Translate

Thursday, 17 May 2018

The Idiot for the Prosecution

The daft tart is off again.

  1. We have addressed what it means to have the right of silence when being questioned under caution.

    To understand the differences of the right to be silent between the UK and the Portuguese justice systems one must understand the etymology of the words “arguido” and “caution”.
Nope. So that's going in the bin. 


  1. Just from etymology one can see the differences. 
Nope. Try again. 

  1. Under caution clearly states a warning of there being effective consequences if one choses to be silent, while arguido is all about arguing, to be given the possibility to argue under accusation and the chosen silence means just that, a choice not to argue.
Nope.

As you are about to illustrate: 

  1. While under caution is “You do not have to say anything. But, it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence”
Precisely.
The Criminal Justice and Public Order act which introduced this change sets out very specific circumstances in which an adverse inference may be drawn. I can list them if you want, but in short it covers the specific circumstances where the defendant does not mention something which they later rely on in court, ie. in their defence. The jury cannot draw an adverse inference because of their silence, but because of their failure to mention something while being questioned that they then bring up.

It is not a carte blanche to take their silence as an indication that they are guilty, and the judge must specifically instruct the jury if they may draw an adverse influence, having ensured that all the conditions are met.

Therefore, the right to remain silent is an absolute right. All that has changed is that the defendant cannot wait until they get to court and then offer up a cock and bull story at the last minute. 
  1. in the arguido status it is said “[You have the procedural right] not to answer the questions asked by any entity about the facts he is charged with about the contents of his statements concerning them”

    One states clearly that there may be taken inferences from the right to not answer (in the UK) while in the other there are no inferences that can be taken from the silence.

    Going back to the etymology of the wording we did above, both nations ensure the right to not answer the question but the reasons are different.

    In the UK, the reasoning behind the right to remain silent is to allow the questioned not to incriminate himself but that silence is taken as an answer, unless under certain specific circumstances which the law details, like when defendant expresses the wish to have the presence of a lawyer and one is not yet present).

    Outside the detailed circumstances, the silence is taken as an answer. A silent and a compromising one as the person choosing to remain silent has been warned that this silence can be used as evidence. Can be used as adverse inference.
Bullshit. They are not warned that their silence allows an adverse inference, but rather that if they don't mention it now, and pull it out of a hat later, it may harm their defence. The reason that it may harm their defence is that the judge may instruct the jury that they may draw an adverse inference from the fact that the accused waited until his court appearance before claiming that someone else must have stolen his car, run over the deranged blogger, and parked his car back on his drive.  I appreciate that this is a subtle difference and you're not very bright, so you probably won't understand. 

Anyhoo, it's not particularly relevant because you claimed that to interview the McCanns or their friends would kill the case stone dead, and that is complete horseshit. You are doing exactly as I predicted you would. Carry on, it's very amusing, as is your staggeringly childish "You shouldn't be friends with him because he called Becky Williams a slag" Vicki Pollard tribute act you've got going on.

😎😎😎

66 comments:

  1. Haha! Vicki Pollard tribute act, brilliant.

    Thanks for confirming that though, it's as I thought. I don't even mean to be mean when I say I must agree with Blacksmith's comment that Textusa just can't actually read - or rather won't. This has been proven time and time again where she's had to accept that she got it wrong, so why not start some reading comprehension lessons?
    Yesterday was a fine example, somehow coming to the conclusion that BS (and therefore I) said Totman and Tannerman were 2 different people.

    She's also stated she'll take the absence of comment from BS on my interpretation of his words as his agreement. He'd better be psychic, because he submitted his comment last night, just after me, but neither were published until this morning?!

    ReplyDelete
  2. You know what is amusing me more and more each day?
    She is having to do all this without the benefit of arrows, diagrams, wallcharts, or any of the other shite she regularly festoons her column with, all because she threw a strop. She must be kicking herself.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Hi NT, even though she's been told several times that you are not Michael Walker by several different people she still insists to her readership that you are this character, it is an insulting untruth. It is clear to see from your writings on this blog that you are not the same character, Textusa if you are reading this NT is NOT Michael Walker they are NOT the same person and stop using that insulting nickname you have given him he has already explained why he posted insane on your blog.

    Sade and John Blacksmith brilliant posts on the Text blog not that you should have to explain yourselves.

