Re: Textusa Saturday 9/5 11:am

by aiyoyo 09.05.15 23:33

Carrry On Doctor wrote:I have long thought that swinging was prevalent (hence my site name and avatar), as did GA, and I do think that this explains a lot about this case.

Err....which is your site and your avatar?
I don't recall reading GA having expressed his view on that one way or another.

by MRNOODLES 09.05.15 23:37

aiyoyo wrote:
Carrry On Doctor wrote:I have long thought that swinging was prevalent (hence my site name and avatar), as did GA, and I do think that this explains a lot about this case.

Err....which is your site and your avatar?
I don't recall reading GA having expressed his view on that one way or another.

He/she means their name 'carry on doctor'

Anyways I can't recall GA saying anything about swinging either.

by Knitted 10.05.15 3:05

Carrry On Doctor wrote:Snipped: I have long thought that swinging was prevalent (hence my site name and avatar), as did GA, and I do think that this explains a lot about this case.

Hi, if adult swinging was going on it would at worst lead to a bit of salacious gossip and raising of eyebrows amongst the prudishly minded, but I can't believe that most people in the UK would care. OK, some people might not want their bedroom habits made public but I can't see the fear of being outed as a swinger would lead to everyone involved agreeing to cover up of the death of a child. The equation just doesn't add up.

I've seen it suggested that KMc may have been furious at GMc's wandering attentions, (e.g. "the bingo caller"). However, if anything, swingers would surely be less likely to get angry about physical philandering than non-swingers in such a situation?

To create, and maintain, a pact of silence between the group of people there that week that know what happened requires, logically, there to be 'something' worse than a child's death to warrant their unanimous involvement. About the only thing I can think of that is worse than concealing the death of a child, and might lead to such a pact, would be involvement in child sexual abuse.

For others and for organisations (i.e. Government security. [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] ) who were not there that week to then become involved in perpetuating and maintaining the initial cover up (e.g. Operation Grange's explicitly restrictive remit) would logically also require a much bigger circle of people to be involved, all of whom, without fail, would also fear 'something' coming out to be worse than a bunch of holidaymakers covering up a child's death. Considering Establishment cover ups of peadophile rings are now known to have happened, (and appear to be carrying on now), this is about the only thing I can think of that would lead to a much larger circle of people risking getting involved to actively conceal the death of a child.

So, to me I see it as irrelevant if people were either involved in, or were not involved in, consensual adult swinging. Fear of exposure of swinging is insufficient motive to warrant covering up a child's death. There has to therefore, logically, be something worse than covering up a child's death to get a large group of people (many not there that week) all involved and all equally fearful of exposure if just one domino falls.

by Mark Willis 10.05.15 9:34

I have the same problem with Roberts on mccannfiles, where the sentences are so convoluted the meaning is not conveyed.
I see little point in reading anything that resembles a MENSA puzzle.
Give me clarity over verbose crypto-mellifluous non essentials. (How's that for an example? lol)

by plebgate 10.05.15 10:01

Mark Willis wrote:I have the same problem with Roberts on mccannfiles, where the sentences are so convoluted the meaning is not conveyed.
I see little point in reading anything that resembles a MENSA puzzle.
Give me clarity over verbose crypto-mellifluous non essentials. (How's that for an example? lol)

I rarely have trouble understanding Dr. Martin Robert's writings. I think they are excellent.

by Verdi 10.05.15 12:47

OK, I've given the Textusa 'Finale Proof' ramblings a fair crack of the whip, I managed to wade through two pages before the brain scrambled. Moving on to the conclusion in the hope that all would be revealed I was left drained, all wasn't revealed, only more confusion.

If anyone can explain the general drift I would be grateful, it's a total mystery to me.

by Joss 10.05.15 13:23

Verdi wrote:OK, I've given the Textusa 'Finale Proof' ramblings a fair crack of the whip, I managed to wade through two pages before the brain scrambled. Moving on to the conclusion in the hope that all would be revealed I was left drained, all wasn't revealed, only more confusion.

