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
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
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.
It's a fake
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?