Friday, 16 March 2018


Textusa and Fred captured in happier times, before Fred's surgery

Evening all

Earlier this week, someone asked Textusa what exactly the evidence was of swinging in PdL

Now that I have managed to stop laughing, I thought I would take you through it

Textusa responded with the following links, probably hoping that no-one would read them
Which we screengrabbed and have put in our post “The game continues”
So shall we see what they actually say? It would be rude not to, I think, don't you?

So let's start with the first one

This is supposedly Textusa's strongest evidence for swinging. And what does it consist of? It consist of the fact that the police searched for the term ''swing'' amongst others

Textusa claims that this is evidence of swinging, when of course it is actually evidence of them searching for evidence of swinging and finding none.

"But they did find some!" she will shriek

No they didn't. They found a few occasions where a search for the word ''swing'' returned a hit, but they had nothing to do with swinging.

And just for good measure, although she claims she doesn't know on whose computers this was found, it is quite clear - the computers where these innocent hits were found both belonged to Malinka

If she is employing the "No smoke without fire" approach, ie it must have been happening if they were searching for it, then it should be noted that they searched for far more words which could have been associated with an interest in children. So using her logic, paedophilia must be an element because they looked for it. 

I could go into more detail about her inability to understand the reports, but let's spare her blushes. She's thick, we know that

The rest of that post witters on about airports and phone contacts and is of no relevance

So that's Textusa's strongest evidence of swinging. Nothing.

Never mind, let's try the second one, shall we?

This is the one entitled "Swinging evidence" with a picture of an elephant

Now - this is very interesting. It is interesting because it contains NO evidence of swinging at all

Instead it contains this hypothesis:
Everyone agrees there was a cover up
Only swinging can explain that cover up
Now, I must make it clear here that I am not shitting you - that actually is her evidence

However, what she does do is throw this in:

 The swinging theory explains all but is, according to its detractorsspeculationPure speculation, they say. Not a shred of evidence.
There are, as far as we have been able to read, only, repeat only, 4 arguments against the swinging thesis: 

1. It isn’t illegal so it wouldn’t warrant a cover-up;
2. They wouldn’t take their children with them;
3. They wouldn’t take their mothers with them;
4. There’s no evidence there was swinging, so it’s just speculation…
She then basically states that she has refuted the first three arguments, so forget about them. She hasn't of course, but it is amusing to read.

Of course, that still leaves the fact that there is no evidence
Ah, but there is, she shrieks

Well, what the fuck is it, you wonder?

Brace yourselves, readers. We are about to reveal the evidence of swinging.

The Adult Pool. 

Yes, there was an adult pool. Which they didn't use. 

I can see you're puzzled. I'm not surprised. Apparently, the fact that they didn't use it is something to do with swinging, and nothing to do with the fact that it was fucking freezing. But not to worry, there's more.....

DNA from the kids' room 

According to Textusa, there should have been more, it should have been all over the place. So the room was subjected to "exaggerated cleaning" and was "forensically aseptic"
There is a small problem with this. It's bollocks. For starters, when processing a crime scene, one collects samples associated or potentially associated with the crime. One does not swab the skirting boards hoping to find a stray bogey from a former occupant. There was no evidence of cleaning at all.

Even if there was, what she perceives at a lack of DNA is not evidence of swinging

So, what else?

The semen stain

Okay, I will not waste any time on this - the suspected semen stain turned out to be saliva from a toddler who had previously stayed in the flat. And I'm pretty sure he wasn't a swinger. Next!

The Blonde Man 

There was a man seen leaving through a gate. He was blonde. Assuming he didn't have his cock out or anything, I think it is safe to say that this is not evidence of swinging. Next!

The visit

Specifically, the visit of David Payne to the McCann flat. For 30 seconds. I would be looking for a refund if the only action was 30 seconds worth in front of the kids. So, I am going to stick my neck out and say "no evidence"

By now I can see you are thinking that an empty pool, a blonde geezer and 30 seconds worth of Dr Payne is not compelling evidence. 

