Saturday, 21 April 2018

More comebacks than Voldemort

Well, as I suspected, she couldn't keep her trap shut for long. Textusa has posted again, although to maintain the appearance of having retired, she has posted it as a comment on her own post, rather than a freestanding post per se. 

As the current post has reached the 200 comments, we have started a new post just for new comments, and have kicked it off with this one:
So in other words, you have posted again. We get it 
Textusa21 Apr 2018, 10:56:00
We usually get our help from Insane.
You really don't. Trust me. 
This time we got it from the Meerkat.
Of course you did. 
We encourage both to continue as not only on occasion they drop a useful gem from time to time, as the more they say they dislike the more they direct sensible and reasonable people in our direction.
We direct so many people in your direction that you shut the place down. Yes, I see how that works 
The more the naysayer’s say about us the more people want to read what we say.
And what a help Meerkat’s comment was this time!
So much so that it may have made us change our minds about the scenario at the moment when Maddie died by accident on May 3 2007.
It doesn't take much, does it? 
We maintain the physics of our prior scenario: as the result of the escalation of a heated argument an adult pushed by another adult fell on Maddie standing on the couch this projected her against the side-wall and breaking her neck. The distance of projection was too great to be justified by a domestic accident of Maddie falling off the couch.
This is the one you changed from someone delivering a back-hander to the child to shut her up when you were informed that it wouldn't be 'accidental death' 
What Meerkat has done was to make us change the reason why we think David Payne was in the apartment.
Of course he has 
Meerkat has made us see that it was much more directly related with the VIP swinging than we had initially presumed.
Oh really? Do tell..... 
The help came in a form of a tweet:
“aleksandr orlov‏ @2for1Tickets
Replying to @xxMichelleSxx
I'd once likened coitus with K as like having it off with a folded deckchair! Nooo! But swinging is so trivial since forever! In the scheme of things it's like photocopying one's bottom at the office party. I knew you had a tribe in there as I saw you sneaking tapas into it...
4:20 am - 13 Apr 2018”
Why is Meerkat putting down Kate McCann’s physical appearance?
He isn't 
Most people don’t like her and we would even say that the remainder left out of the ‘most’ loathe her. 
But this dislike or loathing is because of her personality, her public demeanour on all those occasions we have been forced to watch knowing she knows exactly what happened to her dead daughter and continues to pretend and portray that ridiculous role of the mother of a missing child. Missing isn’t untrue, it only becomes that when we know that they want us to believe that it means abduction.
We all know she wasn’t and we all know she knows. That is why she’s not liked/loathed.
If you say so 
If one abstains from that, if one can, it cannot be said that Kate McCann is a physically unattractive woman. On the contrary, on May 2007 she was a very attractive woman. And even though she has aged more rapidly than would be expected for evident reasons, we would say she remains to be, we repeat, physically an attractive woman.
He didn't actually make any comment on her attractiveness or lack of it. He commented on her physicality and from an entirely personal perspective. Some people don't like that bony, sinewy thing she has going on.  
So why is Meerkat putting her looks down? Why was Meerkat making the contrary of the obvious as if it was obvious?
He wasn't. 
One only does that if one wants to hide the obvious because that obvious is a liability. The obvious being Kate McCann being a physically desirable woman.
And he is the thing. There is a difference between attractiveness and desireability. Many people might concede that her features are reasonably attractive whilst finding absolutely nothing about her remotely desirable.  
Meerkat, by putting down Kate’s possible sexual attractiveness was just doing his best to make people feel have in the back of their mind that she was physically undesirable.
