Thursday, 29 May 2014

Jesus Wept

Well, there's a festival of Textaloonery happening on the JH forum

Here's a little preview

  canada12 Today at 3:18 pm
So, it's just occured to me... what if the dig results in something of interest being found which contains DNA, which the McCanns supplied as belonging to Madeleine.

What if the DNA supplied by the McCanns was NOT Madeleine's DNA, and the PJ and SY have determined that it's not Madeleine's DNA, and yet the McCanns have given them DNA stating that it is.

What will Kate and Gerry say?

Interesting dilemma.

All supposition.

Let me put you out of your misery immediately. The DNA profile recovered from the McCann's home IS that of Madeleine. It really is that simple.

So no dilemma to worry your vacant little head with. As you were, everyone.

Wednesday, 28 May 2014

In other news.....

A new poster on the JH forum, who goes by the name of TozerDerry is trying to get the masses to understand the concept of a null hypothesis and to challenge their existing thinking.

An excellent idea.

Unfortunately, he is having to content with an assortment of Textaloons who just don't get it.

Re: Occam's razor, Not Occam's razor or possibly a third option ?

Post TozerDerry Today at 11:42 am
OK, that is a good start. Let us apply the Null Hypothesis here and see what it does to our belief systems.

You are suggesting that whatever the McCanns may or may not have done, the ensuing events were not necessarily of their own volition- that other major forces took over and they were swept along with the tide.

Assuming most people here believe that the McCanns were some way involved in more than just neglectful parenting, let us assume the opposite.

Right- we are fairly certain that the Mccanns left the children alone. for several nights. Let us for the momentput aside conspiracy theories about death before the £rd of May which I have seen and which seem somewhat fanciful. Let us assume that they made a truly catastrophic parenting mistake. And apart from being an unlikable couple, that is the limit of their sins.

They lose control of the narrative to an avalanche of advisors and commentators and the stroy develops into a mystery that cannot be solved.

Where does that lead us?

This is the null hypothesis approach and already it is suggesting alternative possibilities.

Up pops Loon No 1
I'm far from certain that the Mccanns actually did leave the children alone.

I believe the neglect story was contrived in order for the abduction theory to be plausible...?

Swiftly followed by Loon No 2, our very own HelenMeg
I certainly do not think any of the children were left alone during that week. Neglect is surely a red herring, and as Andrew says - was necessary to enable an 'abduction' to occur.
I actually didn't think anyone really thought there had been neglect other than those relatively uninformed about the case.
Neglect served the TAPAS 9 really well - as it made sure people spent hours discussing 'neglect'

Good luck, TozerDerry, you are going to need it. These clowns have been spoonfed a diet of neat bullshit by Textusa for years. Any capacity they ever had to think for themselves is long gone.


Saturday, 24 May 2014

Fucking idiot

Sick to death of the idiotic ''oh my god they were carrying Calpol'' comments by the ninja retard section, I penned the following

Any parents travelling to another country and not taking Calpol or an equivalent with them are completely stupid and irresponsible.

It's liquid paracetamol. Not Smack

As is almost inevitable, some utter twat responded

You need to research the non-paracetamol contents of Calpol to understand why it is banned in some countries and in others not recommended for children. It has potential adverse effects on children with pre-existing health problems.

I really can't be doing with fucking idiots like her. Anyway, Textusa is unlikely to print my response, so here it is

Are you completely stupid?
Just read my post again
''Any parents travelling to another country and not taking Calpol or an equivalent with them are completely stupid and irresponsible.
It's liquid paracetamol. Not Smack. ''

No drug of any description carries a blanket licence to be used for any patient, anytime, anywhere. If a drug is not suitable for a patient because of a contra-indication then that does not render it unsuitable or dangerous for others - do you understand that?

What I SAID was that every parent travelling with young children should ensure that they carry with them a product like Calpol ''OR AN EQUIVALENT''. In other words an antipyrexic/pain reliever which is suitable for their young children to take. Or would you suggest they wait until their child is taken ill, in a foreign country, and then have to try to find a suitable treatment locally?

Do you get that?

You clearly don't have a clue what you are talking about, but hey, that's hardly unusual around here.
Yes, there are different Calpol products available. Most of them contain Paracetamol. There is also an iboprofen version available. There are versions which include an anti-histamine. There are line extension products to sooth coughs and congestion. You also need to understand the difference between ''banned'' and ''not licenced for sale''.  Calpol is a brand. It is a brand of products developed for children. No one product can simultaneously be suitable for every child of every age and in every circumstance - that is why there is a range available. Is any of this getting through to you?

Now - with that information, can you kindly explain the ridiculous, hysterical response every time Calpol is mentioned? Like yours, for example.


Textusa stuck her nose in

To our readers,

We have no issues about Calpol, as friends we know have used it, sparingly and only when necessary but we don't feel that it's appropriate to call parents irresponsible in not taking medication with them to European countries, who are usually civilised enough to be able to supply suitable medication if required.

And no further discussion on Calpol, which is another distraction technique.

