Sunday, 31 January 2016

UPDATE THE CASE AGAINST ROBERT MURAT AND THE SWINGING THEORY

Apologies, I have started a new blog for this.  If anyone has facilities to c/p their comments re 'swinging theory' that appear here, please re-send.  Ta. 




UPDATE  10/02/6

THE SWINGING THEORY


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I tend to think that those who come up with these fantastic sex stories, have read way too much fire, brimstone and Black Lace.  They come from the imaginations of those a little bit detached from the 'normal' world.  I am guessing they have very little sexual experience and any information they do have, comes from bible based resources that entice them to seek out demons wherever they may be.  In this instance, Mark Warners resorts.   











Those of us who were glued to the McCann rolling news in the early days of May 2007, will recall all too vividly the moment Robert Murat was pounced on by the police and by the press.  He was a criminal profiler's dream, single, that is estranged from his wife and daughter and living with his mother.  His singledom set him apart from the rest of the male population and made him an obvious target.  I often whine about the stigma attached to single women, but for single men it can often be far worse.  Their failure to have one careful owner is often seen as hiding something unnatural and bestial in the closet.   

If this were a plotline for a fictional story however,  Mr. Murat would have been far too obvious and discarded in the first draft.  But hey, they were having a good run with tall stories, and the public were demanding a villain.  I think the ways in which they tried to implicate him were particularly crass.  If he had been outside Apartment 5A after the alarm had been raised, how could he have been running off across the lawless plains of the Algarve with a child in his arms? Or worse, disposing of a body?  He couldn't be in two places at once.  Deh!  The tapas members who suddenly remembered seeing him, were actually providing him with an alibi.  I know that will send you know who off into a 'told you so' frenzy, but the tapas gang didn't realise it, and neither did he.

The involvement of the Child Exploitation and Online Protection (CEOP) agency at the outset of this case has always been a mystery.  Madeleine wasn't even 4 years old, she had no online activity, and the perpetrator who stole Maddie wasn't sitting at home watching porn, he was out stealing kids!

For CEOP the discovery of pornography on Robert Murat's computer justified their presence.  Gerry McCann was already talking about paedophile rings and the loins of the world's vigilantes were stirring.  If the public believed that the internet was being used by predators to steal their children from their beds, they would welcome  laws that would give CEOP wider powers. 

Robert Murat became a suspect, an arguido, after anonymous tip offs from childhood 'friends' who accused him of playing with frogs and snails and puppy dogs' tails. And of course, that lightbulb moment when the excitable tabloid journalist Lori Campbell suddenly remembered Ian Huntley offered his assistance to the police too!   Case proven.  Rally a mob.  The most scary part of all this being of course, how easy it is to build a case against an innocent person. 

I don't for one moment believe Robert Murat had anything to do with Madeleine's disappearance.  I think he is probably just a nice, friendly guy, who, with his mother, were trying to help a very distressed family.  Whilst Ian Huntley had sinister motives for hanging around the police investigation in Soham, Robert Murat's reasons were valid and altruistic.  The McCanns and their friends were in the middle of a crisis, and Robert had the skills to help them with the language barrier at the very least.   

Unfortunately for the 'profilers' there was a major flaw in their composite suspect.  Robert was/is, an outgoing, friendly chap, well liked within his community with no anti social problems to be speak of.  That is, he was the opposite of a paranoid, isolated, sexually frustrated predator who hides behind bushes in the park and steals children in the middle of the night. 

Much is made of Gerry's 'I'm not going to comment on that' response to 'do you know Robert Murat'.  At the time Gerry and Kate were holding Court, all the eyes of the media and the world were upon them, and Gerry was loving it! He was Caesar addressing the Senate, important enough to answer or dismiss questions as he saw fit. 

As much as those trying desperately hard to involve Robert Murat, there is absolutely nothing other than fabricated accusations to back their theories up.  It is their need to implicate Robert Murat that perplexes me the most.  

  

202 comments:

  1. Robert Murat.

    Lets explode a few myths.

    People may not like it but they start with Bennett and are carried on by Richard D Hall.

    The myth Robert Murat rushed back to Portugal on May 1st after booking his ticket after midnight on May 1st. RM had confirmation of his flight to Faro sent to his computer at 01-57-42 Seconds am on Monday 30th April.

    He then flew at 07.00 from Exeter on Tuesday 1st May approx 29hrs later.

    This was not unusual. He had a similar pattern of flights in March, its all in the PJ files.
    This has been pointed out to Bennett and to RDH many times by many people, but they insist RM returned in a great hurry, he did not. But that does not suit Bennett's and Hall's agenda.
    Its totally and easily provable bullshit. They should stop deceiving their disciples and the gullible.

    I call Bennett the bullshitter and liar because that is what he is and he does not command my respect and I do not intend to give him any.

    For people who want positivity, there are a number of glaring lies deliberately engineered about Robert Murat by Bennett and R D Hall. If you have an open mind read the official files for yourself and you will see what an arse Bennett is.
    Have we forgotten Bennett's fairytale about Gerry and Murat's phones being switched off for the same 32 hours, which we all know now was make believe crap?

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

      Delete
    2. JJ 31 Jan. @16:19

      "He had a similar pattern of flights in March, its all in the PJ files."

      Who was the carrier on that occasion?

      Delete
  2. Could I just ask please how anyone else would know when Robert Murat received confirmation of his flight?

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

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

      Delete
    3. Not Textusa 31 Jan. @ 22:30

      According to JJ above (31 Jan. 16:19)

      "He then flew at 07.00 from Exeter on Tuesday 1st May approx 29hrs later.

      "This was not unusual. He had a similar pattern of flights in March, its all in the PJ files."

      Your link brings up p.1195. P.1194 (which covers March) includes no mention of flights.

      Your thoughts?

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

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

      Delete
    6. Not Textusa @17:14

      As far as I can see page 1189 is not at all informative as regards flight related e-mails, but then I probably lack your vision in these things.

      No matter.

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

      Delete
  3. The fact that Gerry McCann couldn't answer the question, '' Do you know Robert Murat?' with a straight 'Yes' or 'No' HAS to be suspect. Nothing to do with him enjoying a Caesar moment!

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

      Delete
    2. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
      Oh come on..................!

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

      Delete
    4. In the real world, a father of an alleged abducted child, when asked if he knew a man who had been made a suspect in said crime would likely say something like, 'I've never clapped eyes on the fella in my life, but I'll rip his fcuking head off his shoulders if he's harmed my little girl!!!!!' ..... but here we see Gerry McCann purse his lips like a pantomime dame and utter that he's not prepared to answer the question.

      What's the big secret?

      He either knew him or he didn't. I can't imagine anyone from PJ Plod said to him beforehand not to mention if he knew Murat or not if asked by Mickey Media.

      But we are talking McCann-World here, were what's up is down, and what's down is up.

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

      Delete
    6. ''which part of ''judicial secrecy'' are you struggling with?''

      I don't know about 14.35 but I'm struggling with the part where the good doctors only invoke the mystical ''judicial secrecy'' when asked an awkward question. They and their 'team' had no problem blabbing and lying about the state of play when they saw it as beneficial to hammering home their victim status.

