Thursday, 30 July 2015

Another little aside

From Brain of Britain, Nuala, comes the following

Not Textusa" AKA Insane most certainly IS defending the McCanns. He defends the McCanns by being offensive to Textusa because Textusa is the one person really getting to the truth about what happened to Madeleine McCann. Insane gets particularly upset when Textusa shows that a wider group was involved in the cover up, for example her posts about the manipulated booking sheets:


Is that really your measure of whether someone is a McCann supporter or not - their attitude to Textusa?

You know, Textusa declaring that something is ''irrefutable proof'' does not make it so. She has you and all her other little followers dangling on a string. It's quite amusing to watch. 

So let's get this quite clear. Textusa is just a blogger. She is not ''getting to the truth'' as you like to fondly imagine. She pinned her colours to the swinging mast a long time ago and she was wrong. But instead of re-evaluating and admitting her error she basically dragged a load of simpletons along for the ride, then pulled up the drawbridge and bricked you all up in the castle.

I actually described you as brighter than the average Textaloon. Evidently, that still doesn't make you very bright.

Wednesday, 29 July 2015

a little aside......

Three times I have asked Textusa to justify this claim which she made in a post during her holidays, in response to the fact that she had the piss ripped out of her on facebook then a link was posted to here.

''We are amused Insane or "Not Textusa" as he calls himself is recommended when he totally disputes that dogs' alerts have any relationship to Maddie, in some sort of theory which we call "the ancient boneyard theory".

I asked nicely. I simply asked her to indicate where I had ever 

disputed the above, as she claims, as I never have. 

Oh dear - such fibs.

Where have I said the dog alerts have no connection to Maddie?

Really, Textusa, even for you, that one is a whopper

Her answer was 

Not Textusa at 28 Jul 2015, 22:50:00,

Could you tell us exactly what are in your opinion the connections between the alerts of both the EVRD and blood dogs and Maddie?

Or give us a link to where you have stated such opinions?

Thank you.

I pointed out that one does not answer a question with a question, and if she was going to claim I had made such a statement it was for her to prove. I asked her several times. It is the equivalent of the following:

''You called me a liar''

''I didn't. Please indicate where I called you a liar''

''Well, what did you call me, then?''

She has refused to publish my posts

She has of course published several long rambling replies, where she stumbles off the topic almost immediately.

I am not asking for much. She made the above statement, I am just asking her to point out where she thinks this occurred. Her difficulty arises because, of course, I have never said what she claims. He second difficulty arises because she never reads what I write properly. Her third difficulty arises because she wouldn't understand it even if she did.

So I have added another post, which she will be too much of a coward to publish, like the others

''I am not interested in what you think, I asked you to justify this claim:

''We are amused Insane or "Not Textusa" as he calls himself is recommended when he totally disputes that dogs' alerts have any relationship to Maddie, in some sort of theory which we call "the ancient boneyard theory".''

You have failed to publish my posts which contained nothing offensive, and you still haven't answered the challenge

So - can you back up the claim you made or not?''


Sunday, 12 July 2015

I'm swinging in the rain, just swinging in the rain.....

Morning all!

I am in the process of reviewing one of the Mad Cow's long rambling posts on ''Swinging'', but thought I would start with this, which is the nearest thing to a precis of her theory as exists. 

It appeared as part of a reply to a mauling she received and it's as good a place to start as any. So sit back and enjoy

''But there are many factors that made us think that the Maddie Affair revolves around the covering-up of an organised swinging event:

i) the fact there was a cover-up of the death of a 4 yr old girl and in which her parents participatedvery actively in a manner that has puzzled the world;
Okay, let's start there.
You cannot use ''fact'' when none has been established. You may believe there is a cover-up, but that does not mean you have established anything ''in fact''. Secondly, you cannot describe something as ''fact'' then in the next sentence claim it has ''puzzled the world''

Remember, these are supposedly your points in justification for a claim that a mass swinging event was ongoing. So point one translates as ''Because we think so''. 

And no evidence of swinging

ii) the fact that David Payne goes completely out of his way, on May 3rd around 18.15, to enter theTapas complex, walk all the way to the tennis courts to ask a friend, Gerry McCann, about his wife forno justifiable or justified reason and when the woman in question, Kate McCann,  wasn’t sick (had just jogged) and had not asked for any sort of help in tending to her children. Payne seeks this encounter when he’s on his way to play tennis so why make this detour? The oddity of this encounter is reinforced by the fact that there’s a glaring discrepancy between David Payne and Kate McCann about its duration andlocation (DP says he went into the apartment, Kate says he stayed outside). This whole encountersuggests strongly that the “friendliness” between these two individuals was, at the time, not exactlystandard;
Okay - there is no basis whatsoever for your claim that David Payne went ''completely out of his way'' or anything of that nature. The group returned to the Ocean Club because there was a men's tennis event scheduled; Gerry McCann was already there. There is no basis for the claim that Payne went to ask Gerry 'about his wife', or that Payne ''seeks out this encounter'' They both claim Gerry asked him to check on Kate.
The couples were friends. I can see nothing whatsoever to suggest that there was anything abnormal about this. There may well be questions about this incident, but nothing to suggest it supports the mad Textusa thesis of swinging 

iii) the fact the Tapas reservation sheets are absolute fakes (implicating the Ocean Club management), the fact the BRT never existed (meaning neither did the Tapas dinnersimplicating staff), the fact that guest names appear on the fake reservation sheets, some of which confirmedseeing the fictitious BRT (implicating said guests) and the fact that the Quiz Nights at Tapas are absurd(i'mplicating the Tapas Staff and Quiz Mistressall point very clearly to the involvement of both OC staff AND guests in the collective lie;
Okay, let's break that down
Your ''evidence'' for swinging appears to consist of your own fictitious claims.

