Monday, 15 August 2011

Tapas Quiz Night, Question #5/?


Question: What are the two most well known things that shrink to fit?
Answer: The Levi 112 jeans and the T9 Tapas Table #211.


Today, I must apologise to our readers. I’ve always tried, when posting here information, to look at any subject from all possible perspectives so that, through pure logic, I’m able to PROVE before you whatever I’m trying to PROVE in that particular moment.

 However, I must warn you that today’s post will be total speculation.

You see, I’m forced to rely on information given to me by others, and have nothing but their sources to corroborate it.

For example, about the jeans, having long lost the figure and long overcome the sensible age to use them, I have to rely on Levi’s advertisement that the 112 jeans do, in fact, shrink to fit to a woman’s body.

Maybe some of our younger readers can confirm that fact, although, honestly, it’s really not that important, nor is it about clothes that I wish to to talk about today.

I want to talk about the Tapas Bar table #211.

For that, as I said, I have to rely on what the Ocean Club tells us, and like with the jeans, I have to trust what they say.

And they say, as per the first three Tapas reservation sheets that the T9 (4 couples and a mother-in-law), had dinner, for at least 3 days, at a table with ref #211:

 
The famous Tapas T9 BIG ROUND TABLE. But the OC also tell us that, as per respective Tapas “reservation” sheet of May 7th, that on that night, at 19:45, the STINTON-HEELEY family ALSO used that particular table:
 
A rather difficult decision to understand, after all, as far as we can see, only 4 other tables were being used at the time (#201, #202, #203 and #205).

Sitting ONLY 4 people around such a BIG ROUND TABLE, is not, shall we say, the most comfortable way to have guests dine:
  It is possible, no question about it, but as I said before, and we’re speculating here, it just doesn't seem practical, especially taking into account that 2 members of this family were, as they were, children. Wouldn’t be more sensible to sit them on any of the other available square tables?

  But that was not the decision of whoever managed the seating arrangements that evening.

The only possibility I see for this decision to make any sense, is that table #211 is an INFLATABLE round table.

That way, it was filled up to the size required to fit the T9, and on May 7th, someone let the air out of it so it would “shrink to fit” the STINTON-HEELEY family!

The other option, which is that 2 adults and two children really dined around that BIG ROUND TABLE (that had enough space for at least 9 adults, or 10 if you count also the fact that Najoua joined the table on Quiz Night), can only be explained by a direct request from this family to sit at the same table that the T9 had sat on the night when Maddie was “abducted”.

Then, we hope, and don't forget that we’re continuing to speculate, they certainly would have taken pictures of that evening, that dinner and, most important of all, that table.

And since Dianne Webster missed the opportunity to publish her pictures on Kate’s book, maybe this is our last chance to get a glimpse of this famous table!

218 comments:

  1. Oops... there goes the theory of a big round table top that was rolled in IF needed...

    ReplyDelete
  2. I thought the big round table could seat 10 people because the Najoua Chekaya sat at the table and stated there was an empty place not that she sat in that place.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I'm just wondering how will Insane huff and puff out of this one?!? Sorry, I just couldn't let this one go...

    ReplyDelete
  4. Oh dear...in my case I need jeans that "expand to fit"...

    Now, on a serious mode, I see that the person who filled in the Tapas reservation sheet(s) ignored the correct place/column for registering the table number and the out time(?) of the guests.
    The sheet is divided into vertical columns and from left to right there is:
    MESA(table), but under this column it's written down the time of the reservation. This column is a double one, a narrow one which I suppose would be for the table number, but is left blank, and a wider one, where the time is written. Why was the narrow column not used to register the table number? Why use instead the column under the item SAIDA(out, or, time out)? I'm assuming that the column SAIDA is to register the time the guests left the restaurant, even if this is a weird thing to do!
    Another thing is that "TW" or "+W" in the place of the table number of the Mullards, which by the way have no reservationtime assigned, and neither do the Harrisons!

    Ghosh! Those Tapas sheets are harder to decifer, almost like egyptian hieroglyphs!
    We need a Champollion, on the double!!!

    ReplyDelete
  5. "However, I must warn you that today’s post will be total speculation."

    Thanks for being considerate, but we would only need a warning if a post WASN'T going to be total speculation.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Anon @ 11:25:00 PM

    Why do you care and more to the point why are you following this blog and have the need to make comments? If you think as you do why do even read here? There is something very odd about what drives you to do this.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Imagine you were on holiday, and some accident or tragedy or crime befell a group who were there the week before you.

    Would you be so ill-bred and disgusting as to demand you be seated for dinner at the same table that group used?

    No?

    Then what a bloody nerve you have suggesting that a family about whom you know absolutely nothing were repulsive enough to do what you have accused them of....

    Shame on you, Textusa.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Anon @ 11:43:00

    What a ridiculous comment you have made. Where was it said that someone 'asked' for a certain table? How would new guests know anything about tables? Are you suggesting that guests walked into a restaurant and said they wanted to sit at the same table as T9. A group of 3 adults and 2 children wanted to sit at a big round table for 9 people?

    Why does this cause you so much concern you have to make such an emotive comment? This comment causes 'speculation'.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Correction to previous post, 2 adults and 2 children.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Where was it suggested ? In the damn post ! Can't you read ????

    Textusa said

    ''The other option, which is that 2 adults and two children really dined around that BIG ROUND TABLE (that had enough space for at least 9 adults, or 10 if you count also the fact that Najoua joined the table on Quiz Night), can only be explained by a direct request from this family to sit at the same table that the T9 had sat on the night when Maddie was “abducted”.

    So take it up with her, you idiot

    ReplyDelete
  11. Well said anon 15,11:21.

    What you highlighted proves the poor organization or the rush of the OC to provide the information the police requested. TW for me, means take away. That explains the absence of the table nr.
    If that sheet is really for the 7 may, PJ must have all the information related to that dinner, grabbed personally, since on 7 they were already in the terrain and the tapas was as much important as the 5A. interesting, if by any chance the police were on the Tapas that night and there was no dinner or the real guests were others. I believe most of the evidences were requested and handed to the police before May 7 since most of the interrogatories were done or on the way to be done. For me, the police knows exactly what happen that night (May 7). Then, why they released that sheet? A red light for that people involved on the sheet or for who write it, to come forward and break the pact of silence.
    The police and the Attorney General made it quite clear, was not the total absence of evidences, what made them to shelve the case. They need more evidences because under a special circumstance, the evidences they have
    became not enough to charge anybody. That is different then clearing the McCann's. Police has no doubts, the girl died on the 5A but they need one of two things: the body or a denounce from somebody that can lead to the body or to a confession. Releasing some information could fear somebody ... Some BH are shaking, specially since Kate on her desperation to blame anybody else kept her booking of the tapas dinner in the swimming pool with that nice conversation about leaving the kids alone at night, all days in a row. She was trained enough by her lawyers to release that information 4 years after the fatidic night and when mrs Fenn died already and cannot change her statement about Madeleine crying in a previous night. Was it not amazing, that the McCann's are talking now about the abductor being in the room on the night mrs. Fenn claimed the crying? The BH involved in the cover up are f...... They lied on one hand to protect the McCann's and on the other hand the McCann's are trying to keep them now, at the center of the crime- no damaged shutters, no break in. The abductor use a key to enter the flat. We don't need to go far, to see the McCann's strategy. We don't need to read their book. Their serialized piece, by the Sun and a couple of interviews are enough to understand what they want. The BH, if they are intelligent enough, instead of posting in blogs to accuse or insult people, they must head to PJ and fill the gaps the police has in the investigation. Tell the truth and expose the McCann's before they with their lawyers, destroy your lifes.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Anon 15,11:43,

    Thanks for your post ( taking out the emotion). Have you realized that while you tried to accuse Textusa with " shame on you, Textusa " you are exactly supporting the idea some of us were being discussing here long ago? There was no big round table, dear. Then, no reason to choose that table or to book anybody on that table. Off course, guests don't know the numbers the restaurants gave to the tables. When you book a table on the restaurant you choose close to the window or not, outside or inside, near the air cond/ heater, or not. Nobody choose tables by numbers. We are not idiots.
    The table 211, if exists ( because the all sheet could be a fabrication to provide the information requested by the police) is an ordinary table like the others.
    If you think on quiz nights, are games to be played by teams with same number of people and each team seats separated to avoid copying the answers. For the Tapas 9 to be a team, means other teams had to have also 9 members. The sheets proved there is no possibility to have such teams. Then, the tapas 9 if ever dine at the tapas were seated in two square tables, separated or together.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Good day!

    Many people use very tight jeans.
    Someone said here that the leaves are incredible difficult to decode. Well .... so much were the tricks.

    Also a table for people to sit very tight, very together, such as Gerry wanted. However, one of the places must have been vague. Kate should have gone away angry. And the furies always give bad results.


    ***

    Here someone is very shamed.... unh....

    Me, i am proud about Textusa´s posts and Sisters also.

    Have a nice day.

    ReplyDelete
  14. It is strange the Mccanns have not put forward any photographs of all people at this table. Considering they were all on holiday together, and would not meet up again for sometime they have not produced a single photograph. The 'last' photograph of Maddie on Tennis court Jane Tanner states she took it, Kate says she took it, but at the time it was taken Maddie was supposed to be on the beach with the nanny !!
    Why so many lies.
    Viewing Mccann interviews on U-tube it is so obvious the pair are lying, if they get asked an awkward question they flounder and look uncomfortable.

    This whole business is such a mess, it has shown us the vile side of human nature, it needs the police to fully investigate, get reconstructions done and for all concerned to cooperate instead of hiding behind expensive lawyers.

    Amaral stated there was a camera in their apartment, so where are all these holiday photograph? They also wanted to public to send in their holiday photographs of pdl, obviously this group were up to no good from day 1.

    ReplyDelete
  15. I doubt the group had meals at the tapas at all. They probably went out on the town to Chaplins, The Mill or wherever, and ending each night at the Tapas for a nightcap.

    The children had obviously been drugged Kate says in her book, she suspected the abductor of drugging her children, that would suggest the children were sedated whilst the selfish parents went out. All day the children were left in the creche, why did they bother to take them on holiday in the first place not much of a holiday for the kids was it?

    The one day Gerry says they went to the beach it became overcast and they only stayed 20 minutes and he also says he was pleased to leave the beach.

    He openly flirted with the quiz mistress other guests stated he was a 'motormouth' and very 'loud' - Gerry Mccann is one nasty piece of work and so is Kate Cadaver Mccann.

    Well done Textusa.

    Why are they still allowed to keep the twins with all of this hanging over their heads?

    ReplyDelete
  16. Murat was an interpreter and only stood in on Diane Websters interview!! With the language barrier it is possible that OC club staff were coerced into saying things that they did not actually mean and these were then taken as fact.

    It is easily done, when we have been abroad we attempt to communicate but if their english is not too good, and with manipulators like Mccann and Murat and once the media are involved it all becomes a circus.

    Some of the staff could have said the exact opposite as to what was recorded of them saying, and still they would not have realised. Odd how the nannies were packed off to another country soon afterwards.

    The Mccanns were so keen to save their skins and get this rubbish abductor story into the main stream media that they would have used all tactics.

    As Murat sat in on Websters interview, and she also stayed at the table when the others went off, SY should focus on her, break down the story, get the facts, obviously she covers for Payne being family, not Mccann so it should not be too hard to start to unravel this bunch of lies.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Someone in the group took a camcorder, they filmed Maddie climbing up the steps to plane, and again filmed in the bus when gerry said he was not on f..holiday. So where are the rest of the videos then, all sitting around the BIG table, kids playing, group having fun, they have had their chance to provide it, Textusa has brought this subject up before, but they have remained silent, they are so afraid of Gerry that they cannot even confirm that they sat at a big table with proof from a camcorder.

    They are all covering up watching each others backs. Deleted phone messages, deleted camcorder films and photographs poor little Maddie going on holiday with such monsters.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Anon Aug 15, 2011 11:25:00 PM, your attempt to minimize Textusa's posts exposes both your need to do so and the understanding of her posts, which mean you read them. Textusa writes long posts, so if they ridiculous as you trying to say they are, then more ridiculous is your effort in reading them, isn't it? And even more ridiculous than that is the effort made to "warn" others, who find Textusa's posts so very revealing.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Just copied this from Pamalam

    'There is also the evidence of a "partial footwear mark" found just outside Madeleine's bedroom which had traces of blood in it visible to the naked eye, according to a forensics report'

    Kate made a point in her book of stating she brought some new pink trainers...

    ReplyDelete
  20. Anon Aug 15, 2011 11:43:00 PM, what don't you understand about "the other option", "can only be explained" and "speculative"? Or do you believe that she in fact is saying that the table was indeed inflatable? Textusa is not accusing the family of anything except being in the know. She jests, and shows how OC bungled up with the 211 table. In the sequence of the previous post, this family should have reacted and they didn't, and that is what is wrong. They, with their silence, have tacitly recognized that they had dinner on the same table where 9 other people ate. And Kate has drawn up the table, so we all know it's round, so it's a fixed table and not one made up of joining others.

    ReplyDelete
  21. If they sat at this big round table, some of the group would have sat with their backs to the apartments and with the noise from the bar and chatter around the table they would never have heard or saw a child in distress.
    Their apartment was not visible from the Tapas but even if it was they still sat with their backs to it !!!

    ReplyDelete
  22. Anon Aug 16, 2011 9:19:00 AM, I think at this point in time, Textusa has proven that they didn't sit at any round table. And is proving that the documentation provided by the OC is forged, which means that all said by the resort to support the T9 version of events that whole week, MUST be questioned. And not only dinners. The tennis, the creche, the beach activities, etc. If Textusa is right, this just makes all we thought to be, not to be. And we must acknowledge that Textusa is making a point and those contradicting aren't.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Anon Aug 16, 2011 12:05:00 AM, your primary school teacher will be very unhappy if she reads what you've just wrote, because she's failed in her job to teach you to read.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Mitchell, which main job is reading what is going on in some blogs and acting according, long ago came with a stupid explanation for the complete absence of accurate time and off-course, photographs- the Tapas 9 went to the dinner without watches and without mobiles. Do you believe?
    And some of that group seems to be addicted to videos recorded in mobiles. Just remember from where came the video recorded on the stairs and the bus transfer from the airport- from one of them.
    How many of us already travelled with kids in a large group. From that, how many had the idea of recording a bust trip from the airport to the hotel and then nothing from the real and enjoyable holidays? Only a mobile addicted records crap moments but on the other hand, never left the mobile at home, special when they have child's and are abroad. They pretend to be negligent parents, but they were not. Wonder why they so hardly tried to base the disappearance of one of their child's in another criminal behavior, the negligence. That is the only possibility to bake an abduction.
    The all day of May 3, is questionable for Madeleine. The so claimed last picture, near the pool is involved in many shadows as the rest of the activities. The date on Kates camera was wrong. I don't know the PDL swimming pool, but for me that picture could be taken in any swimming pool . Could be from another place, another time. I found it odd, the day it was released - after Gerry first trip home. If was on Kates camera, why was it not released immediately? Parmalan has a nice and well analyze of that picture. Who analyzed it, even looked at the way the sun, if in PDL, should act in the picture, creating some shadows that are not there.
    No surprise for me, there is no pictures of the round table. Not because that people were without mobiles, but because there was no big round table and most probably no Tapas 9 seated on any table in the Tapas, that night. They were busy somewhere trying to practice the timetable they wrote on Madeleine's book. We are not idiots, dear
    Mitchell.