However - Textusa boasts that she has listed ''24 other factors" in yet another post, so let's take a peep:

Now - this is confusing, because that post consist of her responding to 33 posts on the CMOMM forum. That's it. But the answer lies in her response to one poster in particular who mentioned that there was no frigging evidence 

So brace yourselves - here at last is her ''evidence'' Her evidence of swinging 

  1. There was a cover up (she claims)
  2. Payne's visit
  3. The reservation sheets are fakes (they're not)
  4. The guests were heterogenous, ie diverse
  5. The only big attraction is the beach
  6. There was a lot of staff
  7. The owners were well-connected politically 
  8. Mrs Fenn was "inconsistent" which implicates her. (She wasn't, and also ewwww)
  9. Mrs Fenn said she saw the McCanns but she would have been unable to see the terrace (bullshit
  10. Mrs Fenn didn't come forward for months (also bullshit)
  11. A photograph taken from Mrs Fenn's apartment (not of swingers)
  12. Her claim that two ex-pats lied about ''pimpleman'' (Also bullshit)
  13. Another guest corroborates the Pimpleman sighting
  14. That a witness saw a white van
  15. That the witness said Pimpleman didn't see him
  16. That some tourist resorts promote swinging events in low season (this one didn't)
  17. That the Ocean Club "wasn't exactly profitable"
  18. That the only thing the groups had in common - guests, staff, ex-pats - was that they were in PdL at the time of the events (This is my personal favourite)
  19. That all those people participated in the cover up
Now - the observant amongst you will have noticed 2 things

Firstly, that is 19, not 24, so the daft bitch can't count either, and secondly nothing on that list is evidence of swinging. At all.

So we are nearly at the end of Textusa's list and so far we have no computer evidence but we do have an empty pool and a blonde geezer, so I think you'll agree, it's compelling stuff

Fortunately, we have one bit of ''evidence'' left

The final nail in the coffin belongs to a lady called Penny, who claimed in a tweet that Mark Warner was a bit of a knocking shop and that she was there at the time.

I am not going to embarrass the lady by going into detail but her entire twitter feed appears to be a series of rather unlikely and tall tales about her life. She interacts with nobody and despite her claims, she does not appear on the guest list at the time the McCanns were there. 

Also, she did not post that tweet until 2016 - years after Textusa came up with her bonkers theory

So there we are - make of that what you will.

The reason why some people fall for Textusa's nonsense is because she lies and obfuscates and people simply cannot be arsed trawling through the interminable shite

Aren't you lucky you've got me?


Foaming at the mouth

It looked as if Textusa was due a Rabies booster - Matron, the syringe!

Well, dear friends,  it is going to be a slightly different blog this week. As Textusa's post is basically a repeat of a mad rant she posted previously, and as she first posted it at some poor unsuspecting Anon who happened to be wandering past, I'm not going to bother with it, although the apology is worth a laugh

By suggestion of our friend J, this week we have decided to make a post of the 28 questions that we put to Anon in our post “Very important concessions”.

They were addressed to Anon (please forgive the aggressiveness below but as you know, then we thought you were Insane) and he has replied. We now invite all the paedo-theory believers to answer them (we will not put into our usual italics as it constitutes the entire post)
Instead, I am going to examine what took her off in this direction

It was a post by an anonymous contributor who disagreed with her thesis. That's it. Just one.  But here is the thing - she thought the anon was me.

She then waltzed off for a spot of stalking on Twitter, at which point she appears to have satisfied herself that Mr Walker shared the view expressed by the anon.

Anyway, shortly after she reappeared and stated the following:

The paedophilia we think is involved in the case is the one Insane mentions: the establishment paedophilia

However - here is the thing.

I have never mentioned it. Nor do I think it plays any role in this case. The only people who mentioned it are the people she mistakenly insisted were me.

But, amusingly, by making a big song and dance about it, she has attracted lots of people to her blog to argue the toss about it with her and to ridicule her ludicrous ''Swinging'' agenda.

I think that's a result, don't you?

Edited to add:

An anonymous poster left the following comment on Textusa's blog
"...we thought you were Insane..."

