As per blogeditorial decision of April 18 this year and practice since then, the blog has become a “single-thread forum” preferring the publication of comments over independent new posts.
Blogger has a limitation of 200 comments per comment page, so whenever the comments start to reach that number, we open up a new post so that comments continue. We did that with “The help and the tennis” and will now continue to do so with “It’s September 2018”.
Post Scriptum:
Images referred in our comment in the present post at 10 Oct 2018, 21:43:00.
Photo #1:
Photo #2:
Photo #3:
***
This comment is a reply to the 2 comments by Anonymous 30 Sep 2018, 22:15:00/22:16:00
ReplyDeleteAnonymous,
You said “Gaslighting means to cast doubt”. To gaslight is not to cast doubt. To say that is to… gaslight.
Gaslighting according to Wikipedia is a form of psychological manipulation that seeks to sow seeds of doubt in a targeted individual or in members of a targeted group, making them question their own memory, perception, and sanity. Using persistent denial, misdirection, contradiction, and lying, it attempts to destabilize the victim and delegitimize the victim's belief.
The key words above are “making them question their own memory, perception, and sanity”. It’s more than to cast a doubt but to fiddle with that database everyone has and against which one uses to reference every single issue one thinks about against which one often has.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaslighting
To gaslight is to take a fact and convince others that it is not a fact by presenting it as something else in a context that one knows will not be checked by the one to be convinced who then takes as fact that altered fact that is not a fact at all.
A simple example of gaslighting. When Jules promotes that the table shown in a 2013 documentary as a picture taken in 2007/2008:
https://twitter.com/jules1602x/status/1046014577849368576
“Jules... 🐶 🌸 🐘 🌸 🦁 🌸 @jules1602x
Replying to @Anvil161Anvil16 @EricaCantona7
Taken from the Tapas Bar circa 2007-2008.... I've been told....
5:31 am - 29 Sep 2018”
What reader unfamiliar with the case will check that the picture is from a 2013 documentary by Mr Amaral? None.
Those reading her words, will take “the circa 2007-2008” for a certainty when it is a lie. It is not meant to cast doubt but to outright deceive.
Her objective is for when we later say (or when readers read that we have said it) that there was no round table ever photographed in 2007 at Tapas – it couldn’t have been as it never existed – hopefully readers won’t believe us because their memory has been tainted with that intentionally deceiving picture shown by the intentionally deceitful Jules.
In their heads will be that table they have seen, an unchecked fact as people are naturally lazy when it comes to information as they have become used to having it spoon-fed like a spoiled toddler who will not have any other food enter his mouth other than the one he likes, and because of it these readers will disbelieve us not only on the table but on all else we say.
Jules repeatedly showing the table ignores the fact that we were the first to show that picture and until very recently the ONLY ones who did show it after the documentary. That should have been a hint for her. Another should have been that not one of her friends is echoing her. The more the picture is shown, for us the better.
http://textusa.blogspot.com/2014/03/the-proof-ocean-club-reads-textusa.html
One thing is what Jules intends, the other is what she gets. She wants to gaslight but achieves the opposite. Any reasonable person can see that esplanade pictured in the 2013 documentary has nothing to do with the esplanade seen in Mr Amaral’s book outside being the same location.
One, from Mr Amaral’s book shows how it was in everyday business while in 2013, it was dressed up for a special occasion. We believe it was exactly to produce finally a Big Round Table because of what the blog wrote but one cannot rule out the possibility of someone having really poor taste and wanting to hold their wedding there.
To see how ridiculous what Jules is attempting, all the reader has to do is to imagine that we said that a certain woman did not have a white dress she claimed to be wearing one day for work because no picture of her house, which included her wardrobe and laundry room, showed such a dress, Jules would show a picture of that woman in a white wedding gown and expect people to believe that people would believe that woman wore that dress to work and that would prove us wrong.
(Cont)
(Cont)
ReplyDeleteThere’s a limit as to what people may be convinced to believe but as stupidity is limitless, there’s no limit to what some will try.
Irrelevant of the results obtained, fact is that Jules is gaslighting. Playing with the memories, or databases, of people. Not cast doubt but to outright deceive.
Like you are doing with our debate. You have tried to shift the debate from the crux of the matter: because NT has clearly ruled out the possibility of blood having been found in apartment 5A and has also said that that there was no need for blood to be present for Keela to give a positive alert, it means that those hailing him as the new anti Messiah can only fully support him on this, otherwise they are nothing but shameless hypocrites.
That was what we pointed out and which you have since attempted to transform into a debate about whether blood was found or not. As you will see, we will not only not run away from the debate you have proposed but we will tackle it head on.
But to make it very clear and show how you have tried to gaslight, NT does not even consider the possibility of blood being found, he rules it out. If you don’t know, he claims to be a scientist so any one who says that it could be blood is explicitly contradicting him.
You saying, as you have said, that JBLIttlemore’s position of “could be blood” does not contradict NT’s “there was no blood” are expressing a conciliation that does not exist as in NT’s thesis there’s no room for a could.
When you shifted the debate to whether it’s fundamental to have human corroboration to be proved that blood was found overlooks the fact that not only that corroboration is not mentioned in NT’s words as he has clearly stated that Keela’s alert may be completely independent of the presence of any blood on site. According to him there was no blood found and he even explains how Keela’s alert does not contradict this.
Shifting the debate, you are simply gaslighting.
As we said, gaslighting goes beyond casting doubts as say it is. It’s about making facts into non-facts and non-facts into facts.
The shift of the debate was not only to cast doubt but an attempt to change the paradigm of the debate, to gaslight.
In much the same way, JBL gaslights when he shifts his position on “blood-finding” from it could not be anything but blood to it could be blood.
S/he first says this:
https://twitter.com/JBLittlemore/status/968926775312084993
“J B Littlemore @JBLittlemore
J B Littlemore Retweeted
Keela is trained to alert only to blood. That training identified a miniscule trace to be tested, hence swabs and the 'unidentified body fluid'. So I ask again, what else could it have been/what did she find? #Mccann https://twitter.com/Debzsos/status/968925783849914368
J B Littlemore added,
This Tweet is unavailable.
11:11 am - 28 Feb 2018"
Then s/he shifts to this:
https://twitter.com/JBLittlemore/status/1046513552482336768
“J B Littlemore @JBLittlemore
It has just been brought to my attention that a blog site is stating I said blood was found in 5a? And this might be to cause dissent? What I have actually said is that the samples tested were UNidentified cellular material which COULD be blood. Kindly read properly. #Mccann
2:34 pm - 30 Sep 2018”
Do see how s/he changes the paradigm of his own position on the issue. He is gaslighting about himself, attempting to have people believe that what he has shown to believe all these years was indeed something else.
What was in February (before we exposed the Lick-Spittle Gang) a certainty that it could only be blood, becomes in September only a COULD be blood without saying what else it could be.
(Cont)
(Cont)
ReplyDeleteOne is reminded of the conclusions of the FSS regarding swab 3. First, the FSS said that “all of the confirmed DNA components within this result match the corresponding components in the DNA profile of Madeline McCann” and then ended up saying in the final report that “Departing from the principle that all confirmed DNA components within the scope of this result originated from a single source, then these pointed to corresponding components in the profile of Madeleine McCann; however, if the DNA within the scope of this result originated from more than one person then the result could be explained as being DNA originating from [a mixture of DNA from both] Kate Healy and Gerald McCann”
Basically, in the Interim report was said it was from Maddie but in the final report it becomes only a COULD be from her.
JBLittlemore has simply done a FSS.
Why is this? Because this summer the Maddie case was marked with the coming out of the closet of as the new anti Messiah, NT.
Because of this, the Lick-Spittle Gang, of which JBL is clearly a member, saw itself forced to twist and turn and align their positions with NT and what he had said over the years.
These people, or at least some of them (Blacksmith, Mr Thompson, JBL, just to name these) have been writing about the case over the years. They have expressed their views and independently of people agreeing with them or not, have become associated to them.
We’re not denying the accuracy of what they have written - quite the contrary. If you remember, this debate started with us agreeing fully with what JBLittlemore had said.
However, it must be noted that all of them have either ignored or did their best to minimise its importance through jest and ridicule of whatever involved people outside T9 and the “establishment”.
We believe that what these people have said all these years that is against the T9 and the “establishment” to be mostly true.
We say mostly and not totally true because there are things that do directly involve the T9 that if the whole truth was to be told about them it would involve others. They can’t have that part of the truth outed so in these specific instances, these people have cherry-picked pieces of the truth and omitted the rest. That is the same as telling a lie.
What is within and can be contained in the T9/establishment parameters they are rigorous and absolutely truthful about. The rest, as we said, they have either ignored or jested without contradicting it with fact.
So, in terms of facts of the case, outside Blacksmith who has defended one thing, then its opposite and changes his mind as many times as the current changed direction, it can be said that what these people have written about the case until recently is credible and should be considered.
Where they lacked truthfulness is what they have intentionally omitted and no one can be accused of being false about what one hasn’t spoken about.
However the credibility of these people has been compromised with the coming out of the closet of as the new anti Messiah, NT.
That’s the problem the Lick-Spittle Gang had this summer. They had to adapt themselves to what NT had said over the years.
When NT, who has been the gang-leader from the start, invented his NT character in 2013 he didn’t consider then, nor had any reasons to, the possibility of one day having the need for his character to come out publicly as an anti.
So he simply didn’t care less of what he said, he only had to say the opposite of what we said. No matter about what.
If we said the dogs were trustworthy he would explain why they weren’t however ridiculous his explanations were. When we said that blood was found, he would explain, as usual disregarding reason, why it wasn’t. When we said that a human cadaver leaves a physical residue which emits the cadaver scent, he, again absurdly, he explained it didn’t.
This was the period when he didn’t care (or be careful not to) about using similar language as his NT persona in his blog and Walker on Twitter.
(Cont)
(Cont)
ReplyDeleteOne didn’t need to be very smart to see that NT was Walkercan1000, it was more than obvious as he then made absolutely no effort to hide it.
NT’s mission was just to be off-putting and drive people away from the blog.
The Lick-Spittle Gang (please don’t think its membership is limited to the currently known names) was by then well embedded – as today we can fully understand – as antis in the various blogs and forums, helped diss the blog by viciously criticising both the length and the style in which it was written. Discussing the facts the blog spoke about was strictly forbidden.
Over the years we have read repeatedly to the point of boredom of how boring, impossible to read our blog was. Many have said that they couldn’t get past the first paragraph, that they had given up reading it. Strangely, these same people have been able to quote us and know exactly what we defend and what we don’t. It’s like they are not telling the truth when they say they can’t read us, just trying to dissuade others to do that.
It must be said that NT’s operation has run quite well and smoothly over the years as many good people were indeed convinced to stay away from our blog.
Things changed with the red card that was shown to Jim Gamble via the Nessling affair last year. In April last year the other side felt the walls closing in and felt they had to do something about it.
So, in compliance with the Portuguese saying of “quem quer vai, quem não quer manda” (translated “he who wants goes, he who doesn’t orders [others to go]”) NT decided that for whatever reason the final push should be done by him, as he was unquestionably the best person qualified and the times were way too critical to leave things to be done by the foot-soldiers.
Quoting another Portuguese saying “pôr toda a carne no assador” which Carlos Carvalhal translated into “to put all the meat in the BBQ” (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H29HYFu_UmA), now was the time to use all and put all the reputations on the line for the final push. Nothing should be held back. And it wasn’t.
One just has to imagine, what would have happened if we, in October 2017, just a year ago had said that Sergey Malinka, Mr Thompson together with his FB group, Blacksmith and JBLittlemore would be aligning themselves with the then dormant NT. No one would have believed us.
To exemplify this, these tweets from this year:
https://twitter.com/AguiaV/status/1008119686003912704
Carolina @AguiaV
Replying to @CarlaSpade
Blacksmith does not support Not Textusa.
3:50 pm - 16 Jun 2018
https://twitter.com/AguiaV/status/1008248267631710208
Carolina @AguiaV
Replying to @CarlaSpade
I read all of Blacksmith's & nowhere do I read him defending Not Textusa.
12:21 am - 17 Jun 2018
Is there any doubt today that Blacksmith supports NT and has been fully behind him all these years? The confusion is understandable, Blacksmith only came out the closet because NT came out of the closet and only then were Blacksmith’s true colours visible to all.
The problem NT faced was that he was trapped in the character he created.
He had 2 options. One was for him to simply invent another character who would appear out of nowhere. This option presented the problem that it would be strange to have someone suddenly appearing and showing in depth knowledgeable of the case. Besides, as always happens with all NT’s FoamyO’Byrne’s, very quickly his temper and style would surface and give him away.
Another problem that this option had was that this new character wouldn’t carry with him the credibility needed to gain the status of “elected” Messiah, as that only comes with time, so it would be even stranger to see all the Lick-Spittle Gang follow an absolute stranger in blind awe.
So, to take control of things the way he wanted and the critical times demanded, he had only the other remaining option: have the NT character come out as an anti, THE anti.
Transform NT into THE anti to be followed. Gaslight people about NT’s character.
(Cont)
(Cont)
ReplyDeleteThis gaslighting presented a huge problem for the Lick-Spittle Gang. As the boss is the boss and what the boss wants is what the boss does, it was up to the Lick-Spittle Gang to adapt what they had said over the years to what NT had so carelessly said in that same period of time.
That’s why suddenly blood was no longer found in 5A (it COULD only have been found), the cadaver scent could be just airborne molecules left floating wafting in the apartment and amazingly in the backyard since May 3 until Eddie gave his alerts.
People were asked to just forget what they had read the Lick-Spittle Gang people had written over the years and just reread it. Or pretend they fully understood the new meaning of their words.
To whitewash what NT had said the Lick-Spittle Gang had to adapt what they had said to his words and say that what he had so carelessly said and what they had said was basically the same.
They saw themselves forced to keep to that tune no matter how much it was evident that what they said and what he had said were the opposite of each other. Just say it wasn’t so no matter how much it was. All that was required was for people to learn not to blink while being gaslighted.
In truth, hardly anyone has been gaslighted. Those who pretend they were are on the side of the gaslighting and not on the side of the gaslighted.
An impossible task? Yes, in a world that has shame, decency, dignity and integrity. In other words, a world that is strange to the Lick-Spittle Gang.
To achieve this, the Lick-Spittle Gang simply did a Sade Anslow, when she whitewashed Blacksmith about Totman being or not Tannerman: they just went on and told people to not read the words that had been written but to read them in that special way, the way they were “meant” to be read.
The entire exercise was so ridiculous that it turned out to be quite useful: all those who nodded in agreement with the Lick-Spittle Gang on this only showed their true colours.
Like you are now doing, when you insist that there was no blood found in apartment 5A.
You say “Blood wasn’t found, not by humans, and for proof the alert needs human corroboration”.
Let’s then speak of proof. Proof for what? Proof to be used where? The answer to these questions is simple and quite straightforward: proof to be held in a court of law.
But a court of law, the Portuguese court of law has stated that blood was found in apartment 5A. It has stated that as PROVEN fact.
Yet, apparently thinking you know more than a court of law about what is needed and what is not sufficient to have something proved in a court of law you have stated clearly that wasn’t the case: “It [PROVED that blood was found in 5A] wasn’t though, as I’ve shown in my comments above”.
You are gaslighting by our own definition of the term. You know that it was proven that blood was found in 5A. What the court found was that it was not proven was that this blood found belonged to Maddie. Not being proven that blood did not belong to Maddie does not contradict the fact that blood was found, a fact that we showed you but you preferred to ignore, was given as proved by a court of law.
And you are gaslighting if one goes by the Wikipedia definition. You are transforming a fact – that it was PROVED blood was found in apartment 5A – into a non-fact. And you are transforming a non-fact – that there was no confirmation that blood was found, meaning it only COULD have been found – into a fact. Schoolbook gaslighting.
It’s a fact that blood was found in apartment 5A. A fact that has stood in court. You know it. But if one reads your comment, all of it is based on that non-fact you are trying to push, that there was no blood found when you knew perfectly well there was.
No human corroborated that it was blood? It’s irrelevant as the court determined that it was not something that was needed, as it considered the alert given by Keela to be sufficient evidence.
(Cont)
(Cont)
ReplyDeleteYou don’t agree with it? Tough luck. You agreeing with it or not doesn’t change the fact that it is a PROVED fact in a court of law. And since all has gone up to the Portuguese Supreme Justice Court, and the McCann did not contest this PROVEN fact, it now is PROVEN that blood was found in apartment 5A that cannot be legally contested in Portugal.
So when you say “You have shown no proof blood was found. All I ask is for a single short quote, that blood was found, and yet you still haven't shown one. None exists” we have already given you the quote you have asked for – when we quoted the court – that blood had been found in 5A. It’s there on a legal document. Not one to be used in a court but one written by a court. It couldn’t be more definite than that.
By the way, we agree fully the court. We consider Keela reliable, so the alerts she gave were proof beyond reasonable doubt that blood was found in apartment 5A. To nothing else would she alert, only blood. She alerted, it’s proof there was blood there.
And even here you show your true colours as in the reliability of the dogs there are no grey areas. You cannot say that you don’t consider the dogs useless, as you said, and at the same time say it COULD be blood, as you also said.
Either Keela is reliable and there was blood in 5A as per her alert, as we agree and the court also to the point of considering it proof, or she isn’t totally reliable and her alerts can only be considered a COULD which in practical terms means she was useless.
Unsurprisingly, you are aligning yourself completely with NT on this matter, believing fully in the dogs, BUT… thus rendering them completely useless.
When you say that what she alerted to only could be blood, what you are saying is that it could be something else. By saying the word ‘could’ you are in fact stating that Keela gives false positives. Out the window goes Keela’s reliability. You, like NT, fill your mouth with praise for the dog, when you are in fact just dissing it.
Again you gaslight by making the fact that Keela was reliable into a non-fact that she wasn’t while making the non-fact that she was not absolutely reliable into a fact.
But the most damning gaslighting that you have done was not on Keela but through her on Eddie.
Transporting the reasoning you have stated for Keela’s alerts to be valid – that they need human corroboration otherwise they don’t stand in court – renders the cadaver dog, Eddie, useless in all circumstances with the impossibility of him ever being useful.
If, as you say, Keela only is able to alert to a “could”, then Eddie can only do the same. But unlike with blood, there is no possible science-based human corroboration, so ALL alerts by Eddie, whatever the circumstances, would have to have been filed under an unreliable “could”. Please ditch the cadaver dog, he’s useless.
You saying, as you do, that whatever Keela alerted to only could be blood and has to have human corroboration to be confirmed to be blood, you are saying that whatever Eddie alerted to cannot be trusted. If that’s not dissing the dogs, we don’t know what is.
The dogs are useful because they are reliable. Both indicate with absolute reliability the location of the source of the scent they were trained to alert to. One to where blood is, the other to where the human cadaver was. Simple, straightforward and sufficient proof for a court of law.
Human corroboration is only needed to prove to whom the blood belonged. Keela’s alerts determine there is blood but don’t say that it was Maddie’s. That was the corroboration that was lacking to nail the McCanns.
As our readers know, we believe there was no human corroboration because the FSS report was intentionally fudged as we have shown in various posts. It was in our opinion intentionally left inconclusive. What it says cannot be trusted.
We showed how its content is muddled up – not very scientific – in our post “Perhaps… confusing”.
http://textusa.blogspot.com/2013/11/perhaps-confusing.html
(Cont)
(Cont)
ReplyDeleteAnd even on scientific terms the report should be questioned. For example, we can’t see any reason for wet swab 15B from behind sofa wasn’t LCN tested. Why not?
So saying that the sample for swab 3A was incomplete, is in fact meaningless. Using the FSS report as evidence to contradict what is damning for the McCanns is like quoting Kate’s book as proof: ridiculous.
Once one understands that the FSS’ report had the objective to confuse rather than to clarify then one should only extract from it what is said that is damning to the cover-up. Like the passage we quoted in which the report speaks about swab 3: that it either belonged to Maddie or to one of her parents and therefore it has nothing (?) to do with the McCann family.
To call out the absurdity of what was stated one does not need any science degree, as you imply in your comment that one should absolutely have, one just needs to have a basic understanding of the English language, something that, as we will see later, is something you seem not to possess.
You trying to justify that absurdity – which is damning to the McCanns – with an alleged incompleteness of the sample just shows your agenda. A blatant absurdity that is damning to the McCanns and yet you have quickly run to justify it. Odd for someone who claims to be an anti.
To argue that many British scientists have put their name to it, it would be impossible for it to be untruthful is ridiculous. We have shown that many agencies are involved and the FSS was only but one of them. Only if one believes that all those who worked in the agencies we have named truly believe in Santa Claus and the abduction, then the excuse that people wouldn’t help in the hoax doesn’t stick.
The establishment quickly controlled the hoax at government level but the complicity was across various levels of the society. Nothing to do with the so-called “deep state” but with the normal, everyday state and its many agencies like the ones we listed in our post “28 questions”.
Under this context of feeling governmentally supported to do whatever, signing one’s name in the FSS report presented no risk. It would in no way tarnish a scientist’s professional career or reputation. On the contrary, we believe that it may have won many favours.
Gerry’s career was not harmed because of the “negligence charges” nor have the “paedo charges” affected Payne’s.
It’s clear that for the circles that matter in UK society, the Maddie case has its own “parallel reality” on in which Las Vegas motto rules: “what happens there, stays there”.
When we said “But hasn’t the argument that the forensic evidence found in apartment 5A simply isn’t enough to build a case to convict the McCanns been a pro one for all these years?” you contradicted us with “It's a factual one” we agree. But it’s factual only because of a report we find to be as credible as Kate’s book and for the same reasons: it has some nuggets that are damning to the hoax but the majority of it is to misinform.
You say “I think this is where you fall down. You assume things then present them as fact”. There you go gaslighting again. Trying to make those who read your words think we are not factual when we are. When what we state isn’t fact, we say it’s our opinion. We are so defensive in that aspect that many times we have said it’s an opinion what we believe to be a fact.
For example, it’s factual that we are accused of lying, of having done so hundreds of times, by those who are unable to produce a single lie from us. As an example, JBLittlemore has said we have lied about a quote. We have repeatedly asked where that quote was and what was it we lied about and still are waiting for an answer.
(Cont)
(Cont)
ReplyDeleteWhat we don’t do is to distort other people’s words, like you have done.
When we said “The fact that swab 3A doesn’t produce a clear result indicates to us that those 2 stains (and that entire area of the living room) was tampered with. That means someone felt the need to get rid of inconvenient evidence" you implied very clearly that we were speaking of the entire living -room: “The entire living room? How can you reach that conclusion based upon a small area?”
If we wanted to say it was the entire-room we would have said “the entire living-room” or “the entire area of the living-room”. You know that. You know exactly what area of the living-room we were referring to, the corner of the couches. “That entire area”.
Frankly, distorting those words only made you look ridiculous. So you know.
As can be seen, your comment although very polite was filled to the brink with gaslighting.
Overall, an insult to the intelligence of anyone who is minimally familiar with the case.
It’s one of those things made up to rally up bases – an expression much in use lately. Words filled with lies but words that the ears of those who have pinned their colours to the same mast one has, want to hear and will soak them up.
But then bases who need falsities to keep their convictions are simply an ignominious herd that has a motivation that reason will never penetrate, so a support we want to keep a safe distance from.
Fascinating though, has been to watch this year how many were willing to throw away their reputations all for the sake of one man, NT, selling his image as an anti.