YOU claimed the tapas sheets were faked.
YOU claimed the big round table never existed
YOU claimed the Tapas dinners never happened 
YOU claimed there was no quiz

The FACT that there was ample witness testimony to all of the above holed your barking mad theory below the waterline, so the only way out was to claim that all those people - guests, employees, management - had to be lying.

Let me try to explain something to you, Textusa.

If you have a theory and all the evidence points to that theory being wrong, then it probably is.

I know that's probably a big one to get your head around, but do try.

Again, even if this particular answer wasn't madder than Donald Trump's hairdresser, nothing about it  points towards swinging.

I'm a big round table. I don't exist, so the PdL guests were all shagging each other rigid

iv) the fact that the nature of the guests present was heterogenic (both economically and socially), some of them we are sure more used to bigger luxuries than those offered by the medium quality anddispersed Ocean Club, which presented most of its sleeping facilities a significant distance from both the beach and its main restaurant;
So you are saying that, in common with most holiday resorts, the clientele straddled a range of socio-economic strata? And?

Isn't this normally the case? Isn't this why there was a range of accommodation available? You had no access to the bank accounts or finances of any of these people, so how can you possibly determine what they were ''used to''?

Again, nothing whatsoever to point to swinging. 

I'm a bit strapped for cash, mate. I suppose a fuck is out of the question?

v) the fact that the only big attraction PdL has is the beach, not exactly a welcoming place in late April/early May. In Portugal the beaches only start being watched as of May 1st, so many guestsapparently were attracted to an unwatched freezing beach on the first days of their stay;
What a load of bollocks.
Average daytime temperatures for the Algarve in May = 18 degrees centigrade (range 14 - 25)
Hardly freezing. And the beaches were watched for most of the week.

So again, nothing to indicate swinging. 
Come on, love, it's fucking freezing. Let's go and shag the couple in No.4

vi) the fact there was an excessive amount of supporting staff for a resort the size and quality of OC and especially for that time of the year, namely nanniesSeasonal hiring is made forJune/July/August/September not April/May. Strangely enough, the nannies stopped being requiredtowards the high season. These professionals, in our opinion, were destined to take care of the swingers’ children while they were entertaining themselves, away from them, obviously;
This is one of the most hilarious claims of all.
You have no idea what the staffing levels were by comparison with previous years and other resorts. You have simply made the claim and your simpering baboons have gone along with you. As regards the number of nannies, there are regulations with respect to carer/child ratios. Now if you could have produced an advert which said ''Hiring early for the shagging season'' that would have been different.
But you didn't. 

So, nothing to support swinging
Okay, well you bring up another hundredweight of lube, Doris, and the minute they pause for breath we'll nip in and change the sheets

vii) the fact that the owners of the Ocean Club were very well connected politically and hadconsiderable PR resources to call upon, quoting Research_Reader, but acted, like we said, contrary to their own interests;
They had, as do most large organisations, PR and Risk Management professionals on whom they could call. That's it. That is simply a normal practice for businesses everywhere. I can see nothing to suggest that they acted contrary to their own best interests 

Once again, nothing to support swinging.

viii) the fact that an ex-PatMrs Fenn, is inconsistent about hearing a child cry for 75 minutes when other guests, the Moyes, hear the T9 at Tapas and say all is otherwise quiet and the T9, according to themselves, checked regularly on the children and heard nothing. The only person confirming thiscrying episode is Maddie herself, according to her mother who is not the most trustworthy of people. This crying episode, in our opinion, implicates Mrs Fenn;
Mrs Fenn is in no way inconsistent.

You have no idea what other guests heard or didn't. There are no statements by the Moyes in the files, and nothing to suggest Mrs Fenn is wrong.

You are using the T9 checks, which you say never happened, to cast doubt on Mrs Fenn?????
So how does Mrs Fenn hearing the crying implicate her in swinging?!

Again, nothing whatsoever to support swinging

ix) the fact that Mrs Fenn says she sees the McCanns on the terrace on the night Maddie disappearedwhen she is unable to see said terrace:
Of course she can see the terrace - what are you, nuts?

Even if she couldn't, which would have to mean she was blind, how is this evidence of swinging?

It isn't.

x) the fact that Mrs Fenn, the upstairs neighbour, only comes forward to say what she has allegedly seen3 and half months after events and when she does she puts on a show (denounced by the supermarket bags) for a SIC filming crew;
That is not the case. It is quite evident Mrs Fenn and her family contacted the police promptly, but it was some while before a full, formal statement was taken.

She does not ''put on a show'' for a film crew. They doorstepped her.

Denounced by the supermarket bags ????!!

Don't you just hate that? I was once denounced by an Aldi freezer bag. Bastard.

Nothing whatsoever to suggest swinging 

She would have got away with it if it wasn't for that pesky carrier bag 

xi) the fact that there’s a picture of the Tapas complex said to be taken 2 floors above apartment 5Awhen it’s very clear it could only have been taken from the apartment Mrs Fenn says she lived in and was even photographed in (please note that about Mrs Fenn there are other details that we haven’t published yet);
Well unless you can show that it was taken by one resident whilst they were hanging out of the back of another, I think we have to assume this is not evidence of swinging 

xii) the fact that ex-Pats, namely Derek Flack and TS have lied about seeing Pimpleman and so have participated actively in the cover-up;
No - you CLAIMED they were lying. Which was of course total bollocks and based on some load of old wank about where the bus stop was

No evidence of swinging.

xiii) the fact that a guest, JW, also corroborates the existence of the fictitious Pimpleman who was brought to life in 2009, was never found and no one has been looking for him since;
So a guest corroborates the testimony of two others. Most normal people would think that strengthens their evidence, but you're not normal.

No evidence of swinging.

xiv) the fact that a statement from an ex-PatDerek Flack (a man apparently with serious memory problems but amazingly remembers a white van he sees fleetingly) ties strangely very nicely with the one given by Gerry McCann concerning a guitarman who, by sheer coincidence, owned a white van;
There is no indication he has serious memory problems, unlike you.
So the fact that two people may have seen the same van is what - evidence of swinging?