Symptomatic of Textusa's embarrassingly laughable approach, jumping to conclusions based on misunderstandings, misconceptions and just plain ignorance, which is why this whole blog is a load of rubbish, only worth an occasional glance, for the purpose of amusement, to see what blind alley she has gone down each time!

Textusa immediately responded:
 Textusa16 Mar 2018, 17:02:00
  1. Don’t be a naughty boy, Insane. Quote the entire sentence please “They were addressed to Anon (please forgive the aggressiveness below but as you know, then we thought you were Insane) and he has replied.”

    It’s important that you quote all because there seems to be a person who disagrees with you:
    In our post “The paedo offensive”:

    “Anon6 Mar 2018, 09:40:00
    Keep trying to find the truth Textusa. It all makes sense to me that they would would be trying to divert the truth, and what better way than to push a theory contrary to the truth. Hopefully people will see what you see clearly and the truth will out. Thank you for helping me make sense of it all. I’m sure the paedo element is there in the background, but not directly involved with Maddie or her disappearance.
    It’s good to see you stand up to your mistakes and admit when you are wrong. I for one respect that greatly.

    In our post “Why?”:

    “Anon15 Mar 2018, 16:02:00
    Its plain to see the “ugly seed” was sown right at the start. It has been growing since, with plenty of “evidence” following it closely. It’s what is hidden or denied and that which is kept from growing, this is where the answers lie, always hidden. Is it any wonder it’s shot down if it ever appears! Yet the ugly seed is fed and is allowed to grow and grow.
    Textuas, keep watering and nurturing the seed of truth, you are the only one doing so.”

    Now, go back to your owners and tell them that you’ve earned a biscuit. Even though you did misbehave a little by not quoting the full sentence, you didn’t swear and that saved us the time we would waste censoring you.
Sadly for the mad old bint, that Anon isn't me either. Which rather reinforces the point I was making.


Wednesday, 14 March 2018

Nastygate - an idiot speaks

Evening all

Here's the latest from her loonyship.


One thing was clear - Textusa had picked a bad week to give up crystal meth

To our readers,
Yes, both of you 
We are perfectly aware that the “debate” between us and K9 may be quite off-putting.
It's not a debate. Getting snotty with someone because they don't agree with you is just dickishness 

And it may even seem unimportant. It’s not.
It is 
It’s very important that it takes place (although we should say took, as it seems that t is over but what has been written has been very helpful and informative).
No it isn't 

K9, a person who has on the banner of his Twitter handle the phrase “Why does the UK media never mention the Gaspar Statements in the McCann case?” is unable to answer promptly questions that we supposed he should have asked himself before he decided to “believe” that paedophilia was THE secret being defended in the Maddie case.
No, as I have already made clear, you asked questions that no-one is in a position to answer and the correct response to you was "Fuck off and mind your own business, twatchops" 

As we have said, we believe he knows the answers to the many questions as to who is being protected and why.
And on what basis do you make that ridiculous claim? None? Thought so. 

Even though we have put our focus on him, we are aware that we are not talking to him alone. Others are (were) helping him and many others on his side of the fence are (were) reading what is being (was) said.
What? (What?) 

It was not by coincidence that Walkercan1000 resurfaced
Er, I think it probably was 
after having been in silence for 12 days and 15 hours
to briefly tweet about nothing that would appear to the common eye as important for 4H40 minutes and submerged again and has been holding his breath now for 2 days and 22 hours.

These are critical times. Very critical times indeed.
No they're not 

Not only because of the hostility the blog has been receiving lately, reminding us of those 2008/2009 days but because we feel there are winds brewing and gathering up for a storm.
The hostility is of your own making because you have been behaving like a complete fuckwit 

K9 alleges he doesn’t have time but is able to find it to continue to spread paedophilia on the Maddie case, which serves the agenda of some, like this one:
K9 is not beholden to you or anyone else.
Canine Truth‏ @K9Truth
The McCanns' Abuse of Power: Dr David Payne, Woodland Hospital, Kettering, didn't want to tell the Police what he knew about Madeleine McCann's death - and still hasn't to this day #McCann … …
4:35 pm - 13 Mar 2018

Unless we are talking about a different Payne, we believe that this “Dr David Payne, Woodland Hospital, Kettering” was heard by both the Portuguese and the British police. So what police force is there which he didn’t want to speak to?
That's not what K9 said 
If he didn’t want to tell them the truth, that just means he has a guilty conscience and not that he has a conscience filled with paedophilia related guilt.
 How would you know?

We would like to point out that 3 of the T9 are practising consultants in the U.K.

Are those like K9, who believe paedophilia was involved suggesting that the government are covering up and allowing them unfettered access to patients?
Did K9 suggest that? No, you just did. 

Please note that the blog does NOT condemn, as it fully supports the exposure of any crime of paedophilia. 
Good. So fuck off then 

Our blog is well aware of child abuse and exploitation in the U.K. One of the team has had professional involvement in the past and would never minimise such serious crimes and why we are very careful when speaking about Yvonne Martin and her participation in the case.
Are you bollocks 

Who we do condemn is people who point to paedophilia as a possible reason for Maddie’s death when they know full well that was not the case.
You don't know whether it was the case or not, so don't pretend otherwise 

We condemn people who deceiving alert to an apple problem in the bottom of the ocean instead of an orchard, with the intent of seeing people dive looking for them and because they can’t be found, create a new Atlantis.
What the fuck are you on about? 

In other words, mystify Maddie away from the truth.
Maria, you wouldn't know the truth if it shat in your handbag, petal. You have spent a decade trying to con a small collection of simpletons into believing that it was all down to 'swinging' and you basically can't con them any more, apart from a few truly stupid ones like Carla, who couldn't find her own arse with both hands 

Nastygate part deux

The barefaced cheek of Textusa. 

We could say a lot of things about what K9 says in that implied question with “aside from high staff/guest ratios”, rumours + Amy Tierney's alleged tweet”. We won’t.
Oh I bet you do 

We will gladly do so AFTER he answers the questions about the Gaspar statements. Diverting from a topic shows that one is trying to run away from it.
Why should s/he?

Let's have a little reminder of the questions you INSIST K9 answers

 - Why did the Portuguese REQUEST the Gaspar statements? Who tipped them off and when? Why did the British police send them?  (“The Brit snitch”)

- Why did the Gaspars keep in touch and visit the McCanns after that holiday in Majorca in which Mrs Gaspar allegedly witnessed the conversation between David Payne and Gerry McCann? (here and here)

- Why was Mrs Gaspar unable to say to David Payne, thanks for the offer, but we bathe our own kids?

- Why would she be afraid to offend anybody by saying that?

In order to answer these questions, K9 would require:

1. Information on the PJ investigation which is not in the public arena
2. Information on the UK police investigation which is not in the public arena
3. Information from Mrs Gaspar on her thoughts and decision-making process which is not in the public arena

What you REALLY want is K9's opinions and outright speculation, so you can see if they fall into line with yours.

I would never presume to advise K9 on what to reply, but my response would be to tell you to fuck off. If you are so keen on getting answers, answer the fucking questions yourself. The necessity of invention has never slowed you down before.

This means that outside what we have asked, until we get a clear and straightforward answer from K9 as to what he has been asked, we will not accept any other challenges or questions off-topic. Our lack of response to them does not mean avoiding them but keeping the pressure on what he was asked to answer.
Go fuck yourself 

To be very clear, we want to know what his opinion is as to why did the PJ request the Gaspar statements and why he thinks were the reasons for the Gaspars to continue to interact with the McCanns after the alleged creepy conversation reeking with paedophilia between Gerry and David and why he thinks were the reasons for Mrs Gaspar to allow David Payne to bathe her kids after that conversation reeking with paedophilia.
Exactly - you want an opinion. Since when is anyone obliged to share their opinions with you? 

We want the answers to the very objective questions above, we don’t want “a full examination of the evidence of paedophilia in the case and of the significance of the way that it has been handled and presented by the British police + media”.

Heaven forbid anyone should try to introduce something as mundane as 'evidence', eh? Why spoil the fun with evidence when you are having so much fun making it up as you go?  