The stupidity of the attempt is quite staggering as a wolf only passes as a sheep while wearing its clothing in fairy tales. Only those willing to be gullible believe that Red Riding Hood didn’t immediately spot it was the Big Bad Wolf, with whom she just had been speaking minutes earlier.
In real life, for one to pretend that one really believes in fairy tales can only mean despair.
Lastly, you do say that you cannot speak for Mr Thompson and Jules. Fair enough. Interesting though is how you show you can speak for JBLittlemore. You seem to know what s/he thinks, what arguments s/he can present. Fascinating. It’s like you are JBLittlemore.
We will finish this comment with the sentence from you with which we opened it: “Gaslighting means to cast doubt” which we have shown not to be the case. The reason we’re finishing with it is because it seems JBLittlemore also seems to have some sort of fixation with the word doubt:
https://twitter.com/JBLittlemore/status/1045603758137380864
“J B Littlemore @JBLittlemore
Replying to @umweltbuerger @FragrantFrog
Just a criminal shame Textusa uses such tweets to cast doubt into midst of #Mccann doubters, to mock 'antis' who don't agree with every word on that blog. I also believe that our tweets are 'our words'. Should not be copied or used to condemn. My TL is clearly doubter. Sickened.
2:18 am - 28 Sep 2018”
Agreed, Textusa - and no fudging, smudging, gaslighting, or semantics will alter that. Maddie McCann died in 5a PDL...
DeleteThe Cry - the tv series with the child’s death is trending and being discussed in press articles.
ReplyDeleteIt won’t help the Mcs as the theory M died from overdose when they were out dining will take root.
http://www.digitalspy.com/tv/feature/a868276/the-cry-episode-3-bbc-one-plot-twists-questions-theories/
DeleteThe story so far.
https://www.9news.com.au/2018/10/08/14/25/madeleine-mccann-alive-held-captive-david-edgar-theory-no-evidence-former-editor-claims
ReplyDeleteMadeleine McCann 'captive and alive' theory picked apart by former editor
By Mark Saunokonoko
2:25pm Oct 8, 2018
There is "no evidence" to support a theory missing girl Madeleine McCann is alive and living with her abductor in Portugal, according to a former leading UK newspaper editor.
Last week a retired UK detective claimed Maddie, who would now be 15 years old, was probably still somewhere in Portugal, and could even remain held captive in the small Algarve coastal town where she vanished more than 11 years ago.
Ex-cop David Edgar told British tabloid The Sun how he believed Maddie may not even be aware that she has been the subject of a massive worldwide search which began in May 2007.
But the recently retired editor of The Sunday Express, Martin Townsend, today described Edgar as being "wedded" to that theory since being hired by the McCanns in 2008.
Appearing on Channel Nine's TODAY, Townsend was asked if there was any evidence which backed up Edgar's belief. "No, none whatsoever," he replied.
"It is a theory that David Edgar, this detective, has actually expounded before. He is absolutely wedded to it," Townsend added.
Edgar, now aged 61, worked for Kate and Gerry McCann from 2008 until 2011, which is when London's Metropolitan Police launched Operation Grange to review and investigate Madeleine's mysterious disappearance.
Of all the British newspapers, it was The Express group, including Townsend's The Sunday Express, which took the most aggressive stance on Madeleine's case, and unproven theories about the possible involvement of her parents.
Mr and Mrs McCann have always steadfastly denied any knowledge of how their daughter vanished and disputed many of the stories and headlines which appeared in The Express newspaper group. In 2008 the couple from Rothley, Leicestershire successfully sued The Express group for £550,000.
Townsend told Channel Nine there was "some sort of logic" to Edgar's theory, which arose from a potential line of inquiry a pedophile gang stole Maddie.
"The window of opportunity to abduct [Madeleine] was so small that the operation to take her from that holiday apartment must have been very well thought through," Townsend said.
The one-time Portuguese lead detective on the case, Goncalo Amaral, wrote an explosive book in 2008, hypothesising an unproven theory that Maddie died in apartment 5A and her abduction had been simulated.
Several months after Maddie vanished Mr and Mrs McCann were declared arguidos, a kind of formal suspect, but that legal status was lifted when the case was shelved in 2008.
Townsend said Mr and Mrs McCann have come under "tremendous pressure" and the search for Madeleine had taken an enormous toll on the pair.
"They are still absolutely committed to finding their daughter," Townsend said.
"They have never given up hope … both parents think she is in Portugal somewhere, and hopefully still alive."
Operation Grange has cost British taxpayers more than $20 million.
*******
Question one must ask… why wasn’t this reported in the Express first?
We’ve been following the Mark Draycott discussion with interest as we wondered when Isabelle McFadden tweeted about OG, if she was referring to him.
ReplyDeleteIf so, he deleted his LinkedIn profile after we saw it earlier this week.
He’s a detective with the Metropolitan Police.
Maybe she’ll clarify as the Mark D she spoke to asked her if she believed in the early death theory, allegedly.
Where is the Draycott discussion please?
DeleteCould "The Cry" be somehow coordinated with Sonia Poulton's latest documentary, "Madeleine McCann: Public Relations & Saving Reputations",
ReplyDeletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vw8ednZYRbI
where the McCanns are vigorously thrown to the lions along with Mitchell, Brunt and Kandohla. It did feel to me like an almost completely truthful account, except for the bit where it suggested that the McCanns controlled the narrative of the case because they were attractive middle-class people who then befriended VIPs through Kate's work as an ambassador for Missing People.
Will that quench the crowd's blood thrist?
NotFrog
DO NOT PUBLISH identified reader at 8 Oct 2018, 16:06:00,
ReplyDeleteInteresting isn’t it? Both about the content you linked as about how it couldn’t be more obvious and transparent, right?
If there was to be a Nobel Prize for Shamelessness, that person would be a very serious contender but it must be said that it would be very tough job for the Nobel Committee to make a choice.
Dividing the prize to more than one person, as was done with the Peace Prize this year, would be unpractical as the list of winners would be far too long…
Interesting discussion on forensics before and after this tweet:
ReplyDeletehttps://twitter.com/DesireeLWiggin1/status/1049344171847430145
Desiree L Wiggins @DesireeLWiggin1
Replying to @AndyFish19 @GoncalAmoralis and 7 others
Andy, did you see the interview of Goncalo and Hernani discussing the VAST amounts of Madeleine's hair that was recovered? I don't think that was mentioned just by chance. Amaral stated, in that interview, that Portugal kept some of the hair. Thank GOD! #McCann
10:02 am - 8 Oct 2018
We would like to remind that we have already covered the hairs that could be tested 4 years ago:
http://textusa.blogspot.com/2014/10/sys-significant-moves.html
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/id173.htm
DeletePlease scroll down to February interview transcribed by Joana Morais: “Exclusive interview with former PJ coordinator Gonçalo Amaral, 23 February 2009.”
Mr Amaral says hairs from car destroyed by FSS. Only the 4 hairs that were LCN tested were returned to Portugal, it seems.
There were over 200 from the car. Only 15 tested, including those 4.
Hope this helps clarify.
https://themaddiecasefiles.com/the-forensic-science-service-lowe-report-t10.html
ReplyDelete“They informed further that in that search the animal specialised in detection of human blood indicated the possible presence thereof on one of the floor tiles in the living room and that the dog specialised in detection of human cadaver odour had detected the presence thereof in the couple's bedroom and in the back garden of the apartment.
Because of this it was also asked of the undersigned that they entered into contact with an English scientific advisor, named Jonathan Smith, who indicated which traces should be collected and the best way to proceed with their collection.
In that contact the undersigned were told that they should [OCR error: missing word taken to be "proceder": to proceed] proceed with the recovery of the floor tiles indicated by the dog specialised in the detection of human blood, with the recovery of hair in the corridor [pathway] that exists in the area of the back garden next to the window of the couple's bedroom, with the recovery of several pieces of the branches of the climbing plant in the garden (for later check of possible blood traces on them) and with the recovery of possible fibres on the garden wall next to the climbing plant.
He advised further that after the recovery of the tiles the animal specialised in detection of human blood should perform another search of the area from where the tiles had been recovered to verify [check for] the existence of possible human blood in the area from where the tiles had been lifted.
Subsequently it was asked of the undersigned that they watched the films of the searches performed by the dog specialised in detection of human blood so that they obtained an understanding of the area from where the tiles should be collected and how many tiles they should collect.”
******
Someone who trusted fully in Keela.
English scientific advisor Jonathan Smith indicated traces to be collected.
Proceed with recovery of floor tiles indicated by dog specialised in detection of human blood, then advised further, after recovery of tiles that Keela should perform ANOTHER search in area from where tiles recovered to verify existence of possible human blood in area where tiles lifted, using films of searches to understand areas from which tiles should be collected and how many.
4 tiles collected next to window, under sofa and skirting board next to them.
AFTER recovery of 4 tiles Keela was then put into that area and Martin Grime said they should proceed with recovery of ANOTHER tile close to an area where tile 1 was lifted from.
https://twitter.com/JBLittlemore/status/932647989658734592
ReplyDeleteJ B Littlemore @JBLittlemore
The amount of blood spilled by a grazed knee or shaving cut would barely be of the volume to suggest a death by bleeding anyway. Death can occur without bleeding. That is why Eddie's lone alerts are so interesting. #mccann
8:33 am - 20 Nov 2017
******
This is JBLittlemore’s predicament for having done a FSS on Keela is that no one can take him/her seriously any longer.
To clarify, as we showed in our comment at 8 Oct 2018, 09:25:00, to do an FSS is to transform what one said previously as an ‘is’ into a ‘could’.
In the case of JBLittlemore, it was s/he first saying that Eddie could not have detected anything else other than blood in 5A (the ‘is’) and now s/he is saying that Eddie could only have detected blood (the ‘could’).
That alone renders Eddie as absolutely useless as we explained in the same comment. That would make “Eddie's lone alerts” absolutely and totally NOT interesting, as we showed in the same comment: Eddie would only alert a COULD cadaver scent and as there is no human corroboration that science can give to that, it would always be… a COULD.
But, if one adds NT’s – the new and must follow anti of all the antis according to some of JBLittmore’s close friends – thesis about the cadaver scent to what JBLittlemore has defended about the blood dog, then only not Eddie becomes useless as it makes whoever decides to use him to be as thick as 2 short planks.
Considering that according to NT the cadaver does not leave a physical residue other than a gas during the time it was present on site, 3 months later, the location where the scent may be concentrated has no correlation with the location where the body was when it released said gas.
In fact, if NT was right, it would be a major coincidence if the locations of where the dog picked up the scent and where the body had been coincided. For example, let’s suppose the body had been in the living-room. Wouldn’t it be quite a coincidence if the airborne molecules (the scent) stayed in that same spot, instead of moving to another location in the living-room or even, say, the bedroom?
We would say that if this were to be true – which it isn’t – with time the probability of the scent being in the same location to where it the body had been when released would be highly unlikely. Only by fluke. This means, if we were to go by NT, the fact Eddie alerted in the bedroom after months of Maddie disappeared, the bedroom should be practically ruled out as the possible location for the body to have been. And it wouldn’t mean it was Maddie as it could be from another body as the scent could have just wafted in. And if we also go by JBLittlemore, it could not even have been cadaver scent!
In conclusion, according to NT, the fact that the dog picked up the scent in the bedroom does not mean it was in the bedroom the body had been and according to JBLittlemore, it could not have been cadaver scent.
So, if both NT and JBLittlemore are right, deploying an EVRD dog, would only mean, AT BEST, that an alert it COULD be cadaver scent that COULD have come from anywhere.
If one is to believe in NT and JBLittlemore, then one has to agree that only someone with not much between the ears would train EVRD dogs and then be an absolute idiot and waste money in using such ridiculous and useless assets on a crime scene.
They are calling all those who have participated in such programs – one person comes to mind immediately, Martin Grime – to be either complete idiots or absolutely corrupt as they sucked money out of an absolutely moronic government paying for something absolutely useless.
This blog, unlike NT and JBLIttlemore, believes that the EVRD dog alerts only to cadaver scent and in doing so, indicates clearly the location of where the body contaminated the surfaces it contacted with.
Eddie signalling in the living-room and bedroom is proof that holds up in a court of law that a human body was present in the living-room and the bedroom of apartment 5A.
Here is a thought for the day to get people's backs up. (Only my opinion of course).
ReplyDeleteGrange was secretly tasked with finding a patsy to take the blame.Dead one for obvious reasons.
They couldn't find a suitable candidate that would stand up to intense scrutiny,even after many years of trying,much to the displeasure of those at the top.
So now reluctantly it has quietly closed.
In a year or two someone will drop the news in during a busy news week and it will all pass us by.
And the case will remain forever unsolved with even the hard core armchair detectives eventually giving up or dying off.
All very sad,but in my view,all very true.
Anonymous 10 Oct 2018, 11:38:00,
DeletePlease don’t be such a pessimist. Blacksmith, the man who knows all and then some more, has stated quite clearly that Operation Grange has reached results. This is what he had to say on NT’s blog:
“john blacksmith9 October 2018 at 17:13
(…)
On Grange: It takes some very determined mind-sets not to see what has been happening this year: one way or another 2018 has been slow wind-down time, cut the public profile, cut the Yard comment,make the funding retrospective since there will no longer be any major calls on police resources from Grange and so on.
Conspiracy Nutter: "you mean Grange has been secretly killed off??!!"
No, Mr.CN. I mean that one way or another Grange has completed its operational work, did so, as far as I can judge, around the turn of the year. It's post-operation time now.”
According to Blackmith’s assessment – should we say certainty? – certainly based on solid foundations, Operation Grange has long finished its operational work.
We know there must be forms to complete and reports to write. There must really be tons of forms and the report must now be on the hundreds of thousands of pages by now as we are in October and there’s no outcome.
We remind readers that since the alleged ending of its operational work we have had two requests from the Met for OG to continue to be funded and no outcome.
Maybe it’s all a question of timing and the Met is waiting for a unicorn to fly by to release the results on Grange.
That said, we can only we recommend that readers sit by a window and look up at the sky. Please be aware that a pig with a cone tied to its head does not make a unicorn.
Either that, or Blacksmith finally agrees with us: Operation Grange has nothing to do with police work but is only the visible mechanism with which the UK has been playing the sick game that the Maddie case is.
On the other hand, it's pretty encouraging to see several fake antis (not saying you are one of them) announcing the end of OG and whinning about it in a coordinated way as it makes it sound more like a new "line to take" than a reality.
DeleteFor instance, when Blacksmith has a fictional "Conspiracy Nutter" say that "OG has been secretly killed off", doesn't it feel like Blacksmith is trying to convince people who don't trust him that OG has indeed been secretly killed off?
I find encouraging their need to discourage us, online truth seekers, but that's only my opinion of course.
NotFrog
https://mobile.twitter.com/justice4maddie/status/1049970772771520513
ReplyDeleteBugsy has retweeted this. But said article refers to blood found!
What will NT think?!
Why don’t Blacksmith or Ben T get the name of Mark D from Isabelle McF, as they are friends, and phone OG , then they could reassure everyone that OG was continuing.
ReplyDeleteIf they will tell an American citizen, then I’m sure they can’t refuse to speak to a U.K. taxpayer who is funding OG. At least I’m presuming they are U.K. taxpayers.
21:17
DeleteIt might just be a coincidence,but on the Cristobell forum just before, one of the regulars pulled a wind up about contacting a Grange detective and it was discussed for several days.
I myself unmasked it as a joke and the person responsible. (I'm sure others knew too)
Had this Isabelle person been reading there and got the idea I wondered when I first heard the claim.Another odd coincidence,was the person on Cristobell who did the wind up is also Mark (real name not screen one).
This all happened only a few days before the alleged Mark D was known about.
Foreword: Because of this comment we have put up a Post Scriptum in our current post:
ReplyDeleteInteresting Twitter conversation between JBLittlemore and Jules:
https://twitter.com/JBLittlemore/status/1049766510988791809
J B Littlemore @JBLittlemore
@jules1602x Good evening! Since I gather we are under observation by some shady character on here, I thought I'd ask if you had any joy in finding out when the BRT photo was actually taken? #mccann #operationbrt
2:00 pm - 9 Oct 2018
*******
https://twitter.com/jules1602x/status/1049767928663564290
Special Agent Jules... 🕵️♀️ @jules1602x
Replying to @JBLittlemore
Good evening my friend...
Yes, if the real shady would please stand up... :)
I sure have JBLittlemore... And who took the pics... :)
Photographer and date... With tablecloths too... I'm so happy .. :)
#McCann
2:05 pm - 9 Oct 2018
*******
https://twitter.com/JBLittlemore/status/1049770604809912320
J B Littlemore @JBLittlemore
Replying to @jules1602x
Perhaps you could just whisper who you think the Real Shady might be ; ) ?? So you found the photographer? That is above and beyond the call of duty! It takes all sorts ... pleased to hear the tablecloths made you happy ; ) So, was the photo taken in the Tapas bar?? #Mccann
2:16 pm - 9 Oct 2018
*******
https://twitter.com/jules1602x/status/1049773424623673345
Special Agent Jules... 🕵️♀️ @jules1602x
Replying to @JBLittlemore
I'll 'whisper' in your ear my friend....
It begins with bucket and ends with spade.... :)
Operation BRT has been underway for some time... I had to recruit an unknown... Marvellous she is... :)
Tablecloths and no placemats made me one happy lady...
The Tapas yes.. #McCann
2:27 pm - 9 Oct 2018
*******
https://twitter.com/JBLittlemore/status/1049776133607235588
J B Littlemore @JBLittlemore
Replying to @jules1602x
Sounds classy ; ) No formica there then? So was the photographer willing to discus the photograph of the BRT with you? #Mccann
2:38 pm - 9 Oct 2018
*******
https://twitter.com/jules1602x/status/1049777616977350657
Special Agent Jules... 🕵️♀️ @jules1602x
Replying to @JBLittlemore
He probably thought I was off my trolley..
Understandable...
I felt a right brucey asking...
But he was very helpful yes... :)
#McCann
2:44 pm - 9 Oct 2018
*******
https://twitter.com/JBLittlemore/status/1049779121138659329
J B Littlemore @JBLittlemore
Replying to @jules1602x
I thought you were a Sheila?! Glad he was helpful. So the BRT photo you put up was taken in the Tapas Bar. So does that mean that the square table picture I've seen bandied about is not from the Tapas Bar? #Mccann
2:50 pm - 9 Oct 2018
*******
https://twitter.com/jules1602x/status/1049780512141787136
Special Agent Jules... 🕵️♀️ @jules1602x
Replying to @JBLittlemore
I've gaslighted everyone to think I'm Shelia... Good ain't I.. Soo deceitful.. ;)
In the Tapas yes... Not just drafted in for 2013 after Kate #McCann and OC read a certain ghastly blog... :))))
The square one is a whole new story... and it doesn't involve 'pizza'gate...
2:55 pm - 9 Oct 2018
*******
https://twitter.com/JBLittlemore/status/1049783124454981632
J B Littlemore @JBLittlemore
Replying to @jules1602x
That's not quite what gas lighting means, Sheila! So many folk don't understand the precise nature of such a form of abuse - I presume you mean bludgeoned? ; )
Anyway, you seem to be saying that the BRT was in the Tapas Bar before 2013? Yes? Don't mention #pizzagate! #Mccann
3:06 pm - 9 Oct 2018
*******
https://twitter.com/jules1602x/status/1049785048571006976
Special Agent Jules... 🕵️♀️ @jules1602x
Replying to @JBLittlemore
Oh is it not...
Maybe I've been gaslighted to think I'm gaslighting..
Am I gaslighting now.. :)
Bludgeoned with a table leg yes..
Yes it sure was...
#OperationBRT solved...
#McCann
3:13 pm - 9 Oct 2018
(Cont)
(Cont)
ReplyDeletehttps://twitter.com/JBLittlemore/status/1049787117709262848
J B Littlemore @JBLittlemore
Replying to @jules1602x
I think you might be right! So solved means the photo was taken in the Tapas Bar, with the Big Round table, in 2007?
Confirmed?
#Mccann
3:22 pm - 9 Oct 2018
*******
https://twitter.com/jules1602x/status/1049788518271242240
Special Agent Jules... 🕵️♀️ @jules1602x
Replying to @JBLittlemore
Tango... :)
Coo has the proof in his beak and is en route as we speak..
10-1 Over & out...
#McCann
3:27 pm - 9 Oct 2018
*******
https://twitter.com/JBLittlemore/status/1049791209974235136
J B Littlemore @JBLittlemore
Replying to @jules1602x
I'll await my evidence from the pigeon post! Hopefully Coo will avoid the dogs ; )
Don't go striking any matches now, will you?
#mindthegas
I must away. Good night!
#Mccann
3:38 pm - 9 Oct 2018
*******
https://twitter.com/jules1602x/status/1049792719546134528
Special Agent Jules... 🕵️♀️ @jules1602x
Replying to @JBLittlemore
If they #woof in the kitchen it means coo has landed in the garage...
Night night.. Sleep well... :)
3:44 pm - 9 Oct 2018
*******
https://twitter.com/JBLittlemore/status/1049801789279797248
J B Littlemore @JBLittlemore
Replying to @jules1602x
Of course! I wouldn't have it any other way ; )))
Goodnight
#Mccann
4:20 pm - 9 Oct 2018
*******
The first thing that one has to note is that it’s confirmed that JBLittlemore thinks the Maddie case is some sort of a comedy show.
The second thing is that JBLittlemore shows clearly that s/he reads our blog.
We did – NOT – find it strange that JBLittlemore has avoided speaking about the lie he has accused us of saying about a quote, about the reward he spoke of that no longer exists, about how to the contrary he has stated there is no need for human corroboration to Keela’s alert to be proved in court that blood was found in 5A, about the discrepancies between what he says (that it could be blood) and NT and his followers take (there was no blood found) on the subject.
We would certainly like to also know why JBLittlemore thinks Eddie’s lone alerts are so interesting (“Death can occur without bleeding. That is why Eddie's lone alerts are so interesting”) considering that one, these alerts will ALWAYS fail JBLittlemore’s absolute requirement to be considered proof of a human corroboration as to date such corroboration for cadaver scent is simply not possible, and two, how does this weigh in with NT and his followers take on the cadaver scent that as the body does not leave any emitting source, the locations where the alerts occur are totally meaningless.
We were also interested to see JBLIttlemore also weigh in about the amazing similarity that we showed existed between statements of the Ocean Club staff. We wonder if s/he has some other possibility ideas besides the obvious and evident script following on their part.
JBL decided to not speak about any of the above and instead decided to undertake the task of proving that the Big Round Table (BRT) existed, as per the photograph that has been published by Jules in her Twitter timeline.
Before we deal with the table in the photograph, it seems that JBLittlemore has joined the rest of us in finding his hypothesis of 5 small round tables joined to explain the BRT absolutely ridiculous. The picture attached to Jules’ tweets does not show such joining up of tables.
(Cont)
(Cont)
ReplyDeleteJBLittlemore querying Jules above shows clearly that s/he also thinks that his/her drawing of the 5 joined small round tables is completely absurd and we couldn’t agree more.
But what is important about this admission of ridiculousness on the part of JBLittlemore, s/he is acknowledging that Jane Tanner is lying when she says this:
“4078 “Was it a table specifically for a large group or had they sort of mackled together a group of tables?”
Reply [Jane Tanner] “Erm, I think they’d put some together, but it was round, it was just one big round, a big round one.”
