Sunday, 3 June 2018

Signs of life

Morning all.

Today I thought it would be interesting, rather than delving into Textusa's fantasy world of inadequate esplanades and holiday resorts who mock her with octagonal tables (don't ask) to look at something actually of relevance. So we are going to look at a passage from Kate's book. This does not breach copyright law which allows for short passages to be reproduced.

The first thing to note about this passage is that, for such an important event, it seems surprisingly brief, especially considering the many pages devoted to her IVF experiences and Gerry's sperm donations (apologies to those having breakfast)

Anyway - usual rules apply. My words in red.

Then a lady appeared on a balcony – I’m fairly certain this was about 11pm, before the police arrived – and, in a plummy voice, inquired, ‘Can someone tell me what all the noise is about?’
Okay - from other accounts we know that the lady in question was Mrs Pamela Fenn, a British ex-pat who had been living in Portugal for some years 
I explained as clearly as I was able, given the state I was in, that my little girl had been stolen from her bed, to which she casually responded, ‘Oh, I see,’ almost as if she’d just been told that a can of beans had fallen off a kitchen shelf.
Two things to remark on here. Firstly, was there really any need for the spite? What had Mrs Fenn done to Kate McCann to make her speak in such disrespectful terms? Kate's book is full of fawning praise for many people, yet she writes about Mrs Fenn in these terms. We'll return to this later. Secondly, I find it rather odd that it didn't seem to occur to her or Gerry to ask Mrs Fenn if she had heard or seen anything. Mrs Fenn was, after all, the only person who seems to have been at home in an adjacent flat, yet not only do they not seek her out to ask if she heard anything, but they don't think to ask her when she appears 
I remember feeling both shocked and angry at this woefully inadequate and apparently unconcerned reaction. I recollect that in our outrage, Fiona and I shouted back something rather short and to the point.
Okay - so because this elderly lady doesn't immediately fly into a paroxysm of grief or angst, two supposedly mature, professional women verbally abuse her?

Let's just remember, Mrs Fenn didn't appear and ask them to keep the noise down. In fact, she offered the use of her phone. But even so, Kate chooses to memorialise her in her book by describing her in such pejorative terms. Plummy-voiced, unconcerned, inadequate. 

How extraordinarily rude.
I wandered into the children’s bedroom several times to check on Sean and Amelie.
Now, this is a strange choice of word. Wandered. Remember that when you read the next part, and also consider that she has just berated a lady in her 80s for not immediately descending from the balcony in a series of daring Parkour moves prior to sprinting into the night in pursuit of a supposed abductor. Yet she herself, Kate, is 'wandering' 
They were both lying on their fronts in a kind of crouch, with their heads turned sideways and their knees tucked under their tummies.
This next part is rather important, so I'm going to group my comments together 
In spite of the noise and lights and general pandemonium, they hadn’t stirred. They’d always been sound sleepers, but this seemed unnatural. Scared for them, too, I placed the palms of my hands on their backs to check for chest movement, basically, for some sign of life. Had Madeleine been given some kind of sedative to keep her quiet? Had the twins, too?
Let's start with the twin's positions.
What Kate describes is a position not dissimilar to the recovery position, but not quite the same. That raises two issues

If they were in the recovery position, who placed them that way?
If they weren't, then why didn't she immediately place them in the recovery position? That is first aid 101 for anyone, not least a doctor.

Kate described the children's deep sleep as 'seeming unnatural' This fits with the descriptions of other witnesses who recall the twins sleeping through the pandemonium surrounding them, switching on of lights, being moved, etc, without stirring. So let's accept that they were indeed unconscious.

This is where it becomes very puzzling. Because Kate does none of the things one is supposed to do.
I am not going to reproduce the entire method, but for example she does not mention putting them into the recovery position, which should have been the second thing she did after checking and establishing their airway. She makes no mention of attempting to wake them. She started this passage by saying she "wandered in several times" so clearly she was not continuously monitoring them, which she also should have done. And the truly incomprehensible part is this:

She doesn't call for help
Despite questioning whether the twins had been sedated, she takes no steps to find out
Despite questioning whether Madeleine had been sedated, she takes no steps to determine what was used to sedate the twins and thus probably also Madeleine
She has no medical equipment at her disposal but she makes no attempt to get the twins to a hospital where such care is available and where toxicology can determine what they have been given and how much.