Here is my reply

This is an example of a professionally recommended essential travel first aid kit for travelling with babies and small children
Baby First Aid Kit - What You'll Need

A first aid manual
Infant thermometer
Infant paracetamol suspension such as Calpol or Tylenol
Antiseptic cream
Any prescription medications
Plasters/Band Aids
Infant insect repellent
Rehydration powders in case of diarrhea
Cream or spray for sting relief
Assorted bandages
Surgical tape for holding dressings
Sterile gauze
Mild soap
Safety pins
Calamine lotion
Alcohol wipes

You can ignore this, but it will go up on my site anyway, then people will wonder why you are neglecting an important matter of child safety in order to attempt to score points.
It is irresponsible to travel without any required prescription medicines and/or essential medications such as calpol and rehydration sachets.
Stop being irresponsible and encouraging others to be.

Oh, and if it's a ''distraction technique'' - I prefer to think of it as a total fucking irrelevance - you need to take it up with your fucktards, dear. They are the ones who raised it........

Friday, 23 May 2014

Calpol conversations from the lunatic fringe

As ever, Textusa's demented clientele are having a fit of the vapours and working themselves to a screaming, apostrophe-emblazoned frenzy about the modern equivalent of Junior Asprin.

Here's some examples

''I am speechless!!!!! ''

Oh, if only you were, madam, if only you were. But you're not. Instead, you are screeching incoherently, like a mortally offended owl deprived of it's last vole.  

''CALPOL !!! Once again Calpol...''

Yes, Calpol. Are you about to break into song? 

''Another "loving" mother, also on maternity leave (a 14 month old long does maternity leave last for in the UK?! all we get here in Portugal is 3 months!) and Calpol in the holiday luggage...''

Oh for fuck's sake

Let's make something clear

Any parents travelling to another country and not taking Calpol or an equivalent with them are completely stupid and irresponsible.
It's liquid paracetamol. Not Smack.

It can be used to treat pain and fever and is as essential an item for parents to carry as nappies. More so if travelling abroad - it avoids any confusion over the dosage and administration if the labelling is in one's own language.

I can't believe any of the people making these stupid comments can possibly be parents - this is very basic stuff.


Another idiot writes......

Some dozy cow has offered the following ''insight''

TVI said tonight that it would be PJ agents doing the search. SY has been authorised to accompany. And to pay. What a joke.

What is ''a joke''?
That's how the system works - the country seeking assistance, in this case the UK, asks the host country, in this case Portugal, to carry out investigations on it's behalf. They don't get to wander in jackbooted fashion all over someone else's turf. And of course they pay for it. Would you ask someone to pick up something for you while they are out shopping then refuse to pay for it?
So what's the problem?

Thursday, 22 May 2014

An idiot writes...........

  • Anonymous21 May 2014 14:39:00  
    Textusa we just love reading your blog, from day one you have had it about right, just so pleased you continue with your hard work and research you have many followers and one day the truth will come out. SY now look like a bunch of incompetant idiots thanks to their corrupt leader Redwood. Undoubtedly some sort of swinging went on, something that kept this group quiet for all these years, something that they were all afraid would come out and so they have continually lied and buried their heads in the sand. They are all unfit as parents and they know it. Thanks Tex xxx

    ''So tell me, Mr Tapas Waiter, you served the McCann party, didn't you?''

    ''Yes sir, I did''


    ''Excuse me?''

    ''You are lying. They never ate there, they were too busy shagging each other!''

    ''Er no, senor, I served their meals...''

    ''You're lying - were you shagging them too? Why are you lying for them?''

    ''Senor, I think you have been in the sun too long. I'll get you some iced water. You go and have a seat over there at that big round table...''

    '' * Oh Fuck* ''

    Wednesday, 21 May 2014


    An idiot writes:

    The next time your pet troll Insane/Not Textusa threatens you and your readers with legal action, you just quote him from his own blog:

    "And in case you hadn't noticed, ''here'' is my bit of the internet. I can spread whatever I like, lavishly and with considerable vigour, on my own site."

    That’s his words on a comment made by him about his blog on 20May2014 09:21:
    What applies to him, applies to you!

    The difference, dickhead, is that I wasn't using my bit of the internet to libel and harass innocent witnesses, unlike your glorious, jackbooted leader, Oberleutnant von Textusa.

    Now off you run - those 12 year old girls and elderly ladies are not going to harass themselves, are they?

    It's worth a quick reminder.........

    It's been a long time since Her Loonyness first let the rest of the world in on her insanity. So much so that she felt it necessary to repeat her basic thesis again.

    Seems like an ideal opportunity to cast our peepers over it too. So here it is

    Anonymous 20 May 2014 15:56:00,

    On the basis of our utmost firm and convicted belief that there was no negligence is the FACT that there were NO dinners at Tapas during that week.

    NO DINING and NO WINING at Tapas. They did that elsewhere and when they did that the children were tended to by adequate proffessionals.

    One of the reasons why we’re positive there were no dinners is because there was no Big Round Table at Tapas. Why we think it is adequately expressed in our “The proof Ocean Club Reads Textusa” post (07Mar14).

    For those of you unfamiliar with Textusa's pathology, this is how it works. There are three basic principles.

    This is the first. The Tenets.

    She gets an idea.