If anyone can explain the general drift I would be grateful, it's a total mystery to me.

I think the article is titled "Definite Proof".
I think it goes in depth into this:
(Quote) It is a follow-up to our “Irrefutable Evidence” post and it will show definitely that the Ocean Club booking sheets are doctored documents.

by willowthewisp 10.05.15 13:55

hi joss,if the documents were altered and the owners of the complex Ocean Club/ Mark Warner are to be held responsible as they owed a duty of care to the people on the register?
How is it possible for Mr & Mrs Hill not to be registered to a Company they were Employed by, the latter Mrs Hill passed the responsibilities of the Creche onto a new manager, three days after Madeleine disappeared, very convenient ? Er, I wasn't in that day?
Additional costs billed to Mr. Gerald Patrick McCann during his stay 28 April-5 May 2007 £242.00, was this account settled by credit / Debit card, as Mr and Mrs McCann had alluded to not be in possession of these facilities or did the burglar/ Abductor pay it for them, eh Andy?

by jeanmonroe 10.05.15 14:32

Additional costs billed to Mr. Gerald Patrick McCann during his stay 28 April-5 May 2007 £242.00
---------------------------------------------

Jezuz!

That seems an awful lot, to spend on 'cleaning' products! laughat

(Bleach, clothes, toothbrushes, (to 'clean' all those nasty little awkward crevices between floor tiles, air 'freshners' (that'll 'fool' any sniffer dogs, Gerry.......NOT!) etc.,)

BUT,........ when 'needs' MUST! winkwink

ps: G McCann certainly 'got back', and THEN SOME, his £242.00p 'additional costs' via both Healy and McCann 'family' members, Uncle Tom Cobbley and ALL, staying, 'gratis' at the MW, OC, for weeks and months, AFTER the event, didn't he?

by jeanmonroe 10.05.15 14:41

Additional costs billed to Mr. Gerald Patrick McCann during his stay 28 April-5 May 2007........ £242.00p
----------------------------------------

£242.00p 'additional 'costs'.

To pay for 'repairs' to the G5A apartment 'SMASHED, FORCED, BROKEN INTO' shutter ~~he SHOULD have~~ 'jemmied'?

by Joss 10.05.15 15:24

willowthewisp wrote:hi joss,if the documents were altered and the owners of the complex Ocean Club/ Mark Warner are to be held responsible as they owed a duty of care to the people on the register?
How is it possible for Mr & Mrs Hill not to be registered to a Company they were Employed by, the latter Mrs Hill passed the responsibilities of the Creche onto a new manager, three days after Madeleine disappeared, very convenient ? Er, I wasn't in that day?
Additional costs billed to Mr. Gerald Patrick McCann during his stay 28 April-5 May 2007 £242.00, was this account settled by credit / Debit card, as Mr and Mrs McCann had alluded to not be in possession of these facilities or did the burglar/ Abductor pay it for them, eh Andy?

Hi willowthewisp, It's all very convoluted, but this is what Textusa said:
(Quote)
One cannot pretend that John and Donna Hill's names do not appear in either Ocean Club of Mark Warner employee list even though one is manager and the other on May 4 claims to MW's childcare manager and only to be “replaced” by Lyndsay Johnson a couple of days later.

One cannot let go unnoticed that by their own words the nannies on duty at the night crèche on May 3 2007 abandoned the children who were in the crèche when they were supposedly told Maddie had disappeared by a woman, Dawn Bullen, who couldn't have possibly have that information when it's said she has.

And today one cannot ignore that the booking sheets were tampered with including the people who supposedly arrived after Maddie disappeared.

In sum, one cannot pretend that there wasn't in situ a wide circle of people, which included guests, Ocean Club, Mark Warner and ex-pats who were actively and directly involved in obstructing justice in finding out the truth as to what really happened to Maddie McCann.

