Thursday, 26 April 2018

She lies with as many teeth as are in her head

Evening all.

Just a short one tonight

Textusa, far from having retired for an early bath, seems determined to flap her gums at Tsunami speed

It was all getting too much for Textusa - Matron went to fetch the ketamine and the bite-proof restraints 

On April 7 2018, so not that long ago, in a post called “Conspiraloons”, Insane published the following on his blog:

“I promised you an article about the above phenomenon
This is taken from the Urban 75 boards, because it is the best description I have ever seen. Many thanks to them
Link to article is here”

The “here” is

From this article, he quotes the following:

Conspiracy theorists
AKA 'conspiraloons', 'tinfoil hatters', 'loonspuds', 'fruit'n'nut jobs' etc.
Updated 29th April 2009.
4. Fondness for certain stock phrases. These include Cicero's "cui bono?" (of which it can be said that Cicero understood the importance of having evidence to back it up) and Conan Doyle's "once we have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however unlikely, must be the truth". What these phrases have in common is that they are attempts to absolve themselves from any responsibility to produce positive, hard evidence themselves: you simply "eliminate the impossible" (i.e. say the official account can't stand scrutiny) which means that the wild allegation of your choice, based on "cui bono?" (which is always the government) is therefore the truth.”
Yep, I did 

So, it is quite interesting to see Insane say in his precis “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.”

Note, we are not against the use of the phrase “once we have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however unlikely, must be the truth”, Insane is. For him to use it is to be a shameless hypocrite.
Sigh. Try to understand, idiot. I said it is precisely the kind of conclusion referred to as a 'diagnosis of exclusion'

I didn't say it was right. I know you're dim, but do try to keep up. 

He says “I think Madeleine is dead and has been dead since 3rd May 2007”. We would like to know on what he basis this statement.
I'm sure you would. 
Again, what it is at question here is not what each one of us thinks but what this particular individual says he does.
Really? I don't see that it's actually anyone's business. But regardless of that it's fairly simple

She was three
She could not have survived alone
There has been no confirmed sighting since
The balance of possibilities suggests she is probably dead. Most children who disappear are either found quickly or never seen alive again. 

He has only given indeed a summary, however from former “participations” we know of things in which he believes in about the case:
No you don't. 

- He doesn’t believe there was blood,
There was no blood confirmed in the flat 
much less Maddie’s in the apartment. He says dogs are reliable but refuses to say what Keela signalled inside that apartment
Keela is trained to alert to the smell of blood. Blood does not need to be present to trigger an alert. 
(while on Keela, a dog he states do be reliable, he also doesn’t explain what was that she signalled in the Renault Scenic)
Blood was confirmed on the key card 

- He says, as a scientist he claims to be that the cadaver scent detected by Eddie in the backyard is from a medieval graveyard.
No, that is not what I said. Do feel free to produce the quote if you are going to continue to make that false claim, otherwise remove it 

- He says that the cadaver scent produced by a decomposing body does not come from any substance the body produces while decomposing but is simply a gas released by it
Science isn't your strong point, is it? I suggest you go and get an education, then have another try.  
and that it could have well wafted into the apartment
No, I never suggested that. Again, either produce the quote or remove the claim 
and accumulated in the 2 areas signalled and was detected 3 months after by Eddie even though the apartment was rented more than once and often cleaned.
Are you suggesting the dogs didn't alert? 
On the subject of cadaver scent, he justifies its detection by Eddie on the Scenic and McCann belongings due to secondary contamination.
Yes, as illustrated in the carpet squares study 
A gas that wafts and then clings selectively to the McCanns.
There is no ''selectively" about it. Clearly, after all this time, you still don't understand how the dogs work and how cadaver odour can remain at a crime scene

- He finds perfectly natural, justifiable and without any discrepancies Payne’s visit to the apartment.
Find the quote.  

So, if no blood, no proof cadaver scent was from Maddie, no strange event reported during that day, where does his certainty that Maddie is dead and on the 3rd come from?
See my previous answer.

While we are at it, let's deal with this

 About Insane’s presence in the blog, 95% of the time it’s his doing.
You mention me in every post 

We can tell you that we have 1,000 unpublished comments, most of which are from him (and 99% of which under “Anonymous”).

Then they are not from me It does explain why so many complain you bin their posts, though.

 Add to these comments the hundreds we already published in a blog we called “Textusa’s Trash Can” so readers could see the abuse we received and which we have since closed because we were wasting time literally with trash.

Too embarrassing for you to have people read them
It’s interesting that we have had someone relentlessly dedicated to this blog from almost since day 1.

You haven't
He started being “dcb” in the early pink-forums and at first said he had a secret blog as discussion forum which we and our readers weren’t worthy of seeing, until he finally created his foul-mouthed blog.

Nope, I have never used that handle and I have no idea what you mean by 'pink' forums
But beneath his swearing underlies a profound knowledge of the case.


To have someone so knowledgeable dedicated exclusively against us has been for us a telling sign that we were on the right path.

No it isn't. It was a telling sign that you were talking out of your arse
We have said in post that although we consider him to be a minion, we consider him to be a person of importance to the case.

Oh do fuck off
In fact, we consider him to be the other side’s person who is responsible to run their internet campaign. The reason why we think this, we prefer to keep to ourselves.

I know you love trying to portray me as a McCann supporter but I'm afraid it's getting a bit old and tired now
His Not Textusa hat is only a part of his job, as he has lots of coordinating to do, as recent events have shown.

His objective here is to harass tirelessly the blog to make it as off-putting as possible, so when you say “usually as soon as I read the names Insane and Not-Textusa, I run away” you are showing that he is achieving his goal.

