Friday, 2 October 2015

Gobshite Wars

Is it really Friday again already?

Well in that case it must be time for a break from Gobshite Wars, currently playing out on a Facebook page near you

Apologies for taking so long to get this out to you - it was an even more turgid offering than usual

The saint of Salem I

The crowd were getting restless - were they going to dunk the Witch Textusa or not?

01. Introduction

It has now come the time to start to debunk what is without question the clutter best implanted in the Maddie case: paedophilia.
Clutter - oh yes, for those unfamiliar with this term, Textusa uses it to describe any evidence which supports a conclusion other than her deranged one. Which is to say, all of it.  

Why best implanted? Because it’s a clutter destined for connoisseurs only. Gourmet clutter so to speak.
Jesus, what cobblers  

This case has 2 kinds of clutter that are so good that they have been able to keep up the wall between us and the truth: negligence and paedophilia.
Oh here we go...... 

Before you say that no one seriously interested in the case believes in negligence any more, which we think is true, please do take into account that negligence clutter isn’t directed at people who are seriously interested in the case.
No, it isn't true.
Whether negligence played a direct role in the disappearance of the child is impossible to say, but anyone who believes the children were never left alone would have to disbelieve not just the McCann party but a number of unconnected witnesses. Now we all know that you and your catastrophically brain-damaged chums think that, but we wouldn't trust any of you to sit the right way on a lavatory, so......
And the fact that Bennett agrees with you is nothing to shout about. The man is madder than a fox with rabies who has arrived home to find his vixen having it off with a poodle.

One is not simultaneous with the other. Paedophilia follows negligence.
 Answers on a postcard please 

Negligence clutter is for the general public. It’s the McDonalds of clutter in this case (sorry Burger King and Wendy’s).

Paedophilia is for “internal” use.

You wouldn't like to have another go at how you phrase that, perhaps? 

02. The negligence v paedophilia clutter

One has to take interest in the case to get to know the possible paedophiliac angle of it.

If a child goes missing the reason is usually one of the following
1) Taken by someone connected to the family who may or may not harm them
2) Has become lost, possibly after wandering off on their own or with another child.
3) Taken by someone unconnected (ie, a stranger) who may or may not mean them harm. If the latter, then probably by a paedophile. 

Therefore most people would have considered the possibility.
What most people won't know about are the accusations made in certain quarters with respect to the behaviour of one of the party.

When we say “take interest” we don’t mean to investigate. Just to take enough interest in the case to research it on the internet.
God help them  

The regular Jane and Joe Does of the world were and are fed by the media with the message of negligence that they left their kids alone even though it was perfectly alright. The words “left their kids alone” always jumps up and bite them on their brain. That’s why they are there, to be noticed.
No, the ''regular Jane and John Does'' are aware of the established fact that the children were left alone while the parents dined, it is only you and the loon chorus which begs to differ.

The MSM never speak of paedophilia in the case.
That's because we have a little thing called libel laws in this country

Mr Amaral did speak of it in his book and I believe he mentioned paedophilia publicly in the documentary aired by CMTV in 2013 when he points all his firepower towards David Payne.

But the book has to be bought/downloaded and read. For that one has to have interest in the case.

CMTV broadcast was simply a program in a cable channel. And is only provided by one operator, MEO. CMTV isn’t held by the other two TV cable providers in Portugal – NETCABO/ZON/NOS and Vodafone.
Oh get the fuck on with it 

Paedophilia within the Maddie case is only “available” on the internet.

The way it has been spread is hardly comparable with how widespread the negligence message was by the MSM from day one.

In a supermarket or in any other place where one can hear people talking about the case, whatever their opinion the message underlined in the conversations about Maddie is always the same: the parents left their kids alone.
Which they did

Even those who are convinced that the parents “did it” will say somewhere along the line “the #%&#% who left their poor kids alone”. The others will say “those poor parents, but they did leave their poor kids alone, what a misfortune.”
Which they did

It shows how effectively the negligence clutter was implanted and spread so well and so widely.
No, it shows that the fact that they left the kids alone is extensively evidenced and unchallenged by any police force involved

To those who did NOT find the case to be interesting enough to look about it any further than what the MSM had to say think to this day that the couple and their friends left their kids in the apartments and went out to have dinner. Some think it was to get drunk.
Because they did

Paedophilia does not enter one’s horizon until one decides, out of curiosity, to look a little further into the case.

And when one does that what is there to meet one at the front door? Paedophilia.

It welcomes us, makes us feel we’re finally discovering the true secret behind the case. It makes one feel one knows more about the case than the ignorant general public. It draws us in, elated with the sensation that one is treading forbidden ground.
You might be getting your rocks off about it, but don't judge everyone by your own perverted standards

One then feels that one is now finally part of the chosen few who truly knows who did it and why he did it: it was (censored) who killed Maddie and he did it because he’s a revolting paedophile.        .

Plus, as one reads about child abuse cases being protected by the Establishment in the UK, one can only come to the conclusion that one logically comes to: paedophilia explains why “High Powers” are involved in protecting the case.
A conclusion arrived at by numerous dingbats and tinfoil merchants without the application of any logic whatsoever

This overlooks that this “High Power” protection indeed exists but is exclusive to “High Power people” and not for anyone who simply asks for a cover-up. 
Remember this quote. We shall refer to it later

Only an elephant can lift up an elephant. The myth that a mouse makes an elephant jump is just that, a myth.
When did you ever see an elephant lift an elephant? And what does it have to do with this?

In the Maddie case, the jumping elephant was the entire UK. To make an elephant that size jump whoever was on the other side of the lever had to have enough “weight” to make it happen.
Hang on - so you are now saying that whatever happened to Maddy was sufficient for "someone" to hold sway over an entire nation?

This was not favour pulling. This was pure and simple the making others obey. Orders were given, orders were followed. As they are being followed as we speak. No buts or ifs but many, many or elses.  
Christ, more tinfoil nonsense

Okay - who is issuing the orders and to whom?

Negligence is the first layer of clutter, paedophilia the second.

Why? Because it makes it extremely hard for anyone to find the right path after having made previously 2 wrong choice at these y-turns.

The reader didn’t exactly make the wrong choice but rather was enticed, convinced to make them both.

As part of the general public the reader went down “Negligence lane” and a person interested in the case, has gone down “Paedophilia alley”.
Okay, okay - so basically, this gobshite is saying that both the negligence angle and the paedophile angle are fictions designed to lead people astray.

Continue, idiot one

But the choice on where one is to be is never made by the convincer but by the convinced, so on what lane, alley, road or highway one is right now on this case is entirely one’s responsibility and doing. 
Utterly superfluous paragraph. For a change.

