Translate

Saturday, 2 June 2018

Jealousy

Evening all, hope you are all having a lovely weekend so far

Okay - this is the last time I am going to reply to this particular nonsense. Textusa has dug a hole for herself so deep she may well already be speaking with an Australian accent, but I really don't see why I should waste any more of my time on a proven liar who is too thick or too lazy to grasp even the simplest concepts. 



  1. About Not Textusa (now promoted by some as THE enlightened must-go to anti)
Careful Maria, your bitter rampant jealousy is starting to show.... 
  1. having said or not that odour molecules having wafted in or not into apartment 5A, which he denies, this is what he has said on the subject:
ER - we already cleared this up, Lying Loony, when you admitted that I said no such thing. Do you need me to remind you?

Okay, here it is: 

Textusa1 Jun 2018, 16:05:00 About you saying you never said the scent wafted in, it’s true, you never used the expression.  


  1. http://textusa.blogspot.com/2015/06/playful-molecules.html

    “You still don't get it, (censored)
    The whole point, Textusa, you (censored), is that airborne contamination could account for all the alerts.”

    (…)

    “No it doesn't. It means a cadaver dog alerted. The locations are very much secondary. Volatile molecules can accumulate in one area, it doesn't mean there are source residues there. It was inconclusive.”

    To this we then said (the post was written in June 2015) and as far as we know he did not contest until now:
For those of you wondering what the fuck is going on, for some ludicrous reason she has suddenly quoted from a post from three years ago. No, I haven't a clue why 

  1. “So what Insane really wants to get across to all of us is this: sure Eddie (cadaver dog) did mark the scent of Maddie’s corpse but that in no way means the body was ever behind the couch or in the closet. It means only that the airborne molecules of the scent were there. The body could have been somewhere else in the apartment.
Erm - before you continue making a complete fool of yourself, I ought to point out that what I said is precisely the same as Martin Grime said:

What we have to be able to understand in a situation such as this is in a hot climate with the apartment being closed down, the scent will build up in a particular area. If there isn't a scent source in here, i.e. a physical article where the scent is emitting from, any scent residue will collect in a particular place due to the air movement of the flat, the apartment and what I would say in this case is that there is enough scent in that area there for him to give me a bark indication but the source may not be in that cupboard, the source may well be in this room somewhere else but the air is actually pushing into that corner. (Martin Grime)
  1. OR NOT EVEN IN APARTMENT IF MOLECULES FLEW IN.
No, Maria - that was YOUR lie, remember? We have already covered this. You want it again? Okay.

Textusa1 Jun 2018, 16:05:00
 About you saying you never said the scent wafted in, it’s true, you never used the expression.  


  1. We are encountering playful molecules.
    They exited the body and then decided to play hide and seek in the apartment. Half went to hide behind the couch the other half in the closet.”
Take it up with Martin. Or look up Brownian Motion. In a dictionary. That's a big book full of words you don't understand.  

  1. Not Textusa has stated, quite clearly that molecules waft. They do and we agree. The difference between our opinions are the sources from which they waft.
Oh dear

 Textusa1 Jun 2018, 16:05:00
 About you saying you never said the scent wafted in, it’s true, you never used the expression.  

  1. Not Textusa says that the cadaver scent’s only source is the body itself, so when picked up and taken away, the source of these odour molecules disappears from site and we’re left only with the wafting molecules on site.

    That’s why he deems as absolutely useless the locations the signalled by the dogs. Yes, says he, they detected the odour BUT the locations where they were signalled are meaningless.
Am I going to have to quote Martin again? 
  1. We then explained why we thought he was saying this:

    “The importance of this?
    The idea behind it is to use forensics to validate the burglar thesis.
    Burglar came, killed Maddie and while he didn’t know what to do with the body it developed a gaseous mixture which released molecules into the air and which gently floated all the way behind the couch and parents’ bedroom closet. And there they remained for almost three months, at least. For all we know, they are still there. Like Insane's air fresheners they won't go away.
    Insane tries to push this absurd theory of floating molecules forward and this post is about avoiding having SY even try.”
All bollocks dreamt up by you and disseminated to your idiot followers. The only one introducing a burglar to this cobblers was you.

  1. By disregarding the locations where the dogs signalled the odour in the living-room and in the bedroom closet (which would be suspicious for anyone outside the T9 to have killed Maddie and put the body on those locations) it would make it possible for Maddie to have been killed ANYWHERE in the apartment (the kids’ room for example) as the EVRD dog had ONLY confirmed, literally, that there was cadaver scent in the air.

