually, after what KMC passed through (according to "Madeleine"), I guess that, at least on August 8, the time of confidence had passed.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anne Guedes, Can you please justify why you removed your comment?
While we wait for Anne's response, we see no inconvenience in publish the link that was in her comment:https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/6295328/police-chief-who-made-madeleine-mccanns-parents-suspects-now-heads-portugals-crime-squad/
Sorry, Textusa, I was trying to depoluate as I saw (too late) that Anonymous 21:19 had sent the same link before I did.. If, for some reasonable reason (fake news for instance, I deleted a post, I would explain why in another post. I hesitated but thought it was self-explicit as the same link was right after.
Anne Guedes,Thank you for replying. The problem is with our readers who don't have, like we do, access to all comments and were left wondering why the deletion.Once explained, all has been clarified!
Anonymous 16 May 2018, 15:22:00,We have shown that their claim has not been processed:https://www.facebook.com/bronte.textusa/posts/1183861385083844
Up to now, we have not seen anyone presenting any counter-argument against our summary about being heard under caution in the UK.From PeterMac we have only seen silence up to now, so we can only assume full agreement.From Insane we got the first sign of sedition away from PeterMac.First, Insane had this to say about PeterMac’s opinion about our comment:“I am going to say up front that I absolutely do not agree with PeterMac on some issues, but that does not mean that there are not areas of agreement between us, too.What he has said here echoes what I said in my response to Textusa, in particular what I pointed out about an interview under caution. Textusa's claim about the arguido status having no equivalent is just plain wrong. So thank you, PeterMac, for pointing that out.”Now Insane has this to say:“There will always be differences between the law from one jurisdiction to another - there are significant differences between England/Wales and Scotland, for example - but that does not mean that your claim has any substance. It doesn't. But that is hardly unusual for you, is it, Mrs Swingathon?”So, Insane has gone from agreeing FULLY with PeterMac’s “EXACTLY the same” with his “the arguido status having no equivalent is just plain wrong” to now disagreeing with his “there will always be differences between the law from one jurisdiction to another”.‘Differences’ and ‘exactly’ do not marry. However insignificant the differences may be. Now, if the differences are significant, as they are, then that divorce is even more litigious.One would have to ask if the “significant differences between England/Wales and Scotland” that Insane speaks of aren’t sufficient to invalidate any legal proceedings in case they are not respected by one side in case it intends for it to be used by the other? We would say it is. If not, then why the differences?And that is within the UK.So, for starters, Insane has now publicly backpedalled on his agreement with PerterMac who we remind says he’s a “retired Police Superintendent with 30 years experience plus a Law degree”.
To clarify what Insane has said, there are specific protocols between England / Wales and Scotland. If one travels to Scotland and commit an offence and is arrested then return to England, one returns to Scotland to go to court and any community sentence one receives in Scotland which has an equivalent in England can be transferred, as an example.
Sade Anslow,From latest Blacksmith:“Just as Grange and nice Mr Redwood has offered Jane Tanner an exit route that will be honoured – that she made a mistake in good faith”So, according to JBS, Totman IS Tannerman who is Crechedad. So not two different people as you read from his words, one real, Totman and another, completely different and made-up by Tanner.So, according to JBS, Operation Grange believes that BOTH Totman and Tanner are being truthful.That, in turn means that Totman was walking AWAY from his apartment carrying his daughter like a tea-tray without any jacket or blanket and with no sign of his wife and other child nearby.*****John Blacksmith,You say in your latest post:“Still, all this stuff is trivial, isn't it, compared with what Robert Murat and Gerry McCann plotted together under Textusa’s table with the last photograph in their hands and Brian Kennedy on the line and Halliwell in the wings while Control Risks and the secret Pat Brown killer squad formed a ring of steel around them as the nannies and faked crèche records arrived, Mitchell got the OK from his MI5 boss and, finally, der Tag had come - and Jim Gamble pressed the Activate Operation Abduction! button - on April 1.”From the above irony we extract that you don’t believe us in what we say about the Big Round Table and about the crèche records being fake.Do you have an explanation as to why we haven’t ever seen photographed the table where the T9 were supposed to have used to this day, and why in its place we now have a BIG octagonal table?http://textusa.blogspot.pt/2014/03/the-proof-ocean-club-reads-textusa.htmlhttp://textusa.blogspot.pt/2012/11/swan-lake-act-3.htmlAnd the Post Scriptum of:http://textusa.blogspot.pt/2018/04/the-help-and-tennis.htmlDo you have an explanation for the typed characters in the crèche sheets and for the other discrepancies noted in our post “3 Penguins in the desert”:http://textusa.blogspot.com/2015/05/3-penguins-in-desert.htmlPlease put your money where your mouth is.By the way, we have also noted that you believe that Operation Grange offers people “exit route that will be honoured” in their investigations. Interesting.
Textusa, I'll afford you the courtesy of admitting I'm assuming what you mean in what you've put to me, before I answer. If I'm wrong, I'll happily correct my answer accordingly. So it looks as if you're saying I've said - and said Blacksmith believes - that Totman and Tannerman were two different people. I have never said that, nor as far as I can see has Blacksmith.I am once again exasperated at the misreading of my comments that are intended to help people understand BS- and the irony isn't lost on me. I don't mind a laugh at myself. So I'll try, again, to be really clear on some key points. Totman is a real person, is who Tanner saw, and is who Redwood revealed as an innocent holiday maker; crechedad. Tannerman was the LIE, the INVENTION of the group, namely DP, MO and GM, who *manipulated* Tanner's description and fabricated the timeline to fit around the sighting. It's not a case of there being more than one person. Totman can be real and crechedad can be real but Tannerman can never be real because the description was *manipulated* and *misrepresented* (* BS words, to clarify his position)But basically, yes they're all the same person. Tanner allowed this to happen, though BS doesn't state explicitly how complicit she is with regards to allowing her random, flash of a sighting be used in the way it was. He would need to speculate too much to do so, so doesn't. The quote "That she made a mistake in good faith" is not necessarily BS opinion on Tanner but on the exit route offered to her, which is apparently encouraging her co-operation with Grange. That doesn't mean Grange believe Tanner to be completely innocent of any wrong doing or truthful about her eye witness statement. He was dark skinned, remember?! I really don't think I can explain it any further, I'd be going round in circles. So if that still doesn't make sense I can't help. But if it doesn't make sense, always better to say so and ask for clarification than to simply invent things people have not said.
"Totman was walking AWAY from his apartment carrying his daughter like a tea-tray without any jacket or blanket"The blanket is an important difference between Crechedad, alias Totmandad (?), and Tannerman. Tannerman was tea-tray carrying as Totmandad, but he used no blanket, a detail that shocked Jane T because it was chilly. Totman, then named Crechedad, produced a photograph that had obviously (imo) been taken in 2007, likely after he LC asked for it. The blanket on that picture can't belong to the nightcreche, unless Totman stole it.Abductors from bed snatch kids, not blankets, the Lindbergh baby was put in a bag, the supposed abductor had to go down a ladder. Would a man carrying a child wrapped in a blanket against his breast arouse suspicion ?
NOBODY believes what you say about the big round table
Anonymous 16 May 2018, 19:02:00http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JANE_TANNER_RIGATORY.htm“4078 “And who was there when you got there?” Reply “Kate and Gerry were there already and they were talking to, I don’t know their names, but they were talking to the two people that Gerry played tennis with in, erm, in his group, who were sitting in the restaurant”.4078 “I haven’t seen a photograph of the inside of the Tapas Bar”. Reply “Umm”.4078 “Could you just briefly describe as you go, is there only one door, is it a kind of open?” Reply “It’s open more or less, yeah, so”.4078 “Just give me some idea of what it looks like?” Reply “Yeah, so as you walk, so you walk in past, yeah, it is past the pool, and there was sort of a tarpaulin bit, I’m going to go this way because I can’t”. 4078 “Visualise it, left and right (inaudible)”. Reply “Yeah, so the tarpaulin is here and you’ve got the tables here and then it’s all open from that side, so, and the big table for us in sort of the middle, they’d put a table there and then there was some more tables down the side by the tarpaulin. And I think our table had moved slightly that way because, as I said, the other nights I’d had the monitor behind me on sort of the ledge where the tarpaulin was, I think there was actually a table between us and the tarpaulin this night, so I think we’d actually gone a bit. I can’t remember, I was talking to Russell about this last night and he couldn’t remember, but I’m sure, purely because of the fact I’d been putting the monitor there, so it was actually, it was only that much nearer, but that made the difference, so, erm”.4078 “Was it a table specifically for a large group or had they sort of mackled together a group of tables?” Reply “Erm, I think they’d put some together, but it was round, it was just one big round, a big round one. I can’t remember to be honest. But, I mean, I think the first time we’d gone there we’d had the thing we’d had with the Millennium the first night, you know, we was all trying to put tables together, so now they knew we were coming we had a, we had the, erm, you know, the big table there waiting”.So, EVERYBODY believes Jane Tanner and the Big Round Table made up of “mackled together” smaller round tables?
There is film of it, you stupid woman
Anonymous 18 May 2018, 00:06:00.You mean this film by Brunt?http://textusa.blogspot.pt/2012/11/swan-lake-act-3.htmlNote, not even when trying hard, and he did try really hard to pull it off, was he able to mackle together small round tables into a big one.Again, paraphrasing Groucho Marx, who ya gonna believe, Brunt or your own eyes?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cHxGUe1cjzM
I know nothing whatever about the Big Round Table and have never read any of your posts about it. All I know is that people talk about Textusa's table. I have only ever read one post of yours, incompletely. I followed it up by asking what your evidence was for claiming that fat and creepy dogfood advertiser Clement Freud, from an immigrant Jewish family well known for its streak of insanity and sexual peculiarities, was a "powerful figure" in the British establishment.You replied with a piece of snot that you no doubt thought was devastatingly patronising and then provided your evidence: the length of Freud's funeral cortege. I see. So Ronnie and Reggie Kray were also members of the British establishment, were they? The forged crèche record nonsense had nothing to do with you: I didn't even know that you'd mentioned them. My knowledge was based on a richly comic 3As thread that eventually ran for a thousand pages without result. Are you seriously suggesting that I read those links of yours? Really? I don't want to devalue your arguments, just as I don't go up to strange, mumbling people in street doorways and demand that they justify their words. I believe in free speech. I'm not going to repeat what I said about your methods on NT's comments page; I did you the courtesy of making it clear here afterwards that, while I find you identical to Bennett in your inability to read carefully,I don't find you a malicious person like he is at all. Just untruthful.Which one of your acolytes then claimed was me "grovelling" to you and backing off. Oh dear, they don't help you much, your followers, do they? By the way you appear to have difficulty in "placing" NT. Apparently you believe he/she is the Weirdo Walker, who waits patiently for the next moron in line to quote an obvious falsehood about the McCanns - they turn up on twitter every five minutes or so, like fat pilchards to a pike - and slaughters them. He/she is well known by most people on the scene and has been for years: no friend of the the McCanns but, like me, preferring to let the legal system provide evidence rather than making it up. Ever wondered why it's only you and Bennett (and the latter's' madder disciples) that provoke his/her fierce scorn? There is no need whatever for debate between us: if you are convinced that your views and analyses are correct then the opinions of nasty, arrogant oddballs like me are quite irrelevant. You will be able to sit back and glow a little as the confirmatory evidence keeps ticking up, just as I'm doing now. It's a very nice feeling. But first you will have to stay the course and then find a way of breaking out of the vicious circle that you are trapped in by your belief that the truth is negotiable rather than absolute.You won't be able to do it, textusa: it is genuinely impossible for you, as you will discover because, like the rest of the Usual Suspects, you have absolutely no route back to the truth. None.As the evidence keeps falling out the wrong way you'll do what 99% of the McCann supporters did after 2016 - shout louder and then go very quiet. And then depart the scene entirely. Cheers.
Blacksmith,Thank you for your replyIn the absence of comment about what Sade has clarified, we presume you are happy with her interpretation of your words. If you are, we will correct any misunderstanding on our part.Walker hardly mentions Textusa, it’s Not Textusa who dedicates his time to us.Walker is more than a critic of tweeters who get their facts wrong and is a staunch defender of the McCanns. Walkers has made nasty comments about Brenda Leyland, who you appear to support passionately, particular the comment about the sales of white leggings going down since her death:https://mobile.twitter.com/Michael75432056/status/996508555242037249Walker says vile things about Brenda Leyland, who we both feel was treated in an appalling manner, so we fail to see why you’re minimising his behaviour on twitter.But it’s NT who claims to be a sceptic.About his NT’s scorn (again you join us with Bennett) all we have to say is that we feel honoured by the scorn of someone who says that there’s no need to have been blood in the apartment 5A for Keela to have alerted there (a dog he states to be reliable and trained to signal blood), that the cadaver odour that Eddie signalled inside that same apartment simply wafted in and the scent that this dog signalled in the backyard came was from a medieval graveyard and that the locations where these dogs signalled the location of Maddie’s body inside the apartment are toileting spots. Being scorned by a person like that is a compliment. His insults, as the Portuguese say, “batem na carapaça da nossa indiferença”.We have no say about who you side with, only find it strange that you do with someone who says that Operation Grange is a waste of money. And who calls Cristobell a liar, on Thursday, 25 February 2016 in a post:“Liars I don't like liarsI specifically don't like liars [Cristobell] who ask me to leave their blog then lie about the reason why I went.Enjoy the quietPosted by Not Textusa at 16:08”He received the following comment:“Anonymous26 February 2016 at 01:13I asked mrs mutton why you had been deleted.....silence!”To which NT replied:“Not Textusa26 February 2016 at 02:16She asked me to go. It's in there amongst her posts. Then lied about me refusing to answer questions - silly cow.I deleted my comments for two reasons - one, because I don't see why they should serve as clickbait for her, and two, because I have no further wish to be associated with her blog. I have a copy, naturally, in case she wants to deny anything.Unfortunately, Ros, for all her grandstanding, is just another blogger whose knowledge of the case mostly comes from the TV. It became increasingly obvious that many of her readers are profoundly stupid people who can see no further than the 'kneejerk' reaction they pull whenever anyone points out to them that half of what they think they know about the case is total bullshit.”(Cont)
(Cont)Again, it’s up to you who you side with.As we said, we ignore NT’s insults and scorn (again, as the Portuguese say, “as uvas estão verdes”) and we only discuss fact. And when he’s right we have no problem with correcting our hand.And a broken clock tells the right time twice a day, so NT is right sometimes. For example when he says For example, when he asks “Would Baldylocks or Jill "Confessions of a driving instructor" Havern mind explaining their claim that two named doctors were employed by the Porton Down NCB facility? (Which, incidentally, isn't based at Porton Down)”, he’s correct, although we find insulting people to be distasteful, and as all kind of violence, something only the weak resort to.If it were us, we would correct our hand. What Bennett and Havern will or not do is their business.From what we understood from your comment you provide opinions based on hearsay, the Big Round Table an example.However, we find strange how someone who doesn’t read us says “I don't find you a malicious person like he is at all. Just untruthful”. How do you know we are untruthful?We have asked you to state where we have lied, you have failed to do so to this day.We aren’t aware of any politicians who attended the Kray twins funerals as we aren’t experts on the Krays, but stand corrected if there were.http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2879142/Mourners-including-gangster-Eddie-Richardson-attend-funeral-notorious-enforcer-Mad-Frankie-Fraser.htmlIn Freud’s funeral there were politicians. Like Gordon Brown.https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2009/apr/24/sir-clement-freud-funeralYou say “Which one of your acolytes then claimed was me "grovelling" to you and backing off. Oh dear, they don't help you much, your followers, do they?” Could you please clarify this? We don’t know what you are speaking about.Whether our reasoning is the same or not, we agree with you that there is pressure being applied in the MSM to have OG closed down and that stories have been planted to inflame public opinion against further spending.And we think also agree that it would be wrong for OG to question the McCanns - you say because it’s illegal for OG to stray beyond its remit. We also say because it could jeopardise a court case in Portugal- as we are in the middle of debating with NTPost Scriptum: We have spoken of Walker and NT in the comment above but as our readers know, we believe they are one and only: Insane.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
We have addressed what it means to have the right of silence when being questioned under caution.To understand the differences of the right to be silent between the UK and the Portuguese justice systems one must understand the etymology of the words “arguido” and “caution”.Let’s start with the etymology of the word “caution”The word caution stems from the latin ‘cavere’ and ‘cautio’https://www.etymonline.com/word/cautionCavere (beware, avoid, take precautions/defensive action; give/get surety; stipulate)http://www.latin-dictionary.net/search/latin/cavereCautio (precaution; stipulation, proviso, exception; taking of precautions/care)http://www.latin-dictionary.net/search/latin/cautioNow, let’s address the word arguido which comes from the latin ‘arguo’Arguo (accuse, complain of, charge, blame, convict; disclose; prove, argue, allege)http://www.latin-dictionary.net/search/latin/arguoJust from etymology one can see the differences. Under caution clearly states a warning of there being effective consequences if one choses to be silent, while arguido is all about arguing, to be given the possibility to argue under accusation and the chosen silence means just that, a choice not to argue.While under caution is “You do not have to say anything. But, it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence” in the arguido status it is said “[You have the procedural right] not to answer the questions asked by any entity about the facts he is charged with about the contents of his statements concerning them”One states clearly that there may be taken inferences from the right to not answer (in the UK) while in the other there are no inferences that can be taken from the silence.Going back to the etymology of the wording we did above, both nations ensure the right to not answer the question but the reasons are different. In the UK, the reasoning behind the right to remain silent is to allow the questioned not to incriminate himself but that silence is taken as an answer, unless under certain specific circumstances which the law details, like when defendant expresses the wish to have the presence of a lawyer and one is not yet present).Outside the detailed circumstances, the silence is taken as an answer. A silent and a compromising one as the person choosing to remain silent has been warned that this silence can be used as evidence. Can be used as adverse inference.(Cont)
(Cont)To be noted, in the UK a defendant can’t be convicted if the only evidence against him is adverse inference. The prosecution must have adduced other evidence of his guilt before the court is asked by the prosecution to draw an adverse inference. The fact is that in the UK the exercise of the right to remain silent can have legal consequences and the caution is to warn about exactly about that possibility.In Portugal, NO adverse inferences can be drawn if an arguido refuses to answer a question It’s interpreted that it’s a choice to not wanting to debate, to not to want to argue and that’s it. Not because there’s guilt but because there’s a wish to not collaborate.It’s like the defendant with his/her silence is simply telling the authorities, you think I’m a suspect, well, then work it out for yourselves why you think I’m guilty, sorry, but I’m not helping you out with that.It’s is the defendant’s right to best judge how to help himself. If he feels that not helping authorities is the best way to achieve that, then he has that choice.There is no assumption of self-condemnation in that silence, just a statement of not wanting to collaborate. Why? Could be many number of reasons, like wanting to see what evidence there is to sustain the accusation before s/he says anything.One thing the police can’t do is to draw then adverse inferences.It’s different with witnesses. They are truth-bound (something we will deal with later). If a witness remains silent in Portugal, then adverse inferences can be drawn. But then, a witness can request to become an arguido and from that moment on, as said, no adverse inferences can be drawn.For some reason Kate did not answer those 48 questions and she suffered no consequences for not having done so. No admission of guilt. Just the right to not collaborate with the investigation.In the archival dispatch there cannot be seen any adverse inferences taken from her silence to those questions. In Britain, it would certainly would have been pointed out and would have weighed in the verdict reached by a jury.So, the right to be silent is significantly different between under caution in the UK and arguido in Portugal. Significant differences are the opposite of things being EXACTLY the same.Before we proceed we will wait and see who disagrees with this.