03. Protecting a nepiophile

Paedophilia is vile and absolutely disgusting. We think it is a very serious problem in the UK as it seems to have infiltrated in the midst of the British corridors of power and of influence and that gives it a protection hard to overcome even if everyone agrees how loathsome it is.
It is a very serious problem everywhere, not just the UK.
Understand this

Paedophilia does not infiltrate anything. Paedophiles exist in all professions and across all social strata. This does not mean that the presence of some paedophiles in positions of power confers protection on others, either individually or by policy.

The hypothesis of a paedophile Payne abusing little Maddie and her dying because of it is seems to many a very plausible reason to justify the gigantic cover-up and information shackling.
Only to a few nobheads

We fully agree that the seriousness of the crime and the repulsion it rightfully provokes is such that it makes the criminal want to do all he can to cover it up.

But one thing is the criminal desiring, or even needing a cover-up, another completely different thing is him getting one.
Remember this point too.

Any criminal is limited to what others are willing to do for him, and a paedophile much more so. Not many are willing to go out a limb for a paedophile. One only helps a paedophile because one has to. Because one is a stakeholder and the stakes in question really make one help such a disgusting person.

No one helps a paedophile out of good-will. Some do help taking into account what the paedophile can offer back. But the paedophile has to offer a very significant something in return for that to be the case.
Remember all these points

As we said in our “Paedo v Nepio” post, to protect an infant rapist goes beyond all reasons to help. To make one do that the stakes of what one can lose must be so high that they must be called something else other than stakes which we don’t know what.
Ah yes - that was when you claimed that people would cover up for someone who rapes a six year old, but not someone who rapes a four year old because they are ''worse''


Even if one lacks morals, ethics and decencies that any common human being should possess, it is of self-interest to NOT help an infant-rapist. 

It baffles us how people claim that is simply impossible for so many to cover-up for the swinging (when they are stakeholders) but are comfortable with the thought that there is an all-round lack of conscience in these same people helping an infant-rapist.

No-one thinks anything of the kind. You are the only one peddling this ridiculous scenario covering the involvement of the cast of 1,000 people. And before you kick off with ''It wasn't that many'' I can assure you it was, if you add together all the people you claim were involved

We cannot give any opinion on behalf of the Ocean Club nor of Mark Warner but if we were them we would much rather go down in history for supporting many swingers trying to get away with their reputation unscathed than being forever known for and linked to protecting one infant abuser and killer.
So  this is basically your case:

There was no big round table
Therefore there could be no dinners
In which case lots of people must be lying
They might lie for a paedophile if their victim was six
They wouldn't lie for a paedophile whose victim was only four
But they would all happily lie for a man who hits a child a single blow hard enough to kill her because they were swingers 

All because there was no table

And this also goes to all those who invented bogus sightings, people who went out of their way to help this hoax.
So everyone who reported a sighting was someone going out of their way to help this ''hoax'' were they?

I see.

And how did they know about it?
You are saying that all those kind if misguided people who thought they saw Madeleine were all part of some secret swingers network who had been alerted to go out and create false sightings all over the world?

Well, in that case that's another few thousand that know the truth yet have not squealed, isn't it? Some of them on the other side of the world. Now, I know news travels fast, but really - did they hold auditions?

If one was to protect a child-rapist out of fear wouldn’t the expected action/response be one of silence and utmost discretion? So the helping of a monster would go as unnoticed as possible? To avoid being linked or involved in a sordid killing of a toddler?

Instead, what we have seen is people stepping up to the plate to help. And with enthusiasm. People who seem really proud in helping perpetuate the hoax.
And doesn't that tell you something, you cretinous buffoon?

If one is being forced by blackmail into helping such a vile creature, then it’s more than understandable for one to try one’s best to lie really, really low and so one tends to be economical with the truth only when asked a question and certainly one will not volunteer to go to the authorities to lie unasked. If one has to, then one goes but unless forced one doesn't.

With such a predicament one prays one isn’t asked anything so one doesn’t have to lie. If authorities don’t come come to them then they won’t go to the authorities, that’s common sense, that’s simply not being stupid.

That’s not what we have witnessed happening and as we’ve said often, we’re not up against stupid people. We have seen people outside the T9 coming forward to the police to deliberately lie and boast about it on the MSM.
Fuck me ragged, I am getting so bored with this

So what you are saying is that literally hundreds and hundreds of people who didn't know the McCanns or their friends joyfully bounded forward to give matching false information to the police of several nations because they were happy and willing to commit a serious crime in the sure and certain knowledge that they were only helping someone who battered an infant, not sexually abused her, no siree.

Are you off your head?

The victims of this so effective clutter, those who believe in the paedophile theory, maybe have not realised that they agree that they find it reasonable to have people who are helping an infant-rapist to show publicly their pride in having done so.
What utter utter bullshit

That alone completely baffles one’s mind.

Or as our Facebook friend Vikki Scott has told us: “but are they too stupid to see that if paedophilia was the reason for her death the easiest thing in the world would be to find a culprit. Blimey, they could even pin it on Payne, how could he fight the security services and govt?”

But most important is what people are really failing to understand and is outside the Maddie case. It concerns their lives and their freedom of speech. The more passionately people bite this “paedophilia bait” the more it makes the other side really happy.

Paedophilia will come in really handy to them when the times comes, and it will come, they will want to limit your access to information. From the TruePublica, in their Sept 22 2015 article “How Britain’s Propaganda Machine Controls What You Think” (thank you Shaherazade for the link):
Oh for God's sake - tinfoil hats on, everyone.

“Using the supposed threat of paedophiles as a pretext to attack basic democratic rights and bring in broader censorship, PM David Cameron declared , “The actions we’re taking today come back to that basic idea: protecting the most vulnerable in our society, protecting innocence, protecting childhood itself. That is what is at stake, and I will do whatever it takes to keep our children safe.”

According to the civil liberties organisation Open Rights Group, the filters don’t just block pornography but “also restrict access to sites deemed unsuitable for under 18’s including information on alcohol and other drugs, forums, YouTube and controversial political views.””

In the Maddie context it helps explain why people have paedophilia in their brain as the root of all crimes. People have been media trained to do so. And all this training has to produce some results some time. 
What does any of this have to do with your loopy theory?

04. The basis for the paedophile theory

The paedophile theory is based on 5 things:

#1 – The discrepancies between what David Payne and Kate McCann about what they each say happened when he visited the apartment late afternoon on May 3rd, the biggest one being he says it lasted 30 minutes and she says it was only 3. Allegedly, Payne is the last person to have seen Maddie standing and awake outside her family;
Nowhere does he say he was there for 30 minutes. That's a Bennettmyth 

#2 – The statement of Mrs Fenn, an elderly woman allegedly living above the McCanns who says she heard a child (who she’s certain could only have been Maddie) crying for 75 minutes on Wednesday, May 1st.
No indication this has anything to do with paedophile behaviour 

#3 – The statements of Yvonne Martin, a British social services senior worker, who in 3 written statements raises the possibility, or strong possibility, that she MAY have crossed paths with David Payne in her career and raises suspicions about him being a paedophile;
She never at any time says it was a ''strong possibility" 

#4 – The statements of the Gaspars, Katerina and Arul, a couple, both doctors who spent a previous holiday with both the Paynes and the McCanns. Katerina says that during these holidays while the 3 of them were sitting at a table she saw David simulate fellatio with his finger and Gerry playing with his nipples while both were talking about Maddie;
No, she says nothing about Gerry 'playing with his nipples'. That was said of Payne  

#5 – An empty CATS file in the name of Gerry McCann.
That is explained in the files. It's a normal process to open a file, it has no meaning whatsoever  

05. The Paedophile Theory with and without a before
What?! Before what? 

There are those who firmly believe that Maddie died before the 3rd of May. Including people who believe in the swinging theory.

