Wednesday, 2 May 2018

Competition time!

Yes, dear readers, you are in for a treat tonight!


Read on........

As we have informed readers, we have been working on something that we deem to be of vital importance (to explain why Operation Grange CANNOT question the McCanns and why if it does it will play decisively in favour of the other sides’ hand) which we thought of publishing either today or tomorrow.

It will be published as a comment and not as a post as we maintain the reasons why we have decided to stop publishing posts.

Unfortunately, one of the team members has suffered a personal loss and that means that the publication will have to be postponed for 2 or 3 days.

Thank you for understanding.

(Sincere condolences to the one who has suffered a loss)

So, here is your chance - what can it be? What is this ''thing'' which is of vital importance?

There's two ways of doing this - submit your answer as a comment, and I'll publish them straight away,


submit it as a comment and I'll hold them back until she's done her big reveal.

What do you think? Honestly, I think to hold them back, because otherwise she might just nick your ideas, as she's probably still making it up.

The nearest one wins a virtual prize (That's to lower your expectations, don't get excited)

I'll have a go as well. 


  1. Great way to stop writing, she's never stopped since she allegedly quit.

  2. Indeed - I wonder how many people can even remember what her last proper post was about? I still think she is sitting there, desperately trying to think something up. Last time she shifted her entire position on the basis of Aleksandr mentioning that he didn't fancy Kate. So god alone knows.

  3. Ok, so hold back please.
    I'm betting she's going to sensationally reveal what Blacksmith told us back in Feb. That it would be simply illegal to question McCanns or any named suspects- he obviously explains it much better. I think the post is called correction.
    Wouldn't put it past her to try and pass it off as her own research.

    Delilah :)

  4. Delilah - post held back as requested. Would not be at all surprised 😂

  5. I reckon that Textusa has deduced that Wall wants to hide from the McCanns the fact that one or more members of Operation Grange are swingers.

  6. Ahead of the big reveal I would like to add that having thought about it for days, which is a lot longer than she will have, I still can't think of a bloody thing. So I won't be winning the competition.....

  7. All has now been revealed, it's long, if you scroll down to the end you will see you have been the inspiration to the latest.

    I think it is shocking what she has said about Sonia's documentary, Sonia is the first journalist to question the narrative and did a brilliant job putting a documentary together for people who don't know all the facts about the case in a clever way.

  8. Well, I have just finished reading the big "REVEAL" and have released the comments. I think Delilah was pretty close!

    I'll be posting a reply later, obviously, but basically as far as I can see, and I'm not a legal expert either, she has made a fundamental error.

    Basically, I think she has confused "jurisdiction" and the "admissibility" of evidence.
    I'm going to post a link to a source about this

    If I understand it correctly, the key issue is not who obtained the evidence, but how it was obtained. For example, her claim that if the Met were to question the McCanns the Portuguese could never charge them - well, that's nonsense. The idea that there is no equivalent to ''arguido'' is also mistaken; there may not be a direct correlation, but it is the equivalent of being questioned under caution.

    Suspects are regularly arrested in a different jurisdiction to the one in which the crime occurred - is she saying that they can never be questioned by the arresting authorities?

    Anyway, it's a final bonkers swansong from her and she can fuck off if she thinks she's pinning it on me :)

    1. Also, I forgot to add that ultimately it is up to the judge to decide what evidence is admissible in a court and for prosecutors to decide if there is sufficient evidence to bring charges. We know the CPS met with their Portuguese equivalents, so to suggest they are separated by an unbridgeable gulf, as Textusa does, is plain barmy.

  9. Okay, my response is up.

    I am going for a lie down now


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