A circle obviously much, much bigger than those 9 people who we know as Tapas 9.

by willowthewisp 10.05.15 16:22

Hi Joss, thanks for the reply, one thing that is alarming was, if the nannies left the creche to look for madeleine(understandable),were their still young children left at the creche without staff being there?
There are quite a lot of people who disagree with Mr & Mrs McCanns versions of events along with the special group from the Tapas and the amount of people available to assist the couple at the time of Madeleine's disappearance,insistence of abduction?
As TB has stated, that the Lawyers acting on their behalf had to admit, that their was no signs of an Abduction!
Operation Grange remit-Abduction, DCI Redwood, crime watch,"Stranger Abduction" where is the Evidence, as Gerry would say?
It is abundantly clear that person's have tried to deceive,deflect,obfuscate to the Truth of what happened to Madeleine and the clear manipulation by the MSM is paramount in this case.
I can only hope that people stay strong and resolute to the proven factual gathered evidence that some sort of Justice will prevail, good luck Mr Goncalo Amaral with your appeal and hopefully funding will not be an issue in your defence as a special couple have had access to a fund in their campaign, clearly unequal scales of Justice?

by Liz Eagles 10.05.15 16:55

I have a problem with anything Textusa writes because the blog clearly states that it believes in the swinging theory which comes without a shred of proof. Everything else on the blog has to fit around the swinging theory claim.

Then there are the black hats, white hats, see previous blogs, using 500 words when 50 will do in order to make things clear to as many people as possible, the diagrams, the sisterhood, the 'we shall not be publishing' as if their publication is of grave significance and you have my opinion of Textusa's blog.

Textusa's blog seems a lot of convoluted nonsense to me. The only continuity in it is the declaration of swinging.

Just my opinion.

by cloak'ndagger 10.05.15 17:27

I found this somewhat easier to get my head around ,Textusa debunked

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

And for the non techie people like myself this is even easier

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by Liz Eagles 10.05.15 18:05

cloak'ndagger wrote:I found this somewhat easier to get my head around ,Textusa debunked

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

And for the non techie people like myself this is even easier

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by Joss 10.05.15 18:13

cloak'ndagger wrote:I found this somewhat easier to get my head around ,Textusa debunked

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

And for the non techie people like myself this is even easier

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Each to their own i guess.

by HelenMeg 10.05.15 18:28

aquila wrote:I have a problem with anything Textusa writes because the blog clearly states that it believes in the swinging theory which comes without a shred of proof. Everything else on the blog has to fit around the swinging theory claim.

Then there are the black hats, white hats, see previous blogs, using 500 words when 50 will do in order to make things clear to as many people as possible, the diagrams, the sisterhood, the 'we shall not be publishing' as if their publication is of grave significance and you have my opinion of Textusa's blog.

Textusa's blog seems a lot of convoluted nonsense to me. The only continuity in it is the declaration of swinging.

Just my opinion.

Well, each to their own - but there is indication of swinging. If not, why did the PJ search for swinging* when they first got hold of the computers - (Murats/ Sergei Malinka's etc) - what led them to do that?
I think that Textusa has argued very convincingly a number of times that a number of the other guests ( there were 60 there that week) were involved in the cover up. She has shown how Murat's involvement was planned and did not happen by chance - she has shown how guests such as Carpenter and others helped in the 'coverup' with the aid of their statements.
Here on this forum we have often discussed how TAPAS9 appeared to know other guests out of the 60 present - they didnt just meet each other at the Ocean Club. 60 guests including some high status people.
There is a great deal to indicate a swinging party that week - or adult lifestyle party that week. Textusa has shown how there were an unnatural amount of extra workers brought in to the Ocean Club in terms of nannies for an out of season week. Textusa has shown how the OC are implicated in the cover up. She has shown how the big round table was a fake and that the TAPAS meals in the evening snever existed but the booking sheets were conjured up...
Whether you believe it was a party of swingers or not she has convincingly managed to show that both guests and OC were involved in the cover up.
I do find it really odd the amount of criticism that gets thrown at Textusa - if you really dont agree and think it nonsense then why come on the thread to comment? Why noty leave it to those of us that can see the point? I dont contribute to threads that I think are nonsense such as the drowning thread - I dont feel the need to go on there and criticize - how negative it is when people just want to criticise others.