    She declares it to be a truth. It becomes canon, a tenet, immoveable.

    Everything else, however unlikely, then has to fit around the initial idea, because otherwise she would have to admit that her initial idea, or presumption, or assumption or lie was wrong. And that she won't do.

    However preposterous this makes that central tenet, however poorly it stands up to the challenge, it must never be allowed to fall - because if it falls, everything else falls with it  

    The second basic principle is that a  piece of evidence may be appropriated to both support her ridiculous notions on the one hand, yet utterly discounted as having any merit on the other.

    There is a third basic principle too, of course. That is that having developed the idea one must then obfuscate one's own post with maps and diagrams and much much verbiage to the point that no-one has a fucking clue what the initial point was, but gaze longingly up with adoration and gasp ''Oh Textusa, you are wonderful, you have hit the nail right on the head'', without having the faintest idea what the point was, or if said nail even had a head in the first place.

    So shall we see how she got herself into this? I think we should.

    It really is quite simple.

    Textusa decided that there was no big round table at the Tapas.

    The reasons why are not important. They involved lots of diagrams and arrows and bogus calculations - that's all you really need to know.

    But this gave rise to the following and rather simplistic thought process

    No big round table = no tapas dinners = no neglect

    And I guess she thought that was that - she had made her point and off she went, skipping into the distance to await the arrival of matron, the syringe and the night restraints.

    However, there was a bit of a fly in the ointment.

    Well - rather a lot of flies, actually.

    In the shape of the hundreds of people who could attest in one way or another to the existence of the Tapas restaurant, the inclusion of the Tapas as a place to eat for half-board patrons, the presence of the McCanns in the restaurant and the various documentation attesting to the same.

    So what was the answer? Retreat gracefully, admitting that clearly the couples had dined there, so forget the last post and let's move on?

    Oh no, we can't have that.

    After all, Textusa has declared a basic tenet - no table, no dinners

    So there is only one possible explanation. Shall we re-create the dialogue for you? I think we should.

    Red = Textusa, Blue = sane people

    All the restaurant staff, the holidaymakers, the locals, the reception staff who booked the tables - all lying to cover up for the McCanns

    Er - hang on - why would they do that?

    *Thinks hard* - Swinging!

    Swinging? But that's not even illegal. Are you suggesting that all the hundreds of people who gave statements to the PJ which in one way or another place the Tapas group in the Tapas did so as part of some huge conspiracy - even though they did not know the McCanns or each other?

    Well, yes. That is exactly what she was suggesting, and continues to insist to this day. Why?

    Because otherwise she would have to admit she was wrong about the table

    Hang on - Martin Brunt was FILMED sitting at that table, wasn't he?

    Yes he was.

    Well then....?

    It's  a fake

    What is?

    The film. It's been manipulated.

    So you are saying, in all seriousness, that an international news organisation faked a moving piece of footage of their reporter sitting at a restaurant table in order to maintain an 'illusion' that the tapas group ate there?

    *Through gritted teeth* Yes, that is what we are saying.

    So just as a quick recap, Textusa, there never was a big round table, therefore the tapas group could not have dined there, and every account which places them there, plus all the booking sheets, plus the film footage of Martin Brunt sat at the same table - all lies, all faked?


    And the table shown in Mr Amaral's recent documentary?



    And how about this, from the police files?


    Did the PJ also collude to ''fake'' the existence of a big round table, and ask the witnesses to indicate where each had been sitting? And then put it in the police files?




    And the rest is history.......

    Sunday, 18 May 2014

    It's a dirty job........

    ......but someone has to do it.

    Well, it's that time again. Her loonyness has posted 28ft of utter shite, wank and bollocks.

    Time to distill it down to a few meaningless soundbites.

    Before we continue, I have to warn you that parts of her latest inept missive are extremely racist and thus even more offensive than usual. I'm not going to censor the racist content because I think it's important Textusa is seen in all her bigoted glory. Apologies to those who are offended. Take it up with her.

    For those of you who really can't be bothered, go straight to the end of this post for a summary in a single paragraph. You will thank me for the hour of your life I have given you back.

    Picture with offensive label

    ''BLUF: The fact that PJ considers Euclides Monteiro a person of interest to the Maddie case means PJ is looking into Ocean Club, or some of its personnel, as active participants.

    Who is Euclides Monteiro?

    And the answer is: nobody.

    And that, dear readers, is of the utmost importance and we hope to show you how really important is this fact that Euclides is simply a nobody.''

    A ''Nobody''. Okay. What constitutes a ''Nobody''? I'm sure that will become abundantly clear as the feet unravel, but just out of interest who did she expect would be a suspect?

    The Duke of Kent?

    The Dalai Lama?

    His Holiness the Pope?

    Air Chief Marshal Sir Hugh Massingberd-Massingberd, VC, DFC and bar?

    So we have ascertained that the suspect is not a household name  - what else?

    Let’s get our facts straight about what we know about Euclides.He’s a Cape Verdean. He’s slim, tall and black.

    He liked to write poems.

