Sunday, 24 August 2014

BURIED BY THE ANTIS - PART IV

Please put new posts on this thread to bring it back to front page. :)

I have started this new blog as there is obviously still interest and comments coming in.  I know some are protesting, but tis my belief if people want to say something, they should be able to!

But this incident will blow over because it is not what this case is about. I will continue to press for justice for the missing child, and thanks to some very kind assistance I will soon be setting up a new forum.  It won't be solely devoted to Madeleine McCann, it will cover topical issues, controversial subjects and whatever comes along.  I want it to be live and interactive.  If anyone is interested in being Admin, then please contact me Rosalindhutton@aol.com.

Meanwhile please bear with me, some posts are getting through that really shouldn't - I shouldn't do this whilst tired - and I apologise, its been hard to keep up.

Bennettgate will soon blow over, and hopefully lessons have been learned, I think many of us have had our eyes opened but that shouldn't stop the discussion, it should open it up. 

The people responsible for the cover up (in 2007) are no longer in power, and in any event there are probably very few left.  The powerful McCann media machine is down to its bones, all they have left are a few oddbods and misfits cobbling together playground insults to prop up a crumbling skeleton that's had its head knocked off.  This isn't an MI5 or covert government operation, its a handful of crazies pointing and laughing. 

Did Tony do a deal with the devil? Why has he worked so hard to discredit the witnesses and Robert Murat?  A job for the McCann Media Machine clearly, but they have never bothered.  Why did Carter Ruck write off nearly £300,000 in legal costs?  Why was  he reading forum members' private messages?  Why won't he answer these questions?

196 comments:

  1. Tony Bennett is one of the very few commentators on this case, who seems interested in/believes in a high level cover up. And thank God for that! I share his utter despair at people -- who've studied this case inside out -- who REFUSE to acknoweldge that this just has to be a humongous cover-up.

    Like I said previously, I don't like the man personally but I can't understand how on earth some people

    a) don't think this is a huge conspiracy

    b) honestly believe the Mccanns are on their last legs (they look as secure as ever to me) and that OP Grange is going to nail them and

    c) have no ability to look at the Smith sighting and realise that it's increcibly flimsy with multiple possible interpretations.

    I really despair at the huge amount of intelligent people on this case, who genuinely believe the Mccanns just chanced it, getting high level people to believe in their lies to such an extent that this same political elite didn't want to backtrack, when they found out the truth, and therefore had to go along with the Mccann's charade.

    Reading the latest news/bullshit on this case, only confirms to me that the conspiracy is as big as they come. I know a lot of people think conspiracy is a dirty word, but God, in this case there just has to be one.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Excellent observations sir, I agree entirely.

      Delete
    2. Looking at the desperate duo outside the Portugese court slagging off GA with lies, they looked far from secure to me.

      They obviously need the 1m Euro to pay all of their legal costs they've built up suing people left, right and centre. If they were still being protected would they still be so desperate to take GA to the cleaners? I don't think so.

      Delete
    3. TBR - you're not a friend of Tony Bennett are you?

      You seem to be ignoring the fact that he is hell bent on refuting anything the Smiths say. Why would that be? As Cristobell stated in her post, has TB made a pact with the devil to denounce the Smith sighting at every opportunity. Perhaps he would like to tell us, just the same as he demanded the Smiths should come clean and TELL HIM what they saw or didn't see on 3rd May 2007.

      You're now stating yourself that the Smith sighting is incredibly flimsy with multiple possible interpretations. Do you have a pact with the devil also, aka the McCanns, to protect them?

      Or are you TB in yet another disguise? Two initials the same with another one added in to throw people off the scent.

      Delete
    4. Kate McCann has become so used to wearing her 'media' face, she can switch it on and off without trouble. Gerry McCann is more likely to be ruffled with anger (because that beastly judge wouldn't let him slag off the dogs?) than through desperation.

      Anyway, the Lisbon trial has nothing to do with their position as regards their child.

      Delete
    5. I was referring to the McCanns demeanour, I think it has everything to do with their missing child.

      In the early days, they were confident, radiant (like 2 newly weds), full of themselves because they knew they had so much support from the public, PR agencies, politicans, millionaires, celebs. They thought they had all angles covered with regard to the disappearance of Madeleine and they'd pulled the wool over everyone's eyes.

      Now they've been left on their own to sink or swim in the mire they've created and have ended up looking fools in front of TV cameras.

      They know their days are numbered and are fighting for their survival, in any way they can.

      Delete
    6. Anon 04.47, Lol no, you can check me out on Youtube or Twitter, though I thought I once read that Bennett is also half Austrian (maybe I just imagined it).

      I quarelled with Bennett and other members of that forum. And the bottomfeeders really get me. Send me a PM and I'll let you know exactly what I think of them all.

      The first thing I thought when I read about the Smith sighting was that it was flimsy. (How can you identify a man several months later, after he's been demonised in the media). If I wasn't such a sheep I would have raised this point when I first came to this case. See my Youtube video on the Smith Sighting.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vGBZoD-3Rq0

      If you look at how well Clarence Mitchell bats away the Smith sighting, it's tempting to believe it was a deliberate Straw man argument. Could be wrong, but I think, at the very least, that it's wide open to interpretation. NB Also that the 12 year old DOES NOT identify the man as Gerry.

      I agree though that demanding the Smiths come forward and reveal all is not fair or logical: since they could well have been intimidated by Brian Kennedy.

      Delete
    7. TB-R, I won't be checking you out on Youtube or Twitter, nor sending you a pm. You could be anyone; I'll give that a pass.

      Your last sentence makes no sense. Why do you link the Smiths as being intimidated by Brian Kennedy. They do not have to come forward on a public forum and reveal all whether or not they've been intimidated by BK. Why would any witness in a criminal investigation come forward and give details to millions of people who read an open forum. Your statement about BK sounds suspicious to me, do you know for a fact the've been intimidated by BK, if so how?

      Delete
    8. You asked me if I was Tony Bennet -- I gave you proof that I wasn't. As for me being anyone -- I'm not the anonymous poster.

      My last sentence was an attempt to make some common ground with you. I don't know if they were or weren't intimidated.

      As far as people suggesting a new forum should be set up: it would be a complete waste of time. The bickering would just continue, anonymous posters would rack up, bitching with each other and misinterpreting everything. Then the shills would get involved....

      I've always said I would much rather just sit down, face to face, with the one or two people who have done research and who are intelligent, like TB, and just listen to their ideas and put questions to them.

      Delete
    9. Sit down with TB then face to face and go through his "research", I'm sure he could entertain you for hours and hours and...... You'll both get on like a house on fire, especially if you're one and the same person. Alter ego meets ???

      Delete
    10. The minute Gerry once laid his eyes on Robert Murat, learned where he lived and that he was translating statements of the nannies and Dianne Webster, Murat was doomed as the patsy. And he almost succeeded. IMO if the dogs had not been brought in with the danger of cadaverine and more found in their apartment, the body of Madeleine would have been found by Krugel and some conveniently placed cigarette buds would have been the end of RM. But then the body had to be moved without the chance ever to be found or it would be linked to 5a. It was the McCann's darkest moment when they were told that the dogs would be brought in, just when Krugel was in PdL. And Kate was so anxious to get "good" news about Murat....

      Delete


    11. Thomas Baden-Riess 24 August 2014 05:26

      Thank you for posting your video link, I've never seen it before.

      You make some excellent points and I applaud you for your ability to look beyond mainstream thinking. You are of course absolutely correct by saying that a lawyer in a court of law would make mincemeat of the Smith's sighting, far too flimsy there just isn't any substance to it. I can also totally see your point (parallels with 9/11) in regards to a diversion. In my opinion the Madeleine McCann case has been nothing but diversion since May 2007.

      Cristobell recently said herself that there are many possibilities to explains various aspects of the Smith's sighting but she seems reluctant to accept any explanations other than her own. That is what, I believe, Tony Bennett is attempting to do, like you to offer a well reasoned argument as to why the Smith testimonies are open to scrutiny and not to be taken at face value.

      Delete
    12. Thanks anon 11.17.

