Textusa: The help and the tennis - comments continue III

Tuesday, 15 May 2018

The help and the tennis - comments continue III

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

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

187 comments:

Textusa15 May 2018, 10:16:00
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-rights

And, 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.pdf
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/notice-of-rights-and-entitlements-english-revised-by-pace-code-c-2014

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.”

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.
ReplyDelete
Replies
Anne A. Corrêa-Guedes15 May 2018, 14:51:00
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.
ReplyDelete
Replies
Anonymous15 May 2018, 16:34:00
https://www.noticiasaominuto.com/pais/1011325/diretor-nacional-da-pj-abandona-cargo-ja-ha-substituto

Luis Neves vai ser o novo director da PJ.
ReplyDelete
Replies
Textusa15 May 2018, 16:39:00
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!!
ReplyDelete
Replies
Anne A. Corrêa-Guedes15 May 2018, 17:19:00
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.
ReplyDelete
Replies
Anonymous15 May 2018, 21:19:00
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/6295328/police-chief-who-made-madeleine-mccanns-parents-suspects-now-heads-portugals-crime-squad/amp/
ReplyDelete
Replies
Anonymous16 May 2018, 15:22:00
https://www.9news.com.au/world/2018/05/16/15/36/police-chief-with-madeleine-mccann-case-history-new-top-cop-in-portugal
ReplyDelete
Replies
Textusa16 May 2018, 16:28:00
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”.
ReplyDelete
Replies
Textusa16 May 2018, 18:42:00
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.html
http://textusa.blogspot.pt/2012/11/swan-lake-act-3.html
And the Post Scriptum of:
http://textusa.blogspot.pt/2018/04/the-help-and-tennis.html

Do 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.html

Please 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.
ReplyDelete
Replies
Anonymous16 May 2018, 19:02:00
NOBODY believes what you say about the big round table
ReplyDelete
Replies
john blacksmith17 May 2018, 00:35:00
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.

ReplyDelete
Replies
Textusa17 May 2018, 15:18:00
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/caution

Cavere (beware, avoid, take precautions/defensive action; give/get surety; stipulate)
http://www.latin-dictionary.net/search/latin/cavere

Cautio (precaution; stipulation, proviso, exception; taking of precautions/care)
http://www.latin-dictionary.net/search/latin/cautio

Now, 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/arguo

Just 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)
ReplyDelete
Replies
Textusa17 May 2018, 15:19:00
(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.
ReplyDelete
Replies
Unknown17 May 2018, 22:19:00
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.
ReplyDelete
Replies
Unknown17 May 2018, 22:33:00
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete
Replies
Textusa18 May 2018, 10:41:00
Not to be published identified reader at 17 May 2018, 20:06:00,

About the word ‘arguir’:
https://www.priberam.pt/dlpo/arguir

ar·guir |güí| - Conjugar
(latim arguo, -ere, mostrar, provar, afirmar, acusar)

verbo transitivo
1. Imputar, acusar, censurar (repreendendo).
2. Inferir, deduzir.

verbo intransitivo
3. Argumentar (impugnando).
ReplyDelete
Replies
Textusa18 May 2018, 12:04:00
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."
ReplyDelete
Replies
Anonymous18 May 2018, 13:19:00
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??
ReplyDelete
Replies
Anonymous18 May 2018, 16:42:00
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?
ReplyDelete
Replies
Textusa18 May 2018, 17:00:00
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.
ReplyDelete
Replies
Anonymous18 May 2018, 23:41:00
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.
ReplyDelete
Replies
Anonymous22 May 2018, 11:08:00
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.
ReplyDelete
Replies
Textusa22 May 2018, 14:59:00
https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=1692779634152147&id=294140824016042

Ben 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
ReplyDelete
Replies
Anonymous22 May 2018, 18:17:00
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!
ReplyDelete
Replies
Textusa22 May 2018, 19:30:00
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.
ReplyDelete
Replies
Textusa23 May 2018, 10:49:00
http://blacksmithbureau.blogspot.co.uk/2018/05/the-accomplice.html

As 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.html

Mitchell 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.
ReplyDelete
Replies
john blacksmith23 May 2018, 18:40:00
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.