We disagree with them about the time, or better said day, of death as we don’t believe there could be a space of days in which people were convinced to participate in the hoax before it was reported to authorities around 22:40 of May 3rd and if they all had that time basic things wouldn’t have gone wrong, such as having the shutter up and the apartment presenting signs of a break-in.

That is not missing a cue, that is opening up a play to the public before any rehearsal. Besides, to have one or another actor miss this or that cue it would be acceptable but to have the entire cast not know their lines properly is a clear indication that there was no preparation.
*Shakes head*

What was done, was done under the pressure of time, which wasn’t much as shows the amount of errors made.

But this part of the post is not about our disagreement about time of death. It’s about it “dividing” people into different camps, those who believe Maddie died before the 3rd and those, like us, who don’t.

Divide into those who believe like we do that she died on May 3 at around 18:30 at the hands of Payne during his visit to the apartment, as per #1; and those who believe she died at his hands a day or days before.

Some of the latter go as far as to determine that it was on Sunday. This is because of the infamous “last photo”. They say was taken on Sunday and that is the last proof Maddie was alive, so she was killed that day.

Not wanting to get into this too much, one must ask if Maddie was killed right after that photo. If she wasn’t their theory falls to the ground.

Because if she wasn’t, there would be a time interval between the moment the photo was taken - let’s say noon Sunday - and the time she was killed according to them - let's say, 19:00 of Sunday. Where is the photographic registry (or proof according to them) that Maddie had been alive between noon and 19:00, the times we have just invented?

No photo to cover that interval, means, according to them, she couldn’t have been alive then. If she could, then why say she was only alive a few hours more after that photo? Why not go for the moon and say it was a day? Or 2 days?

There were also no photos of Amelie showing her alive after that photo before her sister was said to have disappeared and fortunately is alive and we hope happy and well.

Plus this photo, to be genuine and taken on Sunday, has this amazing characteristic: it took more than 20 days and for it to be taken to the UK to have its date supposedly changed. Something that can be easily done in minutes on any computer. Apparently in 2007 Portugal was such a backward country that it didn’t have electricity to plug in a computer. Either that or the CEOP people who were sent over didn't understand a thing about computers.

No wonder the Ocean Club computer malfunctioned the way it did with the booking sheets.  

Others say she died on Sunday because discrepancies start only on Monday. Well, as far as we know, the discrepancies start on Saturday immediately after they arrive when the McCanns say the tennis conference is on that day and the  Carpenters say it’s Sunday.
Oh for god's sake, people having differing recollections is not automatically suspicious 

The discrepancies do not start on Sunday. If one thing can be said about this case is that it’s “coherence-free” from beginning to end. Discrepancy is its middle name.

Some of the paedophile theory believers who think she died before May 3 seem to think that the girl died at the hands of Payne as per #2, meaning that the cries Mrs Fenn alleged having heard were that of the little girl in her last moments of life.
Last moments lasting an hour and a half? 

We have given our opinion about the crying episode, #2, in our post “All paths lead to Rome” which was to say that that we think Mrs Fenn only came forward in August to tell of something we think she never witnessed just to make blossom that particular seed of the negligence clutter that had been planted by the McCanns in their statements in May.

We, on the other hand, firmly believe that Maddie died on the 3rd when Payne visited the apartment so we reject any scenario that places death before that.

So we will only deal with the paedophile theory that states Maddie died on the 3rd.

With that theory we agree that Maddie died as per #1 and that the crying Mrs Fenn allegedly heard, independent of having happened or not and the reader knows we don’t think it did, is only related to negligence and has nothing to do with paedophilia.

The only difference between us and these paedophile theory believers concerning this visit is that they think it was for Payne to abuse Maddie sexually – with Kate, Sean and Amelie inside the apartment – while we think it was purely for adult and consensual sexual fun between Kate and David – with Maddie, Sean and Amelie inside the apartment.

In our scenario, we place the McCann children as mere witnesses to a heated argument which resulted in Maddie’s accidental death. But this is pure speculation as it’s our opinion that only Kate McCann and David Payne know the exact details of what really happened and why.

06. The saint from Salem

Our rebuttal of the paedophile theory is not based on any sort of inside information – which we have repeatedly denied having and will now deny again.
Not for one second has anyone in their right mind believed you to be in possession of inside information.
It’s based on us reading the files and seeing in them what substantiates the paedophile theory is not questionable but is in our opinion false and then it’s as irrelevant as the CATS file is.

We subscribe fully what Vikki Scott has said in her Facebook post “CONFUSION HAS NOW MADE HIS MASTERPIECE - MACBETH”: “The above 'clues' [CATS, Gaspar, Ms Martin], just a small part of the deception are nothing more than a distraction, a very successful distraction. Whoever decided to muddy the waters with this one must pat themselves on the back every time they visit the internet.”

Yes, indeed they must. As we said it’s “gourmet clutter”. Not the everyday kind such as the COMARE clutter or the one that questions if Gerry was Maddie’s biological father. Those are for beginners. Paedophilia is serious, serious clutter.
Oh grow up, for God's sake, and speak like a normal person

In our last post, “TRUTH” we showed how people had put on a costume of a saint so they could, and in our opinion did, distort truth so that truth would never be known.

A façade of being seen to be doing the right thing when the purpose was exactly to do the opposite which was to assure that the right thing never gets done.
Oh is that what it was supposed to be about? I think most people gave up when you hadn't got to the point within the first 25 feet  

Yvonne Martin is in our opinion such a character.
Of course she is. God forbid that any witness might be just a truthful witness 

The British senior social worker who many see as someone wanting to do the right thing by pointing the finger at evil David Payne, the paedophile.

Finger pointing was once the favourite pastime of a little town in Massachusetts called Salem.
Well, you'd know. dear

Strangely enough in her 3 statements that appear in the PJ files the social worker only in her last one does she raise the possibility of Payne being a paedophile or child abuser, and then as we will see not in very clear terms.
Not in very clear terms as she wasn't sure.

She raises the possibility he may be a paedophile in the exact same statement in which she also raises the possibility of him being a colleague, a social services worker like herself.
As she wasn't sure.