    He worked for the Ocean Club in Praia da Luz and was fired/left about 6 months before 03May07, the night Maddie departed. It is not clear the motives as to why he left the resort as it seems to us that the theft of 5€, as it’s reported, not to be sufficient enough. But we won’t question that as it’s perfectly irrelevant. What is important is that on the night of 03May07 he was not an Ocean Club employee.

    Oh get on with it, for fuck's sake

    On that same night of 03May07, according to his widow, he was home, at a distance of around 2 Km (in a straight line) from the resort. That night, again according to his widow, he saved a poem on his computer at 21H00.

    He had a criminal record for petty theft and burglaries. For that he served prison time. He was pardoned by Portugal's President Jorge Sampaio in 1996.
    He had a drug-addition problem. Not clear if after his prison time this problem persisted. Widow does say he had no drug problem after coming out of prison.

    He died in a tragic tractor accident in 2009. This fact has led him to be known as Tractorman.
    These are the facts.

    No, the bits I have highlighted for you are the facts. The rest isn't. That's not to say it is incorrect, but it is not a ''fact'' when it is based on the uncorroborated account of a third person.
    Happy to help

    There are things, although we have been told, we don’t know. For example, we don’t know where Euclides/Tractorman died. Initially we were told it was in Bragança but recently we have been told by Brendan De Beer in

    Portugal News Online, that Euclides “died in a tractor accident on a golf course in Lagos, near Luz, back in 2009”.It's a map. There is always a map

    There are three golf courses that can be considered near Luz: Onyria Palmares Beach & Golf Resort, Boavista Golf & Spa Resort and Parque da Floresta.

    Quinta da Boavista, where Euclides is reported to have worked there in 2008 is the nearest to Luz so more likely to be the one where it is now alleged for him to have had the fatal tractor accident.

    He's dead. It makes no difference where it happened. Stop trying to make the tragic death of a man into your own private game of Cluedo.

    A golf course is a very unlikely place for a tractor accident. In Bragança, in Northeast Portugal where Euclides initialy resided when he first arrived in Portugal from Cape Verde, would unfortunately be common.
    Why is a golf course an unlikely place for a tractor accident?Incidentally, you don't know for certain that is where the accident occurred - it's a single account from one source.

    A fatal tractor accident in a golf course in the Algarve would have been news.
    Why? Tractor accidents are not uncommon. No reason why one on a golf course should attract more attention than any other. Not as if it happened in the middle of the final hole of the Ryder Cup, is it?

    One important fact about Tractorman is that he hit the stands from the Portuguese side of things. It was the Portuguese media who first spoke of him, revealing his identity to the public by saying that PJ had linked him to the Maddie case.

    Euclides, as far as we know, is the only “Maddie suspect” originating from the Portuguese media.
    I can think of two others that did......

    He appeared in the Portuguese media in early November 2013 after UK CW and before the CMTV’s Maddie special.
    Yes. So?

    We were all baffled. We asked ourselves what on earth could this man, this nobody, possibly have to do with Maddie? Absolutely nothing, we all said. There simply was no reasonable linkage between the two.
    You are a bit dim, aren't you? Are you under the impression that there HAS to be a link? Why?

    It was said that he PJ considered him a person of interest to the case due to his cell phone use.
    ''It was said''
    By whom was it ''said''? A newspaper? And it never occurred to you there might be other reasons why he was a person of interest?

    If one recalls, SY started to say that it had 3,000+ records of cell phone calls on that night in Praia da Luz.

    Then, out of these 3,000+ calls, it elected 3 numbers, of what was to become the very brief notoriety of the 3 Burglars, who, apparently were said to have been 3 Ocean Club workers if we’re not mistaken.
    And where did you get this from? Let me guess - another newspaper?

    And then out came Euclides’s name. A former Ocean Club worker. Almost the logical conclusion of 3,000+ phone calls – 3 Burglars – 3 Ocean Club workers – 1 Ocean Club worker: Euclides Monteiro.
    Logical according to who - you? Oh please, you are the least logical person on Planet Earth

    But Euclides stands out like a sore thumb in this logic: he’s the only one named from Portugal while all other come from Britain.
    Christ, you're dim

    Portugal reopened case because of Euclides’ phone pings. Apparently that was the reason.
    Apparently? According to who?

    Apparently, again, he had used his cell phone near the Apartment 5A on that night.

    All, including us, thought that to be ridiculous. With the actual GPS technology on smartphones, a cell phone can have, we suppose, its location pinpointed. However, the technology available then simply reported whatever retransmission antenna the cell phone activated.
    No, YOU thought that. Anyone with any actual knowledge or intelligence, didn't

    Oh bollocks, here we go. Protractors out, people
    Red - triangulation (live tracking) / Green - intersection

    If a cell phone activated more than one antenna than a triangulation was possible to be obtained but only if one was doing live tracking of the call. To do that, one has to know beforehand what number to track.

    Jesus Christ, you are clueless.

    Let's make it very simple. If a phone activated more than one antenna, one can triangulate a position at the time they were activated. If it only activated one, it indicated the position of the phone only within the area covered by that mast, so for example it might be able to say the phone was within a radius of 5km of the mast, but not if it was to the north, south east or west. No numbers are ''tracked live'' unless there is a specific reason, such as an emergency call originating from their phone. Right, you can ignore all the rest of her bollocks

    If the number wasn't tracked live, then the best that is able to be obtained is a general area by intersecting the ranges of all antennae the cell phone activated.

