Thursday, 30 August 2018

All the children

When Kate's book, Madeleine, was first published, I think many people were surprised to see how much was devoted to their pre-Madeleine days, and how long it took for them to, if you like, get to the point. However, some of those early chapters do throw up questions.

In this passage, Kate describes the time immediately before Madeleine was born

My pregnancy was totally without complication. No sickness, no back pain, no bleeding, no swelling. I felt great. I swam at least every other day, right up to the day before I went into labour. And I absolutely loved being pregnant. Rubbing body lotion over my bump was such a beautiful feeling, like touching my baby. In common with most mothers, I’m sure, I will remember for ever the amazing sensation, the pure intimacy, of my baby moving around inside me. Neither Gerry nor I wanted to know whether we were expecting a boy or a girl. I’m well known for liking surprises – one of those people who refuses to open even a single present before Christmas Day. For some reason I always thought of the baby as a boy. I’ve no idea why – perhaps simply because I’d visualized myself in many a dreamy moment with a little boy – who knows? We’d settled on the name Aidan, and although we had tossed around a few options for a girl, there wasn’t one in particular we agreed on.

Despite the fact that they say they didn't want to know, Kate at least appears to have formed a strong mental image of herself with a little boy, and the fact that they decided on a name for a boy but not a girl seems significant. Either they were very convinced, which seems counter-intuitive, or that's really what they were hoping for.

After years of longing for this day, here we were: parents. There can surely be no greater moment in anyone’s life. And here she was: not our little boy, but our little girl. I’m not sure quite why this came as such a big surprise to us – after all, there are only two flavours – but because it was a surprise, the moment was extra special. Our daughter was perfect. A beautiful round head, no marks, and not at all squashed. Big, big eyes and a lovely, compact little body. The most wonderful thing I had ever set eyes on. I loved her instantly. Of course, Aidan was out of the frame now. Of the girls’ names we had in mind Madeleine was my favourite, and Madeleine she became
I may be completely wrong here, and it may be of no significance whatsoever, but Kate's description of Madeleine strikes an odd note with me, rather as if she is giving a description for a textbook.

Contrast this with her description of the twins' birth

 On the afternoon of 1 February 2005, Sean and Amelie made their appearance in the world. I was lucky enough to be able to have a ‘normal’ delivery. Sean led the way with his head and his sister followed, preferring to flash her bottom first to all and sundry. We were totally taken aback to discover we had a boy, having fully expected two girls. How rubbish were we? Needless to say, neither of us have any plans to become obstetric ultrasonographers. Once again, being caught out made the birth a lovely surprise, and Gerry’s delight at having a son was clear from the big, cheesy grin he could do nothing to disguise. For my part, I was a little shocked initially by this boy of mine lying on my tummy. He wasn’t the prettiest, God bless him: he was squashed from the birth and his head was lopsided. But I loved him regardless and I’m glad to say he’s a really handsome chap these days, just gorgeous. Amelie was beautiful from the start – petite with a little rosebud mouth.
Now again, maybe I am reading too much into it, but two things strike me about this passage. Firstly, we hear about Gerry's delight at the birth of a son - which stands out as Kate makes no reference in the book to Gerry's response to the birth of either Madeleine or Amelie - and her descriptions of the twins

Handsome, gorgeous, beautiful from the start
Every parent thinks their child is beautiful, even if they sometimes look like they have just been released from a vacuum pack, but he description of the twins seems more natural than the slightly clinical description of Madeleine.

So how big an issue is it for parents? Did Kate, convinced she was expecting a boy, feel she had somehow failed when Madeleine arrived? Surely parents quickly get used to the 'change of plan'?

Well, not all of them do.

I'm going to leave you with this letter I found from an expectant mum. It is certainly illuminating.

We found out we're having a girl and I'm devastated. I was desperately hoping for a boy. I've completely lost interest in the pregnancy. I used to be excited and now I don't even want to think about being pregnant. I'm avoiding family/friends because I don't want to share the news with them (and everyone knows that I have the results of the ultrasound by now). My husband and I had a huge fight because he's "disappointed" in my reaction and can't understand why it's so hard for me to accept. Now he'll hardly talk to me. I don't even want to attend my shower anymore. Don't tell me I'm selfish (you can't possibly make me feel worse about myself than I already do) or that I will love my baby anyway (I know that) or that the next one might be a boy (we can only afford to have one). And please no advice to talk to someone - I have no one I can talk to (not even my doctor) and seeing a counselor is not an option (I am one). I pray everyday that there was a mistake, but how do I get over this?