Do you think people like Textusa are spending hours and hours going through statements and files just to spout nonsense or to mislead? If you are so frustated by her posts then why waste your valuable time even commenting? Sorry - i Just cant understand those that want to be so negative about people who are trying to find the truth. Is that your contribution to helping find the truth about Madeleine?

Tony spends hours going into details to explain his thoughts and theories - he makes valuable contributions and often gets similar negative feedback... what really is in the minds of those who seek to critice others' theories but rarely contribute themselves? Someone please explain that to me?

by Joss 10.05.15 18:47

HelenMeg wrote:
aquila wrote:I have a problem with anything Textusa writes because the blog clearly states that it believes in the swinging theory which comes without a shred of proof. Everything else on the blog has to fit around the swinging theory claim.

Then there are the black hats, white hats, see previous blogs, using 500 words when 50 will do in order to make things clear to as many people as possible, the diagrams, the sisterhood, the 'we shall not be publishing' as if their publication is of grave significance and you have my opinion of Textusa's blog.

Textusa's blog seems a lot of convoluted nonsense to me. The only continuity in it is the declaration of swinging.

Just my opinion.
Well, each to their own - but there is indication of swinging. If not, why did the PJ search for swinging* when they first got hold of the computers - (Murats/ Sergei Malinka's etc) - what led them to do that?
I think that Textusa has argued very convincingly a number of times that a number of the other guests ( there were 60 there that week) were involved in the cover up. She has shown how Murat's involvement was planned and did not happen by chance - she has shown how guests such as Carpenter and others helped in the 'coverup' with the aid of their statements.
Here on this forum we have often discussed how TAPAS9 appeared to know other guests out of the 60 present - they didnt just meet each other at the Ocean Club. 60 guests including some high status people.
There is a great deal to indicate a swinging party that week - or adult lifestyle party that week. Textusa has shown how there were an unnatural amount of extra workers brought in to the Ocean Club in terms of nannies for an out of season week. Textusa has shown how the OC are implicated in the cover up. She has shown how the big round table was a fake and that the TAPAS meals in the evening snever existed but the booking sheets were conjured up...
Whether you believe it was a party of swingers or not she has convincingly managed to show that both guests and OC were involved in the cover up.
I do find it really odd the amount of criticism that gets thrown at Textusa - if you really dont agree and think it nonsense then why come on the thread to comment? Why noty leave it to those of us that can see the point? I dont contribute to threads that I think are nonsense such as the drowning thread - I dont feel the need to go on there and criticize - how negative it is when people just want to criticise others.

Do you think people like Textusa are spending hours and hours going through statements and files just to spout nonsense or to mislead? If you are so frustated by her posts then why waste your valuable time even commenting? Sorry - i Just cant understand those that want to be so negative about people who are trying to find the truth. Is that your contribution to helping find the truth about Madeleine?

Tony spends hours going into details to explain his thoughts and theories - he makes valuable contributions and often gets similar negative feedback... what really is in the minds of those who seek to critice others' theories but rarely contribute themselves? Someone please explain that to me?

HelenMeg, ITA, and interesting post. I haven't read all of Textusa's blogs, only a few, but thought she had placed a lot of effort in to it all, even if i didn't agree with all of it, so kudos to her for that.

by Carrry On Doctor 10.05.15 18:56

Apologies for not responding sooner to comment on previous post re swinging.

I had understood that GA had good grounds to suspect that there was a swinging event on that week at OC. I could be wrong, so am open to correction if wrong.........but, they were all 'into' each other......right ?

As for the acceptability of swinging, it is very easy to say that we live in modern times and people are now more open, so this is not a reason to cover up. I think that a group of professional people with aspirations, successful careers, reputations, close family, and most importantly their children to protect might take a different view....as would any wider circle also party to it.

This is TextUSA's point. It goes wider than the T9 in order to protect reputations.

IMO

by Liz Eagles 10.05.15 19:05

HelenMeg wrote:
aquila wrote:I have a problem with anything Textusa writes because the blog clearly states that it believes in the swinging theory which comes without a shred of proof. Everything else on the blog has to fit around the swinging theory claim.