      Yes I agree TB is probably just trying to do that. The problem with forums is that it's hard just to float ideas or possibilities as you could if everyone was sitting round a table. People seem to get entrenched very quickly, and the more some people stick to one extreme, the more others become polarised in the opposite direction.

      Was trying to work out who you are?

      Delete
    13. Thomas Baden-Riess @ 24 August 2014 12:03

      Actually I find all this anonymity rather irritating, mainly because I can't identify with whom I'm replying. Therefore in future I will sign off every post as Horatio.

      If you can work out otherwise let me know, just as a matter of interest.

      Horatio

      Delete
    14. Yes tha anonymity thing is annoying; reminds me of when a teacher gets cross cos none of the students put their name on their work.

      Normally there are some clues as to who the poster is, though this time I couldn't work it out; but then to be honest I've never seen you post on any of the other sites. Were you on JH?

      Delete
    15. I am using the name Horatio for this blog alone, I prefer to keep different venues separate identity wise. Nothing sinister but if one uses the same name across the net it tends to invite unwanted attention.

      Yes I do post on JH but I'm not a prolific poster so maybe go unnoticed. If you can pick me out it might be quite a novelty.

      Horatio

      Delete
    16. I had a look at your utube vid. I don't buy into the 9/11 conspiracy but I am interested in the shill infiltration of forums aspect with regard to this case. I am a bit confused though. Are you saying that Smithman Gerry = shill? Sometimes on the forum it looked like the exact opposite.

      Delete
    17. Does it begin with an S, Horatio?

      Delete
    18. Anon 14.56. At the end of the video I was suggesting (and it's only a possibility) that Smith eventually 'recognised' Gerry in order to create a bit of evidence that

      a) would lead the sceptics down the wrong hole

      b) would establish the idea that the death was on May 3rd, was a rush job, with Gerry Mccann the main player, and

      c) give a lawyer, and indeed Clarence Mitchell in the media, a seemingly vital piece of evidence that could be so easily pulled apart.

      Now, I'm not saying this is true, and I haven't cast Martin Smith in a good light, so I'm sorry for that, but what I was saying is that it's not beyond impossible.

      There is confusion over when MBM died; and so it strikes me that maybe some red herrings have been deliberately chucked into the tale, so that you just can't make a clean decision, when the death really occurred. Could be wrong though.

      As for 9/11: didn't believe it either, then read a thread on it on JH; it runs the Madeleine Mccann case close in terms of obvious cover-ups, but because of the (heavy and dark) implications of it, I think people tend to dismiss it all.

      Delete
    19. I have two suspects in mind Horatio!

      Delete
    20. Ah OK thanks for clarifying your theory TB-R. I must say it is refreshing to be able to discuss these ideas with an apparently open minded person in a freer environment without being smothered in blue ink ;)... I stand by Smith being an honest man but agree his testimony would be torn apart in court, so either way it's a distraction. I am certain M died (dogs) and I guess not too much time to plan as it wasn't too well thought through what with the easily disproved shutters/break in scenario. There was enough time to do a thorough clean up though....
      RS

      Delete
    21. haha, getting the blue ink is a bit like being carter-rucked :) You could well be right about Smith

      I agree, the thorough clean up is so at odds to the shutter stuff and the scribbled timelines -- it just makes your head spin in the end

      Delete
    22. Anonymous @ 24 August 2014 15:47

      No.

      Delete
  2. Playing devil's advocate here: is there proof TB reads private messages not sent to him? As far as I know he once published parts of a private message to him. Which is wrong of course, and he got a temporary ban for it. But this does not mean he reads private messages from other members to other members.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. yes there is proof.
      read" the message to members" thread in the members lounge.
      he is such a reckless clown he even admits it.

      Delete
    2. Anonymous @24 August 2014 10:03

      Unless you can post a link to the precise post you claim confirms Bennetts ability to read PM's, I can only conclude that you are deliberately misconstruing his words when he mentions other members sending him information about PM's sent to them.

      A vast difference.

      Delete
    3. Anonymous @ 24 August 2014 04:11

      I should be very surprised if such an allegation can be proved. I believe it is an allegation that some muck stirrers make for the simple reason they know it can't be proved one way or the other.

      Delete
    4. I'm not 10:03 but I saw a post from "admin" somewhere between pages 15 & 17 that does suggest the PM's were read. How else would admin have known the content of the messages as both users had been banned.

      Delete
    5. Anonymous @ 24 August 2014 12:55

      This is a classic illustration of an inaccuracy gaining momentum which will in due course take on an identity masquerading as fact.

      Anon @ 10:03 is accusing Tony Bennett of having access to read private messages exchanged between members. To my knowledge, TM is not admin. It is of course another matter entirely if a member reveals the content of a message received to another member, which I've no doubt happens on occasions.

      Horatio.

      Delete
    6. Tony let slip the other day that he has access to admin areas. He is admin in all but name.

      Delete
    7. woofer I know you are nice but don,t be dim
      of course Bennett is admin.

      Delete
    8. Anonymous @ 24 August 2014 14:18

      Would you be so good as to post the link to where TB let slip?

      Thank you.

      Horatio

      Delete
    9. It was in the Lazzeri thread attacking Cristobels blog which was in members lounge and was deleted. There was can exchange between Admin and several disgruntled members about it - enlightening actually.

      Delete
    10. anon at 00.39
      You are perpetuating lies. I read that thread and saw nothing of the kind you mentioned.

      Delete
    11. anon at 05.13
      You are perpetuating lies. They read that thread and saw something of the kind they mentioned.

      You have no authority here.

      Delete
  3. ChillyHeat (alias CH) says:

    "Lets talk about the members that got kicked of JH......I had no choice or voice. I sussed that site out many moons ago, but I was soon thrown away because I questioned the site.....I had to make aliases to get back in and try to inform.....BANNED.BANNED.BANNED.....Do you see it yet ?"

    In the interest of accuracy, are you sure you didn't flounce off the forum leaving behind a foul mouthed rant? You don't seem to be able to express yourself without the use of an 'f' every other word.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Apologies if this question has been answered already but what proof is there that private messages have been read, other than by the persons to whom they were sent? This is horrendous, if true.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. you sound like GM prepping his defence .

      Delete
    2. I have proof. Not only that the pm was read but the content was altered before it reached me.



      Delete
    3. think there is fishing for info so maybe Bennett can whoosh his posts just like gerry

      Delete
    4. I agree Anon 15:24 I already have everything saved safely (have done for months as I strongly suspected monitoring at JH) and I'm not going to say any more.

      Delete
    5. Terry, I have not seen evidence that private messages have been read.
      Unless someone can show me concrete proof that their pm had been read by other than recipient I will take it as these are people who had fallen out with the forum and scaremongering.

      Delete
    6. Anonymous @ 24 August 2014 10:39

      How can you prove that something has been read? When you are exchanging private messages, do you know who you are communicating with, just because you are in private communication does that automatically mean 'trustworthy' to you?

      Delete
    7. Anon 5.18

      It doesn't matter whether you say you believe it or not. You're an anonymous poster on a blog. You have no authority here.

      Even if the forum has whooshed the evidence that doesn't mean it didn't happen.

      Delete
    8. no one needs authorityto speakthetruth - it is my right, you idiot.

      you're twisting the truth and that'swhere the danger lies.

      you are trying to incite hatred for that site.
      what is it with you?why do you spread lies?

      Delete
    9. Its not a question of inciting hate towards the JH forum. Quite a number of people were banned from the forum unfairly and have not had the right to reply.

      PMs were read. Admin admitted to it on the forum several months ago. From then on, I never received another PM, I don't know about anyone else.

      Admin and owners of that site still have questions to answer. All the people who were banned disagreed with Tony Bennett. Most, like myself, disagreed politely and explained the logic behind our refusal to accept Tony's theories over those of Goncalo Amaral and the PJ.

      They have labelled those they turfed out as being 'disrupters' which is grossly unfair, as their disruption is merely failure to acknowledge TB has solved the case, where all the other investigators have failed.

      Some, like myself were deeply uncomfortable that the forum were going too far by investigating innocent witnesses with a view to discrediting their evidence and pointing the finger at the 3rd Aguido, rather than the ones we know are truly responsible for Madeleine's disappearance.

