Saturday, 25 April 2015

A dickhead asks..........

Textusa has developed rigor mortis of the banning finger again, so let's have a little fun here instead 

  1. Even Black Hats think Tapas dinners are ridiculous. If Insane is a hired hand as I think he is whoever is paying for his services is not happy with the service provided!
Matron, more tinfoil if you please......... 
  1. Replies
    1. So insane is actually admitting in his quoted statement,"witness to a crime,""involved with the crime you witnessed" Is insane, the mystery women's partner?
      Or is he a BH or swinger BH?
Well this one seems to be hallucinating, so it's probably beyond help........ In any case, I don't speak conspiraloon, so I'd need someone to translate.  
  1. I don't like Tapas food very much. They miniscule servings are gone in a few seconds and the only way to feel satisfied is to eat a few hundred! But then you'd need 3 hours or more to accomplish that. :)
Okay. Thanks for sharing.  
  1. Hi Textusa. I have been reading your posts for several months now and they really do highlight many peculiarities in the statements and behaviour of the people involved which allow us to question the version of events we have been urged to believe about that fateful night. I have a question relating to something that I find strange about the tapas bookings. Forgive me if I have overlooked this detail when looking at the files there is obviously a lot of material now in the public domain documenting this case to read through. Is the tapas dinner supposed to have occurred on the saturday night 28th prior to the block booking of the restaurant on the sunday morning, I supposed they must have sampled the food before deciding to commit to booking there every night for the rest of their stay?
''I have been reading your post for several months.......'' Yes, she does go on a bit. Sorry about that. She has baffled the finest medical minds in Europe. The best I can offer is that we send her to Indignitas. It's a bit like Dignitas, except they push you out of a window wearing a gimp suit. 
  1. Replies
    1. Anonymous 24 Apr 2015, 12:07:00,

      According to the Ocean Club the Tapas bar closed on Saturdays (the strangest week day to choose to close, as it would be like having stores close for holiday in the week before Christmas), so, supposedly, didn't sample food.

      The reason given for the weekly booking was that it was too tiresome to go to the Millenium every night. Apparently the Ocean Club only had pushcar available for their guests when they went to the beach as the McCanns used one doublebuggy (or 2 singlebuggies) on their alleged trip to the beach in which dead-ends opened up to allow them to pass by.

      Scotland Yard on their October 2013 UK Crimewatch calls the McCanns liars as they put the family using a buggy right on arrival when they go to the pool (a family activity only first mentioned in 2011 in Kate's book)

      The reservation of that week is also doubtful as 2 of the Tapas, Russ and Rachael, say they are the ones who did it, which is in itself odd, and on different days of the week. One says it was on Sunday and the other on Monday.
It's not the strangest day, it's the obvious day, ie Changeover day. The new arrivals have been traveling all day and are less likely to want to go out.

Oh dear - the old ''dead ends'' routine again. Just because you decded they took a certain route does not mean they actually did.

Scotland Yard did not ''call them liars''. Do try to rein in some of your hysteria; it really is very very silly.

Why is the reservation ''doubtful''? The receptionist confirmed she took a block booking. No mystery.
  1. I believe the dinner were usually long not in Tapas but downtown... what a nights, what a feeling what a sensation, good music after dinner... hmm...?
  1. If little Johnny had written the script for the Tapas dining scene as part of his film-making course, should he be worried about his grades? I would.
At least Little Johnny would not have included a vanishing table 
  1. If Insane really wants to discredit Textusa he should start supporting her because he does one grand job in discrediting the ones he's defending.
Oh do fuck off. Moron.  
  1. We would like to remind readers of what we said in our "Luz's Secret Service" post about mystery woman being... a mystery woman:

    "But, please sit down and brace yourselves... how can a woman pick up a child from a crèche and her name not be known??

    So there's no doubt about what Jacqueline has said, this is what is in the PJ File, in Portuguese: “deslocou-se aquelas instalações um indivíduo do sexo feminino cujo nome não sabe indicar, apenas que era mãe de uma criança que ali se encontrava”.
She said she didn't know her name. Why should she? She may never have dealt with her directly. To allege, as you have done, that no checks were made and they just gave the kids to anyone is utter fucking nonsense, grossly irresponsible and a complete fabrication. 

  1. Isn't there a signing in and a signing out procedure? Didn't she have to identify herself and the child before being able to pick her son up? Or does any woman walk in, look at the available children and pointing to one just says “I'll take that one” and leave with the child?