Silence can never be taken juridically for an answer, silence is by nature ambiguous. And this is the issue with it. It may work in favour or against the silent person, depending on the context, on what that person had said before or will say after. Silence is sometimes described as eloquent, but it is only a subjective feeling. Keeping silent has sometimes deep reasons, it's not always tactical.In Kate MC's case, I don't think she had reasons not to answer, the lawyer had.
Could you please inform me of any criminal case in the UK where some accused person suffered some or any (no matter how minor) consequence because they exercised the right to do a "no comment" interview. There is no point in cautioning accused people about the consequences of remaining silent and then not doing a follow-up and charging people. I cannot remember reading about any case where this happened. If it ever happened I would be very pleased to hear of it. If it didn't happen then there is no difference between the British and Portugeses systems.
“Jimmy”,Suggest you contact British lawmakers and demand they remove from the terms of caution the “But it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in Court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence.”Make it from “You do not have to say anything. But it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in Court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence” to just “You do not have to say anything”.The rest, according to you is just there for decorative reasons. Maybe British lawmakers just to imitate the Americans and their Miranda Rights reading we see in the movies, and so make the whole thing look cool?And while you at it, please tell them to remove “ANNEX C RESTRICTION ON DRAWING ADVERSE INFERENCES FROM SILENCE AND TERMS OF THE CAUTION WHEN THE RESTRICTION APPLIES” from the “CODE C Revised Code of Practice for the detention, treatment and questioning of persons by Police Officers”. Again, according to you, it’s there for no reason.https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/592547/pace-code-c-2017.pdf
This is what was deleted by "Jimmy Simms"So, so familiar:"Jimmy Simms has left a new comment on your post "The help and the tennis - comments continue III": Do you not publish comments which put up a reasonable and polite comment because they might just differ a tiny bit from your fixed views? I asked a simple question and my comment wasn't published. I usually read your blog and agree with a lot of what you print but now that I realise you are too delicate and fragile to accept questions that might differ slightly from your stated position I will not be reading your blog any longer. Posted by Jimmy Simms to Textusa at 17 May 2018, 22:33:00"
"Jimmy"We know you will keep coming back, and back, and back and then back again and then again back.
We inform readers that we do occasionally go to bed, go shopping, drive a car, ride a horse, entertain friends, go to the cinema and theatre, do our jobs...Unlike paid people we do not spend 24/7 on the internet hawking over what's being said about Maddie on the internet.Fascinating how deluded some people are who think that just because they whistle all others must immediately jump.Now, we have to go through a profound introspection process because we honestly don't know how we will cope now knowing that "Jimmy" won't visit our blog anymore.We're devastated.
Not to be published identified reader at 17 May 2018, 20:06:00,About the word ‘arguir’:https://www.priberam.pt/dlpo/arguirar·guir |güí| - Conjugar(latim arguo, -ere, mostrar, provar, afirmar, acusar)verbo transitivo1. Imputar, acusar, censurar (repreendendo).2. Inferir, deduzir.verbo intransitivo3. Argumentar (impugnando).
Insane’s response to our comment:"The Criminal Justice and Public Order act which introduced this change sets out very specific circumstances in which an adverse inference may be drawn. I can list them if you want, but in short it covers the specific circumstances where the defendant does not mention something which they later rely on in court, ie. in their defence. The jury cannot draw an adverse inference because of their silence, but because of their failure to mention something while being questioned that they then bring up.It is not a carte blanche to take their silence as an indication that they are guilty, and the judge must specifically instruct the jury if they may draw an adverse influence, having ensured that all the conditions are met.Therefore, the right to remain silent is an absolute right. All that has changed is that the defendant cannot wait until they get to court and then offer up a cock and bull story at the last minute. (Insane then quotes from our comment from where we say “in the arguido status it is said “[You have the procedural right]…” to “…can be used as evidence. Can be used as adverse inference.”Bullshit. They are not warned that their silence allows an adverse inference, but rather that if they don't mention it now, and pull it out of a hat later, it may harm their defence. The reason that it may harm their defence is that the judge may instruct the jury that they may draw an adverse inference from the fact that the accused waited until his court appearance before claiming that someone else must have stolen his car, run over the deranged blogger, and parked his car back on his drive. I appreciate that this is a subtle difference and you're not very bright, so you probably won't understand."
Insane: “…introduced this change sets out very specific circumstances in which an adverse inference may be drawn”There are no “very specific circumstances in which an adverse inference may be drawn” in Portugal when one is arguido.Insane: “I can list them if you want, but in short it covers the specific circumstances where the defendant does not mention something which they later rely on in court, ie. in their defence.”There is no list of “specific circumstances where the defendant does not mention something which they later rely on in court” in Portugal when one is an arguido. One can say white during the investigation and black in court and only black can be taken into account AND the fact that one has said white IS disregarded.Insane: “The jury cannot draw an adverse inference because of their silence, but because of their failure to mention something while being questioned that they then bring up”Trial by jury (very rare) or the collective of judges (much more common) “cannot draw an adverse inference because of their silence” NOR “because of their failure to mention something while being questioned that they then bring up” in Portugal when one is an arguido.Insane: “They are not warned that their silence allows an adverse inference, but rather that if they don't mention it now, and pull it out of a hat later, it may harm their defence.”In Portugal an arguido can simply not “mention it now, and pull it out of a hat later” in court and in no way harm their defence.Insane: “The reason that it may harm their defence is that the judge may instruct the jury that they may draw an adverse inference from the fact that the accused waited until his court appearance before claiming that someone else must have stolen his car, run over the deranged blogger, and parked his car back on his drive.”As in Portugal an arguido say one thing during the investigation (in fact an arguido can say many things as he’s not bound to the truth) and say another in court, this has no application.Thank you Insane for showing how right we are.
Please note that we have only addressed up to now the consequences of opting to be silent between when under caution in the Uk and arguido in Portugal.Remember, both PeterMac (a man who alleges having a law degree) and Insane say that it's EXACTLY the same.We still have to address the differences when the defendant opts to speak, although above we have already shown one: in the UK it's unwise to pull something out of a hat which in Portugal that has no consequence other than make the prosecution deal with the "surprise" information then.For example, one can state during the investigation that one has stolen a car. Repeat it endelessly up until court. If in court one then says one has not stolen the car, then only that counts and what one has said before matters nothing.If the police have relied the accusation solely on the arguido's confession and doesn't have any other evidence to sustain the theft, then one just walks free.
Insane's nasty example of running a blogger over with his car, then lying to a court about it speaks volumes.Why do people align themselves with him? Presumably they find his “humour” equally amusing.
The launacy continues...Blacksmith/Sharples who ever it is appears to have started an offensive over the past few weeks. Other Blacksmith supporting blogs appear silent with scant activity as they wait. Is he the heroic knight out to silence the few blogs interested in the truth(leaving aside cmomm) of what happened that night. A laxitive to purge the McCann toxic information thats left on this site? It certainly looks that way. Here is man who reads none of your posts,but has enough knowledge of your blog to call you a liar? He manages to post questions to blogs he never reads. Eleven years of McCann reading and blog writing to what end? Does make you wonder why he invests so much time in demonisining,ridiculing and slandering your good selves. Who his paymaster??
Blacksmith hasn’t yet contradicted Sade, so we can assume they are on the same page?
"Other Blacksmith supporting blogs appear silent with scant activity as they wait" Please, if you wouldn't mind, direct me to these. Waiting in anticipation 🙂
Hi Textusa,Martin Brunt video,100% DNA,quotes that the McCann family were in Portugal for Two weeks?Jez Wilkens statement 3 May 2007,Gerry McCann,outside apartment 5a,that Jez(wishes he was in Portugal for more than one week)Gerry McCann then states this is their Second Week!The McCann's were supposed to have been spotted on a Nudist Beach in Portugal April 21-28th 2007,but it couldn't be them due to David Payne arranging the Hotel accommodation booking?Who booked the flights from Birmingham Airport,East Midlands for April 28th to 5th May 2007(DP,Fiona or Gerry,Kate)?Bell Pottinger in Prai Da Luiz April 21 2007,Mark Warner,same time as the McCann's,"They(McCanns) paid me,Bell-Pottiger £500,000,Leveson Inquiry-Red Top News Papers?Who booked the McCann's Holiday (DP) flying out from Birmingham,Video of Madeleine on Bus(Gerry, *uck off),climbing steps onto the plane?Were the Flight tickets fabricated?GP Julian Totman,Block G4 apartment for Two weeks,but only took up residence for the Second week,did a financial Doctor induced Family take up a "weeks Free" holiday,since being in Southern Ireland,Donegal?Eleven Years later a GP Julian Totman claims to be"Creche Dad" DCI Andy Redwoods revelation moment moving time frame to One Hour of abduction process,Smithman?Was there ever an Abductor or was it all in the mind,manipulated into the story?When will the lies and deceit stop in Madeleine McCann's disappearance,when they are all firmly locked away incarcerated to reflect on their deceptions?
Unpublished Anonymous at 18 May 2018, 15:29:00,We would never speak of the character you refer to in the same breath as Brenda Leyland.To even mention him in the same sentence is a profoundly disgusting insult to the poor woman.
Textusa setting out the extract from Jane Tanners statement really shows the ridiculousness of a the big round table. I very disappointed in John Blacksmiths attack on your blog. I always thought both of you were fighting the GMW together. He done a good job of reinitiating what you had to say about the MSM putting pressure on to close Grange and often I thought while he didn't share your conviction of powerful people supporting the McCanns his work did compliment a lot of the work you done. I've always supported him in his condemnation of Bennet and Co but by turning on you I feel he has undermined a sense of fair play on his behalf.
Just reading K’s book about Neves.Particularly interesting her comments about Murat and blaming Neves for making her suspect him.Neves was far more involved with her than GA and accused her, he saw her complete breakdown and almost got a confession, as GA says in his book.K doesn’t like him, quite clearly and if I were him, I’d be pretty angry about what she says.I don’t think his promotion will please them.It’s also Neves who tells K that Silvia B saw Murat outside the apt that night. K says Sylvia was supposed to attend the confrontation with Murat and T3 but Sylvia didn’t attend. Interesting.
Apologies for an error in my last comment. It wasn’t GA who mentioned a potential confession by K in his book. I knew I’d read something and went back to check what I’d said when I couldn’t find it in his book.I knew I’d read something about GA in relation to a confession and now find it was Blacksmith’s blogAh, that mystery - July 2011It was a response to a question he asked GA. “I was told that the parents’ lawyer Abreu had initiated an attempt to find the most favourable charges possible against his clients, at the McCanns direct request.”He writes that they were anxious to make a clean breast of the matter.Sorry, no intention to mislead, but it’s not easy to always accurately recall who said what and where. I should have checked first.
Silvia B wasn't sure the man she saw was RM, according to her description it could have been Adriaan Jacobus Van Marais. By July she might have made up her mind that she didn't see RM that night. She requested a meeting with the PJ and was heard on the July 26 about Jane T's first description of Tannerman, quite different from what Jane told the PJ the following day.http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/SILVIA_BATISTA.htm#p9p1975to1977
Luis Neves was much tougher than GA, sure, and imo not susceptible to KMC's charms, but he didn't write a best seller (followed by a documentary) ruining the idea that MMC got out of 5A alive.
Anonymous 22 May 2018, 11:08:00, 13:31,It seems somebody has read you today:https://twitter.com/2for1Tickets/status/994132574376288256“Canine Truth@K9TruthVery interesting piece by Blacksmith (from "Ah, that mystery" on July 18th 2011) about what happened between Abreu + the PJ in September 2007. It seems his info about Abreu's overtures + the PJ's expectations did not come directly from Amaral, but from an intermediary. #McCann https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dd0G_SxVAAAMo_d?format=jpg5:23 pm · 22 May 2018”*****The picture attached to this tweet contains the following text:“It is some six months since, in response to questions I had asked Goncalo Amaral, I was told that the parents' lawyer Abreu, had initiated the attempt to find the most favourable charges possible against his clients' at the McCanns' direct request. This, by the way, was not based on panicky misunderstandings on September 6 but had been under exploration since the crucial August 8 police interview, the details of which have only been made partially public now, by Kate McCann. There was no plea bargaining. Instead the police were willing to accept that Kate McCann was a sick woman, as Kate's description of their comments on August 8 illustrates. Incidentally their diagnosis of her as revealed in that interview stands up very well, and fairly, when compared with her revelation that for months in 2007 she suffered from feelings of disassociation and demonic possession that can only be described as psychotic. Where she and the PJ differ is that she suggests that the psychosis developed after 10 pm on May 3 while they believe it had begun before that. We’ve had four years to watch the woman while the PJ had three months: they did well. Given what they believed to be her state of mind it was obvious that a punitive sentence was never going to be demanded by coppers with any insight and human decency — which these officers, despite the filth that the parents, their employees and their supporters have thrown at them — possess in plenty, the woman needed help, for Christ's sake, as she still does. It was the unanimous view of the three officers and Amaral that the parents and their lawyer left on the night of September 6 anxious to make a clean breast of the matter. And months after the Portuguese messages along comes this desperately disturbed woman to confirm the broad picture. In the wild and emotional discussions with Abreu which accompanied their change of mind that night there were few claims that they might do so because of their innocence. Gerry McCann's collapse onto his knees, tearfully shouting that they were finished, that their lives were over, was not followed by any ringing peroration as he eventually rose to his feet that they were innocent or being framed. No, he spat out words more fitted to a Glasgow crook than to an innocent doctor - "they've got nothing".Did lawyers Michael Caplan QC and Angus McBride really help Kate McCann? Really? I can't even be bothered any more to list the number of problems that we have the answers to now. What about that famous, if ignominious, argument in their favour, for instance, that no couple could have gone on behaving "normally" at the tapas table that night, knowing their child was dead. Really? Now read the August 8 stuff in Madeleine to see the state they were in and the incredible accusations that the police had put to them. Then check Gerry McCann's blogs and their interviews for any hint of what must have been churning away in their minds. That pair would act naturally if they'd been turned into pillars of salt. Nah, there are details to wrap up but the challenge is gone. We know what happened. From now on it's just a question of whether they’ll face criminal justice — can anyone really be bothered? — before Amaral eventually cleans them out in the libel courts. But that's just postscript.”