    ReplyDelete
  25. anon 11;12 exactly, where are all the videos of this group. People that film passengers boarding a plane and sitting on a bus would take loads of videos, especially at food times. Everbody sitting together (or not).Kids playing !!! why such a lack of films from tapas?

    Textusa you are brilliant.

    ReplyDelete
  26. "MPs investigating the phone hacking scandal are likely to recall News International chairman James Murdoch to a Commons Select Committee over contradictions between his evidence and the accounts of other witnesses." In Sky News.

    McCann's and their friends should be recalled to Portugal or UK to explain the contradictions on their statements and the absolute lack of evidences to support what they claimed, after more then 4 years. The BH can't't sleep. The show don't even began.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Mitchell is the one that has kept the Mccanns out of prison, their abductor story was falling apart but once he appeared he manipulated the media, told lies for the Mccanns. He knows they are guilty. Tapas and Mccanns all covered up because they knew they would all lose their jobs, the Mccanns would lose the twins so the lies started.

    The pj did not seal off 5a immediately because they did not believe an abductor had been present, from the offset pj knew Mccanns and Tapas were involved in Madeleines disappearance.

    Mitchell did what he did for money, he is a greedy, vile liar with not a care for a 3 year old child who was let down by everybody.

    ReplyDelete
  28. If Mitchell has really deserted the McCanns now, as rumours circulating on Twitter suggest, then I would think that may mean the sh*t is really about to hit the fan and he thinks he can extricate himself in time to avoid being splattered. Well, I don't think so, Mitchell, not after all this time with your head up their backsides, you disgusting creature.

    ReplyDelete
  29. The phone hacking is number 1 story on our news tonight, the mccanns are involved in this their phones and mitchells would have been hacked they were the main news story back in 2007 when this hacking was at its peak.

    If creepy mitchell has left the mccanns he knows something is about to happen and he is attempting to distance himself from them.

    The game is up for the lot of them and about time too none of them are fit to be parents or to serve the public as doctors, the sooner they are struck off, the better.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Insane,

    Your polite and courteous manner in your attempt to discredit Textusa on Joana Morais' blog (comment #87 on http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2011/08/human-bones-found-in-algarve-update.html#comments) just shows how desperate you are and how right she is.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Textusa has not proved there was no big round table

    She has not shown that there were no 'Tapas dinners'

    She has not shown that there was a conspiracy involving OC staff or other guests

    She has not shown that the piece of paper in question has any significance whatsoever

    She has not shown that any documents were forged

    She has not proved that Mrs Fenn lied - one of her most despicable claims

    She has proven one thing though. That one can fool some of the people all of the time

    Sleep well, suckers

    ReplyDelete
  32. Anon @ Aug 15, 2011 11:33:00 PM

    In the real world, people have differing opinions, and they are allowed to express those, within the normal constraints. If this is news to you, you need to get out a bit more. Talk to people, have a look at other blogs and forums. Or are you saying that this blog is just a support group for people who cannot bear to hear anything with which they do not agree?

    By the way, many people - not just me - have different views. Are you aware that other anti-McCann posters are pointing and laughing at you?

    A selection of their comments:

    "I can't make head nor tail out of it. Anyone know what this is about?"

    "I'm glad I'm not the only one.."

    "Read it twice and it still makes no sense."

    "I took it that the Slide & Splash note was just a scratch pad for taking bookings which had to be done on the day." (Exactly!)

    "I've always thought TextUSA was full of it. This is nonsense."

    "I agree, its nonsense.."

    "Textusa, put the whisky bottle down, and move away from the table.."

    I trust you get the gist.

    ReplyDelete
  33. I don't believe Mitchell deserted but will be good news if so. He become involved on the cover- up, then he must be scared of any investigation involving the mccann's. He was payed to feed many lies and since he is not a stupid person he must suspected the mccann's like most of the public doubt their version,. Why he acted like a clever idiot? Because he let the money talk more lauder. A typical mercenary. But mercenaries were trained enough to jump out of the hot scenery before the war starts. Murdoch phone hackings, is a war that just began. The journalists, like the OC workers and guests in the McCann's saga, will talk exposing Murdoch , when they become really scared and on the way to be accused of crimes where they were not the moral authors.
    I never understand why a paper that was sued by a pair of suspects, become their best supporters. A profitable agreement to both parts bust have been done after sept. 2007. The paper already recovered the amount payed to the fund with fabricated front pages regarding sights and the poor serialization of Kate book. And the McCann, got free advertisement for their business and their fund. I hope, somebody with balls in UK parliament, pose to James Murdoch some relevant questions regarding the McCann's.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Anon 12.07 thanks for the link.

    Why would somebody try to discredit Textusa on another site? Obviously they have had 'a go' on this site and it has not worked as Tex has had quite a lot of comments on the last two articles so now they attempt to ridicule Tex on Joana's site, but why go to all the trouble to write such a long post with no connection to Joana's 'bones article' there can be only one reason and that is they want to silence Textusa because she has uncovered something the BH are not happy about.

    Well done Textusa ' keep on digging' the truth is out there.

    ReplyDelete
  35. As Mark Warner provided a babysitting service and the children spent every day in the creche whatever this group of adults was up to in the evenings they did not want anybody outside that group to see, otherwise babysitters would have been used.

    Madeleine was sedated, Kate states in her book that the abductor could have sedated Madeleine this suggests the mccanns being doctors sedated madeleine, when gerry was asked 'did you give your children calpol' he is uncomfortable and scrathes his ear typical signs of a lie, so whatever Madeleine was sedated for it was not sleeping.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Bom dia a Todas/os!

    Como pode aquele apartamento, o 5 A, com aquelas mobílias, custar hoje a quem o aluga, 200 euros/noite?

    200 Euros = 175,041111 Libras esterlinas britânicas
    Claro, o C. da M. diz que é casa da Maddie.....

    Acho interessante a fotografia:

    http://imgs.cmjornal.xl.pt/imgs/share/2011-08-16214311_CA967162-B341-4FEB-88DD-FECB0766BF67$$738d42d9-134c-4fbe-a85a-da00e83fdc20$$2dd47290-d33a-4a53-9044-60a2410851e9$$img_carrouselTopHomepage$$pt$$1.jpg

    ReplyDelete
  37. Anon
    Aug 17, 2011 12:43:00 AM

    Thank you so much for summing up all Textusa has proved so far.

    You did forget to mention that Smith Sighting was Gerry on a "dry-run" with Tanner's kid.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Insane at Aug 17, 2011 1:10:00 AM.

    Your quotes are from the Missing Madeleine Forum:

    http://missingmadeleine.forumotion.net/t16517-tapas-quiz-night-question-4-textusa

    And these are the full quotes and those who said them:

    Christine - "Interesting read Annabel. I can't make head nor tail out of it. Anyone know what this is about?"

    Dazedandconfused - "I'm glad I'm not the only one.."

    ProfessorPlum - "Read it twice and it still makes no sense."

    Whatsupdoc - "I took it that the Slide & Splash note was just a scratch pad for taking bookings which had to be done on the day. I can't see much further atm. It would be easy to check if these guests were from another week"

    Widowan - "I've always thought TextUSA was full of it. This is nonsense. Why would people go to a water park at night, or indeed at 7 AM. None of this makes sense. Now we have the entire staff and other holiday makers all IN ON IT, FGS. “

    ProfessorPlum - "I agree, its nonsense.."

    Ireland - "Textusa, put the whisky bottle down, and move away from the table.."


    I read three or four people trying real hard to discredit Textusa. Compared with the massive POSITIVE response from the last post, it seems pretty much like you saying that the Totennham thugs represent the English community.

    I've seen a wider participation at JATYK for example.

    And are you FINALLY telling us that "your blog" is the MMF? That place where everyone laughs at Textusa?

    ReplyDelete
  39. Anon @ 9.02

    I have had a look at where this information comes from. These people are not laughing at you Textusa, they are pretending not to understand the obvious. They are not smiling it is rictus.

    Why have none of them come up with any facts to contradict the post? Because there are no facts to use?

    Well done Tex and sisters, you have found something Insane did not want bringing into the open. I wonder what else is lurking in the files you are going to show us.

    ReplyDelete
  40. I've just gone to JM, and there are two very appropriate responses to your comment Insane.

    ReplyDelete
  41. This slide and splash article sure has rattled some cages in so much that posters mentioning it on other sites and getting rather annoyed about it, I wonder why......

    ReplyDelete
  42. Keep up the research Textusa and Sisters, Insane knows many people have lied to protect the mcscums, this is just the tip of the iceberg.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Anon Aug 17, 1:10,

    Where are that anti- mccann's blogs where you claim what you have written?
    The prove that blog is plural and accept other opinions, is your words were published. You seems to be the one who get nervous with some kind of opinions and react. How convenient is for you to think Textusa, managed to fool all of us.
    I can speak about me. The only one who fool me on that story, were the McCann's on the first week. I have a son with same age as Madeleine and I had to deal with mine and his nightmares, with his many questions because the McCann's, as an infectious disease were in all news, 24 h a day. I had to keep my son away from the news. I become overprotective until I start realizing how nonsense was McCan's story. The girl have been not enough time in PDL to be marked by a strange and the McCann's quickly put everybody related with them out of the abductor skin.
    Textusa, is not fooling people. People are able to see, compare and give their opinion. You, who get nervous with opinion of others were the one who could have been fooled by the McCann's. Some, probably in a most
    damaging way if they get directly involved with them on the cover up. Now they are trying to blame these people with the abductor going inside the flat trough the door with a key. With Kate saying she revealed the child's were alone in the pool. With mrs Fenn putting the abductor( according to McCann's) inside the flat when Maddie cried. Who they are fooling now? Probably nobody, but they are scaring some people who will react everywhere somebody talks about cover ups and the help the McCann's got.

    ReplyDelete
  44. What a peculiar article. K Mc certainly doesn't look 'united in grief' as this states. Who is this person who comes to the UK to meet the Mcs...and why???

    I suppose it makes a change from sightings or maybe the next ones will come from Australia?

    http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/morcombes-and-mccanns-united-in-grief-20110817-1iwsv.html?from=brisbanetimes_sb

    ReplyDelete
  45. Anon @ 10.37

    I agree with you on who is fooling who, or at least trying to. Textusa gives information and with further research we can find out the facts for ourselves.

    When you read how many people doubt the McCanns it is obvious they are in the majority so they have not been fooled. Every time a Mc supporter tries to fool people they only draw our attention to something that needs to be scritinised more closely.

    If Textusa was writing nonsense then these people who just ignore it. As they don't we know it has touched a nerve with certain people. These people must have some connection to what happened in PdL to be so concerned.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Insane, you try hard to fool people. But get uncovered very quickly. The only one you are fooling, is yourself.
    What makes you so scare to oblige you to post here and go to other pro- McCann blogs to grab some grains that could help your feelings and deliver them here?

    ReplyDelete
  47. 10:40 thanks for the link, Kate looks so fake a proper painted lady masking many secrets and where is Gerry, what happened to him not being in the 'grief stricken' photograph, he was never one to miss a photo opportunity.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Insane, let me see if I got this correctly:

    Textusa is saying that the OC is in on it. I think she’s right, you don’t, and let’s respect each other’s opinion, but I think we both agree that’s what she’s saying.

    You’re countering her arguments based solely on documents supplied by the OC. The same OC she’s saying that is in on it.

    Basically you’re refuting a thesis based on proof provided by whose credibility is being questioned.

    For example, it would be like if you used McCann’s own words to prove that whatever other evidence is there against them is nonsense.

    But then, I just can’t understand your double-standards. You say you’re a non-believer in the McCann’s abduction thesis, when you should be one. The McCanns have been saying this whole time that Maddie was an abducted. I can find you many of their quotes if you wish. So for you that should suffice, because it’s irrelevant for you whether the credibility of the source is being questioned.

    Please don’t say that the OC Staff or OC Guests are not comparable with the despicable McCanns, because wrongdoers have absolutely no distinctive marks on them to allow previous recognition.

    ReplyDelete
  49. anon 12: 20:00 well said

    ReplyDelete
  50. Anon at 10.40

    Thanks for that link. Most interesting that a man has been arrested for the child's murder but the boys remains have not been found.

    Another point is that Kate Mc has a way of attaching herself to all parents who have lost or missing children, no matter where they live.

    And if that smile is 'grief' I would hate to see her 'happy'.

    Sandie

    ReplyDelete
  51. Who posted in joana morais blog the anti- Textusa comments look the same person who use to over- react here. Why going to joana morais. That stupid person was looking for a reaction, for a comment from joana . In Portugal, we call it "apalpar terreno". See, if a respected and known blogger who question McCann's version, will make any anti- Textusa comment. A clever rat, looking for some fresh air. Joana did not bite the guycandy and contrary to what he(she) was looking for, some comments there are strongly in favor of Textusa and her intelligent way of analyzing all the pieces in the investigation.
    You, insane, are very worried, not with what Textusa is saying, but with what she is leading her readers to understand and conclude. I have to highlight you, once again, that the amount of comments she displays on her blog, did not translate the huge amount of her readers. I believe, on her readers there is some inspectors from PJ and from other polices and off course the McCann's and their teams. They are looking very attentively not to what Textusa is posting but to what people like you, insane, are saying and how/ why they react. For almost of us, you are just a nervous BH, posting mainly anonymously or under insane name. For them, specially for the McCann's, you have a name. They know exactly who you are and why you are so nervous. Don't forget that Kate full time job is INTERNET and for quite long time they had the help and the tools of gamble, the CEOP and Mitchell. You may have genuine reasons to be scared, but the silence of Textusa or the hard work you are trying to do,to discredit her research, doesn't help you. The damage is done and was not caused by any blog, any blogger or any comment in the Internet. Was caused by who helped the cover up of a crime that has no evidences since minute one. Nothing remains uncovered forever and up to now, Textusa, like joana morais had the merit of connecting people who were able to join the dots and find all the lies and inconsistencies meticulously delivered to the police and the public.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Why don't the BHs do some damage control quickly and ensure that the McCanns face justice? Whatever they may have done wrong, nothing surpasses profiting from one's dead child!

    ReplyDelete
  53. To all the posters above who incorrectly assumed I was "Insane" and referred to "my blog" - I am not "Insane" and I've never had a blog.

    So much for your powers of deduction there.

    If you jump to incorrect conclusions as quickly as that, I think your chances of contributing anything meaningful to this case are zero.

    Or is it that you are unable to comprehend that there may be more than one poster who has a different opinion to you, and you assume they are all the same person?

    *Shakes head*

    ReplyDelete
  54. Sorry "NOT Insane". There are so few of you that we shouldn't have made that mistake. Please do forgive us.

    ReplyDelete
  55. Insane, you just won't let go will you? Textusa really has got under your skin. Don't know why the blog is publishing your comments as they bring nothing of interest besides your obsessive interest in what is here said.

    ReplyDelete
  56. " Not insane" at 8:15, 17
    What a laughable post, yours. Do you realized that we know Insane is plural. There is not one, there is few. Not many as you and other Insanes pretend to be. Insane become a collective name to identify some posters who react in a peculiar way, like you.
    Everybody has the right of his/ her opinion, but had to expose it with a certain intelligence, means with facts from the investigation to be discussed by other posters. Saying something is green and wanting the others to believe it's green just because you said it, is narcissism but not an intelligent argument.
    Why did you shake so much your head?

