Sunday, 29 April 2018

Answer the questions

Morning all

Just moving these here instead of the comments section so that Textusa can't claim she hasn't seen them

  • From Idiot Textusa

    "The Smithman zig-zagging is FROM the witnesses as per photographs that are in the PJ Files, showing clearly the 3 separate locations where Peter Smith, Martin Smith and AS say they see Smithman.

    About Smithman having stopped, it’s Gemma O’Doherty who says Martin Smith told her that. Could you please say who you are calling a liar? Is it O’Doherty or is it Smith?"

    Absolute nonsense. The three points are all in a short stretch of the same street and the Smiths clearly describe him as walking in the middle of the street.

    The Gemma O'Doherty article makes no mention of Martin Smith describing the man as stopping, nor do any of the statements, quite the opposite in fact.

    So the liar is Textusa
  • From Idiot Textusa again

    "He then says something that even though he denies it, we maintain what we have said. He says “At no point did I say I “linked with ex-pats”, nor do I have any contact with such. Nor do I have any links with PdL”

    In #2, there’s evidently a typo. It should read “He says he has links with ex pats in PDL” instead of “He says he links with ex pats in PDL”

    How else could he possibly say “but I learned recently, and I can't reveal the source on this, that Grange has been interviewing people with no connection with the case other than they happened to be in PdL at the time, as ex-pats” if he doesn’t have links with the mentioned British ex-immigrants?

    Does he have sources inside Operation Grange?

    He doesn’t correct us on the WOM accusation we made."

    No, I don't have sources inside Grange.

    No, I don't have links to an ex-pats, so you can ''maintain'' away to your heart's content.

    My source is my business, not yours, so fuck off.

    Your ''waste of money'' account wasn't worthy of an answer. Nor does it even make sense, given that no-one is paying me.
  • In particular, she has been peddling these lies about Smithman and the Smith family for years. So I am going to say it again - there was no zig-zagging, there was no 'stopping'.

    She even had the nerve to blame it on Gemma O'Doherty, when Textusa made the claim in 2013, in this passage of bullshit:
    I have now passed Smith 1 by 18 m (20 yds or 0.8 tennis courts), am at Smith 2, heading towards Smith 3.

    Here I do the most amazing thing for someone with a dead body avoiding contact: I stop!!

    Sky News, April 07 2008:

    Martin Smith, from Drogheda in Co Louth, was on holiday in Praia Da Luz with his family when they bumped into the man just before 10pm on May 3 last year. The Smith family's suspicions were aroused because the man made no response when they asked if the barefoot child was asleep. "He just put his head down and averted his eyes, which is very unusual in a tourist town at such a quiet time of the year," said Mr Smith.”

    stopped long enough and with near enough proximity to be asked by a total stranger if the dead bodyof the child I'm holding was asleep. Isn't that just absurdly surreal?

    Absolute bollocks. No mention by anyone of him stopping. She's a liar.  


    A reply from Idiot Textusa

    The photos on these pages show unequivocally that none of the 3 locations pointed by the Smiths are in the middle of the street. All 3 are on the sidewalks. 
    The three locations are of the witnesses, not of Smithman, and are clearly labelled as such. In fact, Martin Smith actually said he was in the middle of the road, as was Smithman. Peter Smith also described Smithman as being in the middle of the road, so your claims are bollocks

    Uniting these 3 points, one does not obtain a straight line.
    As pointed out, these are the locations of the witnesses, not Smithman, fuckwit 

    Martin Smith says “States also that when he passed this individual he was coming down the middle of the road, in the street, also that at that time traffic is minimal or non-existent.”
    You appear to have deliberately omitted the next line, where he says :

    '' The witness was also walking in the same place." 

    ie, the middle of the street. It is these deliberate omissions which prove that you lie to your readers

    Peter Smith says “States further that when he passed the individual, the individual was coming down to his right, going around the deponent in the middle of the street. At that time the traffic was minimal or non-existent.”
    Peter was on the left pavement. Smithman, as he states, passed him on the right, in the middle of the street

    It is also perfectly evident in the photos to which you refer that there is no indication that Smithman 'zig-zagged' 

    To go from the right side of the street one has to pass the middle of the road. It’s in the middle of the road that Martin Smith sees Smithman first. That doesn’t mean he was walking in a straight line down the middle of the road but that he was passing the middle of the road when crossing it.
    Read my previous comment. 

