Sunday, 1 June 2014

Bullshit Baffles Brainless.

Afternoon folks.

Well, it's that time again. The mad old fool, feeling a little fragile after being comprehensively taken to the cleaners by the brighter amongst you, is spinning like an ant trapped in a CD player.

So let's have a look, shall we?

I should mention before we start that I have, as usual, reset all her bold text and also removed the underlining which she has taken to using to indicate, one assumes, even more emphasis.

I have also removed all the bold text she applied to the poster she quoted. I think it was especially rude of her to go through his post applying her own emphasis to it. I am quite sure he was capable of doing so himself, had he found himself afflicted with the same OCD, so she can fuck that for a game of soldiers.

Blue = Textusa

BLUF: If Maddie's death had anything to do with paedophilia then Maddie would have to have been a victim of a nepiophile. In turn, nepiophilia is absolutely incompatible with any sort of cover-up.

 Don't talk bollocks. And you can drop the ''ooooh look at me, I added some big words'' routine. It just makes you look like a twat. Sorry -  it makes you look a bigger twat.
In our post “Speed”, we received the following comment:  
“Anonymous 15 Apr 2014 19:42:00
I don’t subscribe your swinging theory. It makes sense, it’s possible and I agree it would warrant a cover-up. I happen to think there’s something greater to cover-up than swinging: paedophilia.
You have called it a Stink Bomb and I’m curious about your explanations why you think that.
I don’t think it’s a Stink Bomb at all and think it’s the big secret behind the cover-up.
You point the finger at Payne in having to do with Maddie’s death (I recall you being the first to do that in Joana’s) but have minimised all possibility of all this being the lid being kept on a a paedo crime committed by Payne.
He was identified by Yvonne Martin as paedo, or involved in paedo processes in UK. He was very rude to her.
The Gaspars identify clearly paedo behaviours in his conversation with Gerry when talking about Maddie.
Gerry has an empty CATS files.
He bathed other people’s little children during the holiday where the Gaspars were present. He bathed Gaspars’ daughter, for example.
He was the last person to see Maddie alive and describes the situation in very strange terms of white angels and all so peaceful.
There are also other things that make me thing that this is all about paedophilia:
He is the one that suggests and organises the holiday and he is the one that says who stays in what apartment
He is the one that doesn’t need to check his children because he has a baby monitor that works great distances and because of this is the only male of the group who doesn’t leave the dinner table.
He is the one who filmed that moment with Gerry swearing in front of all including children on an airport bus and I think he was the one who uploaded the video on YouTube.
He was the one that was heard in the rogatory statements after the Portuguese cops had left the UK. All others were heard when they were there. Also I think he says that the right forum is not to be there answering the rogatory questions.
I think all this points much more to paedophilia than to swinging. So why call it a Stink Bomb like you have?”
Okay, just a quick comment on the above post. I may not agree with all of it, however I think it is clear, concise, articulate and  pertinent. He (and I am using 'he' as a default; might just as easily be 'she') is rightly questioning Textusa's dismissive attitude to anyone who disagrees with her and should be applauded.

Anyway - moving on.......