Tuesday, 28 August 2018

Light Relief


Evening all.

In the latest of a tidal wave of, basically, liquid shit, this is Textusa's latest turd

Mr Thompson,

We don’t understand your second question – “and explain why a cadaver dog alerted to Kate McCann’s clothing – because we thought you subscribed NT’s theory that as there is no physical residue left in situ the cadaver dog’s alerts – again according to NT – don’t say HOW the scent got to where the dog alerted, meaning that the fact the dog alerted to Kate’s clothes – or to anything else – is meaningless.

So, being from NT’s school of cadaver scent, shouldn’t you not even asked the question, and as you did, you should have answered it yourself with the following, according to that school of thought: the reason why a cadaver dog alerted to Kate McCann’s clothing was chance because she happened, sometime, somewhere, to walk by where the scent of cadaver was floating about, possibly from the airborne molecules in the backyard, and for that reason the alert means nothing.

Some consistency, please...
  1. Mr Thompson,

    You can always use this comment to support you, as it seems coming from your (or Nt's) school of thought:

    "Anonymous28 Aug 2018, 14:02:00

    All the dogs show is that blood and cadaver odour was deposited and where. Not when, whose or how."
Did you catch that, PN? 

You can always use that comment to support you. Which is nice. Because here is where it came from:

Anonymous 19 Oct 2014 03:13:00,

The evidence of the dogs was only indicative. Grime's report in PJ files makes that very clear from the outset. In every case, any indications found by dogs must be supported by other evidence.

All the dogs show is that blood and cadaver odour was deposited and where. Not when, whose or how.

Monday, 27 August 2018

Required reading

With great pleasure, I'd like to point you in the direction of the following link. 

Highly recommended; goes through Textusa like a cheap kebab

I would simply like to add that the response to Textusa's demands for answers is, and will remain as follows:

F O A M Y   O B Y R N E

Yes, that's right. You will be referred to Foamy O'Byrne.


Friday, 24 August 2018

How not to ask questions

If you want to find out some information, the ability to ask the right questions, in the right place is very valuable.

Tonight we are going to show you how NOT to go about it

We start our journey in the comments section after a post about the McCann's timeline for contacting Martin Grime's boss.

We were honoured to be joined by an anonymous guest. Shall we see what happened?

  1. Christ - if you were in a foreign country with a missing child investigation and you realised you were suddenly the subjects of the investigation wouldn't you want to get the hell out of there????


    1. Are you serious?

      Not if the missing child was mine, no.

I'll interject here to just point out that ''Not if the missing child was mine, no'' is actually the answer to the question I was asked 

As is customary on these occasions, I asked a question in return. See below.  

    1. Let me ask you a question - what do you think the response would have been had Robert Murat fucked off back to Blighty the minute he was arguidoed?
    2. But you have never been in the investigation into your missing child in a foreign country have you? So how would you know how you would react?

      Gut reaction and "we all know what we would have done" is hypothetical nonsense. But it sounds so reasonable and valid doesn't it?

Well, Anon had already asked me this question. It can only ever by hypothetical, can't it? However, I gave her the answer to her question. In effect, what she was really saying is "I don't like that answer, it doesn't suit my purpose. Can I have a different one''? To which the answer is ''No''

No - let's see how Anon got on with my question

    1. Not Textusa24 August 2018 at 13:14

      A hypothetical question.
      It was not his child that was missing, he didn't live in the UK at the time and the dogs didn't indicate on hi property.

Yes, that's right. I WAS asking a hypothetical question, just as Anon did. But Anon chose not to answer it BECAUSE it was hypothetical 

I pointed this out then elaborated upon my previous answer

    1. What is the point you are making?

      No it wasn't his child, that wasn't the point - I asked what the reaction would have been. And he had dual nationality and a family in the UK

      There are lots of things I wouldn't do - like leaving three infants home alone, for example.
      And I certainly wouldn't fuck off if I thought the police suspected me. I would fully co-operate
I think Anon didn't like this answer because this is how she replied: 

    1. @ Not Textusa24 August 2018 at 13:31

      Well done to you for knowing exactly what you would do in circumstances that you have never encounter. 

      You're whiter than white attitude is exemplary,

This is what we call an 'ad hominem' attack, in other words attacking the person, rather that the position they are taking. So I took the time to correct their spelling because that's what I do when idiots employ ad hominem attacks 
Shortly thereafter....... 

