Translate

Tuesday, 31 July 2018

Swerve - episode 2

Swerve Episode 2



"Like we explain to all our readers, it’s us who determines what we publish, when we publish. 
We will answer Anne’s Guedes questions. But prey tell, in case we may forget to address any issue that you may wish to see clarified, which of Anne Guedes’ questions you wish to see so urgently answered?
Warning, do not come up with questions of your own using Anne Guedes’ name. Quote her. Tell us, from what she has asked, which ones are, according to you, the pressing ones that urge a reply."

Pathetic, isn't it? 



Write the theme toon, sing the theme toon......



There is something genuinely disturbing about one adult telling another what they can and can't read or who they must not associate with. 

Just saying.

Fraud


One of the things which truly drives me up the wall about Textusa is that she is a total fraud

This is taken from a particularly obnoxious, hostile exchange she had with someone who posted on her Facebook page. After several really rude replies,  she posted the following. It is a complete pile of nonsense. That's fair enough, most of the stuff posted about this case is nonsense, but it's the fact that she claims knowledge she simply doesn't possess. She did the same thing with the lunatic piece she wrote about cadaverine and there really is no excuse for it



Textusa The question I put to you, and that you still have to answer: is there any lack of sequence in the handwritten numbering of the pages in the process for all you say above? 
Only THEN can it be said that they are missing.
For the Raj Balu and Neil Berry
, there's a legalese explanation that we have already given in the blog. Very simple, the Portuguese justice system considers that ONLY relevant documents are to be included in the process.
Absolute cobblers. 
They are not in the file because they were interviewed by the UK police. Interviews conducted under LOR belong to the file of the requesting nation, otherwise they come under the regulations which apply to the force they speak to. It was decided that information where the witness approached or responded to the UK police was not included in the published file, although the communication between the forces generally is.

That means if a witness is heard for a first time and what s/he says is not relevant to the process, then it is not appended to it. Not because it is secret but because it is deemed WITHOUT RELEVANCE.
Total cobblers. Complete fiction, made up by Textusa 

If later on, that same person is heard for whatever reason, then the first statement is compared with the second, where it's seen if there is anything on the first that has not been said or covered in the second. 
If the second says it all, then the first continues to be considered WITHOUT RELEVANCE, even though it exists. 
Not just fiction, but nonsense. If they said nothing relevant in the first interview, why would they be interviewed again? It is all retained. The idea that they say "not relevant'' and chuck it out is totally bonkers 

To the magistrate analysing the process, on seeing a second statement from a witness without there being a first one IN THE PROCESS, s/he immediately interprets that nothing is in the first that the second doesn’t say. 
Hilarious! 

Raj Balu and Neil Berry,likely said nothing of relevance when first heard but and when they were heard for the second time, the PJ looked at what they had said and continue to deem these first statements WITHOUT RELEVANCE. 
No - they spoke to the UK plods first. Hence, those first interactions are missing. 

Another clear example of this in a statement you missed that is also not in the process: the second statement from the laundryman Mario Marreiros. Where is the statement where he says he saw Neil Berry under the stairs? It’s not in the process. Why? Because that is covered in Neil Berry’s second statement where it’s clearly said that Berry was seen under those stairs and he recognises he was, so no need to include Marreiro’s statement, as all is in the files.
Bullshit 

You have the opposite phenomenon happening with a statement that was initially not in the process and then it was put in: Yvonne Martin. Her first statement was considered without relevance and so was not put in the process. Then with the arrival of the REQUESTED Gaspar statements, it was decided that those first statements could be of relevance and were immediately appended. 
Also bullshit 

Note that she has 2 statements within 24 hours of each other. If she had said the same on the second statement that she did on the first, the first would have been not included. It happens she doesn’t, she says different things, reason why BOTH statements are appended. 
Cobblers 

Carole Tranmer-Fenn was heard in the UK. Very good question, why wasn't her statement sent to Portugal together with the e-fit?
It may have been. But it wouldn't be published with the case file for the reasons I've already stated 

Who says Carolyn Carpenter was heard by the PJ? 
Nobody. She wasn't. 