Textusa,Yes, K9 shows he has read me because he slightly misinterprets my correction.There was no intermediary, Blacksmith says GA answered his question.My correction/apology was that GA didn’t say anything in his book, but it was Blacksmith who said GA told him.
https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=1692779634152147&id=294140824016042Ben Thompson: You're an out and out liar, Textusa. You are framing the author of the NotTextusa blog, as the vile pro McCann, "Walker". NotTextusa is NOT a pro. Just someone who can see right through your bullshit. You're a con artist.******1 like to date: Sade Anslow
It’s always interesting to see our fiercest critics agree with us. In this case, Meerkat.Meerkat seems to agree with us that Crechedad = Tannerman = Totman.https://mobile.twitter.com/2for1Tickets/status/993387959171809280aleksandr orlov@2for1Tickets“I mean, really? Who's next? Dr Kidnicker? Nurse Nabber? Prof. Pinchem? #mccann https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dck5CvNWsAELV6d?format=jpg8:12 am · 7 May 2018”******The picture attached to the tweet has 3 versions of Tannerman.From left to right.- Crèchedad holding a ginger cat (guesses at what this may mean, we don’t have any idea, maybe his/her closest friends can ask him/her)- Tannerman, with bagpipes (which we suppose means Gerry as he’s Scottish)- Totman, holding Crechedad.Inset in the picture is the following:“Winner of THIS month’s “I was Bundleman” Award TOTman! ©®”This particular tweet from Meerkat has 17 likes, the first of which is from SadeElisha86. Interesting.https://mobile.twitter.com/2for1Tickets/status/993387959171809280/likes
Just a confirmation how much the Meerkat agrees with us (however it must be said that although we have said that Operation Grange, as a police operation is a farce - but the only tool available to us to out the truth, we haven't gone as far as the Meerkat in calling Redwood a complete idiot):https://mobile.twitter.com/2for1Tickets/status/994132574376288256“aleksandr orlov@2for1Tickets"In the year 25-25, if Bundleman is still alive..." #mccann https://mobile.twitter.com/2for1Tickets/status/994132574376288256/photo/19:30 am · 9 May 2018”*****The GIF attached to this tweet is made up of the following slides:Slide 1From the liar [Jane Tanner] who brought you… ..EGGMANwho miraculously morphed into BUNDLEMANSlide 2To the complete idiot [Andy Redwood] who gave us… ..A LAUGHwith a man 6 years in frozen suspension CRECHEMANSlide 3Just when you hoped he’d [Clarence Mitchell] buggered off…. ? OH FFS“Yay! I outdid that cryogenic Crechedad!” TOTMANSlide 4SO WHAT THE HELL NEXT….?Slide 5PAC-MAN? [images of Tannerman, Crechedad and Totman]Slide 6 PAC-MAN? [images of Tannerman, Crechedad and Totman] (from slide 5)OP GRANGEGAME OVERPLEASE INSERT ANOTHER £150k*****Interesting the Meerkat hasn’t tweeted since May 9
https://mobile.twitter.com/2for1Tickets/status/982264064742014977Orlov thinks RM involved.Has he told Ben? Blacksmith wouldn’t approve.
Anonymous 22 May 2018, 23:18:00,Thank you. Bringing it over to the blog:“aleksandr orlov@2for1TicketsReplying to @xxMichelleSxxI've gone over as many scenarios I can summon, listened to so many more, yet every one has a flaw that wipes it all out. I think we can conclude Gov protection & not an abduction - but that's about it. I happen to think Murat is involved, others don't. Hell, who knows?!!3:29 pm · 6 Apr 2018”******It seems that everyone can express their opinions on the case. Only when we do it, it’s offensive, disgusting, etc…
Hi Textusa,so the Parents of Madeleine McCann have sought a "judicial Review" of the UK Governments decision to axe a "Leveson 2" through court action,which was to inquire of Government and Police influences,phone hacking,collusion etc?So what "strange, mystical powers" do the McCann family possess to persaude a Court upon a review taken by a Government Minister, Mr Darren Hancock and fellow MP's vote not to proceed with a Leveson 2 Inquiry,(Blackmail MI5)?So the same Government(s) who have assisted the Parents and Family of Madeleine McCann,for the past Eleven years, Tony Blair,Gordon Brown,David Cameron,Theresa May,Operation Grange,Rebekah Brooks persauding(Blackmailing Leveson)into a review? Now having the"Special couple" urinate on the front lawn in appreciation that have have done for them these past Eleven years?Nipping nastily at Theresa May's heels,Operation Grange,put up or shut up!
Anon 18.17 its Matt Hancock not Darren,Matt Hancock fancies himself as a Michael Gove type of character,an oily little twonk more like it,sorry Matt,but if the cap fits?
Anonymous 22 May 2018, 18:17:00,The McCanns are on a list of people in the body of the article. There’s nothing to suggest this came about solely because of their influence.It’s just an attention grabbing headline. Not even sure they’re an asset to Hacked Off these days. Or to Murdoch.
We would like explain to readers the reason for our latest silence. We have been looking at the implications the European Investigation Order may have in what we have been writing about what we have stated (and maintain): that if Operation Grange questions the McCanns, it will kill any prosecution of the case in Portugal.In this, we were contested by PeterMac and Insane.We will soon continue to publish comments on the issue but there’s no longer any urgency to do so as we have noted that the calls for OG to interview the McCanns seem to have died down.We don’t know why that happened. It certainly cannot be because of our blog and its only 6 readers.
http://blacksmithbureau.blogspot.co.uk/2018/05/the-accomplice.htmlAs Blacksmith has not yet confirmed or denied that Sade Anslow's interpretation of his words is the correct one, we will continue to trust our reading abilities and think he believes that Tannerman = Crecheman = Totman.Here is another area in which we are in total agreement with Blacksmith. We’ve always said the same. For years, since 2009.http://textusa.blogspot.pt/2009/08/clarence-mitchell-luckiest-unluckiest.htmlMitchell is a nobody and suggestions he is working for MI5 are nonsense.They employ people with intelligence and an ability not to make total fools of themselves.If he was paid to lie, then he deserves everything coming to him, under the law and delivered by the justice system.
Hi Textusa,just a quick point,what with all the lies,deceitfulness and manipulations involved in the disappearance of Madeleine McCann and the Cover Up for the past Eleven years?There was an infamous couple from the 1960's who were named as "Monsters" both now deceased.If it ever "Transpires" that a certain known group of collective friends had become involved in the disappearance of Madeleine McCann,the UK Dictionary may have to use a very different word,or is this just another reason as to use a D-Notice in this case,"On grounds of "National Security" !
If Blacksmith says JT sighting is an exit strategy which will be honoured, that surely means he is saying that JT will be exonerated by OG and others who may be involved with any potential prosecution, as she DID actually see a man carrying his daughter across his arms, and Totman demonstrated that position in his police photograph; so he WAS the man she claims she saw?
Although I don’t like to get drawn in to these exchanges I’m perfectly happy to clarify.But first I’m going to ask people a question for themselves. If you decide, for whatever reason, to claim that Scotland Yard, a British ambassador, and David Cameron, for example, are not telling the truth, then how on earth do you determine who you are going to believe?I ask not to prove a point – it’s a bit late for that – but out of puzzlement: can you not see the self-defeating nature of such a mind-set? You are left with nobody. Except personal preference, which is by far the most untrustworthy guide of all. I always think of waiting for a train. At any given time there is no way of knowing that the station announcer is telling the truth. Yet most of us assume that the he/she has not just gone mad, or been seized in the last half-hour and forced to broadcast information that will result in a crash; instead we listen to the announcements and walk towards the relevant platform expecting to find a train home, not a nail-filled bomb.Because what alternative is there? Refuse to use trains? Creep up to the announcer’s booth to see if they are foaming at the mouth every evening?It is what being part of a society means: a provisional agreement that members of our own democratic group can be trusted to follow the rules that most of us were taught at school, whether they are train announcers, cab drivers – there could be gas vents – or politicians. Because it suits them and us. If it clearly and unmistakeably breaks down then that’s a different matter and the killing will begin. Until then most of us make working assumptions of trust.Now, the question. Yes, I believe that Grange is sticking to the truth and therefore I accept, broadly, what it says. Do you expect me to accept what Peter Mac or R. Hall say instead? I’ve said nothing about exoneration. An “exit route” means that she is not being accused of anything except making a mistaken identification. That’s fine, that does the job: the identification is dead but JT is not being accused of any wrong-doing since a mistake is not a crime. Do people here have an alternative strategy? Accuse her of making it all up? With what evidence? And what will she do then? Get a lawyer, as is her right, and say nothing. Is that what you want? Can’t you understand that she is the door that opens the way into the case and silence is the one thing you don't want? Next. While I accept Grange’s Crimewatch statements that JT saw an innocent man rather than inventing someone (but, as Redwood didn’t add, because it didn’t suit him, embroidered him in the timeline) I have seen no evidence whatever that Totman is the man.For the thousandth time, seeing something in the newspapers doesn’t make it true. It is quite possible that it is him, just as it was before the Sun story, but that story has added nothing to the facts except a possible name. The photographs neither validate not rebut the identification and alter nothing about Grange’s work.The origins of the Sun piece are also exceptionally murky: there is no way of knowing why it has been produced - but that it was produced for a reason is absolutely certain. So it stinks too much to be of any use, apart from evidence that the press are willing to wind up the McCanns again. And I’ve never been one for having my strings jerked by anonymous scum journalists.
Blacksmith,“While I accept Grange’s Crimewatch statements that JT saw an innocent man rather than inventing someone”, tells us that when Sade says you say JT is lying, she, Sade is wrong.“For the thousandth time, seeing something in the newspapers doesn’t make it true. It is quite possible that it is him [Totman]”, tells us that if we are to believe the Sun then she saw Totman, if we are not, then it’s only possible she did.But, if we’re left with the it’s only possible she did – means we have to trust the Sun and if we don’t trust this newspaper then one cannot say, as Sade says you say, that Totman is real.According to you, if we trust the Sun, then Sade is wrong because Tanner saw Totman and if we don’t trust it then Sade is wrong in saying that Totman is Crecheman because we only have the Sun telling us that.You seem to say there’s no evidence that Totman is the man. That means Tanner sees Jez and Gerry and they don’t see her. She sees one tea-tray man carrying a girl when at the same time Totman was also carrying his daughter in that strange position that night at that T-Section but only sees one of them.Totman does not see the other tea-tray man, Tanner doesn’t see Totman. Totman doesn’t see Tanner, Gerry and Jez. Gerry and Jez don’t see Totman nor the other tea-tray man.So how many men were there carrying a girl in that strange position that night at that time?Quite a strange crowd on that T-section that night.Honestly, your comment causes more confusion that resolves anything.Blacksmith:#1 - Do you believe Tanner saw a tea- tray man carrying a girl? Yes or no.#2 - If yes to the above, do you believe that tea-tray man was Totman? Yes or no.#3 - If yes to the above, do you believe Totman was carrying his daughter in such a strange manner and walking away from his apartment which he had just passed by? Yes or no.#4 - Do you believe that Redwood interview Totman? Yes or no.We don’t expect an answer as to whether Redwood believed either Tanner or Totman. Nobody but him knows that.
My opinion, for what it’s worth:JT didn’t see anyone carrying anyone.Totman may have carried his daughter home, but I don’t believe in that position and not going in the opposite direction to his apartment.Why he came forward to demonstrate that he carried his daughter home in that position is an important question.Did he say this to help JT when her sighting was questioned by the PJ?Nobody who believes it was Totman has explained why he was walking in the opposite direction to his apartment, or explained his direction of travel.Agree we only have the Sun (so beloved in Liverpool) to rely on for identifying Totman, but no denial from him so far.All the attempts at clarification so far have seemed like attempts to square a circle.
I'll be patient.1) What Sade says is a matter for her and you, not me. I have said nothing about JT lying: I am not going to libel people by calling them liars without having the evidence to back it up.So forget it. FWIW I have never believed that JT invented a sighting out of nothing as part of a planned course of deception. That's because, again, there is not the slightest evidence that she did so. 2)"...tells us that if we are to believe the Sun then she saw Totman, if we are not, then it’s only possible she did."With respect that is complete and utter nonsense. I really wish you would listen to me about reading skills. The Sun does not, repeat not, say that JT saw Totman. Here's the link for you again https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/6225547/madeleine-mccann-gp-sighting-waste/ Please show me where it says anything of the sort. Do you think they don't have lawyers? For Christ's sake, just for once read the words. They are very carefully written. Out of this complete failure to read what even a tabloid newspaper actually says you then construct a sandcastle of assumptions in the following paragraphs that are yours alone. I cannot help you with those. You wrote "You seem to say there’s no evidence that Totman is the man." Of course there is no evidence in the Sun that Totman is the person. You think a hearsay story with a man's wife that doesn't mention the Grange enquiry at all, doesn't quote the doctor saying "I know it was me", gives no record of who spoke to her, doesn't give the circumstances of the interview and what else was said and, I repeat, does not claim that Totman is the person - you think that is evidence that he is? Where are you at?It's a useless and no doubt contaminated source: if Totman is the person then it will be confirmed elsewhere in a reputable manner. I'm happy to wait till then. And I repeat also, it makes no difference whatever to what we already knew. Now the evidence, not my opinion: JT claimed a sighting of an abductor. That's in the files. The head of Grange stated, on the record, to the public, that she didn't. That's it, that's what matters in the case of the missing child.He then added that she saw a holiday-maker carrying a child and he made a photograph available of the latter posing in supposedly accurate clothes. That's it. He accused her of nothing, as the transcripts show.Five years later a tabloid newspaper comes out with a story about it, with the faults I've described above and a single blurry photograph. It neither criticises nor confirms nor, of course, refutes the formal evidence I've given you above. I'm not interested, except, as I wrote, that the press are being a little more suggestive about the case.I'm sorry but the tea-tray questions etc. are incomprehensible and a matter for you, not me.
"JT is not being accused of any wrong-doing since a mistake is not a crime."A mistake is certainly not necessary a crime, but context sometimes turns mistakes into crimes. JT didn't invent the way the child was carried, though that detail didn't strike her, she was stunned by the barefeet and the absence of blanket (btw Crechedad used a blanket). What JT invented in her May 4 statement at the DIC of Portimao is (at least) where she was and where Tannerman was when she spotted him, as well as her passing GMC and JW just before. Her report of Tannerman to Rachael, Fiona, the GNR, Silvia B makes no mention of passing by GMC and JW, locates Tannerman in Agostinho da Silva (not at the T junction) and herself in the corridor along block 5, in the night of May 3/4. A mistake this, really ?
Blacksmith,About reading skills, we have never said that the Sun said Tanner saw Totman. What we read, and if we were not able to read properly please be patient again and correct us, is that the Sun is the ONLY source speaking about Totman as the man identified by the Met in the UK Crimewatch as the man the Met, not the Sun nor Tanner, say Tanner saw that night, as per PJ Files.So, what we are saying is that to believe Totman is real, then one must believe in the Sun.One thing is certain, he appears to be real, as even though reported in an unreliable paper as the Sun, as Anonymous 23 May 2018, 22:49:00 has said, Totman has not to this day said the article was false.You say:“Now the evidence, not my opinion: JT claimed a sighting of an abductor. That's in the files. The head of Grange stated, on the record, to the public, that she didn't. That's it, that's what matters in the case of the missing child.He then added that she saw a holiday-maker carrying a child and he made a photograph available of the latter posing in supposedly accurate clothes. That's it. He accused her of nothing, as the transcripts show.”No, that’s not it. Factually, when “The head of Grange stated, on the record, to the public” that Tanner didn’t see an abductor was BECAUSE “he then added that she saw a holiday-maker carrying a child” instead which the Sun now says is Totman.Thus the deduction, which we believe is a reasonable one to make, that the Met has publicly stated that Tanner saw Totman.And unless the Met is prone to jump baselessly to conclusions, we have to assume that for them to have said, as they did say publicly, that the man the Tanner saw that night was not a possible abductor but simply a guest carrying his daughter home after picking her up from the crèche (who the Sun now says is Totman), then it was because that guest carried the child in the same way as pictured by Tanner, was at the time and place Tanner says she saw the man, was walking in the direction Tanner says he was walking and was approximately dressed the way Tanner says he was.Agree?
Blacksmith’s station announcer analogy isn’t convincing - what incentive does a station announcer have to lie?Yes, we all want and need to believe that our democracy - our politicians, our media, police , legal institutions can be relied on to achieve justice.But we also knew that our idealistic hopes are often abused.We need to know why so many people seem to be obstructing justice in this case.
Blacksmith,About Sade Anslow. And about being between her and us. It's not.She decided to take up your banner for some reason on the internet and explain in her own words what you had said.As we and Sade read differently your words, we simply wanted to make it clear what you had said from what she said you had said. It seems we were right in wanting to do that as it's evident there seems to be significant differences between what you say you say and what she adamantly states you do.