    Cat

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Cat, and welcome. Thank you for your kind words. Textusa frequently claims that she will correct any inaccuracies, but really she only does so if it suits her purpose. I cannot fathom how she formed this conclusion about Walker, but like the big round table she has pinned her credibility to it. She is revealing herself to be a most unpleasant person, especially with this latest round of “this person said A, B and C, so how can you support them?” It is exactly the type of behaviour exhibited by classroom bullies.
      Anyway, you are most welcome here :)

      Delete
    2. I've been posting on your blog for a few weeks now I was one of your anonymous posters but thought it was about time I gave myself a name.

      I agree, trying to out people's identities can have dangerous consequences as we have all seen and to keep labelling someone as a character they have been told several times is not that character is so so wrong. It matters not who people are the only thing that matters is the conclusion of Grange and hopefully getting to the bottom of what happened.

      Have a lovely day, Cat.

      Delete
  4. I should have made clear in my above post I have no idea about NT's gender as I may have assumed male whilst making a point.

    Cat

    ReplyDelete
  5. Hi Cat, and thanks 🙂

    I see "Jimmy" is the latest victim, likely soon to be accused of being you. Really no need to be so bloody rude.
    Jimmy's comment was absolutely right. Regardless of how similar or not similar arguido and caution are, the caution in UK is NOT an explicit warning of adverse inference being drawn simply from silence! Why she insists on this - ridiculing people in the process - is beyond me.

    LOL at anon 19.31 over there. Yes, hilarious actually 😃

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think she's getting worse. She blew off the support that she had on that facebook group and she's been lashing out ever since

      Delete
    2. Hi Sade

      Not guilty, I don't know enough about law to comment on it, I noticed the comment from Jimmy though and Text really wasn't happy was she, she's losing support daily.

      I don't comment on #McCann on twitter but I do watch it occasionally and I've just noticed a pro (@reecorici) getting shadow banned within 15 minutes after posting about doing a blog and exposing certain anti's, just surprised how fast it was removed off the main tag which says to me the tag is being watched.

      P.S I like reading anything you write as it's always very clear.

      Cat

      Delete
  6. Yes, and I was - for a considerable amount of time - her only defender on that FB group. I tried to highlight her main points ignoring the waffle, believing there was some valuable intention at least. Her refusal to consider my 'word' on the Meerkat accusation really was the end for me. For me, people I respect and trust (and vice versa) play a huge part in my considerations in the case, whther

    ReplyDelete
  7. ...whether In regards to facts or just hearsay. She disregarded that, and it was then I woke up to the fact that facts were the last thing on her mind.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Interesting - for me, I used to think she was just a bit bonkers. What convinced me otherwise was Brunt's film. After all her claims, there it was, in glorious colour. Most people would, at that stage, have realised they made an error and conceded. She didn't; instead she invented a convoluted explanation involving shadows, faked footage and digital manipulation. What was clear was that she knew she had been rumbled but was prepared to lie and tell her followers a load of complete cobblers rather than just accept she was in the wrong. It is a pattern of behaviour she has repeated over and over again.
    I think some time ago she realised that she wasn't going to get away with it - either I would pick it up or someone else would - and so she turned to portraying any dissenter as being a part of some 7-headed hydra, a McCann stooge out to get her. That is still basically her position, no matter how many times she is pulled up for it.

    What is evident to me, especially having looked back at some of the earlier posts, is just how much her support has dwindled away and how few people she has who are prepared to stand behind her. She will still boast about the number of comments her blogs attract, seemingly oblivious to the fact that the vast majority of them are by her.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I hadn't been reading the Text blog for very long or even following the case for very long, I liked her blog for dissecting the newspaper reports, what I didn't like and which turned me off what when she started linking different individuals to being Walker.

    There are very few voices I trust in this case now I like Blacksmith who has the ability to read all the signs and for confirming what I believe, Bogart because he has put together an brilliant part based documentary piecing all the statements together and also if it wasn't for Ben Thompson stating about certain groups having an agenda and then seeing it for myself then I would probably still be confused about what is real and what is not.

    Cat

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I firmly believe that Textusa does not think for one second that I am Michael Walker. It is utterly perverse. She does it purely in an attempt to make her supporters attack me. It is typical behaviour of a bully. I have received a number of extremely abusive threatening posts as a result, which I have had to withhold - they are not fit for publication. Textusa will be thrilled to hear that, no doubt. It was clearly her objective.

      Delete
    2. I'm sorry to hear that you have received abuse because of the rumours Textusa started, that is disgusting. You have friends on your blog and I'm sure I'm not the only one who used to read the Textusa blog and didn't like what I was witnessing, it's damaging, lot's of people probably remain silent preferring to say nothing.

      She seems to be in self destruct mode at the moment so perhaps that's karma.

