Wednesday, 29 February 2012

Magic Is In The Air!

Thanks to Anon's comment at Feb 28, 2012 12:23:00 PM, on the "Famous Last Words... (Full Version)" post:

"Notice Mrs Fenn at 00:20 on the video:

She takes a grocery bag with her right hand, turns, doesn't bend down to put it on the floor, and then turns back and with her right hand, reaches up to what we think is to close the trunk. She must've given the bag to someone. On the next shot, she appears to carry the bags all on her own? Who did she pass the grocery bag to? Where is that person? ALL STAGED!!!"

Mrs Fenn, goes to the back of her car, opens the trunk with her RIGHT hand...

... lifts the trunk hood with her LEFT hand...

... showing clearly she has no shopping bags on EITHER arm or hand...

...she then bends over to pick something up from inside the trunk with her RIGHT hand...

...which happens to be ONE, and only ONE, shopping bag, which she holds with her RIGHT hand...

... she then turns to the RIGHT, not bending a single bit, her handbag almost falling of her LEFT arm, showing that she has ONLY that object on that particular arm...

... she then turns to the LEFT, and with her free RIGHT hand, starts to close the trunk...

...and continues the closing action...

...until she closes it completely...

...then, continuoulsy, turns to the LEFT, starting to head away from the car...

... with not ONE, but TWO shopping bags, one in EACH arm!!!

THAT'S NOTHING SHORT OF AMAZING!!! THAT'S


and we were all thinking that Tapas Restaurant's MAIN attraction was the QUIZ NIGHTS!!!

Monday, 27 February 2012

Famous last Words... (Full Version)

The idea with the “Famous Last Words” post, was to visually transmit a message, which seemed opportune with the blog’s information flow.

We either missed our set out objective, or we’ve spawned up more curiosity than expected about this video, as some readers have asked us to fully translate the subtitles.

This video, we remind you, up to now only served two purposes: the first, to “prove” that Mrs Fenn did indeed live in the apartment G5, the one exactly above the 5A; and second, to show how Mrs Fenn was not exactly a stranger in telling a fib, with such passion that only time would reveal how much so she was able to pull one off.

The latter has been said so, again and again, in our blog

The first, might just be the subject of a future post

But back to the video and its subtitles.

Here are their literal translation:

“Sinceramente, não sei de nada“ / “Sincerily, I don’t know anything“

“Estou aqui há três meses“ / “I've been here for three months“

“e, durante esse período de tempo, nunca falei com um jornalista“ / “and during that period of time, I’ve never talked to a journalist“

“A imprensa inglesa só tem publicado disparates“ / “The English press has only published nonsense“

“e eu não disse uma única palavra“ / “and I haven’t said single word“

Nunca… são só disparates“ / “Never… it’s all nonsense“

“Por favor, esqueçam isso“ / “Please, forget that“

Not wanting our readers to lose any information, here’s the actual video.

It was aired Aug 22nd, 2007 (a Wednesday):


Transcription of the original:

“A Judiciaria voltou a ouvir já esta semana a octogenária inglesa que mora por cima do apartamento de onde Maddie desapareceu, mas Pamela Fenn, incomodada com a atenção dos jornalistas negou ter falado com a polícia e disse não ter qualquer informação sobre o caso

Aos 81 anos o sossego desta reformada britânica parece ter sido seriamente abalado, depois de um desabafo na cabeleireira, a notícia de que era testemunha no processo de Maddie rapidamente chegou ao ouvido dos jornalistas. Pamela Fenn mora no andar por cima do 5ºA o apartamento de onde a menina desapareceu. Segundo terá contado à polícia, na véspera de Madeleine desaparecer, à noite, ouviu a criança chorar e chamar pelo pai durante longos minutos.

Isso, e o facto de passar a maior parte to tempo na varanda com vista para o restaurante Tapas, terá feito a policia regressar ao Ocean Club na manhã de segunda-feira. Durante cerca de quatro horas os investigadores mostraram-se particularmente interessados em perceber se a senhora tinha visto alguém do grupo dos McCann sair do restaurante para ir ver as crianças, e no conteúdo duma breve conversa que Pamela teve com a mãe de Maddie na noite em que a menina desapareceu.

Incomodada por estar agora sobre a mira dos jornalistas a idosa inglesa nega ser testemunha no processo e garante que o que diz a imprensa é pura especulação.

“Honestly, I’ve… I know nothing. I’ve been here for three months… until all this happened I’ve never spoken to a journalist, they’ve written rubbish in the English papers, I haven’t even uttered a word!
I never (sighs)… it’s all rubbish!
Please, please, just forget it”

Quanto ao casal McCann tem casa alugada na Praia da Luz até à segunda semana de Setembro. Apesar de terem deixado de frequentar o Ocean Club, Kate e Gerry continuam a fazer compras no supermercado ali perto. Esta quarta-feira o carro esteve estacionado a escassos metros da porta de Robert Murat o empresário inglês que por enquanto ainda se mantém como único arguido no processo.”

The translated transcription:

“The PJ has heard again, this week, the British octogenarian who lives above the apartment from where Maddie disappeared, but Pamela Fenn, botherered by the journalists’ attention, denied having spoken with the police and said she didn’t have any information about the case

At the age 81 the quietness of this retired British woman seems to have been seriously shaken, after an outburst at the hairdresser, the news that she was a witness in Maddie’s process quickly reached the journalists’ ears. Pamela Fenn lives on the floor above apartment 5 A from where the girl disappeared. According to what she might have told the police, on the day before Madeleine disappeared, that night, she heard the child crying and calling for her father for long minutes.

That, and the fact that she spends most time on the veranda with a view to the Tapas restaurant, made the police return to the Ocean Club on Monday morning. For about four hours the investigators were particularly interested to see if she had seen someone from the MCCann group leave the restaurant to go check on the children, and on the content of the brief conversation that Pamela had with Maddie’s mother on the night the girl disappeared.

Bothered to be under the journalists’ sights, the English elderly denies being a witness in the process and ensures that what the press says is pure speculation.