What then needs to be asked is why would someone lie about – or not remember it with absolute clarity – such a big object where she had allegedly sat for 5 dinners? That’s what we have been asking for years and one of the many reasons why we state that the BRT never existed and that means that the Tapas dinners also didn’t take place as described by the T9 and the Ocean Club.
But let’s look at the picture Jules is promoting as the BRT in 2007 (Photo #1 of Post Scriptum):
https://twitter.com/jules1602x/status/1046521808718102529?s=07
“Special Agent Jules... 🕵️♀️ @jules1602x
Replying to @JBLittlemore @SadeElisha86
Because he [Textusa] has nothing only the BIG ROUND TABLE that actually existed... Though he [Textusa] will never admit it... Here it is again... Incase they missed it... #McCann
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DoX-CFPXsAMLmCc.jpg
3:06 PM - 30 Sep 2018”
As we have showed, we not only have we acknowledged as after the Frog published it we were the first to echo this picture in our blog:
“Textusa25 Sep 2018, 09:55:00
https://twitter.com/FragrantFrog/status/1044313812772564992
Green Leaper @FragrantFrog
Green Leaper Retweeted Green Leaper
For the benefit of those who want to see the complete big round table....... #mccann
Green Leaper added,
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DUlnHhGXcAAiwj-.jpg
Green Leaper @FragrantFrog
#mccann
12:53 pm - 24 Sep 2018
*****
Finally!
After 1,662 days (Mar 7 2014 to Sept 24 2018), has someone from the opposing camp echoed our post “The Proof Ocean Club reads Textusa”:
http://textusa.blogspot.com/2014/03/the-proof-ocean-club-reads-textusa.html
Quoting ourselves:
“Lastly, our “Swan Lake - Act 3” post (10Nov2012) showed the extent of image manipulation in Mr Brunts’ Sky News video.
As you can see it has been quite a quest to find BRT.
The elusive and camera shy BRT.
Until, allegedly, November 16, 2013.
The BRT finally appeared and it came from a rather surprising source.
It was when CMTV aired its special on Maddie with Gonçalo Amaral and Francisco Moita Flores in studio.
After this documentary aired we said that we wouldn’t comment about its content until a decision from the Portuguese Justice System on the ongoing damage trial McCann v Amaral in Lisbon.
Our decision was made so as not to hinder in any way whatever tactic Mr Amaral chose to undertake with the CMTV documentary.
But there’s a detail in it that is not from Mr. Amaral, but from the Ocean Club itself.
A “rub-it-in-your-face” moment that no one, to our surprise we must confess, didn’t use to… rub it in our face: the historic moment when the BRT was finally photographed!
After Yeti and the Lochness Monster, only the BRT had remained to be photographed, until that precise moment.
In the CMTV video, part 1, at 29:00, when dealing with the Smith Sighting, to illustrate where, allegedly, Gerry McCann was at the time:”
And we show the picture the Frog has shown above.
Thank you, Frog!”
Jules accuses us of ignoring that this picture was published on Twitter when we have thanked Frog for having published it. Jules evidently seems to have some problems with the truth…
To be very clear, this picture is a screengrab from a CMTV video that was aired on November 16, 2013. This video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rzeBCxTb2Y8
The reader can see at 29:00 where the picture comes from.
(Cont)
(Cont)
ReplyDeleteJBL asks objectively: “So was the photographer willing to discus the photograph of the BRT with you?” and Jules replies “He probably thought I was off my trolley.. Understandable... I felt a right brucey asking... But he was very helpful yes... :)”
It seems that Jules moves in the same circles of people as Mr Amaral and CMTV do.
As far as we can see, the only way to know who the photographer was, was to contact CMTV and ask them to give the name of the photographer who took a photo in one of their 2013 documentaries and they would have to agree to release the information about him, including his contact.
Once this was done, then one had to contact the photographer and he would have to agree to talk to some websleuth who he didn’t know from anywhere about that photo.
Does this sound minimally plausible?
We are reminded about the infamous handwritten “PAID” on an alleged Portuguese legal document but it must be said that not even Isabelle McFadden would stretch her imagination this far.
But let’s suppose it’s true, that Jules has the name of the man who took the photo and who has confirmed to her that he took the picture circa 2007-2008 (and certainly explained to Jules why it was only used for the first time in 2013).
If it’s true, then why hold the information? What’s so secret about the table or the photo? It was shown publicly on national TV in Portugal, and we cannot see what secret the photographer would want to safeguard over a photo of an esplanade.
Note that although JBLittlemore insists, Jules never confirms clearly that the picture was taken in 2007. And has to resort to send privately, or as the Portuguese say “under the table”, the proof.
And why do all this publicly if the alleged proof needed to be kept secret? If that was indeed the case, after JBLittlemore asked the first question, shouldn’t Jules just reply with a “I’ll DM you”? No attention would be brought to the issue and all alleged secrecy would be maintained.
Instead, Jules says loud and clear: “I know who took the picture, I know when it was taken but it’s all such a BIG secret that I can’t share it and all on #mccann please pay attention as I want you all to know that I have this BIG secret about a photograph of a table and won’t tell!”
Would Jules miss the opportunity to rub it publicly on our face that we were wrong? Of course not.
If she had anything to show, it would be by now on NT’s blog, on JFM FB and on her twitter, on Mr Thompson’s twitter and blog and on Sade Anslow’s twitter, just to name the 3 who decided to compliment us by showing how rattled they were and changed their Twitter handles just because of us. What a compliment!
If Jules is right, then it would show NT and Mr Thompson to be very inadequate researchers if they had seen this video extract on our blog, yet failed to spot it was taken in 2007 rather than 2013.
After all he only dedicated the following posts in his blog in response to our “The Proof Ocean Club reads Textusa” post and in none does he mentions or implies that the image in the video came from 2007:
#1 - “1Just when you thought you had seen it all.......”
#2 - “Oh seriously, woman, who gives a shit?”
#3 - “Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ..............”
#4 - “That Textusa post in full.......”
#5 - “All joking apart.....”
#6 - “Mad Cow disease”
#7 - “And the Idiot of the Day award goes to.........”
It seems that post really rattled NT. But in 7 posts he never raised the possibility of that image aired in 2013 to be of 2007.
(Cont)
(Cont)
ReplyDeleteBut could Jules be talking about another photo?
She gives that indication by saying “I sure have JBLittlemore... And who took the pics... :) Photographer and date... With tablecloths too... I'm so happy .. :)”
Jules has previously showed her interest for the tablecloths in this tweet (Photo #2 of Post Scriptum):
https://twitter.com/jules1602x/status/1044343944002392064
“Special Agent Jules... 🕵️♀️ @jules1602x
Replying to @CarlaSpade @FragrantFrog
Oh yea... Tablecloths... No placemats though...
How uncouth...
#McCann
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dn5BRGfWkAAkvQ_.jpg
2:52 pm - 24 Sep 2018”
That is a different screengrab from the one in the 2013 picture. We can confirm that this image was indeed taken “circa 2007-2008”, we think it was in 2008.
But guess who is quite clear that this picture is irrelevant to the debate? Jules does, with this tweet (Photo #3 of Post Scriptum):
https://twitter.com/jules1602x/status/1044363781319651329
“Special Agent Jules... 🕵️♀️ @jules1602x
Replying to @Anvil161Anvil16 @CarlaSpade
What about this one from 2007... Not a big round table but round... Different again from Carlas pic... This footage was secretly filmed...
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dn5TUNkU8AALWfW.jpg
4:11 pm - 24 Sep 2018”
“Not a big round table but round”. One doesn’t need more to be said as Jules has said it all.
If Jules wanted pictures of small round tables at Tapas taken in 2007 all she has to do was to open Mr Amaral’s book. There are pictures of some inside.
Basically, and to answer JBLittlemore’s question, the tables (note plural) Jules has shown were BOTH photographed at Tapas. One a (not THE) BRT was in 2013 and the other (small round) in 2008.
About this particular 2008 photo (that Jules “took” a tweet from the Frog), we would recommend that Jules ask around among her friends as to why she shouldn’t publish it.
If we have to do that ourselves we shall but we trust someone will explain to Jules why it’s best to pretend that this photo, or better said screenshot, doesn’t exist.
Please be aware that even if Jules stops posting this picture – to be clear we have absolutely no problem in seeing it published over and over, we just think the other side will not be pleased to see that happen, that’s all – we may one of these days, come back to it and speak about why it’s best for the other side to pretend it doesn’t exist.
Back to the twitter conversation between JBLittlemore and Jules. For one to bluff, one has to be convincing, otherwise one is only being a fool.
However, and in Jules defense, one is pushed into a situation that the only way out one can think of doing is to bluff even not having a game and all the other players knowing one has no game whatsoever. The biggest example of this were the events of the May 3 2007 in Praia da Luz, when without a game people bluffed and are since raising the bets since then to try to cut the losses hoping the other players will be stupid and all fold.
Reading the conversation, it’s clear Jules wants out. She never started it but had to reply with something. JBLittlemore insists. Jules wiggles and tries to bluff her way out and JBLittlemore doesn’t let her.
If one has friends like JBLittlemore, who needs enemies?
To Jules we have to say what we said to Kate McCann and Dianne Webster back in 2011 in our post “Will Kate’s book definitely prove Textusa wrong?”: please do show unabashedly to the world how wrong we are, and publish the proof you have, the one you sent privately to JBLittlemore.
https://textusa.blogspot.com/2011/04/will-kates-book-definitely-prove.html
Once again those who try to minimise the importance of the fact that there was Big Round Table are only helping us prove the point we are making.
So, like we have done with the Frog, now is the turn to thank JBLIttlemore and Jules. Thank you both.
https://twitter.com/JBLittlemore/status/1050141576394084352
DeleteJ B Littlemore @JBLittlemore
Replying to @jules1602x
Indeed. Textusa was played. Apparently you weren't comfortable with the exchange last night ... where does he get his unfounded speculation from? BRT picture in public domain in 2007. The proof is in hand. FACT. #Mccann
2:50 pm - 10 Oct 2018
https://twitter.com/jules1602x/status/1050142671703027718
Special Agent Jules... 🕵️♀️ @jules1602x
Replying to @JBLittlemore
Like a kipper...
What!!!
Were you gaslighting me... :)
Do they not know people talk in private... :)
It is a FACT... 2007
Wouldn't be on here stating it otherwise...
#McCann
2:54 pm - 10 Oct 2018
*******
Jules has said it, that means it’s a fact.
Move along folks, nothing more to see here.
https://twitter.com/jules1602x/status/1050142671703027718
DeleteSpecial Agent Jules... 🕵️♀️ @jules1602x
Replying to @JBLittlemore
Like a kipper...
What!!!
Were you gaslighting me... :)
Do they not know people talk in private... :)
It is a FACT... 2007
Wouldn't be on here stating it otherwise...
#McCann
2:54 pm - 10 Oct 2018
https://twitter.com/JBLittlemore/status/1050144510502727687
J B Littlemore @JBLittlemore
Replying to @jules1602x
Exactly and it can be verified to anyone in authority who requires it. Who would dare state something so definitive if it couldn't be proven, especially under the Textusa scenario put forward - that the non BRT proves that everyone was lying about Maddie #Mccann .. somehow?
3:02 pm - 10 Oct 2018
*****
They are not revealing publicly that the BRT really exists because they will only do it to the authorities!
Why? We’re the only blog saying that the BRT never existed, and we have only 2 Chinese readers and the authorities don’t care about what we say… isn’t that so?
Guess who is debating on Twitter and now arguing that blood was found in 5A? JBLIttlemore!
ReplyDeleteGuess who he’s arguing with? Nick Townsend, the NT/Blacksmith creation!
https://twitter.com/JBLittlemore/status/1050116909537091585
J B Littlemore @JBLittlemore
Replying to @Ntown1976Nick
You have tweeted nonsense. You cannot prove no blood was found, can you? FACT. So drop the nonsense.
1:12 pm - 10 Oct 2018
https://twitter.com/JBLittlemore/status/1050120949146808321
J B Littlemore @JBLittlemore
Replying to @Ntown1976Nick
You need to take more water with it. So what was the source material where the FSS stated unidentified cellular material? Any ideas? Your uncontrollable malice against Grime & his dogs is still in full flow then? You do not know the reason Keela left SYP.
1:28 pm - 10 Oct 2018
https://twitter.com/JBLittlemore/status/1050124711513022465
J B Littlemore @JBLittlemore
FollowFollow @JBLittlemore
More
Replying to @Ntown1976Nick
Are you really unable to understand? That was not the only 'unidentified' cellular material sample. Check the files. So if not named/unidentified, how do YOU know it wasn't blood when FSS couldn't ID it? If the dog(s) alerted then we should believe it is to what they were trained
1:43 pm - 10 Oct 2018
https://twitter.com/JBLittlemore/status/1050127088110510080
J B Littlemore @JBLittlemore
Replying to @Ntown1976Nick
Answer my query. What was the tissue source of those samples (not just the one) designated as 'unidentified cellular material'? If you cannot explain you have undone your own ridiculous purpose for this exchange.
1:53 pm - 10 Oct 2018
*********
NO, NO, NO! JBLittlemore, according to YOU it COULD (repeat COULD) only be blood. It cannot be determined that it was blood, you have said it very clearly:
https://twitter.com/JBLittlemore/status/1046513552482336768
J B Littlemore @JBLittlemore
It has just been brought to my attention that a blog site is stating I said blood was found in 5a? And this might be to cause dissent? What I have actually said is that the samples tested were UNidentified cellular material which COULD be blood. Kindly read properly. #Mccann
2:34 pm - 30 Sep 2018
https://twitter.com/JBLittlemore/status/1046538138410262528
J B Littlemore @JBLittlemore
Replying to @SadeElisha86 @jules1602x
Right, so she's got me blocked but trawling my TL again?! Yet again, the inflamed paranoia is getting a grip? I have never said I don't BELIEVE Keela was right; simply that nothing has been found to PROVE it to the satisfaction of police/prosecutors. Ye gods! #Mccann
4:11 pm - 30 Sep 2018
It’s like some people are bipolar when it comes to the dogs.
One just has to imagine the world divided in two, like in the Tordesilhas Treaty, on one side Textusa and on the other NotTextusa.
When debating with us, these people defend blindly what NotTextusa defends: there was no blood in 5A and the cadaver leaves no residue behind other than a gas wafting around..
When on Twitter, where NT’s ideas are represented there by the Nick Townsend character, they defend what we defend against what NotTextusa defends: there was blood in 5A and the cadaver leaves a physical residue behind.
(By the way, having been shown that it was PROVED it was blood that was found in apartment 5A, JBLIttlemore continues to insist that it COULD only have been proven that it was blood)
https://twitter.com/JBLittlemore/status/1050134987520000015
DeleteJ B Littlemore @JBLittlemore
TEXTUSA - you are using my tweets of mins ago again. 1. You clearly do not understand context. 2. You do not understand the requirements for prosecution re blood. It must be scientifically proven. 3. There wasn't enough to be incompatible with life. 1/2 #Mccann
2:24 pm - 10 Oct 2018
https://twitter.com/JBLittlemore/status/1050135645795037185
J B Littlemore @JBLittlemore
FollowFollow @JBLittlemore
More
TEXTUSA 2/2 No doubt the coward who is stalking my tweets/timeline off tag is too feeble to even dare to stand up and declare how clever they are for you. What depths you sink to. I ask again, remove all my tweets. #Mccann
2:27 pm - 10 Oct 2018
*****
JBLittlemore,
There’s only one context: the Portuguese justice system has accepted as a PROVED fact that blood was found in apartment 5A.
End of.
https://twitter.com/JBLittlemore/status/1050146587144581120
DeleteJ B Littlemore @JBLittlemore
The minute samples in the locations alerted to by Keela were not of any amount that indicates injury or death; blood cells or their type (arterial, venous etc.) unable to be IDd; hence my point that Eddie's alerts, apart from those shared with Keela, are most important. #Mccann
3:10 pm - 10 Oct 2018
*****
JBLittlemore,
If Keela COULD only alert to blood, needed to be confirmed by human corroboration, Eddie’s alerts, according to your reasoning, COULD only be cadaver scent. According to you, not important.
We, disagree with you. Eddie’s alerts are definitely the locations of where a dead body has been, as the court has accepted as PROVED.
All that the dogs could prove, that blood was found where Keela alerted and that a dead human body was in contact with the surfaces that Eddie alerted to has been proved.
No need for further proof from the dogs.
By the way... where has Nick Townsend disappeared to?
DeleteDodgy character that one...
Of course the minuscule amounts of blood residue detected by Keela were not incompatible with life!
DeleteWould a blood detecting dog be necessary if pools of blood, indicating a possible death, remained on the floor? ( weeks after May 3, when the floor had been cleaned and other guests had inhabited the apartment)
Would any detective say the minuscule amount detected proved it couldn’t have been from a mortally injured person?
Why were both dogs used? Was Eddie expected to find an overlooked body?
This is total insanity: https://twitter.com/JBLittlemore/status/1050147152209567746
DeleteWhenever have CSI dogs alerted to 'pints of blood' from a 3-yr old child? To my understanding, Madeleine would have only had around 2-3 pints in total! Is JBL alleging that an artery was severed?
Obviously, when crime scenes have been cleaned, only trace evidence may remain. Trace evidence can be vital in forming some hypothesis as to what happened at the crime scene.
DeleteIf, for example, the blood found was indisputably M’s, then any explanation given for its location - a nosebleed, a cut knee.. needs another explanation to cover the alert of a cadaver dog.
The counter argument given by many Mc supporters is that Eddie was also trained with blood. So that’s all he alerted to in the living room.
It doesn’t explain why he alerted so vigorously to the cupboard area in the bedroom, as Keela didn’t alert there.
There has been an attempt to eliminate this alert in a specific area by the wafting cadaver odour molecules from elsewhere, including deposits in soil.
It all comes down to which scenario is most probable.
The Portuguese Supreme Court gave their verdict.
Maybe one day we will know the results from the 4 hairs Mr Amaral spoke about, in the possession of the lab in Portugal. Rebelo’s request for an examination to detect post - mortem evidence shows where his thinking was.
Possibly the most important remaining evidence in this case
Yes, wouldn't it be a fact that one of the most important reasons these dogs are used, is literally BECAUSE they can find traces of blood, no matter how minuscule?
DeleteObviously Jonathan Smith, the scientific advisor was an idiot. When he gave instructions about the collection of evidence from the floor tiles and the use of Keela, he should have said:
ReplyDelete“ Unless there are pools of blood incompatible with life, don’t bother using the dog.”
Interesting that Jules relies on the shifting of boundaries, so typical of hypocrites. 'Evidence' of swinging becomes 'proof':
ReplyDeletehttps://twitter.com/jules1602x/status/1050162208875966465 "Yes... Why you're here what evidence has Tex provided of swinging...?" (I presume she means 'while' so give her the benefit of the doubt for her clear difficulties)
https://twitter.com/jules1602x/status/1050172538138058754
"Behave Carla...
You call me disgusting yet your Master has never once provided proof of swinging
Has she never read about the former PJ Inspector bringing up the subject of swinging? Because that's known as 'evidence'. The dissembling of the lick spittles becomes ever clearer.
Also, what is Jules able to 'prove' about the Mccann's herself? All the tweeting she does on #mccann, have we even seen her theory, or is it all about validating 'personalities'?
DeleteNobody on twitter has proof the Mcs were involved. Nor on blogs.
DeleteNobody has absolute proof M is dead or how she died.
What exists are strong indicators of both. Circumstantial evidence, dogs’ indications, contradictory accounts of witnesses, including T7....
Jules is in the same position as everybody else who believes the Mcs were involved- she can’t PROVE anything.
If any of us could, we wouldn’t be blogging, tweeting and commenting!
So asking for proof of swinging is like asking for proof of how M died - accident, overdose, assault....
Please provide PROOF of overdose, as an example, if that’s what you believe.
Hear hear!
DeleteContainment within the circle is paramount. Evidenced by the fixation with this blog that reaches far more readers than all the fake anti espousings.
ReplyDeleteOn twitter they've let all the dogs out to do damage control
DeleteThey are behaving like Monty Python's Black Knight :D
If they don't agree with your blog, or its contents, why invest so much time into such deliberate provocation, viciousness, aggression? If they say they 'can't read it' etc - then leave it alone!
DeleteTextusa, have you given JBL permission to use your name in his tweets?
ReplyDeletehttps://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=1930226133740828&id=294140824016042
ReplyDelete“Textusa 10 Oct 18 15:07
As the blog takes up the majority of Textusa's time they have appointed new admin to run this page on their behalf.
There are 3 of us and we will try our best to keep the page updated & respond to any messages as soon as we can.
Thanks for following!
Admin 1
On behalf of Textusa”
******
We would like to inform our readers that we now have 3 wonderful people who have volunteered to help us (me) run the Textusa FB page.
These 3 readers are not members of the team. They are readers who wish to, like ourselves, to remain anonymous.
They will post whatever they feel they should, with absolute independence.
The team will continue to be represented there as it has always been: copying and pasting posts/comments from the blog there. What doesn’t come directly from the blog, is from one of the these 3 admin.
We would like to thank them for offering their time to help promote our message.
Thank you!
https://twitter.com/TheBunnyReturns/status/1049497098423537664
ReplyDelete00Bugsy @TheBunnyReturns
FollowFollow @TheBunnyReturns
More
Replying to @zampos @1matthewwright1 @metpoliceuk
Who is more unhinged?
42 % Tony Bennett
10% textusa
48% It’s too close to call
48 votes – Final results
#McCann
8:09 pm - 8 Oct 2018
******
Only 48 votes?? Someone must be feeling rather disappointed with such a poor turnout…
But we’re disappointed as well. That title was rightfully ours!
We demand a recount on the ground that 2 were Chinese bots, 1 person voted 3 times with a different name, 11 thought they were voting for NotTextusa, and 2 voted for Textusa because they thought Tony Bennett was the better singer.
On a serious note, we believe that it will be uncontested if we say that Mr Thompson has this obsession of calling us and Mr Bennett liars.
What we would like readers to note is that when it comes to calling Mr Bennett a liar, Mr Thompson is careful to show exactly where he thinks Mr Bennett has lied. Gives the details, exposes the inconsistencies, demonstrates the falsehoods.
When it comes to us, we’re just… liars.
If we are to believe in Jules, it seems she holds the proof that the BRT did exist in Tapas in May 2007:
ReplyDeletehttps://twitter.com/jules1602x/status/1050164833923067905
Special Agent Jules... 🕵️♀️ @jules1602x
Replying to @JBLittlemore @Anvil161Anvil16
Well it's all systems go now JBL, because their whole theory centred around a #BRT that didn't exist but it really did as we have proof... The photographer has absolutely no reason to lie... He didn't purposely take a pic of the #BRT but can clearly be seen in 2007 #mccann
4:23 pm - 10 Oct 2018
*****
https://twitter.com/JBLittlemore/status/1050166113789779968
J B Littlemore @JBLittlemore
Replying to @jules1602x @Anvil161Anvil16
The anger I've been shown SCs of, being exhibited at present, is probably for that very reason. The Big Round Table theory can be proven to be unfounded. I have seen the proof as have you. I also appreciate the photographer does not want to be deluged with demands! #Mccann
4:28 pm - 10 Oct 2018
*****
https://twitter.com/jules1602x/status/1050167544294838272
Special Agent Jules... 🕵️♀️ @jules1602x
Replying to @JBLittlemore @Anvil161Anvil16
It certainly can... I doubt he would JBL he was somewhat perplexed with my request.. Understandable.. If I'd have had a similar request I'd have probably felt the same... Just for the record, it wasn't the pic from 2013 as Tex is claiming... #mccann
4:33 pm - 10 Oct 2018
*****
Deluged with demands?