ReplyDelete
Replies
SadeElisha24 May 2018, 00:21:00
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 fabrication

The 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! 🙂

ReplyDelete
Replies
Anonymous24 May 2018, 06:24:00
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
ReplyDelete
Replies
Anonymous24 May 2018, 12:39:00
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.
ReplyDelete
Replies
john blacksmith24 May 2018, 15:44:00
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.

ReplyDelete
Replies
SadeElisha25 May 2018, 00:02:00
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 🙂
ReplyDelete
Replies
SadeElisha25 May 2018, 11:06:00
Is there a reason for you not publishing my last comment Textusa? As I see the one above was made after mine?
ReplyDelete
Replies
Textusa25 May 2018, 18:37:00
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.
ReplyDelete
Replies
Anonymous25 May 2018, 21:08:00
What has happened to the Cristobell site?
No one seems to comment anymore.
Have all the coffin dodgers over there finally kicked the bucket?
ReplyDelete
Replies
Textusa26 May 2018, 00:01:00
Nice to see Gemma O’Doherty retweeting her article:

https://twitter.com/gemmaod1/status/1000143140475559937
Gemma O'Doherty‏ @gemmaod1
Remembering 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:large
3:34 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.
ReplyDelete
Replies
Textusa26 May 2018, 00:11:00
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.
ReplyDelete
Replies
Textusa26 May 2018, 00:12:00
Do not publish Anonymous at 25 May 2018 ????,

Please go ahead!
ReplyDelete
Replies
Anonymous26 May 2018, 08:12:00
Anon 21.08 I think 1 or 2 people with multiple identities stopping commenting on cristobells blog has greatly decreased the number comments
ReplyDelete
Replies
Textusa27 May 2018, 10:51:00
https://productforums.google.com/forum/#!topic/blogger/MrFM0c8J0DA;context-place=forum/blogger
ReplyDelete
Replies
Anonymous27 May 2018, 12:00:00
Sade Anslow,
What is your theory about Maddie?
ReplyDelete
Replies
Textusa28 May 2018, 13:03:00
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 12:10
I'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, 14:59:00
https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=1692779634152147&id=294140824016042

Ben 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)
ReplyDelete
Replies
Textusa28 May 2018, 13:04:00
(Cont)

Not Textusa’s opinion on the forensics of the case:

“Not Textusa24 May 2018 at 12:58
Right - apologies, have had a really busy week, I promised to reply in more detail and this is the first chance I have had

The 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 etc

If 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 06:35
My 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)
ReplyDelete
Replies
Textusa28 May 2018, 13:05:00
(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)
ReplyDelete
Replies
Textusa28 May 2018, 13:06:00
(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/973313975948541953
Challenge Goverment‏ @ChallengeGovUK
Replying to @mariaccnr @K9Truth
I'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 2018

https://twitter.com/ChallengeGovUK/status/973315582169886721
Challenge Goverment‏ @ChallengeGovUK
Replying to @ChallengeGovUK @mariaccnr @K9Truth
uninterested 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 2018

We will let readers decide where these people stand.
ReplyDelete
Replies
Anonymous29 May 2018, 08:42:00
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
ReplyDelete
Replies
Textusa29 May 2018, 12:57:00
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?
Manage
Like · Reply · 13h
Sade Anslow
Sade 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!
Manage
Like · 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.
ReplyDelete
Replies
Anonymous29 May 2018, 13:43:00
Which facebook group are these exchanges taking place?
ReplyDelete
Replies
Textusa29 May 2018, 13:44:00
And always useful to know where certain people stand on certain subjects. From Insane's blog:

" john blacksmith28 May 2018 at 17:28
Hi. 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."
ReplyDelete
Replies
Anonymous29 May 2018, 13:47:00
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.
ReplyDelete
Replies
Anonymous29 May 2018, 23:18:00
Gemma O Doherty has just launched her own website. Gemma O doherty.com
Features a number of unsolved/ cover up cases including Madeleine mccann.
A
ReplyDelete
Replies
Aileen Peebles30 May 2018, 01:43:00
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!
ReplyDelete
Replies
Anonymous30 May 2018, 11:45:00
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.