Oh for crying out loud! I shouldn't even bother, I really shouldn't! But actually, now you use my name in your perfidious insistence to discredit ANYTHING and ANYONE who dares not bow down to you, I simply must. And I've lost all manners.There is a MAN He goes by many names In some forms he exists In some he is pure fabricationThe template of this man is the cardboard cut out upon which many have decorated, with their truth pens, their lie pens, their not sure pens, and, not forgetting, those "fuckwitted" mental pens. You really shouldn't have tied yourself in to comments only Textusa, cos I for one could REALLY do with a few diagrams and arrows right now to get my point across - the same point I've been trying to make for approximately 84 years.My best attempt, in words. There was "a guy", identified by Grange as an innocent holiday maker. That guy, was likely seen by Tanner, innocently carrying his child home (no, nobody gives two shits as to how much like carrying a tea tray it was, because how many people, still alive have ever seen anyone carrying a f**king tea tray??) Tanner's "sighting" of 'the guy' was MANIPULATED by the group, and it's fair to assume she - Tanner- went along with this deception somewhat, probably out of sheer panic, pressure and god knows what other emotions that becomes of *one* in a situation like this. 'The guy' has had many nicknames, each arising from ridiculous, ever changing assertions about his appearance. There is still only ONE 'guy'The guy *apparently*, actually seen, and the guy he morphed into courtesy of team McCann. Now, quite recently, 'the guy' is outed - outed! - and named as a Mr Julian Totman. We cannot prove Mr Totman has the slightest thing to do with 'the guy' (crecheman, eggman, bundleman et cetera, et cetera.But we can assume the "story" of Totman is tying in to the rest of the narrative regarding 'the guy', can we not? Presumptuous, of course. But so incredibly rare that there could be some other scenario where he might fit, I'd say presumption can be forgiven here. So no, we don't know if a guy *actually* named Totman exists, or if he thought he could have been 'the guy'. It's just a name after all. Textusa, it is not the name Totman that is important. This 'news' from those who deliver anything but, is irrelevant. BS believing Tanner saw 'a guy' DOES NOT equate to BS claiming Tanner was TRUTHFUL. If you can't get your head around that incredibly simple fact you really do need to walk away, there is no help to offer. I'll repeat now what I've said before (again, all credit to Blacksmith) ; Redwood DID NOT Think Tanner WAS TRUTHFUL about her sighting- he was DARK SKINNED.Redwood insists his 'Crecheman' (named now as Totman) was the man she saw The McCanns refute this, stubbornly refusing to take the sketch efit down from the website. Tanner, interestingly, has NEVER refuted it. Why is that? Why? Well come on, show it to us! 🙂
John when you say that " An “exit route” means that she is not being accused of anything except making a mistaken identification. That’s fine, that does the job: the identification is dead but JT is not being accused of any wrong-doing since a mistake is not a crime" do you believe this to be true that her part in this whole saga was simply mistakenly identifying an innocent holiday maker for an abductor. I feel that while as you say Payne and co conviently fitted this case of mistaken identity into their abduction narrative Tanner herself continually lied and lied some more changing the discription of who she seen and her false identification of Murat in the surveillance van
JT, once she signed the invention of passing GMC and JW just before spotting T, could hardly step backwards. Hence a lying process that likely started as the defence of a noble cause. JT's narratives are more revealing than concealing.Without JT's first Portimao statement, we wouldn't be here discussing over and over again a case that imo is basically a denial issue. Protecting the self by questioning reality (the real didn't occur), the denial of reality, like faith, is capable of lifting mountains : to return a fact like a pancake, to make the opposites compatible, to abolish responsibilities... Most people in fact don't want the truth, they only want to be continuously reassured that what they believe is the truth.
The Sun article got it wrong.Jane says she would recognise the man, in her statement. In that case, even if she couldn’t remember the face of the fellow tennis player from the coffee morning introduction that night, Leicester police could have asked her if it was possible she had seen Dr Totman, who had now come forward to say he was carrying his child home in the way she described, at that time.I’m sure they could have produced a photo of him to remind her.If it was Totman passing by, would LP have asked him why in that direction.Then when Redwood took the photo of the man we presume is Totman, did he not ask Jane to identify him as the man she saw without mentioning his name, before releasing the photo to the public? He could have shown her the unedited photo. She could then say yes, no or not certain.Redwood makes no mention of asking Jane to do so.
Apologies, forgot to link the Mirror article in my comment. Here it is:https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/editors-picks/madeleine-mccann-bungling-police-prime-2965027.ampSun article doesn’t mention the LP questionnaire. If Mirror article is true, LP have known if Totman is the man for a long time.We don’t know which 81 LP documents were released to the Mcs after the Ward of Court hearing, but this could have been one of the documents.We don’t know who leaked the identity of Totman and why. If we did, it would tell us a lot.
Hello.I will repeat for the last time that I'm not interested in what the Sun has to say about anything and I cannot help you with the difficulties you seem to be having.The assault I made on the Usual Suspects this spring was that they had been successfully manipulated - conned, tricked or brainwashed, take your choice - into whipping up feeling against Grange by newspaper stories that purported to be factual but were part of a planned campaign of false stories. And now that is happening to you and, I presume, some of your readers, with the Sun story. Stop reading newspapers about the case! You will lose absolutely nothing except the confusion that unknown parties have so successfully implanted in your minds. Stop reading them, they are poisoned wells! The fate of the McCanns is being decided elsewhere.Now Sade. From what I've seen of her comments she has simply followed the pointers from the primary sources I provided - and which I always provide - thought hard about them and then come to a similar conclusion to me based on that available evidence, not on some esoteric secret knowledge of my own. Or she may have got there first, I wouldn't know.All I've done in this context is ignore bullshit newspapers and refer to the JT statements in the files, to the typed timeline in the files and to the head of Grange's on the record statements to the public. When there is some more, unpoisoned, primary evidence that advances our knowledge I will let you know. I get the impression, somehow, that Sade thinks very much for herself. And by the way, Sade, I was very moved and impressed by your story of the child with difficulties and the progress being made. Marvellous news. Just as the news that Grange's work is coming to fruition is marvellous news for the rest of us. How could it not be? Cheers.
Blacksmith,We will then withdraw the Sun from the question we put in our comment made at 24 May 2018, 08:38:00:Unless the Met is prone to jump baselessly to conclusions, we have to assume that for them to have said, as they did say publicly, that the man the Tanner saw that night was not a possible abductor but simply a guest carrying his daughter home after picking her up from the crèche, then it was because that guest carried the child in the same way as pictured by Tanner, was at the time and place Tanner says she saw the man, was walking in the direction Tanner says he was walking and was approximately dressed the way Tanner says he was.Agree?
In summary, In order to obtain Tanner's "colaboration" it was necessary she was not treated as a suspect but as someone who made a mistake. I put colaboration in "" as she may be actively colaborating or it may be a case it was necessary only to shift the time frame without implying she made a false statement. Tanner could have seen someone carrying a child earlier or later and adapted him to suit the narrative. It is irrelevant, as it is irrelevant how the man carried the child or not and in which direction he is walking. All that is required here is to take the abduction from that time frame and for that one has to gain Tanner's "colaboration". How was it done? Very simply. Redwood got the night creche records or the control risks statements sees that someone was walking with a child at around that time of night.He presented new crecheman to the world in 2013. It was the only way to make it an innocent mistake by a witness and further give credence to Martin Smith by focusing on his sighting. Do I think he believed her? No, personally I don't. Do I think she lied. Yes I do but that is only my opinion . But this is clearly a way out for her without further legal consequences. The Sun's article is irrelevant as are most media articles about this case. Over 90% of the article about this case are incorrect and some pure inventions that go to the point of creating dialogues that never existed , as is the case with articles that put Martin Smith or his family speaking to Smithman. He never did and neither does Gemma O' Doherty claim that. The only thing Gemma confirms with Smith is the fact that he never took back his claim that he saw GM and addresses the BBC lie regarding the same matter and their refusal to correct it after M. Smith contacted them . The remaining of the article comes from several sources as PJ statements and media. Never a good idea. One sticks to the statements and some very few articles that don't even reach double digits. Still regarding the Sun, it is clear Totman is not the source for it and I believe neither is his wife. Should it be him, the Sun would certainly not need to get a picture of him printed years ago in a local paper. Who is behind it and why was itprinted , no idea. The more one gets caught up with media articles the farther one is from the actual facts.
Hi Txtusa,So Operation Grange are still Not looking for Smithman after the failed e-fits or like wise Smithman Not exonerated,Abductor?
For someone who doesn’t bother with the Sun - BS certainly quotes it a lot! http://blacksmithbureau.blogspot.ie/2018/05/that-bus-doesnt-stop-no-more.html?m=1
Anonymous 24 May 2018, 17:17:00,Why is the way Crechedad carried the child irrelevant? That’s the main characteristic of the man Tanner claims she saw. Nobody carries a child like that. Why do you think that Totman on seeing his face on the Sun linking him to the Maddie case and says or does nothing to this day?Why do you think Totman, supposing he was correctly identified, pose as he did? Or are you saying it’s not him in the photo? In that case, why do you think he sees that he’s clearly linked to that photo put out publicly by the Met, knows it’s not him and also does nothing about it?And neither does the Met correct the Sun?Why?The crime editor, Mike Sullivan, who wrote Sun article was found not guilty of phone hacking a few years ago.http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/sun-crime-editor-mike-sullivan-cleared-after-14-months-police-bail/We would think he would now be wary of printing any fabricated fact such as naming a person. We know it’s the Sun, a paper we wouldn’t soil our hands with but he’s not just a low-level journalist on the paper nor is Dr Totman some poor helpless man Maybe somebody can ask him about outing Totman, on his twitter?https://mobile.twitter.com/crimejournoAs for Gemma O’Doherty, you say “Over 90% of the article about this case are incorrect and some pure inventions that go to the point of creating dialogues that never existed , as is the case with articles that put Martin Smith or his family speaking to Smithman. He never did and neither does Gemma O' Doherty claim that.”You are wrong. Gemma O’Doherty claims it VERY CLEARLY: “A member of Martin’s family made a comment towards him that the child was sleeping but he did not respond or make eye contact, keeping his head down as he hurriedly headed in the direction of the coast.”http://textusa.blogspot.pt/2018/04/the-ambush.html
Textusa, you aren't going to get a word from Grange about the Tanner affair until they are ready, whatever you assume. And I've got nothing more to say about it. Until more facts are available.
Blacksmith,We were only asking your opinion about what was ALREADY said by Grange about Crechedad.
"Textusa, you aren't going to get a word from Grange about the Tanner affair until they are ready, whatever you assume."How do you know, Blacksmith? Is Grange sharing information with you? Reading your posts it looks like they do! Why would they do that with a blogger?
Assuming for once, the Sun article about Totman is true and putting to one side whether he was or wasn’t seen by Tanner, he was a vital witness to events of that evening; something he recognised , according to his wife, as he approached the GNR.What he didn’t do is speak to the McCanns or their friends. That I find unbelievable, especially as they had played tennis together.Wouldn’t he want to tell them where he was when M went missing and the fact he didn’t see anyone suspicious?What a witness who was in the vicinity at the time didn’t see can be as important as what they did see. It could have been important for any assessment of timings.
Anonymous 21:47, had the GNR be approached and had they found that JT was an interesting witness, they would have sent him to the PJ to make a statement. It seems that JT answered a LC questionnaire and that the LC didn't find it interesting enough to share it with the PJ. If JT knew what Tannerman looked like, hence could be him, despite no e-fit was published (except for the hairy egg), he was very likely informed by the MCs.
"Nobody carries a child like that". First aiders, firemen carry this way children either dead or in a coma because it would be more difficult to carry them the way Smithman carried the MMC lookalike.
John Blacksmith,If we shouldn't believe in Totman because we shouldn't believe in the Sun then what "exit route" was offered to Tanner that you speak of in your blog?
Textusa, let's start with Gemma O'Doherty. As I explained in my post, her account of her conversation with Martin Smith is regarding the BBC and the fact that it was claimed he had retracted his statement. The remaining of the article is an account of events based on statements and media. Reading the article shows that the account of the actual conversation starts from this paragraph on: -"In recent weeks, I have spoken to Martin Smith at his home in Drogheda. He told me he continues to stand by everything he said to police in 2007. At no point did he withdraw his statement or change his mind about the sighting."https://villagemagazine.ie/index.php/2018/02/maddie-did-the-bbc-bend-the-truth/The Crime Editor of The Sun was not found guilty of hacking, I find it hard to relate that fact to the subject at hand. Hacking and printing fables , as is the norm in The Sun, are certainly not comparable. What could possibly happen to him for exercising the Sun's usual poetic licence? His sources, even if they don't exist, are protected. Good luck with proving he made it up or got it by dubious means. Why did Totman say nothing? I wouldn't know, but so many options are possible. He can be the man who picked a child from the creche and may not be allowed to speak as he is part of an investigation, he may not want to get involved with the Sun, he may have written to them and his complaint was not published, he may not give a damn, who knows. Grange, have you ever seen them asking the media to retract anything in relation to this case? As for the remaining questions, I addressed them in my original post and there is no need to repeat myself as we would only be going around in circles. I am not here to prove you wrong or to change your mind and I don't appreciate being asked circular questions formulated so that you get a reply that will suit you. Neither will happen.
Who is Jane Tanner to be offered a deal by the Met? To rat on the Mcs? Seriously? The T9 are just a group of normal people so why the need for such a special treatment?Only if it's not them who are being protected. That is obvious to all.
It's not them who are being protected, but the important people who believed them who need protection.
Thank you John Blacksmith, very kind words.Can I just stress, whatever people think of my recent speaking out in support of Blacksmith's blogs, it is really nothing more than the fact I've just finished 3 years of university, and have found much more time on my hands of late, as I'm sure can be imagined! What I like to do with spare time is read, especially reading creative. Coupled with my interest in the McCann case, the bureau is the perfect choice for me. Ive only ever tried to explain it how I interpret it because I want others to benefit from the 'hope' it brings, and of course because it makes a lot of sense, what Blacksmith says. I've only gotten irritated over it with you Textusa because it has felt like you deliberately try to find fault or confusion in every sentence. That said, I don't actually feel as angry as I might come across sometimes- this is just the internet at the end of the day. But I apologise anyway, it's not how I prefer to hold discussions at all. So I'll leave it at that now, I won't get into it with you again Textusa.Hopefully we can all make sense of it all in some shape or form, but if not, I'm sure Grange will remain unaffected 🙂
Is there a reason for you not publishing my last comment Textusa? As I see the one above was made after mine?
We have now addressed the significant differences of opting for silence between being questioned under caution in the UK and while being an arguido in Portugal. From one’s silence, inferences can be taken, while in Portugal there cannot be any inferences taken from that option. The 48 questions Kate refused to answer demonstrate our point.But another relevant point is the differences between when one decides to speak. The rights are significantly different.The terms of the caution are clear about that (our caps): “The wording of the caution is:“You do not have to say anything. But, it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. ANYTHING YOU DO SAY MAY BE GIVEN IN EVIDENCE.”In Portugal there is ONE and ONLY ONE thing an arguido has to be truthful about, his/her name: Listed as a procedural duty: “To tell the truth regarding the questions asked by a competent authority about his identity and, whenever required by law, about his criminal record”.Note, when and only when required by law, has the arguido to be truthful about his criminal record. Very easy to sum up: “ALWAYS truthful about his/her name, always truthful WHEN REQUIRED about his/her criminal record”. About anything else s/he says, is not liable to be “given in evidence”.About this, we won’t expand any further. It’s so obvious that we think what is said above proves the point that it’s an absolute nonsense saying that being heard under caution in the UK is exactly the same as being heard as an arguido in Portugal.So now, we want to focus on the fact that an arguido can be untruthful to the authorities in Portugal without any consequences while the same does not happen in the UK and see what our critics have to say.If this is not a significant difference, we don’t know the significance of significant.
"an arguido can be untruthful to the authorities in Portugal without any consequences". Where did you find this, Textusa ? An arguido who, by speaking or keeping silent, did consciously hide the truth, will see that taken into account in Court. Why shouldn't he ?
Anne Guedes,So our readers who don't know Portuguese can better understand:https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=UoLbBAAAQBAJ&pg=PA579&lpg=PA579&dq=arguido+no+consequence+for+lying&source=bl&ots=AawC0daCoT&sig=8-qjB0foxx45dSgp8YDywnK6JeE&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiPscTCkqLbAhWGNcAKHcFNBxsQ6AEwAHoECAMQAQ#v=onepage&q=arguido%20no%20consequence%20for%20lying&f=false“5. The Right to SilenceThe Portuguese procedural system assigns the arguido the right to remain silent during all the stages of the procedure, from the moment when he/she is formally designated as argu The fact that the arguido decides to remain silent cannot be detrimental to him/herself. Moreover, the CCP does not threaten with a sanction of any kind the arguido that, having decided to talk instead of remaining silent, makes false declarations. This does not configure a 'right to lie', but merely a 'right not to be punished for lying’. As a consequence of the right to remain silent, the arguido has no duty of any kind to cooperate with the investigative authorities for the purpose of finding the truth (emo tenetur se ipsum accusare). Hence, besides the right to refuse to talk, the arguido has the right to refuse to provide any documents or information or to inform the prosecution about the nature of his/her defence. It should be also noted that, as a refraction of the privilege against self-incrimination, the arguido cannot, under any circumstances, make declarations under oath (CCP, Article 140(3)).The sole restriction to this right is prescribed by CCP, Article 61 (3) (b): the arguido must answer truthfully to the questions about his/her identity and, when imposed by law, about his/her criminal record, or he/she will be liable for the crimes of disobedience or of false statements.”
Thank you, Textusa, for this reference. Unlike in Common Law there's a "right not to be punished for lying", but it is obvious that judges and jury will appreciate the fact that the arguido lied, either making a false declaration or remaining silent.For instance a paedophile is prosecuted, evidence leaves no doubt about his crime but he insists he's innocent though his lawyer explained to him that if he doesn't confess the sanction will be higher. Why doesn't he confess then ? Because for instance he prefers a higher sanction than confessing what he did in front of his daughter.