    ReplyDelete
  57. From what I can see, it's consensual that the 211 table is "too-good-to-be-true", which is what this post is about. The BH are trying to distract us from that fact. It's fact after fact that Textusa keeps on piling up on her way to unravel this whole thing. The BH are only able to do achieve is to be overly aggressive, and like with any bully, their actions produce the exact opposite of what they intend. Even those that frowned upon Textusa's posts are now, thanks to them, relooking at has here been written. I have witnessed from the very start, each post Textusa, in JM, in 3A, abd here, being ridiculed by the BH. Yet, after all this time, Textusa is the one that has shown that she's was right all along. It's been a long walk "together" Textusa, thank you, and hoping to continue to travel alongside with you. The best wishes to your relative.

    ReplyDelete
  58. If the big table was true then there would be photographic proof by now from Mccanns to prove they all sat at this 'fictional' table.

    So the table is fictional, the locked/uplocked patio doors fictional , deleted phone messages, lack of holiday photographs, sedated children, pact of silence - just what was this group of adults up to on this holiday ?

    ReplyDelete
  59. The Mcscums are very quiet at the moment, shaking in their boots and waiting of that long overdue knock on their door from the police.

    ReplyDelete
  60. As the Stinton Heeley group had the table at 7.45 that would have been their table for the evening. Mccanns and Co say they went for dinner at 8.30 at that time the Stintons would have just started their meal.
    What about this 'Heeley' name Kates surname being 'Healy' maybe there is a connection a relative perhaps?

    Also if Madeleine had been abducted why did they need to write a timeline out in her book that they were all supposed to stick to, but all contracted each other and between them got the timings in a right mess.

    From the beginning it was so obvious that they were involved and they all made a hash up of covering for each other, then once Mitchell was employed he being a 'master of spin and lies' managed to get them off the hook, but not for long eventually they will be found out by their lies.

    Well done Textusa and sisters.

    ReplyDelete
  61. Anon @ 7.45

    I always wondered why there was no statements from the Irwins on the night of the 3rd because they had a table at 8.30 in the Tapas. They would have witnessed not only 'a big round table' as well as 7 people playing musical chairs. (This is a game played by children at parties).

    What about the Cox and Patel parties did they receive the super efficient service the Tapas was supposed to provide so left the restaurant before all the later diners arrived.

    It's highly suspicious there are no statements people purportedly dining.

    Maybe those booking forms are not bookings for dinner? The S&S sheet definitely isn't.

    ReplyDelete
  62. Why have none of these other diners come forward and confirmed that the Mccanns and friends were all sitting at the big round table.

    It should be easy enough to confirm a large group would also be a noisy group so other people would remember them.

    Not one person confirms this booking will SY be talking to these other guests, if they do their job properly thats where they should start.

    ReplyDelete
  63. Hi Textusa/Sina J/May I.

    If there is an article on here which comprehensively analyses the discrepancies between Kate McCann's and David Payne's accounts of his visit to apartment 5A on the evening of 3 May 2007, could you please let me know when it appeared, or provide a link. Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  64. Anon @ 9.56

    Textusa would like to say it is an INITIAL theory, many of the interpretations of facts said there have been surpassed by events and interpretations. But the FACTS there remain FACT which is what we suppose the reader is looking for.

    You may like to look at this link but if you use the search box on the blog you will find more posts that may provide you with what you are looking for.

    http://textusa.blogspot.com/2010/09/importance-of-inexistent-witness.html

    ReplyDelete
  65. Please also look at:

    http://textusatheory.blogspot.com/

    ReplyDelete
  66. Exactly. The Mccann's with all their money, contacts and ressources, were not able to provide any photograph that clearly proves they have been in the Tapas dinning with or without the people reposted on the lists. 4 years was long enough to find that information. That picture will be on their best interest and will be not difficult for them, to find a paper to publish that picture and get a good cash in. I believe, PJ is not the one who could being preventing them to publish it, since the case is shelved and they were not forbbiden to talk or search their daughter. But, I strongly believe, PJ has on his secret files, pictures from the Tapas and from all the resort, where they found there is no such big round table, and who delivered that lied. Then, the Mccann's were not able, even to fabricate ( it is easy to do a montage) a fake picture with the Tapas fitting their wishes. They know, the day they publish a picture fitting some of their statements, they open the door to PJ to publish the real pictures of the Tapas, where the public could see there is no round tables and no possibility to seat a big group in one table. They will be signing their own condemnation.
    Then, from my exercise, I can only deduct the obvious: there is no big round table and if the statement reporting it needs to be questionned, all the rest delivered by the Tapas 9 or who help them bake that dinner, needs to be questionned.
    I really don't believe on any dinner on May 3 and strongly desbelieve all the dinners after that night, for few weeks. The Tapas was a piece of interest for the police, then all bookings become derranged to respect the police activities. Looking at PJ files, I can see a Tennis dinner(which I believe was a Party) was cancelled. Many things were cancelled, then how that guests manage to dine there without changes?

    ReplyDelete
  67. Sina J

    Thanks - I had read the Theory page, but not the article from 2010.

    I'm not sure exactly what happened that night, but Kate McCann's and David Payne's accounts of that visit are so different, and David comments so much on how happy all the children were, but cannot remember that Kate only had a towel around her, that I believe the contradictory accounts are one of the keys to solving the mystery.

    ReplyDelete
  68. ''As the Stinton Heeley group had the table at 7.45 that would have been their table for the evening. Mccanns and Co say they went for dinner at 8.30 at that time the Stintons would have just started their meal.
    What about this 'Heeley' name Kates surname being 'Healy' maybe there is a connection a relative perhaps?''

    Dear god, some of you people are dim.

    The copy list is for the 7th May - you know, four days after Madeleine went missing? So what are you on about?

    ReplyDelete
  69. ''Why have none of these other diners come forward and confirmed that the Mccanns and friends were all sitting at the big round table.''

    Maybe because they are not aware of Textusa's ridiculous theory?

    ReplyDelete
  70. A very interesting interview with Pat brown at Litlle morsals.
    I copy and paste a few part, showing the character of the mccann's which amongs other known behavior, must explain why some BH are so worried with what is being discussed under Textusa posts. It's not hard to believe, they also received some e- mails with a UK adress and a very intimidating message. Here goes the extract I copied:

    "Pat Brown: "......it’s kinda funny people say when Carter Ruck comes after you, you’ve been ‘Carter-Rucked.
    Jim Bohannon: Interesting, so in this day and age what
    you’re essentially saying is that, that as we enter this whole new brave new world of the non ‘Gate Keepers’ that if you’ve got enough money and enough lawyers and a willingness to throw your weight around that you can
    essentially shut down your critics.
    Pat Brown: Exactly and that’s what...that’s what’s been happening with the McCanns, they’ve effectively shut down anybody with an opinion that they do not like....
    Jim Bohannon: I er, I must tell you that I got an email.
    Pat Brown: Yes you did, I’m sure
    Jim Bohannon: I did, with a dot uk address attached to it...errrr...
    Pat Brown: Mmm?
    Jim Bohannon: [quoting part of the email]: “ ...Please
    be aware that the ebook Ms Brown is promoting is full of misinformation, contradictions and an imagined scenario. Ms Brown has a well known dislike of the McCanns, particularly Kate McCann, and for the past four years has
    made regular inappropriate and acidic comments about
    them on social networking sites”
    Pat Brown: Well that’s actually accurate. Sometimes you
    can’t disagree with people who hate you. But yes, I have
    blogged for four years. I have a blog called the Daily Profiler, ...and I try to stick with: look at the evidence and here’s what I’m thinking and.....Yes, I have been fairly critical because from the very beginning there was something rather peculiar about the story and of course it starts with leaving three little children alone in an apartment unattended...
    Jim Bohannon: Well, it, it is hard I suppose to do that ...er...among other things this email er they claim that your
    book is done in an effort to convince people that Madeleine
    is dead
    Pat Brown: Well I...
    Jim Bohannon: What are the odds? What are the odds?
    Pat Brown: Well this is kinda funny because on a very sad
    way, one of the reasons Kate McCann supposedly sues
    people is because she says no one has the right to say Madeleine is dead.... the fact is, the chances of Madeleine being alive – even if she didn’t die of an accident in the apartment which is what the police
    believe and what I think the evidence lends to, er, she would likely be dead... if she was abducted...it would be like a sex predator....and they usually kill a child within an hour,...sex ring and be taken around the world is not very likelly... the McCanns put together a campaign which featured her... the eye defect...called a coloboma...They put that as part of their publicity, well you know if I were a child kidnapper and I had this kid with this very obvious defect I’d get rid of the child very quickly because she could be identified so I .
    ....
    Pat Brown: If she wasn’t dead, you’re going to make her dead by doing that."
    Now I understand why the BH are so worried. They must be Recieving some kind of e- mails from team mccann. God knows why innocent parents spent so much time and money trying to silence who question their version.They cannot ask donations from the public one day and on the next day, sue or try to silence who question them.

    ReplyDelete
  71. Diane Webster 'missed' the opportunity to have her pictures published in Kates book, but reading through the files I noticed that Diane Webster was the only one of the Tapas group prepared to do a reconstruction, also she stayed at the table and was unsure of what to do when the Tapas group all left, also Murat sat in on her interview with pj as interpreter but none of the others. I believe Diane Webster is not as involved as the rest of the group and therefore would be the best choice of subject for the police to start their interviews with, she is the weak link in the chain.

    The Tapas bar just served snacks so why would a large party like Mccanns book a table there instead of going to a restaurant. Textusa has uncovered something here that the BH are not happy about, thank you Textusa.

    ReplyDelete
  72. I bought Pat Brown's book but I'm not happy about her view on neglect. I believe neglect didn't happen. Pat Brown may have tried to cover herself from libel but I would have preferred a more open approach.

    Banning her book like Snr Amaral's speaks volumes.

    ReplyDelete
  73. the more i hear about the mccanns and their suing and libel cases and attaching themselves to genuine abduction victims, makes me wonder what is wrong with this world, Pat Brown has written a very plausible account of what probably happened to madeleine so she gets silenced by them, who are the mccanns and why does justice and common sense and a sense of duty by authorities to investigate and shut down the mccanns not happen. They are doing everything for money they are greedy, self serving moroons who should have been locked up years ago.

    ReplyDelete
  74. Great blog Textusa well researched xx

    ReplyDelete
  75. I too, believe not a single negligent night happen but I understand why Pat Brown, had to enter the negligence on her book. To be accurate and serious, any analyst who write about the case or discuss it, needs to base his/her ideas on what was delivered and is available in the investigation to avoid been called by the McCann's and their team, illusionists, liars, etc. In fact, the negligence was where the story began. Not the real negligence, but the one the McCann's conveniently delivered to the investigation/ media, to support their theory- the abduction.
    The point is, all the evidences pointed to madeleine's dead. Due to an accident or not. That is the believing of the police, including SY and Pat Brown agree with it. Nobody knows, at least publicly, how she died or if somebody contributed to her death but is quite clear, she is dead. If so, why her parents insist she is alive and well? Any normal parents under such circumstances will ask/help the police to search the body, understand how she died and have her remains to give her a funeral with some dignity. these two, are looking just for money. There is not a single appearance of them that has no attachments- the Fund or the book.
    If she is dead and died when the police believe (between 6pm and 9pm of May 3), then all the life of the mccann's during these 4 years was a cocktail of crimes. Hiring lawyers and a spoke person, hiring detectives, selling items on their site, asking donations, assaulting other raising activities to grab money for them, silencing people and books, fabricating sights, accusing innocents to be paedos or abductors and feeding some media with manipulated articles against Portugal and the Portuguese.
    No surprise to see how quickly and high they jump every time somebody question their theory and highlight Maddie is dead. If at the beginning their justice account ways only with Portugal due to the disappearance of their daughter, now involves many other countries,where they accuse innocents or fool people with donations.
    I hope, Pat brown get her voice heard in many programs around the world to explain the odds. Come on Portugal or Spain, when are you going to invite her for a radio/ tv interview and show the public the e- mais you received with a British a dress?

    ReplyDelete
  76. Tony Benneth is being Carter-Rucked again. I don't agree with methods used by him, but how the McCann's can accuse him of defamation and bring him to court if is a fact, they refused to answer many questions posed by the police, they refused the reconstruction and have asked the public to sign their petition to reopen the investigation and after publicizing the petition achieved thousands signatures, they did not move a single step to reopen the case in Portugal?
    Only in Portugal the case can be reopened, since the Home Office made it clear trough many answer( letters and emails) publicly known, that the investigation belongs to Pj and they only can assist with what Pj ask them to do in UK.
    Even without agreeing with many things the MMF have done, they had the merit of really shaking the McCann's and question many things on their theory. They committed a huge error in my opinion, like the McCann's, they tried to got some financial profits from the case. Something really condemnable. But the McCann's have no authority to condemn anybody regarding that, because they were the first who explored the tragedy of their daughter and even all the libels and court cases they moved against who question them, were payed with money coming from the Fund and from public donations. The salary of a surgeon is not enough to pay all that.
    I found really strange the smooth behavior they adopt when they try to silence some people. Only with Amaral book they were very noisy, calling all the media... And at the end, they lost. Now, no media invited to silence Amazon/Pat Brown and the MMF. No circus, no big front pages. They are trying to scare people in a very smooth way. Why? Because a big media coverage, will destroy their strategy. They had to explain the reasons of that behavior and be publicly confronted with 40 questions left unanswered, a reconstruction that was not done and their petition that was not used, even after claiming thousands of signatures on it. If Tony Beneth is clever enough, he must contact Pat Brown and try to spread worldwide the activities of the McCann's and their untouchable lawyers. If the defamation is condemnable, the way that lawyers silence people is much more condemnable. They act like if they had an infinite power, going over some basic laws, I believe.
    Who contribute to the Fund of that pair or buy their book, must cover their face in shame, because in fact they were not helping Madeleine to achieve anything and were supporting who don't want her to be found.

    ReplyDelete
  77. I think, more people are receiving letters/ e- mails from Carter-Ruck. On Anorak, the comments on Madeleine McCann are closed.
    Interesting, that case only allows one version and the McCann's and Mitchell to talk. Why that remembers me a very black time in the world history?- Hitler and his way to see the opinion of who question him.

    ReplyDelete
  78. Anon @ 4.20

    I think you are mistaken that The Madeleine Foundation run by Mr Bennett makes any money from donations. I think if you check their accounts the only money raised goes into the printed literature they have produced and cover the costs of running it. There is no profit.

    Maybe you should contact Mr Bennett and ask for clarification for your own peace of mind.

    I am not connected nor a member but have contacted Mr Bennett to ask questions and he always responds.

    ReplyDelete
  79. Thanks, anon 9:57.
    I was not talking about donations but about the leaflets the MMF made and sold trough their site. Was an error in my opinion. You cannot condemn a kind of behavior and do the same.
    With that leaflets, the site become vulnerable and easy to be successful targeted by the McCann's.
    For me it is condemnable any way of exploitation of Maddie tragedy. Who heads that wagon, are her parents with an exploitation translated in the most despicable ways. Kate has no shame. She with her Portuguese lawyer were accusing Amaral in Lisbon, of making money from madeleine fate, with his book. Few months later, she came with her lies piled in a book. Only the money drives her search.
    The only one who, according to me, has the right to write something about the case, is G. Amaral, because he was publickly accused by the McCann's. His image was destroyed. He lost his job and was treated like a criminal. The only crime he committed was investigating the case with accuracy and competence and not being corrupt.
    I think there is many other ways to combat the McCann's then selling leaflets. I know the British media is almost all controlled and will have been very difficult for mr. Bennett to found a journalist who accept to interview him and ask his opinion( very valuable most of the time) but what about Spain, Portugal, Germain and many other countries the McCann's involved people and delivered their lies? Carter-Rucker, Carter- rucked " las mananas de 4", but they cannot Carter ruck everybody.
    Another problem that was working in favor of the
    McCann's libels up to now, in my opinion, is the silence of who have been Carter-rucked. They silenced more people then what is known. Maybe if that people let the world know they have been Carter-rucked by the McCann's, the shameful behavior of that parents and their lawyers raise suspicions in a large amount of public and get it openly discussed in some countries.
    What they are doing is illegal, I believe. Where are the limits, the borders of a defamation in a case so controversial, where the parents were the first to start a very recriminating behavior by accusing innocents .