Honestly, I’ve… I know nothing. I’ve been here for three months… until all this happened I’ve never spoken to a journalist, they’ve written rubbish in the English papers, I haven’t even uttered a word!
I never (sighs)… it’s all rubbish!
Please, please, just forget it

As for the McCann couple they’ve a rented house in Praia da Luz until the second week of September. Despite having left attending the Ocean Club, Kate and Gerry continue to shop at the nearby supermarket. This Wednesday the car was parked a few meters from Robert Murat’s door, the English businessman who still remains as the sole “arguido” in the process.

Don't forget. This was SIC.

Famous Last Words...





... of an interview: "Please, please, just forget it!"

Saturday, 25 February 2012

A FOAF Told Me That There's An Angry Panda Out There


If you remember, Panda left a couple of comments in our "Colouring Hats With A Crayon" post.

This one,

Panda has left a new comment on your post "Colouring Hats With A Crayon":

Just to clarify matters, I did not say I sat next to Mrs Fenns friend,
I said I sat next to a Lady who was a friend of Mrs Fenn.

Posted by Panda to Textusa at Feb 11, 2012 1:21:00 PM

and this one:

Panda has left a new comment on your post "Colouring Hats With A Crayon":

Textusa, how dare you snoop on MM copy lots of posts single me out for
dissection and be wrong without a word of apology,!!!!

You really are a vicious person and
I would say I feel sorry for you but I don't. You must be very sad to stoop to the kind of blogging you do.

Posted by Panda to Textusa at Feb 11, 2012 7:28:00 PM


First, I would like to address my apologies to Panda.

You see, that not-so-innocent-SIC-Psychic-whatchmacallitthing has diverted lately our attention away from you.

It almost seemed like we did a “hit-and-run” kind of post, and that just isn’t our style or attitude towards the issues we address.

Panda, please accept our sincere apologies for this one unexpected but explicable delay.

We know it isn’t the sort of apologies you demanded, but about those, we’ll speak about it later.

Let us clarify that we don’t “pick” on people. We, however, feel compelled to expose all tactics that we detect and which we deem relevant, and that are perpetrated by people such as you, in all this humongous effort of disinformation that has involved the Maddie Affair, from the very first minute the unfortunate child lost her life.

So yes, whenever we find an enforcer of such disinformation techniques, we will single out the person, or persona, as is your case, out, be it you or anyone else.

Of course, as you might imagine, we don’t “shoot” on sight. There's always the right and adequate timing to expose who we feel should be exposed. Your time came, because you did present "new evidence", that paramount concept which we've all failed to grasp to date as to what it exactly means, but were told, that it's like a magical wand that will allow the case to be reopened.

We know that it would be sufficient for the McCanns to request such, but, apparently, they seem not inclined to do that... go wonder.

Other wolves in sheep's clothing will just have to wait a little bit more for their turn...

But let’s get back to the subject, shall we? The thing about the “friend of Mrs Fenn friend” you mentioned.

I’m afraid that instead of making things right, it seems that, thanks to you, things have taken a turn for the worse... for you.

Let’s start on how confused I am by what you’ve said.

In your comment t at MMF you say, as said, “friend of Mrs Fenn friend”.

In comment referred above, you correct this statement with an “I did not say I sat next to Mrs Fenns friend. I said I sat next to a Lady who was a friend of Mrs Fenn.”

Isn’t that what we just said in the post?

Edna Glyn, the, and we’re just quoting you here, “Lady who was a friend of Mrs Fenn? Or is there any other Lady who’s a friend of Mrs Fenn, referred in the various fora about Maddie, besides Edna that we aren’t aware of?

If so, do please correct us that we will provide you, immediately, with all the apologies you so much seek, even demand.

Now, do allow me to turn to our readers. They, unlike you, don’t pretend that they don’t understand what I write, nor whine about the quantity of wording I tend to use. A nasty habit of mine, I’m afraid.

And I could write much about what Panda did write and what she really was meaning to write, but as Panda says, I’m a mean (or is it vicious?) person, so I’ll just assume that the typo in Panda’s comment at MMF is not the double use of the word friend.

I’ll assume, as I think was her intention that she indeed wanted to write “friend of Mrs Fenn’s friend”. Lady X, a friend of Edna Glyn. Edna Glyn, Mrs Fenn’s friend.

The storyline then becomes the following: Mrs Fenn hears a child cry, Mrs Fenn then calls Edna who isn’t surprised, Edna calls/speaks to, we don’t know how or when, Lady X, the “Lady friend of Mrs Fenn’s friend”, and Lady X then talks to Panda, a total stranger who, by coincidence, has sat next to her on an airplane trip to Gatwick.

According to Panda, Lady X seems to know a lot about the going-ons of the Maddie Affair, more precisely in the OC in PdL.

Lady X even knows, according to Panda, that the “the Ocean Staff had called out the McCanns from the Tapas Bar more than once because of children crying in 5a.

This means that Lady X knows that Mrs Fenn’s complaint about a child crying in the McCanns apartment was not a single occurrence. According to Lady X, it did happen more than once.

Pity Mrs Fenn does forget to mention this rather important fact in her statement. But, as we all were able to read, Panda has assured us of that Lady X knows.

What we don’t know is how Lady X comes to know about this.

According to Panda, Lady X lives in Faro. Faro is almost about 70 km from PdL. It has the big cities of Lagos, Portimão and Albufeira, not to speak of others as Armacao de Pera, between them. Not exactly around the corner, is it?

Now, how does someone who lives so far gets to know what the OC Staff has done or not done about the McCanns and their crying children, while the PJ, in PdL, don’t have a clue?

It seems then that this popular topic of conversation all over the Algarve fails to reach the PJ ears.

The OC Staff were apparently telling this to everyone, all the way to Faro at least, but not to the PJ.

And who, besides the PJ, was singled out by the OC Staff not to share this information with?

Mrs Fenn, of course. They did forget to tell her, didn’t they? Otherwise she would have remembered this in her statement, wouldn’t she?