ReplyDelete
Replies
Anonymous30 May 2018, 15:31:00
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
ReplyDelete
Replies
Anonymous30 May 2018, 23:34:00
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.

ReplyDelete
Replies
Anonymous31 May 2018, 09:41:00
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.
ReplyDelete
Replies
Textusa31 May 2018, 16:59:00
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.”
ReplyDelete
Replies
Anonymous31 May 2018, 19:04:00
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!
ReplyDelete
Replies
Anonymous31 May 2018, 21:17:00
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
ReplyDelete
Replies
Textusa31 May 2018, 23:10:00
https://mobile.twitter.com/AndyFish19/status/1002294800056487937
Andy Fish@AndyFish19
Replying to @SadeElisha86
I 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! #McCann
10:04 pm · 31 May 2018

Last one accusing us of that was Ben Thompson:
https://twitter.com/TheBunnyReturns/status/982715013189324800
Bugsy‏ @TheBunnyReturns
Replying to @bitconfused90
I'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 2018

We 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?
ReplyDelete
Replies
SadeElisha31 May 2018, 23:34:00
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.
ReplyDelete
Replies
SadeElisha1 Jun 2018, 02:03:00
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.
ReplyDelete
Replies
Anonymous1 Jun 2018, 09:15:00
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

ReplyDelete
Replies
Anonymous1 Jun 2018, 12:13:00
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.
ReplyDelete
Replies
Textusa1 Jun 2018, 12:26:00
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 truth

As 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?”
ReplyDelete
Replies
Textusa1 Jun 2018, 12:27:00
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 meaning

So when I say Textusa is a liar, I mean she is a proven, unrepentant liar"
ReplyDelete
Replies
Anonymous1 Jun 2018, 13:22:00
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!
ReplyDelete
Replies
Anonymous1 Jun 2018, 16:23:00
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.
ReplyDelete
Replies

Add comment

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

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

MESSAGE to NEWCOMERS

This blog believes that concerning the MADDIE McCANN case the following happened:

- Maddie McCann died in the early evening of May 3^rd, 2007, in the Apartment 5A. We believe the death to have been accidental.

- At the time of Maddie's death the Praia da Luz's Ocean Club was hosting a large swinging holiday (which we believe took place in various locations in and around Praia da Luz - from Lagos to Sagres) in which the McCanns and friends were part of among many others.

- After Maddie's death a cover-up of unseen proportions and scope took place not to hide Maddie's death but with the main purpose of hiding the presence of swinging. To achieve that, Maddie's death had to be hidden.

- We don't believe there was any sort of negligence involved in the Maddie affair. We don't believe that T9 dined at Tapas Bar from Sunday to Wednesday. We think that on those nights they left their children with professional nannies - as did other guests - to go dine downtown PdL. On Thursday night they did use Tapas but that was simply part of what was to be "negligence" that was required to allow Maddie to be "abducted."

Luz - THE VILLAGE OF THE DAMNED

PdL - What a place. Why does anyone holiday there?
It's populated by black heroin addicts, people who rob apartments, gypsies who steal scrap and wood, scruffy moustachioed lurers of children, bogus charity collectors, suspicious street musicians, men lurking near phone booths, glasses man lurking in stairwells, blond men suspiciously lurking outside apartments, soothing couples entering apartments without permission, mysterious gangs of cleaners, men taking photographs of children on beaches... And to top it all, you have to queue for a table booking.
Anonymous 11Nov 2013 12:22:00

Maybe because you can always enjoy an ice-cream in the rain?
And a dip in an icy pool on arrival always attracts a crowd.
Textusa 11Nov 2013 12:28:00

I like the Tapas fragile chairs and tables. They wobble nicely when cutting thick grilled steaks spilling the drinks all about! It's fun for the whole family!
Anonymous 11Nov 2013 13:08:00

And how about the number of men seen carrying little blond girls in the street in the middle of the night?
Anonymous 11Nov 2013 14:04:00

PdL - where families take it in turn to vomit each night, dog packs pursue and bite joggers, guests fall off catamarans, damage tendons playing tennis, have shaving accidents and stagger around apartments bleeding, domestic appliances need repair, shutters jam, baby monitors won't function at restaurants, travel cots can't be assembled.. sounds like THE VILLAGE OF THE DAMNED.
Anonymous 12 Nov 2013 12:37:00

Comments to the post "Is Kate McCann a Liar?"

