I think it unlikely that Textusa will print this so I am posting it here
''What you describe, in your ''theory'', is not an accident. You describe an assault leading to the death of an individual. In the circumstances you describe the charge would be, at the very least, Manslaughter.
An accident would be someone falling off a chair. You describe, in graphic terms and a worrying amount of detail for someone making it up, that the person you accuse:
''must have slapped her hard enough to throw her off the couch and have her bang her head against the wall, dying instantly, or shortly thereafter''
What you describe is, therefore, not an accident. It is an assault, leading to an unlawful death. ie, Manslaughter. It has nothing to do with intent. Intent would make it murder.
Let's see if you publish that ''
For those of you who haven't read it - and she doesn't encourage people to read it, hence it is only referenced in a single link right at the bottom of the home page - Textusa's central theory, which she outlines in worrying, almost pornographic detail, states that Maddie was killed by a blow from a named individual when she interrupted them in flagrante with her mother.
There is no evidence whatsoever to support this claim.
She insists on referring to it as ''an accident'' but what she describes is not an accident at all. She describes a vicious blow, by an adult, to silence a child and resulting in her death. That is NOT an accident. Swinging a cricket bat without realising there is someone stood behind you - that's an accident. Hitting someone hard enough to make them fly across the room before dying, well, that isn't an accident.
So, Textusa, you claim your posts are based on 'facts'
On which 'facts' is this theory based?
Edited to add the following
A reply from Textusa
We have been over the accident v manslaughter debate with you.
Yes, we think it was manslaughter, so an accident. If it wasn't we would call it murder and we don't.
Before you split hairs about the law with us, please use Portuguese law. Portugal was where the death is to have happened and under which it is to be judged.
You call the act of an adult slapping in a disciplinary action a child an assault. We abhor violence on children but would not call that act an assault.
We don't see any unnecessary graphic detail in our description.
We don't see any reason fro not publishing your comment. Only one. We have said this to you:
"Please explain why you have come to this conclusion and the facts and/or evidence you have relied on to reach this conclusion.
Unless you are able to enlighten us, we won't be publishing any more of your comments."
So, can we have from you what are the reasons you think Maddie is dead?
My reply to her
I really would suggest you research what constitutes Manslaughter and what constitutes an accident, as you clearly still do not understand this, as is apparent in this sentence:
''Yes, we think it was manslaughter, so an accident''
You seem to be completely unable to understand what constitutes an accident and what doesn't. Accidentally reversing a car over a child is an accident, although it could be reckless or negligent depending on the circumstances
Striking a child is not an accident. The lack of intent to kill does not render it an ''accident''
You are the one that needs to consult the Portuguese penal code as you are clearly totally clueless. The imaginary crime you describe could even be classified as Aggravated Homicide under their penal code.
I am very concerned by your description of a violent assault against a 3 year old child as ''disciplinary action'' and ''not an assault''
What you described was a violent and severe blow delivered by an adult male to a small child for the purpose of shutting her up. If that in your book amounts to ''disciplinary action'' I would suggest you immediately remove yourself from the company of any small children.
You say you ''would not call that act an assault''
You described a man hitting a child hard enough that she 'flew across a room' and ended up dead.
And you don't think that is an assault????
I am not going to quote the graphic detail, other than to say you dredged up and described two specific sex acts you imagined the characters performing, and how you imagined Madeleine would describe these. If you don't think that was unnecessary then, again, I suggest you get yourself looked at.
You don't seem to understand how evidence works. If you put forward a theory, it's for you to provide evidence to prove it. It does not automatically 'stand' until such point as someone disproves it.
I note your attempt to change the subject. I have never suggested Maddie was other than dead, for the perfectly obvious reasons that no trace of her has been found in 8 years and the signalling of cadaver odour in the last place she was seen, which whilst not conclusive is certainly indicative.
Now, having dealt with your diversion, can you please explain why you think that the assault you described as follows:
'' (he) must have slapped her hard enough to throw her off the couch and have her bang her head against the wall, dying instantly, or shortly thereafter''
......you now describe as ''a disciplinary action''?
Is that how you think a 3 year old child should be disciplined? Hit by an adult hard enough to send them flying across the room?
You say you abhor violence against children, yet wouldn't describe that as an assault. I find that a very worrying admission on your part