As far as we know, only this blog questions the existence of the BRT. We’re only 3 and has been widely and amply said, we only have 2 Chinese readers who don’t have time to read anything as they are busy refreshing their blog page so we can have more daily hits.
So, from where would this deluging come from? It seems to be a deluded deluging from where we stand…
And isn’t the photographer quite the talker? He is alleged to have talked with some complete stranger from the UK who allegedly happened to call him on the phone over a picture he allegedly took 11 years ago.
What does Jules have that we don’t have? Why would he have no problems in talking to Jules but talking to us would amount to a deluging?
And why not simply redact his name and contact? To be clear, even if this photographer wasn’t a figment of Jules’ imagination, we wouldn’t call him, we’re simply helping shovel some more ground out of the hole Jules and JBL dug themselves into.
Now, we’re confused.
Jules says: “it wasn't the pic from 2013 as Tex is claiming... “. This means that the unquestionable proof that Jules alleges to have in her hand isn’t the picture that was used in the 2013 documentary and which we showed in our blog in 2014, which the Frog tweeted recently and Jules has published repeatedly as the BRT.
If the 2013 picture is the BRT then maybe Jules should warn her friends to stop tweeting this picture as the BRT because it isn’t and it’s more than obvious that it wasn’t the BRT.
That only leaves the option that the proof Jules alleges to have came from the video still that she has tweeted and about which she has said (our caps) “NOT A BIG round table but round...”.
That cannot be Jules’ Big Round Table because it’s not big enough, and that is according to her.
If it’s not the 2013 photo nor the 2007 video still, then there must be a third photo that the photographer kindly let Jules have a copy of. Is there any other explanation?
We should say now that the video from where the video still came from is from Chile.
It’s going to get really confusing so we think best we should clarify from where each picture comes from:
- Photo #1 of Post Scriptum, is a photo that was used in CMTV’s 2013 documentary, which we will call the ‘2013 photo’;
- Photos #2 and #3 (same picture in fact) is a video still, so no photo, comes from a Chilean video, which we will call the ‘2007 video still’.
(Cont)
(Cont)
ReplyDeleteUnless Jules corrects us, there’s a third photo that’s neither the 2013 photo nor the 2007 video still. We can only imagine that it will show the Tapas BRT in all its glory attached with some sort of proof that it was taken in 2007. This photo has supposedly been given to Jules by the photographer who she alleges she spoke with.
To understand the complexity of the issue at hand one should read the following 2 tweet exchanges. The first one:
https://twitter.com/jules1602x/status/1050151193706713088
Special Agent Jules... 🕵️♀️ @jules1602x
There was a #BRT in the Tapas in 2007.. The same one as 2013... It wasn't drafted in for the 2013 documentary for Tex's sake... Because the authorities read the blog.. If they had they would still be asleep or died of boredom... We have had it confirmed.. The.End #McCann
3:28 pm - 10 Oct 2018
*****
https://twitter.com/sallyinspire1/status/1050244638139998209
sjames @sallyinspire1
Replying to @jules1602x
What I particularly liked about the photo taken in 2007 is that is shows a small round table and a big round table. Just for confirmation. :)
9:40 pm - 10 Oct 2018
*****
https://twitter.com/jules1602x/status/1050284581482635264
Special Agent Jules... 🕵️♀️ @jules1602x
Replying to @sallyinspire1
You've also seen proof of contact with photographer Sal.. :)
12:18 am - 11 Oct 2018
*****
https://twitter.com/sallyinspire1/status/1050361039844515840
sjames @sallyinspire1
Replying to @jules1602x
btw, the 2007 photo is nowt to do with that video ss from 2013 that people seem to be rattling on about. Well done on your research Jules. Maybe if people had spent more time originally researching we wouldn't all have spent hours of our lives debating the bloody thing.
5:22 am - 11 Oct 2018
*****
And then also this thread that happened in parallel with the above on the same subject:
https://twitter.com/jules1602x/status/1050284581482635264
Special Agent Jules... 🕵️♀️ @jules1602x
Replying to @sallyinspire1
You've also seen proof of contact with photographer Sal.. :)
12:18 am - 11 Oct 2018
*****
https://twitter.com/sallyinspire1/status/1050355516713652224
sjames @sallyinspire1
Replying to @jules1602x
I have indeed seen the proof of your convo with the photographer. I think it was probably a bit silly to base a whole theory on the size of a table. Especially as it was so easily debunked.
5:00 am - 11 Oct 2018
*****
https://twitter.com/jules1602x/status/1050365209725083648
Special Agent Jules... 🕵️♀️ @jules1602x
Replying to @sallyinspire1
Debunked it was... :)
5:39 am - 11 Oct 2018
*****
At this point in time we have 3 people who have seen the evidence that proves the BRT did indeed exist: Jules, JBLittlemore and Sallyinspire1.
They have it, hold it and won’t release it publicly, and it seems will only share it between themselves. It must really be sensitive stuff!
We are reminded of NT’s blog before he was NT. The one he said he had and didn’t let anyone see and which now has conveniently been “accidentally” deleted. Lying, knowing that all around know one is lying and being ridiculous in the process and still keep a straight face is something not many are able to master but some of those we know are indeed true experts in doing just that.
Plus, we also get to know that there is physical evidence of the photographer’s reply. That means Jules and the photographer exchanged mails.
Jules could just facilitate things and publish the thing. After all, the ones who will be most damaged by its publication, which is us, are those who have and are daring Jules to make her proof public. But she won’t.
The proof must exist because if it didn’t both JBLittlemore and Sallyinspire1 are liars as both have pinned their colours to this particular mast and we won’t let them forget that.
(Cont)
(Cont)
ReplyDeleteTo be clear, it seems there is indeed a third photo as Sallyinspire1 says “…about the photo taken in 2007 is that is shows a small round table and a big round table” and Jules has said about the 2007 video still that (our caps) “NOT A BIG round table but round...”.so Sallyinspire1 is not speaking of the about the video still but, we imagine, about a different picture altogether, one that has only been seen, as far as we know, by them three.
Reading all of the above, we remain uncertain if this third picture has come via the CMTV documentary or from the Chilean one.
There’s a strong indication that it was from CMTV as there was no photographer in the Chilean video. TV stations don’t send out photographers but reporters and camera crews.
That would mean the photographer was Portuguese. As would be anyone to be contacted on this issue at CMTV.
Let’s then trace how this alleged proof ended up in Jules hands as she alleges to have.
She called CMTV in Portugal. Someone at the central by sheer luck and coincidence was fluent in English. We imagine then the following dialogues took place over the phone:
#1
“Hi, I’m Jules from the XXXX, in the UK, and I would like to speak to someone who could tell me who was the photographer who had a picture used in the 2013 documentary done By Mr Gonçalo Amaral about Maddie McCann that your station aired in November 16 2013”, “Are you a journalist?”, “No, I’m just someone”, “Oh, that’s fine, let me just waste time CMTV is paying me for to find out what documentary you’re talking about and in the documentary what photo you are mentioning…”, “Thank you”, “You say November…?”, “16, 2013”, “Thank you, could you please hold on, while I search?”, “No problem”, operator puts on elevator music… “Hello, Ms Jules?”, “Yes?”, “Thank you for your patience, I think I found your video… the producer was Mr XXXX, do you have a pen so you can jot down his contact?”, “I Sure do!”, “His phone number is 123456789 but please don’t forget the +351”, “Ok, got it, thank you very much!”, “You’re welcome, anything else I can do for you lovely stranger? Pplease say yes as I have loads of other calls to take and I really don’t feel like it…”, “Oh no, that will be all, would love to chit chat about this and that and everything else but I do so desperately want to speak to Mr XXXX, bye!”
#2
“Hello, Mr XXXX [who by sheer luck and coincidence was fluent in English], good afternoon sir, this is Jules from the XXXX, in the UK, and I would like to speak to you to see if you could tell me who was the photographer who had a picture used in your 2013 documentary with Mr Gonçalo Amaral about Maddie McCann that CMTV station aired in November 16 2013”, “Are you a journalist?”, “No, I’m just someone”, “Oh that’s fine, I always have time to waste with strangers who ask me questions about people I worked with and I remember perfectly that documentary… which photo do you mean?”, “Oh, if you look at it, at minute 29:00 there’s a picture with tables…”, “Oh I just happen to have that video opened up in my computer right now, what a coincidence, let me see… ah, yes, I remember it as if it was yesterday, that photo was taken by YYYY”, “Would you mind giving me his contact?”, “Of course, I wouldn’t! Do you have a pen?”, “I sure do!”, “His phone number is 987654321 but please…”, “…Don’t forget the +351!, Got it, thank you very much!”, “You’re welcome, anything else I can do for you lovely stranger? Please say yes as I have loads of other people who want to talk to me and have meetings to attend and I really don’t feel like it…”, “Oh no, that will be all, would love to chit chat about this and that and everything else but I do so desperately want to speak to Mr YYYY, bye!”
(Cont)
(Cont)
ReplyDelete#3
“Hello, Mr YYYY [who also by sheer luck and coincidence was fluent in English], good afternoon sir, this is Jules from the XXXX, in the UK, and I would like to speak to you to know if you are the photographer who had a picture used in the CMTV 2013 documentary with Mr Gonçalo Amaral about Maddie McCann that was aired in November 16 2013”, “Are you a journalist?”, “No, I’m just someone”, “Oh that’s fine, I always have time to waste with strangers who ask me questions about pictures I took years ago… and I remember perfectly that documentary, as I haven’t done much since… which photo do you mean?”, “Oh, if you look at the video, at minute 29:00 there’s a picture with tables…”, “Oh I just happen to have that video opened up in my computer right now, what a coincidence, let me see… ah, yes, I remember it as if it was yesterday, that photo was taken by me yes, what would you like to know about it?”, “Did you take that picture in 2013?”, “Oh yes, I did, but you know what, I took another one of that table in 2007!”, “You did??”, “I sure did!”, “Get out of here! Can I see it?”, “Sure, do you have a mail contact so I can send you a mail and reveal my professional e-mail address so that I can receive from now tons of questions from strangers and finally get a life?”, “I sure do!”, “Well let’s exchange mails but on one condition”, “And that is?”, “That you don’t share the photo I’m going to send you, I’m very wary and I only send stuff to strangers I trust, you know…”, “Sure, it’s a deal, your secret is safe with me, I’ll only share it with 10 of my best friends…”, “10? Can it only be 7?”, “Sure, 7 it will be and I won’t share it with anyone else, here is my mail xxxxxxxx@xxxx.uk.com”, “Thank you! I’m sending you now the photo of the table taken in 2007… please check your mail”, “Got it! Thank you!”, “You’re welcome, anything else I can do for you lovely stranger? Please say yes as I have loads of other people wanting to talk to me about other photos I took over the years and I loved so much talking to you that I really don’t feel talking to anyone else for the rest of the day…”, “Oh no, that will be all, would love to chit chat about this and that and everything else but I do so want to wait until someone randomly will ask me, would love it if it was my friend JBLittlemore, if I have proof that the BRT existed in 2007 and if no one asks, I won’t tell anyone and that way no one will know I have proof that it existed, bye!”
As can be seen, very realistic. Are we being comical? No, Jules is. What she proposes is so ridiculous that it can only be laughable.
If we’re wrong about it being from CMTV, if it was from the Chilean TV the third picture came from, then all one has to do is replace CMTV for the Chilean TV in the above.
Do consider that if it was from Chile then it will be: Jules to TV (#1), Jules to producer (#2) who will then remember (sorry, imagination has run out as to why) that he knew a photographer who took a picture of the BRT in 2007 that he didn’t use in the video and then Jules to photographer (#3).
Only Jules, JBLittlemore and Sallyinspire1 can clarify that. We honestly wish they would, that they would make it all public. We even hereby promise, even though we never intended to, not to contact the photographer. If the evidence convinced JBLittlemore and Sallyinspire1, then we are certain that we will be convinced by it as well once we see it.
(Cont)
(Cont)
ReplyDeleteThe only (???) problem with the story above, is this tweet from JBLIttlemore, who we remind readers is one of the very few who has seen the evidence that the BRT exists:
https://twitter.com/JBLittlemore/status/1050168642044870657
J B Littlemore @JBLittlemore
Replying to @jules1602x
I know ; ) The point is there is a photo in the public domain, in 2007, which clearly showed the Big Round table in the Tapas Bar. It really is ridiculous fantasies like the table meaning even the OG staff had to be involved that makes idiots of others who doubt #Mccann on facts.
4:38 pm - 10 Oct 2018
Is the infamous photo in the public domain or is it not? JBLttlemore to whom was sent privately the secret evidence that a table, the BRT existed, says very clearly that this evidence is a photo in the public domain.
So, if in public domain there’s no third picture? All there is to show as proof is a 2013 picture and a 2007 video still that Jules has recognised that it doesn’t show a Big Round Table?
Honestly, after this, Isabelle’s McFadden “PAID” on a Portuguese legal document starts to make sense…
Lastly:
https://twitter.com/TheBunnyReturns/status/1050549519006478343
“00Bugsy @TheBunnyReturns
Replying to @jules1602x @Anvil161Anvil16
Only got yourself to blame I'm afraid, the Jules. You see, showing proof of something that exists when you've been told it doesn't goes against the first law of textusa: What he says must be obeyed, no matter if it's true or not.
5:51 pm - 11 Oct 2018”
“Showing proof”? Isn’t that EXACTLY what we are asking from Jules?
We have asked her and will ask her again, please show everyone the PROOF you say you have that the BRT existed in 2007, something you seem to have that no one else has found all these years.
The attempt by our critics to undermine a vital clue that shows the extent of the hoax has seriously backfired.
They have tried to persuade others the BRT existed, and then so did the dining, thus proving neglect and proving the Tapas staff were truthful about checking.
Without the BRT, all falls apart. No dining, no neglect, no checking AND it shows that the Tapas staff, for whatever reasons, helped in the hoax.
That’s why we will continue to pursue this subject, kick-started by JBLittlemore and his 5 small round joined up tables table.
S/he and Jules have helped significantly to prove that there was no BRT and we can only be grateful. They have put that table back on the table and we intend to keep it there.
Jules has replied:
Deletehttps://twitter.com/jules1602x/status/1050779628716077056
Special Agent Jules... 🕵️♀️ @jules1602x
Tex...calm down love you're going to make yourself ill...
You don't know where I'm from so shouldn't make those kind of assumptions..
I've already stated 2007 and not 2013..
I've never said it proves neglect or dining but do carry on lying...
All in good time...
#McCann
9:06 am - 12 Oct 2018
*****
Jules,
Etsás à votnade, qundao qiusrees e puedres, pubilca o que tnes em sergedo que nós fiacmos à epsera.
Unpublished Anonymous at 12 Oct 2018, 14:41:00,
ReplyDeletePlease back up your statement. From our research and having been present where you say, it’s our opinion that was not the case.
But if you can show it to be otherwise, we will evidently be corrected and publish your comment.
Thank you for understanding.
The photographs were on the old website but don't appear any longer.
DeleteAnonymous 12 Oct 2018, 21:41:00,
DeletePlease check if the photo you are looking for is the one we have posted in a Post Scriptum to our post "Balance: Unbalanced"
http://textusa.blogspot.com/2015/05/balance-unbalanced.html
That post has 5 Post Scriptums. If you scroll down to the last one, "PS 5 - The Big Round Table" you will see a picture that may be the one you're looking for.
Another possibility may be the "Tapas Bar" photographed in this Mirror article:
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/madeleine-mccann-detectives-focus-crucial-2366180
Although it does say it is of the Tapas bar, it's more than evident it isn't and the Ghoul Tour blogger has already identified to be from one of restaurant of Praia da Luz.
We will be waiting for you to let us know if one of them is what you have mentioned in your yet to be published comment.
This was the unpublished comment:
Delete“Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "It's September 2018 - Comments continue II":
Big round tables existed in the Millennium and not in the Tapas snack bar.
Posted by Anonymous to Textusa at 12 Oct 2018, 14:41:00”
*****
We didn’t publish this comment because we didn’t want to add to the confusion, and allow our opponents to have the opportunity to clutter things up by saying the BRT has never been photographed because it was brought over from the Millenium and taken back after Maddie disappeared as the T9 no longer dined at Tapas as they had, allegedly done all week long.
As can be seen in our post “Balanced: Unbalanced”, there were (and are?) round tables at the Millenium.
http://textusa.blogspot.com/2015/05/balance-unbalanced.html
Quoting ourselves from that post:
“Yes, it's a big round table but it only has 6 seats, not 9 (or 10 if you count Quiz Mistress)
Yes, it's from the Ocean Club but don't see any such table, or even a similar one at Tapas:”
We must say that we believe these Millenium tables have played a role in the case. A question one should ask, is why come up with a big round table when inventing a table for the Tapas dinners?
Indeed an odd thing to do.
Very few restaurants have such tables because as they do take up significant space, a restaurant would only have such a thing if it was sure that there was a flux of large groups on a daily basis to justify having it. That means, wherever the group dined in the area (while the children were being taken care of by MW nannies) we are certain they sat at tables rectangular in shape.
So why come up with a round one?
We believe they were influenced by the breakfast table at the Mill when they spoke. That’s what the imagery of Ocean Club restaurant furniture they had associated with meals – basically just breakfast.
In our opinion, Kate McCann just drew up what her imagination showed her from the Millenium. The only dinner time she spent at Tapas, the Thursday night, she would not have been in a state of mind nowhere near allowing her to observe what furniture was around her.
Unpublished Anonymous at 12 Oct 2018, 18:41:00,
ReplyDeleteThank you for the heads-up. We prefer to keep out of internal affairs of other sites, so what happens at CMOMM is their business.
Blacksmith doesn't agree with you as he has written about CMOMM on the Bureau recently.
DeleteOnly yesterday I believe.
Anonymous 13 Oct 2018, 11:18:00,
DeleteThe bigger the differences between us and Blacksmith the better.
https://twitter.com/AndyFish19/status/1050844038616768512
ReplyDeleteAndy Fish @AndyFish19
Replying to @AndyFish19 @Anvil161Anvil16
Anvil? So half of the Algarve & every single person who worked there, (PDL) got in on the cover up?
Everyone who was in PDL had a swinging session?
MURAT got his car sorted (to store, M) & Payne smacked her one after some 'tickle' with K?
Per the loon called Textusa!
#McCann
1:21 pm - 12 Oct 2018
*****
Just an example of how the blog is fought by people who have no problem in putting words in our mouths.
Did we say any of the above? Well, Mr Fish can prove us wrong and quote us saying what he’s saying we’ve said. That will prove him right.
Like others before and alongside him, he won’t put his money where his mouth his and will just let it run off against us.
Mr Fish has replied:
Deletehttps://twitter.com/AndyFish19/status/1051022776285319168
Andy Fish @AndyFish19
& #Textusa.
I've told your pathetic WUM on here (Whimpering) to sod off! I've just looked at your blog comments & will say exactly the same to you...
#SodOff
#McCann
#Cheers
#WUM
1:12 am - 13 Oct 2018
I mentioned that if Andy Fish took out the word 'everyone' was in on it, he was getting warmer.
DeleteWhispering
https://twitter.com/JBLittlemore/status/1050165298354114560
ReplyDeleteJ B Littlemore@JBLittlemore
If anyone is interested enough in facts, as opposed to paranoid speculations, large areas of bloodspills, cleaned up, will still react to luminol & reveal scale of blood loss. Large amount = poss incompatible with life; small amount will NOT confirm death. Obviously.! #Mccann
12:24 am · 11 Oct 2018
*******
To end this debate about whether blood was found or not in apartment 5A – NT says there was no blood there, JBLittlemore says that what Keela alerted to could (leaving the possibility of it not being) be blood, and the Portuguese justice system says there was blood found in the apartment – we would like to expose the last attempt from JBLittlemore that we are aware of in trying to gaslight readers about our blog.
So that we’re not accused of putting anything out of context let’s be clear that when JBLittlemore speaks of “paranoid speculations” he’s speaking about the blog.
Above, his/her words “small amount [of blood] will NOT confirm death” make people believe that it’s our belief that the fact blood was found in 5A it would confirm that Maddie died in that apartment.
Blatant and shameless gaslighting.
JBLittlemore, please quote us when we have ever said that the fact that blood was found, that meant it was proved that Maddie had died.
Failing to do so, you are confirming that you are intentionally gaslighting, misleading people about what the blog subscribes to and believes in.
What we have said is that we believe that the DNA found in apartment 5A is from blood in our post “DNA is… DNA”.
http://textusa.blogspot.com/2013/09/dna-is-dna.html
Then we said in our post “It’s Maddie’s blood” that if one reads attentively what the FSS report says about Swab3 one could conclude that it was from Maddie.
http://textusa.blogspot.com/2013/11/fss-its-maddies-blood.html
The link we made between Swab3 and blood was because we firmly believe that the DNA collected from the swabs from the living-room are from blood.
Even if Swab3 is from Maddie’s blood, as per the reasons we showed, that does not prove in any way that Maddie is dead.
Blood found only means that: it is blood and nothing else.
If the blood under the tile was from Maddie and it was found after the floor had been cleaned on a number of occasions, it suggests the original source must have been quite copious to seep under tiles.
Even a copious amount of blood doesn’t prove a death, as we are well aware. It could be explained by an innocent injury or even a nosebleed.
But combining the blood dog and cadaver dog alerts, the conclusion is more sinister.
Depending on which JBLittlemore one reads, it’s accepted by you when you play JBLittlemore1 that it IS blood but when you play JBLittlemore2 you only say it could be.
If bleach is used, as often is to clean tiled areas, it will show up with luminol, masking any possible blood traces.
https://amp.reddit.com/r/MakingaMurderer/comments/413mf1/the_blood_the_bleach_and_the_luminol_information/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/15966054/
We doubt that blood which was cleaned away with efficient materials would leave any traces detectable by luminol, particularly as tiles aren’t permeable. It seems it was the material which seeped between/under the tiles which remained, to a limited extent.
So better to use a blood detecting dog who isn’t fooled by masking agents.
In 5A, bleach or another cleansing agent may have been used, then the floor cleaned with bleach and without between subsequent guests.
Keela wasn’t fooled. She proves that blood was found in 5A. And she only proves that.
Very interesting, Textusa. How anyone could classify this as ‘paranoid speculation’ is perplexing.
DeleteBlacksmith demonstrates his interests: "Bureau regulars can look forward with that delightful sensation you get in the theatre when the lights go down, voices die away to a whisper and you know the next act is about to begin. And it's going to be a belter. Take your seats."
ReplyDelete'Theatre *for* Bureau regulars', no less! Nothing about justice for Mccann, least of all Madeleine.
the key bit being...."voices die away to a whisper".......
ReplyDeleteJBLittlemore proving the dog-disser he is:
ReplyDeletehttps://twitter.com/JBLittlemore/status/1050822942228123648
J B Littlemore @JBLittlemore
Replying to @jules1602x
Yes. The dogs were used to provide indicators of the poss scenario surrounding M #Mccann s disappearance. Keela's alerts in tandem left those unique to Eddie, which indicated (not proved) death in 5a. As you say even Martin Grime stated the indications would need to be proven.
11:58 am - 12 Oct 2018
*****
JBLittlemore thinks he knows more than a Portuguese court.