    As you seem to be a little slow, let us explain what happened as one would explain to a 4 yr old.
    Really, Maria? Just grow up 

    Once upon a time, this man called Smithman was coming down on this street when a nice family was walking up it.

    Walking in front of this family was Peter. Peter sees Smithman coming towards him walking on the sidewalk on his right and this is why he says “the individual was coming down to his right”.
    No, Peter did not say anything of the kind. This is what Peter said

    "At the beginning of this road, he saw an individual carrying a child. This individual was walking normally although with somewhat quick steps as he was walking downwards. He appeared normal to the witness, as if this were father and daughter. He adds that this individual was coming down the street, in an opposite direction to that of the witness and his companions."

    Nothing at all about seeing Smithman on the sidewalk on his right. You have simply made that up

    Peter Smith later told the nice police officers where Smithman was when he crossed with him and the police even made a nice drawing on a photo they took of the street, and the drawing showed an arrow with a “P” pointing to the place on the sidewalk on the right side of the street. On the sidewalk, not on the middle of the street.
    Ah, clearly you don't. The arrow indicated Peter's position, with Smithman passing him on the right, in the middle of the street, as he describes

    After crossing with Peter, Smithman decides to cross the street, and so goes around Peter and crosses it to the other side and that’s why Peter says “going around the deponent in the middle of the street”. The deponent a word that the nice police used for reasons you will understand when you grow up but means Peter. What Peter is saying is that Smithman goes around him into the middle of the street when he crosses it.
    Nonsense. Peter does not describe him crossing to the other side of the street, you are simply making that up

    In fact, the files actually say :

    "He also says that when he passed the individual, the individual was descending to his right, and walked past the witness in the middle of the street, given that at that time the traffic was minimal or non-existent."

    Behind Peter was walking Peter’s dad, Martin. When Smithman is crossing the street is when dad Martin first sees Smithman, who is in the middle of the street crossing after going around Peter and that’s why Martin says “he was coming down the middle of the road, in the street”
    So Peter has him in the middle of the road, and so, a few yards away, does Martin. No mention whatsoever of his changing sides or zig-zagging, just walking normally in the middle of the street. 

    Martin Smith later told the nice police officers where Smithman was when he crossed with him and the police even made a nice drawing on a photo they took of the street, and the drawing showed an arrow with a “P” pointing to the place on the sidewalk on the left side of the street. On the sidewalk, not on the middle of the street.
    Actually, it shows an M, and in his statement he says he was walking in the middle of the street, same as Smithman 

    Hope you now understand the meaning of “middle of the street” when both Peter and Martin Smith used it.

    About the photos and the 3 locations, please do ask a grown-up to show you what an arrow represents.
    We shall ignore your childish nonsense and reiterate that both men described Smithman as walking in the middle of the street, having passed Peter by Peter's right, and AT NO POINT does anyone mention him stopping, which was the other lie you have conveniently forgotten to address.

    You are a liar and a bullshitter, Maria. You have been spinning this tale for 5 years and it is absolute cobblers  

    So come on - are you going to retract this ridiculous claim of Smithman zig-zagging, and the even more ridiculous claim that he stopped, which it seems you now want to pretend you never said? 


    The idiot Textusa has posted a long reply, about whether Mary Smith spoke to Smithman or not, which frankly is immaterial. The claim Textusa made back in 2013, and has been making ever since, is that the man stopped.

    This is what she is now saying:

    Finally, to be clear, making a comment towards a total stranger and EXPECTING a response indicates that the man has stopped. 
    This is complete bollocks. Regardless of whether Mary Smith spoke to him or not, there is no indication whatsoever that he had stopped or that he stopped at any point. She's just a liar, simple as.  Frankly, it is insulting her readers to expect them to swallow this nonsense.


    1. She does come across as being very immature and a bit naive.

      1. Indeed she does.
        This business about Smithman is becoming ridiculous. The witness accounts are perfectly clear - he was going down the road, they were coming up the road. He walked in the middle of the road, didn't stop, didn't speak and they thought no more of it at the time. Why she is determined to turn it into something else is beyond me.