      If and when there is a trial, Team McCann will do everything in their power to demolish the evidence of these witnesses. Luckily for them, Tony Bennett and the JH forum have already done most of the groundwork.

      Delete
    10. Last paragraph from Ros.

      That is the sole reason why the Jill Havern Forum is allowed to exist.

      Tony and Jill work for Team McCann and have done since CR and TM had them exactly where they wanted them after the collapse of the Madeleine foundation.

      Get as much confusion, discrepancies, allegations, lies into the public domain. Control the discussions and let people muddy the waters at every opportunity. This is why the Mccanns will never be able to have a fair trial at court and it will collapse. Tony Jill and all the members of the Jill Havern forum (majority unknowingly) have helped out what TM, CR, TB and JH have set out to do.

      Blacksmith was right all along.

      Delete
  5. I agree Tony Bennett is one of the very few people brave enough to challenge the authorities over the conspiracy that has obviously taken place in this case and I can see why people believe in him, he is certainly tenacious.

    I don't agree that the McCanns are as secure as they ever were. In their glory days, they were surrounded by wellwishers, politicians and millionaires. To me, it appears that their 'support' has deserted them and they are feeling very bitter.

    I mostly look at this case from a psychological perspective, I'm interested in the study of human behaviour and what it is that makes some people truly evil. I think Kate and Gerry will be the stuff of textbooks for many years to come.

    The tory party have always been the party of Law and Order, and during this term of office they seem to be going for the party of transparency. Theresa May is clearly at odds with the Police Federation, many high ranking officers have been toppled, their budget has been cut. It follows therefore that if police officers are asked to commit fraud to assist in a government cover up, there would indeed be whisteblowers.

    There was a conspiracy in 2007. The Labour government wanted the power to snoop on our emails and internet activity and they were using fear of paedophiles to sneek in new legislation. The cherubic face of the missing Madeleine McCann reminded us that our children were in constant danger of being snatched from their beds. Governments often use 'think of the children' as a battlecry to impose undemocratic laws. Madeleine was the poster child and they needed a stranger abductor, not negligent parents. The morally bereft McCanns would of course have agreed to anything that would have got them off the hook.

    Whether the conspiracy continues, I have serious doubts. Why should David Cameron and this government risk their reputation to protect the Labour Party, a party they are shortly to go up against in the coming General Election?

    ReplyDelete
  6. I think TB sees a whitewash coming down the line and Smithman declared the abductor and that's all there is to it. I'm personally uncomfortable with so much TB bashing - he may make mistakes and use poor judgement but he does deserve credit for the work that he has done. Sadly a footballer is only as good as the last goal he scored/saved.

    I had a good look at forumotion and can't see a way where admin can read members PM's. I've definitely had PM's from well established members/mods where they wouldn't be too happy if Admin had access. I think it's possible that the recipients forwarded the messages people sent to Admin. I think JH's stance on trolls/PM exchange is rather funny, if 2 or more people want to collaborate they can easily do it outside of the system.

    Why don't JH simply ban PM's? I think it's because once you're an established contributing member they need other members/mods to check you out - it happened in my case right down to checking my academic credentials. I'm mindful that this distrust began on 3A's long ago.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Private messages have been banned on that forum but as you say people can still collaborate outside of the system anyway.

      Delete
    2. That's interesting. If they've got access to PM's why would they ban them? Surely it'd be in their interest to read them to weed out trolls if that's the aim.

      Delete
    3. Don't talk such nonsense, private messages have not been banned. They are temporarily blocked for new members in order to prevent a repetition of past tactics adopted by the troll element.

      Get your facts right.

      Delete
    4. Bennett has a personality disorder.His tail about trolls working in internet cafes for the McC .s was the clearest indication that he is very sick man.
      Now I know this because it was my pm that he repeated in his post in an attempt to discredit two banned posters.
      He could only have used this information if he had read the pms

      I will of course be more than happy to explain everything to the police or a court of law when judgement day comes for TB.

      Delete
    5. What did it say?

      Delete
    6. anon@12:55

      troll element or free thinking members not prepared to accept TB lies and rants?
      pm banned now for weeks and will continue not a temp thing.

      had to ban them because they don,t have the manpower to read them all.
      .
      they spend all their time looking to see if a new poster has a banned
      internet service number(isp) such is their paranoia

      Delete
    7. Anonymous @ 25 August 2014 01:38

      Rollocks! You can be a free thinker and express yourself without being banned, providing your conduct yourself with a degree of decorum.

      The PM moderation is applied to new members, I believe until they can prove themselves to be genuine members and not shills or trolls or whatever else you like to call them, i.e. temporary suspension of the facility.

      Horatio

      Delete
    8. Anonymous @ 24 August 2014 15:01

      If you are telling the truth, who's to say it wasn't the recipient of your PM that revealed the content?

      I recall (in more recent times) the subject of trolls operating from internet cafes was mentioned on JH but it wasn't Bennett. I believe it was either the forum owner or admin. Whoever, why do you think it such a crazy idea? I'm not a technical wizard so can't offer any other explanation but somehow these people manage to find their way back onto the forum when banned, using a different name/s and there are other indicatives that suggest behaviour akin to trolling.

      To be fair, it must be extremely difficult trying to keep law and order on a forum, it is not only open confrontation that needs to be curtailed but also moderation of such issues as unexeceptable foul language when directed at another member. It seems to me no matter what they do, they just can't win.

      I can't accept that members are banned purely for disagreeing with Bennett. I can however understand why some like to give that impression, particularly if on an alternative board where anything goes!

      Horatio

      Delete
    9. Horatio, I agree with most of what you say, and I certainly wouldn't dispute the bans I got, (and moreover I was happy to be out of there.)

      But if someone as tranquil as Chateleine was banned then what does that tell you? If they have proper evidence that she's working for team Mccann, shouldn't they really reveal it. There's others as well: WLBTS, Curioser.

      Meanwhile shit-stirrers like Aquila remain. So how can you be totally sure the site hasn't been taken over/manipulated by people with ill-intentions?

      Delete
    10. Thomas Baden-Riess @ 25 August 2014 12:11

      I guess it's all down to individual perspective, without being influenced by the opinions of others, I consider some members (past and present) to be deliberately disruptive. They appear to follow a distinct pattern, which I understand is consistent with trolls (or whatever you call them).

      Chatelaine was banned? I didn't know. I recall reading a post that indicated to me that Chatelaine was leaving the forum voluntarily, I don't think it was actually stated but implied.

      All I can really say, the guys beavering away behind the scenes, i.e. admin and mods, are more au-fait with forum activity than I am, I'm only an observer. I have no choice but to accept what they say but if there was positive proof of anything untoward going on I will be out of there like a ferret up the trouser leg or sooner if that be possible.

      Horatio.

      Delete
    11. I'm sure it's impossible running a forum like that and of course there must be shills on there: it's just difficult to know if the shills are getting thrown out, or whether they're the ones who are throwing people out.

      Chateleine told me she was definitely banned. I can't remember exactly but I think maybe she was put in the cooler and then later bannned without notice. If you've never been banned, it doesn't make you feel that good cos you're totally locked out. The thing is, I had understood that Chateleiwe was good friends with the people who ran the forum.

      I should point out that she is not making any kind of fuss about this. Like she said, at the end of the day it's not really worth worrying about.

      Delete
    12. Anonymous 13.53

      "The PM moderation is applied to new members, I believe until they can prove themselves to be genuine members and not shills or trolls or whatever else you like to call them, i.e. temporary suspension of the facility."

      So PMs are only available to the in-crowd. Nice.

      Somewhere you below you ask Cristobell to define rules for posting (so you can argue with them and be hard done by). How about you lay out the rules for 'proving' you are a 'genuine member'?

      Delete
    13. Because new members can be banned trolls registering back just to use pm facility to garner support or stay in gang to disrupt. The Admin explained some people never posted but regularly sent back and forth pms. They were abusing the pm facility and caught out when they sent it to the wrong recipient to rally support and the recipient forwarded it to admin.

      You get it ! Stop twisting the truth.If you dont like it there, get out of there.

