Wednesday, 10 February 2016

THE SWINGING THEORY



[in response to Nuala from The Case Against Robert Murat]

UPDATE  10/02/6




THE SWINGING THEORY


The discussion seems to have veered off in the direction of the 'swinging theory' and in response to Nuala, you are right, we may not agree but the matter is open to debate.

It may be that I have led a particularly sheltered life, but I have never in all my years, known any swingers or attended any swinging parties.  I have attended many parties where people have got drunk, taken drugs and ended up under the host, but they don't generally start out with those intentions.  Well not if the fights, rows and divorces that follow are anything to go by. 

My knowledge of swinging parties comes mainly from the old News of the World, and from sneeky peeps at my friend's Dad's collection of Forum magazines.  Fantasy stuff that didn't go on in the 'real' world.  Similarly, I have never known anyone who has had an intimate relationship with their twin tub or who regularly attends fetish parties.  I'm not saying these murky worlds do not exist, the NOTW regularly featured stories of politicians caught with their trousers down, and Madams Whiplash spilling the beans.  I don't however, ever remember entire holiday resorts devoted to middle class swingers.  And what a story it would have been?

Whilst I hate to put it too strongly, the swinging theory is insane.  Have these theorists even had a cursory glance at the main characters?  Do they honestly believe that the clingy Kate, who nearly went into meltdown when Gerry flirted with the quiz mistress, would say 'your turn with my husband Fiona'?

You say that it was extraordinary for there to be 300 tourists in PDL?, do you have stats for the previous years or for similar resorts for the same week? You say that it was well known that Warners held swinging events.  'Well known' where?  Do they advertise?  The Lancet perhaps? 

I don't know if Textusa or other believers in the swinging theory are parents themselves.  I tend to think not, because if they are, they will remember the baby and toddler years as the most stressful and argument filled years of their marriages.  Those who believe babies mend relationships are completely deluded. Babies and toddlers bring chaos, they take over everything, they never give you a minute's peace and they win every argument. Most couples return from family vacations swearing never to do it again, and talking divorce.  Until the following year.  Time is kind like that, it keeps smoothing the rough edges off so eventually all you can see is the laughter.

You also say Nuala, that PDL was filled with VIPs, high fliers and professionals.  Where is the evidence for this?  In the summer of 2007, it was also filled with every enthusiastic crime journalist in the world, how come none of them picked up on that?  I don't find anything particularly strange about 300 tourists being in PDL.  It is a pleasant resort, family friendly, and the weather conditions were perfect for young children and sports enthusiasts.  It may be that this resort had a good reputation via a grapevine, and of course, most of the tapas group had enjoyed Warners' resorts before. 

I fear Textusa and the swinging theorists have tied themselves up in a similar knotted yarn ball as Tony Bennett.  That is, they came to one definitive conclusion several years ago, and have no way in which to wriggle out of it without admitting they were/are wrong. 

I am intrigued by your final sentence Nuala.  You say if the swinging theory is wrong, there must be something else 'that fits the bill'.  Why? As I often say, I am a follower of the school of thought that is KISS (Keep it Simple Stupid), the first and most simple explanation is usually the right one.  Even Team McCann knew that, 'It was an abduction. End of'. 

Though the idea of a family resort for swingers is novel, even the NOTW would never have run with that one.  Whilst some might say swinging is not seedy, taking your kids along, is.  And accusing 300 people of abandoning their kids to go have sex with strangers should keep the libel courts tied up for years. 

I tend to think that those who come up with these fantastic sex stories, have read way too much fire, brimstone and Black Lace.  They come from the imaginations of those a little bit detached from the 'normal' world.  I am guessing they have very little sexual experience and any information they do have, comes from bible based resources that warn them about the evils that lie at the heart of our society.  In this instance, Mark Warners resorts. 

Textusa may well be an enjoyable read for crime enthusiasts who like cryptic clues and long winded plotlines, but she strayed from reality a long time ago.  The idea that some major world player was whooping it up in PDL with Kate and Gerry in a popular and very public, holiday resort is absurd. All the couples had very young children with them and they were up early every morning to sort the kids out and play tennis.  How could they manage all of this if they had spent their nights running in and out of each other's chalets Carry On style?

There was/is a cover up, but that cover up relates to the blunders made by the incumbent government and the police agencies who rushed to assist the parents. When the truth does come out there will be a lot of red faces - among them politicians, top police officers and television crime reporters.  Meanwhile, the known facts of this case are intriguing enough, why the need to embellish them?




200 comments:

  1. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 4) above is a real hammer. The idea that thousands, or just hundreds, of people keep loyal to the extent of madness WHILE A CHILD IS MISSING for almost a decade???
      Nuala says the taboo is there for the swingees, not for the rest of us. And these events are made very discreet, yet she indicates there is evidence ("it's well known that MW organises adult events") this was going on in May 2007. Well how would she know if it's made top secret?

      Delete
    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    3. Re No 3 - actually there is something curious although not 'evidence' as such. Didn't the PJ Files contain a list of computers belonging to the Tapas crew etc that the PJ had interrogated for web-browsing history during April/May - and there were swingers sites? And one of the keywords searched was 'swing' as well as other keywords with sexual connatations? Not evidence as such but it has always intigued me for what reasons the PJ made that search...I'll find the link and post it up.

      Delete
    4. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
  2. How about taking the party back to your own blog?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
  3. Nuala
    Another pathetic attempt to portray GA and the PJ as inept.
    An international swinging event taking place in PDL and the PJ knew nothing at all.

    Where does the 300+ swingers number come from?

    Where and when was the get together meeting for the 300+?

    Was there a swingers age limit for participation?

    Some of the guests were Mark Warner and some Thomas Cook have you any evidence these companies were running adult sex weeks and using children as a cover for these activities.
    You are making serious allegations against these tour operators have you given your evidence to the police?

    Do you have ANY EVIDENCE whatsoever, or is all you have innuendo, smears and lies dredged up from the sewer of your mind?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    2. JJ, to explain the 300+ guests present there that weeek:
      http://textusa.blogspot.pt/2015/09/missing-people.html

      Delete
    3. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    4. so, has anyone examined the guest list to see what sorts of people were there? We have member of the board of STEMCOR, art gallery owners, company directors, consultants, company owners, media producers etc. Funny old guest list for a very mediocre resort out of season. Does anyone have an explanation for that?

      Delete
    5. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
  4. Anonymous10 February 2016 at 13:11
    Not Textusa, do you have a link for that 45 restaurant list?

    Not Textusa10 February 2016 at 18:57
    Anonymous10 February 2016 at 13:11

    Yes thanks.

    Anonymous10 February 2016 at 22:50
    Not Textusa,

    Could you please publish here the link for the 45 restaurant list? Thank you

    -----------------------------------------------
    Not Textusa, when can we expect you posting here the link to the 45 restaurant list?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    2. Why don't you just google places to eat in PDL?

      PDL is a pleasant and popular holiday resort, why can you not accept that? Why do you need evidence of a 'main attraction' and/or definitive reasons for people to holiday there?

      Delete
    3. Because Not Textusa is making things up and you're covering up for him Ros when he can't back up his statements.
      Luz does not have 45 restaurants.
      http://www.luz-info.com/bars.htm
      PDL is a pleasant and popular holiday resort in July and August. Not end of April and beginning of May.

      Delete
    4. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    5. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    6. It lists cafes, pubs/bars, hotels and restaurants and many have the same letter.
      It can be 64 or any other number. It's not 45. I still would like to see your 45 restaurant list.