When I have raised this in the past, McCann supporters have insisted that no such help was required because she was a doctor.

Well, I know many doctors, and none of them had a pulse oximeter or a toxicology lab installed in their arse when they qualified. We still need an ER/A&E for those

Anyway, back to the story
It was not until about 11.10pm that two policemen arrived from the nearest town, Lagos, about five miles away. To me they seemed bewildered and out of their depth, and I couldn’t shake the images of Tweedledum and Tweedledee out of my head. I realize how unfair this might sound, but with communication hampered by the language barrier and precious time passing, their presence did not fill me with confidence at all.
More of that signature gratitude, from Kate.

Here's the thing; if you go on holiday to a land where you don't speak the lingo, you should probably try your best not to fuck up. When you do, you should probably try not to use deeply offensive stereotypes to insult the policemen who come to your aid, especially when the problem is that YOU don't speak THEIR language. 
We did not appreciate until later that these two officers were from the Guarda Nacional Republicana, or GNR, who are essentially military police, like the Gendarmes in France or Guardia Civil in Spain, run by the Interior Ministry. They deal with matters like highway patrol and crowd control, and are also responsible for law enforcement in more rural areas like the Algarve, but they do not handle criminal investigations. At that stage, of course, we weren’t familiar with the various tiers of the Portuguese police system. As far as we were concerned, they were simply ‘the police’.
It is worth mentioning here that the response would have been the same in the UK - uniform would be the first on the scene, and would call in CID when it became evident they were required 
We tried to explain what had happened. David reiterated his concerns about roadblocks and border notification and I reported my fears that all three children could have been sedated. A lady called Sílvia, who worked at the Ocean Club, had arrived to help out with translation. 
Now - this is particularly interesting.

Kate tells us that Silvia has arrived to translate
Kate also states that she reported her fears that the children - all three - could have been sedated.


  • No policeman mentions any conversation with Kate in which she tells them she thinks the children could have been sedated
  • Kate does not mention in any of her statements that she spoke to the policemen about this
  • Silvia  does not mention in her statements that Kate asked her to convey any of this to the police.
  • In fact the first mention of these events at all is in this book.
What is more, she doesn't even claim that she asked for the children to be taken to hospital or for a doctor to be called, one equipped with more than the flat of her hand.

So let's consider this. The McCanns apparently believe their eldest child has been taken by a predator who drugged her and her siblings
Yet they do not try to wake the twins, which would be the correct step to follow. They do not place them in the recovery position, which would be the correct step to follow.
They do not undress the twins or make any other attempts to learn how the sedative was administered
Despite their medical training, they apparently fail to appreciate that their children have been apparently administered an unknown quantity of an unknown agent via an unknown route of administration by an unknown assailant

They also apparently fail to appreciate that whatever the children have been given could be extremely harmful  - they can't say it won't be because supposedly they don't know what it is or how much they have been given

They also fail to appreciate that knowing what it was could help Madeleine by identifying who took her

So what we have to ask ourselves is why a parent would find one child gone and the others unconscious and apparently drugged, yet the only action she takes is to wander.


  1. Many many questions, for most people reading Kate's book and not having that medical background they probably wouldn't pick up on the sleeping position. Just a tiny passage and you have picked up so many oddities and it makes you wonder why all of this was so important to be stated later in a book format, it's almost like the book is the first step to a possible future defence.

    You're right if any parent suspected their toddlers had been sedated just as Kate explains in her book they would have been rushed to A&E even if there was a language barrier so why weren't these toddlers.


    1. Hi Cat,

      What you said about a possible future defence strikes a definite chord with me, that is exactly how it seems when I read it. I have highlighted a number of passages I intend to review and that is something they all have in common. I started with this one as I think it is the oddest part of the book by far

    2. When I read the book years ago I remember thinking when I got to the end where are all the funny little stories about Madeleine as she looked like a proper little character but then I put the book down and forgot about it until years later. The book just didn't seem to be about Madeleine but more about what had happened whilst on holiday, it's only years later I question my first thoughts about the book and I only learnt about the PJ files recently, I know I must have been living in a cave.