Er, no.

xv) the fact that Derek Flack says he isn’t seen by Pimpleman when if this were to happen thenPimpleman wouldn’t be looking at apartment 5A but straight up the street;
No evidence of swinging 

xvi) the fact that some tourist resorts worldwide, like Pontinspromote swinging events to compensatetheir low seasons and end of Aprilearly May is low season in Portugal;
Do they? 

So you are suggesting that other resorts actually advertised swinging events, yes?
Did the Ocean Club? No?

Then no evidence of swinging. 

The fact that it was low season is not evidence of anything.

Hey love, it's low season. Fancy popping round and shagging the neighbours?

xvii) the fact that the Ocean Club wasn’t exactly a profitable enterprise as per the JH thread Would this account for the unprecedented high-level of political support”;
How do you know it wasn't profitable?

No evidence of swinging

xviii) the fact that theres only ONE known thing in common between all these people referred to (T9,Ocean Club Staffguests and ex-Pats): they were in PdL during the time of the events. Otherwise it’s really only a large heterogenous group with no apparent connection to each other;
That's what happens on holiday, moron.

No evidence of swinging 

xix) all of the above points clearly show that all the people referred to acted collectively when it came to Maddie Affair. They all participated in the cover-up.
What a load of utter garbage. You have literally established nothing. Nothing at all. No evidence of people acting collectively, no evidence of a conspiracy, no evidence of a cover-up. And moreover, no evidence of swinging.

Laughably, you even try to justify a disbelief in one event - Mrs Fenn hearing a crying child - by claiming the T9 heard nothing, despite having already claimed that the T9 weren't there because there ''were no Tapas dinners''!

These are just some of many factors which have led us to conclude that the only unifying factor that could bind all together and the only thing that could plausibly explain the motivation and involvementof so many present in PdL in a cover-up would be something that if known publicly would bring upon them a very significant and harming social stigma.

Some of the many factors, eh?

Well, so far it's all been pants. So what are the other ''factors''?

You claim that all these people conspired to ''cover-up'' the disappearance and probable death of a young child, because they feared something worse......

Something sexual in nature: a swinging event in the Ocean Club.
Okay. So despite the fact, as you have amply demonstrated, that there is no evidence of swinging, you hypothesise that it must have happened because all these people were afraid of being harmed by the ''revelation''

So to cover up the swinging, they conspired to cover up a death. 

Note that nowhere have we ever used the word “illegal”.

No, but I am going to. Swinging is not illegal.

Please explain why people would conspire together to cover up an unlawful act, for fear of exposure for committing a totally lawful one

Jeremy was mortified that he had farted in public. There was only one way to hide his shame....

Monday, 6 July 2015

Oh if we took a holiday..........

Morning all!

As you might remember, I am spending this time while Textusa pretends to be on holiday reviewing some of her older posts that I haven't had a chance to comment on yet, starting with the ones that are most obviously the work of someone trying their hardest to get sectioned

Which brings me to this joyful little piece about Mrs Pamela Fenn.

May I say before we go on that Mrs Fenn sadly died several years ago. There is nothing to suggest that she was anything other than a kind, cultured and well spoken lady which makes Textusa's, and Kate McCann's treatment of her all the more repulsive

All Paths Lead to Rome

Scientists given the task of analysing Textusa's test results can only conclude that her arse bone is connected to her head bone.....

The Portuguese have this very wise saying that “all paths lead to Rome”. This saying goes back to the time when the Romans occupied the Iberian Peninsula, and basically means that, like all roads that at that time of human history were built with the main objective to connect everywhere known to theEmpire's capital, Rome, so as in many different ways you may choose to do something, you inevitably reach the same conclusion independent of the choice made.
Not just the Portuguese, but I digress..... 

Mrs Fenn’s statement is a perfect example of that. Why is it so important?
A perfect example of what - all reads leading to Rome? How?

You haven't established its importance yet - how about you do that first, eh, before you ask why? 

Notice that when I make the question I don’t bring up the subject of whether it was true or not, that whatever was said.

You see, it’s simply irrelevant the way you look at her statement, as from any possible angle it’s always HIGHLY unfavorable, not only to the McCanns, but all those that were involved that night.
Oh right. And?

We now know that it’s a fact that, on Aug 20th, 2007, she said, and signed, that she witnessed a child negligence incident that happened between 22:30 and 23:45, on the night of May 1st, 2007.
No. She signed a statement that she had heard a child crying and described the circumstances. She never said she ''witnessed a child negligence incident''. You added that yourself. Naughty Textusa.  

Let me just say, beforehand, that if she’s told the truth, then it proves the Tapas hide a greater lie than the one they’ve wanted us to believe in, but, and that’s the beauty of this, it's better for those with a guilty conscience that she has indeed told the truth than have her proven a liar.
''If'' she's told the truth? What could possibly make you think she hasn't? 

That is how important the Mrs Fenn statement is.
You have no idea how important her statement is. Anyway in your warped mind someone saying they had beans for lunch is a Stop Press event. 

Negligence is the most recurrent theme of this never ending story. We keep bumping into it in almost every its chapter. So much so, that when the McCann name is pronounced, the word “negligent” just simply pops up.
Well I never. Could be that people tend to refer to wandering off for a plate of sardines and a jug of sangria, leaving the kids alone as negligence. What's your point, oh mad one? 

It's said that a lie repeated a million times becomes inevitably the truth. History teaches us that.
Yep. Look at how many of your minions believe there was no big round table, after you have repeatedly hammered it into their shiny bonces? 

It also teaches us that those lies that aren't definitely clarified become either legends or urban myths. Time provides them with the necessary cloaking to be impossible for them be proven wrong or right, or even if the events told even happened at all.

Indeedy. Like blood splatters on a wall and all kinds of wanky nonsense about strollers and government black hats 

And that was on what the McCanns have betted on. That if you discussed hard enough how negligent they were, the abduction would always REMAIN lurking in the background.
Betted on? Be still, my aching dictionary.