PJ's Declaration for Reopening Process:

"Madeleine McCann

As is the case with any situation in which a child goes missing, notwithstanding formal dismissal of the inquiry into her disappearance, and just as has always been publicly stated, the Polícia Judiciária never stopped paying close attention to any and all information that might possibly shed light on the whereabouts of the minor Madeleine McCann, the circumstances surrounding her disappearance and the identity of the perpetrator(s).

It was with this goal in mind that in March 2011 the National Director of the Polícia Judiciária entrusted a team of investigators from the North Directorate with the mission of reassessing, as a whole, the vast amount of information gathered during the inquiry, aimed at identifying data for which a more in-depth investigation might be useful and possible.

The reassessment which took place over the last two years and a half suggested new evidence to have surfaced, which, requiring the investigation to proceed, meets the requirements set out by section 279(1) of the Portuguese Code of Criminal Procedure for reopening of the inquiry.

Accordingly, a request for reopening was made to the Public Prosecutor for the jurisdiction of Portimao, and approval granted by the latter. "

link here

Ross's Poem

A friendly holiday from Hell
Left with so many lies to tell.
Darkness in the Place of Light
Carefully hidden in plain sight.

Of scribbled lists and secret pacts
Of cold black hearts and evil acts.
Of favours called and favours won
Of innocence lost and lives undone.

Unseen powers soon took hold
Ensuring truth would not be told.
The tale of a proud nation traduced
A mockery of the case reduced.

Serpentine words slither and slime
Cynical contortions concealing crime.
Conspiracy's such an easy word
To cow the narcoleptic herd.

If she ever was, she has gone.
Yet still the dance macabre rolls on.

Imagine...

"This says it all, Ms Loach hit the nail on the head!

"Ms Loach replied: “Imagine the public believing that you covered up your child’s death and then sought to make money out of it. They feel shame, humiliation and anguish."

Yes, that's exactly what we, the public, believe, because that's exactly what they did! And, their "shame, humiliation and anguish" are because they know we know!"

Comment posted by Anonymous to Textusa at Sep 16, 2013, 8:36:00 AM on "McCann vs Amaral Libel Trial" post referring to Mockumentary maker Emma Loach's testimony on the 1st day of said trial as one of McCann's defense witness.

Compliments from the Maggots' Lair:

(dcb2):

- “If ever CEOP should have a target it is textusa.”

- “…textusa is hidden unknown entity”

- “I would prefer textusa to be wiped off the internet.”

- “…all the others pale into insignificance when compared to textusa.”

- “I think she should be on the streets and off the internet"

Chinagirl):

- “Disgusting piece of slime.”

(Raptor):

- “Yikes ! That's disgusting.”

(preciousramotswe):

- “You are right. It's a shambolic mess of vitriol and obtuseness. But then they always are. The one that some claimed finally 'proved' who was carrying who during the Smith sighting is a masterpiece of deliberately confused arguments in which labrynthine plots are used to cover how empty the central thesis is”

in Such Nice Compliments!

Conversation from the "Lightless Zone"

sabot:

“Wot Round Table?”

bonnybraes1:

“He/she/it invented a barking mad 'theory' about no-one actually having eaten in the Tapas, because he/she/it couldn't grasp the table arrangements.”

So, because textusa doesn't understand stuff like that, all the Tapas group, the staff, everyone, were lying.

OMG - you don't suppose textusa is actually Gonc, do you?”

sansouci:

“Could be Bonny.

The 'theories' about the table and the watersports are really so far beyond bizarre, that I get the feeling that 'textusa' could actually be 'pisstaka'.”