      Morning Mr Green Ink. On sparkling form I see?

      Delete
  4. Robert mystery Murat one minute he decorating his sisters house for ten days in Exeter (one mile from Russell o brien and Jane Tanner and Jim and Charlotte Gorrod)the next minute he is in Portugal why did he not go back to vist his own daughter Sofia in Norfolk he seemed more interested in Madeleine than his own flesh and blood why did he hire a car when he already had a Volkswagen transporter and a Skoda fabia why did he not borrow his girlfriends Michaela Peugeot 205 or his website builder friend Sergey Malinka car and where did he go in this hired car to this day we have not had a explanation of where he went why did he not sue Jane Tanner but went on to become a quarter of a millionaire taking newspapers to court so many whys with this guy he claims on the night of 3rd of may he was playing cards with his mum Jenny in the kitchen am sorry but i never did have Robert and Jenny down as card players but must admit they both got a good poker faces i also see one of his hobbies is clay pigeon shooting u know what they say about humans who hurt animals

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

      Delete
    2. The pomposity of your post is astonishing 19:26; 'we have not had an explanation.....' Why the hell should Robert Murat give you an explanation? Who are you?

      Perhaps a clue lies in your 'quarter of a millionaire', we know the McCanns hate anyone (other than themselves) making money out of Madeleine, but do they hate it more than the embittered one in the cesspit?

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

      Delete
  5. Goodness me what a load of tosh.
    I hope your real life is more rewarding.

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

      Delete
    2. Please buy yourself a full stop, eh?

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

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

      Delete
    5. @ Not Textusa 31 January 2016 at 22:35

      this is so childish... aren't you aware of that? I can't take people seriously behaving or discussing like that. You are entitled to your opinion, but so are others too. And just because you have the bigger mouth, the louder vocabulary or six fingers on each hand, it doesn't make your arguments more convincing.

      Besides, I'm wondering what this is all about. Is it about trying to find out what happened to Madeleine or about a battle of egos?

      Zoe (nor pro, nor anti)


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

      Delete
    7. @ Not Textusa 1 February 2016 at 13:08

      I have and I agree that I should have adressed my comment also to some other anonymous (or not) contributors. It just happened that your comment was the last one after a nonsensical ping pong exchange.

      Zoe

      Delete
  6. One thing we do know about Robert Murat is that he helped the Portuguese police with translations of police statements as he was bi-lingual. He also worked as a police translator in the UK - Norfolk, I do believe. Someone, somewhere would have authorized this. It was supposed to be a police investigation, after all. Who gave the thumbs-up for Murat to act as police translator?

    I would also closely examine the role of the journalist who flagged up Robert Murat as acting suspiciously in a manner similar to Ian Huntley. I have my doubts about the Ian Huntley conviction. But in any event surely it is for the police to decide who has been acting suspiciously not some tabloid hack?

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

    ReplyDelete
  8. Christobell, may I suggest you read 'Access All Areas' by Dr Martin Roberts (onlyinamericablog) from October 2015. Gives some food for thought, really. Please I would like to know your opinions about it.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Please excuse off topic, but does anyone know what happened to the lady who called herself Julie Harrison?

    She seemed rather distressed and she suddenly stopped posting around the middle of last December.

    Amongst some of what she said was some very interesting information, if one read between the lines, so I just wondered if anyone knows what happened to her?

    Nuala

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

      Delete
    2. Hi Nuala, I do of course remember Julie, but I'm afraid I don't know what has happened to her. I do hope she is alright.

      Delete
    3. Thanks for the reply Ros, I hope so too.

      The fact that she disappeared so suddenly was worrying. She had a lot to say, some of it very interesting, and then suddenly . . . nothing.

      Nuala

      Delete
    4. @ Not Textusa31 January 2016 at 23:32

      Again... what kind of answer is that? Do you take yourself seriously?

      Zoe

      Delete
    5. @ Not Textusa 31 January 2016 at 23:32

      Again... what kind of answer is that? Do you take yourself seriously?

      Zoe

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

      Delete
    7. What Julie had to say seemed to be very interesting. Ros, wasn't Not Textusa who told you to stop publishing here her comments and because you refused to do that he whooshed away all his comments from your blog?

      Delete
    8. @ Not Textusa1 February 2016 at 13:09

      Well the echo wasn't meant, I had some difficulties proving that I'm not a robot... hope it won't happen again. But if it does, then take it as "twice holds better".

      Zoe

      Delete
  10. The conversation can be far more interesting if you cut out the jibes Not Textusa, the petty squabbling is tedious.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Wasn't it Robert Murat that mentioned the biggest F**k up of all time and wanted them all to return to Portugal to answer question's? Doesn't sound like a guilty man to me.

    ReplyDelete
  12. "Get'emGonçalo Today at 7:33 am

    There are some references to a syringe being found in the McCanns apartment on Google:"
    --------------------------------------

    Exactly what "mission" is havern on?

    There is no evidence anywhere of a syringe being found in the apt.

    bennett, by not ensuring that these types of post are deleted is complicit in whatever evil havern is perpetrating.

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

      Delete
  13. I don't for one moment believe Robert Murat had anything to do with Madeleine's disappearance. I think he is probably just a nice, friendly guy, who, with his mother, were trying to help a very distressed family.

    Oh so now they're a distressed family?Amazing you only see them as distressed when Murat's iffy ways comes into question lol.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I come from an Astrological perspective. RM`s chart (as is GM`s) has some pretty suspect aspects in regard to sudden sexual attraction. This is what UK astrologer Kathryn Cassidy wrote at the time in her professional opinion.
    "Did Robert Murat Take Madeleine?
    NewsScope, October 22, 2007

    Regarding the Madeleine McCann abduction case, a NewsScope correspondent, U.K. astrologer Kathryn Cassidy, writes "I have used Mercury Rx to sit down and go through all the charts that I have, and I have come to the conclusion that Murat took Madeleine." Kathryn's email details numerous astrological clues, and frankly, I agree that this guy looks like the culprit. Here's a brief look at some of the connections...
    Robert Murat, a self-employed property consultant, was born with his Sun at 28º Scorpio (November 20, 1973; Hammersmith, UK; time unknown). Eyewitness accounts place him (or someone who looks like him) at the scene of the crime around 9:10 pm, when the Moon was rising and located at 28º Scorpio. However, Murat says he was at home with his mother, who has corroborated his alibi.

    Murat's Mars in Aries is exactly opposite Uranus, an extremely dynamic vector in his chart. Mars-Uranus can be highly unpredictable and dangerously impulsive. As an indicator for the sex drive, this aspect thrives on sudden, spontaneous erotic attractions, and the kinkier or more dangerous, the better.[GM also has these planets in challenging aspect -Me]. While many men with this aspect can lead ordinary lives, Murat's Moon-Pluto conjunction indicates he's no stranger to the dark side.