Dear Anon,
Thank you for your comment. Paedophilia is a very sensitive issue to talk about.
Not only due to the sick characteristics of this horrific pathology in terms of human behaviour but also to explain how very effective it is unfortunately a way to distract, as we will try to show.
So ''swinging'' isn't a distraction?  But ev ery person who thinks that Paedophilia might be an issue is attempting to distract?
Okay, Textusa - answer this question.
How many child deaths involve Paedophilia?
And how many involve Swinging?
It's okay, you take your time......
We think we both share the certainty that there’s a Very High-Level Cover-Up (VHLCU) concerning the circumstances surrounding Maddie’s death.
If I am ever elected Prime Minister, I will introduce the death penalty for anyone who uses fucking acronyms of their own invention in a post. You have been warned.
Where we think we differ is in what we perceive to be the “big secret” that justifies this VHLCU.
You seem think that all this is due to Maddie may having been the victim of a paedophile who you suspect was David Payne.
*From your words, you also seem to suspect the direct or indirect consent on the part of the victim’s father, Gerry McCann, in the physical contact that would have happened between Payne and Maddie which resulted in her death.
*Which words suggest that? I see no such indication in the post you quoted
Just writing these words sends chills down one’s spine but one mustn’t avoid any hypothesis, however gruesome it may be, in the quest for the truth.
Reason must guide all of us and not personal moral standards or sensitivity of stomach.
We, on the other hand believe that the VHCLU was (and is) all about hiding the swinging activities and the participants present in PdL at the time Maddie died in the result of an unfortunate, although violent, accident.
That accident happened in the sequence of David Payne and Kate McCann being engaged, or in attempted engagement, in some sort of ADULT sexual intimacy.
The above is a complete piece of invention. You have absolutely no evidence for it whatsoever
This accident could have been the snowballing of a reaction of having been unexpectedly interrupted by Maddie because of only having closed the bedroom door without locking it or simply because of Kate's possible resistance to Payne's inopportune advances having developed into a heated discussion between them and in which Maddie unfortunately got involved.
''This accident'' - ie, the accident YOU invented, and for which there is no evidence at all, whatsoever, not even a hint.
In either scenario the context is sexual. A man being, or wanting to be, intimate with another man's wife with his knowledge and consent. A context of swinging.
In our opinion, no plausible explanation could be given to the lesions that Maddie’s body certainly presented as a domestic accident. An aggression, even if not intended to be fatal is an aggression and leaves its marks.
These ''lesions'' are again a products of your, I have to say, rather disturbed and disturbing imagination.
No plausible explanation, as was proved, could be given to explain David’s presence in the apartment at that time with Gerry absent.
As David and Kate had indeed, in our opinion, been engaged in some sort of sexual activity, consumated or not, with each other there was the immediate perception that this consensual behaviour could present a risk for rest of the “swinging community” present in PdL in being outed and have their lewd behaviour exposed with the serious repercussions to their reputations, careers and personal lives that would mean.
So the other hypothetical swingers were at risk of discovery from the two hypothetical swingers who had managed to hypothetically kill a child? In your imaginary scenario for which there isn't the tiniest shred of evidence? I see......
The sexual nature of Payne’s presence in the McCann’s apartment had to be hidden to hide the swinging, and to hide the reason of Payne’s presence there, Maddie’s death had to be hidden.
Do you even realise how utterly fucked up that sentence is? You are actually suggesting that more important than the death of a child was the need to cover up the fact that two adults had engaged in a consensual act, with the consent of their partners. That is frankly bananas.
You believe in paedophilia as the reason for Maddie’s death and for the cover-up, we believe in an unfortunate accident as the cause of her death and in swinging as the cause of the cover-up.
No you don't, you fucking liar. You described your scenario in full detail. You even invented Madeleine's dialogue. It is one of the sickest things I have ever read. And what you are now describing as an ''unfortunate accident'' you previously described as a grown man backhanding a 3 year old child around the head to prevent her spilling the beans. That's not an accident, you fucktard. That's homicide. And that is what you have been accusing the man of for years. With no evidence
But we have reasons to believe that paedophilia had nothing to do with what happened in the night of May 3 2007 in PdL.
No, you really don't.
We would sum up our reasons into 3: nepiophilia, cover-up and implantation.
Before we say why we did call paedophilia a STINK BOMB let us first try to explain why we think it has absolutely nothing to do with Maddie’s case.
In fact we want to make it very clear that we think that no child present that week in PdL suffered any harm, much less sexual molestation.
