Sunday, 8 July 2018

One more bumped post for now

This one just made me so sad; the fact that she bullied her own grandchild in the name of trying to prove her daft theories just says it all 

Suffer little children.....

So far we have seen how Textusa began  the process of systematically destroying a young child whose evidence did not accord with the Textusa vision of the world

Now we are going to look at what she did next.....

Well, what she did next was what she usually does

Roll out the arrows

After all, nothing bullshits the posters like a load of arrows and angles.

Having rambled on like a brain-damaged trigonometry teacher for several pages, she cuts to the chase

''And you know where this really did happen? I tell you where: inside TS’s 11 yr old mind. That’s where all of the above, and then some, really did happen.''

Right. So we have moved on from ''Her family made her do it''. Now we are in ''she invented the whole thing'' territory. It was ''all in her mind'' ?

On she rambles, throwing in some speed calculations - yes, again - and comes up with a theoretical period of time for which she claims the witness could have observed the ''suspect''

Then she issues homework to the troops

Take your own 11 year old
Give her the same length of time
See how much she remembers

I guess her 11 year old couldn't remember enough, because :
''I won’t tell you the result I got from my granddaughter. She’s still in her room crying.''
Did you get that? She has bullied her own grandchild into participating in this farce and reduced her to tears. What a star.

She then spends a long time ridiculing the child for the number of aspects she remembered, reducing them to bullet points. The aim seems to be to humiliate her by making these seem as numerous as possible, hence we encounter sequences like this:

'' that he had no beard;

- that he had no moustache;

- that he was clean shaved;''

....when of course all the child noticed is that the man was clean-shaved. The rest kind of goes with the territory.

She invites her readers to participate in the abuse

'' You don’t believe that she could see that much in so little time? You don’t say…''

Of course, she wants it all ways
'' Please don't forget that we consider TS, as the child she was at the time, to be blameless and unaccountable for any of the actions we've here referred.''
But you said she made up her account.  That it was all in her mind. That does not equate with being TOLD to lie. You can't pat her shoulder with the same hand you just used to punch her in the face, Textusa. That's not how life works

And what of her followers?

Well, by now they were starting to join in. ''Shame!'' they cried, hurriedly explaining that the child wasn't to blame, but fuck it, she was 16 now, she ought to be getting herself out there and shopping her family for the imaginary abuse.

So is that it, was she finished now?

Sadly, no. As we shall see.......


  1. Let us hope her grandchild one day gets power of attourney for her granny...because when that day comes payback will be a bitch. It'll be st bernardines home for the mentally incontinent. You got that textusa? You theories mean jack. They are merely your opinions. Stop asking what i think. As the death of a child is the issue making wild uneducated leaps of logic on faulty premises is ridiculous. I don't know with certainity what happened...but unlike you i don't make claims i do. As you are the one stating opinion as fact the onus is on you to provide evidence to back it know the kind of stuff that will stand up in court. I make no claim to knowing what happened in 5a but i can smell your bullshit across the atlantic.

    1. Afternoon, Nick

      With difficulty, I open my eyes today: another glorious English day in the quietude of my shack! Quick, said the bird, to the outside bog to meditate. On return – late breakfast: some leftovers of a yesterday’s kebab washed down with Aldi’s cider. Marvellous! Oh yes, our brief exchange a few threads back… Think Texuk for a moment…

      This is how certain problems seem to be dealt with (see particularly paras 10-14, pages 9 and10):


      Mr Clark:

      The Committee reached the stage at which it wished to call witnesses directly involved. As it makes clear in its own report, it reached the stage at which it wanted

      “to examine certain matters in detail, which could only be done by taking evidence from those who had been on the ground”. [From EXECUTIVE SUMMARY at the above link. Ag]

      The Government denied that, and the Committee felt it had no alternative but to stop its work. Why was that done, and what are we trying to cover up of what was done during the time of the Blair Government?


      Have a good day.



  2. Christ.
    There are probably a few hundred others were she refers to this witness, but I'll just comment on this one.
    Does she not realise, that seeing someone a second time, in similar circumstances, in a notable situation (staring in an ostensive manner), you WOULD likely take in more about the person's appearance?
    There's no possible way of determining, as Textusa took it upon herself to do, whether the witness' description came from the memory of the first or second time she saw him. But the fact she saw him again and recognised him from the previous sighting gives a much better chance of remembering things about him.

    As for her telling us what Blacksmith thinks on the matter, how dare she speak for him! 😂 especially when she's wrong. As usual. I'm pretty sure JB is referring to Tannerman in that passage - I recognise it well; it's one of the ones I used trying to explain to her that Blacksmith wasn't saying Tannerman was as described or that Tanner was entirely truthful.
    Funny, she couldn't grasp that, yet now it suits her, uses it to try and prove something else 🙄
    By the way, I don't know what Blacksmith thinks about this witness statement, before that's demanded of me.
    What I do know is there's quite a big difference between a witness statement, a sighting of someone, and what team McCann were capable of turning those into. THAT is what Blacksmith refers to in that post, not the child Textusa has so disgustingly dragged into her bollocks. Now she tries to take others down with her, like a school kid harassing up his mate so he doesn't take the flak alone. Pathetic.