    Unfortunately for Madeleine, his Mars is exactly conjunct her Venus, the number one indicator for sexual attraction. On May 3, when she disappeared, transiting Venus was exactly sextile Murat's Mars and trine his Uranus, pointing to an active sexuality at the time. With the Moon in Scorpio (on his Sun), he was likely out and about, astrologically making him a viable candidate for the crime."
    This is obviously just her opinion. Mars/Uranus aspects do have positive associations as well and it could be his links to Madeleine and sudden attraction are merely him applying sudden, unusual energy to find her.

    http://www.neptunecafe.com/madeleine.html

    The Moon was full in Scorpio on the 2nd May, intensifying lust, paranoia, jealousy and would have been affecting people in the days leading up to full.


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

      Delete
    2. Your analysis is absolutely ludicrous. I cannot believe that anyone would go to so much trouble to write so much mush about nothing.

      Delete
    3. According to Paul McCartney, Venus and Mars are alright tonight, so Murat couldn't have abducted Madeleine.

      You're talking out of Uranus.

      Delete
  15. Just something to try and clear the Robert Murat "rushing home myth" :

    Back in 2007 no airline would allow booking a ticket online for the next 24hours. If memory serves me , the deadline was 48 hours.

    The time we see in Murat's bookings is the time he either received a reminder from Flybe or the time he generated his boarding pass or e-ticket.

    Also, you can see in the booking history that all flights follow same patterns, confirmed/generated boarding pass the night before flying. So I hope this clears the myth that Murat flew back in a rush , because not only it does not make sense but also it is not true and clearly verifiable in the booking history and by airline online booking limitations in 07.

    As for renting a car, he needed one. Borrowing a car is out of the question since a car is essential in the Algarve due to lack of public transport options to go from one town to the other if you have to work or take care of your affairs. Moreover , the car he rented was inspected by the PJ.

    May I add that R Murat was fully investigated, his PC history, his telephone conversations, his Bank Accounts. He was also followed by the police his house was searched and also inspected by Grime's dogs. So , as you may see, if someone is cleared it is him. The other 2 arguidos in the case were not investigated to this extent.

    There is also a myth that child pornography was found on his PC , that is also a myth , what was found was a newspaper clipping of a page in the book section of The Telegraph. A review by Helen Brown of the book "Casanova's Women" and another review of the book "Leonard woolf: a Life" . Both articles are in the literary review section "Books" of the Telegraph and still acvailable in Google Search.
    http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P5/05_VOLUME_Va_Page_1134a.jpg
    Isabel

    http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P6/06_VOLUME_VIa_Page_1468.jpg

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

      Delete
    2. Anonymous 1 Feb. @13.10

      "There is also a myth that child pornography was found on his PC , that is also a myth"

      Not according to this blog's author (or CEOP perhaps):

      "For CEOP the discovery of pornography on Robert Murat's computer justified their presence."

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

      Delete
    4. Anonymous 13h10

      Book reviews are not pornography and definitely not a crime .

      Pornography may not be morally accepted by many , but it is also not a crime.

      isabel

      Delete
  16. Interesting _ I have seen the comment count increasing on the Mrs Fenn topic rising day by day - but the last entry I can see is: "Not Textusa30 January 2016 at 12:01"

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

      Delete
  17. Anonymous @13:10

    "Also, you can see in the booking history that all flights follow same patterns, confirmed/generated boarding pass the night before flying."

    If Murat's booking history is here:

    (http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P6/06_VOLUME_VIa_Page_1468.jpg)

    then I'm struggling to see a pattern.

    There's a full week separating a booking on 26 December and a flight on 2 Jan.

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

      Delete
    2. Not Textusa @17:00

      "Why are you asking me about something JJ posted?
      I suggest you ask JJ the question about JJ's post."

      And why are you not observing your own protocols? My comment was addressed to 'Anonymous', not you.

      And no the issue is not how quickly Murat returned to Portugal. Yours might be. Mine was questioning the statement of anonymous that 'all Murat's flights followed the same pattern' when it appears they did not.

      When I want your opinion I'll ask for it, thank you.

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

      Delete
    4. Not Textusa @22:54

      "You seem very keen to try to pin this on Robert Murat - why is that?"

      Pin what on Murat?

      I asked you specifically for an opinion regarding another post, because you had already contributed a link to relevant information which appeared incomplete (there is no e-mail booking confirmation for a March flight on the page where one might expect to find it).

      You have since introduced another page into the equation which adds nothing of consequence.

      The precedent in March to which you and others refer happens to be a return flight from Portugal to the UK, which probably explains why I could find no e-mail confirmation for the period - RM could well have made the booking over the counter at Faro and left with his ticket in his hand.

      You ask: "Why anyone should have to explain his movements four to five months before Madeleine even disappeared is quite beyond me".

      It's quite beyond me too. I have not asked anyone to do so, but people seem to want to volunteer historical data in support of the 'Murat didn't rush back' argument.

      OK, so he didn't rush back to Portugal, but don't support a justification based on a pattern of flight data that clearly does not exist. Unless you think two instances of 48 hr. separation - one out, one back - are signs of habitual practice.

      In that case it must have been a fairly recently acquired habit, since the passenger had a few more days in hand when he flew out at the turn of the year.

      "What exactly are you accusing him of?"

      Nothing. But you cannot expect 'conspiraloons', as you call them, to run off with their tales between their legs on account of unsubstantiated arguments to the contrary.

      The 'get your facts straight' accusation works both ways old boy.

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

      Delete
    6. Not Textusa @00:29

      "you appeared not to grasp what you were looking at"

      I beg to differ.

      The link (to p.1195) as volunteered by yourself:

      http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/oa/OA6_1/o_apenso_1_Vol_6_p1195.jpg

      "It WAS NOT a complete record of his email traffic"

      Obviously not. The corresponding link to the adjacent page (1194), covering Murat's e-mail traffic for March:

      http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/oa/OA6_1/o_apenso_1_Vol_6_p1194.jpg

      No flight confirmations you'll notice. But from the flight record (link provided by JJ) it's clear that the March journey was Faro - UK in any case.

      Perhaps you didn't understand the gist of my original question (by "on the page where one might expect to find it" I did NOT mean, "on that page (1195)". I was referring to another page entirely, i.e. 1194).

      Never mind.

      "I suggest if you want any further information, you look for it yourself."

      Thank you, I shall.

      Delete
    7. Did RM book his flight and rush back to Portugal within 6 hrs in May.

      No, RM did not.

      Did RM book his flight and rush back to Portugal within 6 hrs in March.

      No, RM did not.

      Did RM book his flight and rush back to Portugal within 6 hrs in December.

      No, RM did not.

      This is a simple pattern, you just need an open mind and follow the police evidence and discard the Bennett bullshit.

      I have looked at RM's email in the PJ files today which shows the confirmation as 01-52-42 on April 30th, on my computer. I have no idea why anyone else can not. But really what does it matter what RM did in December, it has no relevance whatsoever.

      The point in question is did RM rush home on May 1st, the police say not. The airline say not.
      What is the problem?

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

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

      Delete
    10. JJ @10:03

      Calm down old socks. If you hadn't been a little careless in your opening post this issue may never have arisen:

      "He had a similar pattern of flights in March, its all in the PJ files."

