Translate

Tuesday, 19 June 2018

Anyway, as I was saying......


Evening Folks - Okay, back to the book

This section covers events just before the arguido status was applied. Kate had attended for interview at the PJ headquarters. She is not yet an arguida at this stage

At 5pm, we had a fifteen-minute break, which I spent standing in the corridor outside the interrogation room. Carlos came over and told me not to be so definite in some of my answers. He was referring, apparently, to a couple of claims by witnesses put to me by the questioning officer: allegations that they had seen Gerry or me doing this or that.
Does anyone else find this surprisingly vague? 
I have noticed that there are times when Kate's determination to 'capture everything' deserts her somewhat, just as it did when the question of the cancelled reconstruction came up. There seems to be a rush to brush something aside, sweep it under the carpet

"This or that" - such as? She seems reluctant to go into detail

One thing worth pointing out at this stage is that there is nothing in the PJ file to account for these 'witnesses', which to me suggests they were UK witnesses, questioned by the UK police, not as part of the rogatory process, and by the very nature of their contact with the police, their testimonies are not in the public domain
As these claims were untrue, I had said so. I couldn’t understand why, as long as I was certain a statement was wrong, I shouldn’t refute it.
So what does her lawyer mean, here, when he apparently says she ''shouldn't be so definite in some of her answers'?  
Although Carlos’s stance bothered me, I tried to take his guidance on board. But it did rather undermine my confidence.
Now I find this puzzling too. If she was so certain, why take his guidance on board? To what was he referring? 

If someone said to you "Did you shoot this man?" and you didn't, would you reply "No, I didn't" or "I don't know - what angle was he shot from?"

There is something underlying this passage of key significance, I think. Is it because an outright denial would close the door on a lesser charge? I really don't know. 

 Back at the villa, Carlos informed me, as Ferreira had indicated, that he needed to speak to Gerry and me in private. We sat down in the sitting room with Carlos, and Sofia, Eileen and Trisha left us to it. Carlos still looked very concerned. There was a great deal we needed to discuss, he told us. He reiterated that the situation was not good. The PJ had a lot of ‘evidence’ against us, and I was certain to be made an arguida in the morning.
First he cited video footage the police had shot of the reactions of the blood and cadaver dogs in apartment 5A and also around our hire car. I would be shown this on my return to the police station, he said. Presumably repeating what he had been told by the PJ, he explained how samples from both these sites had revealed Madeleine’s blood and one of them indicated a 15 out of 19 match with her DNA.I was totally perplexed. Although this news, if true, seemed to add weight to the possibility that Madeleine had at the very least been physically harmed, unusually I didn’t dwell too much on the frightening implications. I can only assume this was because what we were being told didn’t make sense. If, as the PJ alleged, Madeleine’s blood was in the boot of our car, which we had not rented until 27 May, how on earth had it got there? Did this mean someone had planted it? I could see no other explanation. The police theory, it seemed, was that we had hidden Madeleine’s body, then moved it later, in the car, and buried it elsewhere.
As always, Kate goes straight to the car. I can't find a single example where either of them has responded to the dog alerts in the apartment.

My position would be : Forget about the car; what about the alerts in the flat? Because they don't seem to want to discuss them 
Next came the matter of a crumpled page the police said they had discovered in my borrowed Bible. It seemed this was felt to be highly significant because the passage on that page, in II Samuel 12, dealt with the death of a child. I knew nothing about any pages being crumpled, let alone in which part of the Bible. The fact that I had asked to see a priest on the night of Madeleine’s disappearance was also seen as evidence of guilt. What? I was beginning to find my credulity stretched to breaking point. ‘Don’t people in Portugal talk to priests in times of need?’ I asked Carlos. Apparently not. They only called for a priest when they wanted their sins to be forgiven. Good grief. This was definitely not the faith with which I was familiar.
Oh yes it is.
It is not normal for catholics to call out a priest in the middle of the night to ''pray with them''
You call a priest if you need a sacrament. Such as the last rites, or confession 
A witness claimed to have seen Gerry and me carrying a big black bag and acting suspiciously. This was absolute nonsense, but ‘evidence’ of this kind came down to one person’s word against another.