Then there are the black hats, white hats, see previous blogs, using 500 words when 50 will do in order to make things clear to as many people as possible, the diagrams, the sisterhood, the 'we shall not be publishing' as if their publication is of grave significance and you have my opinion of Textusa's blog.

Textusa's blog seems a lot of convoluted nonsense to me. The only continuity in it is the declaration of swinging.

Just my opinion.
Well, each to their own - but there is indication of swinging. If not, why did the PJ search for swinging* when they first got hold of the computers - (Murats/ Sergei Malinka's etc) - what led them to do that?
I think that Textusa has argued very convincingly a number of times that a number of the other guests ( there were 60 there that week) were involved in the cover up. She has shown how Murat's involvement was planned and did not happen by chance - she has shown how guests such as Carpenter and others helped in the 'coverup' with the aid of their statements.
Here on this forum we have often discussed how TAPAS9 appeared to know other guests out of the 60 present - they didnt just meet each other at the Ocean Club. 60 guests including some high status people.
There is a great deal to indicate a swinging party that week - or adult lifestyle party that week. Textusa has shown how there were an unnatural amount of extra workers brought in to the Ocean Club in terms of nannies for an out of season week. Textusa has shown how the OC are implicated in the cover up. She has shown how the big round table was a fake and that the TAPAS meals in the evening snever existed but the booking sheets were conjured up...
Whether you believe it was a party of swingers or not she has convincingly managed to show that both guests and OC were involved in the cover up.
I do find it really odd the amount of criticism that gets thrown at Textusa - if you really dont agree and think it nonsense then why come on the thread to comment? Why noty leave it to those of us that can see the point? I dont contribute to threads that I think are nonsense such as the drowning thread - I dont feel the need to go on there and criticize - how negative it is when people just want to criticise others.

Do you think people like Textusa are spending hours and hours going through statements and files just to spout nonsense or to mislead? If you are so frustated by her posts then why waste your valuable time even commenting? Sorry - i Just cant understand those that want to be so negative about people who are trying to find the truth. Is that your contribution to helping find the truth about Madeleine?

Tony spends hours going into details to explain his thoughts and theories - he makes valuable contributions and often gets similar negative feedback... what really is in the minds of those who seek to critice others' theories but rarely contribute themselves? Someone please explain that to me?

We're all going on a swinging holiday? is that what you're saying is credible?

Swinging happens in UK.

Why go for a swinging holiday with your kids in tow to Butlins-on-Sea?

by cloak'ndagger 10.05.15 19:16

HelenMeg wrote:
aquila wrote:I have a problem with anything Textusa writes because the blog clearly states that it believes in the swinging theory which comes without a shred of proof. Everything else on the blog has to fit around the swinging theory claim.

Then there are the black hats, white hats, see previous blogs, using 500 words when 50 will do in order to make things clear to as many people as possible, the diagrams, the sisterhood, the 'we shall not be publishing' as if their publication is of grave significance and you have my opinion of Textusa's blog.

Textusa's blog seems a lot of convoluted nonsense to me. The only continuity in it is the declaration of swinging.

Just my opinion.
Well, each to their own - but there is indication of swinging. If not, why did the PJ search for swinging* when they first got hold of the computers - (Murats/ Sergei Malinka's etc) - what led them to do that?
I think that Textusa has argued very convincingly a number of times that a number of the other guests ( there were 60 there that week) were involved in the cover up. She has shown how Murat's involvement was planned and did not happen by chance - she has shown how guests such as Carpenter and others helped in the 'coverup' with the aid of their statements.
Here on this forum we have often discussed how TAPAS9 appeared to know other guests out of the 60 present - they didnt just meet each other at the Ocean Club. 60 guests including some high status people.
There is a great deal to indicate a swinging party that week - or adult lifestyle party that week. Textusa has shown how there were an unnatural amount of extra workers brought in to the Ocean Club in terms of nannies for an out of season week. Textusa has shown how the OC are implicated in the cover up. She has shown how the big round table was a fake and that the TAPAS meals in the evening snever existed but the booking sheets were conjured up...
Whether you believe it was a party of swingers or not she has convincingly managed to show that both guests and OC were involved in the cover up.
I do find it really odd the amount of criticism that gets thrown at Textusa - if you really dont agree and think it nonsense then why come on the thread to comment? Why noty leave it to those of us that can see the point? I dont contribute to threads that I think are nonsense such as the drowning thread - I dont feel the need to go on there and criticize - how negative it is when people just want to criticise others.

Do you think people like Textusa are spending hours and hours going through statements and files just to spout nonsense or to mislead? If you are so frustated by her posts then why waste your valuable time even commenting? Sorry - i Just cant understand those that want to be so negative about people who are trying to find the truth. Is that your contribution to helping find the truth about Madeleine?

Tony spends hours going into details to explain his thoughts and theories - he makes valuable contributions and often gets similar negative feedback... what really is in the minds of those who seek to critice others' theories but rarely contribute themselves? Someone please explain that to me?

I do believe that there is a lot of merit in the swinging theory and local gossip has it that the Tapas 9 were part of a swinging group . But it is not enough in my opinion to warrant the massive cover up and swinging per se did not kill Maddie. That is where I disagree with Textusa.. I believe that there were also paedophiles in the group and it was this peado activity that led to Maddie's demise..

Strange that the Ocean Club advertises an ADULT pool as distinct from the two swimming pools on offer.

by Liz Eagles 10.05.15 19:19

cloak'ndagger wrote:
HelenMeg wrote:
aquila wrote:I have a problem with anything Textusa writes because the blog clearly states that it believes in the swinging theory which comes without a shred of proof. Everything else on the blog has to fit around the swinging theory claim.

Then there are the black hats, white hats, see previous blogs, using 500 words when 50 will do in order to make things clear to as many people as possible, the diagrams, the sisterhood, the 'we shall not be publishing' as if their publication is of grave significance and you have my opinion of Textusa's blog.

Textusa's blog seems a lot of convoluted nonsense to me. The only continuity in it is the declaration of swinging.

Just my opinion.
Well, each to their own - but there is indication of swinging. If not, why did the PJ search for swinging* when they first got hold of the computers - (Murats/ Sergei Malinka's etc) - what led them to do that?
I think that Textusa has argued very convincingly a number of times that a number of the other guests ( there were 60 there that week) were involved in the cover up. She has shown how Murat's involvement was planned and did not happen by chance - she has shown how guests such as Carpenter and others helped in the 'coverup' with the aid of their statements.
Here on this forum we have often discussed how TAPAS9 appeared to know other guests out of the 60 present - they didnt just meet each other at the Ocean Club. 60 guests including some high status people.
There is a great deal to indicate a swinging party that week - or adult lifestyle party that week. Textusa has shown how there were an unnatural amount of extra workers brought in to the Ocean Club in terms of nannies for an out of season week. Textusa has shown how the OC are implicated in the cover up. She has shown how the big round table was a fake and that the TAPAS meals in the evening snever existed but the booking sheets were conjured up...
Whether you believe it was a party of swingers or not she has convincingly managed to show that both guests and OC were involved in the cover up.
I do find it really odd the amount of criticism that gets thrown at Textusa - if you really dont agree and think it nonsense then why come on the thread to comment? Why noty leave it to those of us that can see the point? I dont contribute to threads that I think are nonsense such as the drowning thread - I dont feel the need to go on there and criticize - how negative it is when people just want to criticise others.

Do you think people like Textusa are spending hours and hours going through statements and files just to spout nonsense or to mislead? If you are so frustated by her posts then why waste your valuable time even commenting? Sorry - i Just cant understand those that want to be so negative about people who are trying to find the truth. Is that your contribution to helping find the truth about Madeleine?