    2. For the same reason that she claimed you were talking about Portugal when you described Grange officers - who obviously only interview in the UK - talking to ex-pats who were in PDL in May 2007. From which she built an incredible Staircase to Havern of false inferences about your behaviour.

      I am not being abusive when I say that, exactly like Bennett, she cannot actually read. Like him she is able to go through the motions of reading perfectly well; like him, when she says a sign saying "Platform One straight ahead" she understands it. And both can converse verbally with others.

      But when a factual and explanatory text on a subject that interests them is placed before them, something goes wrong,as psychological testing would prove within twenty minutes. They are both quite quick to read and grasp the basics of an argument - too quick, much too quick:in contrast to most "normal" readers of their educational and cultural background, their brains establish the message of the sentences before the words have actually been understood.

      That is why I don't believe either of them set out to deceive. The problems come when people pick holes in their blatant misreading of the authors' intentions and at that point both of them cross the line into outright lies, literally hundreds and hundreds of them, as your post above demonstrates.

      Once that line is crossed we are in serious psychiatric territory and, as with other subjects where the deeper you go the rottener it gets, I have no wish to discover more. How they reconcile the utter dishonesty into which they have wandered with their own self-image, how they function, given their disability, with people intimately close to them and just what they make of the nexus of love and its ramifications, I haven't the faintest idea: if their partners understandably left them a suicide note, for example, they'd misread that too and ring the f******g fire brigade instead of an ambulance. Bennett, certainly, has misread Tugendhat's High Court judgement about him in exactly the same way, as anyone can confirm for themselves - not a good idea if you want to learn from experience.

      There is nothing to be done with such people, literally nothing.

      1. Evening JB and many thanks for your contribution, with which I wholeheartedly agree. I hadn't thought of it in those terms, but you are absolutely right. Despite her pretentiousness and fantasy world in which her every word is clung onto desperately by the BBC, the UK Government, the Vatican and FIFA, she's just a two-bit blogger whose only lasting contribution to the case is the preposterous notion that the Tapas 9 were swinging like theme-park chimps and dining around a non-existent table.
        Had she been in the UK and trotted out this garbage in a similar format to Baldylocks, or stuck her nose into people's real lives, she would no doubt be spending her days busking in an attempt to make her payments to Grabbit & Sue.

        One aspect which I find absolutely fascinating is her inability to see that she is a conspiraloon. She goes nuts - well, even more nuts - if it is suggested, yet her every post is like a ''How to'' guide to conspiralunacy.

        One other similarity is how fragile both their arguments are. They have both built rather similar houses of cards.

        Take Bennett's, for example.

        The old fool can declaim his version as loudly as he likes, but he crashes head-first into the brick wall which is the possession by the authorities of photographs of Madeleine taken after the date of her mythical demise. That's it, end of nonsense theory.

        Same for Textusa, except all it requires in her case is a fucking table.


      2. What irony. This from someone who talks in riddles, nudging his way through his 'empty cupboard' and comes out with nothing but a wink-wink say-no-more. Suddenly one 'mis-reading' becomes hundreds of lies!? Blacksmith, you've found your spiritual home.

      3. Such cynicism in one so young

    3. Anon (of course, what else?) 23.03

      I won't hog NT's space by arguing with you: I gave that up on the net many years ago. I refer you - or rather others since you won't change your mind - to the paragraph which NT originally wrote. These are the facts:

      1) For whatever reason you wish to insert, Textusa read something that was not in NT's post. She didn't "misinterpret" it because NT's statement was quite unambiguous: he was talking about Grange officers and said nothing about them questioning people in Portugal. It came from her head, not NT's.

      2) She then treated that misreading as a fact and proceeded to deduce from that untrue belief a number of inferences, which were listed. They were all completely untrue and, again, they all came from her own head, not from anything NT wrote.

      She now has to either accept what she did and apologize to her readers or lie and bluff and ignore her way out of it. Guess which is happening?

      It is a basic rule of inference that a statement without supporting evidence of truth, such as textusa's claim in her paragraph, can never, ever, lead to truthful, i.e. correct, conclusions but only further away from the truth into the jungle of deception by your own imagination.

      I have never seen a better example of this than textusa's paragraph. It should be in university text books.

      You may have the last word; I won't be saying anymore to you.


    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