Did they indeed? Word of advice - never say "It's his word against ours" when you are the one with the missing 3 year old
And it appeared that, as far as the PJ were concerned, our word counted for little.
I think that throwaway line is significant. I believe it indicates that the PJ believed they had an eyewitness to the pair of them carrying a bag.  
‘If you were Portuguese,’ Carlos said with an air of resignation, ‘this would be enough to put you in prison.’The only conclusion I could draw was that we’d been framed, though this seemed completely implausible.
It is 

I'm going to throw something out there

If a witness did make this claim, and we have to assume they did, then I think we also have to assume that they were a witness from outside Portugal and probably from the UK. The existence of any such evidence would not have been permitted to be included with the released PJ files unless it was given directly to the PJ or an agreement existed between the force who did collect any such evidence. And the PJ would not have been able to speak of it.
I do recall at the time a report did briefly appear, claiming that they had been seen, if my memory serves, placing a bag in a bin at the supermarket, but I have never been able to locate the report, so I'm guessing it could have been pulled
Faced with something like this, way beyond the sphere of your experience, it is natural to dismiss it as impossible, but that doesn’t mean it is. When I thought about all that had happened so far, maybe anything was possible. In any event, it seemed we’d underestimated the magnitude of the fight we had on our hands. Even our own lawyer appeared to think, based on what he’d been told, that the police had a good case against us.
I think this is also significant. Would a disputed lab result constitute a good case? Maybe not on it's own. But a lab result plus an eyewitness seeing you with a big bag? That's a tricky one  
I could see by this time that Gerry was starting to crack.Then came the best bit. Carlos announced what the police had proposed. If we, or rather I, admitted that Madeleine had died in an accident in the apartment, and confessed to having hidden and disposed of her body, the sentence I’d receive would be much more lenient: only two years, he said, as opposed to what I’d be looking at if I ended up being charged with homicide.Pardon? I really wasn’t sure if I could possibly have heard him correctly. My incredulity turned to rage. How dare they suggest I lie? How dare they expect me to live with such a charge against my name? And even more importantly, did they really expect me to confess to a crime they had made up, to falsely claim to the whole world that my daughter was dead, when the result would be that the whole world stopped looking for her? This police tactic might have worked successfully in the past but it certainly wasn’t going to work with me. Over my dead body. ‘You need to think about it,’ Carlos insisted. ‘It would only be one of you. Gerry could go back to work.’I was speechless.
Hmmmm

I don't think I would be speechless

I think my question would be "Well, to admit to that would mean admitting where I put the body - and I have no idea where the body is, so how is that going to work out?"

The incentive to accept this ‘offer’ seemed to be that if we didn’t agree to it, the authorities could or would go after us for murder, and if we were found guilty, we might both receive life sentences. Was this what it came down to? Confess to this lesser charge or risk something much worse?Gerry was distraught now. He was on his knees, sobbing, his head hung low. ‘We’re finished. Our life is over,’ he kept saying over and over again. The realization that we were at the mercy of an incomprehensible criminal justice system had hit him hard. It was excruciating to see him like this.
Okay, maybe it's just me, again, but my response would not be "Oh woe is me, we're finished" it would be "Hang on, this is bollocks. I am not having this"

Otherwise, films like the Shawshank Redemption would just consist of a man wailing "OMG I'm finished" and never bothering to wade through shit.  

47 comments:

  1. Morning, NT

    Great piece. Many thanks.