Tony spends hours going into details to explain his thoughts and theories - he makes valuable contributions and often gets similar negative feedback... what really is in the minds of those who seek to critice others' theories but rarely contribute themselves? Someone please explain that to me?
I do believe that there is a lot of merit in the swinging theory and local gossip has it that the Tapas 9 were part of a swinging group . But it is not enough in my opinion to warrant the massive cover up and swinging per se did not kill Maddie. That is where I disagree with Textusa.. I believe that there were also paedophiles in the group and it was this peado activity that led to Maddie's demise..

Strange that the Ocean Club advertises an ADULT pool as distinct from the two swimming pools on offer.

When a resort advertises an adult pool it simply means it's deep for children and there is a baby pool available doesn't it? or am I too naiive?

by cloak'ndagger 10.05.15 19:26

aquila wrote:
cloak'ndagger wrote:
HelenMeg wrote:
aquila wrote:I have a problem with anything Textusa writes because the blog clearly states that it believes in the swinging theory which comes without a shred of proof. Everything else on the blog has to fit around the swinging theory claim.

Then there are the black hats, white hats, see previous blogs, using 500 words when 50 will do in order to make things clear to as many people as possible, the diagrams, the sisterhood, the 'we shall not be publishing' as if their publication is of grave significance and you have my opinion of Textusa's blog.

Textusa's blog seems a lot of convoluted nonsense to me. The only continuity in it is the declaration of swinging.

Just my opinion.
Well, each to their own - but there is indication of swinging. If not, why did the PJ search for swinging* when they first got hold of the computers - (Murats/ Sergei Malinka's etc) - what led them to do that?
I think that Textusa has argued very convincingly a number of times that a number of the other guests ( there were 60 there that week) were involved in the cover up. She has shown how Murat's involvement was planned and did not happen by chance - she has shown how guests such as Carpenter and others helped in the 'coverup' with the aid of their statements.
Here on this forum we have often discussed how TAPAS9 appeared to know other guests out of the 60 present - they didnt just meet each other at the Ocean Club. 60 guests including some high status people.
There is a great deal to indicate a swinging party that week - or adult lifestyle party that week. Textusa has shown how there were an unnatural amount of extra workers brought in to the Ocean Club in terms of nannies for an out of season week. Textusa has shown how the OC are implicated in the cover up. She has shown how the big round table was a fake and that the TAPAS meals in the evening snever existed but the booking sheets were conjured up...
Whether you believe it was a party of swingers or not she has convincingly managed to show that both guests and OC were involved in the cover up.
I do find it really odd the amount of criticism that gets thrown at Textusa - if you really dont agree and think it nonsense then why come on the thread to comment? Why noty leave it to those of us that can see the point? I dont contribute to threads that I think are nonsense such as the drowning thread - I dont feel the need to go on there and criticize - how negative it is when people just want to criticise others.

Do you think people like Textusa are spending hours and hours going through statements and files just to spout nonsense or to mislead? If you are so frustated by her posts then why waste your valuable time even commenting? Sorry - i Just cant understand those that want to be so negative about people who are trying to find the truth. Is that your contribution to helping find the truth about Madeleine?

Tony spends hours going into details to explain his thoughts and theories - he makes valuable contributions and often gets similar negative feedback... what really is in the minds of those who seek to critice others' theories but rarely contribute themselves? Someone please explain that to me?
I do believe that there is a lot of merit in the swinging theory and local gossip has it that the Tapas 9 were part of a swinging group . But it is not enough in my opinion to warrant the massive cover up and swinging per se did not kill Maddie. That is where I disagree with Textusa.. I believe that there were also paedophiles in the group and it was this peado activity that led to Maddie's demise..

Strange that the Ocean Club advertises an ADULT pool as distinct from the two swimming pools on offer.
When a resort advertises an adult pool it simply means it's deep for children and there is a baby pool available doesn't it? or am I too naiive?

That is what I naively thought too but Textusa explained it otherwise and appears to have local knowledge that the ''adult'' pool was used for adult activities once the children were safely ensconced in the crèche. .You hardly think that the group were playing tennis all day every day

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by Liz Eagles 10.05.15 19:30

cloak'ndagger wrote:
aquila wrote:
cloak'ndagger wrote:
HelenMeg wrote:
aquila wrote:I have a problem with anything Textusa writes because the blog clearly states that it believes in the swinging theory which comes without a shred of proof. Everything else on the blog has to fit around the swinging theory claim.