Eddie’s alerts are mere indications, according to JBLittlemore, and not proof of death in 5A.
As we said before, while – even though not needed as per the court acórdão – there are means to show whether a collected substance is blood, thus simply re-enforcing the proof being the idea of the identification of the blood to determine its DNA and so identify its human source, there is no way to corroborate scientifically – if it was needed, which it isn’t – the cadaver scent.
As we have repeatedly shown, and is shown clearly above, JBLittlemore states that Eddie’s alerts are mere indications.
Eddie is useless. According to JBLittlemore, that is. In black and white above.
Again, if that isn’t dissing the dogs, we don’t know what is.
Fortunately, the Portuguese courts don’t subscribe to JBLittlemore’s expert opinions on this as they have shown they don’t. We’re not speculating but stating fact. The court has stated that Eddie’s alerts are proof of death in 5A. Not proof of THE death of Maddie but that they are PROOF of death in 5A.
However, on other scientific issues the Portuguese courts might agree, or even may have agreed, with JBLittlemore’s expert opinions.
It must be said that we are now finding extremely interesting JBLittlemore’s participation in the case. We would even say that we have become more interested in him and in what he has said, says and will say than we are in the rest of the entire Lick-Spittle gang including NT and Blacksmith.
Things have become so much clearer now. We like things to be proper. Not ‘proper’ but proper:
https://twitter.com/JBLittlemore/status/1051227104661184513
“J B Littlemore @JBLittlemore
Replying to @1matthewwright1 @grand___wazoo
I know. Can't help it! But you know me, Matthew ... like things to be 'proper' ; ) #Mccann
2:44 pm - 13 Oct 2018”
"Fortunately, the Portuguese courts don’t subscribe to JBLittlemore’s expert opinions on this as they have shown they don’t. We’re not speculating but stating fact. The court has stated that Eddie’s alerts are proof of death in 5A. Not proof of THE death of Maddie but that they are PROOF of death in 5A."
ReplyDeleteWhere?
http://pjga.blogspot.com/2016/04/full-translation-decision-from.html
Deletehttps://1.bp.blogspot.com/-CWZ1fz0MihI/VxYyZMV3gpI/AAAAAAAAC_Q/EjoFWjpHqmMepRXCvwwUlVskH2X6Y9BbQCKgB/s1600/TRL_Page_05.jpg
In Portuguese:
2. Em 1ª instância, foi dada como provada a seguinte matéria factual:
(…)
6. Os cães da policia britânica “Eddie” e “Keela” detectaram marca de odores de sangue humano e de cadáver no apartamento 5-A do Ocean Club (al AR).
In English:
2. On 1st instance, it was given as proved the following factual matter:
(…)
6. The dogs of the British police “Eddie” and “Keela” detected marks of odour of human blood and of cadaver in the apartment 5-A of the Ocean Club (al AR).
*******
The court determined as a proven fact that there had been a dead body in apartment 5A.
End of.
https://twitter.com/JBLittlemore/status/1051259526232596480
ReplyDeleteJ B Littlemore @JBLittlemore
1. About the dogs:- the dog alert indications MUST be corroborated IF TO ESTABLISH THEIR FINDINGS AS EVIDENCE #mccann
4:52 pm - 13 Oct 2018
*****
https://twitter.com/JBLittlemore/status/1051259660513275905
J B Littlemore @JBLittlemore
2. .. as no human remains were located, the only alert indications that may become corroborated are those that the CSI dog indicated by forensic laboratory analysis. #mccann
4:53 pm - 13 Oct 2018
*****
https://twitter.com/JBLittlemore/status/1051259826448359424
J B Littlemore @JBLittlemore
3... as regards to the EVRD's alert indications is that it is SUGGESTIVE that this is 'cadaver scent' contaminant. #mccann
4:54 pm - 13 Oct 2018
*****
https://twitter.com/JBLittlemore/status/1051260041083461632
J B Littlemore @JBLittlemore
4... cross contamination could be as a result of a number of given scenarios and in any event no evidential or intelligence reliability can be made from these alerts UNLESS they can be confirmed with corroborating evidence #mccann
4:54 pm - 13 Oct 2018
*****
https://twitter.com/JBLittlemore/status/1051260239989886981
J B Littlemore @JBLittlemore
5. It is possible that the EVRD is alerting to 'cadaver scent' contaminant or human blood scent. No evidential or intelligence reliability can be made from this alert unless it can be confirmed with corroborating evidence. #mccann
4:55 pm - 13 Oct 2018
*****
https://twitter.com/JBLittlemore/status/1051260455329632259
J B Littlemore @JBLittlemore
6. 'False' positives are always a possibility #mccann
4:56 pm - 13 Oct 2018
*****
https://twitter.com/JBLittlemore/status/1051260643301580800
J B Littlemore @JBLittlemore
7. .. forensic confirmation is required in all cases so as to be included as proof #mccann
4:57 pm - 13 Oct 2018
*****
https://twitter.com/JBLittlemore/status/1051260840366755840
J B Littlemore @JBLittlemore
8. Whereas there may be no retrievable evidence for court purposes this may well assist INTELLIGENCE gathering in Major Crime investigations. #mccann
4:58 pm - 13 Oct 2018
*****
https://twitter.com/JBLittlemore/status/1051261272292040706
J B Littlemore @JBLittlemore
9. Finally, a note, relevant to the dogs’ use and alerts – evidence is not proof, which is conclusive, indisputable. Evidence by its nature can be open to challenge - in court. #mccann Goodnight.
4:59 pm - 13 Oct 2018
*****
Or the above put together:
1. About the dogs:- the dog alert indications MUST be corroborated IF TO ESTABLISH THEIR FINDINGS AS EVIDENCE
2. .. as no human remains were located, the only alert indications that may become corroborated are those that the CSI dog indicated by forensic laboratory analysis.
3... as regards to the EVRD's alert indications is that it is SUGGESTIVE that this is 'cadaver scent' contaminant.
4... cross contamination could be as a result of a number of given scenarios and in any event no evidential or intelligence reliability can be made from these alerts UNLESS they can be confirmed with corroborating evidence
5. It is possible that the EVRD is alerting to 'cadaver scent' contaminant or human blood scent. No evidential or intelligence reliability can be made from this alert unless it can be confirmed with corroborating evidence.
6. 'False' positives are always a possibility
7. .. forensic confirmation is required in all cases so as to be included as proof
8. Whereas there may be no retrievable evidence for court purposes this may well assist INTELLIGENCE gathering in Major Crime investigations.
9. Finally, a note, relevant to the dogs’ use and alerts – evidence is not proof, which is conclusive, indisputable. Evidence by its nature can be open to challenge - in court.
We would say that a pro wouldn’t have argued the case better. Oh, wait…
Isn’t it like reading Stop The Myths forum?
DeleteBetter yet, isn’t it just like reading NT’s blog? As the similarities are so striking one would even be tempted to think that much of the scientific stuff written on NT’s blog (do keep in mind that NT claims to be a scientist) was written up by JBLittlemore and was simply spiced up with NT’s abuse just to make it seem that it was his.
Pure speculation, of course.
Yes, this is exactly the response I had when reading JBL's tweets. It's also interesting how he's given up entirely on the stupidity of 'lifting his tweets', which he OWNS!
DeleteCan anyone explain what a 'false' positive is?
DeleteIt's either false or not false.
http://textusa.blogspot.com/2018/01/the-reliability-of-cadaver-dogs.html
DeleteSo evidence has to be substantiated in court! Who knew?
DeleteFor the court, the dogs were sufficient substantiation of the evidence of blood being in 5A as well as a dead body having been in that apartment.
The dogs didn’t provide in any way that the blood found in 5A came from Maddie nor that the dead body was hers.
Eddie indicated cadaver odour in 5A, there is no record of any death in 5A.
The idea is to take us back to the beginning. Without the discovery of a body, there can be no prosecution argument.
One must (NOT) wonder why has JBL bothered to tweet about this in the first place if that’s the conclusion he had arrived to.
NT and JBLittlemore between them: cross- contamination, ancient contaminated soil, drifting molecules, no need for direct contact between body and surfaces, false positives, no proof of blood, no proof of blood incompatible with life, no proof blood was M’s. The dogs did their best but their best simply doesn’t stand up in court. It’s really a pity but there’s nothing that can be done other than to archive the case. Yes, it really hurts to see the evil McCanns getting away with it but life sometimes is unfair, so move along folks.
Again we ask, what good are the EVRD dogs? Why train them? Why invest in such a program? Why pay so much for them? Why did the Met use them again in Luz in 2014?
False Positive means a positive alert which is an error
DeleteFalse Negative means no alert when there was something that should have triggered alert.
Anonymous 14 Oct 2018, 13:10:00,
DeleteThank you for your explanation.
Now could you please tell us what a 'false' positive is? A positive alert which is 80% an error? 60%? 20%?
For a result to be a false positive, it would need to be shown that the substance the dog was trained to alert to wasn’t there, and never had been. In experimental conditions, it would be possible to present a dog with a sterile environment where no blood, for example, was present.
DeleteIf the dog then alerted, I guess that would be 100% false positive.
I can’t see how there would be any other degrees of uncertainty.
In 5a, I can’t see how any alert to blood could be stated to be a false positive as the presence of blood traces wasn’t ruled out before the dog was used.
So I don’t know why the subject of false positive was raised in this context.
I took it to mean Keela May have alerted with a false positive.
That’s not what I believe.
Anonymous 14 Oct 2018, 13:36:00,
DeleteOur apologies. We thought you were from the dark side.
Agree, there's no such thing as a 'false' positive.
By the way, and this is not directed at you, there are no false positives either. The dogs are 100% reliable.
https://twitter.com/JBLittlemore/status/1051453338359947264
DeleteJ B Littlemore @JBLittlemore
10. Interesting! The rot is revealed. Every word in my Tweets 1 to 8 incl is from Martin Grime's statements yet I'm accused of 'pretendy' or 'pro couldn't have put it better' (Textusa). Yes M Grime's statements = evidence too. He believes in his dogs. I do too, but PROOF? #Mccann
5:43 am - 14 Oct 2018
JBLittlemore,
DeleteFor someone who complains about having his words used outside context, what you have done with Martin Grime's words is nothing short of abhorrent.
Not very scientific of you to not have mentioned that you were quoting and not mention who you were quoting. Only shows your despair.
Apologies for such a short reply for now but we're enjoying our Sunday. We will reply later.
https://twitter.com/TheBunnyReturns/status/1051491078141034498
ReplyDelete00Bugsy @TheBunnyReturns
Replying to @jules1602x @Anvil161Anvil16 @umweltbuerger
It hasn't. Caught out writing comments as anon on their own blog as well. Cringe!
8:13 am - 14 Oct 2018
*****
https://twitter.com/jules1602x/status/1051492370825601025
Special Agent Jules... 🕵️♀️ @jules1602x
Replying to @TheBunnyReturns @Anvil161Anvil16 @umweltbuerger
Oh was it on there own...?
8:18 am - 14 Oct 2018
*****
https://twitter.com/TheBunnyReturns/status/1051493232343953408
00Bugsy @TheBunnyReturns
FollowFollow @TheBunnyReturns
More
Replying to @jules1602x @Anvil161Anvil16 @umweltbuerger
Certainly was. Replying to their own tweet as anon, but fucking it right up:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DpenhEkW4AIdGSi.jpg
8:21 am - 14 Oct 2018
[The picture attached to the tweet above contains a screengrab from our blog:
“Anonymous14 Oct 2018, 13:36:00
For a result to be a false positive, it would need to be shown that the substance the dog was trained to alert to wasn’t there, and never had been. In experimental conditions, it would be possible to present a dog with a sterile environment where no blood, for example, was present.
If the dog then alerted, I guess that would be 100% false positive.
I can’t see how there would be any other degrees of uncertainty.
In 5a, I can’t see how any alert to blood could be stated to be a false positive as the presence of blood traces wasn’t ruled out before the dog was used.
So I don’t know why the subject of false positive was raised in this context.
I took it to mean Keela May have alerted with a false positive.
That’s not what I believe.
Reply
Textusa14 Oct 2018, 13:35:00
For a result to be a false positive, it would need to be shown that the substance the dog was trained to alert to wasn’t there, and never had been. In experimental conditions, it would be possible to present a dog with a sterile environment where no blood, for example, was present.
If the dog then alerted, I guess that would be 100% false positive.
I can’t see how there would be any other degrees of uncertainty.
In 5a, I can’t see how any alert to blood could be stated to be a false positive as the presence of blood traces wasn’t ruled out before the dog was used.
So I don’t know why the subject of false positive was raised in this context.
I took it to mean Keela May have alerted with a false positive.
That’s not what I believe.
Reply]
*****
We were caught deleting a comment. Wow. We must close the blog immediately, as all has been compromised because we have been exposed beyond repair and the only thing left for us to do now is to delete all and go away forever.
Good to know that this is the best they have against us.
This and the accusation of us lying to everyone that NT is Walker. A terrible, terrible lie that seems to have so many worried. A ‘lie’ that even NT himself only started to be worried about in December 2017, when he came back from his NT retreat (as we know he had been active as Watcher).
NT himself, has complained on Thursday, 20 September 2018 that he was having posting problems: “I have had a couple of people tell me that they have experienced problems when trying to post; typically, the post can be composed but no “your post will appear when approved “ message pops up. The post doesn’t appear at this end .”
In our case, we have had a friend of ours who has found a problem in submitting comments. That friend is the only one that has informed us of the problem and that friend is not Anonymous14 Oct 2018, 13:36:00.
(Cont)
(Cont)
ReplyDeleteHowever, we have more than once published our friend’s comments under Anonymous as per his/her wishes to be anonymous.
To be clear, we don’t publish only comments that we receive via Blogger. Not only due to technical issues (as we said, only one person has reported such a problem to us) but from other sources: our personal mail boxes and FB private messages.
Today all were able to see on Twitter how those who dare express any support for us are immediately pounced on. That has been going on since I opened the blog, so it’s natural for those who support us to prefer to do so under anonymity.
Another reason people ask us to publish their comments is that there are people who don’t wish to go through the validation process of submitting a comment to the blog. We have one very good friend who asks us to submit his/her comment under Anonymous but then the comment includes his/her name signing it.
Another person who falls under this category is our “FB Anon”. On my FB PM, this anon said that s/he didn’t want to go through the validation process and it was agreed that his/her comments would be known as “FB Anon”.
For different reasons, people ask us to submit a comment for them as Anonymous. Today, it just happened that when I was about to leave the house and enjoy my Sunday with friends and family, I received in the mail a request to publish comment, and doing it in a hurry, I made the mistake and posted the comment as Textusa. Noticed what I had just done and so published it again as the reply that it was meant to be. Forgot to delete the first comment published.
Anonymous 14 Oct 2018, 13:36:00 is also Anonymous 14 Oct 2018, 13:10:00. When publishing the 13:10:00 comment I mailed back and warned that I was going to reply and was going to be patronising because that seemed to be a comment coming from a pro. Didn’t expect a reply to the reply so quickly but that was what happened: “Just sent a response. After your rudeness you can jolly well apologise, or I will report you to Google!”
It was this anon who via mail at 14:48 warned me that the comment appeared twice: “You published my comment as anon, then later as Textusa!”. It was the other way around.
So I deleted the comment more than an hour after I had published it under the wrong name and location.
We are fully aware that our critics won’t believe a word of the above. And that they will be vocal about not believing it.
We act according to our conscience, so we don’t mind what people – always the same ones – have to say about believing us or not. As we do with the facts of the case, we have given a reason about what happened and will leave it up to our readers to decide for themselves.
Great response to their attacks on you deleting a comment. That's partly why I comment anonymously, to be spared from their 'treatment'. Especially as it appears that some of them wish to carry this out in the REAL WORLD, which is depraved.
DeleteFrom our “FB Anon”:
ReplyDelete“I see the question of the BRT has been raised on the Justice for Madeleine FB page. Someone made a comment daring to suggest that the BRT didn't exist and once again Ben Thompson and his fellow admins are quick to shut the discussion down. When the commenter says she's not convinced by the photograph Ben Thompson says "enough of this nonsense" Another admin, Karen Lowe Sanders, says that it did exist as Kate McCann drew a plan of it which is attached to her statement. Apparently it's Ok to suggest that the McCann's are liars, except when it comes to the Tapas dinners and the BRT. How obliging of Justice for Madeleine to promote and support the McCann's alibi, aided and abetted by NT of course. It couldn't be any clearer that their objective is to try to cover up the cover up, and place all the blame for this sorry saga at the feet of the Mccanns. Needless to say, the person who didn't believe in the BRT is no longer a member of Justice for Madeleine.”
Kate was handed a diagram of the big round table by the PJ and asked to indicate where people were sitting.
DeleteSo are you claiming the PJ made it up?
Anonymous 14 Oct 2018, 21:00:00,
DeleteCould you please provide proof that PJ handed the diagram over to Kate?
Are you saying that having sat at a rectangular shaped table, Kate indicated where people were sitting at a round table that never existed and just signed it off?
Oh wait... are you saying the Big Round Table, that Jules swears to have photographic evidence of and which was given to her by the photographer just the other day and that at least 2 other people have seen, never existed and it was just a diagram from the PJ?
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/Processopdf10page53Kateinterrogatio.jpg
DeleteUnless you are suggesting that she suddenly gained a fluency in Portuguese and went in there with a diagram she printed off a computer. Who said anything about a rectangular table? She said the table ws round
Anonymous 14 Oct 2018, 22:19:00,
DeleteFluency in Portuguese?
Your comment suggests that the "roundness" of the table of the diagram came from the PJ and not from Kate.
How did a printed circle was put in front of her? She said in English she sat at a round table. Someone in the PJ, opened a Powerpoint presentation, drew a circle on a slide and printed it. Handed the print out to Kate and said, in Portuguese to the translator, "Could you please ask her to put the names of the people around the table? Thank you"
Are you suggesting that in all the visits to the Tapas to take statements etc the PJ never once asked where the McCanns were sitting?
DeleteAnonymous 14 Oct 2018, 22:49:00,
DeleteTHANK YOU!!!
VERY IMPORTANT comment! We will be quoting you when we reply to all that your comment implicates.
Once again, thank you! Finally someone asked that question!
https://twitter.com/jules1602x/status/1051447036279701505
ReplyDeleteSpecial Agent Jules... 🕵️♀️ @jules1602x
Replying to @annienonymouss @TheBunnyReturns and 2 others
As if the dogs (although shed new intelligence on the case) and the Tapas dinners are the be all & end all to this case.. Why don't they stick to recorded evidence.. Kates book & diary, & Gerrys blog..Statements.. Instead of trying to make evidence fit around a theory... #McCann
5:18 am - 14 Oct 2018
******
Don’t you have you NT’s blog and FB page for that??
Glad to know that Jules doesn’t think the dogs are important for the case (one must wonder why then does the Facebook you are admin of gives them so much importance), nor is it for her important for the case the possibility of the Tapas staff and guests having lied about the dinners that enable negligence, which in turn enables abduction.
For Jules, it’s only important that we stick to “Kates book & diary, & Gerrys blog..”. Agree, finally someone should. After 11 years of the case, and 7 years since Kate published her book, it is about time someone remembered to do that! Thank goodness there’s NT, otherwise when would someone pick up on such arduous task? In 2024? Only then would we realise that Kate McCann has lied in her book but thanks to him we’ve been able to discover that in 2018!
The fact that he opened his blog in 2015 and only now has decided to focus on Kate’s book is a detail that can and should be ignored. It’s not important.
About Jules’ “Why don't they stick to (…) Statements..” isn’t exactly done in the blog? For example:
http://textusa.blogspot.com/2011/03/insanes-plea-to-temporary-insanity.html
http://textusa.blogspot.com/2011/06/tapas-duet.html
The obsession with the blog grows daily. For people that supposedly do not read it, an inordinate amount of time is sure spent discussing it! The dogs and BRT have brought the twitter and FB scammers into broad daylight. Obvious the fake abduction cannot occur without a myriad of help locally. The ignorance, or more to the point, avoidance of this merely demonstates a campaign to steer the narrative.
ReplyDeleteJust watched 'The Cry' on BBC1 - I was absolutely shocked at the similarities to Mc Cann case in some aspects of this programme. I'm probably wrong but they kust be airing this for a reason. Is it reinforce the idea that only the MC Canns are involved.. .i.e to mislead? I dont know but some of the similarities are astounding...
ReplyDeleteUnpublished YET Jules at 15 Oct 2018, 05:42:00,
ReplyDeleteWe know we have promised to safeguard you from the temptation of ever commenting here after having said over at NT’s blog that you would never again comment here but with this comment you have left us with no choice, we have to publish it, sorry.
In fact, we find this comment of yours so relevant that we don’t want to publish it just as a common comment. We are still deciding whether we should include it in a long comment or write a separate post about it. Negotiations are ongoing but we can inform you that the talks are pointing towards us doing a separate post about it.
Thank you, your help is so much appreciated.
Negotiations? It's a blog, not Brexit. You really do have a high opinion of yourself, don't you.
DeleteAnonymous 15 Oct 2018, 23:11:00,
DeleteOh, so sorry! We didn't know we couldn't talk to each other within team!
We're afraid that it's too late now to correct things as these negotiations are over. We've decided to do a post and not a comment.
Please forgive us, we won't do it again!
Could you please send us a timetable, so we know when we can contact each other? Or is it that we simply can't?
Please do inform us, as the last thing we want to do is offend you.
00The Jules... 🕵️♀️ @jules1602x
ReplyDeleteReplying to @annienonymouss @Cerb32 @SamColber
That is true... I'm trying to think why someone would want to make out they are on US/Canadian time... What with Walkers sudden mission aswell... #McCann
2:51 am - 15 Oct 2018
******
Errm… NT’s blog?
Another similarity he has with Walker.
https://twitter.com/TheBunnyReturns/status/1051481065272070151
ReplyDelete00Bugsy @TheBunnyReturns
Replying to @Anvil161Anvil16 @umweltbuerger
It stoped being private the day textusa began stalking people in their own names. I notice that hairy arsed coward doesn't use his own when he outs others. The reason for that is blatantly obvious.
7:33 am - 14 Oct 2018
******
Mr Thompson,
Please show what names we have outed.
Thank you.
I’m sure I’m not the only one who recalls Ben T outing a certain twitter user, one who has been bullied on NT’s blog, on your FB T/L?
DeleteThe hypocrisy - and the lies - are jaw dropping. Probably safest just to agree with them and fawn over them. I think that’s the message we’re meant to receive.
https://twitter.com/strackers74/status/1051591605289984000?s=19
ReplyDeleteElaine Strachan @strackers74
Replying to @GoncalAmoralis
(Censored) off away from my timeline. Go and discuss the next plan with your errand boy and convince yourselves that none of us know what you are all up to! #McCann
2:52 PM - 14 Oct 2018
*****
It seems that our message is getting across. The above is quite accurate, we would say.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/cry-author-says-madeleine-mccann-13419206
ReplyDeleteThe Cry author says Madeleine McCann case DID inspire BBC drama
In 2007 Madeleine McCann vanished from a Portugal holiday apartment sparking a massive hunt
By Jo-Anne Rowney Audience Growth Editor
11:55, 15 OCT 2018 Updated11:57, 15 OCT 2018
If you watched The Cry's penultimate episode, you probably thought - as many others did - of the similarities with the case of Madeleine McCann .
The Cry on BBC, based off Helen Fitzgerald's book of the same name, tells the story of Joanna whose son Noah appears to 'go missing' from her and her husband's car when they're visiting Australia.