      Delete
    7. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
  5. Why is it "innuendo, smears and lies dredged up from the sewer of your mind" if swinging is so widely accepted that no one cares? It's an hypothesis like any other so why does it get treated with such animosity?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    2. I don't think it is animosity, so much as hilarity 10:46. The idea that the great and good were congregating in PDL for a swingers convention takes ridiculous off the scale.

      Delete
    3. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    4. http://onlyinamericablogging.blogspot.com/2016/02/the-sirens-of-lambs-by-dr-martin.html

      Delete
    5. I was fortunate enough - with a former partner - to be part of a few discreet swingers parties about ten years ago. We enjoyed our time very much and were amazed when we found out the professions of some of the participating couples (doctors, judges, bankers, police men and women, ex-sports people, etc).
      Venues would usually be places like big country houses owned by a couple who would be paid a large fee per couple. In return, all food, drink, and accommodation were provided.
      Sometimes, a lovely couple who owned a boutique hotel in a southern county in England hosted swinging weekends.

      But never, ever, were any holiday resorts with children chosen as a venue. Once, a huge private villa somewhere in Spain was used for a weekend (what a weekend that was) but believe me, it was strictly adult couples.

      Whether some of the Tapas members were 'into each other' is entirely their own business, but I really cannot see an organised swinging event taking place in PdL back in May 2007.

      Delete
    6. Anon 12:03, how about in "huge private villas" around Praia da Luz?

      Delete
    7. Many thanks for your very honest and informative post 12:03. That is kind of what I imagined 'swinging' was all about - discretion of course being the key word.

      I feel as though I missed out doh! Actually my life was already playing out like a tragic Country and Western record, so probably best none of that was thrown into the mix.

      Anyway, thank you for clarifying that it was strictly Adults Only. I think most people who seek extra curricular activity, look outside of the home. Hiding it from their children is usually top priority. Small children especially would be traumatised if they saw their mummies and daddies jumping in and out of each other's beds. And Gawd knows what Granny would have made of it.

      I think it takes some special kind of imagination to think Warners were laying on family holidays for sexual shenanigans and encouraging parents to bring their kids.

      Delete
    8. 16:15? Why throw a huge private villa in PDL into the mix? The police have a crime scene. They know where the death occurred.

      Delete
    9. Because in the huge private villas around Luz no crime happened. Swinging is LEGAL. And it could be known it was happening. What couldn't be known was who was there doing it. I'll just quote a comment above: "were amazed when we found out the professions of some of the participating couples (doctors, judges, bankers, police men and women, ex-sports people, etc)." and your "it would be excruciatingly embarrassing".
      All IMO.

      Delete
    10. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    11. Portugal, in general, is not bothered if you swing or not.Its very liberal about that kind of thing. It doesn't print it in the papers etc. It is quite likely the group of guests were there as part of a VIP swinging group. They certainly were NOT playing tennis - that I know for sure. My niece is local to PdL. They were NOT playing tennis all day - they WERE dining in the town of PdL AS OPPOSED TO the TAPAS bar. That I know for sure. The ex pat community were also out wit them in the bars of PdL - THAT i KNOW FOR SURE. Unfortunately, apart form that info I dont have a clue! Please dont run under the illusion of them having a nice family holiday playing tennis. Not true.

      Delete
    12. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
  6. Please don't bother providing the list NT, the follow up question will be the menus and the weekend specials. These people simply cannot accept that sun, sea, sand and a pleasant environment are enough for most holidaymakers. There has to be something sexual going on.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What's wrong with having gone on something sexual between adults ? You sound just like Bennett!! Both from the anti-sex league.

      Delete
    2. I don't have a problem with people going to orgies, fetish clubs or whatever takes their fancy. I just don't think they should take their kids along.

      Delete
    3. With the kids in creche or with nannies in what way would they be involved in what their parents could be doing? Were the twins and Maddie in the way for Gerry and Kate to play tennis and jog all they liked? What if instead of tennis and jogging they were doing something else?

      Delete
    4. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    5. Oh please.....NO ONE brings their children along if swinging is the main purpose!!!!! All sorts of things can happen even when they are in creche. Get sick, longing for mum and dad etc. The sexual activities would be interrupted from time to time, where instead you could enjoy a pieceful(?) adult holiday with the children safely at home with grandparents or someone else..I agree with Christobel, the folks supporting this stupid theory can't possibly have children on their own.

      Delete
    6. You make these assignations sound as cold and clinical as a double appointment with the dentist. Most people require a bit of atmosphere and warming up. Sultry strangers are unlikely to hang on a sec, while you change a shitty nappy and sort out a vomiting child. It takes away all the spontaneity. Even mummies and daddies who are lawfully wedded, have a tough job getting it together.

      In what universe do babies and small children go off to nannies quietly and without protest so their parents can have a leisurely game of tennis, or whatever? As a young working mother the morning handover was always traumatic, my child was distressed and I was distressed. I knew he would be fine in moments, but it grieved me anyway.

      Kids are not sticklers for rules, timetables and organised systems 17:25, they usually throw a spanner in the works by way of an almighty tantrum, or upset tummy and projectile vomiting.

      After 5 nights this group of highly educated professionals were still walking up and down the hill individually because they couldn't work out a safe and effective way to look after the kids in the evening. How the heck would they cope with the 300?

      Delete
    7. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    8. Ah, I learned long ago not to let them bog me down with detail. Sending antis off looking for links was one of their tactics. I had a 'kiss my ass' donkey for when they tried those old tricks, lol.

      Delete
    9. Are you calling me a pro Ros? Based on what? On me asking Not Textusa a list he says he has but is wriggling about in providing? It's Not Textusa sending me to find a link not the other way around. He says he has it, I ask him show it. Not sending him anywhere.

      Delete
    10. I am saying that it is a pro tactic 18:59.

      I am also saying, what the feck does it matter? People do not have to provide justifiable reasons for choosing a holiday resort. The idea is preposterous.

      Delete
    11. It matters because you have a person commenting here who unless shown otherwise says things he picks up from the sky for his convenience. If you think that's acceptable it's up to you, it is your blog.

      Delete
    12. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    13. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    14. Anonymous 19:13

      Not Textusa always works in the same way, makes claims that s/he can't back up, as you will now realise, it's useless engaging with her/him, when you ask questions or require evidence of a claim s/he will start abusing you.

      Not Textusa doesn't give a shite about Madeleine McCann, s/he is only interested in destroying reputations without any care which side of the fence they're on. Amaral's been a victim of her/his insults and arrogance along with Cristobell, Joanne Morais, Hideho, Textusa and that's only the beginning.

      Not Textusa floats around the internet 24/7 hooking up with anyone s/he can find who will join the juvenile game, that's why s/he is here. Thank god it's only a minority that takes her/him seriously.

      Not Textusa comments on Cristobells blog because she allows her/him a platform to spit venom. She/he is a poser who pretends to know anything and everything about anything and everything and can kill debate by its presence.

      Never trust a big head who has nothing better to do with their life than stalk anyone who shows and interest in the case of Madeleine McCann.

      We are all in the same boat here. Nobody knows what really happened to Maddie, we can only theorize, let it be left there.

      As you say this is Cristobell's blog so she dictates the rules but really Not Textusa is not worth the effort.

      With that said I will disappear into the ether. Who wants to be part of a controlled environment?

      George

      Delete
    15. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    16. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    17. George is quite correct. To rubbish the swinging theory is really stupid. To disagree with it is ok, to put counter theories across is OK.
      There is a massive push to rubbish the swinging theory - it is for a very good reason. It is exactly what Team Mccann want and pay for. I think many of us know that. I think most of us with a brain cell choose not to rubbish any theory. I think Mc Cann, Gerghty + friends will be glad what you do here on this site

      Delete
    18. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    19. Not half as glad as they are with Bennett rubbishing the evidence of the Smiths and doing his utmost in incriminate Robert Murat and Textusa's attempt to include all the tourists in PDL that week.