      Delete
    14. Anonymous @ 25 August 2014 16:34

      I'm not defending the forums administration, I'm merely pointing out the facts to allay the spread of yet another malicious rumour.

      Horatio.

      Delete
    15. Anonymous @ 26 August 2014 01:28

      Thank you for explaining so much better than I did.

      Horatio.

      Delete
    16. That's interesting Horatio. I agree with you without being influenced by the opinion of others. There is definitely deliberate, organised patterns of disruption on the forum. Whenever anyone gets too close to a truth the regular suspects come out swinging. They accuse, bait, rant, pontificate, reinforce each other's suspicious and vitriolic diatribes and write long, long posts for pages and pages until everyone else gives up. Mission accomplished. I'm not defending the forums administration, I'm merely pointing out the facts to refute the repetitive drone of posters agreeing with each other under different names and covering their ass.

      I know that after being banned without warning, I came back as someone else and was afraid to post in discussions. I PMed one of the people I respected to say hi, and then I just read. It's much quicker actually and you learn just as much as when you try to interact. It turns out that interacting with the vocal minority is a waste of time.

      Delete
    17. At Anonymous, too afraid to post after ban.

      Thank you for explaining that so much better than I could. You are a really good writer and you write so well that I just think no-one could argue that you are absolutely right on the money. They are mean and vicious and vile and you capture so well my suspicions about them being the same person writing under several different names. Please keep on posting. I value your input so much and you are so knowledgeable and reasonable.

      love, me ( oh did I type that out loud? - oh dear, my ruse has been revealed ! )

      Delete
    18. Evening all,

      In all my fifty years as a lord of the realm I have never seen such sport. Clear to me that Horatio gets off on blowing his own horn, what? A hornblower. You see?

      Well, well, well, what do we have here then? A pack of hounds howling for blood. Sound the horn. Again. Again. A call to muddy arms to protect good doctors from the riff raff. Tally ho ! Foil the scent. Hunt them 'til they've gone to ground. Kill off dissenters and throw their bodies to the dogs.

      Pip pip cheerio.

      Delete
  7. If posters started thinking of the case as involving six Doctors, not just two, they may start to understand why so much official help was/is given.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Textusa and Johanna manage to discuss the case on their blogs... is a forum needed? As long as posters here are willing to take the time to write something about an important aspect of the case, it could be discussed? A good start point might be the anomalies in the crèche records.

    Could whoever is pretending to be bb1 and not doing a good job of it please stop it, no one is buying that it is the woman from the JATYK2 forum. There is however one poster from JH here, a Bennett loyalist who has come here to complain about Ros just as happened on JH....it is easy to work out who it is.

    I look forward to the day I look here and see no mention of Mr B.
    A distraction from the important issues imo.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. BB1, Sabot etc, made a big mistake posting here, and it was them, can spot the little shits a mile off. There seems to be an awful of backtracking and denials, which was expected after I pointed out their support of Tony's theories raises even more questions.

      Delete
    2. I do not believe that bb1 sabot or any from their forum would give the time of day to any blog doubting the abduction story. I do believe that some from JH forum might well try to make mischief by posting here and pretending to be from the JATYK2 forum. If you recognise styles of writing I trust you worked out quite quickly who from JH has come over here to write rather lengthy pieces being critical of you and faithful to TB !

      Delete
    3. Yes, unbelievable isn't it that those towering intellectuals Sabot, Lily and BB1 were dumb enough to post their pathetic two line playground insults here especially when they are merely repeating the exact same two line crap from their cesspit. So obvious! Surprised Pedro didn't join in with 'your words are my words' lol.

      Delete
    4. Pedro is busy lighting candles. The christian branch has to be kept entertained *zzzZZZzZzzz*

      Delete
  9. None of us know for certain about the Smith sighting or whether this is a whitewash or not. It is likely the truth will lie somewhere in the middle. Some official 'help' for the McCanns initially because they were believed vulnerable/had some friends at the time but it could equally be the case that if they truly are guilty they will have to face prosecution one day as the official help could evaporate . I believe official help would have been genuine, i.e given because they were initially seen as a vulnerable couple in a foreign country that were victims of a terrible crime.

    What I am trying to get at is we need to embrace the grey areas. We need to tolerate alternative views and alternative scenarios. What became intolerable about Tony and the forum was the way no alternatives were allowed. If you dared raise the possibility of the Smiths being genuine or this being a proper investigation or whatever else you'd be jumped on in blue ink pointing out the 'facts'. That's why people are angry and are venting.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anon 6:41, I understand official help would probably be on offer for any family in the same situation but can't work out why it came in the form of media handlers. I'd be quite stunned if my child went missing (God forbid) and I got help from the likes of Clarence Mitchell or Sheree Dodd. What I can't work out is if they were there to help the McCanns or someone else.

      Delete
    2. IMO Clarence Mitchell was sent to monitor the McCanns closely, control what they did and said, plus rectify the mess they had created by phoning the media.

      Delete
    3. 07.31 I cannot recall a single case involving Brits abroad, where they have been appointed a 'Government spokesman'. Mind you I can't think of a single family who would have continued with their holiday and indeed extended it, by staying in the resort where their daughter disappeared.

      Delete
  10. Yeah, the Smith subject is a sore point at the moment. I don't know who Smith saw but I am convinced he saw someone and that he honestly believed what he stated to the police. I think the site of one of the SY searches was influenced by the location of that sighting.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. How much weight would a sighting hold in an investigation, surely it would be considered and investigated but not at the exclusion of all other possibilities. There has to be certain odds that Smithman is/isn't the abductor - I'd be amazed if SY managed to pin it on this man in an attempt at whitewash.

      Delete
    2. The PJ and SY may be well aware who Smithman is but had to put up the e-fits to ask anyone else to come forward to collaborate who the Smiths saw for any future court case, to make the case stronger. Whether anyone else came forward will probably never be known to anyone on forums or the internet, only the PJ and SY.

      Delete
    3. My post of 10.06

      I don't think "collaborate" was the right word, probably "confirm" would be more suitable.

      Delete
  11. The three stooges Sabot, Lily and BB1, Dumb, Dumber and Dumbest. Your attempts to cover up your stupidity are hilarious and no they wont be published.

    ReplyDelete
  12. strange how Markus 2 disappeared from the Sir Cliff thread as soon as bennett returned from "holiday"

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous @ 24 August 2014 11:42

      What are you trying to imply?

      Delete
    2. Is it so difficult for you to work out?

      I am the real Ray Stevens.

      Delete
    3. I don't engage with time wasters. So long!

      Delete
  13. someone said:

    " he may make mistakes and use poor judgement but he does deserve credit for the work that he has done. Sadly a footballer is only as good as the last goal he scored/saved."

    bennett has scored more own goals than any footballer in history - for Gods sake he even got amaral's birthday wrong for his GASP campaign!

    ReplyDelete
  14. re: Jatyk - it's quite simple:

    BB is BB

    - and Pedro is her 'Portuguese' alter ego - who can't translate even
    simple Portuguese phrases in real time when challenged - because BB does not have any Portuguese.

    Lily - is BB's Scottish alter ego - keen to agree with anything BB1 says - within seconds - language no problem there.

    Sabot - I have time for - her own woman
    Lamplighter - ditto - nice chap

    There was a rabid yank once called Tony (not TB) but he got tossed aside or chocked on a cheeseburger or whatever.

    And that's the 'cast' of Jatyk for you in a nutshell

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Pedro is the token 'Portuguese' support for the McCanns. Despite 7 years involvement in the case, still has only the few words of broken English he had at the start, and can't speak Portuguese. Team McCann have to rely on the antis for all their translations. Hilarious.

      Delete
  15. Could someone please answer this question for me. Did the Mccanns know Brian Kennedy at all before May 2007?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As far as I know, they didn't meet until September 2007.

      Delete
    2. BK must be involved somehow surely. You don't just bankroll a couple of strangers unless he was complicit in some way, shape or form.

      Delete
    3. Anonymous @ 25 August 2014 15:05

      That's always been my thought. I don't suggest BK knew the Macs personally but I reckon he was pulled in by someone else with a mission.

      Horatio.

      Delete
  16. IMO Horatio = TB minus the blue ink. Oh wait, there's no blue ink here....