    Ag

    ReplyDelete
  2. So by pure chance the bible is crumpled by samuelII? And as you say the witnesses to the bag carrying must have been british...it's only thing that makes sense. But with kate it what she doesn't say...or glosses over, that is most telling. I would like to know what the "this and that" that appears.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I think another pertinent remark is that there was never any plea bargain as mentioned in Kate McCann's book . This was promptly denied at the time by their own lawyer but not enough to prevent this sad, calculating woman from continuing to be deliberately dishonest. I think Blacksmith actually has a very good post about it.

    https://www.theguardian.com/media/2007/sep/17/mondaymediasection13

    ReplyDelete
  4. @04:47

    Thank you for the link. I remember that story.

    Ag

    ReplyDelete
  5. Hello. Since you mention the bargain we can also remember the result of my challenge several years ago, offering a prize (genuine) to anyone who could show the evidence that KM had rejected her lawyer's advice to admit that she had disposed of the body of her daughter.

    It was an early example of "show it to us". I asked where KM actually stated this in the very long, very detailed and very emotional description of the discussions quoted by NT.

    The pros went nuts, just as they had done when I said the written evidence demonstrates (as it does)that Jane Tanner, in her crucial rogatory interview, had never either denied or confirmed identifying Murat from the surveillance van episode, only flannelled.

    After many failures by the gang Nessling came to claim the prize and in the end - a pro-rarity! - had to concede that nowhere in that chapter or anywhere else had KM actually rejected his advice, if, indeed, such advice was ever given. Like JT she had flannelled.

    Both the JT and KM episodes are linked indissolubly. Both knew that they couldn't possibly tell the truth, despite the risks involved. JT couldn't say yes or no because a) the truth (yes, she had identified him) would destroy her credibility as a witness and b) if she lied and said no then the PJ for certain, from their own records, would know that she was a liar.

    KM couldn't write that she had voluntarily considered and explored in detail the advantages of admitting hiding the body; that would have been tantamount to admitting in Madeleine that the Ribeiro/Amaral line of inquiry had been correct all along.

    But nor could she say that she had rejected the advice with horror because that was an outright lie that Abreu had made a red line (his assistant was also present and knew the truth).

    So, in a fairly extraordinary piece of risk-taking she pretended she'd rejected it, using masses of literary tricks and rhetoric, starting with that wonderful "Pardon? I really wasn’t sure if..." paragraph in which she lies her head off. One wonders whether she was capable of such advanced, if corny, literary devices without help from someone else. But KM constantly surprises.

    The other reason the two episodes are linked is because, unlike so much of the old investigative evidence, they are both very much live leads in the two investigations: the risks both took could not succeed in the long term. The PJ know for certain that she was willing to admit that she had disposed of the body without being pressured and now (since Madeleine)they know that she lied about it.

    JT's equivocal but damning responses to LP must have made it much easier for Redwood and co. to follow their instincts and, in the end, to use her as the crowbar to start prying the case open. We shall see.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Totally agree, JB.

      There is another passage in the book I find particularly revealing. It's coming up next. It too is characterised by a rather brisk "anyway, nothing to see here, move along" touch. It is also, thanks to the miracle of the released files, a touch short on the actualité

      Delete
    2. I sincerely hope you are right JB...but do you feel the evidemce is there to crack open the case? Or crack km?

      Delete
    3. Hello JB.
      I've just done a post on Justice on Facebook, and tweeted, on these very points. Well, just as a bit of a push for people to start talking about these points really, because as you say, they're consistently avoided.

      I suppose I have 'abandoned' Twitter of late - well, for posting anyway- because I find myself with no contribution to make.
      I have perhaps in the past been drawn into the obvious traps, that now feel so utterly pointless. I'd love to see discussion take off in the right direction again.

      Delete
  6. Hello. We should never make the petit-bourgeois mistake of the Usual Suspects in thinking that we are both more intelligent and more honest than the police. For every copper I've met who might cut corners I've met a hundred "ordinary people" who fiddle their expenses, pilfer office stationary, evade VAT, lie about why they didn't come to work and so on.