      Take care and have a lovely weekend.
      Cat

      Delete
  10. The problem for you nt is she hates that you have better comprehension than her. Rather than answer inaccuracies pointed out she goes on the attack. Once i posted on her blog asking that if i disagreed with her would i be considered a pro. Can she honestly endorse that brits would rather be seen as paedos than swingers which is the logical conclusion to her posts on the issue. Bonkers. Anyway cheers for the heads up here Sade...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Nick,
      Repeatedly, she claims that 'we brits' are massively intolerant of any form of sex scandal - she will deny that, of course, but it's there in black and white. She's completely nuts, of course - in which parallel universe do people lie about a missing child in order to cover up for a bit of extra-curricular with the neighbours?

      I am actually convinced that Textusa doesn't believe the majority of the steaming horseshit she posts; it is all about manipulation and what she can get her followers to believe. I also think that her recent fall from grace has unhinged her a bit - although it's hard to be certain as she was already as unhinged as a cheap kitchen unit.

      She's gone awfully quiet, so I might liven things up tomorrow with an article from the archives which is from the pile I refer to as "Premier league conspiracy bollocks". That should flush her out :)

      Welcome to the blog and thanks Sade for the mention

      Delete
    2. I think her view of british sexual morals must come from 50's telly. Got it...text is avtually barbara woodhouses ghost! But in all seriousness david cameron caught with his sausage in a porker...or was that his porker in a sausage...and a nation collectively went "meh". Does she not understand we quite frankly don't expect our "betters" to be moral bastions. That went out when we all stopped tugging our forelocks. Anyway as i am new to your blog could i ask a question...what do you think happened to madeleine mc cann(without mentioning swinging!)?

      Delete
    3. I think she visualises it being like a Benny Hill sketch, with women running about dressed as french maids and gurning old men with string vests. I hate the way she declares herself an expert on British culture when she's clearly never been anywhere near here.

      Right - what do I think happened to Madeleine?
      Obviously, I have to keep this quite circumspect, but this is basically where I am.

      I see no evidence whatsoever that she was abducted, but plenty of evidence that someone wanted it to look like she was. I don't believe this is a conspiracy involving all the Tapas 9; I think there are two people involved, unlikely to be more. I think the remainder of the group were absolutely bricking it and probably quite easy to convince to keep schtum for fear of their children being removed.

      For me, the crucial incident concerns the ''drugging'' of the twins.

      Kate's story is that at some point she became aware that the twins were abnormally deeply asleep. There are several ways of interpreting this

      1. We could consider whether that was a genuine concern, or an over-reaction or even an invention.
      2. However, this observation was also made by several others, including a policeman, so that leads me to conclude that they probably were in an unnaturally deep sleep.
      3. Kate McCann claims to have pointed this out to a policeman on the night, but there is absolutely nothing whatsoever to support this version of events, particularly as she would have required an interpreter to convey this, and there is no record of this either.
      4. So, in the absence of any evidence that she did raise the alarm, one has to ask "Why not?" I have asked this many times and have had a string of McCann supporters insist that she knew the twins were fine because ''she's a doctor''
      5. There is one slight problem with this. It is bollocks.
      6. If an infant appears to have taken, or been given, a substance which has rendered them unconscious, you do not shrug and say "They'll sleep it off". You find out what the hell they have been given, how much they have been given, and what treatment they require
      7. A medical degree does not make someone into a human toxicology lab - you can't put your hand on their chest and work out what they've taken
      8. If you come home and find one kid missing and two out for the count, are you telling me you don't get the two unconscious ones to a bloody hospital? The only possible reason I can suggest not to is that you know damn well what they have taken/been given.

      Delete
    4. cont...
      Now for me, this trumps every other bit of evidence. The remainder of the forensic evidence is effectively useless,but what it certainly doesn't do is indicate an intruder. To put it another way, it can't rule out an intruder, but there is no forensic evidence to suggest that one was present.

      I have seen claims that the McCanns asked the PJ for the twins to be tested.

      Bullshit.

      They had independent testing done four months later, but we have no idea what they tested for or the methodology used. Plus, it was in response to claims that Kate had used drugs or given them to the children.

      I am not in the habit of writing pompous letters to the police like Baldylocks does, but if I had one suggestion it would be that the police try to obtain any remaining hair samples from the twins, if they were retained by the testing lab, or obtain any results from the screening. Most of these screening tests only look for what you ask the lab to look for - so for example it could be opiates, if the testee had been on a programme which required them to stay off the stuff. However, other methods will provide more information, so I'd want to get hold of that, if it were me.