In the other 2 statements made 5 months before, she couldn’t determine if she recognised Payne as a suspect/arguido or as a witness in “the course of performing her duties”.
As she wasn't sure.

As Vikki Scott has said in her Facebook post: “but do we really think a veteran of child protection cannot recall whether a face she is familiar with from the course of her work is a dangerous child abuser or a protector ? Ridiculous !
Well, it sounds like Vikki Scott, some unqualified unknown bint from Facebook, is as vacant as you. Does she think Child Protection officers are fitted with some advanced kind of Facial Recognition software? Anyone, regardless of their profession, can see someone in the street and not know quite from where they know them if they are seeing them out of context.
That she was so adamant in impressing the P word on the PJ should also ring alarm bells. A professional, however subtle she thinks she was being, does not condemn such vile suspicions on anyone without proof positive. If this is how she works I fear for those she comes into professional contact with.”
That is also bullshit. The truth is, Child Protection officials often have to act upon a suspicion or an accusation without having the benefit of absolute proof - or would you prefer they leave a child in harm's way until they obtain such proof? 

Vikki is absolutely spot on.
No, Vikki - like the rest of you - is off her head  
She’s only wrong on one thing and that is saying that Yvonne Martin tries to impress the P word on the PJ.

She doesn’t. She runs circles around it until we’re dizzy and she almost gets a cramp on her eyelids and neck from so much winking and tilting of her head in trying so hard for the  PJ to pick up on that clue.

Because a liar knows he’s lying he’s usually afraid to speak openly and brazenly about what he intends the other side to capture.
More bullshit. Most liars are brazen. You certainly are  

Yvonne instead of saying, “I’m about 80% sure that man next to the McCanns is a paedophile, please check as soon as you can the UK paedophile registers because although not sure exactly where I came across him, I’m remembering that face from somewhere in all the cases I’ve handled and if my hunch is right, he may be the key as to what happened to the little girl” she instead decides to play cluedo about it with the police.
She didn't say that because she didn't have that kind of certainty. If she had said that, she would in fact have been lying

The following is from her statement

 She adds that this third person appeared familiar to her. 
As she said earlier, this third person of the group is familiar to her, and thinks that she may have come across him in the course of her work, as a suspect or witness.

With regards to the individual who was close to Madeleine’s parents when she met them, and who was later identified as David Payne, she reaffirms that the same individual seems familiar, possibly as this same individual intervened in a situation related to a professional activity of the witness. She clarifies that neither on that occasion, nor now that time has passed, can she remember concretely the place or the situation in which she may have come to know David Payne, but that she continues to think that the same individual is familiar to her but cannot state the particular situation. 

She adds that her hypothesis is that she may have come to know him professionally through work, potentially having been colleagues at work or have worked at the same place but she cannot be certain where she met him as she does not remember
She says that about two weeks after Madeleine’s disappearance, when the police made an appeal for information about a man, carrying a child, who had been seen in the Luz zone, and whose clothing was described, she wrote an anonymous letter to the British police, telling them the following: : regarding the various details she observed during her contact with the McCanns it is her opinion that they could be in some way involved in the disappearance of Madeleine. 

She first found them aggressive and their reaction after she showed Madeleine’s parents her credentials, also seemed strange to her. Afterwards she was informed that there were no signs of a break-in in the apartment. Knowing that they are doctors she found it absolutely abnormal that they left their children alone at home. Associating all of this with her professional experience, which tells her that in 99.99 % of missing children cases, the parents or other family members are involved, she felt it was her duty to inform the police of this. 

She did this anonymously because she did not want to be bothered by the media. But she also states that according to what she remembers, when she met with Madeleine’s parents, David Payne, who was with them, was wearing a dark polo shirt, blue or black coloured, cream coloured long trousers, of linen or cotton, and dark shoes (sandal/slipper type without a back buckle/catch). In her opinion, this clothing matches perfectly with the clothing the Police described the man (carrying the child) to be wearing at the time. All these coincidences made the witness think that the parents and their friends could possibly be involved in the disappearance of the child. 

She declares that one of her main aims when she wrote the anonymous letter was for the British police to check the paedophile or child abusers registers and whether David Payne was on that list. 

Was there any consequence if she was falsely accusing him without intent? No, if she was doing it out of pure heart. The police would check all registers and find nothing and that would be the end of it as the claim would be empty. She would have her conscience appeased and the police could cross out another lead.

So instead of clearly helping the police she decides to sing some sort of song with lyrics going like: “he may but then he may not, I don’t remember from where but then again I do but then I really don't, oh so much I wish I could or then maybe not”.
Er - no she doesn't. At all. Kindly do not add outright lies.

But the claim she made of paedophilia against David Payne, however vague it was it has stuck like a needle to a magnet. And like said needle, it just won’t drop.

07. Yvonne Martin’s and her interactions

To understand fully the role played by Yvonne Martin in this case let’s start by asking the following question: how many interactions did Yvonne Martin have with the authorities pertaining the Maddie case?

Most of you will say, 3 times: the 3 statements made by her that are on files.
There are two statements, not three

And most of you would be wrong. She interacted with the authorities 9 times and only 2 of them happened without her knowledge. Of those 9 times, 4 were of her initiative:
If it 'happens without her knowledge' it isn't an interaction, by the very definition of the word. If you think of me in the middle of the night - we all know you do, there is no point denying it - have we interacted? Thankfully, no, otherwise the consequences for my sanity would be severe 

i – When she arrived in Luz and says she approaches a GNR officer to ask directions and is escorted by that GNR officer to near apartment 5A (her initiative approaching officer);
Asking for directions can hardly be considered as ''interacting with the authorities''

ii – When two weeks later she writes an anonymous letter to the British police, finger-pointing Payne (her initiative);
In fact, as I have shown, it would appear her primary focus was on the potential role played by the McCanns or someone close to them

iii – When she calls the PJ saying that she wants to speak to them (her initiative);
Where does it say she called them?

iv – When she speaks to PJ at her residence – 1st statement (her initiative);
There is nowhere in the files that states this was ''her initiative''.

v – When she speaks to PJ at PJ – 2nd statement;
That appears to be police initiated

vi – When PJ “archives” both of her statements (she's unaware of this);
Then it isn't an interaction between her and the police

vii – When PJ “unarchives” her statements (she's unaware of this);
 Then it isn't an interaction between her and the police
viii – When she’s notified to come to PJ to give a statement;
At their request

ix – When she’s heard for the 3rd statement.
At their request

Of these 9 times we only consider #viii as of no relevance as it was a mere procedure.

We shall look at each one of these events and see how they are relevant to the case.
I'm sure you will. Unfortunately.

i – Escorted by GNR

We will do like Yvonne Martin did with the anonymous letter and leave this for last. We think that the reader will better understand why we consider this event having some importance but which has gone unnoticed.