    Kaya

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. IMO TB-R = TB also, talking to himself again.

      Now feeling guilty for Chateleine being banned and suggesting she maybe working for TM. How disgusting to even suggest that.

      Talking about trying to cover one's backside when the sh*t has hit the fan -

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

      "Thomas Baden-Riess25 August 2014 12:11
      Horatio, I agree with most of what you say, and I certainly wouldn't dispute the bans I got, (and moreover I was happy to be out of there.)

      But if someone as tranquil as Chateleine was banned then what does that tell you? If they have proper evidence that she's working for team Mccann, shouldn't they really reveal it. There's others as well: WLBTS, Curioser.

      Meanwhile shit-stirrers like Aquila remain. So how can you be totally sure the site hasn't been taken over/manipulated by people with ill-intentions?"

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

      How many bans did TB-R get? I think TB-R has given himself away there.

      Hi Aquila, how do you feel about being branded as a shit stirrer. Oh dear, oh dear, what a mess.

      Delete
  17. http://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t4188p10-the-madeleine-mccann-case-impossible-coincidences

    ReplyDelete
  18. It's obvious Horatio is TB.
    The man is very sick.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah, and I am Gerry McCann. Get a grip people!
      Fucking idiots shit stirrers hijacking here.

      Delete
    2. Anon @ 25 August 2014 16:05

      Shit stirrers as you say, I guess it was inevitable. A free for all, no holds barred.

      Horatio.

      Delete
  19. Replies
    1. I know TB has had many alias's over the years on that JH forum but what convinces you that Markus 2 is one of his?

      Delete
  20. http://eotp.org/2008/11/08/2008-ukip-m-e-p-jeffrey-titford/

    Cranks and Gadflies: The Story of Ukip page 82

    ReplyDelete
  21. Grow up Kaya

    Horatio.

    ReplyDelete
  22. I would agree that it is looking like this Horatio person is in fact Tony Bennett.
    Tony was always going to end up frequently posting on Cristobell's blog under an alias. The guy is extremely predictable.
    Tony please get yourself some medical help. Must be some sort of medication you can take for your disorders. You are clearly not a well man. It's very sad to see really.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Cristobell,

    Any chance you can lay out some censorship ground rules? It's a bit irritating when something is posted but not published.

    Thank you. Horatio

    ReplyDelete
  24. Horatio
    Dont kid yourself CB is going to play by the rules?
    Don't you get it yet,she is heavily censoring on her site.
    What an irony.

    She wont publish what she does not like to hear,
    She will publish every anti TB comments but dont expect her to publish criticism of her.

    Come on, I dare you to publish this!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous @ 25 August 2014 16:21

      That's precisely my point. Yesterday I posted this, which hasn't been published:

      * Cristobell has achieved her objective, she sets the wheels in motion and then stands back to watch the fallout!*

      Or something like that.

      Horatio.

      Delete
  25. Difficult to impose rules Horatio as this is not a forum.

    But for the members of JATYK and STMs who are lifting my blog to fill the pages of their own, I'm not publishing comments that address me as 'Mutton'. I know changing the 'H' in my name to an 'M' is probably the wittiest thing you have ever done but neither I nor anyone on here is the least bit interested in your playground insults.

    Should one of you manage to put together a coherent, intelligent couple of sentences without the childish name calling, I might consider it, but as you have not managed it in 7 years, I won't hold my breath.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Is there not one McCann supporter who can comment sensibly without being abusive?

      Delete
  26. Is the suspension over now?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 01: 51

      It is, but I am now removed from CMoMM. I would not have returned anyway, as returning would have meant, I could no longer question theories I do not agree without further punishment or banning, and I'm simply not prepared to give someone that power over me (again).

      That to me is not a forum in the true sense - an exchange of ideas, it is merely a group of people following the lunacy of one unwieldy dictator. I added my voice to the 'Madeleine' discussion because I want truth for the child. That truth was being drowned out by Tony's madcap theories that were pointing the finger towards the first arguido, and away from the real villains.

      I also think his actions in demanding the witnesses in this case supply details of their evidence to him are bordering on criminal and I want no part of it.

      Like thousands of others who follow this case, I am not a pitchforker or a 'hater' and I want to distance myself from those who are acting in those ways.

      The evil in this case lies in the death and disposal of a 4 year old child's body and those who covered it up, not those who are demanding the truth.

      I was appalled at the way in which the deplorable parents were profiting from her tragedy and the way in which the UK's hierarchy were assisting them.

      I don't think they are assisting them now, but unlike Tony, I am not omnipotent, I honestly don't know, but it looks pretty real to me. I just don't see Scotland Yard being involved if the perpetrators are anything other than British. Its sod all to do with them for one. Foreign police forces can't just walk into another country and take over a criminal investigation. The British Crown Prosecution service would not fly to Portugal to discuss the prosecution of a Portuguese burglar for example - are they going to fly him and all his accomplices to the UK for a trial?

      Unfortunately, with Tony Bennett dominating the discussion on the JH forum, sanity left the building a long, long time ago.

      Delete
    2. Did you remove yourself from CMOMM then Christobell because your username is still there as are all your posts.

      Delete
    3. I can't log in, it doesn't recognise my name.

      Delete
  27. I think it is wise to heavily censor these comments actually, to save the discussion from the gutter. CB is more than capable of distinguishing reasoned argument from 'muck stirring' (to coin the phrase of one regular poster ;). I would rather censorship enabling some in depth exchanges than a free for all 'nah nah nanah nah' playground taunt. Would probably advise against a forum for these reasons CB.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous @ 26 August 2014 02:35

      That's a ridiculous statement to make when you look back over this blog since Cristobell left JH. Censorship permits the nah nah nanah nah adlib when directed at specific people, not as anon has already pointed out, when the criticism is levelled against Cristobell.

      Let me know when you start up some in depth exchanges I might like to get involved. It would be helpful if you could identify yourself in some way, maybe a pink carnation pinned to the brim of your helmet?

      Horatio.

      Delete
    2. Oh dear! The blind leading the blind.
      Can't you see the bleedy IRONY of what you are advocating?
      It is exactly same principle used there. What is sauce for goose is sauce for gander. Advocating censorship is outright hypocrisy. Don't apply the rule you don't want others to apply to you.
      .



      Delete
    3. Not at all, I would rather an enlightened dictatorship than anarchy. It is what happens anyway as soon as any sort of rule is applied to a forum whether it is one person making the rules or several. Luckily it's not real life and if you don't think the dictator is enlightened you can always leave. I had no time for the dictator at JH but so far this one seems reasonable. Love and Peace.
      Pink Carnation!

      Delete
    4. @ Anon 2:35. I agree.
      Any forum that doesn`t carry out the censoring of the moronic, disturbed and foul mouthed posters, will eventually drive all sensible posters away. Imagine a world with no control at all - it would literally be hell.

      Delete
  28. She wont dare show face on the forum world after what she had done.
    She is finished in the forum world and she has only herself to blame.
    She blame others because it is easier on her conscience.

    OWN GOAL.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 02: 55 You just can't catch a break can you? I've been inundated with invitations! :)

      Delete
    2. to Anonymous 26th August @ 02.55. You have a writing style and language remarkable to the member Aiyoyo on JH forum. If not that poster, well done for the multiple posts here which are a wonderful imitation. Aiyoyo won't be too happy at someone posting here fraudulently implying it is him/her [ I think Aiyoyo sounds like a her] commenting on this blog.
      A better imitation of bb1 posting as a Portuguese member on JATYK2 forum I must add !
      Too good an imitation, perhaps, so maybe you are actually Aiyoyo. If so, a shame you did not write differently as the style hardly makes you anonymous!

      Delete
    3. Of course it is Aiyoyo. One of Tony's trusted hand picked puppets.

      Delete
  29. Last year in the High Court Tony Bennett was convicted of contempt, by reason he had given the Court solemn undertakings and assurances that he would not pass commentary on the case of MM and then repeatedly reneged on his promises.

    The Court found his repeated contempt so serious he was given a prison sentence, which was suspended and costs awarded against him.

    These costs amounted to £288,503.00.