Again, beauty and sexual attractiveness are not the same thing. Nor do they mean the same thing to each person, which is just as well, otherwise some people would simply never get any. For example, let's take your good self. You may be a stunningly beautiful person, for all I know, but you would never be remotely desirable on account of having the personality of an utter shitgibbon. Do you see my point? 
Doing that told us that the fact that Kate McCann was indeed desirable was a perception people shouldn't have because it would be inconvenient for the truth. But, physically, we don't think that it's even arguable that in 2007 she was a desirable woman.
In your opinion; an opinion not shared by others 
So, this what we propose happened.
Why - because the tweeter in question would rather hump a dogleg table than shag Kate McCann? 
Note, all speculation a possibility that we leave for readers to consider. Only Kate McCann and David Payne can say what happened and why.
Even though you have been telling people for years 'what happened' and forgetting to mention that it's just your fuckwitted theory. 
We now say that David Payne was not there for sex for himself. He went into that apartment to speak to Kate to concerning arrangements for the swinging that was to take place that night.
uh huh 
Kate was an attractive woman who had been that week, shall we say, popular in the swinging parties and some VIP may have requested to David for her presence that night.
Which VIP would that be? Can we have a list of all these VIPs who were staying at the Ocean Club? 
David enters to inform Kate that her presence is required at VIP XXXX’s ‘little party’ at villa ‘RFGDR’ that night, tells her that he has informed XXXX that she would be there.
But Kate may have had other plans, for example, she had been requested to attend another event, with VIP YYYY at villa ‘OKJLU’, which she had already agreed to attend.
The argument started about which party she should attend. Neither wanting to lose face could agree to lose face to their ‘respective’ VIP.
Er, you do realise that your theory was supposed to be 'Swinging'. Not "Pimp out my mate's wives"? 
We would say that the argument went around which party she had to attend, which one brought more serious consequences by refusing. She probably stood her ground and David was not pleased. The argument escalated rapidly and the accident happened.
This is all gripping stuff, isn't it, readers? 😅 
To those saying that this may not be reason enough for someone to get angry and to lash out at someone or push them, arguments between civilised people are never planned to involve any sort of violence – pushing is a violent act – but when things escalate rapidly people do things they regret and we don’t know the importance were the reasons each of them felt for not standing down in the argument.
You know, I can't see anyone pushing Kate McCann and living to tell the tale. We all know what she can do to a bed that displeases 
Note, that in this scenario, things are even more connected to the VIP swinging than we have proposed up to here, in which David just wanted some and Kate turns him down.
Remind us who those VIPs are again? 
As there was no way to explain how Maddie could have died because of a domestic accident and they were FULLY AWARE that David’s presence there was indeed related with the VIP swinging event that was going on Luz and VIPs XXXX and YYYY in particular.
Ah - so a small Portuguese fishing village is now the international hotbed (literally) of jetset swinging? Who would have thunk it? 
That mindset made them and everyone else conscious of the need for a story to protect the reputation of the VIPs present.
Just remind me how the VIPs would have been damaged by the consequences of a scrap between two middle-ranking Leicestershire doctors? 
Note, in this proposed scenario, the children’s presence is irrelevant. They could be in the apartment or not. David could have known or not that they were there and most likely he didn’t lose a moment thinking about the children.
What was to be discussed – which party was to be attended – could be perfectly well discussed in the presence of the children.
Au naturellement! 
The fictitious tennis court talk between Gerry and David was needed as we explained in the post: Gerry’s permission for David to be in that apartment was needed.
Was it? Was it really?
Gerry, most likely was far away from the apartment and certainly not at the tennis courts.
Except he was, and there are witnesses 
Thank you, Meerkat. Good job. Please continue.
On our part, as promised, we continue to intervene in the case.