  1. Isn't that what mystery woman basically did? Picked up a child anonymously? What kind of crèche was “night crèche”? Oh, we forgot, it wasn't.

    By May 08 2007 the Maddie case has exploded worldwide, it's its biggest and hottest issue. It's on every newspaper's front page. The whole world is looking for Maddie and, apparently, a nanny forgets to check up on her facts before going to be heard by the police about it. Not even to say “it was OB's mother”. "
Oh but according to you the tapas dinners never happened so she was never there collecting her child, was she? Did you see what I did there? 

    1. Prior to the dogs being deployed, Portugal believed the answer must lie elsewhere; they should have stuck to their guns.
Name - Anonymous. Chosen specialist subject - the bleeding obvious.  
  1. Censored comment received from Insane:

    "Not Textusa has left a new comment on your post "3 hours? For Tapas????":

    What a load of (censored)

    She said she didn't know the name of the woman - that was at the time she was interviewed and gave her statement. There is no indication whatsoever that the child was released without proper checks being made or proper records kept, like you claimed in your last post, and to allege such is extremely defamatory.

    Posted by Not Textusa to Textusa at 24 Apr 2015, 16:49:00"
I think the censored word was ''Bollocks''. Or it might have been ''Cobblers''. Possibly ''Bullshit''

Did you know that Textusa has a dog?  Yes, lovely thing, it's a cross between a Pitbull and a 
Shih Tzu. Affectionately known as  Bullshit Terrier. 
  1. Replies
    1. Insane,

      We were being ironic when suggesting children were collected by strangers 
Ironic, eh? That will be why you have made the same unfounded allegation in your last two posts, then? 
    1. Of course they would know who took the children out.

      The nanny knew she was going to be interviewed about that night. She should at least remember the name of the child she cared for.
Why? She was being interviewed about the disappearance of Madeleine. Clearly the police did not regard it as important or they would have sourced the information. That's because it wasn't important. Of course they were not to know that in 8 years time a paranoid simpleton would poke her warty nose in and demand to be told. 

    1. She could have checked the register for the surname of the woman who raised the alarm. Then the woman could have been interviewed. Why didn't she come forward anyway?
Why the fuck should she? Why would the woman need to be interviewed? If she was a British tourist she almost certainly has been in any case. Phew, you can sleep at night. Especially if we nail the lid down.  

    1. The point is that the name of the woman seems to have been withheld.
    1. Insane,

      From your corner of the internet about Dawn Bullen:

      "Nope. Nowhere does it say that is the case. In fact some of the witnesses say it quickly became pandemonium, with people running about all over the place, and by the time the 'Lost Child' procedure was put in place a number of guests had already turned up to help. So basically you were just winging it with your claims that you ''identified'' Ms Bullen. It could have been any of the dozen or so families with a child at the night creche and you have no way or means of identifying who. "

      Are you saying the T9 are lying when they say Kate leaves table around 22:00? Because it seems physically impossible to at 22:05/22:15 the scenario to be anywhere near what you describe.
Did I mention anything about Kate? No? Did I mention anything about the time? No? Then you have answered your own question, Einstein.  

    1. If the "Missing Person Procedure" was already in place, why only through this woman do the nannies learn that Maddie was missing. Who were they looking for before she arrived to inform Maddie was missing and her parents needed help from the nannies?
Who said it was already in place? They put it in place, which you would know if you were as familiar with the files as you like to think. Of course we know you are not very familiar, hence the spectacle of you wetting your knickers over what you said was a doctored code on a piece of paperwork, when in fact the codes were all listed at the foot of the page. Hint: Always scroll down before wanking yourself into a coma over your ''discovery'' 
    1. Insane is more deluded than previously thought, does he seriously think that none of us (individuals) have spoken to anyone related to the pact in all these years? Maybe he should let some light in, or better still, install some skylights or something.
Oh god, who rattled this one's cage? What are you on about, dear? 

    1. Far more illuminating than challenging someone who lives and sleeps permanently in the knife drawer. Thank you for your ocular sharpness and crisp analyses,Textusa.
      You have a way of bringing out the unravelling best in Insane.
Uh huh. I'd try taking more water with it, sweetheart. That might help.  
  1. Insane, can we have a response to 3 hours being a ridiculous amount of time to spend at the tapas?
This is my favourite, tbh. Er, I was the one who raised the question, numb nuts. I can see you didn't ever read the post. Or Textusa's reply, for that matter.

Any more?  

No comments:

Post a Comment

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