      Either way, I think she is dead, was dead that night and her remains may not be found for a long time, if ever.

      In terms of body disposal, I knew that supposedly the bins were searched, but that isn't foolproof, and we can't be sure how thorough that was. I am reminded that the police are certain the missing airman from Cambridgeshire ended up in a bin then a landfill site and even armed with this knowledge and searching for weeks, they have not been able to find him; he's much bigger than a 4 year old

      Just to add I think all Bennett's and Textusa's theory are complete lunacy and serve no other purpose than to make other McCann doubters look like drooling imbeciles, although in fairness, some of them had a headstart *cough* Verdi*cough*

      Delete
    5. I think that Bennett and Textusa have ulterior motives going on. Like trying to deliberately take McCann sceptics away from the truth and down their own little paths but with the same overall objective.

      That's certainly what it looks like anyway.



      Delete
    6. It certainly is what it looks like, especially in the case of Bennett, who I would trust about as far as I could hurl a bin lorry. Textusa, I am not so sure; I think perhaps she might simply be utterly deranged. It's a shame the two of them don't get together - at least it would keep it all in one small gene pool

      Delete
    7. Sounds a reasonable theory. I agree with you on the drugging. I am no doctor but as a parent you instinctively know when your child,or children,are not themselves. And react accordingly. I also think the dogs did find evidence that madeleine died...but unfortuneately as the fss cocked it up forensically -their finding can't be confirmed. I still find the early involvement of powerful people sinister but gerry did seem to have access through his work with comare. But like you have become sick of theories being pushed with no evidence to back. And bloggers so entrenched in mad theories that they can't admit misunderstandings(or their stupidity). All i know is that the mc canns hid her death.

      Delete
    8. I’ll come back to this later, too busy right now, but the FSS criticism is largely based on misunderstanding. Have a good day, thanks for your post

      Delete
    9. Right - apologies, have had a really busy week, I promised to reply in more detail and this is the first chance I have had

      The claim that the FSS cocked up has been made many times and has thus become part of the Maddie myth factory. It usually centres on one of two things - that either the FSS said one thing and then issued another report saying something different.

      This didn't happen.

      What does appear to have happened is that the results were discussed informally with the UK plods first and they got the wrong impression as to how useful the results were going to be. This was then further exacerbated by a certain confusion between the UK plods and the PJ. There was only one final report and the conclusions were the same as those communicated in earlier emails.

      The second arises over what is sometimes referred to as the FSS 'contaminating' the samples.

      Again, this didn't happen. I believe this originates from a passage in John Lowe's report where he tries to explain why it is not possible to say that DNA taken from the car came from Maddie. He mentions that some of the markers are common and could be found extensively within the general population, using the team there as an example. That probably wasn't the best analogy to use because many people took this to mean people at the lab had contaminated the sample which wasn't what he meant at all. There is no evidence that sample was contaminated, but it was a mix of DNA from at least three individuals.

      The easiest way to understand this is to consider that you find a big box of body parts. You don't know how many individuals this represents, but you are able to count three heads - so you know that you are looking at at least three individuals.
      You also have five legs. So that could be two sets of two, plus one extra, giving three individuals, or five legs all from different people - hence the "at least three, as many as five" statistic which was used.

      Unless they had found an intact complete DNA profile for Madeleine, and just Madeleine, they were never going to be able to show that she was the source of any sample recovered, considering that most of the people using the car were genetically related to her in one way or another - parent, sibling, aunt etc

      If anyone wants to list all the forensic stuff which causes confusion, I will happily break each of them down. I did write a piece about it a few years ago, but can I find the bugger?

      Delete
    10. Do you think that a deceased Madeleine was transported in the hire car at some point?

      Delete
    11. No, I don’t, and I think if the PJ had been better advised they would never have gone off along those lines. That is not to say that I think it was a false alert as they are very uncommon, but I believe the alert was probably triggered by residual odour transferred by items carried in the car. We know from the carpet squares study that cadaver odour from a recently deceased person readily transfers to other materials and surfaces, and that this is a rapid process. So I think the most likely scenario is that items which had been in the vicinity of Madeleine’s dead body (and it is worth noting that they would not have to be physically touching) became contaminated with the odour produced in the early stages of decomposition and these were later
      moved in the car, where the odour transferred to surfaces in the car. I believe this is a far more logical sequence of events than the idea that a body was either kept in cold storage or interred, only to be moved after the passage of some weeks

      Delete
    12. So what do you think they did with the deceased body then?

