Well, time to take a look at a Textusa Tenet.
These are the fundamental beliefs of all Textaloons, as handed down by Textusa herself, drawn in crayon on a stone tablet, as she isn't allowed anything sharper.
This one is Textusa's belief that the McCann party were all 'swingers' and that the Ocean Club resort were hosting a massive swinging event which they then tried to cover up.
In a previous post, I discussed the reasons Textusa gave for believing that swinging was the motivation for the McCann party to be in PdL that week. This was her later attempt to fool the public.
But don't just take it from me - here is the mad old bat herself. Enjoy!
Oh - a sidenote
I once complained about Textusa's habit of highlighting practically every other word, which I found annoying beyond logic, reason or tolerance. So she stopped doing it.
Normally, I remove this highlighting at the start; this time I'm leaving it in, just so you can get the full flavour. If you are anything like me, it will make your teeth itch.
More bullshit. And also, fuck off with these bloody abbreviations
And it’s also consensual that we all think this cover-up involves the “British hierarchy” up to itsgovernment. That it’s a very high-level cover-up (VHLCU).
Absolutely nothing in those two sentences makes any sense at all, Did you use a random word generator?
But what this VHLCU has intended to cover is far from being consensual.
Nor who is involved in it, generally speaking, or why.
I think what you are trying to say is that this imaginary cover up of which you speak was imposed upon people. Well, that's a load of bollocks, but anyhow......
Yes. Said by idiots, sweltering under their tinfoil.
That's because there isn't one
Besides the last, all is justified by very vague, diffuse and conspiracy-magnet “secrets” but none offer an explanation as to what these could be.
Well you'd know - you are the one who keeps claiming it, whackjob.
And the last, “state secrets”, is the best way to reinforce the vagueness of the word “secret”.
I honestly think you throw that in just so you can say ''Our ideas may be barking, but we're not as mad as some''
One theory that comes close to a tangible reason is the pre-planned murder: someone for some reason(again always unspecified) decided to kill Maddie and the holiday in Luz was planned with this intention.
We don’t know exactly who that “someone” may be and very honestly cannot see any reason to justifyMaddie’s “elimination” to the point of such sophistication.
Most importantly, it doesn’t in any way explain why a planned murder of the daughter of 2 medical doctors on foreign soil would warrant a VHLCU involving not only the highest British authorities as also, locally, guests, ex-Pats and the Ocean Club.
The theory that Maddie died due to a sedation overdose also doesn’t explain the why of a VHLCUinvolving all those it did.
There’s the paedo theory. Paedophilia with victims of Maddie’s age is very, very secretive as thecriminal is fully aware of how repulsive the act committed is.
It’s a known fact that “celebrity” paedos are protected by their non-paedo peers. But this protection is done assuring the protector is not involved with paedo activities of the protected.
Goes without saying
Not seeing anyone or any institution risking their own reputation to protect the paedo-murderer of a little girl.
Although not the intention of this post, we will show you later that the paedo thesis was looked into by the PJ.
All scenarios mentioned have 2 things in common: that there’s a VHLCU but that there's no concrete or plausible justification as to why. It was all because of this... “secret”.
None explain the inexplicable power held by a group of middle-class people, eventually upper/middle-class, to be able to bring 2 nations literally to their knees.
The swinging scenario is, apparently, consensually taken as the only one that would explain all.
Whoa, let's stop there a minute
What you are claiming is that there are several scenarios which could have explained a ''cover-up'' (leaving aside the issue of whether there was one or not) and these include:
Murder - which is illegal
Paedophillia - which is illegal
Doping children - which is illegal
And Swinging - which is NOT illegal
....and you have unilaterally decided that the most likely is - Swinging! The legal one!
Okay!!!! Well, that is completely bonkers
as is this sentence
''The swinging scenario is, apparently, consensually taken as the only one that would explain all.''
Consensually? By whom? The only people who think they were swingers are you and your merry band of oxygen thieves. It is complete madness.
Oh good. An endorsement from another idiot. Way to go.