    ReplyDelete
  80. Tony Bennett really touched the nerves of the couple McCann and the team involved on their defense. I had a look on the letters exchanged between him and scot yard,regarding the review asked by the PM (available at MMF). The McCann's are worried about any additional information he could have to uncover their activities.

    ReplyDelete
  81. Anon 10:59 - brilliant post you state it all exactly as it is, the corruption involved in this case is unbelieveabl, because of the fund the mccanns have been able to pay for expensive lawyers to protect them, they are a disgrace to their professions they are corrupt and greedy.

    ReplyDelete
  82. Tony Bennett is being sued for defamation, not by the McCanns, but by someone associated with them.

    A point well worth remembering when publishing false allegations against witnesses, Textusa. Like you do.

    ReplyDelete
  83. Anon Aug 20, 2011 11:57:00

    Of course this is to do with the mcCanns.

    http://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t3339-contempt-of-court-or-not-tony-s-two-replies-to-carter-ruck

    ReplyDelete
  84. @ Anon Aug 20, 2011 11:57:00

    Do try to read the post before replying to it.

    I said ''Tony Bennett is being sued for defamation, not by the McCanns, but by someone associated with them.''

    ...which is completely correct. The McCanns are in fact pursuing a contempt action against him. Mr Bennett has been accused of defamation by one of the directors of the fund.

    It is very unwise to publish defamatory claims about people, the way that Textusa does. Unless you have £100k lying about which you can spare, of course.

    Interestingly, although under UK law it is not possible to defame the dead, this is not the case in Portugal, where the relatives or the estate of the deceased can bring a defamation action on their behalf. Well worth remembering that Mrs Fenn resided in Portugal, of course......

    ReplyDelete
  85. I didn't think Mrs Fenn was a Portuguese citizen. Her son lives in the UK as far as I'm aware so who exactly could bring any case to court in Portugal?

    Is this a threat from anon @ 2.28?

    I have read it was Smethurst who was getting CR into action because of what was said about his friends on Facebook. Maybe that is something else that has shrunk to fit.....Smethurst's friends list.

    ReplyDelete
  86. Mrs Fenn was a Portuguese resident, so any of her relatives or her estate could bring a defamation action against Textusa or anyone else on this site repeating her false allegations.

    Of course, there are plenty of other people who have been the subject of defamation on here - any of them could bring legal action against you. Mark Warners and the OC for example.

    ReplyDelete
  87. Anon.@ 2:28,
    I' m maybe mistaken with my reading, but mr. Bennett is being sued by one of the McCann's solicitors trough Carter -ruck. The defamation was related with McCann's and not with the solicitor. A long story, since since 2009 the McCann's are accusing mr. Bennett of destroying the search of their daughter while spreading the idea of Madeleine dead. The letter sent to mr. Bennett even said at some point that he is used with Carter-ruck letters. Was not the first.
    Don't try to be a clever BH, trying to stick that hypothetical
    defamation with what Textusa bring here to be discussed.
    Here nobody was defamed. The information is being intelligently delivered, from the investigation, to be openly discussed by who wants to do it. If somebody fabricated
    anything, was the McCann's and their helpers who delivered to the investigation, impossible acts as facts and many contradictions and inconsistencies. If they had to complaint with anybody, is with Portuguese justice who released the files to be free accessed by the public and openly discussed by who wants to do it. There is no any note in PJ FILES, saying people can only discuss one
    version of the story, and that version is the abduction under the negligent dinner at the Tapas. Off course the McCann's can't do that complain. Is too danger. Could end with case reopened against their wishes.
    They prefer try to silence another louder critical voices, in a smooth way, like the rats who attack your cheese during the night.
    Mr. Bennett loves to be controversial and he seems not to be a easy person to be silenced. Mcaann's are scared. They don't know exactely what he knows. Some vital information could have reached his hands without them
    controlling. I' m not saying that is the case because I don't
    know and don't agree with most of his methods. But, this is possible and McCann's are not that type of persons who waste money on people without interest. In fact, when we read attentively the content of the letters they sent, one mission is relevant: they want to prevent people to access
    any information in the court and that includes the witnesses statements. Trying to send a red light to the judge? Why?
    Why they are so worried? Because for more then 4 years, even after hiring the best team of lawyers and according to
    them, top private detectives, they failed to provide a single evidence of the abduction that could justify their
    continuous asking of donations. CONT

    ReplyDelete
  88. CONT:
    Exactely, as was pointed in a comment before, where are the borders of what is consider defamation or not? Some papers who support the McCann's business are the champions on that game, defaming football players and artists, whiteout fears.
    In Maddie case, since was not solved or closed, all the ways are open to be discussed. Off course, most diverge from the convenient story of the McCann's. If they had collaborate with police and help them on every request, the case could be solved by now and all discussions closed. The McCann's choose the other way, then they should be prepared to face the consequences of attentive and critical public.
    Talking about defamation, I don't need to go too far to see how the McCann's like to defame others but deal very badly with opinion of who contradicts their version. A few clicks on their website took any reader to some YouTube videos made by them as reconstructions, not validate by PJ or any official police, I believe. On that videos we can see one guy acting like an abductor, planted in front of the flat. Different guys in fact, since there is more then one video, played with a different actor. Associated with images, we see the words " did you know that person? Have you seen that person? " what is that, coming from the suspects without the Avalon of an official police? At the end is not a dangerous defamation against all the innocents who could resemble that guys? Because a reconstruction is supposed to hire an actor physically similar to the real person that is being targeted. Fortunately, for the McCann's, the public has more sensitivity and is more responsible then them and their team, because up to now, few came forward with denounces against innocent hypothetical suspects fitting the guys described on McCann's videos. I just see something similar to that on Far West movies. The McCann's were allowed to do what is recriminated even when done by official polices under serious investigations, like terrorist attacks. And all that, is done under the eyes of the authorities who act like if they are suffering from a partial blindness. Due to that, we have seen Hewllet been questioned in an hospital even if he was almost dead. A Germain prosecutor had to put full stop on the despicable behavior of the McCann's.
    I hope, mr. Bennett get the support and the help he deserves. Even, while not agreeing with some of his strategies, he had the courage to frontally contradict the McCann's and due to that become an enemy they want to silence. I hope, he manage to bring that court case to the high courts in Europe, where the manipulation of Carter-ruck will be seen like it is- against the laws.
    They already tried to fool Europe with Amber Alert and fail. They lost the case against Amaral and his book is free to be sold and updated. BTW, HAVE THEY RETURNED AMARAL BOOKS THEY ILLEGALLY RETAINED? I believe not. But what we can wait from a couple who asked Amaral to divorce to allow them to frame the half part of everything he was having with his wife? They really deserve the BH.

    ReplyDelete
  89. Ah! Ah! 5:10,
    And to prove that was a defamation, they had to do the reconstruction under pJ eyes and instructions. Not only with who acts as mrs. Fenn but with all Tapas 9. The night Maddie cried, cannot be dissociated of the day of May 3. The all day, since in the morning Kate reported the amazing complaint of Madeleine.
    Better you sleep my dear BH instead of delivering ideas that keep Gerry and Kate very angry.
    How, they can accuse somebody of defamation without putting themselves exactly inside of the volcano?
    We see the strategy they use with T B. Was a solicitor, on their behalf. Judges are not stupid, unless a vein of corruption run on their hands with some fresh money coming from the Fund. THEY ARE LOSERS. The time will prove it.

    ReplyDelete
  90. Insane
    Aug 20, 2011 11:57:00 AM
    Aug 20, 2011 2:28:00 PM
    Aug 20, 2011 5:10:00 PM

    Are you, by any chance, associating yourself with those associated with the McCanns? Because you certainly seem to be supporting their actions, which is quite odd for someone who claims to think the McCanns guilty. A person with such thoughts shoud reprimand such abuse of power, but you seem to be gloating over with what those associated with the McCanns are doing. A slip of the tongue maybe, dear?

    ReplyDelete
  91. If the BHs would present reasonable arguments for Textusa to apologise, I'm certain she would do so, as she's done in the past. Instead you behave like wrongly offended virgins without explaining exactly why, and when everything suggests that your virginity is as fake as your words.

    ReplyDelete
  92. To Anonymous at 10.59: I have bought some stuff from Tony Bennett but it cost such a small amount it must have only just covered the costs of printing. In addition he sent me at least 100 copies of his leaflet completely free of charge, so I would assume from what I know that if he did make any money on anything sold the profits were put back into subsidising literature and flyers which he wanted people to leave in public places, to alert others to an alternative version of events to that being promulgated by the McCanns at the expense of gullible children and kind hearted people.

    ReplyDelete
  93. The BH are shacking, like Kate and Gerry and some good friends like the Paynes. Some received the very special e- mails asking them to shut up or go everywhere and do whatever they can to reverse the bad time they are having. Murdoch papers are discredit. Over the time, will become a nest of lions trying to survive . All the lies and manipulation will be exposed.
    From who was the fault? From the McCann's who choose to be under the spotlights all the time to grab money for their fund. They are killing themselves .
    Just a small look at one of the first and huge "market ploy" ( Gerry words, not mine) : Madeleine eye defect, the COLOBOMA :

    Carlos Anjos, PJ: "If that situation had been of an abduction, it would have been terrible for the child. Because if that child were to be sold, or something else...it was her death sentence. That situation, that day, advertising that photo, was simply the death sentence of that child.

    Gerry McCann: "We thought it was possible this could hurt her. Her abductor might do something to her eye. But in marketing terms it was a good ploy"

    Piers Morgan interview (Kate and Gerry promoting their new book):

    P MORGAN: Madeleine had a very distinctive eye pattern, didn't she? Tell me about that, Kate, in case people see somebody they think may be Madeleine. Tell me about her eye.

    K. MCCANN: If I'm honest, we haven't put too much
    emphasis on her eye, because I think you have to be very close to her to see it. But her eyes are slightly different colors, and one of them has this brown fleck in it. But you do notice, particularly on photographs, but ...
    P MORGAN: Slightly distinctive eye colors and a little fleck.
    P MORGAN: And do you know if that would be still there if she's now eight years old?
    G. MCCANN: Certainly believe it wouldn't have changed. I think there's been a pattern to be still there. That it's -- the technical term is coloboma, where there's a defect in the iris. I don't think it is actually. I think it's actually an additional bit of color. She certainly had no visual problems."

    What is this? " we haven't put too much emphasis on her eye". " the technical term is coloboma. I don't think it is actually"
    Two parents, against the police advise, released the picture of their missing child where the only message clearly available was her eye defect( coloboma) and her mother few years after said they don't put too much emphasis on that?
    And what to say about a father who is also a doctor, who come to an interview saying the technical term is coloboma but he don't think it is actually? During 3 years he was not sure if his daughter had coloboma but the coloboma was used as a market ploy? Coloboma is diagnosed on the first year of the child, some, immediately when they born and is recorded on the medical records of the child since the beginning.
    What is that? A lie? A manipulation? Something that deserves a close eye from a clever police, and obvious... To be questioned and discussed. By question that, i'm defaming the McCann's? For them and the BH with their inverted values, maybe. For any reasonable person, not. It is obvious, Madeleine medical records deserve a deep investigation. She has a coloboma or not? There is no such flecks on the eyes or slightly changing colors when you look very close, at least on the picture they delivered to the media. On that picture we see a coloboma and according to top doctors in Portugal, cannot be operated and will not change( fade) over the time.

    ReplyDelete
  94. Aug 20, 2011 5:54:00 PM

    Goodness knows why you bothered typing all that drivel.

    You are completely wrong about the action taken against Tony Bennett for defamation by Mt Smethurst. It relates to comments Tony Bennett published about him personally.

    Textusa, in conjunction with contributors here, has defamed many individuals, and of whom could choose to sue. It doesn't seem to occur to you people that you cannot go around accusing people of serious crimes based on a crackpot theory about a big table, or the lack thereof. Will anyone sue you? I have no idea. I hope so. People should not expect to tell damaging lies about others and get away with it. You ought to be aware of the fact that in making defamatory comments about large companies, you take on people with the clout to seriously damage your bank balance.
    As for the remainder of your post, it's just rambling nonsense, to be completely frank. I don't think you have a clue what you were attempting to say

    ReplyDelete
  95. @ anon Aug 20, 2011 6:52:00 PM

    I suggest you actually try reading my posts, in stead of merely wetting your knickers, then typing a stock response

    I don't give a rat's arse about the McCanns, their friends, or what happens to them. What I object to is mentally ill bloggers - yes, that's you Textusa - who defame and degrade people who are not in a position to defend themselves, all for the purposes of grandstanding and concocting their lunatic and frankly deranged theories.

    Clear now?

    Good.

    Oh - bear in mind, if they decide to sue Textusa, they can go after you at the same time, force your ISPs to hand over your details, sue you personally for any defamatory comments you make or have made in the past. And I don't think that you whining that Textusa said there were no tapas dinners because there wasn't a big enough table is going to go down well in court, somehow. That disclaimer Textusa has on the site? Utter, utter bollocks.

    ReplyDelete
  96. From what I understood Mr. Bennett is under fire not only from the Mccanns but also from one of their lawyers, a Mr. Smethurst:

    "Following receipt of a package by Secretary Tony Bennett from Carter-Ruck at 3.35pm on 17 August 2011, alleging that he is in breach of an undertaking he gave to the High Court on 25 November 2009 about the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, we are removing many items from our website."

    "On 9 August 2011, Mr Edward Smethurst, the Co-ordinating Solicitor for Drs Gerald and Kate McCann, issued a libel summons against Madeleine Foundation Secretary Tony Bennett, a fact he found out on returning yesterday from a 10-day holiday. The claim is limited by Mr Smethurst to ‘a sum not exceeding £100,000’."
    ...

    "The Claim relates to postings made by Tony Bennett about Mr Smethurst on the ‘Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann’ (CMOMM) forum between 9 and 12 May. The case has been assigned to Master McCloud."

    "Mr Smethurst’s concerns about one thread in particular were first brought to Mr Bennett’s attention on 4 August. Carter-Ruck, who act for Mr Smethurst, in the second of two letters sent that day, demanded: “Should you now fail to remove the defamatory postings…we will advise our client to issue proceedings for libel against you without further notice to you”. The allegedly defamatory postings were removed the following day, the day Mr Bennett began a 10-day holiday."

    Read all of it in:

    http://www.madeleinefoundation.org.uk/


    Mr. Bennett desperately needs a wealthy backer...he, like Mr. Amaral, has not enough means to defend himself in court, he just cannot afford a lenghty and highly expensive legal fight. The McCanns are privileged, they have "the Fund", the one that is to pay for the search of their daughter, even if it is being used for anything they fancy, lawyers, public relations people, supporting the "extended family",etc., every Mccann action, no matter how unrelated it might be, somehow manages to fall under the category of "searching for Madeleine"! And they get away with it!

    ReplyDelete
  97. Anon at 10.37

    I think Mr Bennett has a legal background and if so would be able to represent himself in court.