What?

Oh, silly me! You’re absolutely right! The OC didn’t tell her because she would be the first to know about the multiple crying episodes, wouldn’t she?

As the upstairs neighbour, she would be the one who would’ve reported the repeated cries, wouldn’t she?

So, did Lady X get to know from Edna, who in turn got to know from Mrs Fenn that the crying episode happened more than once?

So why does Lady X say it was the Ocean Staff that had called out the McCanns from the Tapas Bar, instead of saying that Mrs Fenn had complained other times?

Or, let me guess, Mrs Fenn did hear repeatedly cries, but told the PJ about only this one instance so that she wouldn’t smear too much the McCann’s name… that must have been it.

But then, why bother to go to the PJ at all? After 109 days? Why not just remain in silence instead of reporting a single event, when there were others to be reported too?

So it remains important for SY to call in Edna Glyn. It apparently seems to be a fact that the complaints about children crying were many, and not just that one instance told by Mrs Fenn. Mrs Fenn doesn’t mention them in her statement, and this should be definitely clarified.

Edna Glyn is either to say what she knows about these repeated crying episodes, or, if she doesn’t know anything about it, help identify who this Lady X can be, a person that is saying that she's, allegedly, her friend and is talking about such relevant clues about the case to strangers.

Or maybe there's a direct connection that we don't know of, between Lady X, or Edna Glyn for that matter, and the OC Staff, which Panda doesn't tell us, and we have no way of finding out... but if it that was so, why bring up Mrs Fenn name at all? 

Is that important? About Mrs Fenn, it is, yes, and about Edna Glyn too. But the post is not about either of them. It’s about Panda and Lady X, two travel companions, although strangers to one another.

We maintain all said in the "Colouring Hats With A Crayon" post. We continue to say that it isn’t hearsay, but that it’s Panda clearly saying what she heard Lady X say, and not what she hears Lady X saying it’s being said, one huge and very important difference.

You see, what we are before here, my dear friends, is the most basic of all misinformation tools: the FOAF.

This is so much used, that I even dare ask all readers, s/he who hasn’t used it at one time or another in their lives please do cast the first stone.

I, for one, will remain motionless.

What is a FOAF?

It’s something we heard from a Friend-Of-A-Friend. You know, when you hear say "I have this friend who knows this person that..." You can add as many "OAFs" to the FOAF as you like. From a FOAF to FOAFOAFOAF...

Familiar isn't it? That’s how most Urban Myths are born and kept alive.

I’ll give you an example, very recently used in a comment in Joana Morais's blog about our Desperate Disinformation post: “Now seriously, I happen to know someone who works for SIC and who knows someone (technical staff) who knows someone who was involved with the programme so I am in a position (fingers crossed) to explain what happened. My source told me that...”

Remember that? What a classic text-book FOAF that one was!

Yes, we’ve all used FOAFs one time or another. All are meant to misinform, in some way or another.

It allows us to ad lib a story up a bit. “He who tells a tale, adds a detail”

And mind you, taking out most of the Urban Myths of the equation, most FOAFs are about 70% to 80% true. It's just when that bit of creativity, that, when exaggerated, makes the whole thing just be ridiculous,

Most are “innocent”, even inoffensive FOAFs, you know, those that just serve to magnify the importance of the storyteller.

But then there are very serious and intentionally harmful FOAFs.

Panda uses a FOAF (a friend of a friend of Mrs Fenn tells her that...), from it abusively reaches conclusions in which the following argumentation is based upon this "certified" source. This is far from being inoffensive, and much less innocent.

Back to you Panda, I do agree with you, that apologies are in order. Not from me to you, because I don’t see any reason whatsoever for them to exist, nor from you to me, because, again, I see no  reason, and if I did, I wouldn’t request such thing, much less demand it.

Where I do see apologies are due, is from you to your friends. But that’s between you and them.

Wednesday, 22 February 2012

Most Humble Tribute

Filomena Teixeira

Hospitalized

Squaring The Circle

By May I


Total Neglect - The only way the psychics theory can be made to fit?

There were NO checks between 08.30 when Kate and Gerry left for the Tapas and 10:00 when Kate raised the alarm. That's an 01H30 time interval.
Remember “Tapas Cook breaks her silence” to say the McCanns never checked that night?
There are other OC staff who claim the McCanns NEVER checked.

Why? Because if Abductor drugged, killed and cleaned up, he couldn't do it all between Gerry’s check at 09.05 and Tanner’s sighting at 09.15.
If Abductor observed their patterns, he would know they checked regularly and therefore he had no time to clean up.
If he knew they DIDN'T check, then he knew he had time to clean up.
Fenn and others say there was more than one occasion where Maddie cried for a long time and no-one came.
Total Neglect = possibility of Abductor drugging, killing and cleaning between 8.30 and 10:00, as opposed to between 09:05 and 09:15.
Traces of cadaver in apartment because Maddie died there, transferred to clothing and cuddle cat because she rested there long enough to transfer odour.
The car is more difficult to explain, but transfer by contamination is possible?
Donal McIntyre's explanation fits in with this, but only if "Total Neglect" timings are used.
McIntyre was TV producer for the same company Jez Wilkins worked for.

The McCanns claim partial neglect“we were checking regularly”, so not really total neglect.
They may have to accept the stigma of being TOTAL neglectors in order to get off the hook.
This allows OC employees to avoid being drawn into a cover up, but there is a risk that it is seen as an inside job by someone with a key?
Look at some staff statements which say no-one left the table. They can't all be right. Either staff saw them leaving to check or they didn't!

If we see a revival of NO checking, we know this is going to be the explanation of a death in the apartment followed by a clean up by abductor. It's called squaring the circle.


Post Scriptum: This post, for argument's sake, takes as real one thing that, as we've shown time and time again, we know never to have existed: the Tapas Dinners

Sunday, 19 February 2012

Desperate Disinformation


Joana Morais, has as we’ve said, placed a post on the “Até à verdade” episode aired by SIC on Saturday, 11th Feb.

Joana has recommended, in a comment there, that our post on the subject should be read. That is one compliment that didn’t go unnoticed, or unappreciated.

We noticed though that one comment in her blog to the post said the following:

“I disagree with Textusa. It seems apartment 5A from where I am looking. OK the place has been redecorated and refurbished since. May be she holding the map the other way around (snickering emoticon)”

It even provides a link to this picture:


This is a screenshot, taken from the video, where the bathroom door can be clearly seen in relation to other parts of the apartment:


From what we’re able to see just from this one picture, is roughly the following:


Could someone now tell me how should I turn the picture referred by the snickering anon so that I can obtain walls A-B-C?


And where is the doorless passage?

This comment proves only one thing, and that is the BHs desperate shamelessness. If they are not supposed to see an elephant, they will be "unable" to see one even if it’s sitting on their lap, and will even have the utter gall of saying that out loud, shamelessly. And snickering while doing it, as if to say, “it’s so obvious that if you do see any different than the way I do it’s because you’re just stupid… ehehehe”. I call that desperate disinformation.

By the way, this is the front door of the filmed apartment. Any similarity with the one in 5A?


Maybe if I turn it upside down, the wall behind will just go away?

Why are the BHs so desperate to disinform, on other fora, about our blog?





Update: A couple of comments were received in reaction to this post. One in Joana Morais (published) and another here (unpublished). I’ll leave both here for your consideration and appreciation.

On Joana’s:

“Anonymous said... 38

A STORM IN TEXTUSA'S TEA CUP


@34 "I disagree with Textusa. It seems
apartment 5A"

Now 34 you have caused a storm in Textusa's tea cup by ignoring the simple fact she doesn't suffer stupid males easily. Now, you know.


My advice to you is; leave Textusa to her own methodologies - not all of her rumblings are exactly regrets! She is lady with a gentleman's, left-sided brain.


The point I am driving at Anon 34 is that the apartment (where the filming took place) is NOT
apartment 5A. Obviously.

If you were looking at the sitting room the WC would appear on the right, not left. You didn't look properly did you 34? and now Textusa has made mince meat of your persona - "snickering Anon!" (snickering emoticon)


Now seriously, I happen to know someone who works for SIC and who knows someone (technical staff) who knows someone who was involved with the programme so I am in a position (fingers crossed) to explain what happened.


My source told me that the actual session with the mediums did not take place on location. Ocean Club did not allow the crew to film in
Apartment 5A (occupied at the time) and for the sake of the mise-en-scène or "visual description" another (similar) apartment was chosen.

A bit of cheating admittedly until you realize

Mediumship or "Remote Viewing" for that matter, does not need you standing on "location" in 3D space! It can even be done over the phone!

3D space correlations are irrelevant in hyperspace, the "M-field" (M for mind) where extra-physicals inhabit and/or sensitives (or remote viewers for that matter) somehow tap into.


In other words, the fact that the apartment was not 5A (and was only included for the sake of description, "to tell a story" as it were) does not mean the information Brian Robertson and Simon James come up with was necessarily made up "to suit the script."


I still believe SIC should have informed the viewers of this. Failure to do so was rightly perceived as an insult to their viewers' intelligence and make them an easy target to sophists like Textusa. If in doubt ask Rosiepops... (snickering emoticon)


Incidentally, I have just e-mailed Robertson & James and as soon as I hear from them (if I do) I will post it here. Might even send a cc to your friend Text in
USA...

(blushing emoticon) Now 34 you can go and wash your feet. Textusa is looking at you! (snickering emoticon)


http://www.esotericscience.org/article14c.htm


http://textusa.blogspot.com/


19/02/2012 15:37
"


On Textusa:

“Posted by Anonymous to Textusa at Feb 19, 2012 8:18:00 PM

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Desperate Disinformation":

Hi Textusa! It was me, not BH(?) who posted the offending bytes - So sooorrry!

For some strange reason my memory retained the door as being on the other side in which case the "criticism" would have stood. I should have looked properly before touching the keyboard, shouldn't I? What can I say? I stand corrected.

Keep up the good work and don't be derailed by silly comments like mine. Glad I could be of service, though. :)

Anon @34 at Joana's Morais.



And for the sake of clarification of said in “…to sophists like Textusa”, this is what I got for what the word sophist means:

One skilled in elaborate and devious argumentation.

A scholar or thinker.

Any of a group of professional fifth-century b.c. Greek philosophers and teachers who speculated on theology, metaphysics, and the sciences, and who were later characterized by Plato as superficial manipulators of rhetoric and dialectic.

One of the pre-Socratic philosophers who were itinerant professional teachers of oratory and argument and who were prepared to enter into debate on any matter however specious

A person who uses clever or quibbling arguments that are fundamentally unsound (from Latin sophista, from Greek sophistēs a wise man, from sophizesthai to act craftily)

Friday, 17 February 2012

Non-Psychic Prediction Of An Outcome: The SY's £2M Review

Unpublished comment posted by Anonymous to Textusa at Feb 16, 2012 4:56:00 PM:

“I think we can see where this is going. Death by abductor allows dogs to be correct but McCanns have already criticized them as rubbish so they will have to back down. Will they say GA may have been correct to a point and drop the case against him without losing too much face? Abductor had a key to lots of apartments and kept an eye on 5a? Review declares she’s probably dead, Fund stops collecting and McCanns told to shut up?”

Dear Anon,

The way you see things are heading towards is the direction that, apparently, the "establishment" wants it to go. But one thing is what they want; another, usually completely different is what they get. In this case, what they're able to get.

Basically the scenario you describe, is muratfan’s version taken seriously in the parts that it can be taken seriously, which, at first is indeed very little. But as you'll see at the end of this post, in fact, nothing of it can really be taken minimally seriously even if one tries really hard to undertake such exercise, and that is pretty cumbersome for the said "establishment".

Let's hope I understood you correctly.

If this is the scenario which the SY wishes to enforce, let’s see look then at what kind of hypothetical baby which the Met supposedly will want to have on its own lap.

The Key. Well, nothing new on the Eastern front, or in any other front in any other direction, for that fact. I would even say that it’s one of the few facts that has been maintained in the various versions of the hoax: the supposed abductor walked in by the front door, with nothing in his hands. Why he jumps the window, with a child (and now some stolen goods?) will remain unexplained.

One thing against this master key thesis, is the lock’s cheapness. It’s been filmed and publicly shown, and the thing is so cheap that there are no master keys, for such kind of cheap locks, just duplicates. This means that usually that the staff responsible for cleaning the apartments with such locks, have with them a duplicate key for EACH one they have to clean, which usually amounts to a whole bunch of them, which they carry with them or on the cleaning cart.

This means that for the “abductor” to have THE duplicate key for that apartment, then he has to have an accomplice inside the OC, be an OC employee himself, or both as the cleaning staff is usually made up of women, whilst the abductor is clearly a man.

One point against the OC. Not seeing them buying this one easily, and taking the blame sitting down.

The death. Or in this case, the dogs. We have dogs that have detected both blood and cadaverine in strange, or at least unlikely, places for them to have been found. Let’s look at each one independently.

The cadaverine. It takes quite a while to develop and to contaminate its surroundings, so the fact that it was found means, in this version, that both Maddie's dead body and the abductor stayed in the apartment for an absurd amount of time. But even if the supposed abductor did stay that ridiculous amount of time in the apartment, there's absolutely no reason for the cadaverine to appear both behind the couch and inside a closet, and much less in the shrubs outside

But that’s only the cadaverine… but what about the blood? How was the abductor able to kill Maddie, accidently or not, and clean the blood up impeccably, with the lights switched off? This thesis basically states that after walking in through the front door, the supposed abductor kills Maddie, diligently cleans the blood, then chooses to pick up the body and exit through a window right next to the front door leaving no traces of blood except behind the couch

Really weird character this one. You couldn’t make it up. Really, you just can't make such a character up, and that is the biggest problem that the SY is facing. They are trying very, very hard to make up such a character, but it’s just completely impossible, isn’t it?

But let’s, for argument's sake, just suppose he was able to do all that. Where do then the checking timelines fit into all this? They just don’t, do they? Either there was a checking system in place or there’s blood and cadaverine inside the apartment. You can’t have it both ways, can you?

If, as you say, to have Maddie “die” in the apartment, then it's mandatory that the dogs’ performances be given credibility. Otherwise you have no blood, no cadeverine, and without these you have no body inside the apartment and so you're much back on square one. If you want to enforce the version of Maddie's death in the apartment then the dogs must be right!

This happening, it means much more than the McCanns backing down on their opinion of the dogs. It means that they have to assume they lied about their checking system. The McCanns, the remainder “Ts” and all those who said that they saw people from the T9 group get up during those Tapas dinners to check on the children

One point against the McCanns and T7. Not seeing them buying this one easily. The OC is not unscathed either.

Lastly. Where does the cadaverine detection in McCanns car stand on all this? If the dogs are correct in smelling it in the apartment, then the same must be said for the car… not good for the McCanns.

If it’s correct they were incorrect in smelling it in the apartment, then, as said, the same must be said for the carnot good for having Maddie dead in the apartment. Basically, the dogs smell good, you can "sell" body in apartment, dogs don't smell good, no deal.

Will the McCanns take what is to be dished out to them sitting down?

Will the OC accept it was an inside job?

Let me tell you that in our opinion the answer to these questions is the same two-letter word, that starts with a “n” and rhymes with… Oh!

 But irrelevant of either the McCanns or the OC accepting what SY has to "offer" them, will SY be able to pull it off without calling in people?

I mean, if the McCanns and friends are, eventually, to be accused of lying about their checking system, won’t they have to be called in to clarify the why they did it? Will they just say, yes, I lied, I’m so sorry I did it?

Also, if the OC is, eventually, to take the blame for leaving the keys unattended and have a criminal amongst its staff, it’s only logical that the employees involved be called again to testify, and discover who the evil doer is, isn’t that so? We do want to find the dastardly criminal, don't we? Question is... will the employees now say what they said then?

Last question for today, will the SY be able to come out unscathed from the pickle they were put in?

I think we all know that answer, and this time the rhyme is with the word “know”.

 If you want to know what we think will be the outcome of the SY’s Review, this is it:

"After a full Review, the Yard has found no reason to alter in any way any of the conclusions that were reached by the Portuguese Authorities on the case of the disappearance of Madeleine Beth McCann. The case is to remain archived pending the presentation of new evidence" Post Scriptum: Our blog is of the opinion, that the seige is closing in fast on the McCanns and T7. There have been many signs to that effect, from public exchange of coded messages between the parties to the couple's absolute silence for quite some time now.

For example, the way with which Carter-Ruck dealt, in Court, with the Tony Bennett issue (it seemed they lacked their usual enthusiasm to pursue TB), is, for us, a sign of abandonment of one part towards the other.

The divorce between the McCanns and the "establishment" began with the Jim Gamble's downfall. Not because he was as important as we thought him to be, but for two reasons: first, the fact that somebody decided that it was time for the man to go was a clear sign of a sudden change of winds, and second, the McCann's stupid reaction to come out at the time out publicly "demanding" even more money. Remember how you were reminded at that particular timeframe that the Fund was, according to the McCanns, almost completely depleted? You didn't think they were addressing this issue to the "every day donor", like yourself, did you?

However, we're almost sure that the Mccanns hold some sort of trump up their sleeve. They must've, otherwise they would have been minced meat by now. We, here, have been able to see only one trump. And it's a big trump indeed. There may be others, but none as strong as this one...

So if the "establishment" is able to go around this particular obstacle, then the McCanns and Friends will be completely open targets, and, if that happens, then we believe that the couple's & friends' near future is to be bleak indeed.