The Portuguese justice system doesn’t play secret games. Portugal still bears a heavy burden from the abuses of its secret police from the times of the “old lady”. 
Any withheld document was withheld because it was considered WITHOUT RELEVANCE.
Cobblers. This is covered in the files. You have had a decade to read them 
To be brought “back to life”, or to be legal, not only it has to be proven the reason it became OF INTEREST as it has also to be evident why it was considered then WITHOUT RELEVANCE.
Cobblers 

See Yvonne Martin statements as an example. 
To use as an excuse “oh, we kept this paper because wanted to protect this person because… “ not only does not apply, as if you minimally understood the Portuguese culture would be huge scandal which the Portuguese justice system would never tolerate. In fact, not being in any way linked to the Portuguese justice system, I can tell you that even implying it would be done is an enormous insult to it, as it’s something that would not cross the mind of any of its professionals. 
You do not have the faintest idea what you are talking about. I am staggered that you haven't read this part of the files. That's a disgrace. 


To sum up, if the handwritten numbering is sequential, then, in legalese, the documents that are not there were considered WITHOUT RELEVANCE (as, for example, what they say has been said elsewhere in the process)
Manage
LikeShow more reactions
 Bull. Shit. 
Lord Miles Spencer I haven't addressed the numbering as it has little bearing on my points - do u have an explanation. As to why the analysis pages are "missing" - thankyou for your explanations so far
Manage
LikeShow more reactions
Reply1d
I don't know why you are thanking her, son. She's been a twat. 
Textusa If they are not there, it's because the PJ thought them to be irrelevant.
Nope. They also fall into a category which was withheld. All in the files 
Either because they contained nothing relevant (yes, it's says analysts and one would think it important but the judgement is on the person responsible for the process) or because what they contain has been said before somewhere else in the process. 
Bullshit.

The PJ would never hand over to the Public Ministry an "incomplete" file, so please stop suggesting that happened.
He didn't. The public ministry would have access to everything. The public wouldn't 

And would never release to the press the files without some pages, to which they justified having taken out and have not justified pages missing that people would easily see they were not there. Hope you are not suggesting the PJ would be that stupid.
That is EXACTLY what happened. This was agreed between all parties. This is all in the files

Fraudster 


Swerve


The driving instructor promised Textusa a pass if she let him out of the fucking car



The question
From Anne Gueddes 
Have you an idea of the number of people who are "in the know"? (not including you since your hypothesis is based on no evidence, afaik)

Your site has more than 3 millions visitors. How many of them, according to you, visit your site because they share your conviction?


The swerves

Anne Guedes,

Before we reply to your questions, to which we will, we think it's important to clarify something so we understand each other.

You say "since your hypothesis is based on no evidence, afaik".

Could you please tell us what evidence you would expect us, or anyone for that matter, to find that would prove, or at least convince you that there was a swinging event involving many people, some of which very powerful VIPs in Praia da Luz during that period of time?
And again 

We felt that we had to put on hold our reply to Anne Guedes (which we are hoping will spawn an interesting debate) but on being informed that NT and his lick-spittle gang had gleefully jumped on Anne Guedes’ comment as if a new messiah had arrived:
NT: “The estimable Anne Guedes, to whom we all owe a debt of gratitude..”
Sade Anslow: “Fantastic comment by Anne Guedes.”
Nick: “Anne guedes...bless you”
Lesly Frances Finn: “Amazing”

So, we felt it was the right time to go into what you have defined as “3 arguidos forum mode”, put on hold the reply to Anne Guedes and start to expose this group.
But what about Anne's question? 

Textusa, how about you answer Anne's question, rather than demanding evidence from others? I think you've stalled for long enough.
And swerve....... 

All Anne Guedes' questions will be answered. 

We are the ones who decide the course the blog follows. It will be up to Anne Guedes to complain in case she feels we have ignored her. 