    If he did I hope people would show their support as I believe his intentions are honourable.

    ReplyDelete
  98. Are you kidding?

    For someone who supposedly has a legal background he appears to be utterly ignorant of the law.

    Try to understand this

    Having an issue with the McCanns does not give anyone - you and Tony Bennett included - the right to behave in this fashion towards people associated with them or connected in some tangential fashion to the case. What do you imagine will happen if it goes to court - that Bennett will be able to call the McCanns to court and ask them any questions he likes??

    Dream on. It doesn't work like that.And it won't matter how ''honorable'' people consider his intentions, the case with be judged on it's merits, by a jury - not by a raggle-taggle collection of forum members with a vested interest.

    ReplyDelete
  99. Anon Aug 20, 2011 5:54:00 PM, you say “You ought to be aware of the fact that in making defamatory comments about large companies, you take on people with the clout to seriously damage your bank balance”
    According to you, if you have the money, you have the justice. That’s one sick and perverted view of society.
    Defamatory comments are offensive to both rich and poor, and yes, they should be punished. Do learn to tell the difference between of what you don’t like to hear, and what is defamatory. The fact that you don’t like something doesn’t mean that you can just deem it illegal just because your bank balance is bigger than mine.
    Textusa has used nothing but public documents to justify her opinions. You’re free to disagree, but the fact that you have to resort to violent and insulting wording and legal threats only serves to highlight your inability to show that she’s wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  100. Anon Aug 20, 2011 5:54:00 PM

    Oh grow up, you credulous creature.

    Textusa has defamed many people. She has never prevented facts - she has presented opinion, frequently masquerading as fact. Many of the accusations are made without the tiniest shred of evidence to support them. And it will do no good if challenged in court to claim that she thought her opinion was justified.

    Rich and poor alike are entitled to justice - you are not entitled to defame someone, it really is as simple as that. If Textusa has published deliberate lies about Mark Warners, should they not be entitled to have their reputation restored, and to be compensated for her behaviour? Of course they should. As should all the other people defamed on this site.

    If someone published lies about you, accused you of a serious crime without the tiniest shred of evidence or justification, would you not be entitled to seek redress?

    Then why should it be any different for the people you have all told lies about and falsely accused?

    ReplyDelete
  101. I heard from the grapevine that a witness may have asked for police protection to speak about what has witnessed in the PDL in 2007. Not everyone has the same tolerance to lie and can live happily over unfortunate events... it's interesting because I always thought the shoot would came from UK....

    ReplyDelete
  102. Oh, incidentally, a few facts for those of you who are still thinking it might be a good idea to make false allegations of a defamatory nature against people via this blog.....

    Libel actions are very expensive. VERY expensive. 140 times more expensive in the UK than in other parts of Europe, with many cases costing well over £0.5m

    The defamed party can also go after your webhost and service provider, should they wish. You will probably find that the service provider got you to tick something to say that you indemnify them against any claims as a result of things which you say, and for which they are subsequently sued. So if they are sued, they will be coming after you for the money. All this will make it very difficult to find a new service provider. But that won't matter so much because you quite possibly will no longer possess a computer. Or a home to use it in.

    But don't worry about any of that - you just keep telling yourself that you know you're right because there was no big table. I'm sure the judge will be able to stop laughing for long enough to ask the jury to deliver their verdict

    ReplyDelete
  103. 20, 8:42,
    Is your post a threat? I assume it is. Since you don't like to be bothered even with a little research i offer it to you, directly from the dispatch issued by 3 portuguese judges who lift the ban on Amaral book:

    "....In the archiving dispatch that is signed by two Public Ministry Magistrates, it is written that "From the analysis of the set of depositions that were made ( by Tapas 9 and their witnesses) became evident that important details existed which were not fully understood and integrated, which needed to be tested and verified on the location of events itself, thus rendering it possible to establish the apparent failures to meet and the lack of synchronisation, even divergences, in a diligence that is suited for that effect, which was the reconstitution, which was not possible to perform, despite the commitment that was displayed by the Public Ministry and by the PJ, to attain that purpose…
    ...What is certain is that since the start of the investigation there were incongruent and even contradictory situations concerning the witness statements; the telephone records of calls that were made and received on mobile phones that belonged to the couple and to the group of friends that
    were on holidays with them; the movements of people right after the disappearance of the little girl was noticed, concerning the state in which the bedroom from where the child disappeared from was found (closed window? open window? partially open window?) etc., and the mystery would only become even thicker due to the clues that were
    left by the already mentioned sniffer dogs......Cont

    ReplyDelete
  104. Cont.
    "......Concerning the applicants' reservation of private life, we verify that they themselves have given numerous interviews and intervened in the media, thus giving them [the media] information that would hardly be publicised by any other means: this includes the documentary that was produced by the British TV station "Channel 4", which had the applicants’ cooperation and was widely broadcast in the United Kingdom and later on in Portugal (ref. Nos. 32 to 35 of the aforementioned proven facts); one should pay attention to the fact that the applicants have easy access to the national and international media, having given an interview to North American television talk show "Oprah" hosted by the well-known Oprah Winfrey, which was already broadcast in Portugal, also by SIC, on the 4th of May, 2009, and again on the 12th of May (ref. No. 40 of the same facts).
    ...We conclude that the applicants voluntarily decided to limit their right to the intimacy of private life, certainly envisaging higher values like the discovery of their daughter Madeleine's whereabouts, but upon voluntarily limiting that right, they opened the doors for other people to give their opinion about the case, in synchrony with what they were saying, but also possibly in contradiction with their directions, yet always within the bounds of a legitimate and constitutionally consecrated right to opinion and freedom of expression of thought...
    ...In the same way, concerning the applicants' right to image and a good name: upon placing the case in the public square and giving it worldwide notoriety, the applicants opened all doors to all opinions, even those that are adversarial to them. ..."

    Enough? If you want more, do a little research . Is available in many honest sites, not in the McCann's for obvious reasons. You will read by yourself the judges saying while not showing up for the reconstruction, the McCann's failed to prove their innocence. They don't fail only to prove their innocence, they open the door for the public to suspect all witnesses, which includes mrs. Fenn, mark warner and his employees and guests. Is not Textusa or me who suspected the witnesses could have lied. Is the all investigators and the judges while analyzing the investigation. Most of the public gave money to the Fund, then the public deserves to know the truth. We and all bloggers, we are the public. The McCann's can't have it on both ways. Asking the financial support of the public and at same time try to shut up who want everything analyzed, questioned and the truth.
    You seems very worried dear BH. I can sleep well. My conscience has peace. I don't believe a single word coming from McCann's mouth. I don't believe who support or help them. It is my fault? Non, they cannot shut down my intelligence. It is their fault. Up to now, they failed to prove they are telling the truth. Do the reconstruction and prove our doubts are wrong. If Mark Warner has to sue somebody, is the McCann's. Deliberate or not, they damage his business and his reputation. The same happen with OC workers who lost their jobs due the behavior of the McCann's. Why are they not suing the McCann's? God knows. I just suspect . Cheers and have a good night.

    ReplyDelete
  105. Mr. Bennett has a legal background and is not the first time he faces legal battles. He knows how to deal with them and how to jump out of them. Since the beginning of Maddie case, he was fighting for the truth and having the McCann's chasing him. They just never bring any case to court because they are worried of courts, special in UK. Carter- ruck can't manipulate or intimidate all the judges. Too risky for the VIP pair. Everybody with a pinch of brain can see, some of their activities are largely condemnable under the public opinion, starting with their Fund and the way they raised and spent the money. The search of their daughter cannot justify everything and cannot be a umbrella of other crimes.
    I don't know what was the defamation, but since is related with Madeleine mystery, has the McCann's on it. Like the " sources close to the parents" or the " unnamed source" now we have one of their lawyers acting against mr. Bennett. They never assume anything personally. Was only against GA they show up in Lisbon because were convinced that they win the case. Few months after, 3 judges turned down another fairy tale and they lost.

    ReplyDelete
  106. A lot of BH taping here today, very nervous.

    ReplyDelete
  107. I believe, anon. 11:04, 20 Aug, your comment is not endorsed to an. 5: 54

    ReplyDelete
  108. Textusa cannot be sued because of the theory of the big round table. First, there is no theory. 2nd, Jane and Kate have to prove in court which table they were seating and Amaral, and PJ, as competent investigators, will know well the tables of the Tapas and have pictures of them. I believe they will assist anybody the McCann's try to sue for doubting their stories. The prosecutors involved on the investigation also doubt their stories. I really like to see Carter-ruck sending letters to the judges in Portugal, asking them to believe McCann's words.

    ReplyDelete
  109. Its about the The Law Society investigated Carter Ruck and their dubious clients.

    It is immoral for Carter Ruck to take the high grond and threaten people just because they disagree with the ridiculous abduction scenario that their 'rich' clients the mccanns want the public to believe.

    It is about time this case did go to court, and was properly reported on, let the public know that for 4 years they have been conned they the mccanns and their wealthy team of backers.

    ReplyDelete
  110. "Libel actions are very expensive. VERY expensive. 140 times more expensive in the UK than in other parts of Europe, with many cases costing well over £0.5m"

    You confirm that its nothing about justice, and all about financial capability to withstand a long judicial process. If you were worried about cleaning your name, if we were to sue Textusa, you should sue her for 0,1 cent, as a question of principle, to show the world she's a liar. No, you threaten with her and her readers with serious financial damage, and that says about all what your interest in justice is.
    Speaking of using what is written in comments here, please don't disregard your contempt about a Judge's role in his job. I've never seen a Judge laugh at a trial, but I've seen many reprimand, sometimes with consequences, those that have tried to fool the courts.

    ReplyDelete
  111. "I'm sure the judge will be able to stop laughing for long enough to ask the jury to deliver their verdict"

    You've really lost it, haven't you? One thing is to control entities, which have people who are very comfortable in life and wish to remain so or even, if you can arrange it, be even more comfortable, another, completely different, is to control a number of common citizens. A jury is not only made up by your side, nor is their decision made based under the suggestion of the judge presiding. If this ever goes to trial, yes, I would endorse it to be with a jury, not like it happened in GA in Lisbon, because if it had been with a jury, I believe the decision would have been completely different. You're giving a very pitiful show for your colours. We read you, understand your despair, and feel pity for you.

    ReplyDelete
  112. Anon Aug 20, 2011 11:04:00 PM

    Firstly you contradict yourself with every comment you post, for example…..
    “you take on people with the clout to seriously damage your bank balance” then say justice is available to all.

    It’s interesting you accuse Textusa of defaming Mark Warner so please give us just one example of this. Then we might know what ‘compensation’ the company might be entitled to.

    I really don’t believe Textusa has the power to influence the customers of Mark Warner and it’s quite amusing that you think she can.

    What I can’t understand is why Textusa is causing you so much distress if you truly believe she is truly suffering from delusions. To my way of thinking only someone who has something to lose would take this amount of interest. This leads me to believe you know what went on May 3rd or were at Ocean Club at the time. It does sound by your desperation that you haven’t got the financial ‘clout’ to sue anyone and hiding behind the big boys who have a fund for their legal fees.

    If you are involved you are a lose cannon.

    If you are not involved in any way why waste so much time and energy?

    ReplyDelete
  113. I can see how disturbed you all are by this, so let's explain a few things to you.

    Firstly, it makes no difference whether you ''endorse'' a trial being held in front of a jury or not - that is how libel trials are conducted in this country, and it's one of the reasons they are so very expensive. Juries can only consider the evidence put before them, and what would be put before them is Textusa's words from here, where she accuses witnesses - not the McCanns - of a whole variety of crimes, from perjury to conspiracy to manslaughter or worse.

    Some of the people whom Textusa has targeted are those whose only involvement in the case was as a very peripheral witness, so her actions in accusing them of crimes without any evidence whatsoever could be interpreted by the court as particularly malicious, and thus serve to ''aggravate'' the nature of the offence. Textusa didn't ''accidentally'' libel people; she went after them deliberately, and with malice aforethought.

    You seem to think this is about money, and about those with more of it having better access to justice - and in a way, that is true. Mark Warners may be in a better position to sue you than one of their former employees you have falsely accused. But just because they have some financial clout does not mean it is unfair that they sue you. Their financial status should not mean that it is okay for others to abuse them - they have every right to their redress, just as much as the next person.

    To the person who said Textusa cannot be sued because of her theory of the big round table, you completely miss the point, probably deliberately. It's not her fairy story about the table which is the problem, it is the conclusions she drew, and her accusations of fraud and conspiracy which she levelled as a result. You may think it's okay to do this - the law does not agree with you.

    Some of you also seem delusional about who would be entitled to sue you - it's not the McCanns you should be worried about. It's all the other unconnected people you have defamed who are the problem. Bleat all you like about the McCanns and Carter Ruck - it's immaterial. We are talking about people who became involved in events not of their making, and were subsequently accused of serious crimes by some demented scum on a website. It has nothing to do with the McCanns.
    To the particularly stupid person who suggested it was all about money and people should sue Textusa for one cent - you really don't get it, do you? It isn't the damages which are the problem, it's the cost of defending the action. If you defend and subsequently lose a libel action in the UK, expect it to cost you over half a million pounds in costs, before any damages are added on. This is half of the problem - you all seem so utterly ignorant of the law that you are prepared to flout it again and again. Sadly for you, ignorance of the law cannot be offered as a defence.

    ReplyDelete
  114. CONT


    What Textusa should do is to remove any articles which make accusations of criminal behaviour against any witnesses, or alleges that they were untruthful in any way. I doubt she will - it's quite clear from her increasingly bizarre articles that her mental stability has been deteriorating for some time. Again, that won't help her, and it certainly won't help those of you with posts endorsing her crazy accusations.

    So, obfuscate to your heart's content; it won't help. Misunderstand all you like; that won't help either. Textusa and her posters have told serious lies about the actions of witnesses in this case, and as such are liable to prosecution for making those false allegations.

    Finally, it is worth remembering this - if one of these much maligned people does decide to sue you, they don't have to prove they didn't do whatever you accused them of doing. You have to prove that they did. Proof does not include an insane and rambling theory hypothesized on a blog.

    Still, it is touching to see that you all seem prepared to stand at Textusa's side and face financial ruin together. Sweet, actually.

    ReplyDelete
  115. Defamation - Elements of a Claim

    Under Article 10(2) of the Convention, the protection of the reputation of others is a legitimate ground for restricting the right to freedom of expression. Libel and slander are legal claims that protect an individual’s reputation against defamation. An individual is defamed when a person publishes to a third party words or matter containing an untrue imputation against his or her reputation.

    Meaning of Defamation

    Is to a person’s discredit.
    Tends to lower him or her in the estimation of others.
    Causes him or her to be shunned or avoided.
    Causes him or her to be exposed to hatred, ridicule or contempt.

    Looks like Textusa has grounds for starting a defamation case against Insane as s/he is fulfilling the above criteria.

    Unfortunately the MCaanns would have to prove the ‘facts’ and I doubt they would want the attention in court.

    ReplyDelete
  116. Now you're being just silly.

    Where do you think the events took place? Or is that also not a fact for you?

    ReplyDelete
  117. Insane, can I quote you?

    "I can see how disturbed you are by this"

    ReplyDelete
  118. Insane:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X3Kzbo7tNLg

    ReplyDelete
  119. @ Anon Aug 21, 2011 9:45:00 AM

    You ignore a few salient points.

    Mainly that the words have to be untrue.

    Textusa HAS made unsupported allegations on this blog. She is not in a position to prove the allegations she made against those people, as the ''proof'' simple does not exist.

    It does not defame Textusa to allege that she did this. It's all here

    Again, you come back to the McCanns and their having to ''prove the facts'

    This isn't about the McCanns. I am talking about the witnesses whom Textusa has libelled. Nothing to do with the McCanns whatsoever. And it would be for Textusa to prove what she was saying, not the people she has defamed.

    @ Anon Aug 21, 2011 9:45:00 AM

    I am assuming you meant this for me - what makes you think it makes any difference where the events took place? Textusa can be sued in the UK if the person bringing the case chooses so to do - many claimants bring their cases in the UK as they usually receive significantly greater awards.

    I don't know if you are aware of this but there have been numerous cases in the UK where people have been charged by the police and tried in the criminal courts for malicious publications on the web. The allegations Textusa makes ARE malicious. They hold no basis in fact, and are indeed manufactured to add weight to a barmy theory.

    I posed the question earlier about whether you would feel entitled to redress if someone took your real name and made false allegations about you on a website, claiming that you were a criminal involved in covering up the death of a child.
    Would that be okay with you?
    Do you think that is acceptable?

    The worst part is that these people have been victimised by you all simply because they became witnesses to events of which they were not a party. They haven't done anything wrong, and yet still the most appalling things have been written about them on here. You must all be very sick and malicious individuals if you think it is okay to target people simply because they were witnesses to events in which you have an interest.
    Those people are legally entitled to protection from the likes of you and the things you say about them.

    So remember. If they don't have the resources to bring a civil action against you they can complain to the authorities that your actions amount to harassment. Then you risk a criminal record too.

    ReplyDelete
  120. @ Anon Aug 21, 2011 10:02:00 AM

    Is that seriously the best you can do? Come on now, that's a woeful effort.

    ReplyDelete
  121. If Textusa is defaming Mark Warner, then he have to remove his business, the OC from sites like the Tripadvisor and some others wher anybody can read what really affects his business and good name- the comments of his guests. Some are really bad, even after the site being monitorized.
    If he had to sue somebody, is the McCann's. They leave him in such bad situation. Kate even add more chilly when without grounds she said a lot of child's were abused by paedos in algarve. We know, was a lie. The authorities did not corroborate her words.
    For more then 4 years the McCann's keep coming, bringing the story to tvs across the world, without providing a single evidence to support their words. THEY KEEP DEFAMING PORTUGAL, THE ALGARVE AND THE PORTUGUESE. They are lucky, few people are money seekers, like they are.

    ReplyDelete
  122. @ Anon Aug 21, 2011 10:23:00 AM

    You really don't get it, do you?

    Comments made on a site like Tripadvisor, provided they are genuinely held beliefs written by people who stayed at the resort are FAIR COMMENT.

    Accusations made on here about their role in the disappearance of Madeleine are not.

    As far as I can recall, the McCanns never accused Mark Warner of a crime.

    Textusa did.

    Regardless of what the McCanns did or continue to do that does not give you or Textusa the right to libel innocent bystanders who became caught up in events.

    ReplyDelete
  123. Anon 20, 8:42,
    Is your post a threat? I assume your words like they are, it is.
    A few research bring me to the dispatch of the 3 judges who lifted the ban on Amaral book where he relates to the public what was released in Pj files, from the investigation.
    note: the applicant's are the McCann's:

    "....Concerning the applicants' reservation of private life, we verify that they themselves have given numerous interviews and intervened in the media, thus giving them [the media] information that would hardly be publicised by any other means: this includes the documentary that was produced
    by the British TV station "Channel 4", which had the applicants’ cooperation and was widely broadcast in the United Kingdom and later on in Portugal (ref. Nos. 32 to 35 of the aforementioned proven facts); one should pay attention to the fact that the applicants have easy access to the national and international media, having given an interview to North American television talk show "Oprah"
    hosted by the well-known Oprah Winfrey, which was already broadcast in Portugal, also by SIC, on the 4th of May, 2009, and again on the 12th of May (ref. No. 40 of the same facts)....
    ....We conclude that the applicants voluntarily decided to
    limit their right to the intimacy of private life, certainly envisaging higher values like the discovery of their daughter Madeleine's whereabouts, but upon voluntarily limiting that right, they opened the doors for other people to give their opinion about the case, in synchrony with what they were saying, but also possibly in contradiction with their directions, yet always within the bounds of a
    legitimate and constitutionally consecrated right to opinion and freedom of expression of thought...."

    The judges are clear, THEY OPENED THE DOORS FOR OTHER PEOPLE TO GIVE THEIR OPINION ABOUT THE CASE....POSSIBLY IN CONTRADICTION WITH THEIR DIRECTIONS...WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF A LEGITIMATE AND CONSTITUTIONALLY CONSECRATED RIGHT TO OPINION AND FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION.
    An opinion about the case, that includes all the witnesses involved. What Textusa is doing, is grabbing from the investigation pieces that deserve a clinic eye to be analyzed. What her readers do, is giving an opinion about. If the opinion is not in prol of the McCann's or their witnesses, sorry, they have to contact PJ to clarify their statement and is with pj to publish the content in their site, or not, and inform the public about it. Textusa is doing a public service for free. She cannot be accused of anything. She is looking for the truth, like the police. Some become very nervous, because their mission is preventing the truth.
    Enjoy your threat, my dear.

    ReplyDelete
  124. Insane says "I can see how disturbed you are by this"

    Au contraire, it is you who is disturbed. I'm amused by your feeble attempt to scare people coming to Textusa's blog.

    Anyway....who are these people who are worried about being 'defamed' you are defending? Why are you their champion? Once again it looks like you are involved in some way and pretending yo have an army of disgruntled cohorts.

    Perhaps Textusa can let us know if she has been approached by ANYONE (or their son in Mrs F's case she she has mentioned asking her to remove any posts or threatening legal action.

    Insane put up or shut up. Sue me if you like, I haven't got a bean so nothing to lose.

    I see you have ignored the request for you to state 1 defamatory statement about Mark Warner. No surprise there! Bit like when asked for your blog where everyone is making fun of Textusa.

    ReplyDelete
  125. The McCanns may have courted the media - the witnessed libelled by Textusa haven't - so you can forget that one.

    Once again - this isn't about the McCanns

    I'm not repeating the allegations against Mark Warner - they can be read on here by anyone who so chooses, and are all safely archived.

    As regards my blog, as you were informed at the time it is a private blog, which we try to keep a scum-free zone. Your sort are not welcome.

    Have a nice day

    ReplyDelete
  126. it is called PROJECTION when people accuse others of doing what they themselves are doing.

    Insane is very disturbed but I don't see any other readers being the slightest worried about any threats. I'm sure many would welcome being challenged.

    ReplyDelete
  127. Insane, if you accomplished anything today was to show Textusa's readers that here is a place where they can express freely their opinions. What a spectacular show of hands!!

    ReplyDelete
  128. The McCann's believe that under the arms of Mitchell and Carter-ruck they are protected and can do whatever they want. Under that circumstances we see them defaming Portugal and the Portuguese, defaming the Portuguese police, threatening Amaral or anybody that jumps on their way to disturb their affairs. All that behavior have money involved on it. That protection was and still being payed by the fund made with public donations. They are acting like if they are above the law. It is about the society to moralize that group. They cannot go away with a crime that is unsolved just due to their lack cooperation with police, andvahealth bank account made with public donations. Do you see the immorality? I do! Because around the world, and even in UK, there is more parents lliving the same drama of having a child missing. All of them collaborate with police and never became suspects. They were not allowed to ask donations to search their child's. They were not allows to refuse a reconstruction of any event asked by the police. They don't sell interviews or posters with their child's face. They grief in pain, inside their houses and their families and believe the only force can help them to know something about their child's, are the official polices with their knowledge and resources.
    Is a fact, the society need to have a word on McCann's affairs, since the authorities dismiss their responsibilities on that. The society is each one of us. We want to know the truth and after that, any single pound in McCann's Fund should go to a national team uncharged to rescue children in danger. That money was stolen by the McCann's but did not belong to them. I believe if they asked public donations saying that the money will be spend in Carter-ruck and Mitchell to threat who wants to know what happen to Madeleine and give her the voice she lost, NOT A SINGLE PENNY HAVE FALLEN ON THAT FUND.

    ReplyDelete
  129. Anon., @ Aug 20, 2011 11:51:00 PM wrote:

    "I heard from the grapevine that a witness may have asked for police protection to speak about what has witnessed in the PDL in 2007."...

    From what we've known and from what we've seen of the police attitude towards this case, if I was in that person's shoes I would think twice and thrice before sharing any knowledge I might have about the case...

    ReplyDelete
  130. Insane, have you considered suing Kate McCann? I think you should.

    On pg 75 of her book "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?’ 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. 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"

    WOEFULLY INADEQUATE AND APPARENTLY UNCONCERNED REACTION and AS IF SHE’D JUST BEEN TOLD THAT A CAN OF BEANS HAD FALLEN OFF A KITCHEN SHELF.?? What kind of comments is that to make about such a sweet old lady that you are so much concerned about? It is insulting and it’s PUBLIC. She’s smearing Fenn’s name much more than Textusa is. And, according to BHs stats, to a much wider audience!

    Do sue Kate, sue the one that “shouted back something rather short and to the point” at a witness that you so passionately champion. Or is your concern only to do with Textusa and what she has to sayt?

    About your blog, I would tell that your concern for it not to be infested is a little bit late, but I won’t say it, because it doesn’t exist. Are you going to sue me for a saying that?

    ReplyDelete
  131. Insane blog, is a private blog, where he/ she receives instructions about when to attack Textusa blog.
    Regarding the time you spend here defending some special people, I can imagine how crap is your blog.
    A serious issue is driving your fingers while you tape on your computer. That cannot come from a free amateur seeking the truth on Madeleine story. A serious trouble drives you and it is not innocent the amount of posts you posted regarding defamation. How convenient if you could use defamation to silence who touch some nevralgical centers.

    ReplyDelete
  132. Someone else who could sue for defamation

    «What's he doing? I thought. Following orders? Under my breath, I found myself whispering, F****** tosser, f***** tosser. This quiet chant somehow kept me strong, kept me in control. This man didn't deserve my respect. "F****** tosser.» Kate McCann regarding the Judiciary Police liaison officer

    ReplyDelete
  133. The BH use CR as their A-Bomb. It's like their WMD, and I'm using the acronym literally. They could argue like do the WH, but won't. They just throw in the libel threat right up front. As everyone knows bullies use violence to hide their weaknesses and failures. The only other kind that uses violence are cornered animals. It looks like somebody here is both weak in arguments and feeling cornered...

    ReplyDelete
  134. The damage is done. Mrs Fenn died, she cannot change her statement. Kate trow the ball inside the OC, their guests or their workers, who could heard her conversation in the pool while booking the dinner and enter the flat with a key to snatch her daughter. The girl did not make a noise that time, contrary to what happen on mrs. Fenn's night, but who cares, Maddie was sedated by who sedate her twin brothers who were not able to wake up after all the troubles. The lists are there, conveniently delivered to PJ, putting few guests inside the Tapas, sharing the placevwith McCann's. The abductor? Must be anyone inside the resort and out of that lists.
    Now, I can see, why discussing that lists and the statements of some witnesses become very disturbing for few people which names are involved on the lists or the statements. The perfect crime was not perfect at all. Has many small details, some wanted to dismiss when they could be relevant.
    If you don't have good bullets, which in such case are factual arguments, to combat who question you, you trow arrows with a threat at the beginning, trying to see if they stick somewhere in an arena called defamation, but which borders are very subjective and difficult to limit.
    What you call allegations, I can call doubts, questions, inconsistencies, contradictions, etc. Which one is right, me or you?
    One thing is important- when Kate delivered to the public such information about the conversation in the pool. 4 years after her child went missing. Why was that information not important on the first minutes, when GNR arrived( since is not on their statements) and become crucial 4 years later? You know insane and that shakes you. You may sue Kate for leaving some people in a very trouble situation.

    ReplyDelete
  135. I wonder what rattled Insane's cage again a couple of days ago but wouldn't it be great publicity for Textusa and a disaster for Mcs if that made the news. Only the Mcs can or more likely could previously afford legal fees.

    Anyway, it seems that Insane is slightly mistaken. This what blogger has to say on the subject in its terms of service:

    "15. Choice of Law, Jurisdiction, Forum. These Terms of Service will be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California, without giving effect to its conflict of laws provisions or your actual state or country of residence. Any claims, legal proceedings or litigation arising in connection with the Service will be brought solely in Santa Clara County, California, and you consent to the jurisdiction of such courts."

    ReplyDelete
  136. Insane or whoever you are - you are one disillutioned person, this is a blogger site where people have differing opinions. If the Mcs had been more honest in the first instance, none of these sites would exist and Carter Ruck, Mitchell and many others would be slightly poorer. It is because of all the inconsistencies in statements, shutters jemmied, nor not, patio doors locked, or not, deleted phone messages, cadaver you know the sort of thing that raises doubts about a persons innocence !

    The public have inadvertantly paid for the Mccanns libel cases, and as such have the right to express their views and disgust at how that money from the fraudulent fund has been spent.

    This case should go to a court of law the Mccanns have had it their way for too long, it should be sorted and there should be closure, no more taking money from the public that are force fed fictional news stories that the Mccann 'office' want printed.

    A grave injustice to a 3 years old baby happened 4 years ago, and since then her parents have manipulated charities and made money from her sad memory, with on-line stores, and trademarked her name. These people are vile and so are their supporters.

    Some people believe that if they have enough money they can rise above the law, this is not true eventually the Mccanns will face justice for ALL their crimes, just look at all the different sites demanding justice on the internet, if you close one down, two more will open, its not going to go away. Read the on-line newspapers comments boxes, posters are far more graphic in their dislike for the Mccanns on those sites.

    Personally I'm sick of Kate and Gerry and their fake grieving, courting the media forever with their begging bowl out. They will become an infamous couple, criminologists will use them as examples of how criminals try to avoid facing the crimes they have committed.

    Thank you Textusa for your research and absolutely brillient blog.

    ReplyDelete
  137. Wow Tex 135 comments and counting - you must have hit on something here !!!

    well done xx

    ReplyDelete
  138. Well said, anon.at 1:21.

    Their book was not an account of the truth, was simply they latest attempt to fade and have some good incomes under the disgrace of their daughter, now when public donations are not easy to be asked. Which parent believe her daughter was abducted by a paedo ring and didn't went to any harm? Only who wants to live under a limbo sphere of a perpetuated search that could cover avhuge amount of money falling every day without having to wake up and get bothered with a job.
    Madeleine, for her parents, is not a battle. Is a way of living. Since long ago, the story is not anymore about that litle girl or the effort to know what happened to her. It is about what to do next to prevent all the voices could disturb that perfect business. And that is a perfect business for few people, not only the McCann's. Their lawyers, Mitchell and in a more smooth way, their detectives and close family who managebto have a job connected with Fund.
    The BH are the losers. They don't see a penny from the Fund and they have to shut up to survive and escape the Portuguese justice. i' m defaming you? Ok, sue me and prove I'm wrong. Let the international police go inside the Fund account and follow all the tracks of that money. Not a single penny was spend in a real search of Madeleine. Non, threatening people who question that, is not searching. Accusing mr. Bennett and other people of defamation, is not searching.
    While accusing Amaral of exploring her daughter, in Lisbon court, Kate assumed she did not read the files of the police. Her lawyer said that was quite shocking seeing the pictures piled up in portimao police office showing some child's. From that child's, how many were recovered due to McCann's actions? How many they help? Their case cannot be isolated from the rest. Where went all that money? Why was Kate forced to end- up in such condemnable behavior of having to write a book exploring her child(something she publicly condemn the police) and lie again? The book is not an account of the truth. Is a promotional book about herself. She has to pay the bills of that lawyers who keep sending letters in the dark, trying to threat and silence the honest public who just want explanations for what is really questionable. Was it, not more simple and less expensive if they reopen the case and defend the innocence of their clients in a court of law in Portugal? What is preventing that lawyers of a so high reputation to do that? The weak innocence and the easy Fontaine of money, become that dubious Fund. A obvious conclusion, for me.

