Friday, 5 June 2015

When is an accident not an accident?

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'' 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 


  1. Holy shit. Have been backreading your blog and this has to be the most worrying bullshit from textusa. Instead of just admitting that it could be manslaughter and concede a point to you...she would rather be seen as someone that rose west wouldn't allow near her kids. Un-fucking-believable....and actually troubling. Surely her "fans" must see it for what it is. And lets not even discuss the childish diversion attempt....

    1. Hi Nick,
      Yes, it was one of the many times I have been genuinely troubled by her peculiar attitude. Something must have got through because she later amended her fantasy, but I suspect that was more likely to be because she could be roundly sued for what she had previously written

  2. Jesus. Seriously unhinged.
    You can see why she had it in for you NT, let's be fair. You so effortlessly dismantle her craziness, paragraph by paragraph. Of course you had to be tarred as a pro!

    1. The thing is, Sade, when challenged she will literally say anything, and I mean ANYTHING, to get out of it, which has the effect of making her appear, at times, utterly unhinged.
      Anyway, it seems she is coming after you guys next, about her posts being deleted from your facebook group? She's not a happy bunny :)

      It seems she has largely been deserted. No-one appears to be posting to her facebook page, and I think we can all spot the couple of textaloons she still has posting on her perpetual comments page. Unfortunately, I think she is finally learning that there is only a limited number of times one can return to the same well - I doubt whether anyone other than Carlatwat is really interested in what she has to say about me, maybe that ridiculous anvil woman, but that's about it.

    2. Forgot I'd commented here sorry NT.
      Yes, you're absolutely right, it's just so, so blatant 🙂

      The fact she has demanded that Nick
      'please quote NT where he has ever claimed that the Maddie case “could be manslaughter” and then quote him where he complains we have denied this.' in response to his comment on this actual post, beggars belief. She really is a WUM, but whilst to her this erm, tennis match? (😂) is so very important to the CASE, for us, it's become a bit of much needed light humour in the midst of the more frustrating aspects of all things McCann, don't you agree Agents?

    3. Hi Sade!
      Yes, that made me laugh - just look up the page, Textusa :)
      She will insist until the end of time that Manslaughter=accident, now that she has nailed her colours to the mast on that. The bit that really made me laugh is where she demands :
      "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."

      ....while completely ignoring my question about the ''facts'' on which this theory is based, which would basically be a big fat zero.

      Honestly, she is a total lunatic, but a sneaky, crafty one. I actually think she has lost her marbles over all this. She is completely unable to cope with anyone not believing in her

    4. Agreed! And I think it's absolutely killing her that the blog is getting so much attention, and for your excellent analysis on the case rather than it all being about her - let's not forget, she's stated many times that she sees it as a compliment the "likes" of you, or JB (basically anyone with a full set of brain cells) would dare to insult her lol.
      It's pretty obvious how many have seen it for what it is - shall we call it the silent majority? Jokes, Jokes, please forgive me 😂

      Honestly, any reservations I had about being unfair or just "mean" are long gone; we could go weeks not even mentioning her and bam! there she is, fresh out of her Stalkers Anonymous refresher course, mentally altering the punctuation of tweets so they suit her...erm "theory".

    5. She's off again - from what I can gather, we are now ALL Walker :))

    6. I told her i'm not posting over there any more and i mean it...i mean ffs its there in black and white...or red in this case. I genuinely don't think she can follow a point to a logical conclusion. One of the best was david payne preferring yvonne martin to bandy about that he could be a paedo(and in texts eyes a child accidental manslaughter;) ) rather than a swinger. At that point i realised she was a gobshite.

    7. Yes, gobshite is a good word for her. In her sidebar, she rambles on about a massive conspiracy to cover up, not the death of a child, but the 'swinging'. I mean, did she not even read that sentence back to herself and say ''Er - hang on''?

    8. Silence over there...she must've looked up manslaughter in the dictionary. Yeah she's nuts. How about the subversion of justice in hiding up madeleines demise? That sound nearer the mark textusa? Going to back read some more doubt i'll ask you to bump a few...i have a bit of a list forming here.

  3. Nick - she is convinced I am you :) The anon comments she quotes are mine. I'll have to start signing them off as BA from now on.. or maybe I really am Nick ;-)

    This is the gift that keeps on giving. I'm beginning to wonder if she is replying to her own comments now, just to have someone to talk to.

    NT - Loving the posts and analyses of the Madeleine book - please keep em coming! :)


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