Well, I wish you would make your mind up. Have you retired or have you not? 


  1. It's all based on fantasy with Textusa, VIP swinging my you know what. Imagine the logistics of swinging in those small apartments with small kids in the mix, it just makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

    1. She's away with the mixer. She is desperate, literally desperate, for them to have been swingers. God knows why
      She has repeatedly changed the details every time she faces a challenge. She used to claim that Maddie was the victim of a backhander from Payne when she interrupted him playing hide the sausage with Kate. She described it as ''an accident''. Then I pointed out that delivering a lethal blow to a three year old is not ''an accident'' so she changed it. Now it seems to have completely escaped her that there would be no reason to cover up a genuine accident. It also seems to have completely escaped her that the way to cover up a legal activity like swinging is not to claim that a child abduction has taken place, thus bringing half the country's police and all the world's press to the door.
      The basic problem is that not only is there no evidence of swinging, there is also plenty of evidence that the last thing happening was swinging. But she is very very stupid, so she hasn't twigged that yet

  2. This comment was unpublished by Textusa and was in response to her comments about the British

    "Are you out of your tiny mind?

    This is not the days of the Raj, you know? You are not British, clearly. Could you keep your xenophobic, racist comments to a minimum, please?

    The investigation was huge because the case of a supposedly abducted child is always huge in any civilised country, as the recent case of Gabriel Cruz in Spain illustrated"

    Happy to publish any other comments she rejects

  3. "Meerkat has made us see that it was much more directly related with the VIP swinging than we had initially presumed."

    What? By me saying it has sod all to do with swinging? Repeatedly. Since forever.
    I hope you kept a receipt for that brain you three share, TeXTusa.

    aleksandr orlov

    1. Barking mad. Literally, barking mad.

      I now expect a post saying I was dissing the dogs.

  4. Nottextusa I laughed out loud at your last comment, I confess I used to read textusa but it was actually her insistence with trying to prove a point about the dogs textusa versus nottextusa and also the insistence that you were walker which made me have a gander at your blog. When the truth is revealed IMO we will all be shocked but not because of any outlandish theory.

    1. I think that actually marked her descent into total madness, the Walker thing, she was all over the place. I never really figured out what happened to start all that - I wasn't even posting here at the time. Still, it is pointless trying to figure out the actions of a crazy person :)

  5. Barking mad? I'm still laughing, despite man's ingenuity and advances in technology and rocket science, that we've yet to engineer a table that can withstand 9 place mats and a karaff of New Zealand white.
    One breakthrough, mind; I think the dormant organ inside one TeXTUsa's head has finally realised we are not one person derived from a quartet of naysayers, but disparate entities who find all 3 sisters as thick as a stone trough. Much like the rest of the planet.
    That said, those dogs you were dissing... oh wait. You haven't been. Like that would make any odds lol!

    aleksandr orlov

    1. The readiness with which her followers agreed that it just wasn't possible to seat 9 at a table was what really made me laugh - have none of them ever been to a wedding?! And the theories - that maybe they rolled a table down the hill from the other restaurant, or, my favourite, that they borrowed one from a private home in PdL :) :)
      Bonkers, completely bonkers

  6. Rolled a table down the hill? LMFAO!! Were the 3 of them sat at it at the time and it hit every branch of every idiot tree as it careered menacingly towards the Tapas bar?
    [KNOCK on door:]
    "Yes, sorry to disturb you but can we have your big table?"
    "Are you the bailiffs?"
    "No Madam. I'm head waiter at the Ocean Club Tapas Restaurant and we're a table short of a full compliment"
    "I should say. Now bugger off!"

    aleksandr orlov

    1. Seriously, that was the suggestion, that they had borrowed one from a private house. Complete lunacy.

      Truly, though, the best bit is where she convinces the drones that the footage of Martin Brunt sitting at the Big Fucking Table was ''digitally remastered'' (she doesn't know what it means) by Sky News, who are obviously part of the conspiracy, and that he was actually sitting at a small table the whole time. Truly desperate stuff

  7. If it were anyone else you would not believe it, would you? Did they think it was like a Jubilee Celebration and all the street dragged their tables out for a bun fight?
    Oh yes, digitally remastered! LMFAO! Hey Textsisses, reMASTERED, not reINVENTED, you clowns.
    Suddenly resolution enhancement creates an alternative past wherein a rather prosaic 4 seater table becomes a castle hall filling full-on Henry the 8th banquet leviathan groaning under the combined weight of a cornucopia of a Roman Orgy smorgasbord and polonium 210 place mats.
    And upside down illuminated pineapples and pampas grass...