    1. The more she responds, the more she reveals what an utterly loathsome person she is, in my opinion.

      The most bonkers thing about picking on this witness is that she claims that this young child, an elderly ex-pat, and a middle aged holidaymaker from the UK were all in it together. Absolute craziness.

  3. Well, who wasn't in on it lets be honest.

    I also feel sorry for her poor grandchild, and have noticed recently the way she speaks about disciplining children is quite worrying.

    That last bit should say grassing not harassing by the way lol.

  4. Hello Sade. I've read your post, I've looked at Textusa's stuff and I haven't the faintest idea what she's talking about. I don't even know the statement that NT has been posting.

    She asks if something called spottiman or whatever exists. How can a fucking drawing exist? The whole point of me pulling those various pictures off google images is that they have a consistency of appearance - sinister, threatening, ugly, childish, dark, menacing - which cannot be reconciled with real human beings but only with low-grade fictional creations. I then compared them with the thoroughly ordinary, tubby chap that the Yard states is a picture of the man Tanner saw.

    I don't really feel like having to repeat everything 48 times for the dolts who can't follow an argument but still. The point of the post was that whoever might be accused or convicted of having something to do with the disappearance of the child in the future will not look anything like any of those visual monsters, reflections, by whatever means, of the McCanns' own childish and pathological imaginations, something I'll repeat again here. That's what the so-called "banality of evil" is all about.

    1. I think it's basically Textusa grasping at any straw to avoid the criticism she has rightly drawn for cyberbullying a child witness. It is predictably pathetic. I must say, she has to have been a singularly unpleasant person at school, forever running from one group and another, telling tales and trying to start fights.

    2. Hi JB, well from what I can gather, T refers to "spottyman/pimpleman" as the man the young girl saw, in this statement -

      She's then saying if she is abusing the child by calling her a liar, then so are you, because you used a picture of "spottyman" in that post. She can't grasp the difference between whether someone saw a person, and whether the depiction of that person in the MSM is real. The same for the Tannerman argument, and I think we've all had enough of trying to explain that haven't we 🙂

      She'll probably pull a line from your comment here now and insist it proves you're calling this witness a liar.

    3. Thank you for that Sade: I must say you make a wonderful interpreter.

      The picture in the case files statement isn't among those that I put up, which makes her links and connections even less comprehensible - if that's possible.

      It is silly season, after all.

    4. Haha, we all have our uses 🙂

      It is, perhaps it's the heat.

  5. " Answering your question very directly, as you know we say the body leaves a residue when in contact with a surface and it was from that emitting source that the airborne molecules that Eddie picked up that day came from. From the residue left there by a body that contacted that surface months earlier.

    A residue that Ben Thompson with Bohden Chalawaka say “Think of it as really sticky molecular chewing gum, sticks to anything but it's a residue”. Maybe ask them to “produce the hard forensic evidence that would stand up in court” for them to have said that.

    That Eddie’s alert indicates a source of where a human cadaver once was is a “hard forensic evidence that would stand up in court” as it has already stood up in the courts of the Portuguese justice system as a PROVEN FACT.

    Maybe you should tell FB groups they needn’t bother discussing theories unless they can “produce the hard forensic evidence that would stand up in court”.

    That’s your real message, isn’t it? If there’s no “hard forensic evidence that would stand up in court no forensic evidence” everyone is wasting their time theorising on blogs, forums and twitter."

    As my dear old mum was fond of saying 'there's none as blind as those who can't see'. Sad really.

    1. I think we should all spare a thought for poor Fred - he'll be getting the sharp end of all this. The poor man is probably in despair.

    2. I'll reply here loon. Yes there was a cadaver there hard forensic evidence it was madeleine? Thats the point ffs. Yes your wasting time you loon. Thanks for bringing that over lesly.

    3. She's wumming the night away over there with her "Interesting, very interestng" bullshit. Personally, I'd advise everyone to ignore her - she is doing it precisely to invite the question, to which she will reply in her hallmark twattish fashion.

    4. This is Textusa's position, Nick.

      She does not understand adsorption, so she can't get her head around the idea that volatile molecules produced during decomposition attach to surfaces. She insists, has always insisted to the extent of claiming that in the carpet squares study her mysterious 'syrup' must have seeped onto the tiles, that where a corpse has been, there are always 'remains' which then exude scent molecules. She can't seem to get it into her head that the scent molecules ARE what remains. Basically, she's just too dim and too poorly educated to get her head around the basic chemistry involved.
      For a good illustration of the lengths she will go to, the one where the 'finds' the study is a real corker.

    5. I know...the wum tried to tell me evrd dogs wouldn't signal in a hospital or someone who had been in the prescence of necrotising flesh. The odds are stacked that a cadaver was in 5a...but as you rightly stated the dog alerts need backed up. And without forensics no one can state with certainty where the body lay and whose it was.