      Delete
    13. I’m not stupid enough to hand chunks of my earnings over to them, so I am going to answer this in purely hypothetical terms.
      Body disposal is rarely very sophisticated, even when people do it repeatedly, but what I think people fail to appreciate is how relatively simple the answer sometimes is. Let me give you a few examples.
      There was the case some years ago of a girl who disappeared while visiting a church in Italy. Her remains were eventually found, hidden in the church roof, 17 years later.
      A woman in the USA who was eventually convicted of the murder of two of her children threw the body of one over the garden fence, where it was discovered by a cadaver dog some months later. She had made no attempt to hide it, it just became hidden from view and if the dog had not picked it up it would probably be there to this day. As it was, parts were missing and had probably been carried away by scavenger animals. The second baby she put in a bin bag and threw into a refuse bin in a street.
      It is quite frequent for bodies to be thrown into dumpsters in the USA, there are numerous cases. It happens here too.
      Not long ago, the remains of a missing man were found in a motorway verge, literally yards from where he was last seen, and despite the area having been searched after he went missing. The remains of a murdered woman were found on a motorway verge in the West Country, literally yards away from one of the busiest roads in the UK, and had lain there for 13 years.

      So in my humble opinion anyone wanting to hide a body would choose either a large bin or some undergrowth. Seriously, bodies disappear into woodland and undergrowth all the time, only to reappear years later when a dog walker lets the dog off the lead, only for them to reappear with a skull in their mouths and a wagging tail


      Delete
    14. So hidden/dumped somewhere in the vicinity then on the night of the 3rd and they've been extremely fortunate that the body has never been found?

      Delete
    15. Could be. I think it’s as likely as any other possibility. It is worth noting that all denials with respect to the dog alerts are always framed with respect to the alerts in the car. If I knew that I hadn’t moved a body in the car, but that’s what the police thought I’d done, I’d stay focused on that too, as I would know they couldn’t prove something which didn’t happen.

      I can’t recall them ever mentioning the alerts in the apartment, other than Kate’s ill advised comments in her book

      Delete
    16. I'm not convinced that they didn't move her body at some point in the car. A risky strategy obviously, but one they needed to do. G Amaral seemed quite certain that a deceased body had been transported didn't he? And also that the body had been kept in some sort of refrigerated or frozen state, IIRC?

      Delete
    17. Yes, but in fairness what he described did not accord in any way with the findings of the labs or the SOCOs
      I think the language barrier caused significant misunderstandings. What should have happened was that the UK forensic scientists should have liaised with the Portuguese forensic scientists and let them explain it to the PJ. There would have been less opportunity for what subsequently happened.
      I have read the reports in detail, plus I have qualifications which, although they are not in forensics, are in a similar field, and I am happy there is no scenario which involves them moving a body in the car which fits with the evidence.

      Obviously, this is my considered opinion, based on the evidence. I don’t expect anyone to take it as gospel, unlike a certain lunatic blogger, but I will challenge any pseudoscience or unsubstantiated conclusions.

      Delete
    18. Yes, I understand what you're saying and it does make sense. Thanks.

      Now do you think this case will get solved and the truth will finally come out?

      Delete
    19. That’s the $64,000 question, isn’t it?
      I am inclined to think that only a confession or the discovery of remains will lead to a resolution, tbh. We have to assume it has been cold-cased to the nth degree, without anything hugely significant emerging, apart of course for the ruling out of Tannerman. I know there has been speculation from time to time about new techniques throwing up fresh evidence from the DNA recovered from the scene, but I find this hugely unlikely. There are no “smoking profiles” waiting to be identified.

      Delete
    20. Do you think that M met her fate by falling off the sofa and banging her head, in a drowsy/sedated state, as Goncalo alluded to?

      Or what's your theory on how her death came about?

      Thanks.

      Delete
    21. I haven't a clue. Any speculation would be just that - speculation - which I try to avoid. I don't think it particularly matters, tbh.

      Delete
    22. Not the same Anonymous, but I post here a little late to congratulate you on your clear and very thoughtful response. One of the reasons I abandoned this case was that people started believing in ridiculous stuff completely disregarding the obvious.

      One question though still bugs me. Why is Gery so sure that the body will never be recovered? He had a window of a couple of hours at the most. He didn't go far. He just couldn't. The map shows clearly two-three sites that favored the disposal of a body but which and how safe could he have hidden it? In order to sustain his obvious lies he had to hang on to smth (there's agony in his eyes of being discovered but not enough) and I think this bit is what makes him so insufferably smug. He knows he's gotten away with it. Kate isn't as sure-footed imo, she almost confessed if the stories are to be believed. But not Gery, he knows he did a good job. I'd only be certain if it was incinerated but I just can't see how he pulled it off in a couple of hrs.