    Where had it originated from, impossible to say, says Not Textusa.
And also Martin. Shall we hear from him again?

What we have to be able to understand in a situation such as this is in a hot climate with the apartment being closed down, the scent will build up in a particular area. If there isn't a scent source in here, i.e. a physical article where the scent is emitting from, any scent residue will collect in a particular place due to the air movement of the flat, the apartment and what I would say in this case is that there is enough scent in that area there for him to give me a bark indication but the source may not be in that cupboard, the source may well be in this room somewhere else but the air is actually pushing into that corner. (Martin Grime)
Thank you, Martin 

  1. The fact the living-room and closet locations would be meaningless, ANYONE could have killed Maddie in that apartment. It could have been any of the T9 but, very important, could have been anyone else… say, a burglar.
Oooh - there you go, bringing burglars into it again. Neither Martin nor I said anything about burglars, did we? No, you added that. Another Maria Porky. 

  1. This in practical terms exempts the T9 from any wrongdoing, or in the very least raises serious questions on whether any of them were involved in her death.

    Add to this the fact that Not Textusa insists that the time for the cadaver scent to have developed can be significantly reduced from the hour and an half we all believe to be necessary,
Based on your inability to read a paper. And what I actually said is that the time taken has not yet been established in studies, so another lie there from you 
  1. then it’s quite clear he’s pointing to a burglar having killed Maddie accidentally Maddie SOMEWHERE in the apartment, cleaned the blood (no need to worry about any cleaning related with the cadaver scent as its only source is the body and when removed leaves no residue) and taken the body. All scientifically explained.
No. Never mentioned or implied anything to do with burglars. Just another Maria lie. 

  1. (Cont)
    Reply
  2. (Cont)

    So, all he and his promoters want the reader to believe is that cadaver odour is just a gaseous release from a decomposing body which leaves no residue once the body is picked up and taken. That the molecules the body released when it was there, linger in the air literally for months even though the apartment was rented and cleaned afterwards. 
Shall we hear from Martin again?

You so obviously have had no idea what everyone has been talking about all these years when residual odour has been discussed, that I almost feel sorry for you. The scenario you are seeking to dismiss is precisely what happens

  1. Doors and windows opened and these stubborn molecules just lingered there.

    Basically what Not Textusa is trying to do is to validate the “Third Option”:
    http://textusa.blogspot.com/2016/03/third-option.html
Well, I have no idea what the ''third option'' is, but I was not seeking to validate anything, especially anything you might have written. 

  1. Hopefully the reader can now understand why – in order to prove the utter absurdity of this thesis – we keep insisting in wanting to know from Insane what he thinks Eddie signal in the backyard. 
What are you on about now? We are not back to your "Site of a burial ground" lies again, are we, because you already admitted those.

Let me try, one last time, to explain this to you

I believe that Eddie, in common with other trained cadaver dogs, alerts to his target scent with a very high level of accuracy. So if his target odour is Human Decomposition, then that is probably what he is alerting to.

As to the SOURCE of that alert, that can only be determined, or confirmed, forensically. As it has not been, it remains an uncorroborated alert. 

Now - you or your brain-dead associates can declare it to have been caused by whatever you like, but that's not scientifically valid, and I'm afraid that I only deal with the valid. After all, you wouldn't want me to cut your leg off because I THINK you might have cancer, would you? I'm sure you would like to see it confirmed first

*Note for the conspiraloons - no, I am not a medic, no I have not threatened to cut Textusa's leg off*

  1. IF the ONLY source of cadaver scent is the body itself and once removed from site only airborne molecules are there to be detected as Not Textusa is adamant that is the case, the fact that Eddie signalled them in an open-air space like the backyard, then it is not ridiculous for us to say that Not Textusa’s thesis defends that these molecules could have been doing house-calls, wafting from apartment to into apartment, or in other words wafted in from outside the apartment into the apartment.
You can waft away all you like. You already admitted you lied about that. Shall we have it again?

 Textusa1 Jun 2018, 16:05:00
 About you saying you never said the scent wafted in, it’s true, you never used the expression. 

  1. In fact, we can even take this reasoning a step further and ask who is to guarantee that the molecules Eddie signalled in the backyard are even from Luz? For all anyone knows, according to Not Textusa, they could have come from Burgau or as even far as from Sagres.