It turns out what happened with Joanna and husband Alistair isn't quite what it seems.
The scene where they react to Noah no longer being in the car prompted many viewers to compare the the show to Madeleine McCann's disappearance.
In 2007, four-year-old Maddie disappeared from a holiday apartment in Portugal sparking a huge media campaign to find her, that's still ongoing to this day.
Her parents Kate and Gerry were met with accusations at the time, similar to what Alistair and Joanna have to deal with when the news breaks.
The comparison isn't by chance, author Helen Fitzgerald remembered the case well as well as another big media case - the Chamberlains.
In 1980 Linday Chamberlain was wrongly convicted of murdering her nine-week-old daughter. She claimed a dingo was seen leaving the tent where Azaria was sleeping when the family were on a camping holiday.
The case caught the world's attention, and Chamberlain was convicted and sent to prison.
New evidence emerged, however, and she was released and the conviction quashed in 1988.
As viewers watch The Cry they can't help but remember and see the echoes of both cases and with good reason.
“I saw Lindy speaking on television to the McCanns, giving them support and I thought – what a terrible community this is, what an awful thing by which to be bound together," Fitzgerald told The Herald .
She added: “I have always believed both of them. But thinking about their cases made me wonder – what kind of couple would get away with something like this? What would have to be going on behind the scenes in that relationship?”
The case got her thinking, mostly about the intense focus on the mothers.
“Does anyone remember Mr Chamberlain’s name?” she said “Lindy was incredibly naïve and open and just had no clue, and she got slaughtered by the media. Her case was really the first example of trial by television.
“Women are always the target, especially when babies are involved. No matter how much we talk about parental or gender equality, that’s what happens.”
********
We did a spoiler about the ending in a previous comment. It was the father who was responsible for child’s death. The abduction was a hoax.
We apologise to our readers for our late response to JBLittlemore's entrapment. It's in the works and it will soon be published.
ReplyDeleteThis apology was just a reason for us to inform that we are currently 'talking' (which means we aren't) with photographer AP who seems to REALLY have some interesting imagery of the Tapas esplanade.
Unlike Jules - we are giving her one last chance to share publicly what she alleges to have that will definitely prove us wrong - we won't share these images only privately. We not only have no problem in sharing them publicly with all our readers, as we want to do so.
We will do it in a future post (decision taken for post instead of comment) to be published soon. But only after our reply to JBL.
Blacksmith has taken to Cristobell now to urge wobbling readers to keep the faith and trust Grange.
ReplyDeleteHe wants to be given a year for people to decide if he is a true or false prophet.
I wonder if what Blacksmith says about OG making progress on Jane Tanner's evidence,means they know who the abductor was.
DeleteAnonymous 16 Oct 2018, 07:08:00,
DeleteAll Blacksmith has to do is speak to Mark D (Draycott?) for half an hour and then he should be able to establish if OG is continuing.
As the phone number is still on McCann website page, they obviously want us to believe it is.
If that fails, he could submit a FOI request.
Blacksmith is obsessed with whether he is right & whether he will be proved to be right. hey Blacksmith this is not about you. It's about a little girl who died!
ReplyDeleteWe would like to thank JBLitllemore for his trap. A trap always reveals much more about the hunter than it does about the prey.
ReplyDeleteIt reveals the need the hunter has to trap. He can trap for fun or sport, which is highly condemnable, or for the need to survive. We will leave up to the readers what sort of trap they JBLitllemore has set up.
If the reader concludes that JBLittlemore set up his trap in order to “survive”, the reader must then ask from what did the hunter need to be rescued from. Or what he felt was in danger of extinction.
The trap also reveals what the hunter wants to catch. Note that it doesn’t mean the prey he has targeted will be the one falling in it but the trap itself shows the specific prey the hunter is trying to target.
What was the prey JBLitllemore wanted to catch? If the reader thinks it was us, the reader is wrong. We were simply part of the trap, not its prey.
The objective of the trap was to prove the insufficiency as proof of the dog alerts in a court of law that blood was found in 5A and that a cadaver had been in that apartment as JBLittlemore alleges to exist.
Very important at this point in the comment that the reader does not get distracted and does not misread our words above. We will repeat them: “to prove the insufficiency as proof of the dog alerts in a court of law that blood was found in 5A and that a cadaver had been in that apartment”.
And to make sure the reader understands why we have repeated ourselves we will now say what we didn’t say.
We did NOT say that the objective was to prove the insufficiency as proof of the dog alerts in a court of law that MADDIE’S BLOOD was found in 5A and that MADDIE’S CADAVER had been in that apartment.
There’s a significant difference between what we said and what we didn’t say.
One thing is for Keela’s alerts to constitute proof that blood was found, another and completely different, is for them to constitute proof that Maddie’s blood was found where she alerted.
Similarly, one thing is Eddie’s alerts to constitute proof that a dead body had been in 5A, another and completely different, is to constitute proof that Maddie’s body had been where he alerted.
Up to now we have said nothing new. In fact, we have said it quite a few times. And why are we saying it again? Because JBLittlemore deliberately confuses one with the other, to cast doubt and confuse.
We have REPEATEDLY said and maintain that the Portuguese court has determined that blood was found in 5A and that a dead body had been in 5A and REPEATEDLY, JBLitllemore, diverts the debate to what was needed to prove that it was Maddie’s blood that was found in 5A and to prove that her body had been there.
He does that again with his trap.
He knows perfectly well that we have said proof of the presence of blood was found (as the Portuguese court agrees), that he, JBLitllemore apparently knowing more than the courts, has said that it COULD be blood, leaving open the possibility of not being and so the alert wouldn’t stand up in court (when it has) and that NT has said that there was no blood at all found.
All started when we called attention to the fact what JBLittlemore’s position was then – which was that Keela could only have detected blood – was in conflict with NT’s position that no blood was found in 5A.
We called attention to this because of his brother-in-arms, Mr Thompson, in the fierce duel they pretended to be engaged with Nick Townsend/NT this year up to August, when it suddenly stopped because we denounced it proving that way we were right that it was all just an act.
Mr Thompson has professed a religious following of NT even though he has written (and as far as we know hasn’t retracted) this, which completely contradicts his messiah:
https://m.facebook.com/McCannScandal/photos/a.193885737462516.1073741828.193442494173507/281770945340661/?type=3
(Cont)
(Cont)
ReplyDeleteAn Anonymous (who showed an unusual knowledge of what JBLitllemore would say and who has since mysteriously (not) disappeared) decided to come to the blog and try to explain to us all how the positions of JBLitllemore and NT were not in conflict with each other, when they clearly are.
It was then that JBLitllemore decided to say on Twitter that what he really wanted to say all these years was that Keela’s alerts COULD have been blood, leaving the possibility of not being, and so allowing for NT’s position to be truthful.
We have explained that this shifting of opinion happened due to the need of the Lick-Spittle Gang to align all their theories of the case to what NT had been saying carelessly over the years.
With this shift of opinion from his it COULD NOT have been anything else than blood to his it COULD be blood, JBLittlemore revealed his true colours like a rainbow just after Spring rain over a clear sky. He had already given himself away with his 5 small round tables big round table stunt.
Others have said they have spotted his treacherous nature long before us, but as we can only speak for ourselves we only started to suspect this when he accused us of poor research when we started exposing Nick Townsend as an NT/Blacksmith sock. If we missed that warning we can only apologise because if we had seen it we wouldn’t have given JBLittlemore the benefit of the doubt we did during his phony duels with Nick Townsend.
So JBLitllemore has laid a trap desperately trying to salvage a credibility in tatters. However, JBLittlemore has fallen right into his own trap. His desperate attempt to recover his credibility only made things worse.
Right up front he misleads readers by not mentioning the source he quotes. If he had, wouldn’t he have made his point is a stronger manner? It would show transparency and openness. Instead, he opted to be Machiavellian, let all, not only us, think the words were his.
Let’s see from where the quotes are from that JBLittlemore’s has put in his tweets without acknowledging them. In caps in the original text are the quotes:
From: http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm:
Tweets:
1. About the dogs:- the dog alert indications MUST be corroborated IF TO ESTABLISH THEIR FINDINGS AS EVIDENCE
2. .. as no human remains were located, the only alert indications that may become corroborated are those that the CSI dog indicated by forensic laboratory analysis.
3... as regards to the EVRD's alert indications is that it is SUGGESTIVE that this is 'cadaver scent' contaminant.
4... cross contamination could be as a result of a number of given scenarios and in any event no evidential or intelligence reliability can be made from these alerts UNLESS they can be confirmed with corroborating evidence
File:
The tasking for this operation was as per my normal Standard Operating Procedures. The dogs are deployed as search assets to secure evidence and locate human remains or Human blood.
The dogs only alerted to property associated with the McCann family. THE DOG ALERT INDICATIONS MUST BE CORROBORATED IF TO ESTABLISH THEIR FINDINGS AS EVIDENCE.
Therefore in this particular case, AS NO HUMAN REMAINS WERE LOCATED, THE ONLY ALERT INDICATIONS THAT MAY BECOME CORROBORATED ARE THOSE THAT THE CSI DOG INDICATED BY FORENSIC LABORATORY ANALYSIS.
My professional opinion AS REGARDS TO THE EVRD'S ALERT INDICATIONS IS THAT IT IS SUGGESTIVE THAT THIS IS 'CADAVER SCENT' CONTAMINANT. This does not however suggest a motive or suspect AS CROSS CONTAMINATION COULD BE AS A RESULT OF A NUMBER OF GIVEN SCENARIOS AND IN ANY EVENT NO EVIDENTIAL OR INTELLIGENCE RELIABILITY CAN BE MADE FROM THESE ALERTS UNLESS THEY CAN BE CONFIRMED WITH CORROBORATING EVIDENCE.
(Cont)
(Cont)
ReplyDeleteTweet:
5. It is possible that the EVRD is alerting to 'cadaver scent' contaminant or human blood scent. No evidential or intelligence reliability can be made from this alert unless it can be confirmed with corroborating evidence.
File:
This vehicle was then subjected to a full physical examination by the PJ and no human remains were found. The CSI dog was then tasked to screen the vehicle. An alert indication was forthcoming from the rear driver's side of the boot area. Forensic samples were taken by the PJ and forwarded to a forensic laboratory in the U.K.
It is my view that IT IS POSSIBLE THAT THE EVRD IS ALERTING TO 'CADAVER SCENT' CONTAMINANT OR HUMAN BLOOD SCENT. NO EVIDENTIAL OR INTELLIGENCE RELIABILITY CAN BE MADE FROM THIS ALERT UNLESS IT CAN BE CONFIRMED WITH CORROBORATING EVIDENCE. The remainder of the vehicles were screened by the EVRD without any interest being shown. Therefore the CSI dog was not further deployed.
From: http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES_RIGATORY.htm
Tweet:
6. 'False' positives are always a possibility
File:
'FALSE' POSITIVES ARE ALWAYS A POSSIBILITY; to date Eddie has not so indicated operationally or in training. In six years of operational deployment in over 200 criminal case searches the dog has never alerted to meat based and specifically pork foodstuffs designed for human consumption. Similarly the dog has never alerted to 'road kill', that is any other dead animal. My experience as a trainer is that false alerts are normally caused by handler cueing. All indications by the dog are preceded by a change in behaviour. This increased handler confidence in the response. This procedure also stops handlers 'cueing' and indication. The dogs are allowed to 'free search' and investigate areas of interest. The handler does not influence their behaviour other than to direct the search.
Tweet:
7. .. forensic confirmation is required in all cases so as to be included as proof
File:
'Can the dog mix up traces of human odours with others that are non-human''
I cannot comment on what the dogs think. However, from a forensic point of view and from confirmations of scientific testimonies, the dogs appear to be extremely exact. BUT, FORENSIC CONFIRMATION IS REQUIRED IN ALL CASES SO AS TO BE INCLUDED AS PROOF. The CSI dog is trained using only human blood. And using a wide spectrum of donors to ensure that the dog does not individualize them.
EVRD used to be trained using swine (pigs) as their odour is the closest to that of humans. But most of the time, however, the dog was trained using the odour of a human cadaver. Operationally, the dog has ignored large amounts of animal remains/bones when locating human decomposition.
From: https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES_PERSONAL.htm
Tweet:
8. Whereas there may be no retrievable evidence for court purposes this may well assist INTELLIGENCE gathering in Major Crime investigations.
File:
The dog has also been trained to identify 'dead body' scent contamination where there is no physically retrievable evidence, due to scent adhering to pervious material such as carpet or the upholstery in motor vehicles. WHEREAS THERE MAY BE NO RETRIEVABLE EVIDENCE FOR COURT PURPOSES THIS MAY WELL ASSIST INTELLIGENCE GATHERING IN MAJOR CRIME INVESTIGATIONS. This may be completed by the dog being deployed directly to the subject area or by scent samples being taken on sterile gauze pads and the scent check being completed by scent discrimination exercise at a suitable venue.
The dog will alert to the presence of 'dead body' scent whether it is at source or some distance away from a deposition site. This enables the use of the dog to identify the exhaust of the scent through fissures in bedrock or watercourses.”
*****
Why not have done this in the first place? We know that Twitter has a character limit but following each quote there’s no reason for not putting the respective link.
(Cont)
(Cont)
ReplyDeleteIt would be transparent and most importantly would show the strength of his position. The way JBLittlemore did things just shows how weak it is.
No question that there was a lot of researching involved. Researching to mystify and not to clarify. We’ll get back to that later in the comment.
Using words out of context and deliberately disregarding what was in the background of Martin Grime’s words: if the alerts represented sufficient evidence to prove that it was Maddie’s blood and Maddie’s body.
Not if it was enough to prove if it was blood, nor of it was enough to prove if a dead body was there. In fact, reading Grime’s words, that goes without saying.
From his words it’s very clear that Grime has no doubt that Keela signalled blood and that Eddie signalled the locations of where a dead body had been. What he wants to make sure is that it is understood that the alerts don’t say that these are from Maddie. That needs corroboration. To come to that conclusion, one does indeed need further intelligence. We agree. Dogs say without doubt that it’s blood and cadaver scent, intelligence tells from whom the blood and cadaver scent belonged to.
That’s what Martin Grime is saying when he says “however, from a forensic point of view and from confirmations of scientific testimonies, the dogs appear to be extremely exact. but, forensic confirmation is required in all cases so as to be included as proof”. Proof that it is Maddie’s blood and not that is blood. The Portuguese court has shown for that, the dog alert is enough.
Plus, JBLittlemore overlooks the fact that when Martin Grime says these words he has no idea if the apartment could have been the place of a previous death, if the cars examined have carried materials that were linked with a previous death or injury or if there had been a domestic occurrence that would explain the blood in the apartment. He has to allow for this.
Other drivers of the car used by the McCanns were subsequently asked if there had been any injuries when they used the car. Drivers were asked about what they transported and cadaver.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/59-DA-27.htm
We’re presuming that it was Martin Grime’s search results that triggered the PJ check whether there were any other possibilities for the alerts in the car, other than Maddie.
It was determined that no death had taken place in apartment 5A before.
There’s nothing in the files to show who was asked about previous deaths in the apartment but for it to be said there had been no previous deaths, previous occupants must have been checked and dates of occupation.
Any alert where a previous death had occurred would need forensic proof that a death scent pointed to Maddie specifically. That may be why he has to point out possibility of cross contamination.
Now please scroll up and read the words we repeated at the top.
JBLittlemore uses Martin Grime’s words to prove a point in debate where they don’t belong. That is being intentionally deceitful.
Where else have we seen such a similar deliberate salad-mixing of words and ideas on forensics of the case?
We would say in the FSS report. Like we showed in our post “Perhaps… confusing”:
http://textusa.blogspot.com/2013/11/perhaps-confusing.html
John Lowe in that report, like JBLittlemore in his tweets, cannot be accused of saying a single false word but the way they have played around with the information ends up being misleading when they are read.
There is one tweet that we must look at more attentively and that’s tweet #6: “'False' positives are always a possibility”.
We have asked in our comments what JBLittlemore means with ‘false’ in relation to something being either true or false. We maintain the question because those words are from JBLittlemore. Nowhere does it say in the Twitter terms of agreement that whenever we quote JBLittlemore’s tweet #6 we must quote it together with tweet #10. Besides, even if it did, it’s none of our business what JBLittlemore and Twitter have agreed with each other.
(Cont)
(Cont)
ReplyDeleteJBLittlemore saying those words has absolutely nothing to do with what one hears when one knows that they are from Martin Grime
Besides, when JBLIttlemore states that it COULD be blood, he’s is stating quite clearly that it’s his opinion that false (not ‘false’) positives are a possibility.
The context and by whom words are spoken is something of absolute importance. We will give an example with “I’m going to cut you”.
Said by a hoodlum in a dark alley outside a pub: “I’m going to cut you, you’re not walking out of here alive”.
Said by a surgeon to a patient before surgery: “I’m going to cut you as deep as I can to see if I can find the problem, if I see that it’s useless we must then look at other alternatives”.
Same words, opposite meanings of intension. Because of context in which they were said and the person saying them.
JBLittlemore deliberately overlooks that when Martin Grime has said “'false' positives are always a possibility” the very next words he says are:
“…to date Eddie has not so indicated operationally or in training. In six years of operational deployment in over 200 criminal case searches the dog has never alerted to meat based and specifically pork foodstuffs designed for human consumption. Similarly the dog has never alerted to 'road kill', that is any other dead animal. My experience as a trainer is that false alerts are normally caused by handler cueing. All indications by the dog are preceded by a change in behaviour. This increased handler confidence in the response. This procedure also stops handlers 'cueing' and indication. The dogs are allowed to 'free search' and investigate areas of interest. The handler does not influence their behaviour other than to direct the search.in the same paragraph where he says”.
JBLittlemore uses the ‘false’ positive reference without using also Martin Grime’s additional info on how reliable Eddie was and how he was fully aware of the possible influence of a handler, and because he was aware of this it could only be expected that he took all precautions during the searches.
This Twittlonger shows how much pressure was put on Martin Grime to add caveats to dogs’ alerts:
http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1s21v9d
Syn makes a point about Martin Grime, for the first time, being asked to add caveats about alerts:
“You know something, not once in all the cases that Martin and his dogs attended prior to May 2007 was he asked to place so much emphasis on corroborative forensics in a report despite the fact that the dogs had never been wrong ever. But he was asked to emphasise in this case. Strange huh?”
It seems JBLittlemore is doing what Syn0nymph remarks on. Strange huh?
Only Martin Grime can say why he said ‘false’ instead of false. We can venture a possibility. One that was ventured by NT in June this year when he brought up the Shannon Matthews case in which the dogs alerted and fortunately Shannon was found alive.
https://news.sky.com/story/sniffer-dogs-can-hinder-police-work-10488976
http://textusa.blogspot.com/2018/06/the-help-and-tennis-comments-continue-iv.html
This case showed exactly how intelligence corroborates the dog’s alerts. All the alerts were explained. There were no false positives. But the origins of the scents – the proof cadaver scent was signalled – were proven to have belonged to another person and not to Shannon.
This is how intelligence corroborates an alert. It determines to whom the scent belonged to. No intelligence was needed to determine that the scent was there. As a sidenote, as far as we know, no effort has been made to determine another source for the blood and cadaver scent in 5A other than Maddie.
In terms of the Shannon Mathews investigation, the alerts could be then considered a false positive as it had nothing to do with the missing girl but in terms of proving that a body had come in contact with the furniture that was signalled, there were no false alerts.
(Cont)
(Cont)
ReplyDeleteSo, it’s our belief – and only Martin Grime can clarify – that he when he says ‘false’ he’s referring to the alerts proving to have nothing to do with the investigation and not in terms of the dogs having alerted to a different scent than the ones they were trained for, or alerting to nothing which would be false positives.
In fact, if there was even the remotest possibility of false positives we are certain Martin Grime would have been professionally and legally obliged to mention them and what were the statistics of their occurrences. He doesn’t.
Martin Grime does not mention false positives when the tiles are removed, and when, on the advice of UK scientific advisor Jonathan Smith, a further search by Keela takes place and another tile is removed.
The whole false alerts debate has taken place in our blog, in the following posts:
http://textusa.blogspot.com/2018/01/the-reliability-of-cadaver-dogs.html
http://textusa.blogspot.com/2018/06/the-help-and-tennis-comments-continue-iv.html
The dogs do not give false alerts. They are 100% reliable. The Portuguese Court has said so.
On the subject of the Portuguese courts, doesn’t the reader find it strange that not once has JBLittlemore referred to them and to what they have stated with clarity. In black and white.
JBLittlemore, no matter how much he states to the contrary, reads our blog attentively, so why does he avoid the Portuguese court proven facts?
We would like to know what he thinks on what basis did the court determine as proven those facts.
Proven facts that we remind are indisputable. The McCann legal team did not contest them and the case went all the way up to the Portuguese Supreme Court.
Why doesn’t he tell us all why he thinks the Ocean Club staff gave remarkably similar statements as we showed but instead choses to hide behind a devious Pied Piper’s politeness?
Do people remember the good old days when exposing traitors and spies was the right thing to do?
Now, it seems the whistleblowers are the enemy.
Spies and traitors come in all colours, shapes and sizes but there’s one thing they ALL have in common: they must pass CONVINCINGLY as being one of us.
As always, we will leave it up to readers to see what both sides have to say and what each side dodges to say and make up their minds about who’s wrong and who is right and about whether this is personal or case related.
https://twitter.com/umweltbuerger/status/1052183121586737152
DeleteMari Welzel @umweltbuerger
Textusa : "Do people remember the good old days when exposing traitors and spies was the right thing to do?
Now, it seems the whistleblowers are the enemy.
Spies and traitors come in all colours, shapes and sizes but there’s one thing they ALL have in common....." #mccann & co
6:02 am - 16 Oct 2018
https://twitter.com/jules1602x/status/1052187569071493120
00The Jules... 🕵️♀️ @jules1602x
Replying to @umweltbuerger
More smearing from Textusa again...
Is there any truth in the rumour that Bennet & HoHo had an affair and produced Tex...?
Is it a legit rumour...? Or a smear off the back of some gaslighter...?
#McCann
6:20 am - 16 Oct 2018
*******
Nothing like a JATYK breeze to transport us back in time to 2008 and 2009…
https://twitter.com/JBLittlemore/status/1052207902939930626
DeleteJ B Littlemore @JBLittlemore
Replying to @jules1602x @umweltbuerger
Good day! That's an explosive comment ; ) More nonsense from Textusa? Can't say I'm inclined to read anymore of its ramblings. Pure obsessive toxic attacks on those disagreeing, based on deliberate misinterpretation of what is said. He has too much time to fester IMO! #Mccann
7:41 am - 16 Oct 2018
The motley crew are at it again! Playing games on a # for a missing child. When they can’t defend the obvious they resort to childish banter. You do well to stand your ground against gang members, Special agents 00pathetic. Sad......considering they are supposed to be adults. All involving a discussion centred around the death of a child and proven facts from a court re; the dogs finding.
ReplyDeleteHello Textusa Sisters
ReplyDeleteI'm reading here : Textusa 16 Oct 2018, 15:09:00
Thank you for picking up on that tweet. I don't see it on my side.
Sorry about the smears.
To JATYK I can't add anything either as I have no clue who they are.
Oh dear this is going south isn't it.
I do return to read often. Hopefully you won't block me as I read your blog with great interest.
Kind Regards,
Mari
Mari,
DeleteWill reply as soon as we can. Thank you for your comment.