      Was it blind luck or smth along the Ben's case lines? (I believe he was dumped in a construction ditch which was later filled up - probably an accidental death, then concealed which is ofc criminal) Were there un-searched holes? or missed? What do you think?

      I sympathize with Amaral as I work in a similar field and I understand he realized they reeked of guilt (and cadaverine) almost immediately. But you need to prove it ofc. Only if he'd gotten there first or sooner, not his fault again, they took their bloody time.

      Again great analysis, a breath of fresh air.

      Delete
    23. Thank you :)
      This is just my personal opinion, but I think I detected a certain cockiness which crept in with time, but which wasn't there at the beginning.

      Speaking entirely hypothetically, when would one know one had 'got away with' something like hiding a body?

      I have come up with two distinct circumstances

      1. The chance of discovery is very low.
      This is why I have never been convinced by a burial at sea. Far too unpredictable or likely to turn up in a fishing net. At the bottom of a landfill site, though? Perhaps a different picture
      2. Even if discovered, the chances of learning anything from the remains is remote.
      Unless you have been daft enough to drop your mobile down the hole too, of course.

      Here's a tip for any would-be body-secretors.

      Don't bury them. You'll reduce the decomposition and preserve more evidence that way. Deep undergrowth, though - ideal. Plenty of environmental conditions suited to speed things up.

      There are studies on body disposal, looking at patterns of behaviour. They usually involve vehicles, but not always.

      Some years ago, I lived not far from where the remains of a young child were discovered. The police knew immediately that it was a murder investigation - children don't usually tie themselves up in a sack prior to burying themselves in a field.

      It was a young boy and he was identified quite quickly as a child reported missing about 20 years before, from what I recall (I'm hoping I am remembering this right, it was a long time ago)

      This bit I do remember.
      The child's father had moved a few hundred miles away. The police went to pick him up and they had gone no distance before he blurted out "I want to confess" and they had to stop on the hard shoulder to read him his rights.

      He had spent every day waiting for the knock on the door. It transpired he had been seen at the time walking around carrying the sack. The mind boggles

      Delete
    24. Thanks for the response.

      Yes this is very logical. It makes sense to a point. Can't believe I missed your blog all these years. Your title reminds me of an utterly bananas poster from back in the day but yours has nothing to do with it but for the name. Took me a bit to get the irony.

      Anyway I just can't understand how he got so darn lucky. He was set up to fail, as he should, but some-fucking-how he made it clean up till now. Hypothetically, he must've been anxious and panicked enough to make a mistake or for instance, meet the guy that ambushed him at the entrance ten mins earlier or later or any guy. But he didn't. Picked the right spot, resisted the urge to go for a stroll just to check again if a hand was showing (he did hypothetically(?) but didn't led the police where he should've) | the search parties (notoriously unreliable I agree) missed it and that's the first night.

      But then they searched again and again. Dogs and special teams. Everyone and their mother knew he'd done it. I remember watching it and thinking, dude you're in the shite... no time. Not enough for a good hide. Unless you picked the difficult spot, but you couldn't have been so lucky again. Unreal. But it happens.


      This case is frustrating and unfortunately it gathered enough nuts I'm afraid, to keep the police away for a time. Although I don't believe the police gave up, we never do.

      Keep posting good stuff.

      Delete
  11. I was just saying how quiet it's gone over there. Weren't we meant to be getting a full run down on Grange questioning the McCanns?
    Please do NT, I'm getting withdrawals from your posts 😃

    My pleasure Nick, here's hoping many more will come over and see for themselves 🙂

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's dead as a doornail, isn't it? I'll post a new one later :)

      Delete
    2. She's back with a vengeance I see, finding all manner of things interesting such as tweets from 2 weeks ago and who liked it first! Riveting stuff.

      I assume she finds it so fantastically interesting that I liked the tweet from Meerkat because I've supported Blacksmith's stance on Grange. How interesting that I can not only appreciate the views of others, but even go as far as to appreciate their humour.

      Some of us can actually get on, respect each other, and refrain from accusing people of being pros if they dare disagree with us. Interesting indeed 😃

      Delete
    3. Ah yes - the paranoia is strong in this one tonight :)) This is where she really has a cult-like aspect to her behaviour; she has a list of tenets which you challenge at your peril.