      Inviting us to look in the files, whereupon we discover that Murat did not exhibit a pattern of flights (plural) in March at all. He only flew the once.

      Now you ask:

      "Did RM book his flight and rush back to Portugal within 6 hrs in March.

      "No, RM did not."

      Of course he did not, because his one flight was not TO Portugal at all, but from it - to the UK.

      "But really what does it matter what RM did in December, it has no relevance whatsoever."

      So where's your 'pattern'? That in neither of two flights (in different directions) that 'matter' to you did he book and board within 6 hours?

      "What is the problem?"

      The 'problem' is that,, not unlike some of those on the opposite side of the fence to yourself, you are adducing non-existent evidence in support of your argument.

      You would have done well to have referred to the one e-mail (for the April 30 booking - May 1 flight) and left it at that.

      Curb your enthusiasm. To overstate the case is counter-productive.

      Delete
    11. The usual diversionary crap! RM did not rush home on May 1st, it was made up by Bennett. The proof is there in the files.
      As you obviously do not have English as a first language, I will explain.

      He made flights in March. If he flew as you state only the once, he would be stranded in England. He flew back to Faro, a second flight. Flight is single, flights are plural.

      RM's previous trips are totally irrelevant. It has been proved RM did not rush home on May 1st.

      You seem to have a serious problem with that.

      I am not on any side of the fence, I just cannot abide stupid people when the truth is there to read in the official files and has been for years.

      If you believe RM is involved in the disappearance of M, would you or anybody else like to offer some real provable evidence, instead of innuendo, smear and lies.

      Delete
    12. JJ @13:38

      Never mind curbing your enthusiasm. Perhaps you'd better start with supressing your sarcasm.

      "As you obviously do not have English as a first language, I will explain.

      "He made flights in March. If he flew as you state only the once, he would be stranded in England. He flew back to Faro, a second flight. Flight is single, flights are plural."

      Would you care to re-think that one in the context of RM's flying TO Portugal FROM England on 1 May?

      By your reckoning he was already there. Or do you know of him flying to Exeter and back again in the meantime, say, April?

      I'll leave that one with you.

      "RM's previous trips are totally irrelevant. It has been proved RM did not rush home on May 1st.

      "You seem to have a serious problem with that."

      Not at all. And since we agree as to the 'total irrelevance' of RM's previous trips, I can only question why YOU bothered to introduce them into the equation in the first place.

      "I just cannot abide stupid people..."

      Nor can I.




      Delete
    13. Anonymous 1 February 18h44
      Oh Dear... Yes I was innacurate and should have typed 2 out of 3 flight bookings instead of typing all flights.

      Regardless, as above, the fact is that RM did not rush back to Portugal which is a myth that is repeated ad aeternum.
      ---------------------------------------------------
      I do recall the 24 hour and 48 hour rule, but I cannot find it anymore after all these years. However, you may have a point since FLybe was quite innovative and was one of the first airlines to sign up for Amadeus GDS systems for E-Ticketing and online check in.

      I did manage to confirm that check in for fligths could only be made from 30h/24h to 2 hours before departure. Maybe that is where my memory is betraying me. I still do not think it was an actual booking that was made for a flight departing 5 hours later back in 07. More likely a boarding pass print or a reminder itinerary from airline. But I cannot state it as a fact nor is it relevant, to show the RM did not rush and his return was as planned.

      Isabel

      Delete
    14. Isabel @16:28

      "Oh Dear... Yes I was innacurate and should have typed 2 out of 3 flight bookings instead of typing all flights."

      Thank you for your courteous response, an attitude from which others might learn.

      Personally, I'm not convinced that the motives behind a person's journeying to and fro can be discerned from two flights, one each way, but that is only my opinion and not worth arguing over.

      We all make mistakes from time to time. It's when stentorious claims are made on the back of misinterpretations that the fur starts to fly.

      Let's at least agree that RM did not book his passage and board the plane within five or six hours, since that is clearly borne out by the confirmation message on 30 April in anticipation of a 1 May flight. Nothing more need be said.

      Delete
  18. On YouTube with Ian Woods (Sky), Lori 'the liar'Campbell can be seen stating quite boldly that she first alerted her suspicions to her London office on Monday 7th May regarding Robert Murat and they advised her to contact Leics police, which she did that day.

    Oh Lori, what a liar you are!

    You contacted the Leics police on Sunday 6th May, the emails are in the PJ files. Of course you never realised and neither did the Leics police, the PJ would publish copies of these emails and that would drop the Leics police right in it. So the fairytale was changed to the first suspicions of RM was on Monday.7th May

    So who told her to finger RM? and who told her in her interviews to change the date from Sunday to Monday?
    This you would think would be right up Bennett and RD Hall's 'research' street.
    But of course it would reveal RM was a patsy and that would not suit the wider agenda.

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

      Delete
  19. Millions of detective hours using the best computers, search systems and databases, along with human intelligence has been spent by the GNR - PJ police - Leics police - MET police - CEOP - NPIA - Special Branch - FBI - Interpol - etc., etc., collectively on the Madeleine case.

    All have concluded that M was alive on Thursday 3rd May 2007.

    But we are told by a sad old git in a bedroom in Essex, that whatever happened to M, happened earlier in that week and we are meant to take this seriously.

    M was alive on Thursday 3rd May. What is it people cannot understand? and therefore it matters not what RM did on Tuesday.

    Anyone who believes that all the police officers in all of these forces are wrong, and Bennett is right, is as stupid as he is

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

      Delete
  20. JJ 2 February 2016 @ 11:11 said:

    "Millions of detective hours using the best computers, search systems and databases, along with human intelligence has been spent by the GNR - PJ police - Leics police - MET police - CEOP - NPIA - Special Branch - FBI - Interpol - etc., etc., collectively on the Madeleine case.

    All have concluded that M was alive on Thursday 3rd May 2007."

    Can you provide evidence of that broad statement? I don't remember seeing anything of the sort, is it in the files?

    All the most sophisticated state of the art tech equipment in the world could never assist when the main witnesses are telling lies. How can any of the particular methods you mention tell whether a child was around over a period of about 4 days?

    Ref to Robert Murats return to Portugal on 1 May, is it the word *rush* that troubles you so? Would it be better to say he was in a hurry to return. Somebody mentioned earlier about some hours delay between booking and the actual flight, it still could be said he *hurried* back to Portugal in the middle of decorating.

    Doesn't he even say so himself, only for a different reason?

    George

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. George
      Why should I do all the work?

      Can you or anybody else provide real evidence that any official law enforcement officer anywhere, has stated that M disappeared before May 3rd.

      The rest of your post is ridiculous and I assume a wind-up.

      Delete
    2. JJ 2 February 2016 at 13:52

      1. Why, because you made the claim I've already said I've never seen the information before.

      2. No I can't but all they had to work on initially was the T9 statements. I don't think the investigation in Portugal had time to develop before the British government and police stuck their oar in.

      3. Ridiculous in what way?

      To answer a question with a question is not only bad manners but also shows you don't have an answer.