    In a binding agreement between himself and the Macs, it was agreed he would not make any further comment on any aspect of the MM case and he would stop all appeals and legal actions against the Macs. If he broke any of this agreement financial penalties would be imposed along with a possible jail sentence.

    In return the Macs graciously agreed to waive 93% of their cost claim. TB would pay them £27,500 instead of £288,503.00. He would pay these reduced costs in a lump sum and instalments.

    So TB cannot comment on any aspect of the Madeleine case without the expressed permission and approval of Kate and Gerry McCann.

    I doubt Justice Tugandhat would view TBs actions in the same benevolent way;
    If they or their legal team inform the High Court of TB's utterings, he would be returned to Court.

    But this shows the" warm caring compassionate nature" of the Macs. That approx £250,000 could have been used in the search for M. But out of kindness and Christian charity they gave it to a man who has relentlessly harrassed them, to enable him to pay his costs and retain his lifestyle.

    As the Macs have taken no action and TB is writing most days, under his own name and others, can we assume they approve of his constant insinuations and accusations against both the Smith family and Robert Murat as it diverts attention from other matters including Fiona Payne and themselves?

    For reference, TB also had to pay Edward Smethhurst, £7,500 in costs. He too reduced his costs by approx £50,000. As Tony like polls perhaps he could conduct one, on the evidence above.

    Is TB working with the Macs to discredit both the Smiths and Robert Murat?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Many thanks for clarifying all that for us JJ.

      Strange indeed that the McCanns wrote off such a huge amount. They are not known for their kindness and generosity, they have never given a penny of all the cash so kindly donated to any other child.

      Why then so generous to Tony, their English nemesis? As you say, he has not abided by the agreement and continues to meddle in the case. However, his meddling since last year seems to be focused on discrediting the witness who might well have seen Gerry carrying a child on the night Madeleine disappeared.

      I also want to know why Richard D. Hall included Tony's theory in his otherwise brilliant exposure of this case. Why won't either of them confirm whether they collaborated or not? Was Richard duped by Tony? I felt Richard was sincere, but he appears fairly new to this case and may have been taken in by Tony's 'research, but he's saying nothing.

      When Tony accused me of forging Martin Smith's email, he said he got the information from a follower of Richard Hall, which is bizarre, as he knows Richard and has done a lengthy interview with him. Why not ask Richard directly?

      They are both demanding prosecution witnesses account to them for 'discrepancies' in the statements, yet neither Tony or Richard will admit to knowing each other!

      Delete
    2. You conveniently forget the charity events that the McCann's have taken part in to raise money for charities (not the fund)

      Delete
    3. When the four DVDs were first advertised for sale on Richard Hall's website, there was a short description of each DVD except, I noticed, for the fourth and final one.
      I wondered if it was an oversight, or maybe he had a big surprise ending which he didn't want to give away.
      Having watched DVD No 4 with its Bennett themes, I'm starting to wonder all over again.

      Delete
    4. JJ wrote - Is TB working with the Macs to discredit both the Smiths and Robert Murat?

      YES JJ and to everyone else. That is exactly what Tony Bennett has done / is doing.

      I am surprised it has took everyone so long to work this out.

      TB is currently seeking advice from Team Mccann and Carter Ruck in how to play his / their next move now all this has come to light.

      Interesting times ahead.

      Delete
    5. @ 11.51

      And you know this how?

      Delete
    6. Just privy to certain 'extreme sensitive' information.

      Delete
    7. 04.30 They can't very well raise money for themselves while two police forces are investigating the case! They would have to be honest and say it was for their legal fees.

      Delete
    8. @ 14.25

      Really? Well why not share your "extensive senstive" info with us then? No? Thought not !

      Delete
  30. How can a member be disruptive if they have never made any posts?
    If someone sends PMs how does that affect the running of the forum? How can you abuse the PM facility? Does that mean that PMs must pass Admin censorship? Where are the rules on the sending of PMs?
    PMs should be exactly that, private. Whether it's the content or the quantity. This is not N.Korea.
    Disrupters are obvious to spot, without this intrusion of privacy. But someone questioning or disagreeing with TB and objecting to his innuendos or blatant baiting is not and should not be called a disrupter. Whether this is written in a PM or on the open forum.
    And what about this "rallying for support" that you object to.
    Support to do what exactly? Be disruptive? How? If they don't make any posts?
    Please be a little more specific.
    TB and his minions can handle themselves very well under fire. What is the great fear?
    It seems to me that the ones you have labeled as disrupters have been on the side of getting justice for Madeleine, but just don't always agree with the methods uses by TB. It should be clear in the forum rules that any disagreement with him is not acceptable to be discussed privately in PMs or openly on the forum.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Will you be opening a new forum Cristobel? You were sure of it a couple of days ago. Have you had any luck with applications for the Admin position?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I will, its in the planning stages just now, but it won't be a Madeleine forum.

      Meanwhile, there are exciting plans afoot and there will indeed soon be a place where we can pick up where we left off :) Watch this space!

      Delete
    2. Will all your pro-McCann mates from the YGL messageboards be members of your soon-to-be-troll-infested forum? I remember the very vicious Henrydog and her cronies, of which you were one of course, would not allow a McCann sceptic to post without being abused.

      Delete
    3. Well good luck with it. I'm sorry it's not a Madeleine forum but I'm sure you know best. I can't wait!

      Delete
    4. 04:04 It took me a long time before I would say out loud the McCanns are guilty and I refused to say it until I was 100% sure.

      And in case you hadn't noticed, Henrydog, Sally et al hated me - They still stalk me even to this day!

      Delete
  32. I Agree JJ, very interesting

    ReplyDelete
  33. I hope you are well. keep up the great posting. Cheers The Rooster

    ReplyDelete
  34. I wouldn't like to say what Tony Bennett's motivations for attacking the Smith sighting are. I always believed it to be a sincerely held view on his part, albeit one I don't happen to share: no matter what Tony may claim, in the Smiths, the McCanns had a very credible-sounding sighting in the right place at the right time and instead chose to ignore it and massively publicise Victoria Beckham lookalikes seen thousands of miles away three days after the event.
    That said, Tony's move from critic of the McCanns to scourge of their 'enemies' (in the form of the Smiths) does put me a little in mind of Brenda Ryan of the Three Arguidos, who suddenly had an inexplicable road-to-Damascus conversion to fully-fledged McCann supporter after years of running the largest online discussion forum criticising them. I never really discovered what changed Bren's mind. Her occasional tweets after she 'saw the light' were always rather half-hearted and glossed over whatever powerful argument that had brought her round to Kate and Gerry's point of view. A pity, really, as it must have been terribly convincing to have brought about such a change.
    Snowy

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ah yes Brenda Ryan and her road to Damascus conversion. What indeed changed her stance on the McCann case?

      We have seen pros become antis as more and more facts are revealed, but I have never before, or since, since anyone do it the other way round, but perhaps its not quite as unique as we think.

      Delete
    2. Rumour had it that BR had a nice little pay off.

      Delete
    3. 01:38 Wouldn't surprise me. I had a re-read of her apology to the McCanns, its truly weird.

      Delete
  35. Thoughts on Tony Bennett:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKk9-IrrzXw&list=UUo2W01evrf_kUHQ1816cnHQ

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think you are generous in your assessment. I can only comment on my observation of his behaviour on the forum. 'Slightly autistic' is an understatement!! Accusing CB of faking Smith e mail is more akin to paranoid delusions.
      RS

      Delete
    2. Well maybe that's true, though maybe his paranoia is just the product of all he's been through. Who are you by the way? I can't decipher RS

      Delete
  36. Think you will need to moderate any new forum on this case or it will be chaos.

    ReplyDelete
  37. @JJ - the waived court costs you refer to were not the Macs to waive, but Carter Ruck's. All parties knew that TB couldn't afford that sort money without selling his house, and no one wanted that sort of publicity. They stung him for what they thought he could pay, but at a level which would hurt him.
    As for why they don't recall him to court for breaking the injunction - well they still might!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. TBs statement 3 May 2013 onJH 7.00a.m.

      The Macs have agreed to reduce their overall claim against Tony by 93%

      On 6 Mar Carter Ruck wrote to me without prejudice saying the Macs would be prepared to limit their claim against me.