      As the swinging theory is the product of Textusa's imagination, how can evidence be produced to disprove it. She has given us anything tangible to disprove!

      You say those of you with a brain cell choose not to rubbish any theory. Err, except of course you rubbish the most simple one - the one put forward by Goncalo Amaral and the PJ.

      That is the theory that troubles Team McCann the most, look at how much trouble they have gone to, to get Goncalo's book banned and off the shelves.

      Have Team McCann even bothered to comment on the swinging theory? Have they taken any legal proceedings against Textusa?

      They took action action against Tony Bennett, not because 'he was onto anything' - as if, lol, but because the man is an absolute nuisance, take a look at his wiki entry, it lists decades of stalking and harassment and interference in high profile criminal cases.

      It is hard enough to believe that 9 people have been able to keep such a devastating secret. Textusa's theory and indeed the theory of HideHo, involves a cast of hundreds, innocent people who for no explainable reason have chosen to pervert the course of justice and risk imprisonment to help out Kate and Gerry McCann.

      It is of course possible that those suspected of acting criminally will be charged, and it could well run to 'over a hundred', but it is unlikely to include anyone without a vested interest.

      The people targeted by Bennett, Textusa and HideHo, are virtual strangers to the McCanns. It's possible that perverting the course of justice in a murder case could see prison sentences of 5 years. I have no idea what the sentence would be, but given the seriousness of the crime, I'm veering on the charitable side.

      The 3 theorists are making very serious accusations, they have gone way past discussing this case as onlookers and have set up their own investigations and appointed themselves Judge and jury. They have also lost all sense of personal awareness, this case has swallowed them up.

      And if that was an appeal for myself and others to stop rubbishing the swinging theory, forget it. These ridiculous myths needs to be challenged and exposed for what they are.

      Delete
    20. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    21. It's not just fiction NT, it is disturbingly voyeuristic - she is using real people to create a very specific sexual scenario, one that comes solely from her own imagination. And these people are complete strangers to her - gawd knows what goes on in her head about people she does know!

      Delete
    22. Quote:

      "
      FOREWORD

      I've now come to realize that although the main reason, swinging, behind the events that occurred after Maddie died remains valid, and I was completely unaware of the real amount of both participants and accomplices in the cover-up that happened, as well as the complexities and power balances between the various relationships.

      This makes my initial theory, below, full of errors. But a person should be evaluated not by the way it falls, but how fast it stands up. Only through trial and error, or in other words, learning by one's mistakes, can one be sure that one's next step is right.

      The initial theory was written in the spur of the moment, more by instinct than by reason. It has since evolved significantly. But it was from there that everything else stemmed from.

      Any comparison with with the below written and what is currently stated in our blog (Textusa), is either misunderstanding the historic intent of this blog or is deliberately being ill-intentioned.

      Thank you"

      http://textusatheory.blogspot.pt/2012/01/foreword.html

      Why are you pushing something that Textusa has said is no longer valid?

      Delete
    23. Hmm, not making it sound any better 11:36, she is still following that same initial impulse and dispensing with reason and logic.

      As for honesty and integrity - describing an imagined sexual act between two named strangers, falls a little short on the 'integrity' side, so too the continued accusations of sexual impropriety against hundreds of innocent tourists who were holidaying in PDL at the time.

      Delete
    24. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    25. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    26. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    27. Can you tell me where it is in her site? Only see it in the blog where she says it is no longer valid. In her blog Textusa I see nothing.
      Amusing to see you engage here in conversation with me but dodge when I have asked you to answer if you believe that the dogs marked Maddie's body in the apartment which basically is the basis for having scepticism about the McCanns claim.

      Delete
    28. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
  7. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Here is another hidden message: Tripadvisor (the list)
      And now I'm tempted to make a phone call to both tour operators and ask them if they still offer adult cough cough holidays like they did in spring 2007? Or maybe that's 'classified' information....

      Delete
    2. "Be at the adult pool at 9.00 Come alone, bring condoms"
      LOOOOOL Hahahaha
      P.s If the condoms are forgotten in all excitement, the Ocean Club surely keeps them in stock at the reception....

      Delete
  8. Also swingers don't usually swing with friends. That could cause so many problems in case of things becoming emotional, or one partner ends up with the least fanciable one. Swingers usually go to clubs/parties or meet strangers through (online) adverts, chat groups etc. All part of the thrill of the chase. Some of these casual meetings turn out into something more long-term, where couples meet more regularly. It is however unlikely that friends/colleagues start swinging with each other. Very unlikely. I mean how would this even come up in conversation? Fancy swinging with us? What if the answer is no (which it most likely is): friendship over or never the same again. Why take that risk when there is plenty of opportunity to swing elsewhere with consenting strangers and no comeback.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Actually, thank you for pointing that out too 12:05, as you say, it would be excruciatingly embarrassing if friends and work colleagues were involved. People who know all the people you know, it doesn't bear thinking about!

      Delete
    2. Why "it would be excruciatingly embarrassing if friends and work colleagues were involved"? Isn't it accepted and completely legal?

      Delete
    3. Seriously 17:21? Can you imagine the discussion around the water cooler - who shagged who's husband/ wife the night before?

      Having an affair is not against the law 17:21 (in this century, just to clarify). That however, doesn't mean it is socially acceptable. Society is ruled by a set of codes and conventions that are mutually agreed, but not necessarily carved in stone.

      In addition of course, most of us have morals and principals, we understand that our actions can hurt others. Just because you can do something, doesn't mean you should. Online stalkers should pay particular attention to that last line.

      Delete
    4. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    5. Exactly.
      You are the one saying as swinging is legal no would cover it up.

      Delete
    6. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    7. Okily dokily 18:41. Go into work tomorrow and tell everyone you are a swinger. Do come back and tell us how you got on :)

      Delete
    8. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
  9. There is one element that might have started the whole swinging nonsense. In the early part of this century Mark Warner sensed a marketing opportunity in targeting young, childless holidaymakers with a sort of “18-30 Club” – remember those? – approach and went for it in a big way. I was ski-ing a lot at the time and Mark Warner’s name came up again and again, word of mouth, as the most-fun-ski-packages for people in that age group, including couples, who had no kids and were keen on “active” apres ski (although, like most British apres-ski, shagging came a poor second to getting blind drunk, which is why they sometimes freeze to death on the way back to their hotels in the dark). The same applied, as far as I know, to their sun packages.

    The marketing was very clever and very successful although there’s no evidence that it led to arranged swinging holidays. The internet eventually killed the concept, of course. The PJ probably became aware of the MW brand approach from the British police and, in the desperate search for motives in 2007, must have wondered why MW should have attracted a group of holidaymakers completely outside this narrow brand profile: not singles, not in the 18-30 raving group, not looking for new partners, but middle aged professionals with pushchairs and numerous infants requiring high maintenance.

    I think they were right to ask the question, it was asked and it led nowhere except to David Payne’s disastrous record as a holiday planner. And then the loonies took over.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ah, I remember the 18-30's holidays John, sadly it was as I hit 30 and no longer eligible, doh! On the plus side, I now qualify for Saga :)

      They were of course adult only, and I think they have now evolved and have their own hot spot resorts around the world. I am sure I saw a documentary at one time about some kinky Caribbean resort where cut out leather swimwear seemed to be de regueur for the beach and indeed the bar.