      George

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

      Delete
  21. @ JJ 2 February 2016 at 13:52

    Sorry, I'm not George, but have been waiting for your answer.

    "Why should I do all the work?"
    Because you made a statement.

    "Can you or anybody else provide real evidence that any official law enforcement officer anywhere, has stated that M disappeared before May 3rd."
    This is a distraction and very telling... Can I deduce from it, that you are also not able to provide real evidence?

    "The rest of your post is ridiculous and I assume a wind-up."
    That's also a cheap way to shut up a discussion: ridiculising and insinuating...

    Zoe

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Zoe
      Have you never read the PJ official report or seen Crimewatch and OG where they clearly state M was alive on May 3 in PDL.
      As you know absolutely nothing about this case why are you commenting other than to cause mischief.

      You cannot produce one fact or official statement that M was not there on May 3 .All you have are the ramblings of Bennett and other deluded fools

      Delete
    2. JJ 2 February 2016 at 15:48

      The PJ official report only identifies the proceeds of the investigation which was largely built on the T9 witness statements. If you can supply a link to the PJ report where it states beyond doubt that Madeleine McCann was around on 3rd May please do so. Beyond doubt not on the hearsay of the dubious witnesses.

      Have you seen Crimewatch, where a reconstruction was presented so far removed from the sequence of events it's laughable but still built on the dubious witness statements?

      Can you produce on fact or official statement to prove that M WAS there on the 3rd? Do tell.

      George

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

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

      Delete
    5. @ JJ 2 February 2016 at 15:48

      Being a nonpartisan and also a foreigner with another language, I've been struggling if it's necessary to answer you and if yes, then how.
      I decided to still not comment on the case and only explain myself so much:
      I read, watched and listened to all you mentioned above and much more.
      My intention was not to cause mischief.
      I'm interested in other people opinions, their theories and/or how they reach their conclusions.
      My issues with you and other contributors had only indirectly to do with the case.
      I'm not a T.B. disciple. In fact I'm nobodys disciple, I can think for myself.
      And finally yes, I must have been a very "deluded fool" in the sense for jumping in in something I should have known better, would turn out to be a wasps' nest.
      Apologise for this comparison, but it's the way I perceive you, like wasps shouting histerically "Bennett!...Bennett!...Bennett!... And it really looks like as if Cristobels Blogg had developed some kind of "Bennett-paranoia" and "bluepen-allergy". He really doesn't need any propaganda, you're all seem to contribute to a free advertising campaign for him and CMOMM.

      I'm jumping out now.

      PS: My last comment on the case: I hope Madeleine will be found one day. If she's still alive, I hope she is not suffering. If the parents are innocent, I hope they will be cleared from suspicion and get their peace too. The same goes of course for all others wrongly suspected "witnesses".

      Delete
    6. I hope you don't 'jump out' now 12:36, I enjoy your posts and it is refreshing to have alternate opinions.

      I agree, I probably am giving Tony Bennett more attention that he deserves, but unfortunately, he is the 'villain' responsible for creating most of the myths surrounding the disappearance of Madeleine. He jumped onto this case just as quickly as all the other chancers, opportunists and wide boys. Where most of us saw tragedy, he saw fame and fortune.

      I am here because I want to know the truth 12:36, and I think the same applies to all of us. Tony Bennett is muddying the waters just as much as Team McCann.

      For whatever reason he is trying to keep the public's eye away from the ball. He is not researching the McCann party, he is 'researching' those on the periphery - those least likely to be involved in Madeleine's disappearance.

      Why? Because he believes that at the heart of our society there is a dark underworld of paedophile sex rings who are trying to take over the planet. He cannot accept that a little girl died, possibly by accident, or possibly not. For Mr. Bennett, there has a got to be lots, lots more.

      All his 'research' projects begin with the premise, someone, somewhere, is having deviant sex. Unfortunately, Mr. Bennett holds the kind of prejudices that would get an innocent person hung - quite literally. How many black, gay, stoners and goths with skull tattoos are sitting on Death Row because they can't remember what they were doing that night? Or indeed, any night.

      I have come too far in my own search for the truth in this case 12:36, it has been a 9 year journey on the same scale as a hobbit looking for a ring on the top of a volcano. Don't get me started on the bloody battles I have gone through, lol.

      I know that I jest, but I lost a lot of my faith in humanity as the truth behind Madeleine's disappearance dawned on me. At the very beginning, I fought the parents' side against my equally feisty mother. But she was a wise old bird.

      Even after my experience in the convent, I still believed that people were innately good. Watching the murky interference of the government and their agencies in the protection of these people, shocked me to the core. Whilst I suspected that evil and corruption goes on within the corridors of power, but I didn't REALLY believe it. We in the 'civilised' world are much too sophisticated for that. Boy, was I wrong! I feel like such a fool.

      Watching this case unfold over the last 9 years has been an enlightening experience. I have found myself studying micro expressions, forensic linguistics, psychopathy, narcissism and the works of Armando Ianucci. I suspect the blame for the incumbent government's initial involvement will be placed on the dozy intern in No. 10, who took the first call and got the wrong end of the stick. Oops!

      I like that you think for yourself 12:36, and your English is amazing. I am a tad envious of those who are bilingual and indeed several languages. I am told that learning another language takes your intellect up a couple of notes, it gives you a more logical way of thinking apparently. I cannot disagree. I have always found people who have taken the trouble to learn 'our' language, both interesting and charming. :)

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

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. When you learn some manners and temper your customary insolence, then it might be possible to engage with you.

      In addition rather than restricting your vocabulary to *rubbish* *bollocks* *nonsense* it would be helpful if you provide evidence of the claims you make.

      George

      Delete
    2. Ah, your missing post George at 16:05.

      The spambox obviously deemed it aggressive George, as indeed do I. Perhaps you could tone it down a bit, there really is no need for rudeness.

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

      Delete
    4. Wasn't supposed to be aggressive or rude, it's how I see the poster pure and simple. I'd sack the spambox, obviously too prudish if it rejects words used in everyday conversation.

      Still I can take a hint, as you've said on many occasions, your blog your rules. Seems a bit one sided though, if only people would realise that opinions can coincide without being influenced or besotted.

      George

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

      Delete
    6. I try very hard not to be one sided George and I am happy to publish considered posts that offer food for thought.

      There has never been a civil forum where pros and antis can discuss this case without abuse. As we have seen with CMoMM, angry rants drive readers away in droves, using the same words over and over is tedious.

      I know that you have a wider vocabulary that those few words of 'everyday conversation' George - why not use them?

      And NT, I would prefer you kept your aggressive tone to your own blog. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of ways in which to call someone a knobhead, some hilariously funny and some so covert, only the target knows they have been shot. Do try to use a bit of imagination.

      Delete
  23. Slightly off topic, but what a ridiculous 'new poll' on the CMoMM site. Orchestrated by Bennett no doubt, but posted up by sidekick Sharon.

    At least one of the only decent posters (pennylane) left on that odd site has put in a sensible reply.