  2. To remember so much detail about the sleeping position of the toddlers when blind panic should have set in seems very unrealistic. Again maybe just me but if i found my daughter missing i'd be so consumed with anxiety i don't think other details would sink in. It does make it seem like getting the excuses in early. Still can't get over the brass neck of kate writing a book unless it was some sort of personal confessional....without the actual confession. I look forward to an examination of these passages as i never have been able to keep my bile down long enough to read the thing.

  3. Hi NT, yet again, another fantastic entry. This particular account from Kate is absolutely riddled with ridiculous notions she expects (hopes) the reader will believe possible.

    Gerry would know the dangers of sedatives on a young heart, (especially if there was a chance they had been administered by an unknown child snatcher), and Kate being a qualified anaesthetist would know the potentially fatal situation they could be in.

    God forbid you or I found ourselves in that situation, but say for arguments sake you did; you return to a holiday apartment to find one child missing and 2 you thought had been sedated. Would you

    A. Take the twins to hospital immediately?
    B. Search for the missing child?
    C. Both of the above?
    D. Phone round friends in the UK and make up a story of a break-in?

    Ear ear, Gerry!

    The dangers, including death and cerebral damage can be seen here, in this Oxford Academic study:

    Of course, you don't need the knowledge of an Oxford academic, a doctor, or indeed an amoeba from the planet Zog, to know that if you suspect a child - anybody's child, was thought to have been given a drug of any kind, the first thing you would do is to phone an ambulance, or drive them directly to hospital, and INSIST upon them being fully checked, and monitored.

    1. Thanks Ben :)
      What you say is absolutely right. There are so many warning bells going off I've skipped over some to prevent a Textusa-length article emerging.

      Here's just one -
      You have unconscious twins on your hands. You think they may have been drugged by the 'intruder' who has taken their sister. You don't know when they were drugged, but according to your timeline it has to be within the last hour.

      So how do you know that what you are observing is not about to get worse? It could be a drug which is slow-acting, it could be a slow-release preparation, designed to keep releasing the drug over a prolonged period. They are unconscious now, but maintaining their own airway, but you were worried enough to keep checking them, so who is to say that in half an hour they might not be a lot worse?

      As for the language barrier, It would take me about 2 seconds of gesturing to convey the need to take these children to a hospital immediately.

      So there is a number of ways to interpret the information in Kate's book.

      1. It's an exaggeration for the book, and there was never really a question that the twins had been drugged

      This is something of a non-starter, because of the testimony of independent witnesses to the fact that the twins were spark out. These were people who were either so struck by the failure of the kids to respond to the pandemonium around them that they registered it as abnormal or put it in their statements, or who observed Kate obsessively checking the twins again and again.

      2. They did raise it with the police, but nothing was done.

      Another non-starter for me. There is no account of that evening that mentions Kate's 'suspicion' that the twins had been drugged. And this for me is the crucial part - there is NO ACCOUNT where it is mentioned. Not Kate's, Gerry's, any of their friends, or any of the english-speaking people they encountered, and none of the Portuguese. Nor is it mentioned in either the written timeline they handed to the police or in the contrived account they handed to the police before the second round of interviews. In that account the child seen by Tanner was "possibly drugged" and yet again there was absolutely no mention whatsoever of the events or the thought processes Kate describes in the book, or what caused them to arrive at the conclusion that she ''might have been drugged''

      3. This brings me to what to me is a hypothetical but perfectly logical conclusion from the information given.

      For obvious reasons, this is necessary under the circumstances.
      Hypothetically, one of the people responsible for the child knows what the child has been given, how much, and that they will be fine after they sleep it off.

      Now, if that was to be the case, it still raises massive issues, including the fact that the children had been drugged and not monitored which is a career-ending thing. It would however explain why no hospital admission was sought.

    2. Cont

      There is an even worse scenario, where Madeleine had indeed been subject to the same process but something had gone wrong (and I think we can dispense with the idea of an abductor here because no child is unlucky enough to be drugged by someone close to her AND abducted by a stranger on the same night)
      What we would have to conclude in that hypothetical situation is that the person who administered the drug knew of the role it had played in Madeleine's disappearance and yet trusted to luck that the twins would be okay, rather than own up and say "Okay, I gave them A,B or C. They need to go to hospital" in effect playing Russian Roulette with their lives.

      I shall leave you with one thought.

      Kate is not recorded by any witness, British or Portuguese, as asking or demanding a doctor/hospital for the twins, or reporting her suspicions that they had been drugged, although she claims in the book that she did.