    ReplyDelete
  139. Wow Textusa. 137 posts so far.
    I hope mr. Tonny bennett got all the legal support the circumstance deserves. Better, he contact the Spanish judge Baltazar Garson who already had a battle with Carter- ruck regarding pinnochet. He must know well the RATS NEST, and give a good advise about how to deal with it.

    ReplyDelete
  140. Boa tarde.

    Há malucos para tudo.

    Criaram uma página de ??????? à progenitora de Madeleine.

    Será que andam a incentivar páginas de apoio às progenitoras de Crianças mortas em circunstâncias " desconhecidas" ?

    Andam a incentivar os maus comportamentos de estranhos progenitores ??????

    ReplyDelete
  141. Kate Mccann has a new facebook page, but not all the comments are favourable !!!

    http://www.facebook.com/pages/Kate-McCann-A-Tribute-to-/248580811838712

    ReplyDelete
  142. Wow, someone is very worried. If I were simply an interested bystander who supported the Mccanns, I would be keeping quiet and waiting for all the detractors to be taken to court and lose squillions of pounds. Then I would laugh myself silly at how secretly right I had been all along. It is very clear that there are hirelings paid for out of the Fund who sit at their computers typing desperate threats against those of us who have the minimal insight required to understand that this whole story was a load of loblocks from Day 1.

    ReplyDelete
  143. Is Insane going to bring about a defamation case on behalf of the staff of Mark Warner and Ocean Club?

    He must have some wealthy backers to give him confidence to do that or he is very wealthy himself.

    But to do that surely he needs to be defamed so who is s/he and what was his/her involvement?

    ReplyDelete
  144. Anon21, 10:37,

    And the comments made on that sites, like Tripadvisor, are the one which really can cause damages to the mark warner/ OC business. They come from genuine and honest guests and some are very negative. Who could holiday in the Resort did not come here but will go to that sites to see the opinion of previous guests. Since long ago, the all farce is about money, easy money and not the defense of an image or a name. If so, we will have seen Murat calling all the media to see him suing Jane. Where is it? He cash in the money from the papers and fade, happy and smootly. After all, the troubles wasn't so bad... Was profitable. A jackpot.

    ReplyDelete
  145. Defamation applies to individuals not businesses so if Mark Warner staff or Ocean club staff wish to bring about a case of defamation they would have to prove how their personal name has been defamed.

    Individuals who are not public figures do not have grounds for suing for defamation.

    Those threats were toothless and the writer knows nothing about law especially extremely complicated internet law.

    So bring on the threats, they are just that....empty threats with no substance.

    ReplyDelete
  146. Seá impressãop minha ou anda aqui um ou uma querida armados em Cartão_Roca ou em Mr. Ed ?

    A ameaçar o blog por difamação ao resort ?????

    O tal resort que despediu os empregados portugueses logo a seguir à Maddie ? Imediatamente a seguir!

    E que também transferiu as " amas" para outros países ?

    E que enviou de volta os empregados não nacionais para as respectivas terras ou antigos postos de trabalho ?

    Ah.... engraçado...... muito engraçado estes teens fans do mal.

    Teens fans do mal : podem criar mais páginas de louvor a umas tantas mais progenitoras pois, infelizmente há muitas Crianças sem Justiça com progenitoras de alto gabarito.

    Francamente !

    ReplyDelete
  147. No Canadá, aí há uns dois ou três anos um Casal de septuagenários, quase nos 80 " desapareceram " !

    O Canadá já oficializou a morte. Declarou-os falecidos.

    Quanto à Pequenina ? Como vai ser ? (não convém , não é?)

    Como deveria ser ? E, quando ? Sabem por acaso ?

    Obrig.

    ReplyDelete
  148. ''The McCann's believe that under the arms of Mitchell and Carter-ruck they are protected and can do whatever they want. Under that circumstances we see them defaming Portugal and the Portuguese, defaming the Portuguese police, threatening Amaral or anybody that jumps on their way to disturb their affairs. ''


    Exactly what you on here do to innocent witnesses. You are no better than the people you are so fond of complaining about.

    ReplyDelete
  149. ''What kind of comments is that to make about such a sweet old lady that you are so much concerned about? It is insulting and it’s PUBLIC. She’s smearing Fenn’s name much more than Textusa is. And, according to BHs stats, to a much wider audience!''


    So you admit Textusa is smearing the good name and the memory of Mrs Fenn. Good, that's progress. An admission from a blog reader that Mrs Fenn's name was smeared is all that's needed to get a decision in court.

    ReplyDelete
  150. ''Insane blog, is a private blog, where he/ she receives instructions about when to attack Textusa blog.
    Regarding the time you spend here defending some special people, I can imagine how crap is your blog. ''

    You can imagine to your heart's content. You're never going to get to see it. I take instruction from no-one, incidentally. Unlike others on here......

    ReplyDelete
  151. ''Anyway, it seems that Insane is slightly mistaken. This what blogger has to say on the subject in its terms of service:

    "15. Choice of Law, Jurisdiction, Forum. These Terms of Service will be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California, without giving effect to its conflict of laws provisions or your actual state or country of residence. Any claims, legal proceedings or litigation arising in connection with the Service will be brought solely in Santa Clara County, California, and you consent to the jurisdiction of such courts." ''

    God, you're stupid. Read it again, try to understand what it's saying, and understand that it confers no protection upon you or Textusa, but is instead referring to disputes regarding the hosting service.

    You seem to think you are above the law. I can assure you, you're not

    ReplyDelete
  152. ''The public have inadvertantly paid for the Mccanns libel cases, and as such have the right to express their views and disgust at how that money from the fraudulent fund has been spent.''

    Yes, of course you do

    You just don't have the right to post false and malicious allegations against innocent witnesses and third parties, which is what you do

    ReplyDelete
  153. ''Anonymous Anonymous said...

    Is Insane going to bring about a defamation case on behalf of the staff of Mark Warner and Ocean Club?

    He must have some wealthy backers to give him confidence to do that or he is very wealthy himself.

    But to do that surely he needs to be defamed so who is s/he and what was his/her involvement?''

    I'm not going to be suing anyone - any suing will be done by the people that Textusa and you posters have defamed.

    ReplyDelete
  154. ''And the comments made on that sites, like Tripadvisor, are the one which really can cause damages to the mark warner/ OC business. They come from genuine and honest guests and some are very negative.''

    If they are genuine comments made by people who visited the resort and posted truthfully, then they are fair comment and certainly not defamatory.

    The false claims made about the conduct of Mark Warner and their employees by Textusa are a completely different kettle of fish, and are both malicious and highly defamatory.

    ReplyDelete
  155. ''Defamation applies to individuals not businesses so if Mark Warner staff or Ocean club staff wish to bring about a case of defamation they would have to prove how their personal name has been defamed.

    Individuals who are not public figures do not have grounds for suing for defamation.

    Those threats were toothless and the writer knows nothing about law especially extremely complicated internet law.

    So bring on the threats, they are just that....empty threats with no substance.''

    You clearly don't have the faintest idea what you are talking about, and you are entirely wrong. On all counts, actually. In fact, your comment that people who are not public figures do not have grounds for suing for defamation are unbelievably ridiculous, and display a very low intelligence

    ReplyDelete
  156. Gabo a Vossa pachorra em explicarem tudo aos fans do mal ..

    A progenitora é que se aproveita do falecimento da Senhora Fenn para destilar veneno.

    Os teens sem vida própria ?

    Por isso é que são bem estranhos.

    ReplyDelete
  157. Non public individuals have to prove negligence but public figured need to prove malicious intent.

    There is also statute of limitations to consider.

    I wonder which member of Mark Warner or Ocean Club staff will say they have been defamed? Exactly what was defamatory anyway?

    Could I ask Aug 21, 2011 7:23:00 PM
    how he or she knows people intend to sue? He or she must know these people and as it has been said before what is your involvement with these people to know this? No-one gets so het up about strangers.

    ReplyDelete
  158. ''Non public individuals have to prove negligence but public figured need to prove malicious intent.''

    Absolute horseshit. The law is the same for everyone.

    Do you just make this up as you go?

    As regards who or what I know, mind your own business

    ReplyDelete
  159. Interesting comment from a court case about blogging.

    "simply exposing something to scrutiny by providing an insight in to its workings is rarely defamatory, or grounds for impinging on freedom of speech".

    And

    "The majority of bloggers, no matter how controversial the topic of their blog might be, have little to fear from this court case. It’s the trouble-makers and trolls who need to think hard before hitting publish on their next post".

    Insane watch out ...you might get sued for libel.

    ReplyDelete
  160. ''"simply exposing something to scrutiny by providing an insight in to its workings is rarely defamatory, or grounds for impinging on freedom of speech". ''


    Textusa wasn't 'exposing something to scrutiny'

    She was falsely accusing people of being involved in the disappearance of a child and conspiring to cover it up.

    And that, my dear, is libel.

    ReplyDelete
  161. Na verdade bem gostaria de saber onde esconderam o corpo da Menina.

    Ela não está desaparecida e os progenitores sabem-no tão bem!

    Enquanto Ela " continuar desaparecida recebem sempre dinheiro " ;

    ou ,enquanto " estiver desaparecida AQUELES todos envolvidos em algo maior " precisam afincadamente dos teens fans do mal.

    Haja paciência !

    ReplyDelete
  162. Dear Insane, you seems to be really disturbed with some posts here... Copying and pasting.
    Regarding mrs. Fenn, move on dear. That old lady made a statement to the police that is fully questionable. It's our right to question it. By question it, she was not insulted or defamed. In fact, the only one who insulted her and, in a very border of the line, could have defamed her, was Kate on her book, has some readers already provide here the pages where we can read it. But, mrs. Fenn is dead. Whatever come from the investigation in the future could not affect her or her family. Her son at the end could say, his mother lied to do a favor that she was asked for. He have nothing to fear. He was not there. Is not one of the witnesses or part of the lists. Then, why should he get bothered with us who question the statement of his mother? She is unable to change it.
    The same , is not applicable to the other helpers who have an agenda when they jump here and systematically tried to speak under mrs. Fenn's voice. These have reasons to fear. The case is not closed. The public is not buying that story and the way the directly involved on it want to go away.
    Only your fears, drive your words insane. you are trying to use mrs. Fenn to divert the attention from who helped the McCann's cover up what happened to their daughter. Your reactions to some posts, are very relevant and if there is somebody abusing mrs. Fenn memory, that's you. You are scared because some important information is being looked with accuracy here and in other sites.

    ReplyDelete
  163. Insane, a long list of posts, all posted anonymous and trying to be some, when in fact are few, one , you. To finally reveal who you are. Somebody from the OC and very close to mark warner. Is my feeling. Who else should be? Not the employees that lost their jobs. That were minor players.
    Well, you become a piece of interest, not for me, but for the police I'm sure. Here nobody insulted you or defamed you; even when we question your intentions, is in a very polite way. You lost control easily, as your last posts show us. And you try to threat other readers using Carter-ruck methods.... Intimidating, sending messages. Your mission is accomplished, you denounce yourself.
    if it was me, Textusa, I will guide the contents of the posts of our dear friend insane direct to the PJ site, specially to the Portimao department, where they can enjoy the reading and ,who knows, maybe fill some gaps. Why not sending them also to Goncalo Amaral, who is a clever guy and I believe will be not difficult for him to replace Insane by a real name.
    See? Your posts really damage the image of the OC and his owner, since raise more suspicions/ doubts. Your friends will be not happy with your performance here.

    ReplyDelete
  164. Insane and King Canute, anyone recognise the similarity?

    ReplyDelete
  165. ''Regarding mrs. Fenn, move on dear. That old lady made a statement to the police that is fully questionable. It's our right to question it. By question it, she was not insulted or defamed.''

    She was both insulted and defamed - something you are continuing to do. It's quite clear that you people have no shame and no common human decency

    ReplyDelete
  166. ''Well, you become a piece of interest, not for me, but for the police I'm sure''

    As will your posts be to anyone who decides to sue this site.

    Grow up, you ridiculous person

    ReplyDelete
  167. ''Regarding mrs. Fenn, move on dear. That old lady made a statement to the police that is fully questionable. It's our right to question it. By question it, she was not insulted or defamed.''

    She was both insulted and defamed -

    She certainly was insulted and 'defamed' by Kate McCann and Fiona Payne who both swore at her according to K Mc's book. Take up the matter with them and let them know people are going to seek legal retribution.
    I guess the publishers need to be informed of legal action too.

    ReplyDelete
  168. ''She certainly was insulted and 'defamed' by Kate McCann and Fiona Payne who both swore at her according to K Mc's book. Take up the matter with them and let them know people are going to seek legal retribution.
    I guess the publishers need to be informed of legal action too''

    The actions of Kate McCann and Fiona Payne neither excuse nor detract from the actions of Textusa and others in their false allegations against Mrs Fenn.

    You are all as bad as each other

    ReplyDelete
  169. Well done to the anon poster for successfully hi-jacking and diverting the comments away from the subject. A typical TM tactic! Your obsession with sueing is also a dead give-away. Anything to try and stop discussion. It's also an eye-opener that the more you try and fail, the more you resort to insults!

    (Am I allowed to say that??)

    ReplyDelete
  170. ''Well, you become a piece of interest, not for me, but for the police I'm sure''

    I really hope so and I'm sure posters here will agree the reason for the blog's existence is to get the police to take notice.

    I wonder if you would do a great favour and inform the relevant police forces. As you said before Mrs F's relatives could bring a defamation case in Portugal so how about informing the PJ as soon as possible?

    As for others who intend to sue only you know which police forces they would need to approach.

    ReplyDelete
  171. Thank you Martin.

    The voice of reason is always welcome. We have let that anon have a platform for a spectacular performance, not for our entertainment but for insight into the BH philosophy.

    We now have plenty.

    ReplyDelete
  172. Talking of suing.. why have the Gaspars never been sued by the Mccanns, they have sued everybody else especially considering the content of the Gaspars statements..I would never associate with such people as Payne and Mccann if I witnessed such a conversation...Gaspars statements never made it into our mainstream media yet everybody that follows this case is familiar with them, why were they played down so much ?

    ReplyDelete
  173. Some of you could do with some basic lessons in the law.

    The Gaspars cannot be sued for information which they gave, in good faith, in the form of a police statement. Not as if they published their version of events in the Sun, is it?

    Textusa can however be sued by any of the people about whom she has made defamatory comments on this blog. That's a lot of people.

    Of course, if they prefer, they can pool resources and bring a class action against her, thus sharing the costs of bringing an action.

    You will just have to wait and see, won't you?

    ReplyDelete
  174. Insane your comments remind me of Ryann Giggs threatening to sue posters on twitter for their comments concerning his infidelities, he made a laughing stock of himself and wasted loads of money on superinjunctions that didn't work.

    Thanks to the internet we now have freedom of speech and free flowing information that the mccanns cannot control.