    Regards, Andrew

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

      Delete
    2. I don't think there is anyone left to ban is there? I think it is just Bennett and Havern talking to each other days, all that nastiness has driven everyone away.

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

      Delete
    4. Cristobell
      Would you be so kind as to tell me why you didn't publish my comments about Not Textusa posted this afternoon? It was after all true.

      George

      Delete
    5. Hi George, I have only spammed one post today - a private message to me, however there did seem to be one from you, which I think 'spammed itself'.

      I have now 'unspammed it', so hopefully it should appear.

      Delete
  24. Even allowing for the lack of news on the case, it really is noticeable how few people are posting there. Even Tony and Verdi are fairly quiet!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Tony will pipe up soon, C. And then Verdi will do the same. As they are one and the same and absoulutely ridiculous and pathetic. But he might read this and try and construct some sort of conflict in posts, as to try and hoodwink folk that they must be different people.. yawn.

      I would personally like to ask (yet again) about the progress on the alledged death threats i supposedly made on Tony sodding Bennett. More guff that comes out his mouth, which he thinks people without question will believe. Noticed it was sort of brought up on MMM recently. Others have said.. well you should not ring him up... Yes, i know. But when he makes up outright lies about you personally, then why not? Didnt say these so-called threats and dont regret ringing and asking the loon to stop making up ridiculous lies about me. Very simple.

      I tell the truth and its obvious the mental old goat doesnt. On all fronts.

      Regards, Andrew.

      Delete
    2. The way I see it, Andrew, very few people will even know about the allegations and, most importantly, nobody knows who you are in the real world and so the claims will not affect your life at all.

      I really think that you should put all this behind you; it's becoming a pain to be honest.

      Delete
    3. Fran .. You seem a nice person. But you dont know the half of it.

      No beef with you. Just Tony who likes to make up lies.

      Regards, Andrew.

      Delete
    4. Are you at liberty to say what else is involved?

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

      Delete
  25. Yep, agree with that NT and C. Not to mention their socks. Although has been very quiet on there of late so must be in the wash. Later hung out to dry. Which they will be.

    Regards, Andrew.

    ReplyDelete
  26. @17.49 And the new trick they have adopted not only are they logging in non posting members they are they now making fake one's,not one of these new members has been on the forum yet.Their am is probably to get to 5000 members what they dont realise is they could have 10 million members but nobody is gonna post as there is no Madeleine news but they are too thick to think that.Even non Madeleine forums with threads about her have had no posts for months,Jill and Tony are making fools of themselves playing stupid "our forum is busy" tricks.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Who is online?
      In total there are 147 users online :: 6 Registered, 3 Hidden and 138 Guests :: 1 Bot"

      Delete
    2. Havern and Bennett have probably got 70 computers each, which are on at the same time, which would explain why so many guests online. And I bet Sharoni is the Bot.

      Delete
    3. I really cannot understand why Jill (Havern) and indeed HideHo are still hanging onto Bennett's coat tails. I suspect it has something to do with his 'Madeleine' (Bennett) Foundation and the financial motives behind it. They are of course also supporting Richard Hall and his DVDs.

      As my old double glazing boss once told me, the answer to EVERY question is money.

      Delete
  27. Listen up Justice forum. Blonk is T.B. How much evidence do you need?

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

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

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If you look carefully at Bennett's work, you can see just how much he has 'cheated' with his research. He has literally filled in the gaps with heavily biased speculation.

      The problem is of course, that most readers would rather have their fingernails removed with pliers than settle down with the works of Tony Bennett.

      The other problem is, that those lazy researchers who follow him, and stand by his word, would themselves have to backtrack, and admit that they haven't read the pile of old shite either.

      As Mark Twain said, 'it's easier to fool people, than to convince them that they have been fooled'.

      Delete
    2. @ Ros 'it's easier to fool people, than to convince them that they have been fooled'.

      Apparently there is a lot of doubt that Mark Twain said that - people have been unable to find the source of the quote.

      Delete
    3. @ Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton3 February 2016 at 18:44

      Please don't call them "researchers" - it was a term adopted for use by bennett himself to try to give some authority to the muck raking that he was doing. Scouring the internet to dig up dirt on people or to expose them online is certainly not research.

      Delete
    4. Lol 19:28, actually, I had intended to put the word 'researchers' in quotes doh! I totally agree 'muck raking' is far more accurate.

      Delete
    5. 19:24, it certainly sounds like the words of Mark Twain, the kind of thing he would say, I didn't know there was doubt about it, but I'm happy to give him credit.

      Delete
  29. Well someone at least had witnessed the oddness of the man during adolescence -
    http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/CARLOS-COSTA.htm

    some might say he grew out of it.
    And some might say Malinka was not involved.

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

      Delete
    2. I am very suspicious of those who came forward with lurid tales about Robert Murat. It was such an obvious set up it was cringingly embarrassing. If it were fiction, the author would be slated for lack of imagination.

      Delete
    3. The scurrilous accusations in that statement are so obviously fabricated I'm amazed anyone gives them the time of day.

      So it's somewhat shocking to see them being repeated as if they are fact on the CMoMM forum as recently as last November.

      Shocking, but perhaps not surprising.

      Nuala

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

      Delete
  30. Not the most reliable witness I agree! If there was any truth in such stories, wouldn't there be more people coming forward to confirm them?

    ReplyDelete
  31. Re the statement by Carlos Costa:

    The alleged source of Carlos Costa, Lyndon Pollard, was also questioned by the PJ . Mr Pollard denies all the allegations against Robert Murat in Carlos Costa's statement. in fact, Lyndon Pollard states he hardly recalls Robert Murat since his relation with him was "non existent ".

    I believe it is factual to state that the credibility of Mr Costa's statement is equal to zero.

    Isabel

    http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LYNDON-POLLARD.htm

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

    ReplyDelete
  33. A question for Cristobell. Are you G-Unit on the Justice forum?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 21:56. No, not me, I only use my real name or pen name Cristobell.

      Delete
  34. Oh dear oh dear - I see members of Uk Justice forum are chortling because they think they have discovered that Members of Parliament have signed bennett's petition.

    Just to clarify things for them - the petition is split into parliamentary constituencies for mapping purposes - the data just shows the names of the MP for each constituency - it does not mean they have signed the petition FGS!

    As far as I know there is no way to see a list of who has signed the petition (maybe bennett can as it was his petition).

    ReplyDelete
  35. I can't believe my eyes! bennett has started a thread asking people to post "great lies and hoaxes". His criterion is:

    "The only criterion I would set is that there must be a very deliberate lie or hoax at the heart of each one - and in each case the lie or hoax must have been proven beyond doubt."

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

    Well here I go:

    "That statement by Mr Justice Tugendhat is one reason why I really cannot continue to make any more public statements about Madeleine’s reported disappearance. The impact of my actions on members of my family is another. Besides that, the process of defending yourself and pursuing legal claims on your own is both stressful and mentally exhausting. The possibility of being sent to prison, being made a bankrupt and losing my home were all factors which have weighed heavily on my mind. It is time for me to cease making any more statements on the case - not even repeating facts."