Anne Guedes,“The fact that the arguido decides to remain silent cannot be detrimental to him/herself” is very clear. Under no circumstances can the opted silence, for whatever reason, affect the decision made by the court against a defendant.You may not agree with this. But that’s the law in Portugal.About sensitive decisions like the one you describe, it’s the right of the court to hold sessions in closed doors. Only those the judge deems necessary to be present are.If, in your case the paedo decides not to confess for the reasons you have expressed, it’s his/her choice to make and s/he has to live with the consequences of making it, It’s not up to the law to contemplate such situations.
In the case I alluded to, which is real and not unique (with variants), the sanction was higher, not because the defendent lied, but because he refused to recognize the crime. It is logical, in a social perspective, since one thing is somebody being aware they did something wrong, another being aware something is wrong but denying to have done it.The extract you sent says clearly that (the law) "does not configure a 'right to lie', but merely a 'right not to be punished for lying".I read it like this : the fact that the defendent lied can't be sanctioned as a crime in itself since lying is part of the "game" or, if you prefer, "human".
Anne Guedes,We think you are confusing silence with remorse. Not showing remorse is something that may aggravate a sentence while showing it may have a diminishing effect.Not confessing, in the case you speak of, may have been taken as the defendant not showing remorse by the judge and so was given a harsher sentence..However, silence and remorse are independent. A defendant may be absolutely silence and even so show remorse and can speak a lot (the latest case of Pedro Dias was quite the example of that) and show no remorse whatsoever.
How can a defendant stay silent and express remorse? Not possible.
No, Textusa, I'm not mixing up silence with remorse. "Remorse" has a roman catholic connotation, it has to be dealt with priests, not with lawyers and judges.
https://vhsfletchers.co.uk/credit-for-your-guilty-plea/In U.K., remorse plays a part in sentencing. It’s not an abstract concept related to Catholicism(probation reports address remorse or lack of) I don’t know how Portugal deals with remorse when sentencing.
http://www.theportugalnews.com/news/cop-killers-sentenced-to-22-years/23069Seems it’s same as U.K.It can play a part in sentencing.
Anne, your analogy of sex offender remaining silent to avoid saying what had happened in front of his daughter is debatable.Person may stay silent to avoid incriminating himself and waiting to see if police have a case. It’s up to them to prove they have.Once it gets to court and defendant pleads not guilty, witnesses will be called and the full facts of the allegation will be heard in open court, and probably reported in the press.So he won’t avoid anything by silence.He could opt to plead guilty and change his mind at the court room door, have the prosecution facts outlined, express remorse and get a sentencing discount for guilty plea.Of course, his remorse would be assessed by probation or psychiatric reports if such reports were ordered by the judge, prior to sentencing.
Anonymous 9:52, It should be clear that there's no "guilty or not guilty" starting position in inquisitorial systems. In Common Law the answer to this question is crucial: pleading guilty will directly bring you to a judge who will sentence you whereas if you plead not guilty the prosecution will try and convince a popular jury of citizens to convict you, unanimously, beyond reasonable doubt. In inquisitorial systems, even if the accused recognizes the facts, proclaiming guilt, the trial will take place, all the evidence will be presented and the witnesses heard. In the example I alluded to, the person accused of paedophilia didn't remain silent, he said he didn't do it, in spite of evidence against him, in spite of being more heavily sentenced not for lack of repentance but for not admitting the facts. You're right that the defendent avoids nothing by keeping silent. Silence is so ambiguous that it is meaningless. The effect of claiming not guilty is different. Positively and publicly stating that you are innocent leaves always a doubt. Even convicted you'll find people willing to believe you and support you. The MCs have spent 11 years hammering that they played no part in the disappearance of their child and it worked pretty well. Of course they only could do it because they were sure that the crucial evidence (a body) would never pop up. I don't think they have a stronger certainty than this one.
What has happened to the Cristobell site?No one seems to comment anymore.Have all the coffin dodgers over there finally kicked the bucket?
Nice to see Gemma O’Doherty retweeting her article:https://twitter.com/gemmaod1/status/1000143140475559937Gemma O'Doherty @gemmaod1Remembering this precious child tonight on #InternationalMissingChildrenDay. Her parents, the London Met and the British media have so many questions to answer about her disappearance #McCann https://villagemagazine.ie/index.php/2018/02/maddie-did-the-bbc-bend-the-truth/https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DeE44rhXUAAIuvj.jpg:large3:34 pm - 25 May 2018*****The blog hopes she will continue to dedicate her attention on this issue, as we have seen her dedicate herself to other noble causes.We wait eagerly what more she may have to say about the Maddie case.
Just out of interest, why are you waiting eagerly? It's not as if she agrees with you
and where does she 'disagree' ... do pray tell?
Well, I never saw her mention swinging, or dinners that never happened, did you?
Anonymous 26 May 2018, 19:43:00, 22:12:00,Indeed, Gemma O’Doherty does not mention swinging nor dinners that never happened. However, we are EAGERLY waiting for her to expand on the issues she tweeted about BUT did not include in the only article (up to know) she has written about the Maddie case:https://twitter.com/gemmaod1/status/949957327972683776“I will soon publish details of my investigation into the #MadeleineMcCann case including the many inconsistencies in her parents’ accounts of what happened, the Donegal links and how the British media have failed Madeleine and the public by refusing to ask hard questions”02:54 am - 07-Jan-18 (07/01/2018 08:54)https://twitter.com/gemmaod1/status/950321160134242304“The night before #MadeleineMcCann went missing, 2/5/07, Gerry left the tapas bar without his wife Kate, upsetting her. It was 11.50pm. She said she returned to the apartment ‘literally 5 minutes later’ and claimed Gerry was ‘snoring’. She slept in the children’s room that night”02:59 am - 08-Jan-18 (08/01/2018 08:59)https://twitter.com/gemmaod1/status/950323924654546945“On the day #MadeleineMcCann went missing, she was upset in the morning and asked her parents why they had not come the night before when she and her brother were crying. Kate and Gerry McCann left their children alone again that night.”03:10 - 08-Jan-18 (08/01/2018 09:10)https://twitter.com/gemmaod1/status/950330241536483328“The parents of #MadeleineMcCann have denied claims they gave their children sedatives before they put them to bed so they could Gemma O’Doherty out in the evening. Yet Gerry McCann says the so-called abductor may have sedated all three children. Why does he push this theory?”03:36 am - 08-Jan-18 (08/01/2018 09:36)https://twitter.com/gemmaod1/status/950333582672912384“This is Gerry McCann‘s response when asked if sedatives had been given to #MadeleineMcCann:”https://youtu.be/O5jtmkXXv5803:49 am - 08-Jan-18 (08/01/2018 09:49)https://twitter.com/gemmaod1/status/950336824735563776“This is an interesting compilation of clips showing Gerry McCann’s body language when he is asked difficult questions #MadeleineMcCann”https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CFzRFrIfv2M04:02 am - 08-Jan-18 (08/01/2018 10:02)https://twitter.com/gemmaod1/status/950344889350414336“In the weeks before #MadeleineMcCann was taken to Portugal, she went to Donegal with her parents. Her grandparents Ellen and Johnny came from there”04:34 am - 08-Jan-18 (08/01/2018 10:34)https://twitter.com/gemmaod1/status/950497275939381248“What did Gerry McCann have to laugh about in the days after #MadeleineMcCann disappearance?”https://youtu.be/zuJJlk8kkSw10:39 pm - 08-Jan-18 (09/01/2018 04:39)https://twitter.com/gemmaod1/status/950497772066824202“Gerry McCann loses his cool during an interview #MadeleineMcCann”https://youtu.be/hDTJFM0MYoU10:41 pm - 08-Jan-18 (09/01/2018 04:41)https://twitter.com/gemmaod1/status/950498818356924417“Gerry McCann’s reaction when asked if he killed his daughter #MadeleineMcCann:”https://youtu.be/P8bbohg5IGk10:45 pm - 08-Jan-18 (09/01/2018 04:45)(We recommend readers view the video on the tweet above, right up until the end. It seems to be the same video but it is not: https://mobile.twitter.com/saunokonoko/status/869428126144643072)https://twitter.com/gemmaod1/status/950702495453601792“A reminder of the 48 questions Portuguese police put to Kate McCann after declaring her an arguido or suspect in September 2007. She refused to answer all of them. #MadeleineMcCann”https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DTGS4WGXcAAqZjk.jpg:large12:15 pm - 09-Jan-18 (09/01/2018 18:15)(Cont)
(Cont)https://twitter.com/gemmaod1/status/950758852928180226“Tony Blair went out of his way to help the McCanns. Why them, when 380 children Gemma O’Doherty missing in the UK every day? Like Gerry, Blair had strong Donegal links and spent summer holidays in Ballyshannon, his mother’s hometown. McCann’s parents were also from Donegal #MadeleineMcCann”03:59 pm - 09-Jan-18 (09/01/2018 21:59)https://twitter.com/gemmaod1/status/951406955930767360“When Kate McCann discovered #Madeleine was missing, she says she ran back to the restaurant to tell her friends. If this is the case, why did she leave her two-year twins behind in the apartment, given that she believed #Madeleine had been abducted? #McCann”02:54 am - 11-Jan-18 (11/01/2018 08:54)https://twitter.com/gemmaod1/status/952672662425341952“These two precious girls, whose lives were so cruelly snatched from them, have been failed utterly - by the police, the media and by those who clearly have questions to answer about their disappearances. It’s time the public came to their defence #MadeleineMcCann #MaryBoyle”https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DTiSvLfXUAABaPQ.jpg:large02:43 pm - 14-Jan-18 (14/01/2018 20:43)https://twitter.com/gemmaod1/status/954482161343782912“When Kate McCann made her 10pm check on the children, she said she found their bedroom door open ‘quite wide’ and not as they had left it. She then says she went to close it. Did she do so without checking on the children first? #MadeleineMcCann”https://youtu.be/lhACS6ck-Dw02:34 pm - 19-Jan-18 (19/01/2018 20:34)https://twitter.com/gemmaod1/status/954677894130864128“Why did #McCann private investigators fail to make the most basic of inquiries before announcing a so-called major breakthrough in the case which apparently came to nothing?”http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1206842/Why-did-Madeleine-McCann-detectives-ask-questions.html03:32 am - 20-Jan-18 (20/01/2018 09:32)https://twitter.com/gemmaod1/status/954704235425419264“Kate recalls being upset by Gerry the night before #MadeleineMcCann went missing. The next morning, Madeleine asked her parents why they hadn’t come when she and Sean had been crying the night before. They left their children alone again that night and Madeleine was ‘taken’”https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DT_KbvsWsAAGiSR.jpg:large05:16 am - 20-Jan-18 (20/01/2018 11:16)https://twitter.com/gemmaod1/status/954765506292133890 (DELETED)“Why does Gerry McCann get so angry and walk out of an interview when he is asked to comment on the blood that police found in their apartment? #MadeleineMcCann”https://youtu.be/hDTJFM0MYoU09:20 am - 20-Jan-18 (20/01/2018 15:20)https://twitter.com/gemmaod1/status/955146630847705088“Death of 3-year-old Sherin Mathews, whose body was found by a cadaver dog, inspires #SherinsLaw in Texas which would make it a crime to leave children at home alone. Her father has been charged with her murder”https://www.inquisitr.com/4747123/sherin-mathews-death-of-toddler-inspires-proposed-sherins-law-would-make-leaving-kids-home-alone-a-felony/10:34 am - 21-Jan-18 (21/01/2018 16:34)https://twitter.com/gemmaod1/status/955389290200141824“In the immediate aftermath of Madeleine’s disappearance, friends and family members said the McCanns told them the bedroom shutters had been tampered with. Why did the McCanns later retract this claim? #MadeleineMccann”https://youtu.be/ztb6V0OB5jA02:38 am - 22-Jan-18 (22/01/2018 08:38)(Cont)
(Cont)https://twitter.com/gemmaod1/status/957697420275699712“A reminder of how cadaver dogs reacted to the McCann’s rental car and apartment in Portugal (1/2)”https://youtu.be/8lrrMoUr3OA11:30 am - 28-Jan-18 (28/01/2018 19:30)https://twitter.com/gemmaod1/status/957698160612249600“A reminder of how the McCanns reacted to a question about the reaction of the cadaver dogs (2/2) https://youtu.be/kc84bVldT-4 #McCann”11:33 am - 28-Jan-18 (28/01/2018 19:33)The above are shown in our post “Very important concessions”.http://textusa.blogspot.pt/2018/02/very-important-concessions.htmlWe thank you for giving us the opportunity of reminding our readers about these tweets.
Nothing there indicates she agrees with you, does it?
And where have we said she did?What we said is that we wait EAGERLY. Which we do. It is explained in the post "Very important concessions"http://textusa.blogspot.pt/2018/02/very-important-concessions.htmlWe just want to see how Gemma O'Doherty establishes the link between Maddie's death and her parents (she seems to believe it was due to sedation and negligence) and then see how things develop from there as we showed in our post "Maddie's Pandora's box"http://textusa.blogspot.pt/2014/09/maddies-pandoras-box.html
Fair enough, just wondered why you were interested, seeing as she clearly doesn't agree with you
We inform readers that with the new settings due Blogger has stopped sending comments to our mailbox.Reason why we haven't published some comments in time. Sade Anslow, that's the answer to your question.We will try to solve this problem as quickly as we can.Thank you for understanding.
Do not publish Anonymous at 25 May 2018 ????,Please go ahead!
Anon 21.08 I think 1 or 2 people with multiple identities stopping commenting on cristobells blog has greatly decreased the number comments
Sade Anslow,What is your theory about Maddie?