    aleksandr orlov

    1. Seriously, there have been times I have read a comment and thought "This person is taking the piss" only to discover that they are perfectly serious. I shall have to dig out one of the best for you, this one will go to my grave with me. They were discussing the proposed reconstruction and one of the drones pops up saying that all the customers of the Tapas bar must be there, and the staff must prepare exactly the same food they had that night, and put it into take-out containers using exactly the same tongs, all while clutching a copy of their statement in one hand. And it was really a case of "Why?!!! What possible reason would you have for insisting that exactly the same spatulas were used to flip burgers?" She was totally deranged

    2. Bit paradoxical isn't it? The TextUsa blog supposedly an honest and factual appraisal and of empirical provenance and yours a spoof - when the reverse is true.
      It should have its own TV sitcom series.
      Now to be fair, that's some detail to go into with a reconstruction. Would every participant have to have their same bladder levels and recount every word they uttered verbatim down to the last curse of being hit by hot fat from the afore mentioned burgers?
      I think Rampton has three reserved cells awaiting habitation...

      aleksandr orlov

    3. One of my favourite moments was when someone asked her if she had sent her theories to the BBC, and she replied that there was no need, as she was sure the BBC checked the blog themselves.

      Hashtag lunatic.

  8. Do you have a theory yourself of what happened to Madeleine McCann, NotTextusa?

  9. Do you have a link to a blog post about it then or something?


    Andrew. (Andy Fish)

    1. Only an old one which is somewhat out of date. I can give you a quick precis?

      I think Madeleine is dead and has been dead since 3rd May 2007. I think suggestions that she died earlier in the week are nonsense. I don't believe that there is any evidence of abduction and it is the equivalent of a 'diagnosis of exclusion' in medical terms, ie all you are left with when you have ruled out everything else. I think that people forget that with one or two exceptions any evidence given directly to the UK police and not under letters of request is a complete mystery, but we can assume that none of it is conclusive or sufficient to bring charges. I think Kate McCann's version of her suspicions that the twins had been drugged, the testimony of other witnesses and the failure to seek urgent assessment for them is medically and logically inexplicable. I do not think there was any storage of a body that night or any movement at a later date by car or any other means. I think any disposal was simple and expedient. I think Kate McCann's book reveals a great deal about her state of mind and serves as an attempt to address outstanding issues, failing miserably. I think the only way the case will be solved is if someone talks or if remains are found. I think both are unlikely. I think many people get to caught up in the minutiae and fail to see the bigger picture.

      And of course it goes without saying that I think Textusa's swinging theory is utter bollocks.

  10. I go with something happening suddenly on the 3rd, honestly I don't know what transpired that evening I think events probably snowballed out of control.

    I was disappointed when I read Kate's book as it felt empty it wasn't a book about Madeleine but a book to explain actions and decisions. I'm convinced there will be justice one day. My hope is that science has advanced enough in the last 10/11 years to either look at new evidence or old evidence, OG have been very quiet.

    1. That is possible, but I think unlikely. None of the DNA evidence is likely to be of any help, despite improved techniques and there was very little in terms of trace evidence. The one thing which I think could be of value is analysis of the hair taken from the twins for testing privately, or the strands recovered from the apartment, to look for the presence of drug metabolites, but that would be dependent upon samples still existing, or existing in sufficient quantity to make testing viable. I am not holding out any hope, tbh

  11. Thanks. Interesting & I agree, although I do believe M was 'moved' though myself & in the hire car!

    I also now think Textusa talks bollox, but some is good, most is garbage & they evidently make it up as they go along most of the time!


    1. I think her biggest fault is her complete inability to admit when she has made a mistake. She claims that she always admits it and corrects herself - that is a huge lie. Instead, she will adjust her story to try to make it fit into whatever shape hole exists and failing that she abuses the bearer of bad news and batters away with a verbal mallet until everyone forgets what the problem was. She will never admit to being wrong - my guess is she'd be completely impervious to torture and probably missed her vocation as a Cold War era spy

  12. I would like your opinion on the following NT -please. Regarding the widespread “case belief” that death must have occurred at least 90 minutes for the organic volatile compounds to be released / detectable.