    Direct quote from Tony Bennett, 3 May 2013 on havern's forum here

    http://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t6951-tony-bennett-announcement-of-settlement-between-mccanns-and-edward-smethurst

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Great post. Let's hope he loses the rest of his finances.

      Delete
    2. 22:20 Great post indeed! In my opinion it is dishonourable to give your 'Word' and then go back on it. When someone breaks their word, you can never trust them again.

      Delete
    3. Does anyone remember, a few years ago, an idiot from Essex who used to write pages and pages and pages (mainly blue ink) about one of the witnesses having a company which made a golfing device.

      The idiot from Essex, had spent months analysing the company's accounts and directors to prove the witness was a liar, only to find it was another Martin Smith.

      Delete
    4. Whiskers the Cat5 February 2016 at 12:12

      Indeed yes! I think it was only about 18 months ago that the mistake was discovered.

      Delete
  36. Bennett's supporters are as think as he is. IMO.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sorry, should read thick.

      Delete
  37. " joyce1938 on Wed Jan 27, 2016 11:46 pm

    I don't think you would be allowed to sign a 2nd time. I forgot I had signed this, then when I tried to do so, told me I had already signed. joyce1938"

    Yes joyce - we all believe that you didn't sign it for a second time with a different ID - of course you forgot!!!

    ReplyDelete
  38. Oh no - bennett is going to do some "research" into the JFK assassination now - Lord help us all.

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

      Delete
    2. Whiskers the Cat6 February 2016 at 17:23

      I think that Robert Murat will be safe as he wasn't born for another 10 years but I hope that the villainous Martin Smith can prove where he was at the time.

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

      Delete
    4. Text Textusa: why do you post on here when you blog says is not open to the public?

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

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

      Delete
    7. I didn't understand either!

      Delete
    8. I've got Martin Smith on the grassy knoll Whiskers ;)

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

      Delete
  39. "Of course, many liars, con-men and fraudsters are very practised, with years of experience of effortless lying."

    Says bennett - who gave a false name to the Police when arrested over road signs, was sanctioned over dodgy dealings as a solicitor, who breeched his agreement with the Mccanns and who broke his promise never to talk publicly about the Mccann case again.

    He should know - as it takes one to see one.

    ReplyDelete
  40. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q59IXYANAlo

    It would be interesting to know why he changed his mind about not discussing the case and how he has escaped further harassment from the McCanns for doing so.

    I support his - and anyone else's right - to talk about the case freely.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You cannot change your mind once you have given your word Kathy! It is dishonourable!

      No-one questions Tony Bennett's right to free speech, it is the fact that he gave HIS WORD that he would not discuss the case again.

      His 'Word' means nothing if he had no intention of keeping it. He took the martyr's route then chickened out at the end. He backed down, capitulated, surrendered, gave in. He was the Christian trying to persuade the hungry lion, that he was a Roman now.

      He should not have given his word Kathy. He should have had the courage of his convictions and he should have gone to prison, etc, etc. The problem with people who say they will fight something to the bitter end, is that they lose all credibility when they bail out halfway through. All the trust is gone.

      Bennett was harassing the family of a missing child. Why right did he have to interrogate them? Why right did he have to interfere with the police investigation? He has been appointed by no-one, he has appointed himself. It doesn't matter what the McCanns (or indeed anyone) have or haven't done, it's none of Tony Bennett's business. He is not judge, jury and executioner, he is a vigilante.

      He was harassing them Kathy, and nobody deserves that kind of persecution. He was turning up in their home town handing out leaflets constantly looking for photo opportunities by delivering petitions at No. 10. How much further would he have gone, if no-one had intervened? I'm surprised they didn't report him to the police.

      Mr. Bennett expected the public to get behind him. He is just as good at playing the persecuted victim as the McCanns. He hoped to find kind benefactors who would back him all the way through to the Highest Courts in land. The Courtroom is his fantasy stage, his development probably became stunted during TV's Perry Mason years. He longs for that moment when he reveals the real villain. After that it gets very deep, lol.

      You are however, probably right on the freedom of speech point, it should have been dealt with through the criminal justice system.

      Delete
  41. Hi,this is the first time i have commented on your Blog,although i log in alot!!
    I also regularly read TCMOMM. I have followed the Madeleine Mccann case since around 2011,when i first heard about this case being a Hoax! A co worker of mine first told me about how she was following Blogs about 'The Mccann Scam'!I must say i very much enjoy reading your Blog,as i write in my spare time,although just for me!!I tend to lean towards the 'swinging' theory,and i am hoping nothing more sinister is being covered up!But this case sure is perplexing!!Congratulations on your Blog,and also your writings,very enjoyable!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Jacqueline and a big welcome :)

      Delighted to hear you are a keen writer, it is such a fulfilling hobby, and there is an audience for every genre. It is a great way to exercise your imagination and get everything that bugs you off your chest! Writing, like most things, improves with practice Jacqueline, I hope you have a Virginia Woolf 'Room of One's Own'.

      I think the hardest thing for most new writers (and indeed old hands) is finding their own particular niche, the genre and the style - it can take years! I eventually did a HND (Higher National Diploma)in professional writing - it was a bit of a watershed, I was only looking for a short creative writing class, lol.

      One of the first things we learned was,'Honesty and Integrity'. Our lecturer wrote it in large letters across the white board. If you write with honesty and integrity, you will never be ashamed of anything you have written, you won't hurt anyone, and your 'works' will become a precious part of your legacy. I really should write a book about writing a book, I could waffle on for hours!

      As for the swinging theory, don't get me started on that, lol. I just don't see it Jacqueline. In 5 days they couldn't work out a babysitting rota, for them, working out who's zooming who would have totally confused them. David could have hopped in bed with the mother-in-law!

      I jest of course, but I must say, I am somewhat chuffed at the calibre of the posters who contribute here, it makes it interesting and enjoyable for me too!

      Delete
    2. Like you Jacqueline, I lean towards the swinging theory because I can't find any other theory that fits the bill. Fact is this, there were 300+ guests in PdL the week Maddie went missing. 300+ guests out of season in a place that has NOTHING except the beach, and it was too cold for the beach when they were there.

      PdL has no restaurants, no shops to speak of, no cinema, no museums, absolutely nothing. There is nothing to do in PdL except go to its beautiful beach, but all those guests were there out of season when it was too COLD for the beach.

      So why were they there? All those doctors and lawyers, relatives of politicians, high-flyers etc, all gathered together in PdL, out of season in the cold with absolutely nothing to do but shiver, when they could have been having a sea and sand holiday in the sunshine somewhere else?

      So whatever was going on in PdL that week it was an organised EVENT, that much is clear. All those high-flyers had gathered together for SOMETHING in PdL.

      And what I also find interesting is the lack of photos from that week. Where are the photos from other guests? The "here we are in PdL the week Maddie went missing" photos we'd normally expect to see? Where are the photos from the tapas dinners? Diane Webster said they took photos at the tapas bar, and surely other guests would have photos as well? It's normal for people to take photos on holiday, right?

      But nothing, not a thing.