So people understand where really do stand people posting on the internet on the Maddie case:On Not Textusa’s blog:“Sade Anslow12 May 2018 at 12:10I've given up attempting to discuss this on Textusa's blog now. It's plain to see that no matter what is presented, there will always be a 'but'. It's akin to banging your head against a brick wall. So let me be outed now as a pro, as a NT 'bestie', as a shill, WHATEVER you like and do ask me if I give a damn. I'm sick to the back teeth of people discarding someone's offerings on this case for no other reason than that person may have slated them (translation: disputed your 'facts') NT , I'm not alone amongst many who I consider credible people when I say I find your stance on this case sensible, measured and intelligent. Ive not seen you demand cult-like agreement on your every thought, and I've not seen one word that would convince me you are anywhere near a McCann supporter. Obviously I see the reason why some have labelled you as such; you're not in Rothley with a pitchfork for one, you traitor! So I've already earned the PretendyAnti badge from CarlaSpade, bring on the rest. And good evening to you NT 🙂”As posted as a comment on this post:“Textusa22 May 2018, 14:59:00https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=1692779634152147&id=294140824016042Ben Thompson: You're an out and out liar, Textusa. You are framing the author of the NotTextusa blog, as the vile pro McCann, "Walker". NotTextusa is NOT a pro. Just someone who can see right through your bullshit. You're a con artist.******1 like to date: Sade Anslow”(Cont)
(Cont)Not Textusa’s opinion on the forensics of the case:“Not Textusa24 May 2018 at 12:58Right - apologies, have had a really busy week, I promised to reply in more detail and this is the first chance I have hadThe claim that the FSS cocked up has been made many times and has thus become part of the Maddie myth factory. It usually centres on one of two things - that either the FSS said one thing and then issued another report saying something different.This didn't happen.What does appear to have happened is that the results were discussed informally with the UK plods first and they got the wrong impression as to how useful the results were going to be. This was then further exacerbated by a certain confusion between the UK plods and the PJ. There was only one final report and the conclusions were the same as those communicated in earlier emails.The second arises over what is sometimes referred to as the FSS 'contaminating' the samples. Again, this didn't happen. I believe this originates from a passage in John Lowe's report where he tries to explain why it is not possible to say that DNA taken from the car came from Maddie. He mentions that some of the markers are common and could be found extensively within the general population, using the team there as an example. That probably wasn't the best analogy to use because many people took this to mean people at the lab had contaminated the sample which wasn't what he meant at all. There is no evidence that sample was contaminated, but it was a mix of DNA from at least three individuals.The easiest way to understand this is to consider that you find a big box of body parts. You don't know how many individuals this represents, but you are able to count three heads - so you know that you are looking at at least three individuals.You also have five legs. So that could be two sets of two, plus one extra, giving three individuals, or five legs all from different people - hence the "at least three, as many as five" statistic which was used.Unless they had found an intact complete DNA profile for Madeleine, and just Madeleine, they were never going to be able to show that she was the source of any sample recovered, considering that most of the people using the car were genetically related to her in one way or another - parent, sibling, aunt etcIf anyone wants to list all the forensic stuff which causes confusion, I will happily break each of them down. I did write a piece about it a few years ago, but can I find the bugger?”To which John Blacksmith had this to say:“john blacksmith25 May 2018 at 06:35My God, the textusa blog is now over here - except that it reads better.I think the body-parts analogy you used above is by far the best simplification I've ever seen of the DNA findings. I have always found genetics a deeply sedative subject; I tried to master the basics so I could take on the childish ravings of Dawkins and I learned enough to do so but I still get the feeling of school detentions on a sunny evening when I have to read about it. The reason I've engaged with textusa a little is because I have sensed, rightly or wrongly, inner doubts recently among the Usual Suspects' followers and have tried to encourage them to consider whether they've been missing something. It is quite pointless, really, since it can't influence events one way or another but it's an irrational compulsion. Anyway, it's all looking good for the future. I was glad, also, to read your clear and unambiguous statement of where you stand. The one thing I had reservations about years ago was that I thought you were perhaps unnecessarily harsh on Amaral, given the circumstances and given the limitations that all police officers, like the rest of us, possess.”(Cont)
(Cont)To note, Blacksmith has now confirmed he includes us in his “Usual Suspects”. A desperate attempt – made by him and Not Textusa – to link us with Mr Bennett who we have absolutely nothing in common and have, repeatedly objected being associated with. Henceforth, whenever Blacksmith mentions “Usual Suspects” we know that we are included in it and act accordingly.But what we want to highlight is the way he now supports Not Textusa’s forensic analysis that the forensics as per FSS are totally meaningless.FSS has, CORRECTLY, proved that the forensics collected prove absolutely nothing. People saying that Maddie’s DNA was found are just ignorant.And about Blacksmith telling Not Textusa that he was “perhaps unnecessarily harsh on Amaral”, this is how Not Textusa described Mr Amaral, on Monday, 29 January 2018 in his blog:[quoting our blog] We hope, dear reader that by now you have realised that you have had the privilege of sharing something with Mr Amaral: you have been treated all these years in the EXACT same way Mr Gonçalo Amaral was from the moment the PJ officers he was responsible for set foot in Praia da Luz until the moment he was “relieved” of all his duties pertaining to the Maddie case, which happened early October 2007. [end of quote]What - referred to as sweaty and corpulent and sued by the McCanns?”This is what Not Textusa had to say about Mr Amaral being obstructed during the investigation, on Friday, 13 April 2018 in his blog:“[quoting our blog] However, reality shows otherwise. One just has to remember the resistance Mr Amaral encountered to use the clothing Maddie had on the holidays to get DNA samples. [end of quote]Absolute nonsense. At no time did Mr Amaral try to recover clothing for such a purpose and none was withheld. Complete fabrication, no pun intended”About this, and to see how Not Textusa likes to keep to fact, we will simply quote this passage from Mr Amaral’s book:“Chapter 3 – News of a disappearance. The first 72 hours.Subheading - Reluctance in investigating Maddie’s parents disturbs the investigation’s independence: the abduction thesis gains weight(Pg 66)“It’s discussed an eventual visit to this apartment and those occupied by the remaining friends. The idea was to locate Madeleine’s clothes, check if they contained vestiges of violence, mainly the clothes she wore when, at 17h35 of May 3, she returned home with the mother and the brothers. Someone raised the hypothesis of Madeleine having died in her apartment and taken from there to one of the others. It’s a possibility, but, at this moment, we don’t have clues that point in that or another direction. The reluctance in doing this diligence is felt. The British Ambassador has already met with the team directing the investigation. Politics and diplomacy seem to be hazing our initiative.- Listen, I think it’s important to do this diligence.- What? The clothes? You crazy? Let me see if I understood: you want to go to their apartments collect clothes for examination?- Yes… What’s the problem? Isn’t it the normal procedure?- Of course it is. But with this media folklore? I think I have never seen so many journalists together in my life. And I’m not exactly new to the police!- But what if there was an accident, if someone hurt the child intentionally, it’s the most obvious way of knowing since we haven’t found her yet.- No. That is making the parents suspects. It doesn’t please me. I think it’s premature.- Call it what you will, but that it’s a normal procedure, it is. I think you woke up with your feet uncovered [a Portuguese expression similar to the English “I think you woke up on the wrong side of the bed today”]All of a sudden, one can’t doubt the child’s parents. These have to be treated with diplomacy, it isn’t enough to respect their fundamental rights, the respect for human dignity, and the following of all constitutional and procedural principles. We have to withdraw from our thinking all and any doubt that their behaviour, on the night of the facts or in posterior moment, may arise."(Cont)
(Cont)We had already explained to Blacksmith on May 17 2018 what sort of an individual Not Textusa was:“But it’s NT who claims to be a sceptic.About his NT’s scorn (again you join us with Bennett) all we have to say is that we feel honoured by the scorn of someone who says that there’s no need to have been blood in the apartment 5A for Keela to have alerted there (a dog he states to be reliable and trained to signal blood), that the cadaver odour that Eddie signalled inside that same apartment simply wafted in and the scent that this dog signalled in the backyard came was from a medieval graveyard and that the locations where these dogs signalled the location of Maddie’s body inside the apartment are toileting spots. Being scorned by a person like that is a compliment. His insults, as the Portuguese say, “batem na carapaça da nossa indiferença”.We have no say about who you side with, only find it strange that you do with someone who says that Operation Grange is a waste of money.”And yet, Sade Anslow, Ben Thompson and John Blacksmith clearly support this individual as an anti.On the positive side of Not Textusa we have to say that he agree that accusing people of swinging is an offense enough to sue – stated quite clearly that the McCanns don’t sue us for accusing them of being swingers because we are too unimportant.About us v Not Textusa:https://twitter.com/ChallengeGovUK/status/973313975948541953Challenge Goverment @ChallengeGovUKReplying to @mariaccnr @K9TruthI'm unable to comment on anything published @ Textusa recently, as I haven't had time to visit, but suffice to say the site has earned a profound respect from me over the last decade (a #McCann travesty if ever there was one); & as for 'Not Textusa', it has no scruples, >>2:45 pm - 12 Mar 2018https://twitter.com/ChallengeGovUK/status/973315582169886721Challenge Goverment @ChallengeGovUKReplying to @ChallengeGovUK @mariaccnr @K9Truthuninterested as it is in justice for Madeleine #McCann, awash with ad hominem, an account set up with one sole 'purpose', to denigrate one website only, even to make one 'convert' as equating to 'success'; it's pathetic & pitiful.2:51 pm - 12 Mar 2018We will let readers decide where these people stand.
A comment of FB:https://www.facebook.com/bronte.textusa/posts/1252980074838641Zora McCartney I agree entirely with @ChallengeGovUk. While I have never fully bought into the swinging theory - and I feel able to say that to you in the knowledge that you will accept it on the basis of the many respectful conversations we’ve had - I have still gained valuable insight and knowledge from your blog in the past. In fact I’ve never fully committed to one single theory as I just don’t believe there is enough evidence to nail my colours fully to one particular mast. How and when Madeleine died and why the cover-up are still, largely, mysteries to me. The only things I am certain of is that she DID die and that her parents had some considerable help in covering it up. Was that because they were just extremely lucky to have so many high profile connections? Or was something far more sinister at play? I really don’t know and I’m far less interested in the answers nowadays than I used to be. My interest may or may not be renewed when/if any really big news breaks. Anyway, back to your post. The NT blog has been set up specifically to undermine yours and relies solely on your blog for its content. A bit sad and pathetic really. I haven’t really read much of it but when I noted that it refers to you, Maria, as a “Rancid Tart” and “Her Loonyship” and suchlike, I found myself asking how on earth these people can feel comfortable in promoting it? And, yes, it has been promoted very recently on a group I used to care very much about and if I were half as invested as I used to be, I’d be bloody furious. There are a multitude of theories, blogs and forums dedicated to exposing the anomalies and lies and exploring theories as to what may have happened. I don’t see what the problem is in allowing people to read and make up their own minds as to which ones they favour, I really don’t. I think countering the various theories (including yours) is also perfectly acceptable as long as it’s not accompanied by ad hominem and vitriol. Simple enough surely?I do think you may be mistaken about the identities of NT and/or contributors to the comments on your blog. Mistaken. At worst. I have never ever thought of you as a “con artist” and could never imagine being so unreasonably angry with you for espousing something with which I disagree. I can only advise that you pay less mind to suspected pros and antis who are just as disruptive. Don’t publish their comments and don’t respond. Don’t give them the oxygen they crave. If this NT feels the need to comment on your every post, let it wash over you. If some people want to give him an audience, so be it. It won’t change the fact that his every utterance will be entirely dependent on YOUR output, which is rather pitiful if you ask me.2ManageLike · Reply · 1hTextusaTextusa Thank you Zora McCartney. Taking this over to the blog.
And the reply from Sade:Sade Anslow Honestly, why are you so obsessed with 'where people stand'? And it really is an obsession, one that is looking crazier and crazier by the day. You've typed my name into your blog that many times, you could probably Google my name and Textusa would be the first result. Why is it so important to you who or what I - or anyone else - agrees with? Who actually cares? Am I now an "important game player" in the case, along with Ben, Blacksmith, and anyone foolish enough to publish a comment as Anon? For what? For not agreeing with you? For expressing frustration at your insistence to twist anything so it suits you?Look at that one quote you've got in this post; 'This is how Not Textusa described Mr Amaral...' But it really wasn't how he was describing him was it? I won't even begin to try and explain that to you - been there, done that. You ARE misleading people with the comments you make using the quotes you provide, relying on the fact your readers won't bother reading the Not Textusa blog to see for themselves what context a comment was made in. Your readers serve you well in that respect, one of the reasons I thought it only fair to share the blog in groups to give everyone the opportunity to make up their own minds - with all the facts available. The frustration I've felt pales in comparison to what I imagine it would be if you were also accusing me of being Walker on Twitter. So let that sink in for a minute, imagine how you'd feel if it was stated as fact for years and years that that's who you were. I'd be pretty furious, and probably a lot less laid back about it than NT. But that's just my opinion, and guess what?! It's of no relevance to anyone. It's my opinion and it's not hurting anyone. It's my opinion and it won't deny a little girl justice or ruin the lives of anyone seeking such. Put your gripes into perspective before turning it into something it isn't. Stop thinking that anything that any of us say would have any bearing on the investigation. It's utter lunacy to think so.ManageLike · Reply · 1mTextusaTextusa Taking this over to the blog as well.
And Sade continues:Sade Anslow: Interesting how the only defence Textusa is getting is about its gender. Can anyone provide an analytical defence of the lies, obsession and paranoia ?*****Same challenge to you, Sade as with Blacksmith: please list the lies we have said.In groups of 10, 5, 3 or even one by one.
Sade Anslow: We'll do it one by one shall we Maria, seeing as only my comments have made the grade for the blog so far. The very first lie then, that NotTextusa is the Walker account on Twitter. And no, I don't need to refer to your countless blogs about syntax. Show me the EVIDENCE.
Ben Thompson: Or perhaps Textusa insinuating I was helping Jim Gamble, along with Colin Sutton. Did you miss that one as well?
In reply to Anne Guedes28 May 2018, 13:51:00,You wrote:[The MCs have spent 11 years hammering that they played no part in the disappearance of their child and it worked pretty well. Of course they only could do it because they were sure that the crucial evidence (a body) would never pop up. I don't think they have a stronger certainty than this one.]They might need to keep looking over their shoulders,this case is going to court,no body has been found.https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/966223/carers-accused-murder-missing-woman-18-years-ago
It seems that those "carers" not only didn't take care of the victim but tortured her and aimed to obtain money through fraud. Not at all the MC situation.
And this exchange MUST be brought to the blog:"Nuala Seaton No-one who supports the disgusting NotTextusa blog is here for justice for Maddie McCann. No-one. And what is interesting is those people who have recently come out in support of it that were silent about it for years. But NOW the NT blog is the "go to place" for the truth about Maddie? Seriously? That disgusting individual who maintains that the areas Eddie alerted to were toileting spots? Really? You support the disgusting NT person who said that?ManageLike · Reply · 13hSade AnslowSade Anslow Ah, so now you have decided I am not interested in justice for Madeleine, on the grounds that I see more sense in one blog from another - a self obsessed, unhinged, deceitful blog...well that's that then!ManageLike · Reply · 12h"To readers being put-off by this, our apologies but do understand we have a reason for doing so, as we'll explain soon.
Which facebook group are these exchanges taking place?
And always useful to know where certain people stand on certain subjects. From Insane's blog:" john blacksmith28 May 2018 at 17:28Hi. What the f*** is she on about now?As far as NT and I are concerned, first I certainly do defer to the latter's knowledge and opinion on genetics. Secondly, in as far as I can understand what she is saying, she appears blindly unaware that I began stating nine years ago that the evidence of the dogs' activities is completely worthless in actually nailing the perpetrators of the disappearance, rather than just pointing a very suggestive finger towards them.That has nothing whatever to do with the DNA. It goes straight back to the PJ assessment/review in the Case Files, pointing out the acute difficulties in getting unsupported dog evidence accepted as admissible in court. Anyone who thinks that the stuff could get past McBride, or other UK lawyers of his calibre, and into the Old Bailey is in dreamland. Not the slightest, remotest chance: the problems of "cueing", intentionally or otherwise, that the PJ report pointed out are quite insuperable. And I say that as an active supporter of Mr Grime.I have not only repeated that on many occasions over the years but have also hammered home the point again and again that the active McCann supporters, without exception, just love to talk about the dogs' findings at the slightest invitation and do so, at great length, at every possible opportunity.Why? First, because they know that it's a safe subject to discuss without either getting themselves into a humiliating tangle, making an untoward slip about their heroes or conceding dangerous ground. Second, because it gives them the now exceedingly rare chance to "debate" and argue back about an aspect of the evidence, rather than their only alternatives since 2015: abusing Amaral and Grime, mocking and attacking other posters, making vague threats of retaliation etc. - or silence.And silence, not noisy, flash-talking, round and round in circles debate about dogs, is the clue to what they really fear, both for their heroes and for their self-respect. The subjects they stay absolutely silent about are the facts that matter and cannot be refuted, either on the net or in court: the evidence of collusion among the nine, the non-existence of an abductor, the silence of Jane Tanner, the pack of lies about the "checking", the transformation of a fund dedicated to the safe return of a child into a fund for the defence of her parents, the fairy story of a "deal", the revealed lies in the blogs and at the Edinburgh festival, the admission of lying in Madeleine.Try getting them to produce hundreds of enthusiastic posts at a time about any of those subjects: you won't succeed."
John I think your contradicting what you said in the past with regards the McCanns supporters love of discussing the dogs. In a previous blog you said it was that they didn't have any problem with people purporting that they had high level protection but that the dogs scared the bjesus out of them. You quoted Gerry McCann so disparate at the court to dismiss the dogs that he ignored demands from the judge to shut up. I really wonder what your game is in NOW supporting NT in a previous run inon the cristobell blog when the host first embraced NT and then give a short shift after he/she moved onto his usual lets diss the dogs you were involved in some of those conversations and never once did you add any support to NT comments. Your attempts at supporting NT appear more as a attack on Textusa blog than any real support for the NT opinions
John Blacksmith,No case will be brought to court because the witnesses or suspects made contradictory statements or told demonstrable lies.Yes, we can see clearly that the McCannss and their friends did both - lied and contradicted themselves. Tanner’s ridiculous sighting would never have resulted in a charge as who can prove she didn’t actually see anybody? No matter how many verbal and linguistic analyses are carried out, they are not regarded as evidence in court, even when we watch them and KNOW why we have every reason to suspect them.The case will only come to court with a confession, perhaps the finding of a body (highly unlikely) or, as seems more likely, forensic evidence.THAT is why those of us who persist in discussing the dogs and forensic evidence are harassed by the McCann supporters and not about the evident lies and contradictions.They know the circumstantial evidence, although substantial, is not enough to convict.We know the fact the dogs indicated to 11 McCann related areas and objects is not evidential, only indicative, and we know the FSS reports were inconclusive (although potentially much more could have been done with a series of reductive tests.)We don’t need the Usual Suspect Critics to assume we’re idiots and think we’re asking for the dogs to be called as witnesses. We’re fighting for the credibility of the dogs to be sustained. Without that, calling for forensic evidence to be pursued is a waste of time, as the “anti dogs brigade” clearly say it is.And the desperate need to prove no trace of blood residues in the apartment is significant. That would allow for an abductor who took a dead child without leaving traces which needed to be cleaned.Blood alert would mean the apartment had been cleaned and the parents therefore involved.We can only hope further tests on remaining material, such as the 4 hairs in Portugal, or tests on the curtains, undertaken by OG, produce enough evidence to pursue a prosecution in Portugal.Or rather, those holding the evidence obtained are given the green light to use it.
Personally I really have no interest in the squabbles, I don't even read he said, she said I scan the page for information and consclusions you may have drawn on the information you have about mccann I choose to ignore the crap, arguments they do not fit in the little time I have; I agree with I think it was 'Challenge' who wrote, I can't find it now. Anne Guedes stays with the subject, thank you for that ! I come back because you have something to say and that is good, thank you Textusa. I read everything I come across about these parents and I can decide what makes sense and what I can throw out. Looking for the real world without the fake news that arrived with mccanns lies 11y ago.
Gemma O Doherty has just launched her own website. Gemma O doherty.comFeatures a number of unsolved/ cover up cases including Madeleine mccann. A
Tried to comment on " Justice for Madeleine" seems admin haven't approved my post :-Greatly disturbed by the attacks on the Textusa Team. It's one thing to have differences in belief but another entirely to call someone a liar. Having read Textusa for some time and been highly appreciative of their research in the case I really have to re-request (as Textusa has done repeatedly) to both Ben and Sade and of course Blacksmith to provide a clear example of where the team have lied ?! Talking about facts if the case and not who is who.I personally appreciate their clarification when they establish they have realised something that is wrong! Being supportive of NTextusa and his writing has posed many questions for me personally about those who do!!! Have you guys really read what he writes....if so shame on you!