No, my objective here is to correct the steaming great turd of insanity you have created
However, fortunately, we have lots of other readers who have seen through his objectives, understand his importance, and keep coming back albeit his efforts.

You have about 6. You pissed the rest off over the years
He harasses the blog from the comfortable position of not committing himself to anything. And whenever he has done that, it has always turned against him. Why? Because truth works against him.

Oh behave. You wouldn't recognise the truth if it shat in your handbag
Very interesting is to watch how bothered he gets when he sees the McCanns and others being accused of being swingers but has no reaction, even sees it as a possibility, of them being accused of paedos. 

There is no evidence of swinging whatsoever. Nor is there evidence that paedophilia played a part in this crime. However, some cases of missing children are caused by the actions of a sex offender, so it can never be ruled out

In both scenarios, other people would have to be involved but only one seems to really get on his nerves.



  1. ... Do you think the parents are guilty & with initial help of the tapas bunch, then tried to cover up the death of Madeleine by pretending an abduction took place? (I do)

    And how exactly do you think Madeleine died?



    1. Hi Andy
      Put it this way - I hold her parents entirely responsible for what happened to Madeleine, regardless of precisely what happened. I prefer not to speculate on exactly what happened as I try only to consider the evidence, but I see no evidence of a violent death. Looking at all the evidence, an 'unintended consequence' would fit.
      I don't see any evidence of the rest of the tapas group being involved, either. I think they were probably all scared shitless that there could be consequences for them all due to the children being left alone and I think this was stoked up by the McCanns. I do think some of the group were subjected to manipulation by the McCanns, Jane Tanner in particular, but I don't think any of them would be stupid enough to take part in a cover up.

      I see absolutely no evidence of an abduction, just a simulation of an abduction. The description in Kate's book of the hours which followed defy explanation. That's where the answer lies, in my opinion.

    2. I also try to be careful with my language in this case as well, thank you for your opinion. As blacksmith recently said when we see lawyers mentioned we will know we are entering the next phase.

  2. Well you did say you expect a post saying you discredit the dogs ��

    I think it's easy to see you are no Mccann supporter, bit of a shame that lots probably miss out on your thoughts (and humour) because of textusa saying you are.
    Out of interest, what are your thoughts on grange? Sorry if I've missed a blog where you might have already said.

    1. Oh, I'm used to it, believe me, she's been doing it for years :)

      Grange - well, Churchill once said about Russia "I cannot forecast to you the action of Russia. It is a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma;" and I think the same applies to Grange.

      To, in effect, draw a line under the actions of the McCann group without further investigation makes absolutely no sense. I think the language used has been evasive, to say the least. However, any case against the parents or any member of the tapas group would be circumstantial at best, as there is no ''smoking DNA" to confirm the culprit. Does that mean, therefore, that they really are looking at everyone except them? Common sense would say ''no, surely not?'' 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 that is the case, and I have no reason to doubt it, I can't understand why money is being wasted on such a pointless exercise. And no, they weren't asking if they were swingers! Maybe it's a decade-too-late equivalent of a door-to-door enquiry, trying to build up as full a picture as possible of PdL at that moment in time. It remains to be seen, I am giving it the benefit of the doubt just now, but I'm not optimistic

    2. Anonymous 15:45, I agree and TextUSA seems obsessed with everyone who disagrees as being NotTextUSA, it's all very strange.

  3. I’m finding her rudeness to Anne Gueddes very annoying. She has this bonkers scenario of Smithman zig-zagging all over the place like a squirrel in a spin dryer, and ‘stopping’ despite this being completely at odds with the witness accounts. I don’t think Anne agrees and Textusa is basically trying to bully her into accepting her lunacy. It’s so typical of her.

    1. I agree, from what I've read Anne agrees with you and Textusa is not happy about that, why can't she accept that other people do not believe in the swinging theory.

    2. I suppose because she has pinned her knickers to it for so many years

  4. Hi, I was anon 15.25, and I did write a reply but perhaps it didn't send.
    Anyway what I basically said was, how interesting, and I too hope it's not a bad sign. As you said, why bother at all if it's all for show.
    I do hope the recent refusal to disclose the latest funding amount is a good sign. Agree again on the evasive language. Whatever they're doing, I just wish they'd hurry up about it. We can only hope.

    1. Hi - I'll double-check and make sure I haven't accidentally put it in the spam folder.
      We've had years now of this "one final lead" backstory and it becomes less convincing with time. I reckon they have withheld the total just to piss off Tony Bennett, who will be firing off FOI requests on the hour, every hour :)

  5. Ha! Most likely :)
    The thing that always sticks with me is, if it's all a cover up/whitewash, why have they ever answered FOI's, or why not just lie or find a patsy.
    Going back to what you said about Grange interviewing people who were in pdl at the time, well I suppose there are any number of things that could be the reason for that, very intriguing. Maybe they have something they just need confirmed by independent witnesses, something that'd seem irrelevant on its own but "fits" somewhere.
    But definitely not swingers lol!

    I shall have to make some sort of profile to comment here, god only knows how you keep up with different anons :D

    1. I suspect your assessment is correct - they are perhaps hoping to find someone who may have seen something and not realised what they were witnessing, or it could simply be the results of the mobile phone analysis. I have a bit more information but I am keeping that to myself to wind Textusa up :D

      You can just call yourself whatever you like and still use the anonymous option, if you want. I hardly ever spam a post anyway, with the exception of one individual who appears to be a sandwich short of a picnic :)


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