      I (TB) instructed my solicitor to conduct negotiations with the Macs as a result of which a new offer was put to me ......

      Tony Bennett believes the court costs were the Macs to waive and he should know!

      Carter Ruck work under instruction from their client who in this case is the MACS

      Old Spanish proverb: Always follow the squirrel

      Delete
    2. JJ - If you believe bennett after his many inaccurate posts then I suggest you get your head out of his arse and smell the coffee, not his shit.

      Delete
    3. The only time we heard the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth about the Mccann - v- Bennett case was the official court report.

      Remind me - was there a "fund" set up to help with his costs etc? Have we ever had transparency of that "fund"?

      Delete
    4. Your joking. You wont get any honest transparency on that one. Nor what was paid into the Madeleine foundation.

      Delete
    5. Very strange state of affairs, especially knowing Tony and his attention to detail.

      The Judge ordered costs against Tony. As the costs became his liability, he should have seen an itemised copy of the bill for £288K and again, being the pedantic man he is, gone through the bill challenging each and every item. You can't just tell someone they owe you £288K without giving them a breakdown of how the costs are made up. Even if the costs were written off or deferred, Tony would still have been entitled to a copy of the bill, or was he willing to hand over his house, simply on their word?

      Tony has historically, given us a blow by blow account of his legal actions against the McCanns, why then have we never heard how the bill for £288k was made up? The bill would list exactly how many hours/minutes etc, were spent by Partners, Solicitors, Assistants, etc, together with their hourly rate, number of letters written, telephone calls, and of course barristers' fees, which would have been phenomenal - didn't they have about 3 silks there? Did the barristers write their fees off too?

      Dynamite information for someone like Tony. Of course, he agreed to the gagging, which might have included secrecy regarding the costs that were written off, but again, I doubt it is something Tony would have been able to keep to himself.

      Delete
    6. The Campaign for Oppressed Libel Defendants (C.O.L.D.) was set up.

      "In accordance with the aims of C.O.L.D., therefore, any donations received will be used in the first instance to help Mr Bennett with the costs of defending himself, including any legal advice that he needs, and expenses such as Court fees and travel. Should costs be awarded against him in the proceedings, the Trustees intend to help his dependants, should they need help. Copies of C.O.L.D.’s constitution will be supplied on request (please send s.a.e. or e-mail)"

      Their website http://www.cold2012.org.uk is not working.

      More here: http://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t5011-the-campaign-for-oppressed-libel-defendants

      And here: http://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t6992-statement-from-the-committee-of-the-campaign-for-oppressed-libel-defendants

      Delete
    7. Good old trusty wayback machine has the draft constitution of C.O.L.D.:

      http://web.archive.org/web/20130321045120/http://cold2012.org.uk/Constitution.html#.U_2K_c5wbcc

      Trustees of C.O.L.D.: H. Williamson, R. Oliver
      Treasurer: Sharon Lawrence

      Delete
    8. So in a nutshell. What does all this mean?

      Delete
  38. Exactly. They had TB by the short and curly's and he has been working for Team Mccann ever since, assisted by the ever helpful Jill of course (among a few others).
    Choice of losing his house and prison or just sell your soul and work with them.
    If you can't beat them then you join them don't you Tony.
    The above is a FACT.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Fact:? And have you got proof of this "FACT" or is it just you surmising?

      Delete
    2. Ask Mrs Bennett. He didn't have a choice.

      Delete
    3. Do you know Mrs Bennett? Have you spoken to her about this?

      Delete
    4. I know someone who does. Very well.

      Delete
    5. @ 16.03
      Yeah, course you do! You sound a bit like "my brother's in the CID" pro clan on Twitter

      Delete
  39. "Did Tony do a deal with the devil?" I first became aware of the JH forum when the Birch stuff was news. Then we had Tony's trial and he stopped posting for some time after that and when he did post he was very careful in what he said.
    When the Smith sighting was raised and he started attacking the Smiths, I sensed that he may have been turned and made a cryptic post to that effect.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If that were the case he'd be publishing booklets. Ergo it ain't.

      Delete
    2. I don't think so. I don't agree with him either. But I think if he joined the Mc's as his only means of survival he wouldn't put so much effort into his posting. He comes across as though his heart and soul is in this case. Surely it would be in his interest to see the truth emerge, to prove to the whole world he was no idiot. I believe if he was bought over either this is seriously deep rooted(with a gun at his head) or the real Tony is locked up in the basement!

      Delete
    3. He's certainly paradoxical: in front of a camera he speaks well and comes across as rational, but when behind a keyboard all that goes out the window and the product is typical Icke forum everything is a conspiracy and no witness could ever actually be being honest.

      Maybe you have a point there: maybe there are two Tony's!

      Delete
    4. Noooooo. 2 Tony's. 1 is bad enough.

      Delete
  40. I see the shit stirrer Ladyinred has reinvented herself as 'palm tree' on the JH Forum.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Noticed that as well. Couldn't be anymore obvious. She never was the brightest spark.

      Delete
    2. palm tree claims to be previously something like justiceformadeleine (no doubt got the name wrong). She was waffling on for a few days about her i-phone and not being able to log on drone drone drone so she apparently changed her user name?

      All sounds a bit peculiar but I really don't think its Ladyinred reinvented.

      Horatio

      Delete
  41. Cristobell - You rock! Please carry on your campaign against Bennett until he is finished, he needs to be banned not only from CMOMM but also any other forum discussing Madeleine. He is clearly on a mission to help the McCanns

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. He will never be banned from CMoMM, and your hate campaign will fail.

      Delete
    2. 00:13 I don't want to finish anyone. I do however feel deceived. I had thought I was posting alongside like minded truth seekers on the JH forum, but I now see that those running the forum have a very sinister agenda.

      Tony Bennett demands answers from all those he points the finger at, yet refuses to answer any questions relating to his own behaviour.

      Did he collaborate with Richard D. Hall on the Buried by the Mainstream videos?
      Why is he determined to trash the evidence of the Smith family?
      Why is he pointing the finger at the first arguido, Robert Murat?
      Why does he use McCann tactics of smearing those who don't agree with him?

      Delete
    3. I think the majority of the CMoMM members (and ex) feel completely deceived by all of this.

      Delete
  42. I cannot reveal my name for obvious reasons but back in May last year Bennett confided in me (I had pretended for a long time to be a supporter and friend of his) that he had indeed done a deal with an MI5 handler (he even gave me the name, he is too trusting for his own good sometimes) who had 'arranged' for his payments to Carter-Ruck to cease, so long as when the time came, he did all in his power to wreck a certain sighting that was going to be heavily promoted by Op Grange later in the year. MI5 tell him what to write and help him to make it look as though it's just his own thoughts

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wow. I knew something was not right with the old chap. So as other people have stated on here. Is Jill in on it as well?

      Delete
    2. You're aving a larf aren't you?

      Delete
    3. Lol.... I think this is BS, sorry but I dont think Tony is that daft

      CH

      Delete
    4. I've met Tony once and agree he is too trusting for his own good.

      Delete
    5. I'm not sure about believing the claims of someone who pretends for a long time to be a supporter and friend. That sounds pretty far fetched.

      Delete
    6. Anonymous @ 27 August 2014 01:24

      Pull the other one.

      Horatio

      Delete
    7. What an absolute crock of rubbish!! I've heard it all now!

      Delete








  43. Anonymous26 August 2014 15:12

    I don't think so. I don't agree with him either. But I think if he joined the Mc's as his only means of survival he wouldn't put so much effort into his posting. He comes across as though his heart and soul is in this case. Surely it would be in his interest to see the truth emerge, to prove to the whole world he was no idiot. I believe if he was bought over either this is seriously deep rooted(with a gun at his head) or the real Tony is locked up in the basement!
    ....................................................................................
    Thanks for making me laugh, I can't get the image of a tied to a chair Bennett out of my mind. Locked in the basement at Havern Towers.

    ReplyDelete
  44. To be accused of racism is one of the most serious and career threatening things that can happen to you. (cat out of the bag again)
    Far better (on a personal career level) to keep your head down and to pretend that each case is an individual one, where the race or colour or creed of the suspect is of no consequence. (Is that a PRETEND to not be a racist ?)