Is all this 'he said"/"she said" going to grind interminably on and on and on and on? Are we here because we care about truth and justice with regard to Madeleine or not? It has been a very long road so far and maybe we cannot all agree ALL of the time ...... but surely it does not need to come to this. Fighting among ourselves? I am sure that the Pros are loving it. 29 May 2018, 13:44:00 Textusa quoted from Blacksmith: "The subjects they stay absolutely silent about are the facts that matter and cannot be refuted, either on the net or in court: the evidence of collusion among the nine, the non-existence of an abductor, the silence of Jane Tanner, the pack of lies about the "checking", the transformation of a fund dedicated to the safe return of a child into a fund for the defence of her parents, the fairy story of a "deal", the revealed lies in the blogs and at the Edinburgh festival, the admission of lying in Madeleine."Surely we can at least present a united front on those points, even if all do not agree with certain comments, viewpoints or other interpretations of events? It is all sad beyond words that it should come to this and does no good for our cause.
How true !
Lesly Frances Finn,One must find strange such a conciliatory comment from someone who supported the attack made against this blog on the Justice for Madeleine FB group, quite surprising.If need be we will repost the divisiveness you supported and now come here to blame us and our readers for it. Then, when we were being attacked, it seemed, that divisiveness pleased you. Have you gone to Justice to express a similar opinion or you decided only to do that here?Blacksmith (who we still are waiting to know why he calls us liars) has now sided with Not Textusa about who he highly praises the “latter's knowledge and opinion on genetics”. Based on what? Blacksmith has publicly said he doesn’t read us. Not Textusa’s on genetics are made by him copying what we have written and then writing his personal opinions on what we have said. So, factually, for Blacksmith to have such a high opinion on this individual’s opinion on genetics can only come from him having read not only us but us AND Not Textusa.Then in his sanctimonious and paternalistic quote he makes this accusation against us: “The subjects they stay absolutely silent about are the facts that matter and cannot be refuted”. Really? We return that accusation to him, where he has remained absolutely silent about facts that matter and cannot be refuted that this blog has presented. From him we have heard nothing expect saying that we’re liars. Requested to detail where we have lied, Blacksmith remains silent.And speaking about falsehood he contradicts himself in the same paragraph. On one hand he says “the facts that matter and cannot be refuted, either on the net or in court” and then states as a fact (unable to be refuted on the net or in court) “the silence of Jane Tanner”. How does he know this to be a fact? Because he says so? What does he know what Jane Tanner has or not said to Operation Grange if even she has been asked to say something which we believe she hasn’t. Why would Operation Grange be privy with a blogger? Is this silence from Jane Tanner a fact that cannot be refuted on the net or on the court or is it simply just a made-up fact by Blacksmith? We would say the latter but, as always, Blacksmith is free to come here and prove us wrong.(Cont)
(Cont)You say “maybe we cannot all agree ALL of the time” and “even if all do not agree with certain comments” and that has been instrumentally used by many to obfuscate the truth and make sure it is not outed.That’s a myth the other side has masterfully created with enormous success that we should be respectful of differences. One, one cannot and should not because there are differences and then there are differences. To put it in plain terms, to discuss if a certain tonality of purple is magenta or violet is a difference that should be respected and the issue debated.To discuss if black is white or if white is black is a difference that merits no consideration. Or respect. If someone keeps on insisting that something is black when everyone can see that it is white, that does not deserve any respect, nor is it being disrespectful to not respect at ALL that opinion.The opinion of insisting that white is black only has the purpose to disrupt and abuses with intent and success the concept that we all should respect each other “even if all do not agree with certain comments”.That’s the reason why those still debating that an abduction happened are consensually disrespected. Why aren’t they entitled to have their ridiculous opinions considered seriously?Because they keep saying it’s white when the rest of the world can see it clearly that it is black. Ignoring them is not being disrespectful, it’s simply being reasonable and respectful to one’s own values.For example, when Not Textusa – with whom Blacksmith has now decided to side with – says that what Eddie signalled in the backyard comes from a medieval graveyard, he’s clearly stating that white is black and so does not merit the ‘right to difference’.Neither does who sides with such a man.As, we read on an image from FB recently: “you are free to choose, but you are not free from the consequence of your choice.”We will respond to Anslow, Thompson and Blacksmith in due time.
As always I am enjoying the way you get things sorted and then explain them to readers in a comprehensible way. Your analogies are also simple (this apparently being a skill!) and clear to follow and enable to draw one's conclusions. What I find amusing during the last months are those people who publicly state their views e.g. on twitter/blog and then come here to complain that they are quoted. Hilarious!I am taking my hat off to the way you are able to analyse, sort out and explain the moves, the different parts of the "game", even under heavy attack never getting confused and staying undeterred. Respect!
Lesly Finn said......Surely we can at least present a united front on those points, even if all do not agree with certain comments, viewpoints or other interpretations of events? It is all sad beyond words that it should come to this and does no good for our cause. Maybe the "good" is the hanging of the true colours to the mast by some.. ..at least we know!Bampots
One's "true colours" ? How can it be as simple as that?It's a bit like the truth about what happened, would that teach us everything about that obscure case ?
Anne Guedes,The case is quite simple. Only the personal interests of those involved in the hoax (evidently not talking about the already mercilessly beaten to a pulp T9) are complex. Or we should say, the interests are simple, what they have done to make sure they are not revealed is what is complex. The effort of pretending to have different colours than the ones they really, sometimes runs into unforeseen glitches which become "traps" which are impossible to retreat from.And once those true colours are revealed, no soap washes them away. As simple as that.
Can you make that a bit less cryptic? Not following you
Anonymous 30 May 2018, 22:23:00,Those it applies to will know what it means. If you don’t follow, then you’re not one of them. If you pretend not to know, then you are.Hope that’s not too cryptic for you.
Too cryptic for me, if I may."The case is quite simple"... I do agree."Only the personal interests of those involved in the hoax .... are complex. Or... are simple" : I do agree with "simple", but how many "involved in the hoax" ? I don't think they are many (conscious of being involved in a hoax). "What they have done to make sure they are not revealed is what is complex"... Here I don't agree. Some individuals may have tried to make believe they were playing an important role, but they really were just pawns in a game that has no master.
Textusa .... maybe not all my comments have been wise upon reflection, nor to your liking, but we can all do that. And, as I recall, I removed some of those regarding NT's post. But re-post them as you think fit ... it is up to you entirely. I have no hidden agenda.
Textusa 30 May 2018, 22:03:00 This brings us back on track. You have given us your interesting views, over the years, which are much appreciated. Looking forward to what you have in store for us. Those disruptions earlier are obviously meant to put a halt to your thinking. What was discovered during those posts is educational in that the chaff is being separated. You have people coming back again and again to read what you have to say. For those who don't understand it will all become clearer over time.
FINALLY!Insane/Not Textusa has committed himself as to why he is certain no blood was found in apartment 5A. It came when he decided to respond for John Blacksmith concerning our comment at 30 May 2018, 21:54:00: Leaving it to our readers to absorb it all:“[quoting our blog] and think we’re asking for the dogs to be called as witnesses. We’re fighting for the credibility of the dogs to be sustained. [end of quote]The credibility of the dogs is not the issue and has never been in question by anyone whose opinion matters [quoting our blog] Without that, calling for forensic evidence to be pursued is a waste of time, as the “anti dogs brigade” clearly say it is. [end of quote]So here's where you try another of your little falsehoods, falsely equating those who believe the forensic evidence is a dead end and those who are, in your parlance, the "anti-dogs brigade"So I am going to give you the opportunity to explain precisely what further testing you believe should be conducted and what you would expect those tests to reveal.[quoting our blog] And the desperate need to prove no trace of blood residues in the apartment is significant. [end of quote]Is it? Is it really?I am going to assume that either you haven't read the forensic reports or you didn't understand what you were reading. And despite the fact that I have explained this about 20 times, you don't listen, so you never learn.So I will say it again. There is no ''desperate need'' to prove something which is already there, in the reports. Yes, the dog alerted. However, none of the samples/residues collected tested positive for blood. I'll try explaining it to you again in the faint hope that you might take it in this time.Several methods were used to try to detect biological residues, including the use of UV light sources and chemicals which attach to blood residues and glow in the presence of UV. Nothing was found which gave a positive reaction for blood. Spots which had the potential to be blood were also recovered and tested. None gave a positive reaction for blood.Not a single residue tested positive for blood.Now - at this point you will doubtless be jumping up and own screeching "But the dogs, but the dogs...!!!"As has been explained to you about 8 billion times, and as you fail to grasp even when provided with scientific papers on the subject, there are a number of possible explanations for this.The first is that, as demonstrated in the carpet squares study, half of which you clearly didn't understand, odour is a result of gaseous molecules released by a substance reacting with receptors in the nose. In order for any substance to smell, it must be capable of releasing molecules into the atmosphere. Does a lump of steel smell? No. Because it cannot release molecules into the air.Okay so far?So, here are the possibilities:1. The dog alerted to residual odour, the source of the odour being no longer present (possible)2. The dog alerted to odour from residues which were present but the residues were not sufficient to give a positive reaction for blood (possible, but unlikely - the tests are pretty sensitive)3. The dog alerted to microscopic traces of blood but it cannot be confirmed because all that could be recovered was tiny fragments of DNA which could not be assigned to any bodily fluid (possible)4. The dog recorded a false-positive response (unlikely, based on comparable situations in controlled conditions)Does it matter? Not really, no. Without confirmation of the dog alerts, it cannot be relied upon.”
First, maybe it would be advisable to all those who are now defending this individual having previously defended that the forensic evidence in the PJ Files was damning to the McCanns may now want to revise their position about the forensics, as he clearly states (our caps):"...falsely equating THOSE WHO BELIEVE THE FORENSIC EVIDENCE IS A DEAD END and those who are, in your parlance, the "anti-dogs brigade"Remember, this person is, CLEARLY (according to some), an anti-McCann.
Let’s look at the possibilities of what Keela signalled presented by this individual, who some defend is the enlightened source of information on the case, as in opposition to us:#1. The dog alerted to residual odour, the source of the odour being no longer present (possible)So. 2 possibilities. Either the blood was there but no longer there only its odour (BUT the blood was THERE) or, as it seems to be what is being proposed, the odour of blood wafted into the apartment, just like the cadaver scent with Eddie.So, both Eddie and Keela detected correctly what they were trained for BUT it was scents that wafted into the apartment! One must ask what good are the dogs for if what they signal can have come, literally, from anywhere?#2. The dog alerted to odour from residues which were present but the residues were not sufficient to give a positive reaction for blood (possible, but unlikely - the tests are pretty sensitive)So blood was detected in the apartment.#3. The dog alerted to microscopic traces of blood but it cannot be confirmed because all that could be recovered was tiny fragments of DNA which could not be assigned to any bodily fluid (possible)So blood was detected in the apartment.#4. The dog recorded a false-positive response (unlikely, based on comparable situations in controlled conditions)The dogs’ false positives. But this time, not only did Eddie give false positives as Keela did as well. Fascinating.https://textusa.blogspot.com/2018/01/the-reliability-of-cadaver-dogs.html
From another of his recent posts:“[quoting our blog] says that what Eddie signalled in the backyard comes from a medieval graveyard, [end of quote]And here is one of your lies. That is not what I said, I have already corrected you several times, yet you lack the manners to correct yourself”*****Please show us where you “have already corrected you several times”. We will publish here every single one of those several times.In case of your silence, we will show you AGAIN (we have done so more than once) where you not only said it as YOU CONFIRMED you said it.
On second thought, while we wait for you to show us where you have corrected us several times, here it is where you have said what we say you did:“http://textusa.blogspot.com/2018/04/the-help-and-tennis-comments-continue.htmlTextusa26 Apr 2018, 12:43:00Insane has responded to this comment and says this at a certain point in time:“[quoting us]- He says, as a scientist he claims to be that the cadaver scent detected by Eddie in the backyard is from a medieval graveyard. [end of quote]No, that is not what I said. Do feel free to produce the quote if you are going to continue to make that false claim, otherwise remove it “We have quoted you, and it was recently. And you responded to that quote, confirming it:This is what we said in our post “The reliability of the cadaver dogs”:https://textusa.blogspot.pt/2018/01/the-reliability-of-cadaver-dogs.html“But then again we are before a SCIENTIST. One who has invented not only the “Playful but endlessly patient airborne molecule thesis” but also that of the “Maddie’s graveyard theory”, whereby apartment 5A lies, behold, on an ancient medieval graveyard:To a very direct and specific question: “If only gas and only airborne contamination why was the scent detected in the backyard? It’s open air, impossible for airborne molecules to remain floating there.”Insane, the scientist replies:“Well, why do you think? Might interest you to know that it’s impossible to field walk in this country without finding small pieces of human bone, due to centuries of ploughing disturbing medieval graves. Consequently, it finds its way into the topsoil very readily. Try thinking outside the box for a change.”All is scientifically explained, so says Insane.”In the post in YOUR blog on Jan 28 2018 as a response to this particular passage you said, confirming all we had said:“Which it is”About all the other quotes you demand, don’t worry, we will quote you when we feel it’s appropriate to do so, like just did just now.”*****So let us put in CAPS what you, the SCIENTIST, said (and CONFIRMED IT) so that your SCIENTIFIC memory doesn’t fail you AGAIN:“WELL, WHY DO YOU THINK? MIGHT INTEREST YOU TO KNOW THAT IT’S IMPOSSIBLE TO FIELD WALK IN THIS COUNTRY WITHOUT FINDING SMALL PIECES OF HUMAN BONE, DUE TO CENTURIES OF PLOUGHING DISTURBING MEDIEVAL GRAVES. CONSEQUENTLY, IT FINDS ITS WAY INTO THE TOPSOIL VERY READILY. TRY THINKING OUTSIDE THE BOX FOR A CHANGE.”If you now think it is not from a medieval grave, can you then tell us what was that Eddie signalled in the open-air space that is the backyard?Also, please don't forget to show us where you corrected us on this. Several times. We will be waiting.
Insane seems to be asking us to show what more could be done on DNA.In 2014, on a blog called My McCann thoughts, Richard Philips, who described himself as a scientist – which we are not – looked at the DNA evidence and what type of analysis could still be possible if the DNA evidence has not been destroyed. Because we don’t know what has been preserved and neither did the scientist who wrote the blog. He implies it no longer exists. He doesn’t say the evidence has been destroyed but says heads should roll if it has.We don’t know if the Portuguese asked for material to be retained rather than destroyed, in response to the correspondence from the FSS.Philips wrote about subtraction analysis and the following links still remain online.http://my-mccann-thoughts.blogspot.com/2014/09/1519-or-1537-100-or-not-100.htmlhttp://my-mccann-thoughts.blogspot.com/2014/09/was-maddys-dna-in-hire-car.htmlhttp://my-mccann-thoughts.blogspot.com/2014/09/the-hire-car-sampling.htmlThe first, with colour illustrations explains the 15/19 or 15/37 markers in a way which is easy to follow. The next 2 links consider what should have been done when the DNA profiles were available.We have now submitted those 3 links to the scientist’s blogs with the colour charts illustrations, where he says subtraction analysis could be used.Before you say that it’s too late for that process now, we remind that there are still 4 hairs sent for analysis to Coimbra - and possibly pieces of the curtains. After all, one of Andy Redwood’s trip was there, to the INML, wasn’t it?Are you forcing your people to take a position? It seems your usual commentators have abandoned you now. At least on this issue.Will they agree with him the evidence for blood is non-existent as you say? That there’s no proof that Maddie’s body was ever in the apartment?Or will they agree with what we say, FSS produced a report which could still allow for further testing?Yes, results of FSS are inconclusive because they didn’t go far enough.There were no detectable blood residues with standard tests – that’s why a dog was needed to show areas to focus on.And yes, FSS couldn’t identify the material producing the DNA profiles as they stated, but if the blood dog had indicated the area the sample came from, it was likely to have been from blood - (white cells only produce DNA profiles).
https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/528865/Madeleine-McCann-human-hairs-hunt-Portugal/ampSuspects referred to are no longer suspects.But there was material to be tested
Anonymous 31 May 2018, 22:44:00,http://portugalresident.com/madeleine-latest-raising-yet-more-questionsMr Amaral mentions untested hairs.
Not Textusa’s sole purpose is to ridicule your blog; no doubt about it. He offers nothing in the way of sound theories, beliefs, facts that could forward the case. If he has nothing then why does he want to destroy you and your blog? Why not remain silent? Why no just go away? He states his blog is to ‘correct’ inaccuracies — his purpose is to defend those ‘maligned’ ... but his method is to malign and denigrate those whom he disagrees with. Such logic!