You see, if the McCanns are to be "convinced" (not implying any sort of violence, but simple persuasion), to say that yes, they did lie about the checking system, then all the blood and cadaverine, both in the apartment and in the car, can be "explained", can't it? Well, there's that minor detail of the cadaverine in the shrubs outside, but that, we're sure, can be bent to fit. Here is Gonçalo Amaral indicating how deep into 5A's backyard the cadaverine smell was detected:

  If so, then, we'll have to put up with a whole new farce... until then, enjoy this one.

Wednesday, 15 February 2012

Just SIC(K)... Or Maybe NOT




In Britain, there are Tabloids, Sky News, BBC and remainder media, here ranked in the order by which they’ve tried to shove Maddie’s abduction story down our throats.

We’re just talking about the British media, mind you. Other British institutions, did much more towards that, with less spectacle and greater effectiveness, but we’re talking about the media alone, for now.

In Portugal, the media has been much more impartial. However, there’s been one TV Station, SIC, that has been coherent from day one: they sided with the McCanns and defended relentlessly their version of events.

SIC is one of the two privately owned TV Stations in Portugal, the other being TVI.

It seems then that last Saturday, SIC aired an episode of “Até à Verdade” (Up to the Truth, if literally translated, Until we reach Truth, if you want to capture the full essence of the title) presented by Rita Ferro Rodrigues.

In the various shows of this series, there’s the participation of two mediums, or psychics.

Yes, you read it right. We’re diving deep into paranormal waters here people.

The theme this Saturday's episode was about Maddie.

But what I anticipated to be a complete idiotic show, surprised me completely by wholly overcoming that expectation and soaring into a quality of stupidity rarely seen by human eyes.

You watch at your own risk. I didn’t. Maria sent me the link, which I thank, dear Friend. The video is also up on Joana Morais , with a very interesting set of first comments, I must say. After the few minutes, maybe seconds, I just “fast-forwarded” to the parts that called to my attention.

So, yes, I confess that I’m doing an analysis based solely on a very superficial look of the subject under observation.

Afterwards, you may criticize me, but I'm sure that, in the end, you’ll agree with me, and that is that what I’m about to show is sufficient to sum up the whole unqualified end result.

Let’s start with the reconstruction:

Is it me, or do I see only 5 people? Where are the other 4? Is it my eyes deceiving me, or do I see clearly a rectangular table? I’m I the only one to see that this place doesn’t look anything like Tapas, even if it was totally redecorated?



Oh, look at us, so deliciously and innocently drunk!


Now we get into the eerie part of this “documentary”. The conversation in the apartment.



First question, in which apartment are we in?

Certainly not in 5A!


Then we head for the bathroom...
Here, I bet that even Gerry would shout an angry “CUT!!” and say the following:


And speaking of Gerry, asking in PdL if there’s a golf course nearby, is exactly the same as Gerry asking the GNR if there was a church anywhere near on the night Maddie died. Of course they know there’s a golf course. How many signs did they see from Lagos to Luz indicating exactly that?
Don’t you, by now, think that what I’ve said is enough to understand what credibility this show has to offer? And I haven’t even touch the paranormal part of it, have I?

About that, I thought it would be a lot simpler to summon Maddie’s spirit and ask her direct questions, but as I’m not a paranormal expert, I’ll just keep myself out of other people’s business, and I use the term not lightly...

A complete and utter silly absurdity whereby feelings are felt from places where the events didn’t even happen, right?

I know... you already know me, and when I ask you a “right?” you know what comes next, don’t you? You’re not paranormal yourself are you, by any chance?

Exactly, wrong.

Do go and reread my “Advocatus Attack” post.

Understand the difference between the message and the messenger.

The fact that the messenger is an utter idiot, doesn’t make the message to be such. Always, always remember that.

For example, nothing is more serious, and true, than this man’s feeling on the subject:


“I feel things went very wrong…”
So do set aside the messenger, and just maintain focus on the message.

It’s delivered by SIC.

It’s implied that Maddie died inside the apartment.

It’s implied that she died due to a head wound, and bled.


It’s implied that she was taken to the bathroom and washed there.

It’s implied that the body was taken to the Boavista Golf course, and from there to somewhere.

These are very serious allegations, even if made by an absolutely idiotic show, because it falls very, very clearly into libel territory, as it claims, clearly, that Maddie died inside the apartment.

These are messages intended to be embedded in your subconscious. The next time you hear about it, you've heard it before, haven't you? Your acceptance threshold has just been diminished and you didn't even realize it, did you?

Let’s be attentive and watch, from now on, how these basic storylines of a whole new tale develop, shall we?


Post Scriptum: Maria has sent us a new video, with Hernani Carvalho and GA. She says it's worth a see. To my English readers, my apologies. I've kind of a busy weekend up ahead, but as soon as I can extract the relevant pparts, I will do so. Link

">

Monday, 13 February 2012

Textusa's Phone Hacking Scandal #4




If you missed: fictional hackings of fictional phone calls #1, #2 and #3.


Phone call #4

S: Hey, F, just calling back as promised…

F: Hey S! By the tone of your voice you sound worried

S: We got the family together, as I told you, and we talked about the time we spent there, and there’s something that might be of interest, but we’re not sure


F: What's that?

S: Well… you see, that night, you know that night Maddie was abducted, the one just before we left, we did pass by this fellow that was holding a girl in his arms… but we've talked it over between ourselves, and we don’t think it has any relationship to what you asked, I mean, to do with Maddie’s abduction

F: Why you say that?
S: Well, for starters, where we saw this guy…

F: Where was that?

S: Well, we were coming out of Kelly’s on the way back home, and on the road that goes from the top of the stairs to my house, you know the road, right?… That’s where we saw him… and we think that’s a bit far from the apartment to be walking around with a kidnapped girl in your arms, if you were walking around with one… it just doesn’t make sense, does it?

F: Well it depends… I mean, what if he was headed for the beach to put her on a boat? He could be headed that way, couldn’t he? Hey, I’m just playing the devil’s advocate here, ok?

S: Yeah… yes, you could say that… he was walking kind of in a hurry… but still…

F: Still what?