Paedophilia cannot be disregarded light-heartedly. Much less be discarded.
We would like to believe that our readers trust that we have thought about it profoundly before coming to the conclusions to which we arrived.
Oh, would you just get the fuck on with it, already?
Wikipedia has the following definition for paedophilia: “is used for individuals with a primary or exclusive sexual interest in prepubescent children aged 13 or younger. Nepiophilia (Infantophilia) is pedophilia, but is used to refer to a sexual preference for infants and toddlers (ages 0–3 or those under age 5). Hebephilia is defined as individuals with a primary or exclusive sexual interest in 11-14 year old pubescents.”
Can I just interject at this point that it might not be the most sensible thing ever to start googling ''Paedophilia'' when you get home. Just saying. Fucking idiot. Still, hopefully it means they will come for her in the night.
Although nepiophilia is paedophilia, we would divide this disgusting pathology into 3 categories:
Nepiophilia – ages 0–5;
Paedophilia – ages 6 –10;
Hebephilia – ages 11 –14.
The younger the victim the more horrendous the crime is. If for a hebephile the words “sick pervert” come to mind, for a paedophile, in this scale, the words “sadistic” and “cruel” must be added.
What? Are we ''grading'' paedophiles by the age of their victims, now? Are you out of your fucking mind, woman? Are you seriously saying rape is ''less bad'' if the victim is six, than if the victim is four? Are you suggesting that the seriousness of the crime should depend on the age of the child and not the magnitude of the offence?
Please speculate what words are applicable to a nepiophile because we can’t. Or won’t for the sake of own sanity.
For Maddie to have died in a paedophile context it would mean that David Payne was a nepiophile and that Gerry and Kate McCann were accomplices to the heinous ordeal and horrific fate of their daughter.
Whoa there, fuckwit.
You have gone from accusing a man of homicide, without any evidence, to suggesting that if Madeleine was the victim of a paedophile, it was with the knowledge and consent of her parents? Why?
It would also mean that the McCann family closed its ranks to protect a murderous nepiophile who isn’t even part of family.
No it wouldn't
Nepiophiles, or infant-rapists do not get sympathy from anyone.
Not even from their own families, who unable to avoid the highest shame that is possible to bear, will do the best they can to separate themselves from that disgusting creature and are usually on the forefront in condemning him publicly.
If infant-rapists understandably do not get any sympathy from their own families much less will they get any from the victim’s family.
It would be completely incomprehensible to expect a murderous infant-rapist to draw sympathy from acquaintances or total strangers to him.
Apparently, according to those who believe that paedophilia is the reason for Maddie’s death and for the cover-up that is exactly what is happening: they believe that David Payne, to them a murderous infant-rapist, enjoys the sympathy from his family, from the whole family of the victim, Maddie, and from all those involved in the cover-up.
Okay - enough.
This is your response? That Madeleine can't have been the victim of a paedophile because if she was it would have to be with the knowledge and sympathy of her family who are covering up for him?
So instead you insist she was the victim of a murderer - who did so with the knowledge of her family, who are covering up for him?
The fact there’s a cover-up is for us the biggest indicator that paedophilia had nothing to do with Maddie’s death.
Oh this is good
It’s a known FACT that paedophiles have been protected in VHLCU by the Establishment. The most recent being Jimmy Savile.
Cyril Smith, MP, also a prolific sexual abuser of young boys, knew Savile. Smith was protected by the Establishment, in spite of Private Eye magazine reporting his behaviour in 1979, when he was still alive.
Wasn’t it in the ancient Greek society that such phenomenon was not only accepted but public and encouraged? In modern days this is taken by the powerful as their peers little peccadilloes and so a bizarre, if not even “quaint”, behaviour known by all.
John Hemming, MP, suspects that the Establishment is still inclined to protect people in high placed, even in this kind of case.
No wonder many bloggers believe something similar has taken place in the McCann case. However, all known paedo-VHLCU, are about hebephiles, preying on victims ages 11 – 14.
Jimmy Saville was a hebephile (victims ages 11 – 14) and not a paedophile (victim ages 6 – 10). Much like Max Clifford, subject of our “Oh, Max!” post (06Dec2012) who was sentenced to eight years for his crimes. Hebephiles NOT paedophiles.
The covering-up for paedophiles (victims ages 6 –10) is much rarer. It is circumscribed to a very restricted circle of trust.
In this case, the protectors are fully aware that it is a heinous crime but prefer to look the other way, for fear, favour and/or a very close friendship.
The paedophile’s activities are frowned upon, “internally” within the restricted circle of trust, but his inability to control his sick urges is accepted as inevitable.
The biggest example of such a cover-up is the Catholic Church and is paying a heavy price for having covered-up this behaviour in the past.