It pleases us that the current topic is making you unhappy.
And swerve .....

As promised, after we deal with NT and his gang of lick-spittles, we will come back to you Anne Guedes, on all the topics you’ve raised, and if you wish including this one. For now, let’s keep to NT’s sedation theory.

Thank you for understanding.
Well okay, but....... 

Ok, Textusa, but I have more to say about the Gaspar question apart from the fact that I obviously never thought that the GS were sent accidentally.
And swerve....... 

Not Textusa, sorry but your white flag will be ignored. We will continue to do what we think we should, if not for anything else, we promised Anne Guedes that.
You of all people will find interesting a comment that we are to do soon about Blacksmith. When we do, we would certainly like to hear your feedback!
(Continue for 11 years......) 

Monday, 30 July 2018

Interlude

Announcement

I would just like to make it clear that, while I welcome the exchange of views, I won’t be publishing posts which attack other people who post here, or permit any flaming or forum wars

I’m not going to make a big thing of it or embarrass anyone. Just bear it in mind, okay?

Cheers


Postscript for the hard of thinking.

Clearly, that was a bit difficult to understand for some. Let's try again.

Don't start arguments with other posters on here or attack them . When it comes to Textusa, Baldylocks,  Turdi or any of the other shysters, fill your boots.


Post-Postscript for the terminally bewildered:

It was nothing to do with you, you pointless paranoid piss-sponge

I'm quite sure the message was received by the intended recipient/s, which wasn't the Swingmeister

Sunday, 29 July 2018

Pyjamagate

Here is a link to the excellent article which should put the utter nonsense peddled by Baldylocks back in it's box


https://laidbareblog.blogspot.com/2018/07/bananas-for-pyjamas-another-mccann-myth.html

Fucking idiot

Just taking a break from laughing to post this, from the lunatic's interminable comments page
Nick still hasn’t clarified if it’s his theory or if it’s NT who believes all the children of the Tapas 8 were sedated.
So what? Why is that the business of some anonymous troll? 
It’s very important to have absolute clarity about who is the originator of this theory and who also supports it.
Is it? Why? Here's a radical idea - form some ideas of your own, you clueless twat, rather than stalking around the internet like a special-needs weasel, trying to peer into other people's heads 
The bad language - is it catching disease on NT? - is unnecessary and avoids answering this question.
Really? Well, as it clearly bothers you, I suggest you fuck the fuck off you fucking fucknugget.
And have a nice day, etc.  😆😆😆😆😆😆😆😆

Saturday, 28 July 2018

Holding Pattern.

Jesus H fucking Christ on a meth binge - feast your eyes on this

Textusa. Self portrait


Comment we have received from Su, which we have censored:

“su28 Jul 2018, 18:24:00
Textusa,
I loved your blog when you posted posts which contained information and insight.
Nowadays it is like a visit to 3 arguidos forum.
Who gives a dam what these (censored) say.”
Reply
Aaaaand we're back to censoring again 😆 
  1. Su,

    Respect your criticism. We hope to, very soon, explain why we have been sometimes gone into “3 arguidos mode” as you say.
You have done so because you had nothing left to say, steered yourself into a cul-de-sac by claiming your post was the single most important thing ever written about the case and then took a massive hufferooney because people called you on your bullshit 

  1. We know it’s unpleasant and you and our readers must trust our judgement and understand that that we’re not dealing with just any (censored).
Why would anyone trust the judgement of a deranged fuckwomble with a swinging fixation and a table fetish? 

  1. These (censored) are a very well organised group and not only a character (NT), although we believe are led, on the internet front, by him. A group involving a well-known blogger and a FB group that claims having 38K members (now, just a little below that), so as we said not just any old (censored)
You really are hilarious. The only reason people found out I was even here, in the main, is because you accused them of being me, you daft tart. Don't get me wrong, I'm glad they did find me, because they are a great bunch and are very welcome but they are here because you pointed them here. These delusions you have about 'leaders' and the People's Front of PdL, suggest you should seek treatment

  1. Just to give you an example, Pseudo Nym/TheBunnyReturns/Ben Thompson is another person who agrees fully with NT and his sedation theory that has absolutely no evidence supporting it. Comment on NT’s blog:
What business is it of yours what Ben and I agree on? I am willing to bet there are far more people who agree with us than agree with you 

  1. “Pseudo Nym3 June 2018 at 09:22
    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.”
Indeed it does, mate; indeed it does.  