Textusa, it's impossible to work out who is supposed to have said what. I don't know why you stopped adding new posts, it doesn't make any sense to me, but I'm out of here. I came to read about the case not to watch you bickering and not to be able to make sense of it. Good luck with everything
https://mobile.twitter.com/AndyFish19/status/1002294800056487937Andy Fish@AndyFish19Replying to @SadeElisha86I really can't understand why Textusa is obsessed in saying NotTextusa is that disgusting Walker person (Wright)?! It's blatantly obvious they're not one & the same! What a load of nonsense! #McCann10:04 pm · 31 May 2018Last one accusing us of that was Ben Thompson:https://twitter.com/TheBunnyReturns/status/982715013189324800Bugsy @TheBunnyReturnsReplying to @bitconfused90I'm not 100% sure - Textusa claims it's Michael Wright, who they say is also Walker/NotTextusa and just about anyone they can think of. What I do know, is that contrary to their claims, none of those people are the Meerkat account.1:21 pm - 7 Apr 2018We will quote ourselves: “To be very clear, we have never claimed in the blog or on FB that Insane/Walkercan1000/NotTextusa is Michael Wright.We do not reveal personal details of people who are not in the PJ Files or that have not given their names to the media to use them in the case.Even if we thought he was Mr Wright, and we're not saying we do or we don't, we would never take the initiative to reveal that.We may have, because we have seen in on Twitter, his name being mentioned and associated to NotTextusa/Walkercan1000 and we may have reproduced such tweets here but then it was to preserve the integrity of what was said in those tweets, the responsibility of that association being of those who made it in them.”Is it just us, or can the reader note quite an odd interest in the fact that we, a mere blog with 6 readers, say that Not Textusa and Walkercan1000 are one and the same person?Up to now we have had Ben Thompson, Sade Anslow, Andy Fish and “Cat” (someone who comments in Not Textusa’s blog who it’s quite easy to understand who this Cat really is).Does anyone see a trend here or is it just us?
Absolutely unbelievable. So now you claim it is nothing to do with you, the association of Walkercan1000 and NotTextusa?? Ohhh, no, you are claiming ignorance of the Walkercan1000 Twitter account being Michael Wright. Of which there is no proof of, of course. Yet you fail to see the sense in admitting the same when you accuse NT of being Walkercan1000. Without proof! Where is the proof Maria? Where is the EVIDENCE? You're quite simply a disgrace. Don't try and worm your way out of it now, pretending you had no idea Walkercan1000 was linked to Michael Wright. Not that it matters one iota! You've consistently claimed NT is the Walkercan1000 account on Twitter knowing DAMN WELL you can't prove it. Knowing what a vile, lying, abusive twat he/she is! And that, ladies/gentlemen and CarlaSpade, is why everyone knows you're nothing but a lying fantasist.
The accusation was clear: we saying Walkercan1000/Not Textusa of being Wright.We didn't.I know you like to speak on behalf of others. You have done so with Blacksmith and now are doing it for Andy Fish. Strange habit but please avoid speak on our behalf. We're not worming out of anything. We have never said that Walkercan1000 (who we believe to be Not Textusa) was Wright.If we have, prove it.About your question, or rather your first lie on your certainly long list of our lies (we are expectant what the others will be), that we believe that Walkercan1000 is Not Textusa will be addressed in due time. Be patient.We are now dealing with the dogs and forensics. Much more important than who you think we think or don't think Insane is.Then have to deal with Ben Thompson accusing us that we insinuated he works for Gamble. Again, much more important than who you say we say who Insane is on Twitter and on Blogger.Do wait for your turn.
I'm speaking for AndyFish am I? How so? The accusation is evidently not clear, nothing is as clear as it should be with you. Andy states he doesn't know how NT and Walker can be assumed to be the same person, with 'wright' in brackets after walker, with a ? likely because on Twitter it's been said walker is Wright. So please show me where either of us has accused you of saying Walkercan1000 is Michael Wright. That is not, or ever has been the issue here. It's always been about the lie that NT IS Walker. I'm pleased to hear you consider discussing the dogs and forensics more important than who "insane" is. Nobody would have guessed it. Not in a million years. Wait my turn indeed. Unless you want to close comments, or specifically block me from commenting, I'll write what I damn well like. It's your choice whether to publish it after all.
Sade Anslow,Let’s quickly deal with you.Glad you’ve clarified that we’ve never said Walker was Wright.We do share your negative opinion of Walker. Blacksmith, however, seems to think he has some merit.So, as it seems that your problem is that it is vile for anyone to be compared with Walkercan1000, we will be expecting from you shorty an equally passionate attack on Andy Fish who accuses Michael Wright of being the vile Walkercan1000.https://mobile.twitter.com/andyfish19/status/956999355550052358https://mobile.twitter.com/AndyFish19/status/951246550616944640https://mobile.twitter.com/AndyFish19/status/997439013358329856You’ve called us liars, we have challenged you to list those lies, challenge apparently accepted. Apparently only but not exactly (unless you follow up, for which we will wait) because the first lie on your list is about who is who and who is saying what and nothing about actual FACTS of the case which should be the beacon for us all.However, let us answer your question objectively and clearly: we don’t have any evidence that Not Textusa is Walkercan1000. Walkercan1000 and Not Textusa are both anonymous characters. Unless one knows the identity of BOTH (and can prove it), nobody, including us or you can prove they are or are not the same person.So, in fact the question can be returned to you: where is your evidence that Not Textusa is NOT Walkercan1000? You haven’t. Unless you know both of them but that would speak loads and we’re assuming you don’t.You have an opinion they are not and we respect that and don’t insult you for having it.We have ours that they are. It is based on reasons and deductions made throughout the years which we won’t share publicly. It is our opinion that they are one and the same person and we will keep expressing it (unless you provide proof that they aren’t, like telling people you know personally Not Textusa who is X and you know personally Walkercan1000 who is Y). One way to prove us wrong would be to have Not Textusa AND Walkercan1000 step forward and identify themselves publicly.You can keep insisting that we’re lying about it when we do say it again but then it’s not our fault that you cannot tell apart fact, to which one can be accused of lying about, and an opinion which everyone is entitled to express.Not Textusa has explicitly stated in his blog that he’s not Walkercan1000. He also can’t prove it unless, again, he knows Walkercan1000 personally. Readers will simply have to read and make up their own minds on whether to agree with us or with him. You, for instance, agree with him and disagree with us.Back, to what matters, the case, we have noted that you haven’t answered what is your opinion about what happened to Maddie.The dogs and DNA evidence are certainly the most important subjects. That’s what Not Textusa has attacked us on most fiercely.Factually, Not Textusa and Walkercan1000 (who you say are 2 different people and we say they are 2 characters run by the same person) share the same opinion on one fact about the case: there was no blood found in apartment 5A.Blood having been found or not is a very relevant FACTUAL issue of the case. Do you agree with both of them?We inform you that as readers need a break from this endless debate between us about Not Textusa/Walkercan1000, we won’t be publishing any further exchanges with you about this. You have his blog, which you have so passionately promoted, where you can say all you like about it. Those interested in your opinion can go there and read it.However, we will continue waiting for you to list the lies we have said about FACTS of the case. That we will certainly publish.
Hello. As you've copied & pasted my tweet over yet again, then it's only fair that I make a brief comment in return (and you actually publish it)!I'm not sure about others, but I personally think that the Walkercan twitter handle was mainly operated by Michael Wright (Which I've always said)!Ignore the name 'Wright' though. I also 100% believe that the Walkercan and the NotTextusa blogger are NOT the same person. I've spoken to that vile idiot Walkercan on Twitter and also exchanged a few comments with NT on his blog & again, I absolutely believe they are not the same person! The rest of my tweet still stands. As in I don't understand your obsession in trying to morph the 2 and also that it's a load of nonsense!If you have irrefutable proof & evidence that Walkercan & NotTextusa are the same person as you claim, then I suggest you show it?Regards,Andy
Andy,You "personally think that the Walkercan twitter handle was mainly operated by Michael Wright" and that allows you to state that publicly but then suggest that we show " irrefutable proof & evidence that Walkercan & NotTextusa are the same person as you claim"?Seriously?
You are obviously rattling cages sisters. Keep up the good work. The attack hounds on a so called insignificant blog (just the 3.000.000 or so visits) is revealing to you i'm sure. Keep up the good fight.
Bringing over to the blog 2 replies to comments made by us, uncensored, that Not Textusa has posted on his blog. We are doing so because they contain his opinions on FACTS of the case. Will let readers read and comment if they wish to do so.We will comment in due time:Here is the first one:“Have you ever had to deal with someone who is so stupid that you wonder if they will go to their grave still in a haze of bewilderment?Then you'll know how I feel.Despite the fact that I went to the trouble of explaining this in language a cauliflower could understand, today the loopy loon comes back with this:[quoting our blog] So. 2 possibilities. Either the blood was there but no longer there only its odour (BUT the blood was THERE) or, as it seems to be what is being proposed, the odour of blood wafted into the apartment, just like the cadaver scent with Eddie. [end of quote]This is one of Textusa's favourite lies.I have never claimed any scent "wafted into" the apartment. Never.The problem is she simply cannot grasp the concept of residual scent. So I am going to try again.A woman walks into a room wearing a strong and distinctive perfume. That perfume can still be detected in the air even after she has left. Why? Because the gaseous molecules produced by the scent linger in the air and attach to surfaces.It is exactly the same with cadaver odour. Or the scent of blood. A dog may alert to the presence of residual scent even though the source of the scent is no longer there.So could a blood dog alert to residual scent? Yes of course. Does that mean blood was found in the apartment? No, of course not. I really cannot make that any simpler. [quoting our blog] So, both Eddie and Keela detected correctly what they were trained for BUT it was scents that wafted into the apartment! One must ask what good are the dogs for if what they signal can have come, literally, from anywhere? [end of quote]At no point,ever, have I suggested the dogs alerted to scents ''wafting in'' to the apartment.This is simply a barefaced lie. I challenge Textusa to produce any such claim.The remainder of her post just illustrates that she is either thicker than a whale in a bap or she is being deliberately duplicitous. It's one or the other You can parrot "So blood was detected in the apartment" as many times as you like; it won't change the truthAs I stated " Nothing was found which gave a positive reaction for blood."You are perfectly aware that no-one can make a claim based purely on an uncorroborated dog alert and no confirmed blood was found. You might not like it, but there it is.As regards your claim about graveyards, please go ahead and show where you think I said it.JB was spot on about you.You really can't read, can you?”
Insane,"A woman walks into a room wearing a strong and distinctive perfume. That perfume can still be detected in the air even after she has left. Why? Because the gaseous molecules produced by the scent linger in the air and attach to surfaces."First, perfume is liquid. It comes in bottles and is put on either directly or sprayed (not gas).“Your cadaver scent” which is according to you purely gaseous right from the start, only gaseous, and not an odour like we say that has a liquid/syrupy source like a perfume. So why you are using perfume as an example?Then, it seems you are recognising that the cadaver and now blood were in that apartment. Like the woman. Or are you saying your perfumed woman was in another apartment and her perfume scent wafted out of that apartment into the open air and then and went into the apartment where the dog then picked it up?About you saying you never said the scent wafted in, it’s true, you never used the expression. However, you have said that the fact that Eddie picked up the scent in apartment 5A doesn’t mean the body was there, how then other than wafting did the scent get in? It came in a letter addressed to 5A?Please do explain.
Second one:“Okay folks, let's put this one to bed, because Lady Liesalot is starting to seriously get on my tits.Here is the actual comment that I made, on a single occasion“Well, why do you think? Might interest you to know that it’s impossible to field walk in this country without finding small pieces of human bone, due to centuries of ploughing disturbing medieval graves. Consequently, it finds its way into the topsoil very readily. Try thinking outside the box for a change.”This was in response to someone posing the question "How could there be an alert outside?"I made the fatal mistake of inviting the textaloons to try using their brains. It turns out they don't have any.So for those who do, allow me to explain.It is not uncommon to find bone fragments in the soil. There are many factors which come into play: Local burial practices (many burials were of cremated remains containing lots of charred bone, or grave cuts into the ground which were then disturbed by later ploughing activity) can result in ancient bone being brought to the surface. That soil may then be moved, used as topsoil or in landscaping, further distributing bone fragments. If the soil is very alkaline, the fragments may not survive - so lots of variables.We know that trained cadaver dogs will alert to ancient remains or even sand which previously contained human remains, so my comment was nothing more than an invitation to the lunatic fringe to bloody well think for a change.I did not say the apartment was on the site of a medieval graveyard. Nor did I suggest that cadaver odour ''wafted in from outside'', that was Textusa's invention.So how did the liar Textusa disseminate this?Let me show you.[He then quotes 5 times where we have said he supports the graveyard theory followed by the word LIE. All quotes presented are correct]She even had the nerve to change this quote by Martin Grime:[quoting our blog – in caps, ours, what he wanted to hiighlight] “What we have to be able to understand in a situation such as this is in a hot climate with the apartment being closed down, the scent will build up in a particular area. IF THERE ISN'T A SCENT SOURCE IN HERE, I.E. A PHYSICAL ARTICLE WHERE THE SCENT IS EMITTING FROM, ANY SCENT RESIDUE WILL COLLECT IN A PARTICULAR PLACE DUE TO THE AIR MOVEMENT OF THE FLAT, the apartment and what I would say in this case is that there is enough scent in that area there for him to give me a bark indication but the source may not be in that cupboard, the source may well be in this room somewhere else but the air is actually pushing into that corner......Into this:[quoting our blog] ''It seems to us that Martin Grime is quite clear in contradicting him when he says “A SCENT SOURCE IN HERE, I.E. A PHYSICAL ARTICLE WHERE THE SCENT IS EMITTING FROM”. [end of quote]....by removing the words "If there isn't.." from the beginning in a staggeringly inept attempt to change his meaningSo when I say Textusa is a liar, I mean she is a proven, unrepentant liar"
Insane,For starters, you forgot to put this:"In the post in YOUR blog on Jan 28 2018 as a response to this particular passage you said, confirming all we had said:“Which it is”"Which it is, is not exactly an invitation to think but a statement that what you had said was factual.Continue to wait for you to tell us what do you think Eddie signalled in that backyard? A human bone? By coincidence in backyard of a house from where a child had disappeared and in which that same dog had already signalled twice?
This is Insane’s reply to the above:“She [Textusa] then contradicts herself by quoting what I actually said, and goes on to misrepresent my words "which it is" which was a response to her saying "All is scientifically explained"I don't know why you attempt this, Textusa. It is all there in black and white. Or red.You can try to lie your way out of it if you like, but you'll end up with egg on your face.”*****Let’s then put some egg on the face. So “Well, why do you think? Might interest you to know that it’s impossible to field walk in this country without finding small pieces of human bone, due to centuries of ploughing disturbing medieval graves. Consequently, it finds its way into the topsoil very readily. Try thinking outside the box for a change” IS (as we said you had said) “"All is scientifically explained".Your words. Not ours.Can you please provide links where the above statement, from YOU, is scientifically proven?One wonders why they train EVRD dogs in the UK as Insane says it’s been scientifically proven that “it’s impossible to field walk in this country without finding small pieces of human bone, due to centuries of ploughing disturbing medieval graves”. So take an EVRD dog outside and he signals from the moment he walks out the door!Funny, Eddie didn’t signal other backyards. And in that particular backyard, he only signalled one spot.Still waiting for you to tell us what you think Eddie signalled in that backyard.
What do you think Eddie signalled on the veranda, right above the spot in the flowerbed ?
I would think it's quite obvious what the dog, Eddie, signalled to in the backyard. What he was trained to do... Anyone who has followed Textusa for any time would know this. It is for NT to reply to the question posed - not to distract from that. The question has been asked of NT and I, for one, await his reply. NT has now admitted there 'was a body' in 5a then there 'wasn't.' I would assume he means a dead body. Unless he's playing more games.
Hi Textusa,just remember who stated,"Confusion is Good" then if certain persons who are here to cause,"Grief" to confuse manipulate written transactions,,Martin Grimes Crime Dogs,Eddie,Keela,they will do so to meet there masters End Game,to remain Free!That is why Missing Madeleine McCann's case is at this stage with all the,"Help,Assistance" from Government controlled elements,Control Risk Group,used to Working in War time environments,brought in to assist a family on a missing child,yeah right,Clarence Mitchell,Sheree Dodd,Justine Magiuness,John Buck,Operation Grange and Five very Senior Police Officers? Who very swiftly drift away into obscurity, one very friendly Sir Bernard Hogan Howe, Metropolitan Police Commissioner and his very astute A/C Mark Rowley,"Madeleine was too young to start out on her own life" yes Mark,she was just Three years old,nearly four, Not yet an Adult?Seriously,you couldn't make this shit up,coming out of a Assistant Commanders mouth,as to what may have happened to Madeleine McCann?PS sorry about some of the language,but it is what it is!
Are they playing games? Are they trying to muddy the waters? Keeping you busy to distract you! What is important is finding the truth. They know, they can see the ever increasing hits your blog gets, you are near the mark. DONT GIVE UP! Many people come to read, review your words over and over again and to learn the truth about Maddie. All exceptionally researched. Your analysis is second to none. I don’t know why they pick and pick away at you. If they don’t agree... fine, nobody has their arms up their backs. Stand firm. Bullies all run together unfortunately.
Comments are moderated.Comments are welcomed, but its reserved the right to delete comments deemed as spam, transparent attempts to get traffic without providing any useful commentary, and any contributions which are offensive or inappropriate for civilized discourse.Textusa