      But she was able to make herself understood well enough to ask for a priest at 3.00am.

      Personally, If I have two drugged infants I'd rather have a toxicologist. Just sayin'

    3. Excellent points, especially drawing attention to the fact that there is no record of anybody stating Kate had directly discussed concerns about the twins being sedated. It's inconceivable to think that such a vital and indeed sensational revelation would have been forgotten.

      I'm with you on your conclusion. I think it's a very plausible theory that the McCanns engaged in damage limitation. Had sedation been a factor then, as you stated, both Kate and Gerry's careers would be finished for good. The rest of the practising members tapas 7 wouldn't come out of it very well either (by the by - perhaps). One or both parents would certainly be looking at a jail term, the loss of the twins, and without a career, the splendid family home wouldn't have vehicles McCann parked upon the drive, nor would they live in it either. It's not only plausible that had such a tragic event happened, a course of action whereby an attempt to conceal Madeleine's body, and lie about the events leading up to, and certainly after the 3rd, was required, it's understandable given what was at stake. Before the wittering wally accuses me (in several lengthy keyboard killing pages of waffle) of excusing the McCanns with that last sentence, I'm not. It makes a hell of a lot more sense than a salacious swinging theory though, doesn't it.

    4. I think it does, and what's more it works regardless of the inadequateness of the esplanade and without the need for negligence pirouettes.

      (Sorry, force of habit)

    5. Makes perfect sense to me. Kate administers sedatives with her anaethetists background(and further testing reveals other kids have been sedated...after all not many accounts of the state of the tapas kids that night) and we are looking at manslaughter and removal of the twins and all the tapas groups careers finished by association. Enough to force a pact between them all. What a bunch of cold fuckers.

    6. *anaesthesists dammit

    7. Do you remember when they hitched their wagon to the Amber alert thing in Europe? A newspaper carried details of the "Why didn't you come when Sean and I cried?" incident and Clarence reckoned it had been a deliberate attempt to scupper the launch.

      But there was something rather odd - the quote apparently taken from their statements said something like "Kate and Gerry discussed it briefly and agreed to keep a closer watch on the children"

      However, when the PJ files were released, there was nothing which corresponded with this passage. It occurred to me that perhaps it was taken from the additional statements which were taken by the Control Risks people and handed to the PJ. They form no part of the official PJ file.

      In turn that made me wonder how they came to be released to UK papers, described as passages from the statements they gave to the police, which they clearly were not.

      So, at the risk of certain people shrieking "Conspiracy!", I do wonder whether those passages were released by someone in the McCann team, to create the impression that their day was being scuppered by the PJ.

      Obviously, we have to take these reports with a healthy dose of suspicion because of their source, but all the broadsheets carried the story with the same wording and it appears to have come via the Press Association, which is how Clarence normally disseminates any McCann stories.

      However, if we assume for a moment that they were extracted from their ''additional'' statements, then it would be interesting to know what form this ''keeping a closer eye on the children'' took, because their routine appears unchanged.

      So I want you to imagine you are the police, now. The children are left alone each evening and on Thursday morning the McCanns become aware of a crying incident. They apparently discuss it and agree to keep a closer eye on the kids and later that night someone gets in and apparently drugs them all?

      I really don't feel they were in any position to say that the police were wrong to suspect them, considering it smells like a fisherman's socks

    8. Couldn't agree more. It is obvious that the pj never had that made as a statement to them as it was clear the dishonesty of it. The reason i bring up the tapas kids is i really don't recall what state they were in and if the tapas group were writing timelines in 5a,then who was watching their kids? Why were they not woken by the commotion? Or were they? I cannot find any info on this?

  4. Great blog and a very interesting read. You should write more blogs like this and just ignore that deluded game playing Textusa woman.

    1. You sure she/he/it is a woman?
      I read on the Cristobell blog that some people say Textusa is a male swinger who likes dressing up as a woman.
      As for playing games though, now that's another matter.

  5. That could explain the obsession with swinging then.

    I thought her name was Maria Santos.

  6. Guys, I don't know whether Textusa is male, female or undecided, tbh. I refer to her as a female as that is how she identifies herself. Having been the victim of her completely unwarranted multiple false identifications, aided and abetted by CarlaSpade, I'm not really all that comfortable with her coming in for the same. I have received some extremely abusive messages based on the false claims those two made, so can we just refer to her as Textusa and leave it there? Thanks.