      The recurring theme however, seems to be that all these clubs, resorts, etc, are strictly adult only. The idea of parents going on sex holidays with their young children is unthinkable. Could you imagine the number of people who would have reported them?

      Delete
  10. T9 & swinging.... what a laugh, almost like an episode of Benidorm.

    But even if they were all swinging, whatever that is and whether you believe it or not.

    What would it have to do with M's disappearance?

    PDL and\or Mark Warners holiday experience might have been many things. But sadly the most poingnant of all is a dumping ground for kids. Pity, since I cherished every moment I've had with my family on holidays, be it sunshine or sitting in a shelter eating fish & chips.

    I certainly don't remember my babes and near four year olds yachting and playing tennis with the nannies all day.

    So whether discussing swinging or not, this must have been one of the strangest, ambiguous, incongruitous holidays of all times. Four couples, granma and eight children.

    Why did they take the kids?

    ReplyDelete
  11. Meanwhile whilst you are all having so much fun discussing nonsense, remember - there is a missing child at the centre of all this.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    2. @ Not Textusa11 February 2016 at 19:42

      I did contribute - I said this discussion is nonsense - which from reading your numerous posts you agree with.

      Delete
    3. 19:13

      Yes and the missing child is still missing because the case has drowned in nonsense by many factions.
      Swinging is the topic currently being demolished because it is too stupid for words,and there is not a single fact to support it.

      Delete
    4. Yes we all remember that. Most people here want to know why Textusa and Nuala are so obsessed with this ridiculous theory. THAT is taking away focus from the real issue, namely the missing little girl Madeleine. How anyone can take them seriously is almost scaring! Dumb, dumber.....
      And you're right, it really IS nonsense. The funny part is that Textusa/Nuala go further and further on nonsense road (big villas in PdL , no restaurants,etc) in order to cling on.
      What on earth happened to the child, how does her demise fit the swinging bill? More inventions I guess.

      Delete
    5. @ JJ11 February 2016 at 20:29 & @ Anonymous11 February 2016 at 20:31

      So ignore it - they have their opinion which is nonsense - by giving it "air-time" you just perpetuate the myhth/nonsense.

      Have you never realised that the oldest trick is to invent something bizarre about the case - repeat it often enough and some people will believe it.

      Ignore the idiots. No-one will change their stupid minds. Even if Ros says " the matter is open to debate."

      Delete
  12. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I don't buy the swinging theory as I just can't it can't account for the cover-up and also if the adults really did want to swing then surely - as one poster above has written from experience - they would go on an all-adults holiday to a large villa or book out a small hotel or something.

    I have met a few people who DO go in for this. Can't think of anything worse really. I could understand someone having an affair because monogamy isn't really what a lot of people want for ever in my opinion but if someone was 'into' swinging I would run a mile.

    I have a friend who used to work in an upmarket brothel/escort club - apparently as a receptionist or so she said! She was on good terms with quite a few of the regulars and said most of them were very well-heeled. There doors in and out on different sides of the building so clients didn't have to bump into each other!

    With regard to what happened that week I think Kate, Gerry and their friends have already told us in their own way. Join up a few dots and you get the picture. I do believe that there is a sexual agenda here as I believe that the Gaspers were right.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @ Anonymous11 February 2016 at 20:15

      Maybe you could join the dots for us and come up with the solution then?

      Delete
    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    3. @ Not Textusa11 February 2016 at 21:09

      maybe you could try indicating to whom your reply is dressing? It may help!

      Delete
    4. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
  14. So Ros's blog has now turned into the not-textusa platform to insult unless you agree with him/her?

    ReplyDelete
  15. Misdirection is a form of deception in which the attention of an audience is focused on one thing in order to distract its attention from another.

    ReplyDelete
  16. To lighten the darkness let’s remember, as I wrote in the Cracked Mirror, just what a weird, sheltered little bunch the Nine were. Not so much sexually weird but socially nerdish and geeky for their age. When you read the evidence it’s as though these fairly successful, middle-aged consultants are still under-confident medical students of nineteen waiting for mum to make them their supper.

    That excruciating sub-teenage backchat and sniggering about ROB “relieving” – giddit? – Jane Tanner on the Thursday night; the manic, pounding, expenditure of sweat and energy on games by the men, like blushing sixth-formers trying to deal with surging testosterone; the student bar pap they fed themselves with every night, rather than the wonderful Portuguese food. Some sophisticates they were, sexual or otherwise!

    And does it really need saying that women, at least in my experience, are rarely at their most sexually experimental when they have very young children? How can they be, given the colossal emotional and physical demands laid on them at that time? The only occasion Jane Tanner seemed to be completely convincing in her Leicester police interviews was when she poured amusing and derisive scorn on the swinging rumours and dismissed, with a shudder, the thought of sleeping with Gerry McCann. As most of us would.

    As for the Gaspar statements they are an anomaly: so filled with problems that they need a whole investigation to themselves to determine whether they have any evidential value and, if so, what. Presumably they have had it by now from the Yard but until we’re told their findings the statements will remain of “use” only to those with a fantasy axe to grind.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You are actually spot on regarding new mums John. Giving birth and caring for babies and toddlers is a very effective form of contraception. New dads often feel neglected which of course all adds to the stress. If they were to look elsewhere, it would be for someone young, free and single, not for another stressed mother with baggage.

      Delete
  17. The Gaspar statements - if they correct identified the significance of an incident - suggest a far worse scenario than the legal one of consenting adults.

    They may of course be simply another red herring.

    ReplyDelete
  18. If Robert Murat was the fixer and arranger for the Tapas group, you would think he would have known about the international swingers convention in PDL and returned before it started on Saturday 28th April, in order not to miss a bonking night.

    The event was common knowledge according to Nuala. Afterall extra staff and catering had been drafted in to accommodate the 300 plus swingers.

    According to Bennett and R.D. Hall, Murat dropped his paint brush mid stroke and fled Exeter within hours of a summons to return.

    Is it possible they needed a sex partner for Dianne Webster, who was an odd one, so to speak. On the otherhand evidence proved RM did not rush back to Portugal within hours of booking his flight and nobody can offer a shred of evidence to support swinging in PDL.

    It is strange Cristobell, that you are allowing different opinions to be aired on your blog and how many of these theories do not stand up to even basic scrutiny.

    Can anybody produce a single provable fact to support swinging. There is zero so far.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm happy to publish different opinions JJ, censoring them doesn't make them go away, and it opens them up for discussion.

      Over the past few days a number of us have had the opportunity to examine the swinging theory in greater detail and offer reasoned, logical arguments to challenge those different opinions.

      It should be noted that the cesspit doesn't allow alternate views, and look how that turned out!

      Delete
  19. I would take the Gasper statements at face value? Why not? Katherine Gasper saw behaviour that she thought was consistent with someone who looked at child porn on the web. Her husband witnessed behaviour that he thought was in 'very poor taste'. Then factor in social worker Yvette Martin noticing suspicious behaviour from Kate, Gerry and David Payne the day after 'the abduction'. Then there is the 100 second phone call made by David Payne late at night on the 4th May. Which Payne, when questioned by Leics police, says he can't remember having made. It's well worth looking at a transcript of the questioning as he stumbles and stutters. So incriminating. Then there is the video-recording incident with Russell filming another guest's daughter playing mini-tennis is a manner that makes the guest uncomfortable enough to go up and speak to Russell.

    I totally agree that there is no evidence that swinging was a feature of this case. However I think there is masses of evidence that child sex abuse is a feature of this case. The McCanns and their friends themselves believed this. And Kate is quite graphic in her book about her fears over what might have happened to Madeleine.