    The police in this country are, on the whole, us in uniform.If we can see these things in the case then so can they. On the whole, also, the people who nick printer paper from their workplace or pay cash to fiddle VAT etc.do not go on to kill their employers and rob the office safe, or set up huge VAT evasion scams: they get by, stumbling along, doing the best they can, like the rest of us.So do the majority of the police.

    So I have no fear at all that if the evidence is there they will suppress it. I'm afraid I find that idea a childish fantasy based on ignorance of how the world actually goes round - despite the desperately unconvincing pose of "I'm never fooled, chum", from the Usual Suspects.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's not police supression of evidence i'm thinking of. There are individuals with connections who made fools of themselves in the rush to help the mc canns 11 years ago. I don't doubt the integrity of the police(2 serving officers in my immediate family) but it is what is done when the police have collated that evidence. That is how the world works.

      Delete
    2. "...according to a new report

      "Compiled by HM Inspectorate of Constabulary and the HM Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate...it was rare for police officers to tell prosecutors about evidence that could undermine their case or assist the accused’s – known in legal terms as unused material.

      - The Independent (18.7.2017)

      Delete
    3. Part 2

      JANE's ACCOUNT
      “Okay. And can you just go on to tell me a bit more about that surveillance?”
      Reply “Yeah, erm, well I was actually talking to, I think it was the, it was some of the PEOPLE THAT KATE AND GERRY BROUGHT IN, I was actually talking to them about what had happened at that point. And Bob SMALL rang, erm, rang me on my phone and sort of said, well he scared the living daylights out of me, because rather than saying ‘The Portuguese Police want to talk to you’, or you know, ‘I want to pick you up to see the Portuguese Police’, he said ‘I need to pick you up and take you to see the Spanish Police but you can’t tell anybody not even Russell’ and all this, so it was sort of a bit and because he’d said Spanish Police, I thought there was some sort of a strange conspiracy going on, so it was like, oh, but, I mean, he just got”.

      4078 “Got it wrong”.
      Reply “He just got mixed up. But that made me even more suspicious because it was like, so I think at that point, I think I actually spoke to Stewart then, because I thought, I didn’t even know who Bob SMALL was at that point, so it was like, you know, and that, we were obviously worried about the Press and everything at that point, we thought it could be anybody, you know, trying to ring, and at that point I thought it could even be the person I saw ringing. So, erm, we, erm, so, yeah, and I did tell Russell where I was going, because I thought ‘I’m not just going and getting in a car with somebody who is taking me to see the Spanish Police’. So Russell, we walked, so I arranged to meet Bob SMALL in a car park at half seven or something at night or whatever it was, so Russell and I walked up to, erm, to meet Bob SMALL and, by chance, erm, we walked up, we’d missed the throng of Press that were at the top of the road, we actually walked up by Robert MURAT’s house and he came down in his car, in his van at that point, stopped, and he knew Russ, he’d met Russell earlier in the week, so he actually jumped out to say ‘Hi’ to Russell and he was showing us, erm, things in the back of his car as to what he was doing with the, erm, because they’d set up a stop where people could come and give their own evidence”.

      Delete
    4. To Nick

      "...but it is what is done when the police have collated that evidence. That is how the world works."

      Hello. I was not aiming at you when I made the comment about the Usual Suspects not knowing how the world works when they act oh so knowingly about the corruption all around us.

      But I'm all ears: since you appear to know how the world works would you like to tell us all what happens "when the police have collated the evidence?" And, rather more importantly, where exactly you got that knowledge from.

      Delete
    5. I am merely referring to when evidence is passed onto the cps...that's all. And what happens to it at that point. As i reiterate i hope you are correct...but having two serving officers in my family...they have come up against problems themselves. I am not prepared to go further than that on a public forum. I am aware your comment was not aimed at me...rather i just tend to be more skeptical about justice being served in this case.

      Delete
    6. Nick21 June 2018 at 23:45

      Afternoon, Nick

      Thanks. I understand.