    ReplyDelete
  175. You do not have freedom of speech to defame innocent people. Not without being liable to make redress, anyway.

    The campaign of harassment organised by Textusa against completely innocent third party witnesses is a total disgrace.

    ReplyDelete
  176. As the Gaspars made police statements these can of course be used in a court of lawm against the mccanns.

    The nature of the statements in itself is very serious and Im sure behind the scenes action will have been taken regarding the mccanns.

    None of us know the full facts of the case or what records the pj hold, this is why the Mccanns are continuing trying to obtain these records to build their defence, they have been unsuccessful because the pj will see the mccanns in court.The case has been shelved awaiting new evidence, the mccanns have not been cleared as they would have us believe.

    Eventually this case will go to court it will be the rightful and just conclusion to a saga that has continued for more than 4 years involving the setting up of a fund, misleading the public, taking donations from the public when there was not one shred of evidence that an abductor was ever present.The abductor theory is based soley on Mccanns and friends statements...nothing else.

    ReplyDelete
  177. The BH, have really a problem with reading complicate information. There is two posts here showing Ipsis verbis what was the decision of 3 judges from the court appeal in Lisbon, regarding defamation on that particular case. Was regarding GA but is applied to all people " they opened the doors for other people to give their opinion about the case.....in contradiction with their directions". Then, in Portugal, end of the case. If they were not able to sue Amaral, they cannot sue anybody else. They and who help them, will end up arrested because to prove or disprove anything, they have to do the reconstruction. I don't need to say further about that, because up to now, all legitimate judges and investigators that dealt with case arrived to the same conclusion - the reconstruction is fulcra. Amazing the way the BH are exposing themselves.

    ReplyDelete
  178. "There is a certain type of argument which, in fact, is not an argument, but a means of forestalling debate and extorting an opponent’s agreement with one’s undiscussed notions. It is a method of bypassing logic by means of psychological pressure . [It] consists of threatening to impeach an opponent’s character by means of his argument, thus impeaching the argument without debate. Example: “Only the immoral can fail to see that Candidate X’s argument is false.” . The falsehood of his argument is asserted arbitrarily and offered as proof of his immorality.
    In today’s epistemological jungle, that second method is used more frequently than any other type of irrational argument. It should be classified as a logical fallacy and may be designated as “The Argument from Intimidation.”
    The essential characteristic of the Argument from Intimidation is its appeal to moral self-doubt and its reliance on the fear, guilt or ignorance of the victim. It is used in the form of an ultimatum demanding that the victim renounce a given idea without discussion, under threat of being considered morally unworthy. The pattern is always: “Only those who are evil (dishonest, heartless, insensitive, ignorant, etc.) can hold such an idea.”

    The Argument from Intimidation dominates today’s discussions in two forms. In public speeches and print, it flourishes in the form of long, involved, elaborate structures of unintelligible verbiage, which convey nothing clearly except a moral threat. (“Only the primitive-minded can fail to realize that clarity is oversimplification.”) But in private, day-by-day experience, it comes up wordlessly, between the lines, in the form of inarticulate sounds conveying unstated implications. It relies, not on what is said, but on how it is said—not on content, but on tone of voice. (CONTD

    ReplyDelete
  179. (CONTD)
    The tone is usually one of scornful or belligerent incredulity. “Surely you are not an advocate of capitalism, are you?” And if this does not intimidate the prospective victim—who answers, properly: “I am,”—the ensuing dialogue goes something like this: “Oh, you couldn’t be! Not really!” “Really.” “But everybody knows that capitalism is outdated!” “I don’t.” “Oh, come now!” “Since I don’t know it, will you please tell me the reasons for thinking that capitalism is outdated?” “Oh, don’t be ridiculous!” “Will you tell me the reasons?” “Well, really, if you don’t know, I couldn’t possibly tell you!”
    All this is accompanied by raised eyebrows, wide-eyed stares, shrugs, grunts, snickers and the entire arsenal of nonverbal signals communicating ominous innuendoes and emotional vibrations of a single kind: disapproval.
    If those vibrations fail, if such debaters are challenged, one finds that they have no arguments, no evidence, no proof, no reasons, no ground to stand on—that their noisy aggressiveness serves to hide a vacuum—that the Argument from Intimidation is a confession of intellectual impotence.

    Let me emphasize that the Argument from Intimidation does not consist of introducing moral judgment into intellectual issues, but of substituting moral judgment for intellectual argument. Moral evaluations are implicit in most intellectual issues; it is not merely permissible, but mandatory to pass moral judgment when and where appropriate; to suppress such judgment is an act of moral cowardice. But a moral judgment must always follow, not precede (or supersede), the reasons on which it is based.

    How does one resist that Argument? There is only one weapon against it: moral certainty.
    When one enters any intellectual battle, big or small, public or private, one cannot seek, desire or expect the enemy’s sanction. Truth or falsehood must be one’s sole concern and sole criterion of judgment—not anyone’s approval or disapproval; and, above all, not the approval of those whose standards are the opposite of one’s own.

    The most illustrious example of the proper answer to the Argument from Intimidation was given in American history by the man who, rejecting the enemy’s moral standards and with full certainty of his own rectitude, said:
    “If this be treason, make the most of it.”"

    AYN RAND

    ReplyDelete
  180. http://textusa.blogspot.com/2010/05/argument-from-intimidation.html
    http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/1867.html
    http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayn_Rand
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayn_Rand
    http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/argument_from_intimidation.html

    ReplyDelete
  181. "We have a pact. This is our matter only. It is nobody else's business"- David Payne

    Is their matter only, Insane. Or not?

    ReplyDelete
  182. A falta de argumentos deste (a) BH tem sido simplesmente deliciosa.
    Venham mais incongruencias para analisarmos e nos deleitarmos com o nervosismo de quem nao pode dormir descansado.

    ReplyDelete
  183. Insane - Textusa has covered herself with her 'Legal Disclaimer' and she also states that this post is 'pure speculation'.

    You have come on here simply to divert away from our discussion, the majority of the past comments have been about YOU and not what we were previously discussing.

    Carter Ruck cannot sue a social net working site we have freedom of speech and as Textusa states in her disclaimer it is similar to a discussion held anywhere. If there had not been so many descrepancies in the Mccanns fairystory we would not be having this discussion in the first place.

    ReplyDelete
  184. This post shows that it was illogical for the Stinton-Heeleys to have been given the 211 table to dine. That is what the post says. And they could only been seated there by the OC Staff. Illogical, yes. Illegal, no. Illogical, yes. Impossible, no. The extrapolation for that to be "a crime" or accusation of any illegality is yours Insane, and yours alone.

    About Fenn, Textusa that what she says she hears is illogical.

    So is illogical to sit 9 people around a round table when there are square tables to be joined up.

    So is illogical for the reservation sheets not to make any sense at all and be different in handwritings, the drinks not making sense, etc. etc.

    So is illogical that some OC staff go to the PJ and say the exact same thing in their statements

    So is illogical...

    Too many things are illogical. Saying that they all together indicate that the OC were involved in a crime is logical conclusion that you, like us, make, by saying that Textusa is accusing them. She's not accusing them, she's showing us how illogical their actions were. Ant it's reality and not a comedy SITCOM like Fawlty Towers.

    You and your clients are free to present arguments that what textusa said to be illogical is logical. And not be an irritating broken record just saying "we're innocent" and "Textusa is falsely accusing us" over and over and over again.

    ReplyDelete
  185. I think all Textusa readers should switch off their computer, head off to the nearest police station and hand themselves in. The charges? All we have to do is tell the police to open up the blog (warning the police of potential hazardous material contained) and show them Insane's comments, and they should be able to extract a sound accusation as easily as they can force our ISP.

    ReplyDelete
  186. "Of course, if they prefer, they can pool resources and bring a class action against her, thus sharing the costs of bringing an action."

    What's this, a suing club? That would be a first!

    Where did I hear that someone was being a laughing stock somewhere?

    Insane, Textusa and her readers have produced some highly defamatory comments about yourself. They've accused you, for example, that you were part of those involved in the cover-up. That's a serious accusation. Why don't YOU set the example and sue them?

    ReplyDelete
  187. Então ? As férias escolares ainda não acabaram ?

    Que grande seca estas crianças virem para aqui melgar...

    Fans do mal , lixo do casal, vão brincar para outro lado. Raio de gente obcecada.

    ReplyDelete
  188. Now Insane, you seem to have a problem that people haven't picked up, and that is what lawyers will your people choose to sue Textusa?

    CR is linked with the McCanns, so are you and your friends allow yourselves to be associated with them as well? They're not the only lawyers in town, but no other represent the idea of financial threat they do, isn't it?

    ReplyDelete
  189. http://profile.ak.fbcdn.net/hprofile-ak-snc4/277142_208774859176119_4697125_n.jpg

    If The McCann Supporters Are So Sure Of Their Cause

    http://www.facebook.com/pages/If-The-McCann-Supporters-Are-So-Sure-Of-Their-Cause/208774859176119?sk=wall&filter=1

    "" If one visits ANY page created by Team McCann (tm) and questions anything YOUR COMMENT WILL BE DELETED. It's like everyone must dance to their tune.

    Well GUESS WHAT? People DON'T 'like' this.

    Please LIKE if you agree."

    ReplyDelete
  190. I think we all agree the McCanns have made history. Before them, a lie told a thousand times became true, after them, a lie told a thousand times only aggravates the initial lie. How much simpler their lives, and that of those who helped them, would have been if they'd come clean at the beginning!

    ReplyDelete
  191. If the McCann's want to stop the big wave of critical comments ( not defamations) they just have to call PJ and say " we are ready for the reconstruction". They reopen the case and solve all the inconsistencies/ contradictions/ speculations.
    Up to there, prevail the decision of 3 judges who gave the freedom of speech to Amaral. The McCann's cannot drive the public inside their circus one day, to ask donations and deliver their stories, and sue the same public next day because the public disbelieve their words and want to know where went the money.
    In democracy you have different opinions, some more warm, some very chilly, etc. You have to respect if you want to be respected. Here and in most of the blogs/sites/forums, where the McCann's are criticized I see critical comments with respect. Most of the time, who moderate the discussion ask people to be polite and give the links to quote their opinion, if it is related to an article/ file/ book/ etc. Are always valuable and constructive opinions. I don't see the same behavior in pro- McCann's sites. They spread insults and who moderate them leave the chariot go. Joana Morais was a huge victim of that insults. This is condemnable. If somebody question their
    lies they jump with insults, when there is a fact- their version has lies. You cannot have contradictions and inconsistencies without having lies. Who lies and why? Is what the public and the police wants to know.
    Do you remember the articles of mr. Tony parsons in the British papers, where we can have a taste of racism, xenophobia and insults directly to the Portuguese ambassador in UK? Have you seen Mitchell, Gerry, Kate or any of their convenient unnamed sources, stepping forward to condemn such articles? Non, and their faces were intoxicating the news at the time. Then, they have no authority or moral to sue, question or insult who don't believe on their words and want them to clearly explain and give evidences about where went the money from the Fund.
    I will cover my face with shame, if I ask the support of the public to search my daughter while selling posters, bracelets, tshirts....to do it. These items are already payed by public donations and don't pay any taxes. Should be given free for who want them.
    I still waiting for the massive campaign with Maddie posters in the supermarket trolleys in the sud of Spain and Portugal, for 2007. They promised that few months after starting their fund. As always, they fool the public with one more promise that was not accomplished. Fortunately, the public has memory. It is hard to erase all the lies they already delivered. They cannot win any case in court because they have very weak tales, easy to be knot by any lawyer or judge. The only way Is with corruption.

    ReplyDelete
  192. Martin, insane was not successful, since he lead some readers to research again some true information and bring it to here. Information the McCann's and most of the BH don't like and want to remove from Internet or to prevent the public to access it.
    Every time he/ she types something, he/ she bring himself to the center of the questions that justify all the sites and blogs that grow up in the net, like mushrooms, asking the inconsistencies on the statements made to the police or the evidences/ lists to be clarified.
    It is amazing to see his reaction. Every single post has a target, Textusa and her readers, with insults and accusations based on very controversial and weak arguments.
    In fact he try to divert the attention of the readers from the main post, the Tapas list, but end up been used by who comment, to bring here more information that he don't like and don't please who send him here.
    He will be swearing and beating his computer now, but I start believing that he is being payed for his comments.

    ReplyDelete
  193. This posting shows just how agitated the BH really are and how near to the truth Textusa is.

    ReplyDelete
  194. Now Kate has raked in the money from her best selling fairystory are the devious duo attempting to fade away.

    ReplyDelete
  195. Well done Textusa and sisters this is a record amount of comments proving that so many people log into Textusa.

    May the truth be known.

    ReplyDelete
  196. The big round table is a myth. The Tapas bar was small not very roomy a big table would take up too much storage space when not in use, far more practical to put square tables together. Well spotted TEXTUSA.

    ReplyDelete
  197. With Stinton Heeleys also supposidly dining at table 211 as well as the Mccanns and their friends - could this be classed as 'new evidence needing clarification' and get the case re-opened.

    ReplyDelete
  198. Steel magnolia has a nice video about mrs. Fenn crying episode. It is clear, some lie or all lie.
    Such you Insane, defend so actively mrs. Fenn, you must know what happen and where is the truth. Who lies, since you cannot have more then one version from a single fact and all true. To assume mrs. Fenn is saying the truth, you have to know the real story. If not, assuming she is saying the truth, is speculation. To speculate that when all the statements are showing inconsistencies leave you inside an agenda.
    There is lies on that episode. The episode was delivered to the police to bake an abduction. I believe the police investigate that possibility due to the statement of mrs. Fenn because the others were very dubious. If she tells the truth, why she did not reported it to GNR or PJ immediately after the alarm? she was there. Kate put her on the balcony as we can see on pag 75 of her book and Fiona and Jane reported to the police, on their statements (I think not the first statements as well), the conversation between Maddie and Kate in the morning of May 3. Why mrs. Fenn told that story to the police, long time after may 3 or 4? She was interviewed on the first days. Amaral says on his book, all neighbors, guests and workers with interest were interviewed. She was the closest neighbor. Any good explanation for that, Insane?

    ReplyDelete
  199. Anon @ 1.27

    The Stinton Heeleys dined on the 7th May. What Textusa was pointing out was The McCann party was 9 people and the BIG ROUND TABLE could accommodate 10 people if the 'quiz mistress' joined them one evening. In Ms Chekaya's statement she mentions an empty place at the table meaning she didn't sit in that place.

    Why would 2 adults with 2 children sit at such a large table if there were tables for 4 people?

    ReplyDelete
  200. They claim a successful selling, but their book was a sale disaster. We can see it stored on the shelf stores with clients bypassing it, like if has a contagious desease.
    What a difference, when I compare with Amaral book which was sold out in few days and reach 12 editions.
    These narcissists made a wrong decision when they used JKR to approach her publisher and fool him with another fiction/fantasist story labelled with "an account of the truth".
    The public knows enough from the police files and from Internet. Nobody needs to waste money and time in more lies. The only great thing from that book is, could eventually be used in the court against the author.
    Was really a damage to the forests, in a time we are teaching our child's to protect and preserve the environment.. Better the publisher send the remain copies to be recycled into toilet paper. He can recover some money from there.

    ReplyDelete

Comments are moderated.

Comments are welcomed, but its reserved the right to delete comments deemed as spam, transparent attempts to get traffic without providing any useful commentary, and any contributions which are offensive or inappropriate for civilized discourse.

Textusa