    ReplyDelete
  20. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Touchy Not Textusa! TM 'spun' the video-recording incident in order to 'sanitize' the event. If you look at the earliest interviews with Russell you can see the Portuguese police put questions to him that he can't wriggle out of. Even if you take aside the video recorder the ensuing little chat that Kate purports that she and Russell had with the guest - Nigel from Southampton I do believe - about paedophiles is beyond weird. I've spent longer that I would have wanted watching my own children in playground and at sports etc and never once have I got chatting with a stranger on the subject of paedophilia. It's simply not what parents 'chat' about at the school gates or beside the playground. In any case, why would a parent feel awkward filming their child playing mini-tennis? Why would it make someone feel like 'a dirty old man'? I can only think of one reason. And that would be that there is something 'dirty' about filming children. What kind of people would think that, I wonder? But of course TM, as always, put the words into other people's mouths. They're crafty like that.

    Out of the horses' mouths - as always! You can always rely on Kate and Gerry, and indeed their friends, to tell you pretty much exactly what happened. Only they place the blame onto third parties. What the McCanns and their friends say, think and do matters very much. Thoughts can and do become words and words can become actions. You wouldn't make a very good detective because what the McCanns and their friends say and do is crucial to understanding what happened that week. They are the last people who saw Madeleine. David Payne, in particular, placed himself right in the frame with his alleged 6.30pm visit to the McCann apartment where he saw all three children looking like angels. The brain leaks in this case are extraordinarily revealing - it's amazing that TM have any brains left at all as so much has leaked out to leave a blazing trail behind them.

    ReplyDelete
  22. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Haha! What cesspit are we talking about? If you are interested in the questions put to Russell, read the police files. It's all there. The police specifically asked him about a video recorder and he denied seeing one. Even though Nigel went up to him and remonstrated about him filming his child. I don't think it's normal to think there is anything wrong with filming your children.

      The police question Russell at length over this incident and take great interest in his answers. Matt, too, speaks about this incident. I would LOVE too see Nigel's rogatory which unfortunately is not in the files as far as I can see.

      Who said anything about taking to court? I am merely giving a view. The brain does leak information, whether you like it or not.

      No idea about chemtrails not an area of particular interest for me. Until I have explored the area I will not give a view.

      I try to keep an open mind. I believed the McCanns and their friends for ages. Then I read the PJ files and I couldn't believe that anyone could believe their story.

      Delete
    2. Haha, touchy! Merely my view. Everything is in the PJ files. Why would there be restrictions around filming one's own child? Very odd thing to write. A bit like Kate writing in her book that you can't even photograph your own child in a swimming pool any more...what a truly weird thing to write.

      Why not?

      Delete
    3. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    4. Why don't you look into the files as I have done? Then you will find what I am talking about.

      However here is the translation from one of Russell's earliest police interviews.

      "The deponent remembers only one episode, that for him did not have any importance, but that, given the circumstances, make him relate it. States that between the activities of tennis and others on the beach, he took notice of an individual who he only knows as NIGEL—a British individual, married, and with a daughter of ¾ years whose name is Ixxx. He had trivial conversations with him. On the day of the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, in the late morning, part of the group, with their children, were next to the tennis courts when NIGEL approached him. They were filming his daughter, with a video camera, and that, questioned, the deponent states that he does not remember seeing anyone with such an apparatus. Considering the current particulars of paedophilia, they conversed and the deponent considered this perfectly normal. Nigel had commented that he felt uncomfortable in having his daughter filmed. The deponent finished by concurring with him and together they spoke about the ridiculous situation and “the state to which the world has come”. The deponent states that he has no reason to suspect NIGEL, in any circumstances whatsoever, and that he appeared to him a normal citizen, with a normal family. He never again thought about this conversation and only reports it of all the situations of the week, he has no incident to register or relate."

      This incident was later trivialized and sanitized - in true Team McCann style - by Kate, Russell and Matt into an attempt to pretend it was Nigel who approached them and said he felt like a dirty old man filming his own daughter. Which makes no sense at all and is not credible.

      http://missingmadeleine.forumotion.net/t8660-russell-o-brien-statement-4th-may-2007

      Delete
  23. Why does anyone believe a word either of them utters?
    She was jealous of the attention?
    She slept alone?
    Believe nothing, especially neglect. Oh and if all sleuths treated the case as nine suspects rather than two, you might get somewhere.

    ReplyDelete
  24. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  25. I hate to interrupt the discussion about possible peado activity. I personally don't buy that angle. In the event that those statements were made by the gaspers and the social worker Martin that would have prompted an immediate investigation. In such cases the greater powers of investigation lies with social services not the police. In such a high profile case they could not afford to be anything other than very diligent in that investigation. If evidence was found of activity of that nature it would have come to light by now. That of course is not the reason for my comment I really have to lol at some of the comments here about mothers of young children and that people can generalise their sexual behaviour. It's nearly I was always too tired when mine were wee so it the same for everybody. What utter rubbish. I worked a number of years in holiday resorts and let me tell you that while I never came accross the organised swinging party that Textusa talks about at times it wasn't far off it. Some of the guys I used to work with used to just love it when the young mums came along. Often a few of the fathers would take the children on one of the organised trips and the young mums either got it off with either the guys who they booked the trips of or other young men at the resort. I'm not saying anywhere close to the majority of the young mums done this but it was a regular occurrence and believe you me quite often after the shannaghans of the day they all met up for a nights drinking without an embarrassed look amount them. I don't think that too many of these people would have been embarrassed to meet up for a chat at the water cooler.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. “What utter rubbish”.

      Is that how you normally begin a discussion with other people? And do they bother to reply to you? I said that women with very young children, in my experience, are “rarely at their most sexually experimental”. I’m not quite sure how your lip-smacking, “believe you me” tales of low-life shagging quite address the point. Believe you me.

      Delete
    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    3. Lol blacksmith you rock. I'm not saying one way or another if there was swinging I just don't think you can say in this day an age that there may be a fair percentage of young women with young children who are not sexually experimental and classifying such people as low life is a bit unfair I think. For the record it was a family friendly resort. Nonetheless the comment was not aimed at what you said because as I say I think you rock

      Delete
  26. Genuine question. Are you a McCann supporter or sceptic, Not Textusa?

    Either way, your blog is very funny.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    2. A sceptic who doesn't believe that blood was found in 5A and that the dogs marking blood and cadaverine in the apartment doesn't mean the body was ever there! Plus, dog sniffed bones in the backyard!
      Who do you think you're fooling Not Textusa?

      Delete
  27. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not Textusa, so you agree that Maddie's body was in the back garden where the dog marked?
      And was also where the dogs marked i.e. below the window in the living-room and in the closet of the bedroom?

      Delete
    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    3. No, you said HERE you were a sceptic. I said HERE you were trying to fool everyone.
      It is HERE you should clarify whether:
      1. You agree or not that Maddie's body was in the back garden where the dog marked.
      2. You agree or not that Maddie's body was below the window in the living-room.
      3. You agree or not that Maddie's body was in closet of the bedroom.
      Yes or No answers will suffice, thank you.

      Delete
    4. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    5. All 3 questions have a simple answer for ANY sceptic: YES.
      Even angry, the answer expected would be "yes to all 3 and if you want anything else please take it to my blog".
      No, you just won't commit yourself to those 3 answers so you dodged them and now running away. Just showing your true colours.

      Delete
    6. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    7. Continue dodging, you fool no one.

      Delete
    8. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    9. No, not scared at all:
      1. Yes, I agree that Maddie's body was in the back garden where the dog marked.
      2. Yes, I agree that Maddie's body was below the window in the living-room.
      3. Yes, I agree that Maddie's body was in closet of the bedroom.
      Your turn.