  7. From what I can gather there are two schools of thought.
    One says old spinster called Maria Santos or one of three spinster sisters from the USA and the other says a swinging man who cross dresses.
    Either could be right and either could explain the swinging thing.
    The former because of a hang up about sex and what she is missing and the latter for obvious reasons.

    1. I think that regardless of her age, gender or marital status, her obsession with swinging is undeniable. I know she says it is because it was a word the police used when searching computers, but they found nothing significant and the computers had nothing to do with the McCanns anyway. There is more evidence of an abductor than there is of swinging and there is NO evidence of an abductor. Yet it is a topic she has stuck with through thick, thin and ridicule. That speaks of obsession to me.

  8. Sorry NT I did my post before I saw yours about no more speculation on Textusa's identity.
    Consider it now done.

    1. No, it's fine, no worries. Like I say I have no problem with anyone discussing why she is so fixated, but I'm sure people will understand why I won't stoop to her level

  9. Solid, solid stuff NT. I've never seen mention of the recovery position before nor the inferences that you've drawn from it: I may be wrong but it seems like you've scored a first.

    Apparent unconsciousness of one's young child freaks out every parent I've ever known, for a lot of very sound reasons, and neither I nor anyone I've known has rested until the reasons have been clarified - not least because young kids can suffer frequently from high temp, flushed cheeks, lassitude and excessive sleepiness etc. bugs that we learn to live with (after the first panic episode) but leave us always on the look out for clues that this time it may be something horribly serious.

    I'm talking simply of intelligent lay people but an anaesthetist, for Christ's sake? After an "abductor" has been in the room? From what little I've observed over the past couple of decades there has been a constantly increasing awareness in the profession of the dangers of any induced unconsciousness from any source whatever, as the Michael Jackson affair highlighted and the crackdown years ago on dentists doing their own anaesthesia illustrates. Could her training really not have reflected that?

    As so often in this affair, whatever she is saying cannot possibly be the whole truth.

    On Cat's reference to Madeleine as pre-emptive defence brief, first pointed out, I think by Dr Roberts, the sleeping thing joins the "6.30" visit, the "collective decision" on checking, the confession of lying and about half a dozen others where the text reveals very carefully worded paragraphs being assembled and then "bolted in" with a specific purpose, rather than flowing from the previous content of a chapter.

    But that's a subject on its own, isn't it? Anyway, nice one.

    1. Thanks, JB :)
      You are quite right, the dangers of induced unconsciousness have been reflected in many changes to guidelines and clinical practice - you won't see parents carrying unconscious kids away from the dentist nowadays, something which was once a common sight. The biggest risk will always be deep sedation in children, especially if it crosses over into anaesthesia with resulting unconsciousness, as small children are less able to maintain a patent airway than adults, so require extra monitoring and support. I mean, can you imagine posting this as a question on Mumsnet - "I found my kids unconscious, I don't know what they've taken, but it's okay to let them sleep it off, right?"

      You would break the internet.

      For me, this passage in the book is also significant for one reason in particular:
      it represents a cast-iron example where her version of events in the book differs from contemporaneous accounts both from herself and others. There is literally no mention anywhere of her raising the issue WITH ANYONE and no evidence that she did so. Interestingly, although she says she ''reported her fears that all three children could have been sedated'' she makes no reference to how this news was received or what actions were proposed. I suggest that is because it never happened, ie she never reported it.

  10. Very good blog highlighting several pertinent issues. Interesting also that in her 'bewk' Kate makes herself the centre of the piece (as she usually does) ... I say this because her version of the conversation differs significantly from that of Mrs Fenn herself.

    Processos VOLUME IX pages 2412 to 2145
    Witness Statement of Pamela Isobel Fenn 2007.08.20 (N.B. My Capitals)

    During the day nothing unusual happened, until almost 22.30 when, being alone again, she heard the hysterical shouts from a female person, calling out “we have let her down” which she repeated several times, quite upset. Mrs Fenn then saw that it was the mother of little Madeleine who was shouting furiously. Upon leaning over the terrace, after having seen the mother, Mrs Fenn ASKED THE FATHER, Gerry, what was happening to which HE replied that a small girl had been abducted. When asked, she replied that she did not leave her apartment, just spoke to Gerry from her balcony, which had a view over the terrace of the floor below. She found it strange that Gerry when said that a girl had been abducted, he did not mention that it was his daughter and that he did not mention any other scenarios. At that moment SHE OFFERED GERRY HELP, SAYING THAT HE COULD USE HER PHONE to contact the authorities, to which he replied that this had already been done.