    I was under the impression that several VOC’s were released sooner PM and not all at the same stages of decomposition and that the dogs ID either several, one or all of the compounds in a non exclusive manner and that the reason for the carpet squares study statement of establishing the circa 120 minutes PM is that this timeframe is established since the study tested individuals deceased within these timeframes (110 and 120) and not sooner (which is understandable due to necessary logistics and maybe also ethics) .

    Is there any other study that conducted the same experiment with a shorter PM ? I would like to read your thoughts on this. Thanks NT

    1. Good question - if there is, I haven't been able to locate it. That's not to say there isn't, it's always possible that I haven't hit on the key words.

      The carpet squares study did not set out to determine the minimum post mortem interval to elicit a cadaver dog response; the authors specifically stated that the question wasn't answered in their study, but this has led to a common misquote and misunderstanding.

      This is what they actually reported:

      "The most
      interesting question of all remains: that of how long must an
      individual be dead for his/her scent to be detectable by a
      trained cadaver dog? Answering this pertinent question was not
      part of our investigation, but we can point out that a postmortem
      interval of 2 h seems to be a safely recognizable interval for the
      detection of deceased tissue by trained cadaver dogs."

      What that means is that, given a PMI of 2 hours, the results indicate that trained dogs will alert with a very high degree of accuracy - but what is not known is how much less than 2 hours is the minimum period required to produce similarly reliable results.

      To use an analogy, imagine I toasted some bread, put it on a plate and asked you to confirm that it was hot to the touch. You confirm this, then I ask you to leave the room and come back in 3 hours. When you come back, I ask you to feel the bread and tell me if it is cold. It is.

      Do we therefore conclude that it took 3 hours to cool down? No.

      What we would have to do is toast the bread, then ask you to touch the bread every five minutes and note the time where the bread felt cold. That would determine the time taken for the bread to go from hot to cold. All the first experiment tells us is that it was 3 hours OR LESS.

      It's exactly the same with this study. We know that trained cadaver dogs can detect residual death scent with a high degree of accuracy where the PMI is 2 hours OR LESS.

      The unknown factor is the "OR LESS" part.

      It would actually be a very simple study to design. All that would be required is to expose carpet squares in the same way, but from the moment of death and then every 15 minutes, then allow the dogs to search the jars as before.

      In terms of how much less it could be, that would be speculative, but we do know studies have shown it to be considerably less in certain insects, and they too rely upon scent to locate the cadaver. That would indicate that the early biochemical changes are detectable by those species, so must, logically, be capable of detection in the air, presumably within the scent 'cone' which forms after death.

      I hope that helps.

    2. Actually, I want to amend one thing - where I have put "or less", change that to "or a period of time less than", then it makes sense. How I have written it could be misinterpreted. Sorry about that.

    3. Thank you for taking the time to reply NT. The explanation did help. I will try to look up the insect studies and read them. Thank you again.

    4. No trouble at all, you're welcome

  13. Dear Not Textusa, I like your version and I think there is a lot of sense in it. Of course, some moments need further explanation. But it bothers me the following thing. Textusa may be wrong in some things but she tries to investigate the case honestly. Why did not you do the same? Why are you mocking the Textusa instead of posting your own analyzes and helping solve the case?

    1. I do not believe that Textusa tries to "investigate" the case honestly at all; in fact, quite the opposite. I believe she uses the blog to roll out her own ideas which are not supported by any evidence at all. In particular, I dislike the way she attacks anyone who does not agree with her and the fact that when presented with incontrovertible evidence that she is wrong she does not amend her posts at all, she merely assumes a more entrenched position.
      I have been posting my analysis for years. Textusa withholds most of it. I have also posted elsewhere so many people are familiar with my opinions.

      It is naive of anyone to think they can 'solve the case'. That's the police's job, not ours, and certainly not Textusa's

    2. Okay, I do not ask to jab, I want to get to know your analyzes. Where can I find them, can you guide me? The most important of them. I'm new in this case, I have not followed it over the years.

    3. Unfortunately, the place where I posted has now gone. I can answer questions and I have some analysis of the forensics which I can dig out.Is there anything you particularly want to know?

  14. Because .....She is begging for it!!!!


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