      Delete
  28. Ros says:

    "Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton12 February 2016 at 12:29

    I'm happy to publish different opinions JJ, censoring them doesn't make them go away, and it opens them up for discussion.

    Over the past few days a number of us have had the opportunity to examine the swinging theory in greater detail and offer reasoned, logical arguments to challenge those different opinions."
    --------------------------

    So if I open a blog/forum inviting discussion about you being a prostitute, whore, slag, promiscuous, swinger etc (all of which are legal) without any foundation or proof whatsoever you will not complain?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    2. @ Not Textusa13 February 2016 at 17:14

      yes it certainly exists but has been complained about by Ros in the past.

      What is the difference?

      Delete
    3. And I am sure if I were suspected of murdering my child and committing a multi million pound fraud it would have quite an audience.

      But as NT pointed out, you already have a forum for that - JATKY2, and of course all the hundreds of pages on me that you and Stop the Myths included in the Death Dossier handed to Scotland Yard.

      Delete
    4. @ Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton13 February 2016 at 17:36

      Can you please provide evidence that the Mccanns are suspected of murdering their or committing a multi million pound fraud?

      As you and NT have already pointed out, incorrectly, I am not a member of any forum - so why not just answer the question?

      Is it fair - to make allegations and open them for public discussions without any evidence?

      Delete
    5. Is there such a thing as a pro McCann anymore. It's seems to me there is those who believe the McCanns and their friends done it on their own or there are those who believe they have varying degrees of help

      Delete
    6. Can you provide evidence that no-one suspects the McCanns? Because the last poll I saw, had over 80% suspecting them. Are you going to demand evidence from each and every one of us?

      Meanwhile, I refer readers and indeed yourself, to the World Wide Web, and more specifically to 'The Truth of the Lie' by Goncalo Amaral.

      Meanwhile I refer readers to the World Wide Web

      Delete
  29. Bless the lovely BB1 and her couple of supporters - yes BB1, no BB1, three bags full BB1.

    I think we might have met before on other forums, anonymous at 16.21. You sound very familiar.

    It's not illegal to be a prostitute in the U K but there are connected issues such as running a brothel and kerb crawling which are.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    2. I was thinking not of the multilingual (?) Pedro but of someone whose user name suggested something going on behind a piece of household furniture; he spontaneously combusted when people didn't agree with him.

      Okay he didn't really combust, he just flounced off and deleted his accounts.

      Delete
    3. Hi Janet, yes they are indeed a peculiar bunch on JATKY2 and their sister site Stop the Myths. There is little sign of any education in there, and although they sound juvenile, their use of the words 'harpy' and 'harpies' puts them at 70+.

      They are clearly not proud of their words and activities because they are so petrified that their real identities will be revealed. It was interesting however that Sir Bernard HH said the death dossier was given to the police by the 'family'. The Sky report claimed it was a group of concerned citizens.

      The psychotic (and cowardly) Sykes reserves his Christian name solely for the use of his family and friends - what a weirdo, lol, perhaps he also thinks cameras steal your soul.

      BB1, Sabot, Lily. Pedro, they are all creeps and they know it, if they were the concerned citizens they pretend to be, they wouldn't be hiding and they wouldn't be so ashamed of what they do.

      Delete
  30. @ Ros - why should people not comment on your sexual experiences (pre age of consent and otherwise) that you have repeatedly commented on this blog?

    You have made it public and have demonstrated your attitude to underage sex quite clear.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I have a number of stalkers 17:51, some of whom may be sexually motivated, who knows. In any event, I have no intention of catering for their perverse tastes. If it's titillation you want, you may be better off with a dedicated site more in tune with what you are looking for.

      Delete
    2. @ Ros Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton13 February 2016 at 19:41

      I have a number of stalkers 17:51, some of whom may be sexually motivated, who knows. In any event, I have no intention of catering for their perverse tastes. If it's titillation you want, you may be better off with a dedicated site more in tune with what you are looking for.

      ------------------------

      I wonder if you have the same number of "stalkers" that the Mccanns have? You refer to "titillation" and perverse tastes but yet this year (it is only February) you have blogs titled:

      PAEDOPHILIA - A RATIONAL DISCOURSE
      A MESSAGE TO CSA SURVIVORS
      SEXUAL ABUSE .V. PHYSICAL ABUSE
      THE SWINGING THEORY

      So Ros- who is focusing on sex and titillation - which according to you is perfectly acceptable for open discussion/debate

      Delete
    3. I truly hadn't realised that discussion of the above (yucky)topics was in any way titillating. I sure do have a lot to learn. Is that why these are 'forbidden' topics?

      The first title you quote makes the content quite clear - a RATIONAL DISCOURSE. Now whether that is some sort of secret code for party night at an upmarket brothel, I have no idea.

      Delete
    4. @ Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton13 February 2016 at 21:09

      you invited comment from strangers on the internet to comment - not a secret code an open invitation.

      Delete
    5. I don't fear 'strangers' as you do 21:23, the idea is absurd.

      I have actually been really impressed with the calibre of the replies I received, it was a great discussion. I don't think I spammed anything.

      The idea that these topics should not be discussed is ridiculous - most people can discuss these subjects intellectually and rationally, there is no titillation involved.

      Delete
  31. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  32. @ Not Textusa13 February 2016 at 18:45

    a) it is a blog and not a thread
    b) according to Ros anyone with any view is welcome here.

    By the way - did you ever post comments here before the blogs were of a sexual nature? I did.

    ReplyDelete
  33. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  34. @ Not Textusa13 February 2016 at 20:56

    the fact that you didn't answer the question says much more about you.

    ReplyDelete
  35. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Love it.
      Not Textusa You are so funny, witty - always verbally superior to the posters trying to get at you.
      I don't see anything mean in you. Ok your blog makes fun of and ridicules Textusa, but what else can one expect , strange indeed she's got people who actually take the ramblings seriously. I read your take on her main blog about the swinging...couldn't stop laughing. Don't bother about the 'critics', they're just boring with no sense of humour;)

      Delete
    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
  36. @ Not Textusa13 February 2016 at 21:41

    lets follow your format:

    a) my comment wasn't offensive

    b) I have taken the time to look back at the blog topics that I referred to - and no - you didn't comment.

    c) did you post here under a different name "a long time ago"

    Oh and by the way - Ros knows exactly what me real name is so don't do the anonymous thing.

    Oh and by the way 2 - how do you know that George is verdi?

    ReplyDelete
  37. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    3. @ Not Textusa13 February 2016 at 22:35

      your "non" answer is noted.

      Delete
  38. I think Textusa was right not to post this week and just let you all flitter your discussions into nothing. She has given you a lot of evidence in her blog for why she believes there was high class swinging and not one of you have addressed any of her indicators. All you have done is come up with the same old line that's it's ridiculous and you wouldn't do it and ridicule and insult anybody who disagrees with you

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes this really is only a place for those with little intelligence. Ridicule and insult - its just a short term solution

      Delete
    2. Your fears may lie in the fact that the more intelligent followers of this case now have somewhere to air their views, without having to swear allegiance to any one particular theory or person. This is a place for legitimate discussion it is not, as John Blacksmith kindly pointed out, a place to air prejudice and hate. It bears no resemblance whatsoever to the cesspit or JATKY2.

      I have had people advising me on where I am going wrong and who I should ban/fall out with, but as far as I am concerned if people are civil and courteous, I will publish their comments. I'm not really bothered what they do elsewhere, it is beyond my control and its not something I would lose any sleep over. If people are trying to hide their real identity, that's their problem, not mine, I don't really care who they are.