Please note that this is not about her visit to Luz. It’s about what happened when she arrived and her contact with that particular GNR officer. But, as said, we will deal with this later.
Oh god help us, what now?

ii – The anonymous letter

This letter waves so many red flags that one may be led to think that one has found oneself racing behind the wheel of a formula 1 car  watching the marshalls waiving them about frantically.
The word is ''waving''
And this appears to have nothing to do with the analogy you use.

Almost everything said about it by Yvonne Martin is, to say the least, just wrong.

As per Wikipedia a red flag in formula 1 means “indicates that the race, practice session, or qualifying session has been suspended. All marshal stations will signal this. Drivers may not leave the pits. All drivers on the track must proceed cautiously to the pit lane and stop.”

This anonymous letter is really the equivalent of ALL stations around the circuit waving those red pieces of cloth frantically.
No it isn't.

It starts with the fact that we only get to know of it at the very end of her last statement.

Yvonne Martin goes to Luz in the very early hours (08.00/08.30) of May 4 as we will see and, according to her words, she sees Payne finds his behaviour strange and seems to remember she may have crossed paths with him.
No she doesn't. If you had only read her statements you  would see that she clearly states she did not set off until after 9am.

In which culture is ''after 9am'' regarded as the ''very early hours''?

On May 4 David Payne makes all the alarm bells of a senior social worker ring.
No, she said that she thought she might have come across him in her work, as a colleague, suspect or witness

Your fixation here with Payne is interesting. At all times, her primary focus appears to have been the behaviour of the McCanns and the accounts of their actions the night before. Payne was very much a ''Not only, but also''

But only two weeks later does this worker decide to write this letter.

First conclusion one must take is that during 2 weeks this senior social worker disregarded completely the ringing of all her alarm bells about a possible paedophile in the world’s most high profile media case at the time.
But before you criticised her, saying that an accusation should only be made with proof. So which is it?

She simply went on with her life as usual during 2 weeks. Saw Maddie’s face on the news every single day but decided that her hunch wasn’t serious enough so stayed put.

She only decides to act when she hears the description by PJ of a male carrying a child and what he was wearing. The description is quite generic physically and she certainly didn’t see Payne carrying a child, so it must have been something in the clothes described that made her remember Payne.

She confirms this when she explains why she was prompted into action “at a time when the police made an appeal for information about a man, who might have been seen in the Luz area, taking a child with him and about whom they described the clothes he was wearing”.

It HAD to be the clothing. Only it wasn’t.

These were the reasons she tells PJ the above prompted her into action. They are listed by the order she refers them:

“Being attentive to the details she observed in the contact she had with the McCanns it’s her opinion that they may in some way be involved in Madeleine’s disappearance”;

“First she found them aggressive, then the parents’ reaction when the deponent showed her ceredentials also seemed strange to her”:

“Then she was informed that there were no sign of break in in the apartment”:

“Knowing they were doctors she thought absolutely abnormal that they would have left their kids alone at home”:

“Associating all of this to her professional experience, which tells her that 99,99% of child disappearance cases the parents or other close family members are involved she thought it was her duty to inform the police of this”.

And these were the main reasons why she wrote the letter.

The police speak of a man taking a child and she, apparently connects that to a couple, their attitude, the apartment and her professional expertise and these “evident” connections are what makes her write an anonymous letter.

No David Payne referred to at any point of her explanation of the main reasons why she wrote that anonymous letter.

The police speak of a man with a child and she immediately thinks that man could be a couple she supposedly saw only after child was missing so best warn the police.
This next bit is a corker, folks  

In her statements we get to know her mind was bothered by David Payne but when it comes to saying what her MAIN reasons were to write the anonymous letter, David is not part of them, only the McCanns.
Care to explain this, then?

'' She declares that one of her main aims when she wrote the anonymous letter was for the British police to check the paedophile or child abusers registers and whether David Payne was on that list. ''

So let's just double check that

Textusa - "but when it comes to saying what her MAIN reasons were to write the anonymous letter, David is not part of them, only the McCanns.

Witness - ''She declares that one of her main aims when she wrote the anonymous letter was for the British police to check the paedophile or child abusers registers and whether David Payne was on that list. 


Then, before bringing up Payne, she explains why she wrote the letter anonymously: it was because she“didn’t want to be bothered by the main stream media”.

Ok, let’s stop for a moment and breath.

So, apparently Yvonne Martin thinks the British police are a media outlet. They basically investigate crime on the side.

Not a very high opinion of the force we must say. She seems to think that if she asks police for anonymity they would sell her out to the first tabloid that made the first offer.

How credible is this?

Why was letter addressed to the British police? Wasn’t she in Portugal and wasn’t it all over the news that very clearly it was the Portuguese police taking care of matters? Didn’t she have a house in Portugal, so not there as a tourist but was familiar with the country and its authorities?
She speaks no Portuguese. I find nothing remarkable whatsoever in the fact that she wrote in English to the British police

If she thought that Payne could be a possible paedophile shouldn’t she have contacted immediately the Portuguese authorities there and then in Luz and report this so they could ACT on this as quickly as possible?
Perhaps she considered the police capable of running their own investigation, and that an interference by an outsider on day one with ''a feeling she had seen him before'' wasn't the most helpful course of action?

If she was such a busybody, as she seems to have been, shouldn’t she have asked someone there and then for the name of that man in glasses so that she could check up on her own files and to contact colleagues in the UK to see if they could find anything about him?
Like who? Also, such a check would be unlawful, but don't let that stop you

To have first contacted the local authorities who were in Luz and then use her professional contacts to help them with this information?
All in a foreign country where she didn't speak the language?

Because as any social worker would know, one thing would be for the authorities to question Payne knowing that hanging over him were the suspicions of a social worker another completely different one would be to question him without knowing it.
What on earth are you on about?

She sees Payne together with the McCanns being taken away for questioning and does nothing to help the authorities. Where were her work ethics when they were really needed?
In England, dear, where she worked.

Because she did go to the “manager of the resort” (statement of June 13) to ask him if there had been a break-in to the apartment. Wouldn’t it have been more logical for this social worker to ask about the name of Payne instead?
Nope. Her primary suspicion related to the parents and their behaviour.

No, instead she decides to play Mrs Marple around Luz. What for? To assess what if in the next 2 weeks she does absolutely nothing about it?
Playing Miss Marple, eh? Shameful. *chortle*

Maybe she decided to play a game with the PJ: let’s see if you can spot the paedophile all by yourself and if at the end of the first 2 weeks you haven’t been able to, then I’ll start feeding you with clues  anonymously? 

Ok, let’s stop and breath again.

Since when do social workers write anonymous letters?

Are we to believe that a senior social worker writes anonymous letters to the authorities to denounce a possible paedophile instead of taking pride in her job and stepping up to the plate right away?
She could not possibly have acted in an official capacity - she had no standing in Portugal.