    6. The loopy old trout is now wittering on at length attacking JB about this fucking ''spottyman'' nonsense.

      Someone needs to make sure she takes her tablets properly, she is away with the mixer. I think I might go and find an old post to bump

    7. I wasn't going to comment tonight as I've had a few celebratory beverages...but I cannot resist!
      What is this? I'm losing my touch... I simply cannot decipher this one lol!

      "It’s quite evident that Blacksmith is suffering from “Paddle Stump Syndrome”, or when one is up a dry creek WITH a paddle and is furiously and desperately back-paddling, in desperation one wears out the paddle to a stump without being able to change the direction of the canoe a single degree.

      After having sunk his ship next to the Titanic whilst dining Chablis and lobster, he’s now asking the deep-sea fish directions to the Mariana Trench so he can push the wreck there and sink it a little more."

      So is it a canoe? A paddle boat? A peddle boat? A ship?
      The suspense is killing me :D

    8. She seems to be under the impression that she has ''caught out'' JB, after nitpicking her way through his post from years ago and ........

      No, for a second there I thought I had it, but the problem is I really couldn't give a scoobies about her latest delusion. She is mad. Bonkers. Clinically insane. Whatever PC term we are using this week for people who are completely mental.

    9. Haha, agreed! I'm seeing double now so can't comment. Did notice someone next door almost commending you for not calling her a tart or the like recently, and that you must have "taken note" lol!
      Will come back to it later. Sober. 😂
      Night NT 🙂

    10. Taken note my arse

      Night Sade :D

    11. Backfilling to prove a theory rather than evidence based conclusion....haha the irony is strong in this one.

    12. You say: "She seems to be under the impression that she has ''caught out'' JB, after nitpicking her way through his post from years ago and ......"

      Actually it was from March, 2018. Accuracy, dear boy. Accuracy.

    13. Don’t give a shit, dear troll, don’t give a shit......

    14. Dear anonymous idiot,

      I am not sure how many times I need to say this - I am not interested. Take your pathetic attempt to start some sort of forum war and insert it where the sun doesn’t shine. Your comments are in the bin and the same goes for any future ones. Now be a good troll and fuck off, eh?

  6. Hello NT. As it happens I don't find anything she says about me (she seems to have noted everything the Bureau's ever produced) particularly nasty but yes, her responses to various other people have made my comment about not finding her malicious look silly. I was wrong. There we are: when people are losing, as we've seen lately, the nastiness always gets worse.

    1. Hi JB
      I think her response to those people she was friendly with from the Facebook group has certainly been quite spiteful and that seems to have started with her being pulled up for claiming that I was a specific person who unfortunately was known to the group admin. Her reaction to being corrected was really overblown and very unpleasant. Now she seems to be permanently enraged. Extraordinary.

    2. Like that, NT! ... SWIPE = She Who Is Permanently Enraged

  7. Apparently, Textusa is planning a post about the Tapas toilets.

    I await this with interest. I wonder what gems await us?

    An analysis of the choice of toilet paper, perhaps?
    The mystery of the FSS and the soap dispenser?
    How the spacious cubicles prove that the purpose of the holiday was swinging?

    I can’t wait .......

    1. In the meantime -- where's the book club gone? Please inform....

  8. " We intend to write others about Mrs Fenn’s apartment, the Tapas pool and the toilets at Tapas but as you know we have decided to stop publishing posts, so those will be written when we feel it’s the best time to do so.

    An interesting sidenote, the visit last year started at Tapas nearby where I parked my car. But Tapas has very little to offer, so we after we went lunching at Paraiso’s we went on a walk around the OC Reception and the Murat Villa. From there we walked to the Smith sighting walking the path Smithman did from Apartment 5A up to where Kelly’s is.

    Then, from there we went to the Millenium via the beach, to show where the sewer entrance is, and spent the rest of the afternoon at the pool there When departing, walked from the Millenium to the car parked near Tapas.

    Just to show how small Luz is in reality. "

    Looking at the map of PDL I find this circuitous route hard to understand. But then I cannot claim to have been there.

    1. Ah, but Lesley, you have to think yourself into the mind of a swinger. A swinger whose daughter is dead at the hands of a friend ("Don't worry about it mate; could have happened to anyone") and who is now leaping about PdL with the living daughter of one of his chums draped over his shoulder, pausing only to trot up to each of the Smiths in a zig-zag formation, with a hop, a step and a do-si-do, before pausing silently before a chatty Mrs Smith then vanishing off into the night.

      Quite what the tapas bogs have to do with the story is anyone's guess, though.

    2. Maybe its a secret dominatrix lair in the disabled bogs...resplendent with gimp masks,handcuffs and nipple clamps....used by vip swingers.

  9. Alright folks?!

    Absolutely no idea what all this nonsense is about from Textusa & the copying/pasting of little Froggys tweets from the hashtag etc..?!

    She says it's "interesting", but what the hell is it all about as I haven't a Scooby apart from she's either lost the plot or a deliberate WUM!

    Or both! (& probably)

    Cheers, Andy

    1. Hi Andy. She's wumming - she's absolutely desperate for people to ask ''What is?'' so that she can be a twat in return. She seemed to be hinting that Walker and the green one are one-and-the-same. Me, presumably. Daft cow.


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