      Delete
  39. What an awful blog. Shame on Rosalinda and Not Textusa.
    Attack, attack, attack on anyone who dares to oppose your views.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    2. Where are the attacks? This is a discussion where people are allowed to exchange different points of view. I don't ban people because they don't agree with me. As if? lol.

      I'm not bothered one way or another if swinging was going on, I'm just pointing out how ludicrous the theory is, as indeed are several others.

      I endeavour to respond to everyone with courtesy and respect 22:45, I only bitchslap those who are downright rude.

      Delete
  40. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not Textusa13 February 2016 at 22:46

      Textusa has not provided any evidence, so it is therefore impossible to address what you describe as ''indicators''
      -----------------------

      A bit like your assertion that George is verdi.

      Explain.

      Delete
  41. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Yes, please do take it over to NT's blog, these squabbles are getting tedious.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton13 February 2016 at 23:01

      Yes, please do take it over to NT's blog, these squabbles are getting tedious.
      --------------------

      I agree

      Delete
  43. Sorry, but isn't this blog about the swinging? If Textusa/Nuala are their biggest supporters and Not Textusa their biggest opposer, why take the discussion elsewhere?

    ReplyDelete
  44. “JJ 12 February 2016 at 11:49
    Can anybody produce a single provable fact to support swinging. There is zero so far.”


    JJ can you tell me what evidence of swinging you would expect to find to convince you?
    There is the fact that the PJ knew there was swinging, that's why they searched for it on the computers they confiscated but that doesn’t seem to convince you. You don't seem to trust the PJ's judgement on this.
    What specifically would you consider “swinging evidence”? I’m curious.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. According to Pedro, the guy who ran the chemist in Praia Da Luz, in the last week of April 2007, he completely sold out of condoms. He hastily ordered thousands more from a supplier in Lisbon - and they all sold out in 24 hours!!!

      Unfortunately for Pedro, the MI5 agents who were in Luz (probably swinging themselves) 'offed' him before he could give a statement to the PJ.

      Alas, poor Pedro could have had them all caught with their pants down, so to speak. Swing Low Sweet Chariot.

      Delete
  45. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  46. The question was addressed to JJ and not to you Not Textusa and I would appreciate if JJ would answer without you helping JJ out.
    But you can also answer the question: "What specifically would you consider “swinging evidence”?

    ReplyDelete
  47. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So PJ searching for the word "swing" on ALL seized computers was what for? From where did they get the idea to search for such?
      http://textusa.blogspot.pt/2014/04/why-swing.html

      Delete
  48. Actually I am quite curious as to the evidence for swinging.

    When and where was it going on? Was it during the night, with the guests running in and out of each other's apartments, maybe with a whistle or a bell that signals all change?

    Did it take place while the children were at the crèche? If so, it must have been very cold and calculating with fixed appointments and no time for foreplay. Maybe OK for automatons but a bit of a turn off for human beings who usually need a bit of soft lighting, alcohol/drugs and Barry White to get in the mood.

    Or maybe it was during the day between tennis lessons or when the kids were having an afternoon nap and nanny Diane was making the sarnies?

    Whether it was day or night, this group still had to face each other and nanny Diane over dinner every evening. How do swinging theorists imagine the conversations went? Did they compare notes on each other's wives/husbands. Were there recriminations from the ones left holding the babies?

    Has Textusa ever stated when and where these shenanigans were taking place? Where exactly has she got her swinging theory from?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2008/09/madeleine-mccann-plausible-theory.html

      Delete
    2. I can answer where the swinging theory came from. It is Textusa's own interpretation that she made up in September 2008 and Joana Morais gave it an airing on the 9th September 2008.
      Look up Madeleine McCann - "a plausible theory" on Joana's site and there you will find the whole load of crap. Read it before it goes!

      A hotchpotch of nonsense and innuendo . One of her claims was that the Macs were in a swingers ring, directly or indirectly, with Gordon Brown and it gets worse.
      She states she believes Kate McCann had David Payne's penis in her mouth when Madeleine caught them at it and either Kate or Payne struck out and Madeleine died. Read it for yourself, some may think Textusa and Bennett are related, sex, sex, sex.

      As I said previously Bennett, Textusa, and Nuala have sewers for minds. They have no evidence, just smear, innuendo and lies and people still believe their 'research'

      Delete
    3. http://textusatheory.blogspot.pt/2012/01/foreword.html

      Delete
    4. So no answer from you JJ about what "swinging evidence" would be?

      Delete
    5. Lol, you have certainly put it in a nutshell JJ!

      This may be where Clarence got his startled 'ludicrous' statement. He had a point!

      You put it rather more graphically than myself JJ, but what an obliging chap the macho, alpha male, bad tempered Gerry must be, not only to support his wife's grotesque behaviour in front of the children, but also to support the good friend who was violating his family. Just don't see it! As you say, there is a good chance it will vanish at some point.

      Delete
    6. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    7. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    8. "Is there an echo in here?"

      Sorry, I couldn't resist to quote you :D

      Zoe

      Delete
  49. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  50. The swinging theory was mentioned in the Panorama programme of 19th November 2007.


    snipped transcript:-

    BILTON: But it's in this atmosphere that a former PJ detective goes on Portuguese television and without any corroboration accuses the McCanns of being swingers.

    MAY 13th

    JOSE BARRA da COSTA
    Former Policia Judiciaria
    There are people who guarantee that this is a couple who practice 'swinging' - i.e. sexual relationships between couples and then changing partners, and that this practice would allow in this type of...

    BILTON: When you say: "there are people who say..." I'm assuming you are quoting....

    DA COSTA: People who know obviously. I cannot reveal the source here because I would lose it.

    BILTON: The Portuguese police publicly disowned the allegation, also denied by the McCanns. But such stories are damaging. Then within weeks at a press conference in Germany, this question to the McCanns?

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/7106086.stm

    ReplyDelete
  51. Anonymous 16.38, February 13.

    It would be rude of me not to acknowledge your comment, so thank you and we’d better forget my slightly tough words.

    Look, let me make clear what “experimental” meant. It has nothing to do with generalizing about women’s sexuality, or women generally, or about levels of sex drive, blah blah, or modern morals or the rest of it. I’m not equipped to do so.

    Unlike true orgies*, the best of which are, I think, spontaneous and unplanned, “organized” group sexual activity, whether it is sharing partners, sharing kinks, sharing young boys or horses or wetsuits and the million other possible variations, involves “organization”, doesn’t it?

    There are potential members to be sought, vetted, brought into the group; there are decisions to be taken about where to meet and who to exclude. Doing it properly, like Gottfried von Bismark in 2007, involved, for example, carpeting his entire Chelsea flat with rubber sheets. Doing it badly, like Gottfried von Bismark in 2007, meant forgetting to stop his stoned boyfriends going up onto the roof during the fun – with the result that one of them was found in Cadogan Gardens looking like pink road-kill.
    There are decisions, and very important ones, to be mulled over, about secrecy levels – just one’s parents? Just ones’ employers? – and what might happen if the wrong people find out. Wrong people, by the way, includes not just vicars but partners or ex-partners freaking out and burying an axe in their ex-lover’s’ head, as the tabloids frequently reveal.

    My whole point was that when you have infants and all the work and emotional changes that go with them – leaving aside such bourgeois notions as wanting to cherish and protect and love your young child – you are much less likely to be interested in any organizational demands and requirements than at other stages of your life, even if it only means making out a shopping list. That is not a conclusive argument – Textusa’s inventions don’t need conclusive arguments – but a simple, not particularly important, point for consideration.