The British social services must be really proud of this senior social worker!

Rest assured British citizens if there’s a child near you in peril don’t worry, your nearest social worker will write very quickly an anonymous letter to the local police station so that they in turn can contact the social services to look into it.

If about a possible paedophile, please allow 2 weeks for that anonymous letter to be written. Why the hurry?

For a person with the mission to protect children is there any greater danger to them than a paedophile? Shouldn’t she have acted professionally immediately after her contact with Payne?

Is this credible?
Perfectly. Very little information had emerged at that point and all that she had was a feeling she had met him before without any idea in what capacity

And then she lets two weeks go by before doing anything and when she does this social worker is only worried about the press.

Is this credible?

To recap, PJ describes a man carrying a child, she says she writes anonymous letter because that reminded her of a couple, an intact apartment and her professional experience. Then she explains why she wrote the letter anonymously.

And then, ONLY then, does she have her “oh, wait a minute, now that I’m here I do recall there was something else…” moment.

That one moment she FINALLY decides to speak of Payne.
No, she spoke of him in her very first statement

Do you rely upon the fact that most people, despite their protestations, have not read the files, to try to get away with these untruths?
But even then though she describes him in detail, she doesn’t isolate him.
Why would she? 
She puts him together with the McCanns. Note how nonchalantly she brings him into the picture “more refers that according with what she remembers, when she met Madeleine’s parents, the David Payne, as she has already said was near them”.

The police have spoken of a man but she first brings in the couple, the apartment and her professional experience and only then, en passant, speaks of a man.
Yes, because she was very aware that in child abduction cases the culprit is usually known to the child and she found the behaviour of the parents odd

But even then as we have just said, she doesn’t isolate him: “All these coincidences made the deponent think that eventually the parents and/or Madeleine’s friends [note the plural, so not referring specifically to Payne] could be involved in the disappearance of the girl.”
Why should she?

Note, we’re hearing of this on Nov 12. She has written an anonymous letter, has made 2 statements in June and only now, 5 months later does she decide to inform the authorities about that letter.
You have no idea if that is the case.

And what else does she reveal in November that she has kept a secret from everyone including the authorities?

Reader, please sit down because this one is really quite unbelievable. As in not to be believed.

Only in November does she utter the “P” word!
Possibly because she is a professional, and not some deranged, gap-toothed yokel who has imprisoned the suspect in a Wicker Man and is currently laying the firelighters

She’s “smacked” by the idea Payne may be a paedophile on May 4, writes a letter 2 weeks later, is heard twice by the PJ a month later but only in November and ONLY in the last sentence of her last statement she speak of paedophilia: “She further declares that one of her main intentions when she wrote the anonymous letter was for the British police to check the paedophile or child abusers registers to see if David Payne was on them.”
No, in her first statement she wondered if she knew him in the context of her work not as a colleague, but as a suspect. Naturally she would think that the police should check it out

Sorry, but are we really talking about a social worker? It seems we are and one who is taken very, very seriously by many.
Unlike yourself

If this isn’t beating around the bush we don’t know what this is.
There was no beating about the bush. Not everyone finds it necessary to herald every communication with a shitload of fucking arrows, gizmos and amateur analysis.

We hope you now understand now why we said she got cramps on her eyelids and neck for such tiresome winking and head tilting to point towards the P word that finally comes out of her as if it was a tooth being extracted without anaesthesia.
Because you're an idiot?

08. Perfect matches

Now let’s back off a bit. Remember we said that it MUST have been because of the clothes described by the PJ that made Yvonne Martin connect Payne with the man the police were looking for?
This is hardly a deduction on your part, given that this is precisely what she said:

'But she also states that according to what she remembers, when she met with Madeleine’s parents, David Payne, who was with them, was wearing a dark polo shirt, blue or black coloured, cream coloured long trousers, of linen or cotton, and dark shoes (sandal/slipper type without a back buckle/catch). In her opinion, this clothing matches perfectly with the clothing the Police described the man (carrying the child) to be wearing at the time''

We said this because in terms of physiognomy the man was not described as having any noticeable peculiarity that would make him stand out and we know she couldn’t have seen Payne carrying a child the night before. So it had to be the clothing that made her match the description to Payne.
As she said. See above.

Now, let’s then see what the PJ said exactly:

“Part 4: The PJ make the first public appeal, 25 May 2007

Detectives issued a description of a man seen on the night the four-year-old went missing in the resort of Praia Da Luz in the Algarve. Officers said the man was "carrying a child or an object that could have been taken as a child".

The man is said to be white, aged 35-40, 5ft 10in tall, medium build with hair that was short on top. He was wearing a dark jacket, beige or golden long trousers and dark shoes. At a news conference, Ch Insp Olegario de Sousa urged the man or anyone who had seen him to come forward.”

The above is from here:

This, by the way, is 21 days later, not the two weeks she alleges. That is getting timelines somewhat wrong to say the least. This means that for 3 weeks she did nothing. Not 2 but 3.
She did not ''allege'' two weeks. Her exact words were:

'' She says that about two weeks after Madeleine’s disappearance,''

About. An approximation. Idiot. 

And if we are to be precise and stick to her words then she wrote the anonymous letter one week before she was prompted to do so.
You cannot ''be precise and stick to her words'' when her words are not precise.

But let’s imagine that she confused the number of weeks and that it was 21 days after that she hears this and says to herself “that’s the man, that’s the man I saw!! I have to warn authorities, let me do something!”
Oh for the love of God.
Look, what follows is fucking pages of the daft trollop ranting about whether this, or on the other hand that. I really cannot be arsed with it, this post is already longer than the bastard Ring Cycle, and there's still pages to go. So please yourself and read it if you like. I'm going for a doze. When you see red type again, I'm back. 

Three weeks for her, a concerned social worker, to travel from the other side of Lagos because Maddie’s story touched her the moment she heard it, for her to meet Payne and find him highly suspicious and then to, well, return home to prune her roses if she has them. Three weeks to have the “wait a minute” moment about Payne, the paedophile, after hearing the PJ describing the man.

So PJ must have said something about the man’s clothes that she HAD to link to what Payne was wearing when she saw him.

We have seen what PJ said, now let’s see how she describes Payne:

On June 12:

“Is about 35 yrs, has about 1,80 metres in height, is of normal built, having short and dark hair, using graduated glasses of small dimensions and rectangular lenses, having a round face, presenting a scar above his eyebrow and left cheek, speaking in English with a South of England accent, wearing clear colour trousers, cream or beige colour, and a polo of a dark colour.”

On June 13:

“Describes him as being tall man, with about 1,80 m, with about 35 yrs, of normal physical appearance, with short, dark hair, round face and with a scar on the left side of his face that catches the eyebrow and cheek, using graduated glasses of small dimensions with rectangular lenses, spoke with a South of England accent and wore cream coloured trousers and polo of a dark colour.”

On Nov 12:

“Was wearing a dark polo, blue or black coloured, cream coloured trousers, of linen or cotton, and dark shoes of the sandal kind [tipo chinelos] or tennis shoes open at the back [sapatilhas sem presilhas atrás]” and then adds, as we have seen “in her opinion this clothing matches perfectly with the clothing described by the Police relatively to the man they were looking for at the time.”

Please see how the 3 descriptions above fit with the below from the PJ: The man is said to be white, aged 35-40, 5ft 10in tall, medium build with hair that was short on top. He was wearing a dark jacket, beige or golden long trousers and dark shoes.”

To be able to determine that, let’s point out the commonalities between her descriptions of Payne with the one by the PJ.

The descriptions share the following 6 items:

1. PJ says he’s “white” – we shall accept that by omission Yvonne Martin is saying the same. If other ethnicity she would have mentioned it and doesn’t.

2. PJ says he’s “aged 35-40” – Yvonne Martin on June 12: no age ref, on June 13: “with about 35 yrs” and on Nov 12: no age ref;

3. PJ says he’s “5ft 10in tall” – Yvonne Martin on June 12: “has about 1,80 metres in height”, on June 13:“with about 1,80 m” and on Nov 12: no height ref;

4. PJ says he’s “medium build” – Yvonne Martin on June 12: “is of normal built”, on June 13: of normal physical appearance” and on Nov 12: no built ref;

5. PJ says he has “hair that was short on top” – Yvonne Martin on June 12: “having short and dark hair”, on June 13: “with short, dark hair” and on Nov 12: no hair ref;

6. PJ says he was wearing “beige or golden long trousers” – Yvonne Martin on June 12: “wearing clear colour trousers, cream or beige colour”, on June 13: “wore cream coloured trousers” and on Nov 12:cream coloured trousers, of linen or cotton”;

Note, we have been generous with the hair and the trousers.

About the hair, having seen David Payne, we wouldn’t describe his hair as short and dark but dark with a receding hair line and the tendency to become bald, as it is slightly more than short on top.
Well, that's because you have a frigging photo, shitforbrains.  

About the trousers we were also not picky about the colour, as golden is a much darker shade of cream and Yvonne Martin only speaks of light shades.

We have then considered there was a match between the hair and the trousers worn by both the man described by the PJ and the one by Yvonne Martin.

All other details are different as we shall see next.

So in common between the 2 descriptions is that both are “male, white, aged 35-40, 5ft 10in tall, medium build, with hair that was short on top and beige or golden long trousers”.

Isn’t it this the equivalent in words to what the eggman is to drawing?

How much more generic can one get? Only if one took out the “or golden” from the trousers!

How many millions of men does the above describe? Many, we are certain.

So it can’t be based on this very generic description of a man that Yvonne Martin hears and says to herself and says to herself: “it’s Payne, they’re talking about Payne!”

Dark top, light trousers, dark shoes, build and height correct - close enough to the police description to report it, I would think. What's your problem?

It must be something about the other details.

But the problem Yvonne Martin has with the other details is that what PJ has said doesn’t fit with what she has.

No reference to round face by the police.

No reference of any scar by the police.

Yvonne says he wears glasses and police say nothing about any glasses.
I don't know if you have realised this, but glasses are not a permanent fixture

The police talk about a generic “dark shoes” while she’s very specific and detailed: “dark shoes of the sandal kind [tipo chinelos] or tennis shoes open at the back [sapatilhas sem presilhas atrás].

The police talk about a jacket and she says Payne is wearing a polo.

Yet, she says that “in her opinion this clothing [the one described by her] matches perfectly with the clothing described by the Police relatively to the man they were looking for at the time.”
Which is no doubt why she contacted them

So what in the police’s description has made Yvonne Martin think of Payne? That is a question that has a very easy answer: nothing.

It was nothing because there was nothing to remind her specifically of Payne.
No, it was the description, as she says in her statement

But, let’s imagine that by a fluke the clothing would be the same. Would that mean anything? No. Only someone making things up by picking things up from the sky would think a criminal would wear the exact same clothes he wore the day before when committing a crime.
Like the sort of idiot that thinks glasses cannot be removed?

To say one is prompted into action because clothing was similar or even identical is ridiculous. There’s no other word to describe it.
There is another word to describe it. Logical.

Why do you think police describe the clothes a suspect was wearing? Or is a witness supposed to say to themselves ''Hey, I saw someone wearing exactly the same thing in the same place. But it can't be them because they could have changed their clothes. So I won't mention it"?

You really are as thick as mince. 

09. Grizzly bear v polo bear


We are aware that in some corners of the internet there is a fierce attempt to say that one grizzly bear is “near-identical” to one polo bear just because both are bears, both have fur, both have similar built and both are similar in age.
So you know there is a debate but you don't know why. That's probably because you are pretty dim. The debate actually centres around the very close similarity in the DNA of both and the fact that hybrids are sometimes found, both in captivity and in the wild, an indicator that they are extremely closely related.

Their outer coat colours and other differences are probably examples of specialisation

But no matter how much they do try we’re not buying it. Even if they also point out that both bears growl.

True, they do share all of the above characteristics but a grizzly bear is a grizzly bear and polar one is a polar one. One is brown, the other white. Saying they’re “near-identical” is to say that Mona Lisa’s smile is a sulk just because her lips curve slightly.
And a hybrid? What is that? It is neither a Polar bear nor a Grizzly bear

A man is not “near-identical” to another just because both are male. If that were so then, as we showed above there would be millions of near-identical males, white, aged 35-40, 5ft 10in tall, medium build, with hair that was short on top and wearing beige trousers to make Yvonne Martin report millions of Paynes to the police.

That doesn't qualify as “near-identical” as far as we know.

Even if in this case both the 2 men described are dressed in dark clothes on their torso – which doesn’t happen to be so in the “near-identical” grizzly v polar bear analogy as one is wearing a cream jacket and the other a dark one – in this case the difference is between one wearing a jacket and the other a polo.

That is a difference of incontrovertible importance. One that makes rules out any possibility of  “near-identical”. 

The human head is a camera. The eyes the lenses and the brain the SD card.
A fucking small one in your case 

It’s permanently registering images. We are not aware we’re doing that all the time but the fact is that we are and this is the reason why we’re able to recollect details (usually very generic) of things we saw but paid no attention to.

When we meet a person, however fleetingly, the first thing we do is to capture an image of him/her.

If that person who we saw for a fleeting moment doesn’t have any relevance whatsoever in our lives then is quickly forgotten. This is not conscious, we do it without we knowing we’re doing it.

Let us give you an example. A man walks into a subway and bumps into a man walking out. Inside the subway and as he is departing our man suddenly realises his wallet has gone. He realises at once it has been stolen and connects that fact with the man he bumped into when entering the carriage.

His brain quickly brings up the “mental photograph” he took of the man even though when the encounter happened he didn’t pay any particular attention to the man. But now he’s able to say to himself “it was that bloke with the blue jacket who I bumped into just now!!”.

One can say the memory was fresh so he could recollect it but the point we are making is to show the memory was there, it was created and could be recollected.

Obviously this “photograph” has no great detail.

It captures instantly (please note the word instantly) generic features such as:

- How the torso is dressed in broad terms, such as if a jacket, shirt, dress or a jersey;

- The hair if it’s out of the norm, such as rasta or a ponytail or if its colour is out of the norm, such as being blond or red. If the hair is normal we will resort to the “normal” dark brown.

- The use of glasses. If none are worn, we don’t notice that fact but if they’re present then it’s something that doesn’t escape the attention;

- Facial hair, beard and/or moustache. Like the glasses, if there it's noticed;
Also bullshit

- Strong colours if present;
Yes, if he is dressed in day-glo pink and sporting a sombrero it might register, otherwise it's unlikely

- Sometimes we may capture if man is wearing trousers or shorts, or trousers or a skirt if a woman.

It doesn’t take a second to capture all of the above. It’s all in an instant. The kind and colour of jacket/shirt/dress, the hair and outstanding characteristics of face.

Not enough to provide any sort of detail for an accurate e-fit but enough to also capture age, height and built if contact lasts one or two seconds. Again in very generic and broad terms.
Serious cobblers, and a clear indication that you have no idea how an e-fit is compiled.

Before someone picks up our words to say that 2 certain e-fits couldn’t have possibly been made please re-read the word “accurate” before the word “e-fit”. But in the specific case of the 2 e-firs in question, 2 people seeing the same person from different angles and in different lighting circumstances will provide 2 different e-fits of that same person. It’s up to experts to determine the common ground between both.

Back to the instant capture of detail, if the face we suddenly meet is known, that recognition is done instantly as the brain matches it with one existing in our internal “database”.

One looks at a person and thinks “I know this person”, one doesn’t look at a person for 2 or 3 seconds and then say “oh, I know this person”.

When one looks at a person for more than a second to see if we know them, what we are asking ourselves is“no matter how much I think, where do I know this person from?”. That first instant was to acknowledge recognition and the rest of the time to struggle with our brain to pair up that face with one from our internal database.

We recognise others instantly, we don’t take time doing it.

So when the police say the man was wearing a dark jacket, no one reasonable can say “that’s near-identical to the man I saw with a dark polo!”
Oh stop talking out of your arse. That doesn't even have any connection with your previous rant about recognition

There is a difference between recognition and observation. You managed to get that much right

A keen birdwatcher will be able to recognise a species in poor light, or from a distance, based on a combination of factors - profile, flight, size, habitat, song......

But if they see a species they do not know they will consciously try to store as much information as possible so as to make the identification later.

But if you walk past someone in the street you may barely register their presence, let alone notice what they are wearing

But that is exactly what Yvonne Martin says, that the man with a jacket is Payne with a polo.
No it isn't

And goes on to say that a man with a jacket is so similar to a man with a polo that it has prompted her to write an anonymous letter to the British police.

How credible is that?
Stop talking bullshit. Her primary reason for writing the letter was because she was suspicious about the McCanns and also wanted the police to check if Payne was known to the authorities

Finally there is a question that must be asked: how many scar-faced paedophiles has Yvonne Martin encountered in her career?
Oh for fucks sake....

Many, it seems. Because she is witnessing a possible one and is saying to herself “no matter how much I think, I don’t know from where I know this scar!”
No, as she stated she believed she may have met him before but couldn't remember the context

They were certainly too many.

Plus, this woman must live surrounded by scar-faced men because she even raises the possibility that scar-faced man could have been one of her colleagues... only she can’t remember.
And is that a crime now - not being able to remember? I'm sure you have probably only the haziest recollection of some of the orderlies who have fastened your restraints over the years

And about this anonymous letter all we know about it is she saying she wrote it. We haven’t seen it (and we should have as we’ll see in later posts) and all we have is her word, which, for us, doesn’t amount to much.
If she sent it to the English police it won't be in the published files, numbnuts

In fact, the fact that she only speaks of it in November makes us doubt very much its existence.
Of course it exists you stupid cow


We have listed above the number of interactions Yvonne Martin had with the authorities:

i – In Luz with a GNR on May 4;
She asked for directions, you dimwit

ii – Anonymous letter to the British police 3 weeks later (she says 2);
She said ''about two", but don't let accuracy impinge upon your weekly brainfart 

iii – Calls PJ, date uncertain but educated guess would say on June 12 or the day before;

iv – Speaks to PJ at her residence, June 12;

v – Speaks PJ at PJ, June 13;
Arising directly from her previous contact

vi – PJ “archives” both of her statements, date uncertain but we would guess soon after June 13;
So that isn't an ''interaction'' is it? She played no part in it. And why would they archive it immediately after taking it?

vii – PJ “unarchives” her statements, date uncertain but we would guess around end of October, beginning of November;
You've no evidence it was archived to begin with, and even if it was, it's nowt to do with her

viii – PJ notifies her come to PJ to give a statement, date uncertain but we would guess on Nov 13 or the the day before;
So a communication from them, not her

ix – Speaks to PJ at PJ, November 14.
At their request

In this post we have dealt only with ii (in blue). The others to be dealt with in future posts. There’s a whole lot more to be said and it’s not good for the paedophile theory believers.

Oh what a load of cobblers

Now, remember when I said ''Remember this" earlier in the diatribe?

Let's have a round up - arsehead's words are in blue

Being a urologist does not qualify one as a “High Power person”. But that’s a topic for another time.
This overlooks that this “High Power” protection indeed exists but is exclusive to “High Power people” and not for anyone who simply asks for a cover-up.
 But one thing is the criminal desiring, or even needing a cover-up, another completely different thing is him getting one.
 No one helps a paedophile out of good-will. Some do help taking into account what the paedophile can offer back. But the paedophile has to offer a very significant something in return for that to be the case.
 So Textusa gives you lots of reasons why a cover up would not happen

But she thinks that none of that applies to swingers intent on covering up their legal shagfest

Rather proves the point, doesn't it?


  1. Thanks! I shudder to think of the sequel. I often retreat to the blissful sanity of Dr. Roberts, right back to 2009 and the early analyses.
    Textusa is a bit like - is it the Red Queen in Alice in Wonderland? or is it Humpty Dumpty who uses words that mean exactly what he wants them to mean.. ..

  2. She reminds me even more of the permanently thick ''Friends'' character, Joey Tribiani, who upon being gifted a thesaurus decided to put every word through it, resulting in a letter referring to his friends being ''big-hearted'' actually reading ''They have enlarged cardiac pumps" and had him signing off as " Baby kangaroo Tribiani''


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