Ah, now we are getting somewhere. It's somewhere with secure padlocks and a door entry system, but to you it's home, and that's all that matters. 

And as long as it stayed there, then it became a reality; because it will remain a possibility, however absurd.
What will? 

From there to "myth" it's just that small step of becoming an "unsolved mistery"... So they've rammed, time and time again, down our throats, that they were the most negligent people ever conceived by mankind.
Have they really? How so? By constantly claiming ''we've all done it''? By saying ''At worst, we were naive''? By claiming it was like dining in the garden, provided your garden just happened to contain a road, an Olympic sized swimming pool, 4 acres of hydrangeas, a bar, a restaurant and 45 other apartments?

By the way, I would too. If I had, as they did, my back covered by those responsible for having the Social Services act as they did in the circumstances, which was to make me sure  that they wouldn’t do anything   however much I shouted out loud how negligent I had been.
What the fuck are you on about now? You know nothing of the transactions between the McCanns and Social Services. Literally nothing. So don't pretend you do. 

Better said, if I was assured by someone responsible that they wouldn’t, right Jim? We know the Social Services didn’t, haven’t and won’t, do a thing about the McCanns.

But there’s negligence, and then there’s negligence. It’s said for a just reason that always, really always, one has to be careful on what one wishes for, for one may just may have his wishes granted. And that’s what happened with the McCanns.
Fuck me. Take one language , English, add one blender, press button and continue until you no longer recognise the contents

Pamela Fenn’s “negligence” has got nothing to do with the McCann's “negligence”.
Uh huh. And why is that then? 

It’s like asking two people, one who lives in a country cottage, the other in a city apartment, to describe where they reside. Both will speak of “living quarters” but with little else in common.
Er, no it's nothing like that at all. In fact that is the worst analogy since Nelson said that almost losing an eye at the Seige of Calvi was rather like having an unsatisfactory leg wax.

You see, the McCanns just wanted a thin, evenly spread layer of negligence, you know, it’s there but you can hardly taste it; but Mrs Fenn, dipped an enormous spreader real deep into the jar and applied one nice, rich, thick layer of the thing.

What a load of cobblers

Leaving the poor little fuckers alone in the first place while mummy and daddy go out to stuff their faces was quite negligent enough, thanks. Letting them cry was just a sprinkle of parsley on the top 

Later, in another post, we’ll see that this was not exactly the result of her enthusiasm but rather to a misleading sense of urgency, so as to nail the negligence message right into some “thick” skull that just kept on insisting on looking towards the wrong direction: the one that pointed to Maddie’s death.
For the morbidly curious amongst you, yes I shall be reviewing that later. 

Now, let’s flip a coin. If it is heads we’ll look at Pamela Fenn’s statement as being true, tails, as false.Heads it is. So, let’s pretend it’s true.
Textusa modelling her famous ''Tapas'' range of leisure and cruisewear; Tweed skirt, Peter Pan collar, casual ''go anywhere'' cardi and nude pumps. Accessorised with a cute beige shopper and droopy stockings


Did you get that, everyone? ''Let's pretend it's true'' 

So without presenting any reasons, without offering any justification whatsoever, Textusa has already labelled Pamela Fenn as a liar. We will return to this again.
But for that to be, we also have to pretend that we have this elderly lady who after having put up, for one hour and fifteen minutes, with a toddler’s ear-piercing crying; that when she finally hears the child’s parents arrive, she doesn’t even bother to come to her balcony, which apparently had a view over the terrace of the floor below, lean over and tell them something.
Why the holy fuck should she??

You are suggesting that an elderly lady, living alone, should have jumped to her feet the minute she heard the door go and remonstrate with the returning, possibly drunken, holidaymakers?? Do you know something we don't? Was she a trained killer in a previous lifetime? A karate black belt?

She wasn't responsible for the children; they were. 

We know the crying must have been so annoying that she “contacted a friend called EDNA GLYN, who also lives in Praia da Luz, after 23.00, telling her about the situation”.
Here is an exact quotation from her statement 

''That night she contacted a friend called EDNA GLYN, who also

 lives in Praia da Luz, after 23.00, telling her about the situation, 

who was not surprised at the child’s crying.''

She does not say that she contacted her friend in order to tell her 

about it, but that she contacted her friend and that she told her what

 was happening. There is nothing whatsoever in her statement to 

suggest that her motive for calling Edna was that the crying was 

''so annoying''

We know that her friend "was not surprised at the child’s crying”. That might appeased her a bit, but certainly doesn’t seem enough to wipe away her concerns and discomfort that made her make that phone call in the first place.
Oh yes?? And on what basis do you make that claim, you duplicitous hobbit?

Where and when else does she express her ''concerns'' or ''discomfort''?

None of these emotions or feelings you ascribe to her are based on anything she said or did, are they? You simply made them up. 

For some reason she did make it.
The phone call? Yes, she did. And you have no idea why as that information is not included in her statement 
So why on earth, doesn’t she say something to her parents when she hears them arrive? A simple and justified demand for respect was certainly deserved from these people.
Why the fuck should she???????? The kid stops crying, end of story. Are you suggesting she should have leaned over the balcony and demanded respect from them? Get real, you sour-faced witch.

Negligence wouldn’t cross my mind at that moment, but stupidity, egoism and lack of civility definitely would.
So you would know that the children had been alone, but negligence wouldn't cross your mind? Why not?

Stupidity, egotism and lack of civility? She had never spoken to them, you cloth-eared bint. 

I would certainly tell them off, and would also tell them, in no uncertain terms, that a repeat performance would mean the immediate calling of police.
Doubtless you would, if you could get your arms free. But she didn't. 

Oh, but say you, this peaceful elderly lady didn’t any problems with her neighbors, and so preferred to remain politely in silence.
That tends to be what elderly ladies in their 70's  do, Textusa. They largely mind their own business.

I for one, would have dressed up, charged into Tapas and asked if anyone there was the parent of the the child that was crying her heart out alone in her apartment. And if I got no answer, I would make sure I waited for those parents and let them have it.
So fucking what? She didn't, but then she isn't a shrieking lunatic 

But Mrs Fenn seems to be a peaceful lady. Me, I'm not peaceful, and some even say I'm no lady. Ok, then, if not out of pure annoyance, shouldn’t she have approached the parents with concerns regarding thechild’s health?
Yes, she was. No, you're not.

Why would she involve herself? She would have known they would be gone soon. She may not even realised the parents weren't in the flat until she heard them return. 

It’s not at all natural for a child to be crying for such a long time, so if I hadn’t yet called for help, I would certainly be attentive for the child’s parent's arrival and inform them at once of this vital piece of information. It could prove to be the difference between life and death.
Oh what a load of tosh. Anyone who has ever walked the floor at night with a teething baby or an infant with colic knows you are talking out of your sumo-sized arse, as usual.
She didn't know the kids were alone, so why would she be listening for the parent's return?  

Apparently, Mrs Fenn was the only person to know that that child had cried for an hour and fifteen minutes, so she surely just had to say THAT to the parents, don’t you think?
No, I don't. I think like most refined, private ladies in their 70s she would have breathed a sigh of relief and gone to sleep 

Oh, say you again, her friend Edna wasn’t surprised that the child cried.

Why, she doesn’t say. It seems then, that like the “Happy Hour” in bars worldwide, there seems to have been in PdL, at least in April/May, an “Unhappy Hour”.
No, as you have said yourself, we don't know why Edna wasn't surprised as she doesn't say, or at least Mrs Fenn says nothing further about it in her statement. So anything else is complete speculation.

Apparently, it took place between from 22.30 to 23.30 whereby some child was designated to cry her lungs out to the little village’s contentment.
Don't be a twat.

On that particular night, it was Maddie’s turn, as it can be deduced the surprising remark from Mrs Fenn’sunsurprised friend.
No it can't. 

So based on her friend’s reliable and justified opinion, Mrs Fenn simply dismisses the one hour and fifteen minutes crying as just “perhaps a nightmare or another destabilising factor”; and when she hears the parents arrive, she either goes to bed, or just adjusts the pillow if she was already in it.
Yes. So what? She hears the parents come home, the crying stops, she goes to bed.  

So, for her statement to be TRUE we must then pretend that she’s simply not a curious person, and much less a busybody. Not a hard thing to do. The pretending that is.
Well so far I have seen absolutely nothing to suggest she told anything but the truth. So there is no need to 'pretend', is there? 

Is that all we have to pretend? No. We must also pretend that although she’s not a curious person, and much less a busybody, she was indeed curious enough when two nights later at 22:30 (now that is one unhappy hour in PdL…) “when, being alone again, she heard the hysterical shouts from a female person, calling out ?we have let her down? which she repeated several times, quite upset. Mrs Fenn then saw that it was the mother of little Madeleine who was shouting furiously. Upon leaning over the terrace, after having seen the mother, Mrs Fenn asked the father, Gerry, what was happening to which he replied that a small girl had been abducted. When asked, she replied that she did not leave her apartment, just spoke to Gerry from her balcony, which had a view over the terrace of the floor below.”
So what exactly is your point? She hears people in the street and on the balcony below. She hears hysterical shouting. So she did what any decent person would do. She went to see what had happened and offered her help.  

So we have a person that when hearing a child crying for one hour and fifteen minutes, and, half an hour after that crying had started, makes a single phone call, is pretty much satisfied with a vague answer from a friend and patiently puts up for another 45 minutes of crying, BUT when she hears the hysterical shouts of a grown woman she immediately goes to the balcony and tries to find out what was going on.
Again, there is nothing to suggest she rang Edna to ask her what she should do. Why on earth would it even enter her head that the children were alone? It would never enter mine. And if you really contend that hearing panicking hysterical grown-ups is the same thing then you are out of your tiny mind 

Ok, so we pretend that this is normal and continue, shall we? Sorry, no. We also have to pretend that109 days afterwards, that's more than THREE months, that, while around her much, much younger people seem to have lost memory for many of the details of what had happened that night, she remembers quite vividly the insistence of both the mother on having let some female down and of the father on there having been an abduction.
And why shouldn't she?

It was obvious from even a short exchange between  Pamela Fenn and a reporter that she was perfectly lucid and sharp as a tack.

Interesting memory selectivity for someone so able to detach herself from whatever surrounds her like that time a child cried, in the apartment directly below, for one hour and fifteen minutes, and as soon as she stopped, she just went back to whatever she was doing.
There is no ''memory selectivity'', just another of your attempts to blacken her name 

And so, so interesting capability of remembering Kate’s “we’ve let her down”. I thought that Kate had said this only in the Tapas Bar.
Well you were wrong then 

Either memory fails me, or she couldn’t have known this unless she had nice conversations, afterwards, in those 109 days and certainly over a nice cup of tea, with Kate.
You fucking cow

There is nothing to suggest that she didn't hear exactly what she described. For you to allege that she had tea and conversations with Kate afterwards is utterly false and is not supported by a scrap of evidence.

Yes, I know I’m starting to annoy you.
There is no ''starting'' about it
 It’s a little too much to pretend, but the coin determined that we should proceed as if Mrs Fenn statement was TRUE, remember? So this much is what we must pretend, mustn't we?
Listen, twat, there is no need to ''pretend'' her statement is true when there is nothing to suggest otherwise. 

So Pamela Fenn has spoken the truth, nothing but the truth, and let’s then see what the truth doth tell us.

It tells us, plain and simple, that a single child cried inside Apartment 5A of PdL Ocean Club, on the night of May 1st, 2007, from 22:30 to 23:45. These are FACTS, if, and only if, Mrs Fenn is saying the truth. Don’t forget that for a single minute, please. No other witness report this and this fact is very important.

It tells us that Mrs Fenn only reported hearing a single child crying. That does not rule out the possibility that another child was crying too quietly for her to hear.

Why would you expect anyone else to report it? The only other people nearby were McCann chums, they were hardly going to go blabbing, were they? 

The McCanns report something of the kind, but having happened on the following night, May 2nd, which is a completely different thing.
Yes, May 2nd is a completely different thing to May 1st. Thank you for your insight. 

Later, you’ll see that I’m not being needlessly precise here, nor leaving any margin of error for Mr. Fenn.She remembers so many details, that two days… are two whole days, and there’s a reason for her to pinpoint this particular day as the day it happened.
Yes, two days are indeed two days, on planet Earth (welcome, incidentally)

There is indeed a reason for her to pinpoint this day as the day it happened. The reason is that is the day it, in fact, happened. Stop me if I am going too fast for you. 

From her statement, it’s also a fact that no adult came to that crying child’s rescue during that one hour and fifteen minutes.
No - from her statement she heard a child cry for one hour and fifteen minutes. She offers no further analysis and was in no position so to do. 

Also a fact, according to Pamela, the twins didn’t join or react in anyway, as would be natural and expected, to one hour and fifteen minutes of her sister's crying, in a manner loud enough to concern the upstairs neighbor.
No it isn't. She doesn't mention them. 

Another fact extracted from this statement is that no other child of the Tapas group not of the McCann clan, joined in or reacted to this crying, clearly audible to the upstairs apartment, so certainly to the neighboring one too.
No it isn't. And you cannot possibly know that crying audible in an apartment situated above will be equally audible in an adjacent apartment unless you conducted specific tests. Did you conduct specific tests? No you didn't. So stop making things up.

Now let’s leave Mrs Fenn’s statement for a while, and look what else we know, or better, we have been told, with which it can be implicated with or be relevant to.
Must we? 

We know, and please do forgive me for not detailing where exactly this is said, as the sources are too many, in diversity and quantity, within PJ Files, of the existence of a “Child Checking System” (CCS), implemented, I believe, from April 29th, and executed to the night Maddie disappeared.
Oh fuck, here we go - Compulsive Urge New Terminology syndrome. Please formulate your own abbreviation. 
(It's a bit like Traduce With Alternative Theories syndrome, only worse)

Let’s pay some attention to the characteristics of this alleged CCS.
Oooh yes, lets.

It wasn’t a collective “Tapas CCS”, as each Tapas couple had their respective CCS.

The Payne’s CCS (PCCS) was based on a baby listening device, which spared the members of this family to conduct the personal physical checks. The PCCS is irrelevant for today’s post so we won’t speak of it again today. I’ll say a word or two about the listening device later on however.
If it isn't relevant, why did you speak of it at all? 

The McCann’s CCS (MCCS), the O’Brien’s CCS (O’CCS) and the Oldfield CCS (OCCS), were, apparently, all independent, in which each member of the respective couple would check physically, each half hour, on their own children.

There is no reported “accompanied” checking between the MCCS, O’CCS and the OCCS.
Apart from the 3rd May, of course 

That means that every half an hour, THREE adults would go from the Tapas Bar to the Apartments, and then come back.
Gosh, what insight 

If we say, that it took 5 minutes to go from the Tapas to check the children, the round trip would be then of 10 minutes.
And why would you say that? Did you time it? How do you know it took 10 minutes, then? That seems hugely excessive and it's clear you have simply made it up 

That alone means there was a continuous movement of "children checking" up and down that particular street. We have no record on how was this was coordinated between the couples.
Well, if there is no record of  how this was coordinated, how can you possibly claim that there was a ''continuous movement''?

It seems that IF it was done in random manner, then there surely would have been, one time or another, a coincidence of schedule’s between the CCSs, meaning that members of different couples would walk together to do the checking.

Nothing more natural… however, not reported once, as far as we know.
Er - have you read any of the statements, you mad old bat? That's exactly what they did on the 3rd

We do have one incident reported, and one only (there certainly might have been others, but only this one was reported, so is to be assumed as an exception and not as a rule), that one member of a CCS offered to substitute the member of another. It was when Matt Oldfield checked on the McCann children, by coincidence, minutes before Maddie was supposedly abducted.
Okay - first of all you say there were none reported. ''Not one''. Then you say ''We do have one incident reported'' 

So make your fucking mind up.

Secondly, you cannot assume that as only this one was reported, it was the only time it occurred. The rest of the groups do not appear to have been questioned to that level of detail.

We’re also told, with clarity, that both the OCCS and the O’CCS used their apartment’s front door to enter and exit, and certified that the door was locked each time they left.

Back to Fenn’s statement, it’s quite clear that the MCCS collapsed totally on May 1st.
Good grief, you think so? What insight! 

When the McCanns made their first statements on May 4th, they surely knew of this, or at least should have known that for at least one hour and fifteen minutes, on May 1st, they didn’t check on their children.

So when they say nothing unusual happened on May 1st, either they’re lying with all the teeth they have or they consider that one hour and fifteen minutes of not checking their children is perfectly normal and reasonable.
There is no indication that they were asked anything like that level of specific detail regarding the preceding days. They said nothing unusual happened. Why would they flag up them being late back from a bar one night when it wasn't the night on which she disappeared? 

As it is neither normal nor reasonable, even if they consider it so, or be it they’re lying to hide the fact, one can say, with reason, that the MCCS, at least on May 1st, was a total blunder, a complete flop, a disgraceful incompetence.

This lack of checking on the part of the McCanns, would have been noticed by the other parents, however, this collapse of the MCCS isn’t mentioned anywhere by anyone in any statement.
Yes it is. Of course they don't say anything like as wanky as ''the MCCS collapsed'' but for that we should probably be grateful. 

Would it be important to be mentioned? Well, their daughter had just been abducted, they said, they had a CCS mounted up, they said that too, but do not say to the police that this CCS flopped two nights before the kidnap.

Neither do the McCanns say it, nor do any of the other Tapas. Only Mrs Fenn, 109 days later. Strange...
Apart from the bit where they admit being late back from the bar, of course. But don't let the truth get in the way 

We know from Mrs Fenn that it was AT LEAST one hour and fifteen minutes, but who knows for how long really didn’t the McCanns check on their children?
No-one. Is that where you were going with this? Then that was all you needed to say.  

This would certainly a highly important piece of information for the police to have, as it basically means that for one hour and fifteen minutes there was a “loudspeaker” announcing that the “security system” had a major flaw. Basically like putting up a sign on a shop window saying “Notice: this store has the alarm temporarily out of order. Apologies for the inconvenience”:
What a load of shite. If I hear a child crying, even for a prolonged period, I do not immediately assume ''Oh look, that kid's parents have fucked off to a bar''

If anything, I think ''Poor bastards, sounds like the kid is teething'' 

Rather like Textusa's head, this window has been left intentionally blank apart from a screwy bit in the corner 

With this information the profiling done by the police of the possible abductor would have been completely different.
No it wouldn't 

Remember that it’s assumed that we are before a planned abduction, that the criminal observed this family and pounced when he thought adequate and opportune.

With this piece of information, it would mean that, possibly, on May 1st, the suspect that had had the opportunity for a whole hour and fifteen minutes to abduct Maddie, then and there, opted instead, even seeing how careless the McCanns were, to take action on a different night.

It would raise the possibility of the predator only deciding on the victim then and there, on May 1st, after seeing what he saw, and preparing whatever he had to prepare and attack two days later.

The clues that the abductor could have left in these two days of preparation could have been tracked by the police, and could have quickly led them to the criminal.

But the McCanns decided not to remember to tell this to the police.

Okay, let's just hold it there for a second.

Isn't your central theory that there was no negligence, that there were no tapas dinners, and the children were never left alone??

In that case, if your ''theory'' is right, why are you arguing about how long they were away? 

They remembered to tell the police all about the tennis, about how far away was the Millenium, and even about the detail of the wine being from New Zealand.

They even remembered that oh-so-touching “Maddie’s question”, but were careful to add it up with the“nothing unusual”.

They just didn’t remember that on the night of May 1st they did no checking after 22:30, until they arrived home at 23:45.
Probably didn't seem relevant. Anyway, according to you it never happened, so........ 

Wasn’t that the night they arrived separately after a jealous spout?
A spout is a thing you pour water from. Do you mean a spat? 

So, they do remember some details of that evening. By the way, Mrs Fenn speaks of the arrival of the parents, and not of separate arrivals.
She makes no claims about seeing them or hearing more than one voice. Perhaps she presumed it was the parents - why wouldn't she? Just because she didn't immediately leap from her bed and put it in a Venn diagram it doesn't mean it's suspicious 

So she hears the gate, thinks it is the couple, and falls asleep in less than 5 minutes, which, I might dare say, is pretty impressive.
If you think that's impressive you should see what your blog can do. 

The McCanns might, you say, have been both so drunk, and effectively did no checks, and that they were just too ashamed to admit it.

After all, this would only confirm what they’ve revealed from then on to this day: that they care more about themselves than about their supposedly abducted child.

So the MCCS flunked absolutely, proving that the McCanns were sloppy and careless, thus providing the abductor the opportunity for him (or her) to do the foul deed that would be done two days later.

THAT is what they’d like you think, I hope you realize that by now.
Oh here we go. Tins hats on, everyone. 

Now stop for a minute and answer this: where were the O’CCS and the OCCS during that one hour and fifteen minutes? We’re talking about FOUR adults, to and fro, every single hour.

That means that in that hour and fifteen minutes, those two other apartments were PHYSICALLY checked by SIX adults. If you can’t do the math, let me explain, TWO per apartment per hour, which makes FOURbetween 22:30 and 23:30, plus the first check, ONE per apartment, which means TWO adults, for the second hour, totaling SIX adults.
Well, clearly, you can't do the maths.

Paynes - no checks, they had their supersnooper thingy
Oldfields - no checks because Rachel was home

O'Brien's - let's say a maximum of 3 in that time.

Or to put it in your stupid vernacular

No PCCs, No MCCs, No OCCs, just an O'CC. 

We could set that to music Textusa, you could have a runaway hit on your hands

''No PCCs, No MCCs, No OCCs, just an O'CC. 
I said a hip hop,
Hippie to the hippie,
The hip, hip a hop, and you don't stop, a rock it''

I’ll be benign, and say FOUR to SIX adults checked their children between 22:30 and 23:45 on May 1st, 2007.
And you'd be wrong 

Let’s remember that they do go and do come back. So, clearly, while the child cried, EIGHT to TWELVEadults passed, on the way to and from their own apartments, by the THREE East facing windows ofApartment 5A:

Are those EFWs, Textusa? Only I can work them into the lyrics, you see? 
''And Neptune lowered his trident, children, but when he pulled it back up all he had caught was some old bollocks''
''Well you see officer, I was coming up the road to check on the kids I had left alone all evening when I spotted a man with a child and I said to myself ''That fucking bastard hasn't wrapped her in a blanket'' so I decided to say nothing to anybody about it''
Jane's checks would have been quicker had she not had to jump 12 feet in the air to listen at the kitchen window

Now, try to picture PdL at night.

Just imagine the immense silence.

Immense silence? It's a holiday village, you dozy cow, not a home for Trappist monks 

There are some people that even hear sirens nobody else does.
And many of them post on your blog 

I’ll bet that from the balcony of Apartment 5A, you would not understand the conversations at the Tapas bar, but they would certainly be audible.
How do you know this? Did you conduct any experiments? Or are you just talking out of your arse as usual? 

And the Brit loud laughter is known worldwide, and it is not for its discretion, but is not as loud as the crying of a lonely terrified or sick child. Just ask Mrs Fenn.
Well, I would, but........ 

And it’s no excuse that Maddie cried indoors. How many times have you heard grown people arguing from inside their homes?
According to your neighbours, plenty. 

Mrs Fenn, from her apartment hears the gate open, but EIGHT to TWELVE adults, all walking not more than fifteen feet away from a crying child (a daughter of a friend of theirs), hear absolutely nothing… or at least they don’t say they do.
Well we've dealt with the maths, let's deal with the ''If she could hear it upstairs, they could hear it outside'' myth

Unless you actually run tests, you cannot possibly make statements like that. It was a crying child, not a nuclear holocaust.

Oh, I seem to have reached the end of that particular discussion. Jolly good.

We know that Mrs Fenn heard it, so it would be equally audible in the apartment next door, as was in the one upstairs. Who do we have next door? The Oldfields.
Absolute cobblers. If I have a TV on downstairs, I can still hear every word upstairs. My neighbour certainly can't 

Let’s look then at the OCCS, the neighboring CCS of the flunked MCCS, that although going NEXT door,
..... I said a hip hop,
Hippie to the hippie,
The hip, hip a hop, and you don't stop, a rock it..........

do not hear the child crying. The Oldfields, as I said, are TWO to THREE times less than fifteen feet,
'Two or three times less than fifteen feet'? 
What the actual fuck is that supposed to mean?

Eleventy-twelve? Half past flibbertygibbet?
in the case their child is sleeping in the lounge, or much less, if she's sleeping in their room, the ADJACENT one to Maddie's, and INDOORS, from the crying child and simply don’t hear her. Or, once again, never say they do.

No, Rachel was home, said she didn't hear her. And don't forget this is Mrs ''If she wasn't screaming her head off, I reckoned she was okay, even if she did shit everywhere like a chocolate fountain'' Oldfield.

 So what? Mrs Fenn clearly did 
Once again, the nurses discovered Textusa's escape plans and confiscated her Spirograph kit. Would she never learn?

Adding these to those said that happened outside, we have ELEVEN to FIFTEEN opportunities for the child to have been heard either by the Oldfields or by the O’Brien’s.
No. You got a D in Maths 

FOUR absolutely deaf adults.


In the silence of the PdL, I bet that even the Payne’s listening device would have picked Maddie’s crying.
It was a baby monitor, not GCHQ 

If it was switched on, that is, or if Maddie had really cried, but those are whole different stories.
Which no doubt you will tell at some point, sadly. 

Quiz Night was that night, remember? No wonder Gerry invited Najoua to the table, as, it seems, nobody that sat around it could hear the questions. No, wait… Najoua also had Quiz Night that night of the week at Chaplin’s, so was long gone from Tapas before 22:30…
So what has that got to do with it, then? 

Either the McCanns were negligent and the remainder deaf, or, on THAT particular night, ALL Tapas CCS (except PCCS) were, by coincidence, negligent.
Or the McCanns couldn't be arsed and the others couldn't leap 12 ft high to listen at the window. 

I’ve never heard of any hearing disability of any of them… so I do go for collective negligence of ALL independent CCSs.

You see, if Mrs Fenn has spoken the truth, it proves one of the following: that either the McCanns, the O’Briens and the Oldfields were ALL negligent on their CCS on May 1st, 2007, or that there was simply NO CCS whatsoever, in any of the families.

It does not imply… it proves.
No, it doesn't.

For starters, you have completely ignored the fact that Rachel was home, therefore the only people passing the flat were the O'Briens. Contrary to the absolute shite you came out with, the fact that Rachel heard no crying supports the idea that although sound may have travelled vertically with some ease, disturbing Mrs Fenn, there seems to have been less horizontal transmission, possibly because of the type of construction used.

And it’s not only Mrs Fenn that is saying it… it’s the McCanns, the Paynes, the Oldfields and theO’Briens that also say it… by never mentioning it anywhere in their respective statements.
You can't 'say' something by not mentioning it, you daft old bat. 

They ALL, with NO EXCEPTIONS, forget to tell about this episode to the police.
Because if they didn't hear any crying, what was there to report? 

And you know why they didn’t? Because they had nothing to say. For anything to fail, it has first to exist. And if it didn’t exist, it's only possible due to the two reasons mentioned, they were either ALL neglectful or a CCS didn’t exist.
Well, we know members of the group did check as there were witnesses to this. Of course, you will claim they were all 'in on it' and members of the ''Swing-a-longa-Jose' society, but most people realise that's because you are quite quite mad.  

And, for ALL of them to have been negligent, there is ONE thing that MUST've happened: they had to be at the Tapas Bar, because if they were somewhere else, then the negligence just flies away with “the good parenting distance”… it becomes ABSENCE.
So now they WERE at the Tapas?

But you already claimed they weren't, because the law says 10 people can't fit round a table or a Black Hole will form

And that is where Mrs Fenn’s statement is so beautiful, in that if she’s lying, she proves the exact same thing as she does if she’s telling the truth.
Well you have produced absolutely no evidence whatsoever that she was lying, or presented a reason why she might, so what the fuck are you on about? 

But if she's lying, she does prove much more than that. Oh, you’ve forgotten that we were ONLY assuming that Mrs Fenn was telling the truth up to now…
Oh here we go...... 

It's alright, I. in turn, "forgot" to tell you that I flipped a double-headed coin.

Oh hilarious - did you see that, everyone? Textusa did a funny

Of course, this then set up the next post in which she categorically did accuse the woman of lying, so more of that later.

So why does she do this?

She does this because having pinned her central theory to the mast, anything which suggests that theory is wrong - which is pretty much everything in the known universe - has to be chewed up, spat out, and mauled into something she can poke away into a convenient corner

The irony that she decides that Mrs Fenn is lying, then attempts to use the checks on the children by the group who were dining at the tapas to prove this.......

......having already said that they never dined there!