  1. What sort of person hosts a "Build your own abductor" blog about a missing child?

    Is this normal?

This was another ad hominem attack, on a different subject, so I moved to step 2. Invite the participant to piss or get off the pot 

    1. That is Avoiding the Subject 101

      Either enter the discussion or piss off.
    2. I posted on the subject then suddenly you jumped to Murat, then you said what you would do (without ever encountering the same situation).

      There were 2 comments before I entered the discussion"

      I could piss off if you like - it is nothing to me - but I notice that you ignored my question. 

      I believe my question is important because you implied that you have knowledge of what is normal procedure and action in certain circumstances.

      So I will repeat my question:

      "What sort of person hosts a "Build your own abductor" blog about a missing child?"

Now this was very amusing. First of all Anon complained that I answered the question ''what would you do?'' by describing what I would, in fact, do. Then, having confirmed that I had answered the question, she then complained that I hadn't answered it. How odd.

Erecting a small smokescreen by mentioning something I supposedly implied, yet which I made no reference to whatsoever, Anon decided to repeat the question.

There was a tiny flaw. It was an entirely different question on a different topic. I suggested they get help

    1. I'll type this slowly for you.

      Your question was not in response to the blogpost. It was a personal attack. I don't allow personal attacks by one poster on another.

      Just as a reminder, your question was

      "What sort of person hosts a "Build your own abductor" blog about a missing child?"

      You are now trying to claim:

      "I believe my question is important because you implied that you have knowledge of what is normal procedure and action in certain circumstances."

      ....which appears to have absolutely nothing to do with your question.

      Just for good measure, you posted it on the wrong thread.

      It's not going well, is it, cupcake?

      Perhaps you'd like to start again. Maybe get a grown-up to help you?
At this point, our anonymous friend popped their slippers on and shuffled over to the correct thread, where she started again  

 Anonymous24 August 2018 at 14:20
What sort of person hosts a "Build your own abductor" blog about a missing child?

I congratulated them on finding the right thread and pointed out that it was another ad hominem attack
  1. Ah, well done - you found the right post this time.

    Sadly for you, the answer is still exactly the same as when you posted it on the wrong post, ie. That is a personal attack and I do not allow personal attacks by one poster on another.

    I'm afriad you will find the answer will be the same regardless of which thread you pop up on, like a slightl backward whack-a-mole.

    Now - was there anything else we can help you with - homework, perhaps? A bus timetable? 50p for a cup of tea?
  2. You consider a question to be a personal attack?

  3. So I explained to our intrepid friend that including the words ''what kind of person'' pretty much guaranteed the personal nature of the attack
  4. It contained the word ''Person'', dear oafish one. Like this:

    ''What sort of person hosts a "Build your own abductor" blog about a missing child?''

    That was the big clue, you see?

    Now, although it's been a delight, you are wasting everyone's time. So do you have a proper question, or shall I just throw them in the bin?
  5. At this she returned to the first thread

    1. I have now posted my comment in the appropriate topic. I had someone to help me.

      Perhaps you could get someone to help you with this - without going off topic -

      "if you were in a foreign country with a missing child investigation and you realised you were suddenly the subjects of the investigation wouldn't you want to get the hell out of there? "

We had now come full circle 
She asked the first question again, and I showed her where I answered it, the very first time she asked it, an hour and 25 minutes earlier.

    1. Well done on finding the right thread. It's good to have achievable goals

      However, reading is also good, too.

      For example, when you posed exactly the same question further up the page and I answered it. To help you remember, here it is again

      ''Not Textusa24 August 2018 at 13:10
      Are you serious?

      Not if the missing child was mine, no.''


      So you had your answer some time ago, but obviously you got yourself in a bit of a pickle, left by the wrong exit and ended up in a cyber-alley, behind the blog.

      Now - as I said, is there something else we can help you with?
    2. No - it is quite obvious that what you say rules and there is nothing that I can say on here that will have any meaning to you - you know everything and I will defer to your superior knowledge.

      I will now piss of in the happy knowledge that you cannot answer questions or give an sensible reasoned answer.

      Good luck with your "Build your own abductor" blog - I am sure it will give you hours of enjoyment in the case of a missing child.

And then she ran off. 

    1. Oh bless - I think it's hurt.

      Bye bye darling, missing you already. Mwaah xx

Join us next week for a new installment of ''Posting for Dummies''