    Antennae do not register the azimuths of calls and to do a trilateration one needs at least 3 azimuths.

    To be able to know where Euclides had used his phone, he would have to have been a person of interest to the authorities that night. As far as we know, he wasn’t. Not that night.

    All that could then be determined from phone pings as to where Euclides used his cell phone would be a general location around Praia da Luz. Or as

    SOL, 01Nov13, stated “according to the news, the Oporto PJ would have arrived to the former employee through the triangulation of cell phone signals which were activated in the night of May 3, 2007 in the area of the tourist resort, and they would have understood that the suspect was in the vicinity in the night when Maddie disappeared.”

    He could have been next to Maddie when he used it or he could have been sitting comfortably in his living-room in his home, watching TV or writing poems.

    Yes, we have done all this for you, cut to the chase you tedious cow

    Vicinity is vicinity and on RTP his widow stated clealy that he was in his house with her.
    Yes. An uncorroborated account. So?

    He could have been anywhere in the range of the antenna his cell phone activated, and like him, there were certainly hundreds of other “nobodies” within it too.

    So, we like you, racked our brains to understand why on earth Euclides’ name had popped up by the hand of the Portuguese press.

    Unlike the British press, namely the tabloids, the Portuguese press is not prone to throwing names about. The Portuguese by nature are very respectful of the individual's privacy.

    So there had to be a reason for the Portuguese press to report Euclides as linked to the case and that reason could only be one: the PJ had indeed found Euclides to be a person of interest to the case.
    No shit, Sherlock

    But why? Why did a nobody become a person of interest in the most globalised crime ever?
    There is that ''Nobody'' again. We'll be coming back to that.
    Did it occur to you for a second that maybe they know something you don't know?

    With time one thing struck us as odd: Monteiro’s name just wouldn’t go away. And that happened with a twist. On close analysis, the British press, after the

    initial news surge about him, have never linked Tractorman to any subsequent story put out by SY. In reality or allegedly.In fact, they have been careful to say that Euclides is a suspect only to the PJ, not SY.Amazing. Did it occur to your tiny brain why that might be?
    When SY presented Binman to the world, and his exclusive Super-Bock shirt which we all mistook for an Arsenal FC jersey, it ran a parallel campaign “dropping” Monteiro as a suspect and saying that he was only a person of interest to PJ.

    All the linking made between Euclides and Binman or with the updated version, SuperBockman, has been done on the internet or only by the Portuguese MSM.

    Ah the penny is dropping

    Didn't the Brit press report that SY was suspicious about an evil gang of 28? Why not include Euclides in this list? Why shy away from him?
    The british press report a lot of things. 95% of it is absolute bullshit

    SY was trying to get rid of all suspicions surrounding Monteiro but the Portuguese MSM didn't let him go.
    Keep going, you'll get there

    The lovely Sandra. Textusa is insanely jealous of her.

    Sandra Felgueiras' RTP's Sexta às 9 of 02May14, even went to the point of saying “PJ já tinha interrogado Euclides por abuso sexual de menores em 2008” which translates into “PJ had already questioned Euclides for sexual abuse of minors in 2008”.

    Although in the entire report this suspicion is only mentioned in this caption, it is right up the alley of the latest sex-assault craze launched by SY.

    But did the British press pick this up? No.

    Why didn't it fill its headlines with “Maddie's Tractorman Suspect of Sex-Assaults on Minors”?

    On the contrary, they went out to show how innocent Euclides is.

    On 03May14,
    Mail online says: “Madeleine McCann suspect Euclides Monteiro was quizzed about a string of sex assaults linked to her disappearance before he died, his widow revealed last night.
    Luisa Rodrigues said Portuguese police investigating Madeleine’s abduction questioned the convicted burglar about a spate of sex attacks at Algarve holiday villas in 2008, the year after the three-year-old vanished.
    She claimed DNA tests had put the recovering heroin addict, a former worker at the Ocean Club holiday complex in Praia da Luz that Madeleine vanished from seven years ago yesterday, in the clear.”

    On 09May14, 7 days after Sandra Felgueira's program aired and only after the massive public humiliating blunder that was the “let’s-dig-up-PdL-up-from-the-sky-with-a-helicopter”, was Euclides mentioned by the British press, in the

    A single paragraph clarifying how innocent Euclides is.

    In an article about how the the Met is looking into a British Paedo ring, in which the names of Britons Raymond Hewlett and Roderick Robinson were brought up in the middle of SY wanting to interview “eight people of varying nationality, including an intruder linked to a spate of sex attacks there” (meaning they know who the intruder is), the Mirror had this to say about Euclides: “Porto-based detectives who led a cold case review into the seven year old mystery which led them to dead former Ocean Club worker Euclides Monteiro, are said to have concluded there is no evidence the Algarve sex attacker snatched Maddie.”