Tuesday, 13 March 2018

Nasty Girls

Textusa and her sisters were enjoying their Nasty Girl roles just a little too much 

Evening all.

I am going to let these posts speak for themselves.
This is what Textusa does to those who don't toe the line. She bullies. She belittles. She stalks. She attempts to separate her victim from the herd and then attacks.

Very Nasty.

    1. One person who apparently who doesn’t see the coincidence is… K9. He gets asked:
      SadeElisha‏ @SadeElisha86
      Replying to @K9Truth
      Why the random capitals for Textusa if you don't mind me asking?
      11:37 am - 12 Mar 2018

      And replies:

      Canine Truth‏ @K9Truth
      Replying to @SadeElisha86
      No reason, sorry for the lack of consistency. I have never really thought about it, but will stick to "Textusa" if I ever refer to her again. #McCann
      11:49 am - 12 Mar 2018

      As if someone who writes TextUSA multiple times just happens to press by accident caps lock at the exact same time whenever he writes that word.

      Why the difficulty to acknowledge such an evident fact?

      And then get to be humiliated, when trying to hide the obvious, getting it pointed out by someone:
      InEz ShOoTa!‏ @CaroleShooter
      Replying to @K9Truth @SadeElisha86
      American....Text USA.
      11:50 am - 12 Mar 2018

  1. Identified reader at 13 Mar 2018, 01:43:00,

    We are not publishing your comment because we want to give first the honour of answering those questions to K9.

    We are certain K9 would be offended if he wasn't given first the opportunity to answer them.

    We will wait patiently. If K9 shows clearly that he has no intent whatsoever in answering them, then we will publish your comment.

    Hope you understand.
  2. Hello Textusa,
    I am currently writing a response to your question about the Gaspar Statements, but confirm that I would not be at all offended by your publication of anyone's comments, however abusive, critical or impolite they may be. I'm well used to that sort of invective from both sides by now.

    I'm sorry for the delay, but my time is limited, as I have two children that I have to cook for, two businesses that I have to run and assorted sporting and social engagements that I have to participate in or observe.

    You are, of course, free to interpret my inconsistent capitalization of your blog's name however you want. My only defence is carelessness and a lack of attention, but it was certainly not intended to offend you.

    All the best.



    1. K9,

      Oh, no, we INSIST. We want to hear it from YOU, FIRST (intentional use of caps).

      However, we must say we are surprised. For someone SO FAMILIAR (again, intentional) with the eventual death of Maddie McCann by a protected powerful British paedo you would promptly reply, especially about the Gaspar statements, which you have shown to be SO FAMILIAR (yes, you guessed it it was intentional again) with.

      Do take your time. We hope you are able to organise it and not get distracted with other things, outside those you mentioned above and those are not distractions.

      We will be waiting.
    2. K9,

      About your carelessness.

      You have tweeted the word “Textusa” 37 times. 2 of which were after you were given a heads-up:

      Canine Truth‏ @K9Truth Mar 12: Textusa's
      Canine Truth‏ @K9Truth Mar 12, which was the reply to the question about caps:
      No reason, sorry for the lack of consistency. I have never really thought about it, but will stick to "Textusa" if I ever refer to her again. #McCann
      Canine Truth‏ @K9Truth Mar 12: Not TextUsa and TextUsa's
      Canine Truth‏ @K9Truth Mar 12: Not TextUsa and TextUsa's
      Canine Truth‏ @K9Truth Mar 11: TextUSA's
      Canine Truth‏ @K9Truth Mar 11: TextUSA's and TextUSA
      Canine Truth‏ @K9Truth Mar 11: TextUSA
      Canine Truth‏ @K9Truth Mar 11: TextUSA
      Canine Truth‏ @K9Truth Mar 11: TextUSA
      Canine Truth‏ @K9Truth Mar 9: TextUSA
      Canine Truth‏ @K9Truth Mar 9: TextUSA
      Canine Truth‏ @K9Truth Mar 8: TextUsa's
      Canine Truth‏ @K9Truth Mar 8: TextUSA
      Canine Truth‏ @K9Truth Mar 2: TextUSA
      Canine Truth‏ @K9Truth Mar 2: Textusa and TextUSA's
      Canine Truth‏ @K9Truth 1 Dec 2017: TextUSA
      Canine Truth‏ @K9Truth 1 Jul 2017: TextUSA
      Canine Truth‏ @K9Truth 31 Mar 2017: TextUSA
      Canine Truth‏ @K9Truth 20 Jan 2017: TextUsa
      Canine Truth‏ @K9Truth 13 Jan 2017: TextUsa
      Canine Truth‏ @K9Truth 13 Jan 2017: TextUsa
      Canine Truth‏ @K9Truth 30 Sep 2016: TextUsa
      Canine Truth‏ @K9Truth 3 Mar 2016: TextUsa's
      Canine Truth‏ @K9Truth 3 Mar 2016: TextUsa
      Canine Truth‏ @K9Truth 15 Jan 2016: Textusa
      Canine Truth‏ @K9Truth 19 Dec 2015: TextUSA
      Canine Truth‏ @K9Truth 20 Jun 2015: TextUsa
      Canine Truth‏ @K9Truth 11 Jun 2015: TextUsa
      Canine Truth‏ @K9Truth 25 Apr 2015: TextUsa's
      Canine Truth‏ @K9Truth 5 Apr 2015: TextUsa
      Canine Truth‏ @K9Truth 19 Mar 2015: Textusa
      Canine Truth‏ @K9Truth 5 Aug 2014: Textusa
      Canine Truth‏ @K9Truth 2 Jul 2014: Textusa

      Before getting a heads-up, you tweeted “Textusa” 35 times.

      TextUsa, 15 times
      TextUSA, 15 times
      Textusa, 5 times, of which 3 were the first time you tweeted the word.

      No other Caps misspelling.

      We would say that you suffer from a consistent carelessness.
  3. Hello Textusa,

    I'm not quite sure what the point of your messages is.

    Yes, I have been careless and erratic with my capitalizations, although I believe that I have spelt your name correctly since @SadeElisha86 pointed out the error of my ways at 11:37am on March 12th.

    And so?

    Maybe you want to weave some theory about my identity around my inconsistent use of caps? Go ahead, I'm sure you have the time to do so if you want to. However, trust me, it would not be very dignified and sensible to descend into the sort of paranoia that seems to beset so many disbelievers of the McCann jackanory. I can assure you that not only Not Textusa but also the "antis" who know my identity would find it more than amusing.

    Am I trying to save you from ridicule? Yes. There is a lot of common ground, and maybe even a shared friend or two, beween us.

    I have signaled my willingness to enter into a civilized discussion with you and would be happy to repeat here my Twitter apology for any intemperate language that I may have used.

    However, my time and patience are limited, so I would be disinclined to continue this discusssion if I feel that my good faith and good will are not being reciprocated.

    All the best


    1. Why aren't we surprised?

    2. I'll leave you with this
    3. Adult Bullying Facts: Self-Esteem Issues

      Even though the basic characteristic of a bully is low self-esteem, research suggests that they really feel superior to others. Instead of having a regular self-outlook, they have pathologically high views of themselves; this is very unbalanced. When a bully feels as though they are thwarted; this ego threat causes them to lose control and lash out in defense to maintain their ‘dignity’ and superiority before their ‘perpetrators.’
    4. And here are some of the attacks made on K9 and others by Textusa's tagalongs last night
    5. And here's Teddy the fkn c*** BACKING UP K9 who SUPPORTS Walker/Wright the biggest on Twitter
    6. And note this >> K9 says that NotTextusa knows her indentity. Well that's fkn interesting isn't it? Cos Not Textusa is Walker/Wright, the most disgusting there is trying to cover up the death of Maddie. And NotTextusa knows who K9 is?

    7. So what WAS your response that Textusa didn't publish? Eh? Publish it here, on Twitter, where you say you have "freedom of expression". Go on. What's stopping you?

    8. Apparently, Textusa has no problem with one of her hangers-on, a known racist, following another poster around twitter calling her/him a ''FknPretendy'' and a "Fkn C***"
    9. Like I say; Nasty girls.