  1. This is not a forum/blog spat but an effort to nip in the but the tactics of this group. The fact that we have made them gather on Not Textusa Hill indicates that they are making a last push.
*loud, explosive laughter*

Honestly, have you ever heard anything like it? This is a blog, not the Baader-Meinhoff group, you deranged old cow. Behave yourself 😆😆😆😆😆 

  1. The fact that you and other readers have not heard of many subjects that we think they planned would be the hot topics to be discussed on the internet and are simply limited to posting stuff with the blatant objective of stoking up the hatred (justifying fully we be called haters by the press – not a coincidence) against the McCann (an effort to muster the lynching mob to pressure the government into archiving the process), tells us that although outnumbered we are being successful.

    (Cont)
What are you on about now? Your version had the poor child viciously struck for disturbing her mam playing ''Hide the Sausage'', then roping in 600 co-conspirators, so fuck off with your ''haters'' nonsense 
  1. (Cont)

    Mind you this group is not limited to those we have just referred to but also include who participate in the various fora on the internet.
Ah yes - the group. It doesn't exist, natch, but do tell us who's in it? 

  1. We felt that we had to put on hold our reply to Anne Guedes
"Because we couldn't think of one"

Let's be honest here - you have been selling the same theory for a decade, so why can't you answer Anne? It shouldn't require any thought at all. Unless of course there is no evidence and you just pulled the idea out of your arse 
  1. (which we are hoping will spawn an interesting debate) but on being informed that NT and his lick-spittle gang had gleefully jumped on Anne Guedes’ comment as if a new messiah had arrived:
Public Information Message

There now follows a passage of extreme jealousy. Please do not adjust your set 
  1. NT: “The estimable Anne Guedes, to whom we all owe a debt of gratitude..”
    Sade Anslow: “Fantastic comment by Anne Guedes.”
    Nick: “Anne guedes...bless you”
    Lesly Frances Finn: “Amazing”
Unlike you, Anne has actually contributed something to the discussions. Without her, we wouldn't have the court translations and insight into the machinations of the libel case, just for starters.

Whereas you have contributed nothing except a ludicrous theory and thousands of pages of utter bullshit 

  1. To clarify lick-spittle: A slimy grovelling and devious person who will do anything to get ahead in their life and career including accepting an order from the boss to lick a big green greasy lump of spit in the hope of promotion or a pat on the head.
    https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.urbandictionary.com/define.php%3fterm=lick%2bspittle&amp=true
This is extremely disrespectful to Anne. To take genuine thanks and praise and try to twist them because of your own blind jealousy, well, that's really shitty.  

  1. So, we felt it was the right time to go into what you have defined as “3 arguidos forum mode”, put on hold the reply to Anne Guedes and start to expose this group.
What bullshit. There is no 'group' to expose and you are using this feeble excuse to delay answering Anne because, simply, you have no answer. Stop posing and posturing as if you were Robocop - you're not some kind of vigilante, you're a daft elderly woman with a massive sexual hang-up and a desperately sad fantasy life. 

  1. This is not personal as we are not against one single person but a group.
Bullshit 
  1. A group of people we have come to the conclusion that have the objective to deceive people about the Maddie case.
Hilarious, coming from the Swing Monster.  

  1. As we said, we aren’t just dealing with blog and forum spats. We have recently publish info about the legal situation about statute of limitations in Portugal and also the European Investigation Order. We hope you had the opportunity to read and understand the implications.
Most of which is absolute bollocks.

Grow the fuck up, Maria.