    And Tony, its hurricane cristobAl not CristobEl so stop your daft posts. Answer the questions if your on the level.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That racism quote is from CMOMM member PeterMac.

      There's a tropical storm called Tony - last reported in 2012 - which seems to be back again!

      Delete
  45. Anonymous27 August 2014 00:10

    I see the shit stirrer Ladyinred has reinvented herself as 'palm tree' on the JH Forum.
    ............................................................................
    Bennett lies about the number of members. Fact is that when a member is banned or changes their user name, they aren't removed from the list of members.
    NFWTD is on her third name change that I know of. It totally skews the numbers. How come a lot are logged in but never post either?
    There are far more posts being made here than JH at present, it's like they've been stunned into silence.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Now do you really believe this....Well do ya now ?
    http://paulorebelononeglect.blogspot.co.uk/2012/02/philip-edmonds-hodge.html
    Maybe another fantasy email ???

    When TB tells you a theory is nothing but fantasy or lies, then its best to keep looking in those areas...

    http://thecolemanexperience.wordpress.com/2014/04/22/mossads-links-to-filthy-britain/
    I have no doubt that Israel are somewhat involved in this coverup...
    Keep digging, and no matter how crazy it sounds or looks, just dig and dig. Remember, everything Mainstream is Israel...

    CH

    ReplyDelete
  47. Richard D Hall cannot acknowledge TB's involvement in the dvd's or that he has spoken directly to TB about the case due to TB's conviction for contempt, it would return TB to Court.

    Some of the information in the dvd's can only have come from TB as a source. Any investigative reporter would obviously check their sources so there would be, if investigated, evidence of phone calls and e-mails between TB and Hall

    TB as an honourable man would obviously have told Hall he was not allowed to comment on the case, or repeat his questionable facts and there the matter would rest.

    By not doing so it would be possible to involve Hall in furthering Contempt of Court by publishing material.

    I do not believe we will hear very much from Richard D hall on the matter.The Macs are content as long as Murat and the Smiths are in the firing line.

    The hope will be that Justice Tugendhat doesn't mind that his judgement is being ignored and his Court held in contempt.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You have made some excellent points JJ, and it would make sense that he must appear to be complying with the Court agreement. However, if that is the case, why doesn't he just say so? He has never hesitated in the past to use the gagging order to avoid answering questions.

      I would be interested to know when Tony took this anti Smith stance, I am sure it preceded the hearing in front of Judge Tugendhat.

      Delete
  48. How many emails are pure fantasy ? Do we ever get to see the actual original emails. It seems we are told they are just a copy and paste......Why ?

    http://rosaleen-thewhistler.blogspot.co.uk/2009/08/latest-message-from-michael-shrimpton.html

    What is really going on ? Is TB painting a smokescreen about something ?
    Why is Christopher Story a fantasist like Shrimpton and also Birch ?
    What is going on ????
    I agree, they may sound like fantasy, but wouldnt you just simply ignore them if they were. Why do you knock these theories ? Whats in it for you to knock them ?
    Have you ever answered the question about how you got the information that the Naomi Corlett was a Secret Service Boat ?
    Is it all Controlled Opposition....

    CH

    ReplyDelete
  49. Im stepping back now until the forum opens....Keep up the good work all

    CH

    ReplyDelete
  50. As a reader of JKH's forum (but not a contributor) I can tell you that Bennett began querying the Smith sighting about 10 days after the Crimewatch prog last year. One of his bugbears is that Redwood didn't actually say that the Efits were made by the Smiths but 'by two of the witnesses'. He also says he doesn't think that the Smiths could have done any realistic Efits because it was too dark etc and how could they do them a year later? He is in a minority over there but does have quite a number who agree with him. I would have to add that the idea that members are banned for disagreeing with TB re the Smiths is quite wrong as he gets more members there opposing his view than in favour

    ReplyDelete
  51. I've done a quick check in the last 24 hours on how many people visit some of the main Madeleine discussion forums. There's one called Maddie Case Files which mostly has about 10 people viewing. The Missing Madeleine one has about 50 to 70 on-line at any one time. But Havern has 300 to 400 viewing at any one time. Are there any others? After reading the comments here, I would like to know exactly why Havern's blog is so popular

    ReplyDelete
  52. Anonymous27 August 2014 02:13

    Now do you really believe this....Well do ya now ?
    http://paulorebelononeglect.blogspot.co.uk/2012/02/philip-edmonds-hodge.html
    Maybe another fantasy email ???

    When TB tells you a theory is nothing but fantasy or lies, then its best to keep looking in those areas...

    http://thecolemanexperience.wordpress.com/2014/04/22/mossads-links-to-filthy-britain/
    I have no doubt that Israel are somewhat involved in this coverup...
    Keep digging, and no matter how crazy it sounds or looks, just dig and dig. Remember, everything Mainstream is Israel...

    CH
    ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
    I seriously hope CH you get help from your MH team. Your rantings should never have been allowed. Nor should you be allowed to post again.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Some interesting posts on here. I am wearing my 'banned' badge quite proudly. Something very strange is going on on the Jill Havern forum. It's a shame because there is so much interesting stuff on there. But the debate side of things has been going rapidly downhill for a year or so. And TB should not have been made an admin as it appears he is the kiss of death on forums, lol. His dogmatic views on Smithman and his desire to ridicule and not debate different ideas or theories does suggest there is an agenda there. Whenever a new idea/theory or piece of information emerges TB will often demand 100% 'proof' - pretty much impossible - and can be dismissive. Rather than giving a new approach the benefit of the doubt, it's dismiss, sometimes ridicule and/or demand impossibly high standards of 'proof'. A forum is not a court of law. This happened with one of the most interesting threads 'Comments on Cristobell's blog'. This was a genuinely very interesting thread as it appeared that the poster was an aggrieved TM relative. TB apparently even spoke to the poster by phone or so he claims. When TB posted about this he was - in typical fashion - dismissive of this person and her claims. He even made a disparaging remark about her - suggesting that she couldn't be taken seriously because she was nervy/anxious or something. Which, in actual fact, you probably would be if you were genuine and wanted to spill the beans but were worried about repercussions etc. TB was dismissive of the Shrimpton report too. While some of it might be fantasy/wrong it is nevertheless of interest and at least some of it may contain some truth. Even if a theory or report is wrong, there can often be a nugget of truth contained within. The boat Naomi Corbett is intriguing and it would appear that it belongs to the father of a Sky news anchor and translator who was in Luz at the time Madeleine went missing. There is an interview with her which you can find on line and she also knows Robert Murat well as they were at school together.

    Totally agree that when TB tells you a theory is nothing but fantasy and lies then you are scratching at the surface of something. One of the PMs I got on the forum from another member who shall remain nameless - the only one I ever got from that particular member - was asking me about this very subject. So I guess that would be a good place to do some more digging. There was also a very interesting thread on the forum about how boats/sailing/water appear to be a feature of this case. And talking of water there was a theory 'floated' (ahem!) that Madeleine could have drowned (possibly even been drowned) which got a lot of the hard core very hot and bothered. What was even more surprising was that no-one had ever suggested this before as far as I could tell. Could be wrong. Given that Detective Amaral claims Madeleine had an accident. Even petermac threw a wobbly and was rude. Quite unnecessary. Agree with other posters - there is a whole other agenda going on on that forum. The hard core love to dish it out but when you turn the tables on them they refuse to acknowledge what they have done, pretend they have been reasonable and then accuse you of what they themselves have been doing. Typical bullying tactics. And with zero humour too especially if you call them up on their behaviour. Wolves in sheeps clothing in some cases certainly.

    Who wants to start up another forum? Well done Cristobell at least you have exposed what is starting to look more and more like a racket as opposed to a racquet. The pack also started frothing at the mouth with any debate about the Soham case and the possibility of a miscarriage of justice. So that's one to explore more. Very dark indeed unfortunately. Some scary things going on in the world.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Cristobell,Keep up the good work. I love your "print and be damned" attitude.You are one of the few who keep me buoyed,and believe that this whole scam will come to an end. Power to you!

    ReplyDelete