To be part of a hebephile cover-up (victims ages 11 –14) is “acceptable” if the paedo is of “correct” social status but one has to have very strong reasons to allow oneself to be involved in a paedophile cover-up (victims ages 6 –10) regardless of the social status of the criminal.
Hang on a sec - you claim that the fact that ''there was a cover up'' is evidence that the crime was nothing to do with paedophilia. Then to ''prove'' this dingbat theory, you provide lots of example where paedophilia WAS covered up?
Does anyone remember the second tenet - that Textusa attempts to use the same piece of evidence to both prove and disprove a point? This is a classic example
Any kind of paedophilia is not tolerated by society and generates harsh social stigmatisation but the younger the victim the harsher that stigma is.
A good example of this is the Casa Pia case.
Carlos Cruz had an assitant called Carlos Mota. When Cruz was arrested in 2001, Mota became famous for saying “Se o Carlos Cruz é pedófilo, eu também sou” (translated, “If Carlos Cruz is a paedo, so am I”).
It turned out that Mota was indeed a paedophile accused of raping 2 girls, one 7 yrs old and the other of 8.
While Carlos Cruz was a hebephile (a crime for which he was sentenced), Mota was a paedophile, accused of a crime so serious (meanwhile prescribed) that he felt he had no other choice but to flee the country.
Carlos Cruz faced, for more than 10 years, the courts for his crimes. In that time it was witnessed many coming forward to support him. Much of the Portuguese Mainstream media made a significant effort to descredit the witnesses and evidence against Cruz.
Not one finger was lifted to help Mota. And Mota was a paedophile, not a nepiophile.
We know not of a single nepiophile cover-up (victims ages 0 – 5). Not a single one.
You are fucking kidding me, right? Ever heard of a chap called Ian Watkins, Textusa? He liked to rape babies. Would you like to hear about the people who are now in prison because they covered for, colluded with, procured infants for and participated in acts of abuse with him? No?
That would be covering up for an infant-rapist. A hebephile finds a peadophile absolutely disgusting. A nepiophile's acts are beyond known words to qualify its degree of repulsion.
So you are actually suggesting that a man who thinks it's okay to have sex with an 11 year old is disgusted by a man who thinks it's okay to have sex with a 10 year old? You are literally clueless
As Maddie would have been a victim of a nepiophile, then every single person involved in the cover-up would be participating in cover-up of a murdering nepiophile, or to put it bluntly, a murdering infant-rapist.
The question is not whether a murdering infant-rapist would seek help to try cover up for his ignominious and repulsive crime (he might be stupid enough to try) but about who would be willing to take part in covering-up such hideous and dreadful crime.
Answer is no-one.
Not even close family.
A nepiophile’s acts are too horrific and repugnant.
No one would ever accept, for whatever reason, risk being in any way associated with such abhorrent and detestable acts.
So what possible secret could a murderous infant-rapist hold that would be so powerful and have enough strength to force the British and Portuguese governments on their knees?
What secret that could hold information so sensitive that would drive 2 governments to hide the murder of a little girl at the hands of a nepiophile?
What sort of favours could even begin to compensate a dead raped toddler?
Cannot see any.
Not even when mustering all powers of imagination.
Okay, I am going to remove some of this shite, as I don't want it on my blog, not even second hand
Basically, your demented logic, Textusa,  goes like this
''It was a cover up for which I have no evidence
It cannot therefore be murder by a paedophile as no-one would cover up for that, not with a child that young.
It must therefore be a homicide to prevent people finding out about swinging activities for which I have no evidence, because people WILL cover up for that. ''
Bullshit, Textusa, Absolute bullshit
I am missing out the next section as it is a total pile of wank, full of acronyms about the level of cover up, and it will make you lose the will to live
****** Wank. (Deleted) ******
 So now we are back to her mad thesis again
In other words we say that the Ocean Club, ex-Pats and Ocean Club workers are also involved in the cover-up.
The guests, who we also say are involved, fall under the categories of VHLCU and HLCU.
Oh here we go - they were all in on it, guv'nor
We don’t say this from the top of our heads.
Yes you fucking do.
We have demonstrated why we believe that the Ocean Club is involved by the inconsistencies about the dinners that it has confirmed it reserved for the T9 at the Tapas Bar for 5 nights in a row.
No you haven't. Although some of it is worth a read - the 100 post long debate about the shape of the table you spent the previous week claiming didn't exist at all was a bloody gem
A meal that was supposed to have taken place at a table that all documentaries and news reports have been unable to replicate.
Bullshit. They are not mad like you and gripped with a sudden need to locate a table, and Brunty was filmed sitting at it, you lying hag.
A table, the BRT, We have demonstrated why we believe beyond doubt that it didn’t exist:
It didn't exist. And there now follows a photo of it not existing