Insane's IMPORTANT Comments

“…How would any of you idiots like it if your name came into the public domain because you were witness to a crime, and some mad bitch set up a site in which she called you a liar, and claimed you were actually involved in the crime you witnessed? Just ponder on that for a moment”

Aug 28, 2011 9:27:00 AM

“…Where is your sense of shame or decency in accusing innocent witnesses of being involved in covering up the death of a child?

I see no shame or decency on here - just an utter indifference to the rights or feelings of others.

I notice no-one had the balls to answer my question about how you would feel if this was done to you - if you were a witness to a crime and some deranged cow on the internet accused you of being involved. You are all a complete disgrace.”

Aug 28, 2011 1:09:00 PM

FOOT IN THE MOUTH DISEASE

Insane (Nov 14, 2012 11:37:00 PM):

Oh look here - amazing what one can find out by means of a couple of emails to Mark Warner.

You are toast, lady. Finished.

I am going to enjoy this more than is actually decent.

Textusa (Nov 15, 2012 8:50:00 AM):

Well it seems that you're quite privy with the Ocean Club aren't you?

Them giving YOU the information about their own mails?

And you threatening us based on information that YOU apparently got from the Ocean Club.

That's really interesting, isn't it?

Insane (Nov 15, 2012 10:47:00 PM):

One thing I really like about Mark Warner is how helpful their staff are. Really go the extra mile for someone needing information. IYKWIM

Textusa (Nov 16, 2012 11:17:00 AM):

Thank you for confirming that Mark Warner Staff are supplying YOU with information pertaining the Maddie Affair.

By all means, enjoy your reading!

comments in Swan Lake - Act 3

For those not familiar with the acronym IYKWIM it means If You Know What I Mean.

Confirmation of the above said:

"As for your remarks about childcare and Mark Warner - well, as you know, I have a Mark Warner contact. I feel it's only right that they should know about the malicious falsehoods you are spreading."

comment in Truth as Clue

Insane's Moment of Rare Beauty

“It would be more suspicious if every account tallied. Police expect to find contradictions, don't tell me you did not know this?” (Nov 22, 2012 3:38:00 PM), when providing an opinion on contradictions from various statements in the PJ Files.

“I don't give a rat's arse about the statements which tally too closely - of course some of them tally too closely, there is an in depth analysis of them on my blog, the one you are not invited to.” (Nov 22, 2012 4:08:00 PM), when, exactly 30 minutes later, provides an opposite opinion, in this case about the fact that some of Tapas' Staff's statements tally too closely.

Insane's Proposal for a New Legal Disclaimer

Textusa's new disclaimer. Please ignore all previous versions

''This blog expresses exclusively the exchange of ideas and opinions between people who have sniffed WAY too many solvents, and the imaginary people who live at the bottom of their garden, and so is not responsible for the enormous fines, possible imprisonment, or lifelong incarceration in a mental hospital which may result from it's content, as although it is on the interclickyweb, it is of a private nature, accompanied only by the voices in their heads, very much like any other conversation which takes place in a psychiatric ward between people rocking backwards and forwards in their seat and eating the wallcoverings, where FREEDOM OF SPEECH is exercised in the half hour per day of free association which the inmates are allowed.''

Comment NOT published but submitted on Aug 22, 2011 10:17:00 PM

INSANE'S BLOG

We waited so long for the link...

A possible explanation for the wait: "As I have made perfectly clear, you and your sort will never have access to my blog. We are particular about who we invite, and would not include screaming harpies and riff-faff like yourself." unpublished comment from Insane at Nov 23, 2012 10:55:00 AM

Then, a glimmer of hope? “Publishing elsewhere the posts Textusa refuses to publish is also appropriate - and also gives you fools a chance to read what she withholds from you, knowing that you would desert her if you were aware of how much trouble she leads you into.” (Nov 29, 2012 12:40:00 PM)

No, it wasn’t to be so… :“For the last time, you will never be provided with a link for my blog - you are not welcome there and will never be given access” (Nov 29, 2012 1:38:00 PM)