As ever, Textusa is choosing to ignore difficult questions, mainly because she has absolutely no answer.
As described in an earlier post, Textusa made some very silly claims about the guests at Mark Warner. For those of you that have forgotten, here is what she said, and our analysis:
We agree fully with you. We would divide the swingers present in PdL into 3 groups:Okay - so you maintain that this was a swingers resort and all the guests were swingers, including all those who, like the McCanns et al had, for reasons best known to themselves, decided to reduce their shagging opportunities by saddling themselves with umpteen small children? In that case, according to your demented scenario they all knew, and have always known, that the story in the public arena is horseshit, yet not one of them has ever tried to sell their story or get their hands on the reward. Just hundreds of people quite content to obstruct justice and pass on the opportunity to make a shed load of money because although they would shag anything with a pulse, they get all Victorian maiden about anyone knowing they do?
Group 1 (the group you mention) – those there who were swinging and desired only to be kept out of the spotlight. They didn’t contribute with anything to the cover-up and have been absolutely passive about this whole affair. We see no reason for them to be outed. Never was blog’s objective to “persecute” the swinging per se – an activity we neither subscribe to nor condemn but accept it as it’s engaged by consensual adults – but in what it pertains in the obstruction of justice. If our next door neighbour was there swinging and enjoyed herself, good for her and her husband, and if she was there and didn’t, then they shouldn’t have gone. In either case it’s none of our business and we don’t want to know. Nor see any necessity for anyone else to know.
You can see my problem with this, can't you?
Okay, so that's group one. What about the others?
Group 2 – those there who were swinging and desired only to be kept out of the spotlight. They didn’t contribute with anything to the cover-up there or elsewhere but have through these years participated actively in the disinformation campaigns to ensure the attention remained centred on the couple. Even if we thought these people should be accountable for their share in obstructing justice, we are fully aware that will not happen. We do solely rely on the justice provided by only incorruptible system that we know of: the individual conscience.So, group two have ''participated actively in the disinformation campaigns'' have they?
What is it they have done, because there are very few people who have commented publicly, or given interviews to the media. Are you saying those who have fall into group two? What constitutes the ''disinformation campaigns''? What possible motivation could these people have to participate, even passively, in a massive conspiracy?
Okay - what about the rest?
Group 3 – those there who were swinging and volunteered to help in the cover-up. These have to accountable for their acts.''Volunteered to help with the cover-up''
Now there's a claim and a half.
Textusa is saying that these people, in knowledge of a crime involving the disappearance of a small child, volunteered to help to cover it up.
Why? Who asked them to do so? How did they cover it up? What lies did they tell? Did they actively lie - providing false alibis, for instance - or passively neglect to mention that the whole resort was full of people getting their rocks off with the neighbour's missus?
More importantly, how was this organised and co-ordinated overnight, with hundreds of people, without one word ever getting out in the last seven years? Or did the management of Mark Warner simply slide a note under the door saying
''Dear Guest, we hope you have enjoyed your stay. A little reminder that check out is at 11.00am. Reception will be happy to store your luggage until you leave. One other small thing - as you know a little girl disappeared last night, and we are about to be besieged by the press. We're sure you would rather your workmates did not discover that your ''quiet fortnight in Normandy with the kids'' was actually two weeks spent horizontal jogging with some people you had never met before, while the kids made pasta pictures supervised by a nanny with a diploma in ''Advanced graphic art for children; durum wheat products free expression''
Consequently, we require you to keep your mouths firmly shut, so that the photos taken with the hidden camera behind the spare toilet roll remain absolutely private - we take our responsibility under the Data Protection Act very seriously. Thank you for your co-operation, we hope to see you again. For the sake of the environment, please recycle''
These questions, in one form or another, have been put to Textusa, politely and in brief. She refused to publish any of them as, coward that she is, she doesn't ''do'' hard questions
So come on then, you utter fraud, who are these people, what possible reason could they have to behave in the manner you claim, how was it organised and how has it remained secret?
The truth, Textusa, is that there was no evidence whatsoever that this resort was ever used for or promoted swinging and that not only was there no time nor opportunity for hundreds of people to be coached into their role, they would have had no motivation whatsoever to commit a serious crime in order to assist people they did not know from Adam.
And you are an absolute fraud and coward for repeatedly refusing to answer these questions
In response to another question, Textusa makes the following claims
As we said, the “abduction” decision wasn’t theirs to make but we cannot disregard being them to propose it to the adequate decision “echelons”.
In fact, taking into account that they, the T9, were the ones who messed things up, we think the initial meeting to access what to do next, consisted in very few people besides the T9. In that meeting we imagine suggestions that became scenarios which in turn became the proposed solution.
Once the decision made by whoever could make it, the T9 became simple pieces of a game way above themselves. But they weren’t manipulated. They were moved pieces. The first implies having a will - and being fooled - while the latter only implies obedience
In this she claims that an initial meeting was held in which a conspiracy was organised for these guests to participate in.
Given that the McCann party are mostly accounted for on the night Madeleine disappeared, and all the following day which they spent at the police station being questioned, where and when did this supposed ''meeting'' take place, and with whom? Given that most of the guests went home on the Saturday morning, that the place was by then heaving with press, is Textusa seriously suggesting that someone, prior to the McCann party being dragged off to the plod shop, organised a meeting in which an elaborate ''story'' was created and communicated to all and sundry?
Again, it's complete horseshit and Textusa knows this. Again, she has refused to publish or answer questions relating to it as she is a fraud and a coward.
She also insults the intelligence of her readers.
Or at least she would, if any of them had any. Given that they seem to believe this nonsense, one can only assume that they are, to put it in the vernacular, thick as pigshit.