      Ag

      Delete
    7. john blacksmith21 June 2018 at 09:03

      Afternoon, JB

      “Hello. I was not aiming at you when I made the comment about the Usual Suspects not knowing how the world works when they act oh so knowingly about the corruption all around us.”

      I should hope you weren’t!

      “But I'm all ears”

      ?

      “since you appear to know how the world works would you like to tell us all what happens "when the police have collated the evidence?" And, rather more importantly, where exactly you got that knowledge from.”

      With respect. You appear to know the answer and are minded to massage the question. To be fair, the onus to explain how the world works (“actually goes round”) is on you, actually.

      “And, rather more importantly, where exactly you got that knowledge from.”

      Perhaps from experience: examples of police officers following orders/guidance from above and other agencies with their own agenda are plentiful. I guess you would know that.

      Ag

      Delete
    8. Can't disagree there Ag. As an example i remember watching interviews with officers of south yorkshire police about their anger at not being able to arrest cyril smith despite reams of evidence. How they were so badly blocked by agencies that new recruits were shown smith as an example of an untouchable predatory paedophile. Indeed so bad were these csa survivors stories that some new recruits had to be physically restrained from beating smith to a pulp. Now not for one second am i comparing this to what happened to madeleine.. except that the mc canns made fools of certain figures with clout...who definitely put pressure on amaral,the pj and portugese government. I would imagine these people would like their stupidity that they were conned by such a bs story forgotten.

      Delete
    9. I and I are good, Nick. ‘I and I’ betokens concord.

      Yeah man.

      Respect

      Ag

      Delete
    10. More I and I among us all would be be irie
      Respect back at you

      Delete
  7. PArt 1
    JB, I agree as to the importance of the two episodes. In the Tanner case, it is clear she cannot lie blatantly and her rogatory shows that. She can only be vague or appear confused. That , however, does not prevent Kate McCann from manipulating the facts or Jane from making a mess, a non incriminating mess, in her rogatory.

    Although they both try to pass the episode as sinister , the reality is that this was organised in conjunction with Bob Small from the Leicester Police who personally telephoned Tanner. Small was the McCanns' liaison officer at the time. Another point is that, in my opinion, Bob Small must have been inside the van as well, since Tanner does not speak Portuguese and he brought her to the van that night. Both LP and the PJ knew and know exactly what Jane said during the surveillance and from that there was never any escape possibe for Tanner.

    I transcribe some sections of KM's book and of Jane's account here for reference (caps are mine):

    KM's ACCOUNT
    “...Then, early in the
    evening, we heard that Robert Murat, our erstwhile
    translator, had been taken in by the police for
    questioning. We had no prior warning of this from the
    police. The first we knew of it was when we
    happened to catch the ‘breaking news’ on television,
    THE SAME AS EVERYBODY ELSE”.

    “...It later transpired that on the evening before Murat
    was taken in for questioning, the police had
    summoned Jane to a mysterious rendezvous in the
    car park next to the Millennium area, refusing to say
    why they wanted to see her and insisting she told no
    one. Their behaviour seemed so sinister that she
    was quite scared.”



    “...The police moved the van to the car park opposite
    the Ocean Club entrance to try to give Jane a better
    look at the third man, but here he was walking along
    a path and her sightline was blocked by foliage. By
    now the van windows were steaming up, too. She
    told the police she could not be sure either way. One
    of the officers made a phone call to check whether
    she needed to sign a statement to this effect but then
    informed her it wouldn’t be necessary.”

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hello anon 04.53.

      Yes, it's good to know that others agree on this. I'm sure you're aware also that, although I don't go too much on the "paid pro-McCann shills" business, both episodes went on to the old "DO NOT DEBATE" list after the argument was lost. And there they remain.

      Both STM and JATYK, the main pro-forums then, plus twitter McCann, went silent on those subjects, as well as some others (e.g. the question of the McCann lies) simultaneously.