      I'm halfway through another post, will hopefully finish it tonight ;)

      Delete
    4. Sade, howling with laughter reading your reply to her today, you can feel the frustration. Seriously, she would make a nun kick a hole in a door

      Delete
    5. Lol! The problem is, even when I'm reading it back I can already see it's not going to be clear enough, nothing ever will be.
      Just one example, like saying No, I'm not saying Tanner was entirely truthful about her sighting. That's instantly taken to mean that I'm obviously calling her a blatant liar about the entire thing.
      Ive truly given up, and have just posted a comment over there to say so. I only felt compelled to reply before because she was typing my name all night, my cyber ears were burning 😄
      I also didn't want to look like I'm speaking on behalf of BS, that wasn't my intention, he's perfectly capable of speaking for himself, which he has done. I only ever wanted to stress points that I get excited about, lightbulb moments for me if you like 🙂

      Delete
    6. It is clearly her latest obsession, Sade. I don't know how you and JB have the patience to deal with her. She seems incapable of accepting that people can disagree about something without it escalating to world war 3. I have only ever seen one other person write as she does, and she also tried to use it to drive a wedge between people, running and telling tales between them with all this "he doesn't agree with you" bollocks - and that was a genuinely, "got the certificate to prove it" mad person, so in the words of Clarrie Hamface, "more than that I will not say" :)

      Delete
    7. Well, it's clear now she has no intention of publishing my comment from last night. A comment made after mine was published this morning so I sent a further comment to ask why mine wasn't. That remains unpublished also with another one published this evening.

      I didn't copy it anywhere, so I'll try to remember everything I said.

      John Blacksmith, thank you for your kind words.
      Textusa, firstly, about my recent commenting on the Blacksmith Bureau's posts. It is nothing more than the fact I've just completed 3 years of university and have found myself with a bit of time on my hands. What I like to do with spare time is read - out of choice, not necessity. I especially appreciate creative writers, so, coupled with my interest in the McCann case, the bureau is the perfect choice for me. What became of reading the bureau, and anything else written by its author(s), was an understanding that I wanted to share with others.
      I won't attempt to do it with you anymore Textusa, as I think it's obvious it would be in vain. I also suspect you've come to the paranoid conclusion there is some sinister conspiracy in my actions, such as tweets I've liked being apparently interesting.
      I'm not even a fraction as irritated as I may have come across in recent comments - this is just the internet after all. But I apologise to readers who have had to witness such ill feeling - it's certainly not how I prefer to hold discussions at all.
      The recent topics that have caused so much disagreement will maybe one day become clear to us all. If not, I'm sure it will have no effect on the outcome of the investigation.

      Delete
  12. I think TEXTUSA is fast becoming the fraud that a lot of us have always had our suspicions about. It's just becoming more obvious now.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. She got away with it longer than Rolf Harris

      Delete
  13. I'm in the belief now that this "Insane" person is actually an alter-ego of one of the Text sisters.

    All game playing.

    I mentioned that over the road but it didn't get to print.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Er - you do know "Insane" is what she calls me, don't you?

      Or maybe you don't.

      Anyway, I am certainly not an alter-ego for loonypants or loonypants junior

      Cheers!

      Delete
  14. My God, the textusa blog is now over here - except that it reads better.

    I think the body-parts analogy you used above is by far the best simplification I've ever seen of the DNA findings. I have always found genetics a deeply sedative subject; I tried to master the basics so I could take on the childish ravings of Dawkins and I learned enough to do so but I still get the feeling of school detentions on a sunny evening when I have to read about it.

    The reason I've engaged with textusa a little is because I have sensed, rightly or wrongly, inner doubts recently among the Usual Suspects' followers and have tried to encourage them to consider whether they've been missing something. It is quite pointless, really, since it can't influence events one way or another but it's an irrational compulsion.

    Anyway, it's all looking good for the future. I was glad, also, to read your clear and unambiguous statement of where you stand. The one thing I had reservations about years ago was that I thought you were perhaps unnecessarily harsh on Amaral, given the circumstances and given the limitations that all police officers, like the rest of us, possess.



    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, you are right, I was too harsh on him. The fault really lies elsewhere; a detective with no scientific training should not be expected to pick the bones out of John Lowe’s report and the misinterpretation went deeper than just him.

      I am probably biased, having worked in the field for years, but I find Genetics absolutely fascinating. We know vast amounts about things like population movements based on studies looking at gene mutations, frequencies etc. Sadly, the samples collected in this case didn’t really shed any light on the fate of Madeleine, but it did provide a truly comic moment when Dave Edgar bemoaned the “fact” that they did not use LCN analysis, completely oblivious to the fact that they did.