    *The late and very unlamented champagne socialist, lecher, and extremely well-fed Rumpole creator, John Mortimer, was good about orgies – “all that hanging around having to hold your stomach in for hours and hours”.

    ReplyDelete
  52. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  53. And can I just add, again, my admiration for Ros, her writings and opening her blog up to comments, despite the absolute certainty that it will result in insults and abuse from anonymous people who have never met her.

    There is a certain open-minded tone, a lack of spleen and malice, in this blog that the McCann groupies and the more brainwashed antis loathe. Jill Havern, probably a nice person when you meet her, completely lost her bearings when given the power of a forum and, most regrettably, gave way to a secret pleasure in seeing people fighting, the more viciously the better. There’s nothing remotely like that from Ros.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Many thanks for your replies.

    I've had a look at the Joanna Morais blog, I've always followed Joanna, but I probably read this one and dismissed it. Why? Because it begins with a huge supposition, Maddie catching her mother in a compromising position with David Payne. When people just make things up, I tend to switch off.

    Textusa has made a huge assumption about people she doesn't know from Adam, so much so that she presumes to know their sexual peccadillos to such an extent that one could picture her as a fly on the wall.

    Not only do I find this second guessing creepy, it appears to be loosely based on the circumstances in which Joana Cipriano disappeared. Eight year old Joana returned home to find her mother engaging in incestuous sexual activity with her brother and was subsequently murdered to protect their dark secret.

    It is a kind of quick fix, well its happened before so it must have happened again, conclusion. The clumsy ill thought out theory of Watson, before Sherlock applies his analytical mind.

    The case of poor little Joana has been cynically used by the McCanns and their supporters to libel and slander Goncalo Amaral. Though the mother and uncle confessed, were found guilty and are in prison, Team McCann continue to claim the mother was framed.

    Textusa begins her premise with the words sex and power. Well there is not much sex and power to be had playing pass the spouse in an upmarket Butlins. In fact, it would be the kind of holiday that could bring an abrupt end to all dreams of sex and power should their nocturnal habits be discovered. I think most peoples' toes would curl at the idea of parents taking their young children on a sex holiday.

    As to the idea of some sort of sexual ring or chain that went all the way to 10 Downing Street, again, flights of fantasy. Why does everything have to be sexual?

    It could be said that the government were bamboozled into assisting the McCanns. While the parents and their friends were calling in favours, they were already establishing themselves as the tragic victims of a heinous crime. Not assisting Kate and Gerry would have been the political equivalent of putting a video of Gordon Brown kicking puppies on Youtube.

    I have no doubt whatsoever that when realisation kicked in, the powers that be were in a predicament where they either had to continue supporting the parents or admit they had been duped.

    ReplyDelete
  55. continued


    As it happened, the government support seemed to come to an end around mid June, when the McCanns and their huge entourage had to give up their accommodation in Warners and cater for themselves on the outside.

    In the very revealing September 2007 interview with Vanity Fair, Clarence Mitchell complains that they were asking for a meeting with a high level Minister, but all they were offered was mid level consuls. It seems at this stage the cosy tet a tets between the Browns and the McCanns were over.

    In fact all the high level assistance the McCanns received came to an end when they were made Arguidoes. Most, if not all, the A list stars, celebrities and VIPs quietly disappeared.

    As for the parents being granted their Review and the £12m+ for a full investigation, I think this was a case of be careful what you wish for. Had Labour stayed in power, the report from CEOP could have been left to gather dust, or followed to the letter, giving the parents an official status of 'not guilty'. Their plans for the Madeleine Fund had been thwarted by their arguido status and the cloud of suspicion that hung over them.

    When they launched Kate's book they needed an altruistic reason to raise further funds and they had to be seen as begging the authorities for help in order to reinforce their victim status. I don't suppose for one moment they thought the stern and unemotional Theresa May would grant their request. Jim Gamble had already resigned from CEOP and it was common knowledge that relations between himself and Theresa May were not exactly friendly. The McCanns were demanding that the CEOP report should be acted on. In their interviews at the time they were complaining that the previous government had sat on the report and all they had from Theresa May were 'fluffy words'.

    After their criticism of Theresa May, the McCanns were granted their wish, but what are the chances that she instructed Operation Grange to base their review and investigation on the CEOP report?

    ReplyDelete
  56. Oops, the Vanity Fair interview was January 2008
    http://www.mccannfiles.com/id63.html

    ReplyDelete
  57. 13 Feb 23-35
    14 Feb 13-51

    The PJ did not know there was swinging. They were checking out rumours, as in any proper investigation and found nothing.

    Not Textusa and others have already pointed this out more than once.

    On swinging evidence I would expect the Ocean Club, Mark Warner/Thomas Cook brochure/website, would show closed for private function that week. There is no way a swingers convention would be happening with non participating customers present. It would damage the business reputation of MW and TC.

    I would expect the locals to be aware of this swingers convention and not one person has ever spoken out.

    I would have expected the gutter press of the UK to dig and dig about these rumours but not one person has ever spoken out. If RM had swinging information on his computer you would think he would be aware of the International Swingers Convention and returned home for the start of the fun.

    I would expect there would be a string of emails, texts etc passing between the 300 plus swingers, not a one has come to light.

    There would be a meet and greet reception, there would be cabarets, entertainments and organised games etc, no evidence has ever come to light.

    The OC would have to provide many shagging rooms. Locals would be cleaning these rooms, no evidence whatsoever has come to light.

    I would expect discretion both from the OC and the swingers but the OC was open to anybody walking in off the street.

    I would expect the swingers convention to be held in a secure place with a restricted entrance to keep out prying eyes and non participants. They could not have picked a more open sprawling venue where shuttle buses were used to ferry customers from place to place. Hardly conducive for 'love'!

    I would have expected some guests, swingers or not, would have asked for a refund but nothing has ever come to light. I would expect the swingers to be in a particular age band, they were not.

    The whole swinging theory is a result of one or two sad individuals who don't get out enough!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. JJ you would expect the gutter press in the uk to read the pj files and highlight the absolute lies told by the mccanns and their friends. You would expect them to alert their paying public to the evidence provided by grimes dogs but still we wait. You would expect them to comment on the absolute rubbish that Michel spouted over the years but again nothing. Why would the fact that they never commented on potential swinging be any different

      Delete
    2. JJ
      "The PJ did not know there was swinging. They were checking out rumours, as in any proper investigation and found nothing"
      And rumours come from where? From people. People who told PJ.

      Delete
  58. Again John Blacksmith really does rock thanks for the reply. Another of your predictions have come to pass. Everything from saying the Msm would pay for their coverage of the McCann case, to the result of the Scottish referendum to the fact that Scotland Yard would eventually make it was back to PDL it's all there in his blog. If you say John that swinging is a red herring I wouldn't bet against you. I also think both cristobel and Textusa contribute significantly to what Textusa calls the great maddie war. I see you all on the same side

    ReplyDelete
  59. So 187 comments(at the time of me writing thing) - for a "theory" (or should that be "myth") that was withdrawn in 2012.

    I agree - textusa should remove it and ensure that it is removed everywhere it has been posted.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
  60. "Not Textusa14 February 2016 at 14:12

    This comment has been removed by the author."
    ---------------------------------------------

    This fascinates me - how does someone remove their own post?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
  61. @ Not Textusa15 February 2016 at 22:13

    "You are given the option under each post you make. That was a double post, so I deleted one copy"

    Nope - I have just looked back at my posts and that is not an option.

    Maybe it is only for people that are logged in via google.

    ReplyDelete
  62. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete