Friday, 16 March 2018


Textusa and Fred captured in happier times, before Fred's surgery

Evening all

Earlier this week, someone asked Textusa what exactly the evidence was of swinging in PdL

Now that I have managed to stop laughing, I thought I would take you through it

Textusa responded with the following links, probably hoping that no-one would read them
Which we screengrabbed and have put in our post “The game continues”
So shall we see what they actually say? It would be rude not to, I think, don't you?

So let's start with the first one

This is supposedly Textusa's strongest evidence for swinging. And what does it consist of? It consist of the fact that the police searched for the term ''swing'' amongst others

Textusa claims that this is evidence of swinging, when of course it is actually evidence of them searching for evidence of swinging and finding none.

"But they did find some!" she will shriek

No they didn't. They found a few occasions where a search for the word ''swing'' returned a hit, but they had nothing to do with swinging.

And just for good measure, although she claims she doesn't know on whose computers this was found, it is quite clear - the computers where these innocent hits were found both belonged to Malinka

If she is employing the "No smoke without fire" approach, ie it must have been happening if they were searching for it, then it should be noted that they searched for far more words which could have been associated with an interest in children. So using her logic, paedophilia must be an element because they looked for it. 

I could go into more detail about her inability to understand the reports, but let's spare her blushes. She's thick, we know that

The rest of that post witters on about airports and phone contacts and is of no relevance

So that's Textusa's strongest evidence of swinging. Nothing.

Never mind, let's try the second one, shall we?

This is the one entitled "Swinging evidence" with a picture of an elephant

Now - this is very interesting. It is interesting because it contains NO evidence of swinging at all

Instead it contains this hypothesis:
Everyone agrees there was a cover up
Only swinging can explain that cover up
Now, I must make it clear here that I am not shitting you - that actually is her evidence

However, what she does do is throw this in:

 The swinging theory explains all but is, according to its detractorsspeculationPure 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…
She then basically states that she has refuted the first three arguments, so forget about them. She hasn't of course, but it is amusing to read.

Of course, that still leaves the fact that there is no evidence
Ah, but there is, she shrieks

Well, what the fuck is it, you wonder?

Brace yourselves, readers. We are about to reveal the evidence of swinging.

The Adult Pool. 

Yes, there was an adult pool. Which they didn't use. 

I can see you're puzzled. I'm not surprised. Apparently, the fact that they didn't use it is something to do with swinging, and nothing to do with the fact that it was fucking freezing. But not to worry, there's more.....

DNA from the kids' room 

According to Textusa, there should have been more, it should have been all over the place. So the room was subjected to "exaggerated cleaning" and was "forensically aseptic"
There is a small problem with this. It's bollocks. For starters, when processing a crime scene, one collects samples associated or potentially associated with the crime. One does not swab the skirting boards hoping to find a stray bogey from a former occupant. There was no evidence of cleaning at all.

Even if there was, what she perceives at a lack of DNA is not evidence of swinging

So, what else?

The semen stain

Okay, I will not waste any time on this - the suspected semen stain turned out to be saliva from a toddler who had previously stayed in the flat. And I'm pretty sure he wasn't a swinger. Next!

The Blonde Man 

There was a man seen leaving through a gate. He was blonde. Assuming he didn't have his cock out or anything, I think it is safe to say that this is not evidence of swinging. Next!

The visit

Specifically, the visit of David Payne to the McCann flat. For 30 seconds. I would be looking for a refund if the only action was 30 seconds worth in front of the kids. So, I am going to stick my neck out and say "no evidence"

By now I can see you are thinking that an empty pool, a blonde geezer and 30 seconds worth of Dr Payne is not compelling evidence. 

However - Textusa boasts that she has listed ''24 other factors" in yet another post, so let's take a peep:

Now - this is confusing, because that post consist of her responding to 33 posts on the CMOMM forum. That's it. But the answer lies in her response to one poster in particular who mentioned that there was no frigging evidence 

So brace yourselves - here at last is her ''evidence'' Her evidence of swinging 

  1. There was a cover up (she claims)
  2. Payne's visit
  3. The reservation sheets are fakes (they're not)
  4. The guests were heterogenous, ie diverse
  5. The only big attraction is the beach
  6. There was a lot of staff
  7. The owners were well-connected politically 
  8. Mrs Fenn was "inconsistent" which implicates her. (She wasn't, and also ewwww)
  9. Mrs Fenn said she saw the McCanns but she would have been unable to see the terrace (bullshit
  10. Mrs Fenn didn't come forward for months (also bullshit)
  11. A photograph taken from Mrs Fenn's apartment (not of swingers)
  12. Her claim that two ex-pats lied about ''pimpleman'' (Also bullshit)
  13. Another guest corroborates the Pimpleman sighting
  14. That a witness saw a white van
  15. That the witness said Pimpleman didn't see him
  16. That some tourist resorts promote swinging events in low season (this one didn't)
  17. That the Ocean Club "wasn't exactly profitable"
  18. That the only thing the groups had in common - guests, staff, ex-pats - was that they were in PdL at the time of the events (This is my personal favourite)
  19. That all those people participated in the cover up
Now - the observant amongst you will have noticed 2 things

Firstly, that is 19, not 24, so the daft bitch can't count either, and secondly nothing on that list is evidence of swinging. At all.

So we are nearly at the end of Textusa's list and so far we have no computer evidence but we do have an empty pool and a blonde geezer, so I think you'll agree, it's compelling stuff

Fortunately, we have one bit of ''evidence'' left

The final nail in the coffin belongs to a lady called Penny, who claimed in a tweet that Mark Warner was a bit of a knocking shop and that she was there at the time.

I am not going to embarrass the lady by going into detail but her entire twitter feed appears to be a series of rather unlikely and tall tales about her life. She interacts with nobody and despite her claims, she does not appear on the guest list at the time the McCanns were there. 

Also, she did not post that tweet until 2016 - years after Textusa came up with her bonkers theory

So there we are - make of that what you will.

The reason why some people fall for Textusa's nonsense is because she lies and obfuscates and people simply cannot be arsed trawling through the interminable shite

Aren't you lucky you've got me?



  1. Yes, nr. 18. It’s a clincher! They were there - all of them. Why didn’t we think of that before? Can somebody construct suitable syllogisms for Textusa? This reminds me of the misconstructed one and states that all mammals are elephants.

    1. I know! In fact, to get the full effect, here are her actual words:

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

      Now, call me a nitpicker, but wouldn't the fact that they had no apparent connection mean that, er well, they had no apparent connection?

      Ah yes - but wait!

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

      Something sexual in nature: a swinging event in the Ocean Club"

      Well, obviously! As soon as she pointed out that Mrs Fenn's veranda was at the wrong angle I said to myself "Well, combine that with the inadequateness of the esplanade and I for one am convinced"

  2. This is the one I was thinking about: now we have to explain the importance of the first premise...

    P1: All elephants are pink.
    P2: Nellie is an elephant.
    C1: Nellie is pink.
    Soundness here is lacking because the first premise, "All elephants are pink", is incorrect. It is important not to confuse validity with soundness.

  3. To add: it’s not funny but downright unethical that there are still people who will do anything to get an audience and promise to reveal great secrets about the disappearance of a sad little girl just 4 years old. For no other reason than to make themselves look important and interesting.

    1. I completely agree.
      The entirety of Textusa's site is an exercise in 'worshiping' her for her supposed insight and fabulous research skills. She is a fantasist and bullshitter and all she is interested in is herself. She seriously thinks she is widely read by the powers that be and that everyone is hanging on her every word.

      I just find her extremely dishonest, above all else

    2. I’m sure the irony of what both of you are waxing on about is not lost on you?
      Laughable hypocrisy.

    3. Evening, my anonymous friend!
      Nope, it's completely lost on me, but I'm all ears, so do tell.

  4. She also believes the body was destroyed, that's something else completely made up by her.

    1. I often wonder whether she essentially writes the story first, then beats everything flat with a hammer to try to make it fit, or the other way round.

  5. Do tell what happened to Maddie McCann all you fuckwit ‘experts’ who have nothing to offer but your self-satisfied and smug put downs and your I’ll thought out fucked up theories (sorry you don’t even have one between you). Not Textusa Assholes - all 3 of you. A collective of vomit.

    1. You're a bit confused, aren't you, dear?
      You demand a theory, then say my theories are fucked up, then say that actually I don't have one.

      Let me explain something to you and your dingbat friends:
      You are a fucking idiot. I wouldn't share a theory with you under any circumstances.

      Oh - and there's just me. I know you Americans find that difficult to get your heads round, but that's because you are mostly incapable of walking and chewing gum at the same time.

      Got that?
      Now fuck off.

    2. You confirm my point. You ‘wouldn’t share anything’ because that would go against your simpleton’s agenda which is to search out and destroy. You really are a repugnant individual. Rest easy with it. Your day will come.

    3. "Your day will come" threatens the big, brave anonymous.

      Go fuck yourself dear. Then get back on the horse you rode in on, and fuck off.

    4. It’s not a threat. But you’re too dense to understand the inevitable.

    5. "You're too dense" is the accusation from someone who is taken for a ride by Textusa. The irony is strong in this one

    6. You’re such a narcissist you’d hardly know what irony is - and your new blog attacking Carla’s tweets from Twitter (although you have no presence there you say) is laughable. The usual repugnant, shit-filled nonsense only you can muster.

    7. It is such a tragedy that you cannot see how many fingers I am holding up.

  6. Okay, Chuckles.

    Take your pornographic fantasies elsewhere, you weirdo. The rest goes in the bin


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