      I am glad people are beginning to question some of the guff they have been fed by the Charlatan Gospel Chorus (soloist T Bennett) and Richard Bonkers Hall. And Textusa, of course, but her ideas are too stupid to be anything other than the comedy turn

      Delete
    2. A friend showed me a video last night that I'd never seen before, it was the BBC 'Inside Out; The Madeleine Foundation'
      I expect you've seen it NT, but oh my god what an uncomfortable watch! That's not to say it was devoid of opportunities for the odd snigger mind you, there's a petty child in all of us is there not? 😁
      Worth a watch for anyone who hasn't seen it anyway. It's on YouTube.

      Delete
    3. Oh god - I remember it well. Barmy Bennett and his bonkers books. He's like King Midas in reverse - everything he touches turns to absolute shit.

      Delete
    4. Lol! The most concerning bit was right at the end, when he said people may call him "perverted". He seemed to accept this as a given, yet such a strange word to use in relation to his McCann activities surely?

      My disgust with him runs a lot deeper than disagreements over the case. Rather the lengths he's prepared to go to, to enforce his warped view that his theories are absolute truth.
      When those lengths leak into people's real lives, is when someone loses all right to a single ounce of respect. He's a deplorable human being who I'm quite glad I don't have to pass in the street to be honest.

      Delete
    5. Everything about him repulses me. He's a bigot, a homophobe, a manipulator and too right wing for UKIP.

      Let that sink in for a minute......

      Delete
  15. Hi. Yes, I remember when it came out but I couldn't bear to sit through it all. In fact it had a very funny side because Baldie had posted and boasted a comment about it early on while it was being made and, interested, I started looking out for future comments.

    They were pure Bennet, that eternally repeated autobiography of doom in which the cycle of optimistic self certainty - irrepressible pride and preening - inflated future plans for the fame and ackers to come - slight hints of doubt - serious worries - bitter complaints - abject humiliation, is repeated over and over again, as we've all seen. Each time, like a Chekov character, he is unable to behave otherwise.

    In this case he boasted to his group of the coup that "getting the media involved" represented; then he would enter daily updates about how gratified he was that they were taking him seriously, followed by notes on his rapport with the TV people and how surprised he was at their friendly attitude and so on and so forth.

    With a TV company. Oh dear.

    Of course they completely stitched him up, the bastards, using that invincible vanity of his to convince him they were on his side while they quietly dripped sulphuric acid all over his shoes.

    Even then he thought he was a hit until his own disciples hinted that, well, Tony, they don't seem to have liked you very much, in fact they were horribly, horribly unfair to you. After which he started, guess what, firing off enormous Petition of Rights complaints to the Inside Out people. God, what would we do without him?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Only just noticed this reply JB. Fabulous analysis.
      I do wonder what the mindset is of those who support him though. I kid you not, there is currently a justgiving-like campaign running to raise money for Mr Bennett, to help him pay his fees to the McCanns. One supporter's justification was that 'it is being paid anyway'. There are literally people out there paying for his folly in the name of *justice*
      Utterly contemptible.

      Delete
  16. ''Reply

    Textusa26 May 2018, 00:11:00
    We inform readers that with the new settings due Blogger has stopped sending comments to our mailbox.

    Reason why we haven't published some comments in time. Sade Anslow, that's the answer to your question.

    We will try to solve this problem as quickly as we can.

    Thank you for understanding.''

    And we inform readers that this is complete bollocks. Remember, I use the same platform as you, Textusa, and even if you are not receiving email alerts, you will still see any new comments when you visit the blog.

    ReplyDelete
  17. For anyone interested, a textaloon has rocked up on this thread

    https://nottextusa.blogspot.co.uk/2018/05/as-predicted.html?showComment=1527340368773#c5673304381376046615

    It's priceless stuff - I didn't want you to miss out

    ReplyDelete
  18. What a clown that Bennett loon is. Not the jesting type but more of a deeply disturbed, sinister & completely off their rocker type one!

    Can't stand the lying idiot! And that Havern cow is not much better!

    Regards,

    Andy

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think she must be completely in his thrall. He is a foul person, just horrible. The way he has gone after the Smith family tells you all you need to know about him

      Delete
    2. Peter Mac 'n' Cheese27 May 2018 at 04:09

      Jill is a DANGEROUS cow. Mike Hitchen refused to respond to her unwanted flirtatious advances and she labeled him a paedophile and sex offender. Google their names, it's all there.

      Delete

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 nottextusa@gmail.com