    Something that even Not Textusa finds it to be absurdly ridiculous, reason why he’s calling into everyone’s attention he never said that the molecules wafted in. 
You did say you wanted your lies pointing out - just doing as you asked 

  1. Another thing he has never said (apparently we misread the words medieval graveyard when he wrote them) was to tell us what does he think Eddie signalled in that backyard.
Do you want me to copy over those lies and your eventual admission, Textusa? It's no trouble 

  1. To the genuine readers from those FB groups where Not Textusa has been enthusiastically and clearly promoted as an anti, aren’t you finding it a little strange the absence of a clear answer from such an evident and clear anti on this subject? 
I know you are an idiot, and believe me I make allowances for that, but which part of the sentence "The source of the alert is unconfirmed" are you struggling with so badly?

You may be desperate to say "This shows Maddie's body was placed here" but without evidence that is a meaningless statement.

I thought you claimed that the facts would always drive the theory, Maria?

I mean, we know that was you talking bollocks, but you did say it, did you not? 

  1. Don’t you find strange this wiggling out of something that any anti would say without hesitation: Eddie signalled the location where Maddie’s body was put on the flowerbed.
Only a stupid one with no understanding of science. You, for example. 

  1. And why doesn’t he answer? Because to acknowledge that Eddie signalled the location of Maddie’s body in the backyard that would disprove his theory that the sole source of cadaver scent is the body itself. 
What do you mean, ''why doesn't he answer?'' I am answering you, you cloth-eared bint.
The second part of your statement makes absolutely no sense as I have no such theory 

  1. It would mean that a decomposing body leaves physical vestiges that release cadaver scent molecules that are then picked up by the EVRD dog.
It can. But it might not. Don't you understand this basic principle? If you remove the body, leaving behind no fluids, tissues or other cellular remains, the only 'vestiges' are those airborne, volatile molecules. I think we need to have a conversation about the different states of matter because this seems to be difficult for you 

  1. That in turn would make the locations where the dogs signalled inside the apartment to be VERY relevant and that would make it very hard to explain why a burglar would kill Maddie “accidentally” behind the couch and take her dead body to the closet and then take it with him when he left without stealing anything.
No burglar. And do we need to hear from Martin again? 

  1. But do note that now the “playful molecules” characteristics have been passed on to blood. The same happens with it, says Not Textusa.
Odour can remain from blood. Don't tell me you can't follow that concept either? 

  1. According to him, even if cleaned thoroughly, the blood’s odour molecules remain in the air and can be picked up by dogs like Keela months later, just like Eddie picked up the cadaver scent ones.

    How is this important?

    Because the blood could not even be from Maddie.

    Every household in the land has a blood related episode at some time.

    People cut fingers in the kitchen, men cut themselves with a new razor, children fall outside and come in to disinfect the wound, the cat plays and scratches the owners and one mustn’t forget, every woman’s menstrual cycle.

    Loads of blood molecules floating around EVERY house, according to Not Textusa. What Eddie detected could be could be anybody’s blood.
Which is precisely the reason why alerts need to be confirmed 

  1. (Cont)
    Reply
  2. (Cont)

    So, let’s see what Not Textusa is now making possible:

    Burglar killed Maddie. No blood needed to have happened as blood alert could be anybody’s blood. 
I have never, at any point, suggested or supported the idea that a burglar was present. This is another of your lies, Maria 

  1. So he could have strangled her when trying to silence her, panicked and took her. No bleeding and no cleaning.

    Cadaver alert was body taken by burglar who took some time deciding what to do, while the NEGLIGENT T9 dined and that allowed burglar time to hang around long enough for odour to develop.

    All scientifically explained. 
Is this YOUR thesis?

Because it certainly isn't mine.

In fact, I challenge you to prove, without simply posting a series of links to your mad rambles, that I have ever suggested such a scenario 

  1. Even the signalling of Sean’s red t-shirt could be explained: it was hung up to dry on the veranda and the cadaver scent airborne molecules wafted the odour onto the shirt.

    Problem with all this is for Not Textusa and his gang to explain why Keela did not signal every apartment she entered as we said, every household in the land has a blood related episode at some time.
You do know that is why they always start with the cadaver dog first and not the CSI dog? No, thought not.

  1. Oh, and that pesky thing about what did Eddie indeed signal in the backyard. That is something we continue to wait for Not Textusa to explain.
I have explained it about ten billion times.  