Then there are the black hats, white hats, see previous blogs, using 500 words when 50 will do in order to make things clear to as many people as possible, the diagrams, the sisterhood, the 'we shall not be publishing' as if their publication is of grave significance and you have my opinion of Textusa's blog.

Textusa's blog seems a lot of convoluted nonsense to me. The only continuity in it is the declaration of swinging.

Just my opinion.
Well, each to their own - but there is indication of swinging. If not, why did the PJ search for swinging* when they first got hold of the computers - (Murats/ Sergei Malinka's etc) - what led them to do that?
I think that Textusa has argued very convincingly a number of times that a number of the other guests ( there were 60 there that week) were involved in the cover up. She has shown how Murat's involvement was planned and did not happen by chance - she has shown how guests such as Carpenter and others helped in the 'coverup' with the aid of their statements.
Here on this forum we have often discussed how TAPAS9 appeared to know other guests out of the 60 present - they didnt just meet each other at the Ocean Club. 60 guests including some high status people.
There is a great deal to indicate a swinging party that week - or adult lifestyle party that week. Textusa has shown how there were an unnatural amount of extra workers brought in to the Ocean Club in terms of nannies for an out of season week. Textusa has shown how the OC are implicated in the cover up. She has shown how the big round table was a fake and that the TAPAS meals in the evening snever existed but the booking sheets were conjured up...
Whether you believe it was a party of swingers or not she has convincingly managed to show that both guests and OC were involved in the cover up.
I do find it really odd the amount of criticism that gets thrown at Textusa - if you really dont agree and think it nonsense then why come on the thread to comment? Why noty leave it to those of us that can see the point? I dont contribute to threads that I think are nonsense such as the drowning thread - I dont feel the need to go on there and criticize - how negative it is when people just want to criticise others.

Do you think people like Textusa are spending hours and hours going through statements and files just to spout nonsense or to mislead? If you are so frustated by her posts then why waste your valuable time even commenting? Sorry - i Just cant understand those that want to be so negative about people who are trying to find the truth. Is that your contribution to helping find the truth about Madeleine?

Tony spends hours going into details to explain his thoughts and theories - he makes valuable contributions and often gets similar negative feedback... what really is in the minds of those who seek to critice others' theories but rarely contribute themselves? Someone please explain that to me?
I do believe that there is a lot of merit in the swinging theory and local gossip has it that the Tapas 9 were part of a swinging group . But it is not enough in my opinion to warrant the massive cover up and swinging per se did not kill Maddie. That is where I disagree with Textusa.. I believe that there were also paedophiles in the group and it was this peado activity that led to Maddie's demise..

Strange that the Ocean Club advertises an ADULT pool as distinct from the two swimming pools on offer.
When a resort advertises an adult pool it simply means it's deep for children and there is a baby pool available doesn't it? or am I too naiive?
That is what I naively thought too but Textusa explained it otherwise and appears to have local knowledge that the ''adult'' pool was used for adult activities once the children were safely ensconced in the crèche. .You hardly think that the group were playing tennis all day every day

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Sorry, what a load of tosh. An unheated swimming pool in April/early May would hardly be conducive to lustful fancy.

by Verdi 10.05.15 19:36

aquila today @ 7:05 pm

I agree with you aquila, not my scene but who cares who is shagging who, they could be swinging from the trees for all I care. Seems a rather elaborate plan just to have it off with the neighbour, even if it was the case, why would anyone in their right mind take the kids along - or can the definition 'swinger' include other than consenting adults? I no speak'er the lingo.

As for the tedious ongoing theory about round tables, what is that supposed to prove - that the Tapas lot never dined at the Tapas restaurant? Now I'm really done in, the Tapas9 are no more. What are we to call them if not the Tapas9, swing-along-aJez or howz about not the nights of the round table?

Perhaps the theories might have some credibility if they were more credible?