Quoting Research_Reader, a detractor of the swinging thesis (comment #21 of our “Swinging FMS” post):
“If this was a regular thing that the Ocean Club was arranging, and if there were lots of highly-connected people there that May who were indulging in this, AND they knew of even higher-profile swingers back in the UK I can easily imagine the powers-that-be wanting to cover it up. And it also might account for the nursery nurse apparently knowing the group and flying over at the same time, and potentially Murat and Malinka could have been involved.
Whilst swinging isn't illegal, the embarrassment would have been huge and widespread, and in combination with the death of a todler would have left and extremely bad taste in people's mouths.”
No, it explains nothing
The swinging theory explains all but is, according to its detractors, speculation. Pure speculation, they say. Not a shred of evidence.
There are, as far as we have been able to read, only, repeat only, 4 arguments against the swinging thesis:
1. It isn’t illegal so it wouldn’t warrant a cover-up;
2. They wouldn’t take their children with them;
3. They wouldn’t take their mothers with them;
4. There’s no evidence there was swinging, so it’s just speculation…
Er....no you didn't.
This is so much so that after even in our post “Swinging FMS” in which we refuted thoroughly the first 3 arguments,
This is a common fantasy of yours - that everyone hangs on your word and that people who don't are pretending they haven't read your posts. There are many people, Textusa, who would rather perform their own bowel surgery, in a woodland setting, with a neolithic flint axe, than read your blog. I only read it as a public service.some people simply pretended not to have read it
Of course they do.and continued to justify that the swinging theory wasn’t plausible because… swinging isn’t illegal, children wouldn’t be taken and mum wouldn’t come along.
They seem to be stuck in a rut. Only they’re not.
As the swinging scenario encompasses adequately all present (including children and mum) there simplyaren’t any other reasons, besides these 4 arguments, to contradict it.
Those same 4 arguments are perfectly sound. You're not.
As there aren't any more, they will keep being repeated to exhaustion whenever the issue isinconveniently brought up by its inconvenient subscribers.
The same 4 arguments repeated over and over until lambs become lions.
Advice you cheerfully ignore
Even after adequate justification, they will keep being repeated. By those, we must note, accuse theBlack Hats of repeating over and over the abduction argument...
The “5th argument” is to be silent. To abide by Mark Twain’s words “It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt.”
No, you haven't.
Only it’s not foolishness. It’s avoiding being revealed.
We think we have answered fully in our “Swinging FMS” post as to why the first 3 arguments(importance, kids and mum) aren’t valid in invalidating the swinging thesis.
No it isn't
Because swinging does warrant a VHLCU because being outed as swingers, in the UK, is despicable enough to completely ruin careers and reputations.
Great, well, there are many legitimate advertised swingers holidays, so as soon as you can produce a brochure that says ''Families and grandparents welcome'' we can tick this one off
Because children are an integral part of a pretended to be family holidays. Also, not exactly easy to provide an excuse to leave children home while escaping a whole week to an unknown location as PdL
Well, not only do you not have evidence to support that, there is written evidence to the contrary, so......
Because mother could have come along, as a swinger or as a non-swinger. We even think DW didn’t sleep in the same apartment as the Paynes.
No, those people rightly state that there was no evidence whatsoever that Mark Warner were running Swinger's holidays at a family resort
We also noted in that post that the “children & mum arguments” are used by people who say it couldn't be because they wouldn’t have done it but then go and accuse the McCanns of doing things that supposedly they wouldn’t do.
No-one finds any of those suggestions acceptable, you mad old fool.
Also “children & mum arguments” are double-standard, applicable only to swinging when convenient.
We find that many of those who think it absolutely intolerable, despicable and obnoxious for the T9 to have brought their children along to a swinging holiday, find it perfectly acceptable and natural for them to have brought the kids to a bingeing holiday.
Some even find it acceptable, natural and logical having children drugged so they could get drunk.
What on earth is the point you are trying to make? The fact that something is plausible does not make it acceptable
Drug the kids to get drunk, plausible, let the kids be tended to by professionals while swinging,ludicrous.
Using the exact same reasoning of the detractors of the swinging theory, why didn’t the T9 leave thekids at home with relatives if they knew they were going to get plastered all week? Why bring them along?
Okay, just take a deep breath. For starters there is no evidence of Fiona Payne or her mother drinking to excess, nor of the Payne children being drugged, so perhaps you ought to calm yourself down a bit, eh?
To have brought sedation drugs with them, means the T9 would have known beforehand they were going to sedate and leave the kids on their own, so why bring them in the first place?
And also it seems that grandmother wouldn’t hear of swinging but apparently felt fine in having hergrandchildren drugged so she and her daughter could drink until they dropped.
There is no coherence whatsoever in your arguments, no.
Not much coherence in these arguments against swinging is there?
Okay - how do you suggest these holidaymakers could find out it was a Swinger's retreat? If you are claiming they sought out a swingers holiday, which you are, how did they know that's what it was? There is nothing in the brochure. There is nothing on the website. Those dates were not ringfenced for a ''private party'' How were other families who didn't want to find themselves at a swinger's resort supposed to know to avoid it? What about the other groups that do not fit the profile? Two sisters, one heavily pregnant? A father travelling alone with his three young boys?
Let’s now deal with the 4th argument: no evidence.
First one must ask exactly what kind of evidence of swinging is one expected to find?
A brochure saying “Welcome to PdL’s Swinging Week - April 28/May05”?
If that is what they were organising, they would have disclosed it to the police. It's not illegal.
The Ocean Club publicly saying Maddie was abducted because they were distracted while organising sex between the guests?
So you think that they all sat on this info which could have earned them thousands? And all the staff did too? And all the people who had been swinging there before? Silly, silly woman.
A “confession” of swinging by some witness without being asked about it?
Any evidence. Any single solitary piece of evidence. There is none.
We would really like to know when people say “there's no evidence” what evidence they were expecting.
So no evidence. Thank you. There is no confession, just another of your delusions
We don’t have the brochure , the Ocean Club hasn’t said such a thing and no one has confessed toswinging although a “confession” can be read in someone’s words as you’ll see later in the post.
Oh this should be good, dear readers. This is the bit where she makes up the evidence. Brace yourselves.....
But is there no evidence of swinging?
Okay, you are saying that the fact that there was an adult pool, which the McCanns didn't use, is evidence of swinging?
We think there are 5 things that indicate strongly that there was swinging in the Ocean Club in Praia da Luz:
1. Adult Pool
Not the fact that it exists, but because it “doesn’t”. It is absent throughout all the Maddie case.
The Ocean Club has it for some reason. Not saying its sole purpose is for swinging. Just stating that when it comes to the Maddie case it seems that it doesn’t exist.
Ok, so they played tennis. And went and did some watersports. And some jogging. Where did they spend the rest of the time?
Apparently inside the resort as PdL offers very little at that time of the year. We haven’t been told with precision but we all seem to think that all gravitated around Tapas.
So, we have these guests who take the trouble to take their own children to crèche to enjoy a kid-free day but then head to Tapas pool area where they have to put up with other guests’ children.
Why didn’t they simply use a facility that would give them a kids-free time - the adult pool? Simply leave the Tapas area for all those idiots who opted for not depositing their kids in the crèche.
This shroud of silence around the adult pool is very strange.
Linking it to swinging is speculation, saying it has been left out of the Maddie case is a fact.
That might just be the stupidest thing I have ever read
There is an adult pool at my local sports centre. Mostly it is filled with sedate elderly ladies swimming breast stroke with flowered swim caps on. Not once have I seen anyone enthusiastically rogering a member of the WI in the shallow end.
So what DNA were you expecting to find from this crowd?
2. DNA from Kid’s Room
The DNA found in this room was too little when compared with what was expected to be collected. A“crowd” had supposedly contaminated the scene. That’s what we were told.
Were they gobbing on the bed? Shagging on the floor? Clipping their toenails over the sink?
Don't try to pretend you are an expert on DNA Textusa, you don't have it in you.
Not necessarily. They could disturb the scene, track trace evidence from one room to another.
A distraught Kate, a friendly Fiona and a “soothing couple”, plus GNR and PJ on that night alone
Then we had Maddie and the twins using that room for some days.
3 children slept in that apartment for days. They dressed and undressed there. 2 adults regularly wentin and out of that room on those same days.
Contamination means ADDING forensic evidence, not subtracting it.
It would be expected that there would be huge amounts of DNA collected, much of which one would expect would have to be discarded as it was from “contamination”.
How was the scene processed, Textusa? Chemicals and a light source were used to look for the presence of bodily fluids, etc. Where anything was found, they were then swabbed or tested. Samples were obtained for further analysis. A scene is not processed so as to recover every minute speck of DNA - they look for DNA associated with the crime or potentially associated with the crime.
No it wasn't. Not only is there no evidence of 'exaggerated cleaning', there is ample evidence of the opposite. The last thing the scene was is ''forensically aseptic" which is incidentally a meaningless phrase where you have conflated two terms neither of which you understand
In terms of what was expected to be found versus what was collected one could say that room was“forensically aseptic”. The room was subject to an exaggerated cleaning.
No, it isn't. It was not way too scarce and your assertion is not a fact, it is a false claim.
The forensic evidence collected was way too scarce and that’s a fact.
It was not cleaned up and you showed nothing in that post, apart from the fact that you are as clueless as a pianist at a bagpipe convention.
This can only mean the room was cleaned up, like we showed in our post, “"Clean Party Floor" Phenomenon”.
No it is not. That is a complete falsehood.
It’s evident that forensic evidence was in fact subtracted from the (alleged) scene of the crime for no apparent reason.
It wasn't cleaned
If it was to be determined that the origin of the collected DNA would have come from the most diversebut explainable sources, it would be the EXPECTED so no reason whatsoever to clean up that room.
So why was it cleaned? We think to eliminate the presence of those who were not supposed have ever been there during the time the kids were away at crèche, day or night.
People who probably used that room for adult fun.
No he doesn't. Anyone who can read can see that he clearly states the stain was not semen
3. Semen Stain
A stain was found on the bedcover of the bed nearest to the window.
A semen stain. Who says so? John Lowe from the FSS in his final report:
NOT THE RESULT OF SEMEN - are you blind, woman?
“The voluntary samples were also compared with 'crime stain 1', a DNA profile obtained by Portuguese scientists using their DNA profile system. The profile was recovered from suspected semen on a blanket in the apartment 5.”
“Suspected semen”, interesting. But what is really interesting is what he says 2 paragraphs later:
“I conclude further that, the DNA profiles obtained from the 'crime stain 1' and 286A/2007/CRL9A & B coincide with C****** Gordon (bar code 51156964). I believe that C****** Gordon was born on 29 January 2005, and if this is the case, in my opinion, the DNA profile obtained in 'crime stain 1' is not the result of semen found on the blanket.”
Okay, let's make this short and sweet.
We have alerted our readers as to the very specious style used by Lowe, and have explained why he has, in our opinion used it intentionally.
Let’s break down what he's said so we can understand it clearly:
1. 'crime stain 1' and stain #9 belong to C****** Gordon (bar code 51156964)
2. C****** Gordon was born on 29 January 2005, so he was 2 yrs and 3 months old.
3. If he was born on that date, then the DNA profile obtained in 'crime stain 1' is not the result of semen found on the blanket
Note the absolute speciousness of that last sentence. Remember he knows he’s writing a report about the highest profile case of the XXI century. Every word matters.
We won’t say that he never clearly states that 'crime stain 1' is not semen, which he doesn’t. We will just stick with what he has said.
He appears to say that if the individual in question is indeed 2 yrs old then the stain is not semen.
We say he appears to say because we think he does make a much more affirmative statement than that about it being semen but will refrain from saying so for now.
So, apparently the condition is not about the nature of the stain but of the age of the individual: if 2 yr old – not semen. So if, say, 18 yr old, semen?
If he wanted to say that 'crime stain 1' wasn’t semen, then he should have written “then the DNA profile obtained in 'crime stain 1' found on the blanket is not the result of semen.”
This simple and this clear. But Lowe decides, for some reason, to write like a non-native.
What he does say, very speciously, is that ‘crime stain 1’ is not from semen found but from somewhereelse. He doesn’t explain from where ‘crime stain 1’ is from, but confirms that it is semen.
If you don't agree with us, you have to agree that he puts the conditional, as we said, on the age of individual and not on what the stain consists of.
So if you don't agree with us, you're basically saying that a British scientist didn’t find it necessary toconfirm any further if the human matter present before him was semen or not. In the highest profile case that Britain has ever faced.
A stain was found on a blanket. That stain gave a weakly positive result to an acid phospatase test, which can be used to identify semen, but will also give a positive result to other fluids, such as saliva. It was recovered to the lab as a ''suspected semen stain'', quite normal as it came from bedclothes
A full DNA profile was obtained from that stain. The profile matched a little boy who had stayed in the flat the week before
Little boys that age do not produce semen.
Therefore, as the profile matched him, the opinion Mr Lowe reported was that the stain was NOT semen
Tests on the stain later confirmed it was saliva. NOT semen.
Textusa's continued insistence that this is semen is a result of three things
1) She is thick
2) She thinks her readers are thick and is trying to con them
3) She hasn't read the files properly
From the files
2- Nature of the sample
Phadebas Forensic test, for detection of saliva on the fragment of cloth corresponding to vestigio n'. 5 collected from the counterpane of the bed next to the window of the children's bedroom: Positive.
It IS from CG
Knowing, as we have demonstrated (in our post, “Super-Kid”), that C****** Gordon (CG) could not possibly make stain #9 one can only assume that the DNA sample “labelled CG” is not from CG.
He could easily have left a DNA sample on the wall, all he would need to do would be to touch it with sticky fingers. There was no semen stain, it was saliva.
Whoever it is, has left a stain 1,50 m high in a wall in an inaccessible corner of the living room and has left a semen stain on the bedcover (like we showed in our post, “The Mystery of Profile L”).
He does NOT state it was semen, he states the opposite, that it was not semen.
Not a 2 yr old, certainly.
But it’s not only Lowe who states that semen was found on that bedcover.
This was before it was identified from the DNA profile as coming from CG. Once it was linked to CG it was clear it could not be semen, it was retested and found to be saliva
Although there is no date on the following correspondence, signed by Paulo Rebelo, from pages 3578-3582 or to whom it was addressed at the INML, it clearly states the presence of semen:
“During that stage of the investigation, the apartment was searched by members of the Crime Scene Team from the Laboratorio de Policia Cientifica [Police Forensic Science Laboratory] of the Portuguese Criminal Police, and samples were collected. Those samples, namely hair and a sperm stain, were sent to the National Institute of Legal Medicine (INML) to be analysed taking into account the DNA profile of the missing child-that had been provided-, as well as one of her parents and the ones of friends who belonged to a common group, and who went to the above mentioned tourist resort following previous arrangements among them.”
“On the other hand, it was possible to define the autosomic STR profile of the sperm stain detected on the bedspread of one of the beds in the bedroom from where the child went missing taking into account the DNA profile of the missing child-that had been provided-, as well as one of her parents and the ones of friends who belonged to a common group, and who went to the above mentioned tourist resort following previous arrangements among them.”
“We further request the DNA profile comparison concerning the English citizens that stayed in the apartment throughout 2007, where the above-referred sperm stain was found.
-FAWKES, SIMON ANDREW
-GORDON, PAUL ANTHONY”
Rebelo doesn’t come up with the terminology from the top of his head. He’s referring to evidencecollected by “members of the Crime Scene Team from the Laboratorio de Policia Cientifica [Police Forensic Science Laboratory]”.
Professional forensic experts.
“A sperm stain”, “sperm stain detected” and “sperm stain was found” couldn’t be clearer.
It wasn't semen, it wasnt from Gerry, it was saliva from a little boy
If this sperm was not from Gerry, then who is it from and what was it doing there?
That's an entirely routine procedure, and that isn't what he asked.
To ask, as was asked, if there is any relationship between a male stain and a female child (Maddie) is to evidently confirm or rule out a possible paedo occurrence involving that semen.
4. The Blond Man.
Mrs Fenn’s niece, Carol Tranmer-Fenn, on April 22nd, 2008, in her rogatory statement says that she sees a blond man exiting, via the back gate, the Oldfield’s apartment on the afternoon of May 3.
This visit isn’t mentioned by any of the T9, including the Oldfields. No burglary was reported.
Matt Oldfield was supposedly sailing, wasn’t he? Saving Rob’s life, if we’re recollecting correctly.
If this visit was innocent, it would have been spoken about.
Carol first stated that she saw this man on May 8th 2007 to Leicester Police. She even did an e-fit of the man.
Both that first statement and the e-fit are not part of the PJ Files and still have to see the light of day as we showed in our Nov 25th 2010 post, “My Thanksgiving Turkey to ALL of You”.
This is a visit of an adult male in the middle of the afternoon to an apartment that was not his. Very much like the visit of David Payne to Kate McCann.
So Mrs Tranmer saw a blond man.
He has never been identified, so any suggestion as to what he was doing there is total speculation. It was a visit of an adult male to an empty apartment. There could have been countless reasons. I don't assume that each time someone comes up the garden path they have popped in for a shag - clearly, you do.
5. The Visit
We’re referring to David Payne’s visit to Kate McCann on May 3. All points towards “over-friendliness” between the 2.
They were close friends who frequently stayed and holidayed together. He was the husband of her best friend, who she had known for years.
How is a brief visit, at the request of her husband, evidence of swinging?
Put these 5 things together with the 24 factors we listed in our post “Swinging FMS” in response tocomment #11.
As Payne’s visit is repeated, it makes 28 things for now that, as we say in that post, makes us conclude that swinging is the “only unifying factor that could bind all together and the only thing that could plausibly explain the motivation and involvement of so many present in PdL”
Absolute and total cobblers. You haven't established anything at all
Let's look at this batch
An adult pool they didn't use
Scarce DNA which wasn't scarce
A semen sample which wasn't a semen sample
A blond man who was never seen again
A friend popping in to see another friend
That is your 'evidence'' of swinging. Nothing.
You said before that it was not accepted. So which is it?
Acceptance of swinging is increasing.
Your readers might, but they are all a bit mental. No-one else does
Readers realise that it’s the only scenario that makes all pieces of the puzzle snap together. All pieces. Including importance, kids, mum and evidence.
Doesn't cause anyone any discomfort apart from you, it seems.
They are also starting to understand the discomfort it causes to discuss it.
Oh please, do grow up. You're a half-witted, menopausally deranged part-time blogger. This isn't your job, petal.
It makes us feel we are doing our job well.
And what would that be?
We’re also pleased to see that the discussions are finally detaching from the T9 and towards what really matters being analysed.
Confession? There's a confession now?
What? The “confession”?
Er no. No they don't.
Oh, as we said, it’s not exactly a confession, but knowing what we now know, reading Bridget O’Donnell’s (Jez Wilkins’s partner) words’ to The Guardian on December 14 2007, take a whole new meaning:
“Throughout all this, I have always believed that Gerry and Kate McCann are innocent. When they were made suspects, when they were booed at, when one woman told me she was "glad" they had "done it" because it meant that her child was safe, I began to write this article - because I was there, and I believe that woman is wrong. There were no drug-fuelled "swingers" on our holiday; instead, there was a bunch of ordinary parents wearing Berghaus and worrying about sleep patterns.”
Don’t the words “there were no drug-fuelled "swingers" on our holiday” sound just like those of a toddler saying “I didn’t steal the cookies in the jar with blue butterflies behind the box of cereals on the top left cabinet”?
Sorry, was that the confession?
Hmmm -well traditionally a confession contains the words ''We did it'' and not the words ''We didn't do it''. But nice try, loony