It's arrow time......
I am going to leave the next section in unchanged, boring though it is. I think it is important to realise that Textusa is, in all seriousness, claiming that hundreds of completely unrelated people colluded together to commit a serious crime and cover up the death of a child, all to prevent people finding out that the resort was hosting swingers holidays. And she claims that not only did this group include other holidaymakers and all the MW staff it also encompassed every local resident and ex-pat. What's more, this audacious plot was pulled together overnight by the resort owners.
And the best bit of all is that she claims this proves that Madeleine's disappearance has nothing to do with paedophiles because they would be prepared to risk their freedom for a murderer but not for a nonce.

We have demonstrated why we believe that the Ocean Club is involved by it having handed over to the PJ a series of papers, under the designation of “Tapas Reservation Sheets”which are absolutely meaningless besides being a frustrated attempt to prove that the Tapas dinners took place.

They are just booking sheets for fucks sake. The mad bitch wrote an entire column analysing the fact that one of them carried a doodle in the corner

The fact that those “Tapas Reservation Sheets” are phoney makes all guests whose names are on them to be involved in the cover-up.

Like the one you claimed was a fake without noticing it was for the following week?

The fact that the there was no BRT and so no T9 Tapas dinners, proves that those who state seeing the group sitting around a big round table are lying, namely the Quiz Mistress and Jez Wilkins.

The Quiz Mistress who hosts, twice a week, a very popular British contest that only she remembers.

We have shown how Mrs Fenn’s “Maddie’s crying episode” is more than questionable.

We have demonstrated why we believe that the invention of Pimpleman, a pivotal character in 2009 whose use has been outlasted by the Black Hats (BH) themselves. He was materialised by Derek Flack, TS (a minor who is NOT responsible for the lies she was told to tell) and JW in stories which we showed had more holes in them than a Swiss cheese.

We have shown how the Tapas staff were conveniently singing from the same hymn sheet less than 24 hours after Madeleine disappeared.
So if there are discrepancies, it's highly suspicious, and if there aren't discrepancies, it's a conspiracy. Seems fair

 It’s this melting pot that crosses all statuses and professions involving guests, Ocean Club management, Ocean Club workers and ex-Pats that rules out, in our opinion, paedophilia, or to be more precise, nepiophilia, in Maddie's case.

Whatever could possibly motivate these people in covering-up for a murderous infant-rapist?

Absolutely nothing.

The fact that there a not only VHLCU and HLCU but also MLCU, LLCU and VLLCU, indicate, to us, that nepiophilia is in no way related with Maddie’s death.

I meant it, Death penalty. No exceptions.
No way would so many people let themselves be involved in protecting a murderous-infant rapist.

There’s no secret big enough or powerful enough to enable that.

Absolutely fucking mental.

****Deleted because it was just libellous bollocks****


No, that's a wheelbarrow
As you will have appreciated I have deleted a lot of her post, as I refuse to give a platform to her ignorance, but I did just want to sum up.

To reiterate, Textusa's thinking goes like this

There is a cover up

They would cover up swinging and homicide.

They wouldn't cover up paedophilia

Therefore, it must be swinging and homicide.

Of course, the truth is some retired copper mentioned swinging, Textusa latched on to it, and can't let go.

In just the same way she suggested there were no tapas dinners and now she can't let go.

The fundamental primary problem is that she isn't very good at analysing information. The secondary problem is that she is a fucking nutcase

The irony is that she states.....
''No way would so many people let themselves be involved in protecting a murderous-infant rapist''
.......seemingly oblivious to the fact that she claims those same people would and indeed did unquestioningly, and to a man, protect a violent infant murderer .


  1. I read some of the Textusa blog to satisfy my curiosity. Some posts make good points but they are let down by the way they are written (so long, convoluted and difficult to read). Other posts are just plain bonkers, especially the ones where they are trying to prove that the tapas dinners could not have taken place.

    I noticed that most posts have the same format: we are going to prove X, followed by many long rambling paragraphs and then a conclusion that X is now an established fact with nothing substantial in any of the paragraphs to back this conclusion up.

    I suspect that this is someone who became obsessed about the Madeleine case and got completely carried away with a theory to the point that they can't accept any facts, speculation or questions that don't fit in. A bit sad really.

    1. Yes, that's pretty much spot on.

      She will often refer to previous posts, claiming that in said post they proved whatever nonsense it is she is claiming, when the only thing she proved is that it is possible to fool some of the people all of the time. I wrote a post about it somewhere, if I could be bothered to look.


Leave a message. If you're a conspiraloon, we might publish it, but we reserve the right to take the piss mercilessly. Have a nice day.

Messages not for publication can also be left, or you can email