Mari,
DeleteFrom what we have read from your TL it seems that we’re not in full agreement. Yet you respect us and we respect you. Differences should and are respected and accepted.
However, there are some, who we have been exposing who use this “differences should be respected” to be profoundly dishonest and deceiving.
They claim that denying fact to be the difference of opinion when it isn’t. When one denies what is factual one is not expressing an opinion but simply saying that reality isn’t real. That’s what facts are, the reality.
For example, the Portuguese courts have determined that blood and cadaver scent in apartment 5A. We have quoted the acórdão. It’s there in black and white.
To say that what Eddie alerted to in 5A COULD only have been blood or to say that no blood was found there, is not to be expressing a difference of opinion but simply denying a fact.
Ignorance stops being an excuse when repeatedly shown the fact, one continues on insisting to deny what is fact. Only an agenda can explain such insistence.
JATYK (Just A Thought You Know) was (is?) one of the 3 known pro-forums, the other 2 being Chaosraptors and Stop The Myths (STM).
Of the 3 JATYK was (is?) the vilest although that is debatable. Instead of debating facts of the case, these forums used the sick humour and insult that we’re now seeing being used against us.
Your support means a lot to us, thank you!
Hello again to you Textusa Sisters,
DeleteThank you for your reply.
It is all the more interesting that you're not in full agreement with me. The very reason why I love to return to read your views.
I admire your patience and the care you take to explain in detail your thinking.
Appreciate it that you do not deviate from the police's work and the Supreme Court's decision. Thank you.
All good. I'm back ever so often to read. Thank you for this space.
Kind Regards,
Mari
Well said Mari, I also return often to make sure I miss nothing. Certainly at the moment, at least
Deletehttps://twitter.com/JBLittlemore/status/1052230234685227010
ReplyDeleteJ B Littlemore @JBLittlemore
Evidence - or lack of - almost certainly the reason the Maddie #mccann case hasn't resulted in a prosecution just yet. There seems to be little/no Direct evidence or corroboration but plenty of testimony/circumstantial evidence. How to make a case? Anyone? And against who?
9:10 am - 16 Oct 2018
********
https://twitter.com/JBLittlemore/status/1052230862589349889
J B Littlemore @JBLittlemore
Replying to @jules1602x @umweltbuerger
Indeed. So I intend to join in with releasing a flood of facts and challenges as to why a prosecution has not yet been brought. Why there isn't, without a body or evidence of life incompatible blood loss, any direct evidence prosecutors can use. #Mccann Want to assist?
9:12 am - 16 Oct 2018
********
https://twitter.com/annienonymouss/status/1052232537706250240
(Censored)@annienonymouss
Replying to @JBLittlemore
So logically ...if you're not yet able to prove "beyond all reasonable doubt," there'd be no point progressing yet as it would just be a waste of money ...better to work away quietly until you are in a position to prove "beyond all reasonable doubt" ....innit 😊
9:19 am - 16 Oct 2018
********
https://twitter.com/JBLittlemore/status/1052233343624982528
J B Littlemore @JBLittlemore
Replying to @annienonymouss
Precisement! A case such as M #Mccann 's is going to have to be watertight, what with the apparent legal might which might be lined up in defence. Every argument needs to be taken down & dismantled in advance so, if necessary, the weight of circumstantial evidence is sufficient.
9:22 am - 16 Oct 2018
********
In other words, quoting ourselves from our comment at 14 Oct 2018, 12:59:00:
“NT and JBLittlemore between them: cross-contamination, ancient contaminated soil, drifting molecules, no need for direct contact between body and surfaces, false positives, no proof of blood, no proof of blood incompatible with life, no proof blood was M’s. The dogs did their best but their best simply doesn’t stand up in court. It’s really a pity but there’s nothing that can be done other than to archive the case. Yes, it really hurts to see the evil McCanns getting away with it but life sometimes is unfair, so move along folks.”
According to JBLittlemore, it COULD only have been blood. It could have been something else. It COULD only have been cadaver scent. It could have been something else as well.
With this reasoning, no case would stand a chance indeed.
All that was needed was for the wolf to put on the sheep's clothing (our caps):
https://twitter.com/JBLittlemore/status/1052234954300506112
J B Littlemore @JBLittlemore
Replying to @annienonymouss
Exactly. And to lose as a result. What good what that be? We might have faith in the dogs' alerts but on what basis does a jury or judge believe, as many here argue, that the dog wasn't just alerting to meat spill or deterioration? A REASONABLE BELIEF for some. #Mccann
9:28 am - 16 Oct 2018
Meat spill?
DeleteWasn’t it a family member who put this argument forward?
Grime is very specific: the dog does not and never had alerted to meat.
If the case is tried in Portugal, it won’t be down to a jury anyway?
About JBLittlemore and his meat spill comment.
DeleteNo, by now everyone has realised that it’s not anyone’s reasonable belief for Eddie to be “just alerting to meat spill or deterioration”.
The Portuguese justice system has determined as a proven fact that blood and cadaver scent were found in 5A. We won’t get tired of repeating this as this blows a hole in the other side’s tactic and they know it.
To venture the possibility that anyone considers to be a REASONABLE BELIEF that Eddie just alerted to meat spill or deterioration is as reasonable as saying that for some it’s a REASONABLE BELIEF that the dog just alerted to chocolate.
It isn’t anywhere near reasonable.
It’s ridiculous and anyone saying it knows it to be absurdly ridiculous besides being disrespectful to the Portuguese justice system.
To ask if the reader has noticed how JBLittlemore avoids commenting on the decision from the Portuguese court would be disrespecting our readers. As Nick “Kelly’s” Anon has said, it couldn’t be more blatant.
The next question then that must be asked is why does he avoid it?
Why does JBLittlemoreittlemore continues on shamelessly, and has now even stepped up his sham, even though it’s more than obvious that he’s been exposed?
Such lack of shame can only mean one thing: despair. We’re not using that word lightly.
The despair comes from the importance JBLittlemore has to the other side. Specially at this time.
The fact that he’s been exposed, has acknowledge that exposure by dodging issues such as the decision on blood and cadaver scent from the Portuguese courts while acknowledging the publication of his tweets, and still continues means the other side cannot afford to sideline him at moment.
This immediately shows that the times are critical for the other side, otherwise they would afford to yank him away from the spotlight but aren’t.
The JBLittlemore ship has now stumps for masts, its sails are floating on water and what still is visible of its hull, shows it has more holes than a Swiss cheese but the crew continues shouting “Huzzah!” that can be heard two miles away.
This is how important JBLittlemore is.
Besides the importance of the person we believe to be behind the character, JBLittlemore, the character, is important because he’s simply the last push within the last push.
JBLittlemore is their last card.
Without JBLittlemore they have no one to disprove the dogs with minimum credibility required. Take away JBLittlemore and their edifice collapses. That’s why we said we are much more interested in what he has to say than in what NT and Blacksmith do.
The “Nick Townsend duel” that we witnessed from January to August this year, as we explained, was to make Mr Thompson a “dog-credible” individual and by association, make also NT one.
That plan went as well as trying to fly a rock balloon when NT and Blacksmith were caught lying and involving a deceased person in that lie.
As we said when exposing how phony that duel was, JBLittlemore’s mission was to lend it credibility.
Credibility he had gained over the years. So even without the added critical mass of Mr Thompson and NT, taken off the board by us, JBLittlemore’s credibility would be sufficient to conquer the objective proposed: discredit subtly the dogs.
Done with a lot of smooth and sweet talk.
If the reader thinks this wouldn’t work, please think again. This time last year, negligence was completely off the table. Now, it seems is back on. Why? A lot of subtle sweet and smooth talk.
Now JBLittlemore’s credibility is in tatters. Yet he continues.
Without JBLittlemore who do they have? No one. So, continue he must and he will.
So they know:
DeleteThose who JBLittlemore is apparently seen to be convincing have not been convinced at all. They are part of the convincing team.
They flock around JBLittlemore like paid children around the Pied Piper to convince other children to gather around him as well.
All so blatant, all so transparent.
Understanding JBLittlemore’s importance is to understand the importance of exposing him. And as far as we can see, other than the paid children, we see no other relevant “child” near this Piper.
https://twitter.com/JBLittlemore/status/1052262097739018240
DeleteJ B Littlemore @JBLittlemore
Replying to @annienonymouss @Louise42368296 @jules1602x
Oh indeed. For some though the trust is hard to find within. Without it it is difficult to accept the outcomes, whatever they are, having sat and watched and waited for many a long year.
11:16 am - 16 Oct 2018
*****
And to finish off things for the day, please be prepared, says JBLittlemore, for this whole thing about Maddie to be just a much ado about nothing.
After all, there is, so says JBLittlemore, no cover-up:
https://twitter.com/JBLittlemore/status/1052238292811505665
J B Littlemore @JBLittlemore
Replying to @jules1602x @annienonymouss
The whole basis of a cover up is that there should be nothing to see! So why anyone thinks such a huge and elaborate charade is being acted out in the gaze of two nations, with as many potential leaks as a colander, goodness only knows! #Mccann
9:42 am - 16 Oct 2018
https://twitter.com/JBLittlemore/status/1052246546425700352
J B Littlemore @JBLittlemore
Replying to @CaroleShooter
It seems to be unknown or overlooked that our Gov, with its Embassy staff & representatives, have a duty to act in cases of Brit cits in crisis overseas. They also have to act where Diplomatic relations could be endangered by such events. #Mccann
10:15 am - 16 Oct 2018
Your suggestion further up the page somewhere about Blacksmith contacting Grange has been taken up by Bennett.
ReplyDeleteHe has left a message on their answering machine and submitted a FOI for info.
Blacksmith meanwhile is again decrying anyone who says Grange is a fraud.
Recently posted on Alethia's footsteps Facebook group, for your information.
ReplyDeleteJABBERWOCKS
"Beware of the Text-user, son -
The jaws that bite, the claws that catch!
Beware the Hoho-bird, and shun
that frumious male, the Bennetsnatch!"
........................................................................................
TEXT-USER .......... Where is there any hard evidence of 'swinging' in PDL that week?
For a complete cover-up of swinging to have taken place EVERYBODY that the PJ spoke to lied?
If the Tapas 9 left the children with professional nannies and ate downtown WHY haven't any of the diners at the these other restaurants come forward?
So on the Thursday the Tapas9 were able to 'put on a brave face', dine at the Tapas Restaurant, and act out a plan, knowing all the while that poor little Madeleine was lying dead?
But for those who have disagreed with or questioned this theory - "One, two, One, two! and through, the vorpal blade went snicker-snack".
Note: 'vorpal' = to copy and paste Twitter comments without permission
...........................................................................................
HOHO BIRD ...... believes that there is no credible witness or proof that Madeleine was seen after Sunday but states that she has never said that the witnesses lied! ).
Believes that there was a clever game to make it LOOK as though Madeleine attended the creche when if fact she didn't after Tuesday.
Believes that the man the Smiths saw carrying a child may (or may not) have been Gerry, but she does not believe that said child was Madeleine.
Believes that Goncalo Amaral was not privy to all the details of the investigation after he left it and so doubts that he would be able to comment on anything that happened after that time.
"She left him dead, and with his head, She went galumphing back."
.......................................................................................
BENNETSNATCH ......... lead singer of the CMOMM forum choir (accompanied on harpy-chord by Rich Dulcet-Hall) is definitely 'all mimsy'. Certainly none too particualr about checking the available data in the PJ Files. Cherry-picking information from MSM and from other people's writings. In fact both of them do so and
"came whiffling throught the tulgey wood, And burbled as they came."
.........................................................................................
"And hast thou slain the Jabberwock?
Come to my arms, my beamish boy!
O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!'
He chortled in his joy.
[loosely adapted from Louis Carroll's "Jabberwocky"]
https://www.poets.org/poetsorg/poem/jabberwocky
That sounds in a similar vein to the Rev T Ben
DeleteNit character who pops up on Cristobell from time to time.
Same person perhaps?
We would like for Lesly Frances-Finn to quote us where have we ever said that Maddie was left lying dead:
Delete“So on the Thursday the Tapas9 were able to 'put on a brave face', dine at the Tapas Restaurant, and act out a plan, knowing all the while that poor little Madeleine was lying dead?”
We have clearly stated that the body was never left alone.
We believe that Gerry McCann and Jane Tanner didn’t go to Tapas that night. Arlindo Peleja, seems to confirm this
“After parking his vehicle, he necessarily enters through the reception of that restaurant, follows the path on its left, on the opposite side of the pool, passing by an esplanade. Remembers having observed in the esplanade, one Single table, occupied by three couples, without children, only adults. In the esplanade there was nobody else.”
http://mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/ARLINDO-PELEGA.htm
Three couples. Not four.
After the body was taken to a nearby property – which we believe to have been the Murats – the body was watched over by its residents while the T9 played their roles in the farce before the authorities in 5A.
Not for a single minute we believe that Maddie’s body was left unattended.
About them having or not being able “to 'put on a brave face', dine at the Tapas Restaurant” there is one clear indication that the group that was at Tapas knew clearly something while there and that is the reaction, or lack of one, from Dianne Webster on hearing the alarm.
We would like for Lesly Frances-Finn to tell us under what scenario, other than abduction, this did NOT happen:
Delete“So on the Thursday the Tapas9 were able to 'put on a brave face', dine at the Tapas Restaurant, and act out a plan, knowing all the while that poor little Madeleine was lying dead?”
Let’s start by laying out facts, which are irrelevant to theory: at 22H00, or thereabouts, the group alleges to be dining when Kate, returning from going to the apartment, gave the alarm and saying that Maddie was missing.
To be clear and consensual, at 22H00 group (7 or 9 depending on the theory) at Tapas, Maddie not in apartment.
Let’s then look at the 3 most likely scenarios: swinging, paedophilia and sedation.
Swinging.
We have already explained our position about this in our comment at 17 Oct 2018, 09:44:00
Paedophilia.
We haven’t read anyone detailing the events of that night under this theory, as those who defend it limit themselves to saying that it was a paedo who killed Maddie.
They do agree on one thing and that the McCanns are at least complicit (those defending it was a mystery powerful paedo) or did it themselves (those defending that she was killed by Gerry and/or David). By association, the O’Briens and the Oldfields are at least also complicit.
If it was Gerry and/or David, then all were “were able to 'put on a brave face', dine at the Tapas Restaurant”.
If it was a powerful mystery paedo, for Maddie to be missing at 22H00 means she was dead before they went to dinner and so “were able to 'put on a brave face', dine at the Tapas Restaurant”.
Sedation
At first, it seems the scenario whereby they could be having dinner without knowing that Maddie was dead. That would be so if it wasn’t for the fact mentioned above: at 22H00 group (7 or 9 depending on the theory) at Tapas, Maddie not in apartment.
That means someone took Maddie from the apartment before the alarm. For that to happen, they would have to find out she was dead in the apartment.
So, according to this theory, someone, much before 22H00 walked into the apartment and found a dead or dying Maddie by sedation.
That someone walked calmly back to the group at Tapas, informed the group Maddie was dead and they all immediately “were able to 'put on a brave face', [and continue to] dine at the Tapas Restaurant”.
Plus, they were able to decide there together that they were going to opt for the abduction hoax, concoct how they were going to dispose of Maddie’s body and who was going to do it while being “able to 'put on a brave face', [and continue to] dine at the Tapas Restaurant” without calling any attention to themselves by the staff or other guests.
Another fact, Smithman was seen at around 22H00. So saying that all was done after the alarm, besides being absurdly unrealistic, simply doesn’t stick.
The Rev has given another sermon I see over at Blacksmith's old joint.
DeleteBack to posting a bit more there now,creeping around Ros again it would seem.
STILL no response to NT/Watchers timeline for the Smith sighting.
ReplyDeleteHow does that fit into theories being proposed?
He’s saying the Smiths could be mistaken by as much as an hour, yet nobody has responded to this.
Anonymous 17 Oct 2018, 11:36:00,
DeleteWe are certain that you by now are used to waiting as we have become.
That is but one of the current undermining campaigns taking place.
NT supports the FSS results and undermines the Smith sighting.
JBLittlemore undermines the importance of the dogs.
Only the 2 most important aspects of the case.
As we said, JBLittlemore continues. Need can never come second to shame, and the dogs MUST be dissed. All polite, all sweet and smooth. But then again, if the sound coming out of the Pied Piper's flute wasn't enticing, no children would have followed him.
FACT: evidence from the dogs served as proof in a court of law to determine that blood and cadaver scent was found in 5A.
https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=1939054222858019&id=294140824016042
ReplyDeleteThe team thanks you ladies!
STRICTLY NOT FOR PUBLICATION Anonymous 17 Oct 2018, 12:05:00
ReplyDeleteWe have ruled out completely paedophilia in Maddie’s accidental death.
Suggest you revisit our post “28 questions”
http://textusa.blogspot.com/2018/03/28-questions_16.html
https://twitter.com/jules1602x/status/1052550934398754816
ReplyDelete00The Jules... 🕵️♀️ @jules1602x
Replying to @JBLittlemore @annienonymouss
I've never known anyone 'diss the dogs' apart from the usual suspects... If you don't say the dogs alerted to Madeleine and the alerts are 100% guaranteed, then it's 'dissing' the dogs.. Stupid people.. We all believe the dogs were correct... Proving it was a different matter..
6:24 am - 17 Oct 2018
*******
“If you don't say the dogs alerted to Madeleine and the alerts are 100% guaranteed, then it's 'dissing' the dogs” is absolutely correct, as correct as the dogs’ alerts we would say.
“Proving it was a different matter”… well, saying that it COULD be blood when the courts have stated that it was blood, is not exactly showing the best in wanting to prove anything, is it?
https://twitter.com/JBLittlemore/status/1052582853333184512
ReplyDeleteJ B Littlemore @JBLittlemore
Replying to @K9Truth
I gather Textusa is alleging I diss the dogs. What a stupid thing to say. My perspective is one of what evidence & proof is required to stand up in trial. PT court can state dogs are proven. But where is the scientific proof of that which would reassure a juror or judge? #Mccann
8:31 am - 17 Oct 2018
*******
What an incredibly xenophobic thing to say!!!
Who does JBLittlemore think decides in Portuguese courts?
Who does JBLittlemore think wrote that acórdão?
Maybe Portuguese judges need vetting from the UK to take decisions regarding anything British in their own country!
Portuguese judges “can state dogs are proven” but that to JBLittlemore is totally meaningless as only REAL judges know what really is needed!
It’s not going to be heard in U.K. in a jury trial!
DeleteWhen is a jury used in Portugal?
We all accept that Portugal wouldn’t act on evidence gathered in PJ files, as T9 wouldn’t return for re-enactment.
And it was clear to them FSS evidence wasn’t clearly conclusive.
The UK were not going to assist a prosecution. They would not provide financial documentation.
So why are all of these people blogging and commenting if they are simply repeating what Stop the Myths and JATYK have said?
Anonymous 17 Oct 2018, 18:39:00,
DeleteWe are saying there was enough circumstantial evidence at the time but no political will to pursue a case.
The gang are saying: forget a prosecution, there’s not enough evidence.
As you ask, why don’t they pack up their bags and leave the debate?
If there's no sufficient evidence, time will prove them write and us wrong, so them keeping hammering the message that the dogs aren't 100% is more to try to convince people of that then they believing in it themselves.
https://twitter.com/annienonymouss/status/1052647577399640064
ReplyDelete(censored)@annienonymouss
Replying to @jules1602x @JBLittlemore
Ok ok ...enough of the "love in " ....Time to come up with a cunning plan to thwart the evil blogger
12:48 pm - 17 Oct 2018
https://twitter.com/JBLittlemore/status/1052649675495370753
J B Littlemore @JBLittlemore
Replying to @annienonymouss @jules1602x
But we've no need to thwart ... the evil blogger can simply have polite attention drawn to the entire Twitterati, by Jules or whoever, & between us we will kindly correct any misconceptions contained in that blog content so he may proceed in his cause for facts, truth & justice!
12:56 pm - 17 Oct 2018
*****
We will be waiting, eagerly.
But you will have to do better than this:
https://twitter.com/JBLittlemore/status/1052649881108668416
J B Littlemore @JBLittlemore
Replying to @jules1602x
Good lord! Were the dogs swinging?! ; )
12:57 pm - 17 Oct 2018
Apologies to readers but we had to bring this over to the blog:
ReplyDeletehttps://twitter.com/jules1602x/status/1052650968863522816
00The Jules... 🕵️♀️ @jules1602x
Replying to @JBLittlemore
The thought will probably cross their minds now... LOL.. You know I'm sure Tex is the Insane character... IMO...I've been thinking about something...I'll share it with you later... ;)
1:02 pm - 17 Oct 2018
https://twitter.com/JBLittlemore/status/1052658625162956800
J B Littlemore @JBLittlemore
Replying to @jules1602x
Ah, so you mean he is playing a double bluff? Accusing 'Insane' of all sorts but actually Insane is another ID of himself - manufactured to generate distrust? Yes do share it with me in due course. What a fascinating thought. He fits the bill I fear .. : ((
1:32 pm - 17 Oct 2018
*******
The highly-secret information about the Big Round Table that Jules has shared with JBLittlemore, doesn’t have to feel lonely anymore. The proof of I/us being Insane/NT is on its way!
Think I feel the need to laugh. Kind of reminds me of a quote from Dr Barnardt (John Cleese) from The Day the Earth Stood Still remake - "You say we're on the brink of destruction and you're right. But it's only on the brink that people find the will to change. Only at the precipice do we evolve".
DeleteSo in all the few years that Textusa has been linking one character to a host of others integral to the charade, only now since their scam might be coming to an end do they link the original test subject to the blog originator, and it's taken them that long to link that together because.....
Which actually brings me onto another film quote, this time Alec Baldwin in Mission Impossible Rogue Nation, kind of ironic given the rogue characters in play here... "Desperate times desperate measures Mr Chairman"...
Now that you are NT that means Blacksmith has been speaking to you all this time and saying nice things about your blog and how informative it is. And Ben T thinks it’s a fantastic blog too.
DeleteI think Jules has put her foot in it!
Anonymous 18 Oct 2018, 10:13:00,
DeleteJules has replied to you:
https://twitter.com/jules1602x/status/1052925147802492928
00The Jules... 🕵️♀️ @jules1602x
Whilst the tag is on slate mode, I'll stick my two-penneth in... To the anonoymoose on Tex, I've not put my foot in anything apart from my shoe.. Cheers.. #McCann
7:11 am - 18 Oct 2018
*****
We have received the following comment which we haven’t published:
“Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "It's September 2018 - Comments continue II":
Always amusing to see your total inability to note sarcasm. You invented the name "Insane" for someone who isn't, the fact that you are insane, and therefore ARE "Insane" seems lost upon you.
Posted by Anonymous to Textusa at 18 Oct 2018, 00:56:00”
It seems then that Jules wasn’t using sarcasm after all. Even if she was, the first person to not have noted the sarcasm seems to have been JBLittlemore.
Must not forget to change channels on my mirror.
The Frog has vanished??
ReplyDeletehttps://twitter.com/fragrantfrog
Sorry, that page doesn’t exist!
Anonymous 18 Oct 2018, 10:16:00
DeleteInteresting indeed!
https://twitter.com/JBLittlemore/status/1052855857887793152
ReplyDeleteJ B Littlemore @JBLittlemore
J B Littlemore Retweeted MichelleSxx
And this is my point about dog alerts. The defence will argue dogs alerted to something else, as here & #Mccann re leaking shopping. So no-one can state the alerts are proven UNLESS they can counter the defence argument with the SCIENTIFIC PROOF. Then there'd be no defence!