    British sex-attackers become immediate suspects in the Maddie case simply because they have a criminal record and its deemed perfectly reasonable to expose them publicly and link them to the case just because they happened to have been within a 100 mile radius of PdL. It's completely irrelevant to the British media that PJ has not considered either as being of interest to the case.
    Okay, let's intervene right here, because this is ball-achingly fucking pointless, and I've got a repeat of the Cup Final calling to me, so I don't want to be here all bloody night
    The press is not the police, in either nation. To a large extent, they make up whatever they like. They report any old shit fed to them by Clarence Mitchell, sucking it in like a crack addict dragging on a pipe. You haven't got a fucking clue what the PJ are up to or what SY are up to that they haven't expressly told you. The press exists because fuckwitted clowns like you and your minions will believe whatever cobblers they choose to dish up for you. Now, with that in mind, continue.....

    And then there the eight yet unnamed other people who may be linked to a paedo ring in the Algarve and who SY wants to talk to. Again, irrelevant if PJ has not considered any of them to be of interest to the case.
    More shit from the press......

    For the British media, PJ's opinion matters only when it comes to Euclides. Euclides is to be left alone because PJ has concluded there is no evidence that links him to Maddie.

    But who says PJ has found no evidence linking Euclides to Maddie?

    And why leave Euclides alone but continue to persecute Hewlett? Has far as we know, PJ also found no evidence linking him to Maddie.

    But the day after Mirror published that article, the Portuguese press responded in kind. On 10May07,

    CdM subtly but effectively keeps Euclides in the public's eye by reminding all that it was because of him that the process was reopened in Portugal: “after the process of the disappearance of the child was reopened based on the similarity with five cases of children allegedly victim of abuse – and in which Euclides Monteiro, meanwhile deceased, appeared as main suspect – the authorities now believe that Maddie’s disappearance was a single case.”

    The British press doing it's best to minimise Euclides’ relevance in the case and the Portuguese press insisting in highlighting it.

    I know this is a difficult concept for you, but they don't give a shit about anything but selling papers. That's all there is.

    The McCanns, if you remember, dismissed from the start the story as speculation and didn't want to comment.

    It became very evident that it is not in the interest of UK to speak about Euclides the Tractorman.

    That told us that Euclides must really be an IMPORTANT piece of the puzzle. There had to be a reason for the British not wanting to divert any attention his way. Could it be just a racial issue? Having, like we said, a black patsy would be going a little too far in terms of the politically correct?
    So you are suggesting that the British police ignored his as a suspect because he's black and they were being hyper politically correct??
    You know fuck all about the British police, clearly

    The tolerant Portuguese MSM didn’t seem to give much importance to that. His name just kept appearing.

    Then Monteiro’s widow showed us an essential piece in Euclides' puzzle: she didn’t show her face during Felgueira’s RTP’s Sexta às 9.

    One only doesn’t show one’s face on TV because one is afraid. And with an alias for a name.

    Why the fuck should she? So that twats like you can hound her? So that stalkers like you can make disgusting allegations about her, the way you did about child witnesses in the case? So that vicious hags like you and your toadying minions can call her a liar, like you did to Pamela Fenn? No wonder she didn't want to show her face.

    Euclides’ sister is not afraid to show her face.
    She will be, once she has dealt with fucktards like you for a while.

    Someone defending someone else’s honour and innocence should not be afraid to show their faces. Especially about a nobody and Euclides was simply that.
    Okay. Enough. E-fucking-nough.
    The man may have been a thieving twat. For all we know, the police may have reason to suspect him of other crimes. Good reason. But you know what? He wasn't a ''nobody'' to them. Whatever his faults, his family loved him. He was a person, not some abstract concept. Your attempts to de-humanise him by constantly referring to him as a ''nobody'' reveal you as the nasty, bigoted piece of filth you are. You have notably never referred to any other character in this long saga as a ''nobody''
    But then, none of them were black, were they, Textusa?

    To defend the innocence of an innocent only shows nobility, friendship and loyalty.
    Qualities you wouldn't recognise if you fell over them

    If there's no reason for Euclides to have been singled out then we see no reason to hide one's face in fear when defending him and see many to show it openly and proudly just like his sister does as well as everyone else who speaks about him in the report. All except his widow.
    Just like there was no reason for any of those witnesses to worry about having given their account to the police. Until you got your hands on them, you evil bitch.

    On 02Nov13, she didn't seem to be afraid to pose or reveal her name and face on the

    Mirror online article of : “Madeleine McCann key suspect was heroin addict who burgled holiday flats to get fix” and nor again in February this year on the Huffington Post online article “Madeleine McCann News: Luisa Rodrigues, Widow Of Dead Suspect Euclides Lopes Monteiro Insists He Is Innocent” (17Feb14).

    So what has changed since then? Well, we did have SY's “Bin-Super-Bockman” in March and “18-sex-assault-spree” in April.

    Take a wild stab in the dark

    So what could Euclides’ widow now be afraid of? That PJ is to lock her up for publicly defending her deceased spouse? What other reprisals can there be if Euclides has nothing to do with the case?

    She said she had lost her job because of this. So she’s known to whom matters in the job world who may “fire” her again but that can't be a real fear as the remainder job providers in the market do not remember the face of a nobody who has appeared in a report talking about a nobody.