      While it no longer matters, since the pros have now fallen silent on almost everything, the poor sods, it's noteworthy that the dogs have never been on that list.

      Just what form this rigid agreement not to post about these subjects again took - could it really have been independent individual choice? - is an unimportant but potentially fascinating subject.

      What the final effect of these two instances of deliberate deception will be on the outcome of the twin investigations, we do not know. Their main significance up to now, I would guess, is to have reminded investigators - and their superiors - at every turn that people don't deceive in this way without very good reason.

      Delete
    2. Evening John,
      Following on from that, I'm sure I cannot be alone in thinking that the McCann's use of the giant publicity machine that is the internet was really just for raising money. If anyone cares to take a browse around websites dedicated to other missing people or possible miscarriages of justice, campaigns by parents affected by court decisions etc, one thing is evident - they are all regularly updated, there is always evidence of activity.

      The McCanns have a facebook page which is restricted to 'messages of support' and not run by them, a website which only serves to carry their Christmas and anniversary messages and that's it. Oh, and their own highly paid press spokesman, of course. I don't think they even bother with the pretence that they are doing anything, nowadays.

      But then, I never saw an appeal where, despite there being millions in the coffers, they asked people to pay for posters and stickers.

      Delete
  8. "We're finished. Our life is over." - if those really were his words, then yes, very odd. Well, not odd when it comes to them, but for anyone else in that situation, you're right NT, you wouldn't be on your knees accepting that your life is over, you'd be furious. "Finished" says to me it's their careers or social status is what he's referring to, rather than life as they knew it, which was already long gone.

    Shawshank, what a film. One of very few King adaptations that lived up to expectations for me.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Sade, still topping up the tan? :)

      It was such a good film, wasn't it? You are right, some of them have been virtually unwatchable

      Delete
    2. Sade...what about carrie? The shining? The remake of It? Even firestarter wasn't bad? Agreed though most were not great.

      Delete
    3. And the running man wasn't bad lol

      Delete
    4. I did reply to NT but might've fallen asleep before I sent it lol...
      Yes, The Shining, though it's nothing like the book, practically a different story. The Green Mile was excellent, as was Stand by Me. The remake of IT I wasn't impressed with.
      Unfortunately, King makes some terrible decisions in that respect in favour of his bank balance in my opinion, but guess what? I still love him, even if I don't agree with everything he does or thinks. Imagine that eh?!

      Delete
    5. I seem to remember Pet Sematary was particularly shite

      Delete
    6. One I haven't seen, thankfully, as I've heard that before lol!
      The story disturbed me for a while after reading actually, as I had a toddler at the time and was overcome with panic whenever we were near a road.
      The Mist is one I'll always remember cringing at, and don't think I even watched for longer than ten minutes.
      What I'd said in the comment I intended to send last night, was how the only King adaptations that live up to the writing, are the ones that focus on the character over the horror and gore - it's that that King excels in, character. The films that focus on his "black comedy" style horror are the ones that fall on their face.
      He never intended to be a horror writer, and his best works, in my opinion, are anything but.
      You've started something now NT; I'm a bit of a fan - in case you hadn't noticed 😄

      Delete
    7. I definitely agree about the character ones - I had completely forgotten about Misery and Dolores Claiborne, both excellent, in no small part due to the fantastic Kathy Bates - but in terms of tension it's difficult to top Salam's Lot, which was scary as fuck

      Delete
    8. I'll do a poll if you like, best adaptation of an SK book. A proper poll, not a Bennett poll where every answer says "You agree with me"

      Delete
    9. I loved The stand....the adaption was good too. Cell was probably the worst adaption...although thinner,the langoliers and pet sematary were awful. Had totally forgotten about stand by me...one of my favourite films.