  1. All those on FB and on Twitter or elsewhere both promoting Not Textusa and the dogs are either being ignorant or hypocrites.
I'm sure they feel exactly the same way about you 

  1. According to Not Textusa, the dogs are useless. They simply pick up scents but where they signal is meaningless. As shown above, according to Not Textusa, both Eddie and Keela prove absolutely nothing.
Another lie.

I have consistently and repeatedly, over the years, extolled the virtues of these dogs. I have produced supportive scientific papers and gone into great detail to break those down for people, even idiots like you who had to do a massive about-turn due to your failure to even read one paper before lying about it 

  1. But, if the reader wants to continue to believe in him when Not Textusa says he’s an anti and in those who REALLY want the reader to believe that Not Textusa is an anti, it’s the reader’s absolute right to continue to do so.
    https://twitter.com/SadeElisha86/status/1002681954658078721

    Another amazing coincidence in this case is FSS/John Lowe say that a “cellular material” contained components which matched Maddie (although said by FSS to be from more than 1 source, so inconclusive) and BOTH the dogs just happened to hit on this particular area.
    http://textusa.blogspot.com/2013/11/fss-its-maddies-blood.html

Well, you clearly don't understand that either. But that's a story for another day

I am going to wind up with this

Two things are very clear

One is that you have no understanding of the concept of volatile molecules, or the fact that they do indeed move about. That's what happens in a liquid or a gas - molecules move about. Frankly, I blame your teachers, but you probably weren't listening during the 15 minutes you actually attended school

Secondly, you are clearly very bitter that people have deserted you, as you see it. Maybe this should serve as a lesson to you - if you tell people bullshit for long enough, they will tire of you

Now, I am going to leave you with a video showing Brownian motion, in the forlorn hope that you might learn something





8 comments:

  1. That told the coffin dodger.
    Good on you.

    ReplyDelete
  2. All I can say is, if people want to read her posts and not bother to come here to see your responses before deciding if they agree with her, more fool them. Her lies are laid out here as plain as day. Perhaps the reason for the lack of support on the Facebook post. People have actually started coming here and seeing the truth.
    Mission accomplished 🙂

    ReplyDelete
  3. I think when she looks back she might realise that what has really done the damage to her credibility was when she started claiming I was all these other people and especially when Ben intervened and said he knew Alexandr and I certainly wasn't him. If she had just gracefully conceded she would have weathered the storm, but she dug in, the silly great fool.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Probably, but I doubt you'll ever see it admitted.
      Carla's at it on Twitter again, all capital letters and question marks. So shouty! 🙉

      Delete
  4. So where did this unconfirmed molecules came from? Grimes seems pretty sure there was smth afoul inside the apartment. Is there a way to explain the hits on the clothes (all from the same box) and is this a simple matter of cross contamination from only one item (washed Doll?)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It could be.
      In the Oesterhelweg study they used carpet tiles as the scent 'carrier'
      The cadavers were very recently deceased, a couple of hours, wrapped in cotton blankets and with no open wounds etc. One batch of tiles was 'exposed' to the cadaver, by placing underneath it but not in any direct contact, for just 2 minutes. Another batch was exposed for 10 minutes.

      Even with a very recently dead subject and a very brief exposure, the results were outstanding. As well as illustrating the reliability of the dogs, this also demonstrates how good the carpet was as a carrier. It would therefore seem sensible to suggest that other textiles would be good scent carriers too. You would have to test out the hypothesis in terms of cross contamination but it sounds distinctly possible to me

      Delete
  5. So the initial carrier, because something was brought from the apartment inside that box that had been 'touched' or was close enough with a 'recently' deceased body to contaminate the rest of the samples... could have been the only item from the girl left behind. Which while ironic it paints a 'clear' picture of the manner of transportation. I appreciate you taking the time to answer.

    ReplyDelete
  6. In the carpet squares study, the tiles, after exposure to the cadaver or the living person, were sealed into screw-topped glass jars, like the sort you want ups have in your kitchen. These were still eliciting a positive response even months later, but one has to bear in mind they were in a sealed atmosphere. For alerts months later, to things like clothing etc, my thoughts are that something, some item, was acting as a vector, passing scent onto other items or, for example, to the boot of a car. The obvious candidate would be the cuddle cat toy. But as I say, just an hypothesis.

    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.