    Quite different to Kate's version, isn't it?

    1. Re your penultimate para. My recollection is the same: Dr Roberts it was. Bless him.

      Thank you, JB.


    2. Long time no speak, oh the nightingale of my garden. How have you been, dear Lesly? Still keeping your paintbrushes wet?

      Thank you for your comment. Different it is indeed, but that’s our Kate, a mother in distress.

      Yours ever tenderly


    3. Ah Hercule ... it has been so long in fact that I have become an old lady. So tottery even that I have quite forgotten who you are, sadly. Paintbrushes and pen are almost dry these days.

    4. For ever young. A lady is never old. Forever young.

      Sipping cocoa, sulking.

      Yours unfailingly


  11. NT, could you please give your hypothetical version of what you actually think happened to Madeleine McCann?

    1. Yes, sure.

      I have done so already, you can find it in the comments on this thread:

      When I can, I'll extract it all and put it on a thread of it's own, but I'm doing this on my lunch break so there isn't time to do it now. Can you make do with that for now? If you read on through that and subsequent posts I have answered a number of specific questions too - should probably collect them together too, now I think about it.

    2. Thanks. It would be good to see your hypothetical hypothesis laid out in it's own blog post at some point.

      Would you be in a basic agreement in what Goncalo alluded to with his thesis?

  12. This is fast becoming the place to be at for McCann related discussion NT.
    The loonies are well catered for by Havern and Textusa.
    To have a place to visit for serious discussion though is a godsend.

    The most simple and plausible of explanations entertained here of accident and cover up to protect careers is a breath of fresh air amongst all the stink of the loons and their outlandish theories.

    I bet the Government wish now they had not helped the McCann's as they now have to continue the cover up.
    And as usual the cover up is worse than the crime.

    Keep up the good work and continue giving the loons no quarter.

  13. Splendid, NT, splendid.


  14. To add to the 8.45 post above there was a brief post on the Bureau recently about the Thorpe affair which, as usual, looked at things through a McCann spectrum and suggested one or two parallels. It failed to point out, though, the insights that business gives us into just how astonishingly far apparently normal people are willing to go to save their careers and ambitions.

  15. If anyone is in the immediate vicinity of Textusa, you might want to pop in in her, as she appears to be having some kind of psychotic episode. I would make sure you have health insurance first, though. And possibly a very large tranquilizer dart.

  16. Just leave her to it, please do! This discussion is interesting need to bring him/her/they into it. I for one agree with Anonymous 08.45 -

    "This is fast becoming the place to be at for McCann related discussion NT.
    The loonies are well catered for by Havern and Textusa. To have a place to visit for serious discussion though is a godsend."

  17. You have to wonder who the ghost writer was for this book, and what kind of opinion they had of Kate before, and after writing. If they thought anything of her - or rather, if they considered her a traumatised, falsely accused mother of a missing child - then surely they'd have at least once attempted to tell her it wasn't going to make her look very good. If it were me of course, I wouldn't dream of it. I'd be nodding enthusiastically, gushing away at what an emotional account of her anguish it was, all the while knowing it was about to send shivers down the spine of everyone who ever laid eyes upon its contents.
    I don't know the scientific term for those shivers but I'm pretty sure they're quite closely related to that "gut instinct" thingy, that screams 'something's wrong here, very wrong indeed.'

  18. NotTexusa is on fire right now, that's an amazingly well put together piece, it shows Kate to be a passive aggressive ( I'm being kind) with about as much medical knowledge as her comotose twins, just as well she's not a GP anymore, this is one instance where " don't give up the day job" does not apply, stick to writing fiction Kate, or rather your defense, trying to tie up loose ends, it's actually a real page turner when read with that in mind.

  19. The position of the twins that Kate describes is not an unusual one for very young children to take while asleep (Google it!}. Of course, a heavily sedated child would be at risk of choking if left laying on their back .... any doctor would know to put them on their side or their front. So why draw attention to it in her book? STRANGE.


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