J B Littlemore added,
https://twitter.com/xxSilverdoexx/status/1052727188082974720
MichelleSxx @xxSilverdoexx
Casey Anthony claimed the smell in the boot of her car came from a rotting pizza, the #McCann's claim the smell in the boot of their car, hired AFTER Madeleine's disappearance came from rotting meat/fish and dirty nappies. Cadaver dogs hit on both cars...
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DpwJTo6XUAAjzik.jpg
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DpwJv8fXgAAvSBT.jpg
6:04 pm - 17 Oct 2018
*******
No, they can’t and they HAVEN’T. They have not contested this proven fact and the case has gone up to the Supreme Justice Court.
That’s the difference between COULD be blood and IS blood.
NOW, at best, the only thing that the defence can argue is that the blood found is not Maddie’s (Keela’s alert does NOT state it is, just proved it was blood) and that the cadaver scent did not belong to Maddie (Eddie’s alerts did NOT say it did, it just proved a dead body had been present).
And that is a MAJOR difference, arguing if either it was blood or meat spills or arguing if the blood came from Maddie or not.
Next
Do continue trying to get out of the hole you dug yourself into.
And once established (by gaslighting) that the dogs are not infallible (when they are 100% reliable and the Portuguese court has given as PROVED their findings) let’s continue with the debate:
Deletehttps://twitter.com/CruftMs/status/1052860523782569984
Ms Myrtle Willoughby Cruft @CruftMs
Replying to @JBLittlemore
I do agree that the dog evidence is not infallible but what do you think about the Bianca Jones case? Dog evidence was ruled sufficient in a US court when they took into account training methods and results.
2:54 am - 18 Oct 2018
https://twitter.com/JBLittlemore/status/1052865325518282752
J B Littlemore @JBLittlemore
Replying to @CruftMs
A strange case & one with challenges in that even a police officer claims to have seen her after the apparent car jacking / death. It wasn't just the alerts that condemned however. Other pointers produced supporting 'concepts'. That said, Lane aped so much of that Mccanns said ..
3:13 am - 18 Oct 2018
*******
We hope readers are learning as JBLittlemore is giving us a truly “hands-on-job” formation.
And as we said, he won’t give up, he can’t give up, he continues…:
Deletehttps://twitter.com/JBLittlemore/status/1052865776821198851
J B Littlemore @JBLittlemore
Replying to @CruftMs
In the Maddie case it is clear there is a well defined trail of counters to the alerts already established - meat in boot, nappies, sea bass .. that is why it would absolutely require scientific proof to demolish such defences.
3:15 am - 18 Oct 2018
*******
Blah, blah, blah
ttps://twitter.com/xxSilverdoexx/status/1053056555279675393
DeleteMichelleSxx @xxSilverdoexx
Textusa, I've said before WITH respect, leave me out of your spats please, AND my posts, thank you it's appreciated I will not allow my words for you to point score over others....I shouldn't have to remind you when the first time I asked was with respect too :) #mccann
3:53 pm - 18 Oct 2018
MichelleSxx @xxSilverdoexx
I'm leaving this hear as oddly I can't on the site so this is my one and last and only word on the matter, my posts are free to be used but NOT to point score to clarify, I'm not involved in whatever you are doing. Thank you again.
3:58 pm - 18 Oct 2018
*******
Silverdoe,
Please address this to JBLittlemore, he was the one who attached your tweet (against his own rules of Twitter copyright), not us.
Mrs Mcfadden is not happy about Bennett's FOI request about whether Grange is still ongoing, but it was OK for her to ring up and ask the same question?
ReplyDeleteSo Ben Thompson throws a massive wobbly in his FB group and vows to put a stop to all the "misinformation" people are commenting with in his group and all of it apparently leads back to one particular person. Within a few days Not Textusa posts its latest entry about... Ben Thompson's gripe together with "vile comments" listed underneath. Ben Thompsons language has been toned down somewhat on Twitter particularly when ranting towards Mr Bennett, even calling him "Tone" of late, is it a ploy to differentiate himself from NT? Is Ben Thompson merely a collaborator with NT or is he an active contributor in the persona??
ReplyDeleteAnonymous 18 Oct 2018, 16:14:00,
DeleteWe have no reason to believe that Mr Thompson is NT and we have very good reasons to believe they are 2 separate individuals.
Has NT ever published its 'complete theory' of the McCann events, surrounding 3rd May 2007? I'd very much doubt that it has (and I'm damned if I'll go there to check), because it looks very much to me that the only reason it exists, is to attack other people.
ReplyDeleteThe very fact that such laudatory appraisals come from people supposedly invested in 'Justice for Madeleine' strongly suggests that they're not interested in Madeleine at all, and regarding that, isn't NT an admin for J4M?
Anonymous 18 Oct 2018, 16:23:00,
DeleteThis is the closest that NT has come to putting forward a theory of his own. From his blog:
“Anonymous22 April 2018 at 07:38
Do you have a theory yourself of what happened to Madeleine McCann, NotTextusa?
Not Textusa22 April 2018 at 08:43
Yes thanks.
Anonymous22 April 2018 at 09:03
Do you have a link to a blog post about it then or something?
Cheers.
Andrew. (Andy Fish)
Not Textusa22 April 2018 at 09:42
Only an old one which is somewhat out of date. I can give you a quick precis?
I think Madeleine is dead and has been dead since 3rd May 2007. I think suggestions that she died earlier in the week are nonsense. I don't believe that there is any evidence of abduction and it is the equivalent of a 'diagnosis of exclusion' in medical terms, ie all you are left with when you have ruled out everything else. I think that people forget that with one or two exceptions any evidence given directly to the UK police and not under letters of request is a complete mystery, but we can assume that none of it is conclusive or sufficient to bring charges. I think Kate McCann's version of her suspicions that the twins had been drugged, the testimony of other witnesses and the failure to seek urgent assessment for them is medically and logically inexplicable. I do not think there was any storage of a body that night or any movement at a later date by car or any other means. I think any disposal was simple and expedient. I think Kate McCann's book reveals a great deal about her state of mind and serves as an attempt to address outstanding issues, failing miserably. I think the only way the case will be solved is if someone talks or if remains are found. I think both are unlikely. I think many people get to caught up in the minutiae and fail to see the bigger picture.
And of course it goes without saying that I think Textusa's swinging theory is utter bollocks.
Not Textusa22 April 2018 at 09:43
*too”
Thanks for that. So it's clear to see it has no theory of all the events that we know for certain took place, other than to say what it 'thinks (not to be confused with theory) did NOT happen'.
DeleteAs such, where is there any concern for Madeleine, and why would anyone seeking 'Justice for Madeleine' hold any interest in NT whatsoever, setting aside it's repeated attacks?
It’s all starkly clear.
DeleteNT doesn’t believe the dog alerts in the car, so presumably has the same opinion of their alerts in the apartment?
He always defended the FSS results.
He believes the Smiths were out by as much as an hour on the timing of their sighting.
And he believes they disposed of the body “ expediently” that night - without any external assistance, presumably? But doesn’t theorise how or where.
JBL mentions sea bass as potential alibi.
G mentioned S liked sea bass in his blog but never put this forward as a reason for odours in the car, and Eddie didn’t alert to foodstuff anyway.
Only a confession or a body will resolve the case, according to NT.
Isn’t JBL implying the same?
Wolves in smelly goats’ clothing.
Jeez - NT is going to review the Summers and Swann bewk. He's only asking the small band of devotees at the moment. Most of them (including JBS) hasn't read the bewk. No matter, underwater tapestry is available for those who don't wish to participate, followed by tea and biscuits.
ReplyDeleteEntry fee is £2 payable at the door...
He has 37K J4M readers to help him!
DeleteWhen I open that FB group it says "Group of Not Textusa". Has he taken it over?
NT on false alarms v JBL's it COULD be blood:
ReplyDelete"Not Textusa19 October 2015 at 12:00
Well, not for a second do I believe the alerts were false or because of handler cueing. That would have to be some cueing to make 2 dogs alert in exactly the same spot, especially as the first one is out of sight when he alerts - so it would have to also involve ESP on the part of the dog!
A single false alert would be one thing - but numerous false alerts I do not accept, and it is utterly contradicted by the results in controlled studies."
*****
It must be said that NT is above responding to a question about cadaver scent but the question of false positives is the same for blood as it is for cadaver scent.
Thursday, 18 October 2018, NT in his blog:
ReplyDelete“I wouldn't know. I do not belong to any facebook groups.”
*****
Admin and Moderators of the Justice For Madeleine FB group:
Kirstie Murray
Julie Chrimes
Ben Thompson
Paul Rees
Sade Anslow
Sharon Wheatley
Karen Lowe Sanders
Trish Hills Allen
Not Textusa - Balancing The Books
*****
NT doesn’t do FB just like he doesn’t do Twitter.
haha, NT exposed with more lies. I wonder how many of those profiles are actually genuine, in their public cries of 'Justice for Madeleine'?
DeleteAnd in NT's crusade alongside them, how often has it referenced the PJ files to publicly show its support for Madeleine? I wouldn't be surprised if the recent BBC drama 'The Cry' has made more references to them than NT has!
https://twitter.com/adlyd_meg/status/1053574067549323265
DeleteZora @adlyd_meg
Replying to @strackers74 @annienonymouss and 7 others
Couple of years ago, some of us might have agreed w some observations, tittered about it in private, maybe shared the link on the QT. We would NOT have promoted it on a large group and DEFINITELY wouldn’t have made him/her admin. MASSIVE error of judgement.
2:10 am - 20 Oct 2018
******
https://twitter.com/jules1602x/status/1053575062928924673
00The Jules... 🕵️♀️ @jules1602x
Replying to @adlyd_meg @strackers74 and 7 others
NT isn't admin... Just saying... Another lie being spread about...
2:14 am - 20 Oct 2018
******
https://twitter.com/adlyd_meg/status/1053575461362634752
Zora @adlyd_meg
Replying to @jules1602x @strackers74 and 7 others
Ah ok, so some of you must be running his/her page then. You cannot reasonably accuse people of lying when the page appears in admin. Mistaken, maybe. Lying, no.
2:15 am - 20 Oct 2018
******
https://twitter.com/jules1602x/status/1053575725121486848
00The Jules... 🕵️♀️ @jules1602x
Replying to @adlyd_meg @strackers74 and 7 others
No a lie.. By Textusa... All in black and white on the blog... :)
2:16 am - 20 Oct 2018
******
https://twitter.com/adlyd_meg/status/1053578529022058497
Zora @adlyd_meg
Replying to @jules1602x @strackers74 and 7 others
My god. No wonder they call you a gaslighter. What’s this then? (Others whited out)
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dp8QFdGWwAAIzIU.jpg
2:27 am - 20 Oct 2018
[Picture attached to the mail above is a screengrab from a mobile and says:
“Admins and moderators
Not Textusa – Balancing The Books
Blogger – 185 likes”]
******
https://twitter.com/jules1602x/status/1053579120368648193
00The Jules... 🕵️♀️ @jules1602x
Replying to @adlyd_meg @strackers74 and 7 others
It's a page called Not Textusa... It's NOT not textusa... Pieces from the blog about Kates book are copied from not textusa and put onto the page... I hope that clarifies things.. No need to apologise...
2:30 am - 20 Oct 2018
******
https://twitter.com/adlyd_meg/status/1053579799959089152
Zora @adlyd_meg
Replying to @jules1602x @strackers74 and 7 others
Nothing to apologise for and I couldn’t care less who’s running the page. You’re being disingenuous as per. And very tedious. I thought the gaslighting claim was a bit much but, having observed you in action, I agree.
2:32 am - 20 Oct 2018
******
We received a comment from Mr Thompson which we did not publish:
“Pseudo Nym has left a new comment on your post "It's September 2018 - Comments continue II":
NT hasn't been exposed at all. I've enjoyed watching you get things wrong for some time. That is a Facebook page, solely for NT's blogs on books. Myself and another admin from Justice run it. For it then to post to the group, I made the page admin. Simple. I created Justice, and the admin team that are listed by name, are the only ones who have access to the settings. All of whom have equal rights, and equal say.
Sorry to burst your little conspirabubble. It's been a pleasure to watch you make an idiot of yourself once again though. Get one of your admin to try it, you'll see I'm right, Bruce!
Posted by Pseudo Nym to Textusa at 19 Oct 2018, 14:58:00”
We didn’t publish the comment because it seemed pretty obvious to us that “Blogger” which is what follows NT’s name as Admin of the group refers to a person, not a page.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteComment that we have received from Mr Thompson, which we have censored:
Delete“Pseudo Nym has left a new comment on your post "It's September 2018 - Comments continue II":
Then click the name, and see where it takes you. It takes you to a facebook page, you (censored)!
Posted by Pseudo Nym to Textusa at 20 Oct 2018, 17:23:00”
******
Ah, so you’re clickbaiting for your master? Good boy!
Comment received that we have censored:
ReplyDelete“Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "It's September 2018 - Comments continue II":
(censored)
Incidentally, Twitter allows anyone in the world to embed tweets into any website they choose. Didn't JBL and others imply that to do so is illegal?
(censored tweet)
Posted by Anonymous to Textusa at 19 Oct 2018, 12:44:00”
*****
Anonymous, thank you but we don’t want to introduce the subject of astrology or a particular person’s belief in it.
OK, fair enough, I can understand why that is. Where on earth might that lead us all? But of course many of us know who these idiots are, who do believe in that 'subject', and also which FB groups they administrate
DeleteHi Textusa,if all the non believers of Dogs findings,how come they have Never answered any questions in regard to the DNA/LCI that FSS,Birmingham contaminated!
ReplyDeleteThey then seemingly had destroyed all remaining tissues on Health & Safety,a first time in DNA/LCI destroyed on a still missing person!
Why have it destroyed,when it is Evidence from a Crime scene,to get rid of?
https://twitter.com/SadeElisha86/status/1053244292418990080
ReplyDelete00Sade 🕵️♀️ @SadeElisha86
Replying to @JBLittlemore @PollyGraph69
Spot on JBL. Unfortunately Debbie doesn't have the brain cells to get your point.
4:19 am - 19 Oct 2018
https://twitter.com/EricaCantona7/status/1053343229524000768
Karen Lowe Sanders @EricaCantona7
Replying to @TheBunnyReturns @jules1602x @cosyring
What on earth is the matter with these people ? No doubt I will be blocked by them but that's only because their inferior intellect amuses me
10:52 am - 19 Oct 2018
******
True personalities oozing out…
I keep hearing NT is the new messiah and as new is the operative word,who is the old one? Bennett?
ReplyDeleteThe latter is often referred to in a half jokingly way as a 'Holy Loon' and a false prophet on another site,but I dont see any religious connotations,even of a humorous nature, linked with NT anywhere.
I see abusive language,or rather 'colourful' as they themselves call it,but nothing even remotely religious.
Anonymous 20 Oct 2018, 09:09:00
DeleteWhen we say that NT is alleged to be the “new anti Messiah” it is not because there was one before him. There wasn’t.
Unlike the religious one, who was/is announced depending on the individual religious belief, this new anti Messiah just appeared out of nowhere. That’s why he’s new, he’s new on the scene, a total surprise.
Note, he’s new on the scene as Messiah because he established his blog in 2013 under the Not Textusa persona and had been around since the beginning of the case under using many different identities.
He was taken by all to be clearly a pro, until this year when Mr Thompson and the rest of the Lick-Spittle Gang enlightened us all that he was not only an anti but THE anti, the one we all MUST follow.
It seems that all these years we, in our unforgivable ignorance were only able to see nothing but plains while this whole time stood, right in front of us, Mount Everest himself.
About religious connotations, we would say that the following from Mr Thompson on NT’s blog would certainly qualify as such:
“Pseudo Nym18 October 2018 at 16:52
(…)
NT. I've said it before, and I will again. Anyone who tries to claim we are the same, is an utter idiot.
We share the same humour (I hope), and the same ideas as to what is the correct way to present evidence, and how to interpret it. Neither of us suffer liars, and will call them out.
It's pretty obvious to anyone with half a brain though, that your knowledge far exceeds my own. Your understanding of science for example, is light years ahead of mine, and always will be. I do learn from you though - as I do from many reliable contributors. As I'm not a sheep, I'll follow up what you say, and find other sources to learn more. Isn't that what people who wish to understand things without the need of programming do?
So, a little thank you to the knitting club for getting things wrong again. Not only have they made an absolute show of themselves, by behaving like a set of pissed off Peggy Mitchells on gin and steroids, they've also paid me a huge compliment...perhaps you, not so much :)”
In his religious fervour, Mr Thompson who reads attentively our blog, seemed to have missed this comment from us:
“Textusa18 Oct 2018, 16:20:00
Anonymous 18 Oct 2018, 16:14:00,
We have no reason to believe that Mr Thompson is NT and we have very good reasons to believe they are 2 separate individuals.”
So if NT is pro pretending to be an anti, then he really is a true false prophet.
DeleteBtw Ben Thompson might have been referring to MMM as the knitting club as I have heard that place called that several times before. It may be a regular derogatory term of his for anywhere of course.
If the allegation against Bennett is true that he did a deal for reduced costs,he would be a false prophet also.
DeleteBy the same token Blacksmith could be too because of his almost manic convincing us Grange is genuine.
It could just be Cristobell and you Textusa left standing.
You need to do one on one combat to find out who is the chosen one.
On second thoughts though, Ros likes Blacksmith so could be guilty by association lol.
So you Textusa by default...you are the true prophet!
Anonymous 20 Oct 2018, 16:31:00,
Delete“Believe nothing, no matter where you read it or who has said it, not even if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense.”
Buddha
Anonymous 20 Oct 2018, 16:31:00,
DeleteAll we are trying to do is simple:
https://twitter.com/adlyd_meg/status/1053609567630880768
Zora @adlyd_meg
Replying to @EricaCantona7 @jules1602x and 7 others
No one, absolutely NO ONE has right to appoint themselves as arbiter of truth when TRUTH, thanks to McCanns, very thin on the ground. You can easily post truth as u see it w/out ridicule, abuse, faux indignation. If its convincing, abuse-free it’ll easily gain traction. Simples.
4:31 am - 20 Oct 2018
From "FB Anon":
ReplyDelete" I see NT is busy slating others for their poor research in his latest post. He then goes to say that there is proof that Madeleine McCann was alive on the 3rd of May because she’s in The Last Photo! The photo has so obviously been photoshopped but NT believes it to be genuine. Great research on his part then- not!! 😃"
Another comment from "FB Anon":
ReplyDelete"JB Littlemore has said on Twitter that the level of support the McCann's had from the FCO was appropriate as they had a duty to protect British Citizens. As far as I'm aware the FCO didn't issue any warnings to OTHER British holiday makers in PdL to be extra vigilant as there was a possible predatory paedophile on the loose. If not, why not? Didn't the FCO have a duty to protect ALL British citizens?"
Yet another sermon from the Rev.
ReplyDeleteAbout Bennett and the Smith sighting this time.
Quite funny actually (and true maybe?).
https://twitter.com/adlyd_meg/status/1053561884396396544
ReplyDeleteZora @adlyd_meg
Replying to @PollyGraph69 @K9Truth and 7 others
The hypocrisy in this thread is just unbelievable. You reap what you sow and all that. Chin up, Debbie x
1:21 am - 20 Oct 2018
*****
https://twitter.com/jules1602x/status/1053562365424345088
00The Jules... 🕵️♀️ @jules1602x
Replying to @adlyd_meg @PollyGraph69 and 7 others
It is... Let's focus on hypocrisy and not the outrageous lies posted... On tag.. :)
1:23 am - 20 Oct 2018
*****
https://twitter.com/adlyd_meg/status/1053564340710858752
Zora @adlyd_meg
Replying to @jules1602x @PollyGraph69 and 7 others
The hypocrisy IS rather a fucking MASSIVE feature of this debacle. Throw a ton of shit. Await response. Feign outrage and victimisation at said response. Rinse. Repeat.
1:31 am - 20 Oct 2018
*****
And we couldn’t agree more.
@EricaCantona7
ReplyDeleteFollow Follow @EricaCantona7
More
Replying to @strackers74 @jules1602x and 5 others
You’re absolutely right in some respects but we know now that a big round table existed. This is the reason Julie has been so maligned by textusa.
As for Lizzy, commendable as her research is, it can be proved that Madeleine did not disappear on the Sunday #mccann
11:45 PM - 19 Oct 2018
@EricaCantona7
Follow Follow @EricaCantona7
More
Replying to @strackers74 @jules1602x and 5 others
I know , and I understand completely. The big round table existed and text should just accept it instead of dismissing it by telling everyone we are pros
12:40 AM - 20 Oct 2018
@EricaCantona7
Follow Follow @EricaCantona7
More
Replying to @strackers74 @jules1602x and 5 others
There is even a YouTube video of Martin Brunt sitting at it and I will find you a photo too x
1:11 AM - 20 Oct 2018
@EricaCantona7
Follow Follow @EricaCantona7
More
Replying to @EricaCantona7 @jules1602x and 6 others
There is now proof it existed thank heavens
4:10 AM - 20 Oct 2018
Anonymous 20 Oct 2018, 13:06:00,
DeleteWe're waiting for the proof from Jules that EricaCantona7 speaks of in her 4:10 AM - 20 Oct 2018 tweet.
About the Brunt table:
http://textusa.blogspot.com/2012/11/swan-lake-act-3.html
@EricaCantona7
ReplyDeleteFollow Follow @EricaCantona7
More
Replying to @wendzedin @jules1602x @GoncalAmoralis
Just to say, Julie absolutely did not start this , she and Sally found absolute proof that there was a big round table in the Tapas in 2007. This is why textusa started attacking her, she was only responding #mccann
11:23 PM - 19 Oct 2018
Such absolute proof that they will not show it!
2 very interesting tweets for different reasons:
ReplyDeletehttps://twitter.com/JillyCL/status/1053418789797269506
JillyCL ☮️ @JillyCL
@TheBunnyReturns Sent you a DM (important info) x
3:53 pm - 19 Oct 2018
******
https://twitter.com/TheBunnyReturns/status/1053455659218452480
00Bugsy @TheBunnyReturns
Replying to @bitconfused90 @Tealtraum and 4 others
Lol. No. NT knows far more about science than I ever could. He goes way further back than me, back to the very first forums. I have two blogs, one of which is a work in progress on the MSM, which I haven't even opened publicly, and LaidBare.
6:19 pm - 19 Oct 2018
https://twitter.com/JBLittlemore/status/1052524242947006464
ReplyDeleteJ B Littlemore @JBLittlemore
Replying to @annienonymouss
I gather a claim is being made that PT courts accept the alerts as proof? As they can do. But the question then sits - why haven't the PT courts acted on that 'proof' & brought charges? Because there is no PROOF of what/who the dogs alerted to. Yes, it is common sense! #Mccann
4:38 am - 17 Oct 2018
******
We apologise to readers but this tweet escaped us. JBLittlemore is much too important for the other side for us to let anything that he says about the dogs to go unchecked.
JBLittlemore, courts don’t bring charges, so right there you are wrong. Courts judge on charges brought by others onto others.
Indeed no charges were brought because it wasn’t proved that the blood that was PROVED to be found belonged to Maddie, nor marks of cadaver scent that was PROVED to be found belonged to Maddie.
Common sense is what people use to see how transparent you are in trying so hard to gaslight people about the dogs.