    She is not a nobody. Maybe she would rather not be a target for all the vicious twats out there, like, er, you?

    So, for us, Euclides is indeed a person of interest to the PJ. In our opinion, not a patsy but someone with some sort of connection to the case.


    Yes, the PJ have made this perfectly clear. Is the penny only just dropping for you?

    So first we had to determine why PJ had made a connection between Euclides Monteiro and the Maddie case.

    The answer, in our opinion, was given by the press: his cell phone.


    In your opinion. Which is wrong

    Not by triangulation, which would be absolutely ridiculous but by calls made and received by him that night.

    Let us make a parallel with another known character in this affair: Malinka.

    Why was Malinka considered a person of interest for this case? Because PJ determined that Murat called him late night on 03May07. Murat, a person of interest, calling Malinka at odd hours on the night in question made him a person of interest also.

    That simple.

    From then on, all Malinka’s phone records were of the interest to the case.

    Malinka, by the way, another nobody.


    Listen, bitch.

    Maybe you don't realise how offensive you are being. I will give you the benefit of the doubt, being as English is not your first language. But let me try and make you understand. Would you be happy if people referred to you as ''That cunt Textusa''? Because it's pretty much on a par, offensiveness-wise.

    So imagine that records do show that a phone number of a person of interest called Euclides’ number that night. At late hours.

    Imagine that it’s on record that Euclides received or made various calls that night from and to numbers of people of interest.

    That would make Euclides a person of interest to the case.

    But let’s continue, let’s presume that our imagination is right this far.

    No, let's not. Because it isn't. And you only work with facts, isn't that right, Textusa?

    Let’s list all possible people of interest to the case who may have called him that night.

    We can only see the following: one of the T9, Murat, Malinka, an ex-Pat or someone from the Ocean Club, management, a worker, such as a receptionist or an Ocean Club worker who had Euclides’s number


    Oh yes - because they were all ''In on it'' .




    Anyone else, for example a local friend, would not fire up a red flag on Euclides and make him to the PJ a person of interest.


    So none of his friends would have phoned him because what - they have psychic powers and knew there was ''something going down''?

    And this is where the fact that Euclides was a nobody is very, very important.

    Only the Ocean Club management and possibly an Ocean Club worker friend would have his number. Not seeing any reason for any of the T9, Murat, Malinka or an ex-Pat to have the number of Euclides, a nobody.

    And why would Ocean Club management, or the hypothetical Ocean Club worker friend, call him late that night? Weren’t all Ocean Club’s available hands engaged in searching the area for Maddie?


    So we have gone from a hypothetical phone call for which you have no evidence to a hypothetical phone-call-maker. For whom you have no evidence. Jesus wept.

    Why call a nobody who wasn't their employee on such an eventful night?


    So your theoretical somebody makes a theoretical call to your theoretical nobody? Hmmm. Or you are just out of your theoretical mind

    If Euclides did receive and make calls from and to people of interest to the case we are sure that PJ is very much interested in knowing why.


    He didn't.

    If we say he became a person of interest to the PJ because of calls received and made that night with a person of interest in the case, we obviously don’t think Euclides had anything to do with Maddie’s death. We think he was simply an innocent middleman


    There weren't any. And you have no clue.

    The most important thing about Euclides being considered a person of interest to the case is not, obviously, Euclides.

    As we said, for him to be considered a person of interest means that someone who the PJ already considered a person of interest called him.

    You can ''say'' it all you like. It does not, unfortunately for you, make it right.

    Someone, who is considered a person of interest by the PJ but isn't any of the T9, Murat ou Malinka.

    See how important to the case Euclides is after all?

    We could not but note the following:

    SOL mentions Euclides worked at Quinta da Boavista in 2008.

    Euclides was said initially to have died in North, now likely to have been in Quinta da Boavista. Why call attention to this golf course now?


    No-one is calling attention to anything. It's nothing more than your paranoid personality forcing you to see connections where none exist.

    Quinta da Boavista has links to Ocean Club and has strong links to John Geraghty

    Geraghty got church keys and stored the hire car and returned it to hire company.

    But if Euclides is a person of interest to the PJ because he received a call at odd hours that night, who could have called him?

    We know Euclides, within the Ocean Club, worked at the Millenium.


    You know what, I am just going to delete most of your next section, because it's basically just a big game of ''Kevin Bacon in Six Moves'' and I don't see why the victims of your stalking should be subjected to anything more

    Could it have been been  - No, it couldn't

    It could have been  - No it couldn't

    ***Deleted section which contains nothing more that Textusa's stalking diary entries, and her offensive remarks about various witnesses ******

    Wouldn't have been more logical to have used phones instead of sending someone to go to the Millenium and warn that a child was missing? It wasn't overnight that the resort became spread all over PdL so we're assuming that the most used means of communication between the various areas would have been the phone.

    And did it occur to you, you ignorant bitch, that they had a search protocol, which involved the member of staff reporting to a central point and receiving an allocated search area?