      Delete
    10. Haha! I vote yes to that!
      Though we'll have to take into account that 'silent majority' who lurk on street corners waiting for a poll they can hijack 😂

      Delete
    11. If I may join in? 'Stand by me' still one of the best for me. 'Misery' was good, as you say. But 'The Shining' was bl awful ...complete disappointment after the book. Was 'The Green Mile' from a King book? Can't remember but a good film. ��

      Delete
    12. Hi Lesly 😊 yes, The Green Mile was originally released in short instalments/novellas and subtitled separately, then released as a full novel. The film is very true to the book!

      Delete
    13. I think quite a few of the films were originally short stories, weren’t they?
      The Shawshank Redemption was originally “Rita Hayworth and the Shawshank Redemption”, and I’m sure “Thinner” was too. There can’t be many authors who have had so much of their output end up on the big screen

      Delete
  9. Evening all,
    Busy day today, there'll be a bit of a delay before I have the chance to approve posts, but will be back later to reply and to laugh at next door and the festival of tantrums which is still going strong

    ReplyDelete
  10. I've read the Textusa stuff for a number of years now. I've always said that the odd thing she writes is quite good, the majority is garbage & the rest she just makes up as she goes along!

    My opinion on that has never changed. Until recently that is and I now genuinely think she is some sort of WUM!

    Piss poor stuff!

    Regards,

    Andy


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree, Andy.

      For example, she has become fixated on a comment I made, saying that a cadaver dog alert only tells you that the products of human decomposition are in the air, not who they belonged to or how they got there.

      I would have thought that was, to put it bluntly, fucking obvious.
      How can a dog alert tell you what happened? It can't
      How can a dog alert tell you who's dead? It can't.

      So the lunatic comes back with this:

      "“It’s relevant that dogs in Shannon case alerted to specific items [furniture]. They didn’t just detect floating molecules in the air.”

      How does one get to the advanced age she is without understanding how 'smell' works? Children are taught this at about 9 or 10 years old.

      In order for anything to develop a smell, it has to be able to release molecules into the air. That's how smell works. The air is drawn through the nose, the volatile molecules are captured in a tissue full of specialised cells which 'recognise' the scent.

      So the molecules, regardless of whether they are adsorbed onto the chair, a curtain, a tile or the frigging 'pants of ganga' have to be released into the air for the dog to smell them.

      I mean, this is not difficult science. It's bloody basic.

      I think she's just making an arse of herself now tbh

      Delete
    2. How dare you...of course these people lay dead for a day and sprayed eau de cadaver all over ikeas finest ;)

      Delete
    3. New Troll on the Block22 June 2018 at 04:28

      That's what I think Andy.

      She/ he, (I'm minded to go with HE
      actually) is probably killing themselves laughing every time they stop typing.
      And we are the fools for getting wound up over it.
      The best way to stop wind up merchants is to either ignore them, or humour them.
      Which is what I am going to do from now on.

      Come to think of it, I wouldn't mind a swinging week this summer.

      The same partner does get a bit boring after a while.lol.

      A spot of sun and a few lovely ladies would do me the world of good.




      Delete
    4. @04:28

      Capisco. Buon viaggio!

      Cin cin! Ciao, ciao…

      Ag

      (Gentile Gesù! Vergine Madre, figlia del tuo figlio! Non permettere a quest'uomo di cucinare curry!)

      Delete
    5. Buongiorno, NT

      Se non porti via NTotB, ti ordinerò di arrestarlo per ubriachezza.

      Ag

      Delete
    6. There was one, I will have to see if I can find it, where she started off talking about one thing, veered violently off course halfway through, then wound it up without ever making a single substantive point. It was hilarious.

      Delete
  11. ... & again as I've always said, then my main problem with Textusa (Apart from the obvious guff most of the time), is the fact she REFUSES to post comments I make in trying to answer back, correct or discuss! (& by the sounds of it then that happens to quite a few others also)

    Can't be arsed with all that nonsense again. It's pathetic!

    Cheers,

    Andy.

    ReplyDelete

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