S: Well, the girl was asleep… and if he had just kidnapped the girl, she wouldn’t be sleeping would she? She would be screaming and crying, wouldn't she?...

F: I don’t know… once again, I mean, he could have knocked her out with some sort of chloroform or something like that, so she could be drugged instead of sleepingS: Well, the family seems to think that it was just some bloke taking his daughter home with him after having visited some friend… she fell asleep there, and he was just taking her home…

F: It could be… It could be just that, I agree… Did this guy seem to be one of the locals? Was it someone you’ve seen before?

S: No. He didn’t seem to be Portuguese. If he was Portuguese, he would have to have been a tourist or something like that... he didn't look local and no, I’d never laid my eyes on him before, no…

F: You just said that the girl seemed to be asleep, so you must’ve seen her real closedid she or didn’t she look like Maddie?

S: Well that’s exactly the only thing that the family feels might link the two things… the little girl was blonde. We didn’t get to look at her face, but even if we did, it would be difficult to be sure now, wouldn't it? With she asleep and all… or maybe even drugged as you suggest… In our opinion she was asleep because she was already in her pyjamas

F: Blonde and in pyjamas?!? Man, I think you definitely should go to the police at once! You just might just be the solution to all this!!!

S: But what if this bloke was just taking his kid home?

F: Well the Police are the best to know that, aren’t they? And if he was staying there it won’t take long for the Police to discover that, will they?

S: Sure… and he sure didn’t look local… And he wasn’t going to go very far, if he was staying in Luz, was he? If he was indeed taking the kid home, then he must have rented a place nearby, so it will be easy to track him down… I just don’t want to cause anyone any problems

F: Of course, of course, nobody here wants to cause any sort of problems to anyone else… but, you really have to go to the police!! If the guy was there for a reason, then the cops won’t bother him any, will they? But if he's as crucial as I think he is, then, you might just be the one that will be providing the cops the lead they need!!!

S: Yes, yes… I guess you’re right.

Saturday, 11 February 2012

Colouring Hats With A Crayon

Today I want you, if you'll pamper me, to do a pre-school activity: colouring.

Please go and find yourself a black crayon. The blackest, pitch black crayon you can find. Got it? Good.

I’ll tell you in a minute what I want you to colour.

Or rather, I want you to choose between two apparently identical objects, which one to colour.

Let’s do then the exercise.

I was alerted to something interesting. To an episode as similar as to what happened with Sidmouth back in day.

If you don’t remember, this character, Sidmouth, admitted, as we showed in our Textusa Meltdown post, that he had been at Tapas during the time Maddie disappeared.

He vanished from the internet very soon after that. Inexplicably… or then, maybe not.

The Textusa Meltdown post was also able to produce, besides making disappear the said character, another very interesting effect on the BHs. They momentarily forgot to remember what they were supposed to believe about Mrs Fenn, as we showed in our Black Shoelaces post.

Strangely enough, today’s post, revolves around Mrs Fenn, as well as the unpublished PJ Files, and how, unexpectedly, dots do connect to each other and how the world is a small place after all, indeed.

Let’s start by the timelines of the events in question, and this story begins Mon 26 Dec - 13:01, when our friend loopdaloop decides to start a thread on MMF.

Loopdaloop calls the thread “Whats the story/conspiracy with Mrs Fenn?”

This is his/her opening comment:

“Hey,
I followed a link to textusa and ended up on the following page
http://textusa.blogspot.com/2011/03/mysteries-of-non-cryptic-photograph.html
and there appears to be some conspiracy with regards to Mrs Fenn, but I don't understand why?
What is the motivation to denigrate a random witness and why is she apparently key?
Thanks.”

I won’t repeat myself about what I think to be the colour of the hat worn by someone who asks “What is the motivation to denigrate a random witness", when referring to Mrs Fenn, but I can tell it’s none of those in a rainbow. For a rainbow to appear, you need light, not darkness.

But loopdaloop is not the central figure of this post. We’re just referring to him/her because, s/he just happens to cross our path again this time… and it was him/her that did start this thread.

The thread then follows its course and basically dies down on Dec 29th, with a comment from Panda at 15:40, and I’ll abstain to comment ithe content of the thread until then, with the exception of this particular "last" comment and only to say it was about the use of the cell phones by both Kate and Gerry.

On Jan 9th, this year, we published the post “No More Doubts” where we stated why we think that the SY Review was nothing but another whitewashing maneuver executed by the system, and which, in our opinion only shames an institution supposedly full of prestige.

One of the commentators of that particular post was loopdaloop. That was our first contact with the indivual, at least with this identity.

His/her comment deserved on our part a follow-up post called “To Follow or Not To Follow” on Jan 12th. Loopdaloop seemed to thinks that SY Review is genuine, we didn't, and don't, and explained why, but then again loopdaloop also thinks Mrs Fenn is a “a random witness” , we don’t, and have repeatedly explained why.

You do the math, and reach a conclusion about the colour of the hat on this individual’s head.

Then, on Jan 23rd, we published our “Debunking Urban Myths: The Unpublished PJ Files”.

This post merited publication in the MMF, on that same day. This was done by Annabel, a mod at that the forum, and she chose to do that it the thread initiated by loopdaloop. And her comment, inserting the post in the thread, was pretty simple and straightforward:

http://textusa.blogspot.com/2012/01/debunking-urban-myths-unpublished-pj.html

Later, it was edited, whereby Annabel having chosen some excerpts from the post, placed them in the comment. This was done, as per said in the thread, “Last edited by Annabel on Tue 24 Jan - 8:14; edited 1 time in total”

But before Annabel’s editing, that’s where things start to get interesting.

Let’s start with Panda’s, a very active poster at MMF, first reply to Annabel’s comment/post. It was “on Mon 23 Jan 2012, 10:28”, after the initial publication, but before the editing.