    Of course not - it's only in the files you claim to have read

    Logic would dictate that once aware of the disappearance and the search plan activated, calls would be made to the various areas of the resort where personnel would be available to help: Reception, Millenium and Adult pool.
    And here we go - you have no knowledge of what took place, but you know better than all those who do. Silly cow

    In the case of the Millenium it would be expected it would be ordered to reduce all services to the minimum possible - even close for the night as due to the late hour little or no further clients would be expected - and have all availabe help head down to the Tapas area so they could help the search starting from there, where the little girl had gone missing.

    Apparently that wasn't the case. Nelson and the tennis instructor went on to search the Millenium premises. It doesn't seem to be that large of a place especially taking into account it's a one entrance/exit only place.

    A 4 yr old would have had to exit the apartment, walked the long and tortuous path uphill which she had only walked once 5 nights before and about which her parents had so much complained about, enter the restaurant unnoticed and access the pool area or tennis courts all by herself.
    So fucking what? The whole point of a search is that you search everywhere - not just everywhere some thick bitch on the internet thinks you should search. And they wouldn't have made your assumption that the child was necessarily on her own

    But however unlikely that may seem to have happened to anyone, they apparently searched the premises thoroughly (something which we fail to see having been done similarly by the Tapas staff at the Tapas premises much more near to the disappearance).

    ***this section has also been removed as it is simply more of her stalking of individuals ***

    Why are we picking on ******?
    Er - because you can?

    We aren’t. He seems to be the person in Ocean Club who best knows Euclides. It’s he who tells the media that he worked with Euclides in 2006 and that he was a drug addict and thief who stole from apartments.
    He is the person whom the paper interviewed - how the fuck do you get from there to ''he was the one who knew him best''?

    Doesn’t seem to us Euclides is the kind a person ****** would call in the middle of the night to help out in the search. Doesn't seem to have a great opinion about his work mate.

    And if he did call Euclides, for whatever reason, then why had the PJ to find out from records? Why didn't he just say so when he made is statement?

    And wouldn't Euclides’s widow notice that call? He spent, according to her, the night writing poems.

    So who could have called Euclides?
    The only person who claims anyone phoned him is you, you dozy cow

    We don't know but does it really matter? No, it doesn’t.

    What matters is that PJ considers of interest to the case a call to Euclides that night. And because of that call, PJ is likely to consider also of interest other calls he made and received that night. That is what matters and what is important.

    The call is your invention. Pure and simple.

    To consider that initial call of interest it means that PJ already considered whoever made it to be a person of interest. We don't know who it is but we're sure PJ does.

    It makes sense that the case would not be reopened just because Euclides made phone calls that night, as many people would be doing so, unaware of the drama. He had to be making calls to somebody else the PJ considered relevant (the basis of the 3 Burglars episode?).

    His criminal record would be investigated and nothing relevant to sex crimes of any sort. So not seen as the abductor, although earlier press articles about him say PJ looking for where he buried her.
    You do know they investigated him for just that, don't you? Or maybe you don't. You have been so busy making stuff up, you haven't had a chance to read the actual reports.

    So apparently PJ was linking him to Maddie directly at this point.
    Well fucking done, Einstein

    So who has PJ considered as person of interest and who would make Euclides also one?

     ***deleted a series of names of Ocean club employees the mad bitch is suggesting are involved***

    Irrelevant isn't it? What matters is the fact that PJ seems to be subscribing to some of our theories, doesn't it? After all, aren’t we the only ones saying that the Ocean Club is actively involved?

    It seems that PJ has joined us. And not recently but at least since it has reopened the case. Or already back in 2007 as we showed you in our “Why Swing?” post (04Apr14).

    And here we come to the crux. So desperate is the mad old fool to make it look as if she is ''in the know'' she invents phone calls in which the PJ are theoretically interested, then claims they followed her thinking. What a sad, pathetic idiot.

    We hope you now understand now how great a desperation is SY in to be able know what REALLY is PJ investigating. And why it will do all it can, independent of shame or pride, to know. To get inside that investigation.

    That’s what Euclides, indeed a nobody, represents to this case.

    To sum up, if you don’t believe, like we don’t, that mobile phone providers do not have azimuth information for all the calls from each of their antennae and if you believe, like we do, that Euclides Monteiro is indeed for the PJ a person of interest to the case, then you have to believe, like we do, that PJ thinks that the Ocean Club is involved and is doing something about it.
    Bull. Fucking. Shit

    And that is scaring the living hell out of Britain.
    Oh seriously now. Just behave.

    But what do we know? As our critics would and will certainly say.
    You know sweet fuck all dear. As usual.
    So, in summary, for those who really couldn't be bothered, and who could blame you
    Textusa thinks Euclides Monteiro was a nobody.
    She thinks that SY shy away from him as a suspect because he was black, and it was political correctness gone mad.
    She thinks that his widow, who she also describes as a nobody, married to a nobody, must have some reason to hide, because she didn't want her face shown on the TV
    She thinks some of the people who worked at the Ocean Club must have phoned him that night, and that is the reason why he is a suspect.
    She thinks it's impossible to have a tractor accident on a golf course.
    As usual it's all total and utter bollocks of the first order.
    And at the end she thinks that the PJ agree with her fucked up notion that the Ocean Club is involved in the demise of Madeleine.