So only the link was visible when Panda wrote the following:

Thanks Annabel.....
The lady I travelled to Gatwickwith, living in Faro who turned out to be a friend of Mrs Fenn friend said, the Ocean Staff had called
out the McCanns from the Tapas Bar more than once because of children crying in 5a, so Gerry's "it felt like dining in your garden " was rubbish.”
Now, ask you, what in the heck has this to do with the “Unpublished PJ Files”? If you won’t, let me tell you that I did.

Could it be a follow up of her latest comment made on Dec 29th? It doesn’t appear to be the case, because, as said, that one had been about phone usage.

She thanks Annabel… for what? The post does mention Mrs Fenn, but isn’t at all about her. I used her to prove a point, that’s all.

My first reaction was to think she was diverting attention. If that was the intention, then the result would surely be fruitless, because, others do comment about the “Unpublished PJ Files”, with the usual certainty of those that are absolutely sure of what they say. Who can contradict the irrefutable “everyone knows”? No one, of course. As for me, an individual part of that great “everyone”, I got, from then on, to know something new, something I didn’t know before but was then informed that I did. Most grateful.

So what does Panda thank Annabel for? For linking a post about Mrs Fenn. That’s it. I know, speaking about Mrs Fenn on a post about unpublished PJ Files, is almost as appropriate as speaking about the grooves of the left front tire of a bus, when the issue is whether hybrid cars are the future or not… the connection is not that obvious, but it’s there if you really want to see it…

But this comment was only the first interesting part of very interesting participations. Do read on how this issue develops:

Christine on Mon 23 Jan 2012, 10:36
Panda wrote:Thanks Annabel.....The lady I travelled to Gatwickwith, living in Faro who turned out to be a friend of Mrs Fenn friend said, the Ocean Staff had called
out the McCanns from the Tapas Bar more than once because of children crying in 5a, so Gerry's "it felt like dining in your garden " was rubbish.


That may be the reason why Mrs Fenns friend (forgot her name) said 'I'm not surprised' when Mrs Fenn called her the evening of the crying incident. I never understood that reaction.


ann_chovey on Mon 23 Jan 2012, 11:15
Christine wrote:
Panda wrote:Thanks Annabel.....The lady I travelled to Gatwickwith, living in Faro who turned out to be a friend of Mrs Fenn friend said, the Ocean Staff had called
out the McCanns from the Tapas Bar more than once because of children crying in 5a, so Gerry's "it felt like dining in your garden " was rubbish.
That may be the reason why Mrs Fenns friend (forgot her name) said 'I'm not surprised' when Mrs Fenn called her the evening of the crying incident. I never understood that reaction.
Edna Glynn I think is her name. The 'I'm not surprised' comment was always a red flag to me. (i.e. the crying was nothing new)


Panda on Mon 23 Jan 2012, 11:22
Christine wrote:
Panda wrote:Thanks Annabel.....The lady I travelled to Gatwickwith, living in Faro who turned out to be a friend of Mrs Fenn friend said, the Ocean Staff had called
out the McCanns from the Tapas Bar more than once because of children crying in 5a, so Gerry's "it felt like dining in your garden " was rubbish.
That may be the reason why Mrs Fenns friend (forgot her name) said 'I'm not surprised' when Mrs Fenn called her the evening of the crying incident. I never understood that reaction.

Morning Christine...yes, quite a coincidence that I should be sitting next to her on a coach travelling to Gatwick. This Lady also said the Portugese believed Madeleine was dead and her body thown from nearby cliffs into the sae, weighted down.
Well, did you see what we saw?

We’re before a firsthand report.

No, not hearsay. This is, very much like with Sidmouth, the person who was indeed there is now speaking directly to you. Panda is telling you what she heard directly from Edna Glyn’s mouth.

She says that, by coincidence, she flew next to Edna Glyn. Coincidences are one thing that our blog agrees with Kate McCann, but, hey, who are we to deny this one happened?

It’s apparent then that Edna Glyn confirms, to Panda, a total stranger, that she’s the person that Mrs Fenn called on the night this elderly lady supposedly heard a child cry.

What is not apparent, but apparently real is that Panda heard indeed Edna say:

“The Ocean Staff had called out the McCanns from the Tapas Bar more than once because of children crying in 5a, so Gerry's "it felt like dining in your garden " was rubbish.”

And the following:

“The Portuguese believed Madeleine was dead and her body thrown from nearby cliffs into the sea, weighted down”.

There you have it, in black and white. Directly from Panda’s hand, from Edna Glyn’s mouth.

And talking about these two colours, do you still have your crayon with you?

You see, you’re before two White Hats, aren't we? Mine's, and Panda’s.

One of them can’t be White, can it?

You see, I clearly state that Mrs Fenn is a liar, and that is clearly on the opposing side of what Panda states, in the first person, that she’s met and spoke to a person that confirms all Mrs Fenn has said, and says more, a lot more, all reiterating what Mrs Fenn had said she said.
So either, I’m the one lying by consciously and intentionally falsely accusing Mrs Fenn of having heard nothing she said she did hear, or it’s Panda that is lying by saying that she heard, in first hand, I repeat and highlight, a person confirming all that Mrs Fenn said.

It all comes down to this:

- if you believe in Mrs Fenn, colour my hat,
- if you don’t believe in Mrs Fenn, colour Panda’s
.

That simple. The choice is yours. Only yours.

I know I’m at a disadvantage. After all, Panda has heard it all directly from the source, whilst I have come up with my opinion based solely on deduction from fact. But I’ll take my chances.

No, dark grey is not black. It has to be a real black, pitch black, yes.

Later in the post, Panda still has this to say about what Edna Glyn told her:

“Hi jd16, apparently the OC reception were called by Residents reporting the crying, the lady did not specify how often. We do know from an OC Barman that the Tapas Group stayed drinking at the Bar until 11.45pm one night and he was supposed to finish his shift at 11.30pm.”
Finally, SY, now that the PJ has been officially “suspended” off the case and you’re the ones on “active duty” now, how about calling in Edna Glyn for a talk?

She seems to have a lot of relevant things to say. At least we know someone who says she does.