      Of course the taking of photos and videos at swinging events is prohibited to protect the privacy of those taking part, so all in all the swinging theory is the best fit for me as regards what was going on that week and the massive cover up that resulted from the disppearance of Maddie.

      Nuala

      Delete
    3. IF swinging was the cause; 1. Someone would have said something-anything- by now, the slightest indication. But NOTHING. 2. Swinging alone is not tabu enough to cover up the death of a child. Actually, there is no rational reason AT ALL to cover up something accidental. None of it makes sense until you start thinking non-accidental.
      Btw, lots of people go on holiday "off season". A neighbour of mine went to Majorca first week October, there were quite many Brits and no, seemingly no swinging event.

      Delete
    4. Sorry Nuala, I cannot agree. There was plenty for the McCanns and their holiday party to do on that holiday. They were all sporty and competitive, and the weather conditions were perfect for tennis and running. Gerry was having up to 3 tennis lessons a day. Even after Maddie disappeared, he and his wife were still timing their runs and keeping a note of their progress! Activity sports like tennis and running are not pleasant in the hot midday sun.

      I find the idea of a group of high fliers travelling to a Warners holiday resort for extra marital nookey, more than a tad ludicrous.

      I don't have any experience of swinging parties, only the stuff of lurid stories from the old News of the World, but as I remember it, very few took their wives, babies and mothers in law along to their chosen dens of iniquity. Seedy sex is something most people indulge in privately and it very rarely, if ever, forms part of a family vacation.

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

      Delete
    6. Yes I agree with NT, if these listed 'proofs' are all they (Nuala+Textusa) have, it's nothing. They describe Praia da Luz as an empty, freezing cold(!) desert with a selected crowd of people with a special invitation to a swinging event. I even read the 'reason' for having an adult pool in addition to the children's pool...Naughty, naughty Textusa;)

      Delete
    7. Anon 8 February 2016 at 22:16

      I hope that you're not seriously comparing island of Majorca with a little town like Luz!
      Imagine that your neighbours did go to Majorca to swing, would they tell you they did?

      Delete
    8. Not Textusa, do you have a link for that 45 restaurant list?

      Delete
    9. I have no problem with you disagreeing Ros, I know you don't subscribe to the swinging theory, and disagreeing on these things is what discussions are about :)

      And I'm used to people not agreeing with the swinging theory, most people don't, and usually it's backed up by the "who cares about swinging?" argument. In other words, they think there is nothing wrong with swinging (which there isn't) and so why is there any need to cover it up.

      Just to clarify though, 300+ people weren't in PdL to play tennis. Whatever those 300+ people were doing, out of season, in the cold, it wasn't playing tennis. There's not even enough tennis courts for that. What was going on was an organised event. There is no reason why high flyers, doctors, barristers, top business people would all converge on PdL out of season, where there is nothing to do except shiver, unless there was an organised event of some sort.

      What's at question is what that organised event was. That's what the debate is about. It's well known that Mark Warner holds swinging events out of season in order to boost revenue, and in fact Butlins also does it in the UK. Swinging is very popular (apparently) and there is quite a call for organised, private and discreet swinging events, where adults can have some fun.

      It's not seedy, it's a lifestyle choice between consenting adults, and there is no better way to disguise these organised events than pretending one is on a family holiday. That's perfect, because if there is one thing that is clear about swingers, they do NOT want others to know they're swingers. Hence the taking of photographs and filming at swinging events is prohibited. The privacy of those involved is protected at all costs.

      So in 2007 in PdL - out of season - Mark Warner brought in loads of extra staff, particularly nannies, to make sure that the children would be happily taken care of whilst the adults enjoyed what they were there to enjoy.

      That's the only scenario that makes sense to me, but I'm open to suggestions. It was an organised event, that much is obvious, so what organised event was it? If it wasn't swinging what event was taking place in PdL out of season in 2007?

      The lack of photos is a big thing for me, everyone takes photos on family holidays, loads of them, but nothing, not a thing. 300+ people and none of them took photos?

      As I said I'm open to suggestions, but if the swinging theory is wrong, then there has to be another theory that also fits the bill :)

      Nuala

      Delete
    10. Anonymous 8 February 2016 at 22:16

      Ah but you're wrong there because swinging WAS talked about, in fact the swinging was revealed in this Panorama programme here:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zqoj-pfBUnY

      Take a look at about 21.40. It was in another documentary as well but I can't find it at the moment. But it was well known in PdL at the time that there had been a swinging event going on, that was no secret, but keeping that under wraps became very, very important, because of the people involved.

      As regards swinging being taboo, to you and me that regard swinging as a lifestyle choice between consenting adults, that's absolutely right, we wouldn't regard it as taboo, but the swingers do. They don't want their families, friends, employers and colleagues to know they're swingers, not least because of the nudge nudge wink wink jibes they would have to endure if it was known and PARTICULARLY that their children don't have to endure that at school for example. So generally speaking swingers are very private and swinging events are very discreet.

      What you say about off season holidays is valid IF you're talking about a one off. But what we're talking about here is 300+ people all going to a place that has nothing to offer except the beach, at a time when it's too cold for the beach.

      So if you had a neighbour who went to a coastal holiday resort in the UK out of season, there would be nothing unusual about that. But if 300+ people ALL went to that same holiday resort out of season in the same week one year, then logic and reason dictates they would have done that for a reason.

      An organised EVENT reason.

      Nuala

      Delete
    11. Anon 10 February 2016 at 05:50

      "a selected crowd of people with a special invitation to a swinging event"

      I think you're spot on!

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

      Delete
    13. Yes, I will just pick up on this as well from Anonymous 10 February 2016 at 05:50, who said "a selected crowd of people with a special invitation to a swinging event".

      I've never said that. I've never it was a "selected crowd" with a "special invitation" to a swinging event, and I don't recall reading it anywhere before either, so that's very, very interesting.

      Nuala

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

      Delete
    15. Nuala

      Could you tell us where the figure of 300+ 'swingers' comes from?
      Do you have any proof whatsoever,or is it the usual innuendo and fantasy?
      Is it your contention that all the visitors to PDL that week were there for swinging activities?

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

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

      Delete
    18. Not Textusa,

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

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

      Delete
  42. Hello Not Textusa, are you Textusa's twin brother?

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

      Delete
    2. Members of the same Neighbourhood Watch, then?

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

      Delete
  43. I believe the poster @20.56 wants to have a laugh on a boring Sunday evening, whilst the other one (about you being the twin brother) was serious.
    I presume you don't have anything to do with mrs. Textusa IRL....

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

    ReplyDelete
  45. Does anyone know if Textusa thinks Robert Murat was part of the 'steamy activities' that involved the other couples?

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

      Delete
    2. Why should anyone care what textusa thinks! She is not a detective, the PJ are.
      They found no evidence against RM or of steamy activities by other couples in PDL. Its all innuendo and smear and should stop.

      Delete
    3. I agree JJ, she is making a lot of scurrilous accusations against a lot of people and that makes me uncomfortable.

      I'm afraid I'm not a fan of Textusa's writing style, whilst 'good' writers should give their readers food for thought and leave them with further questions, I find her cryptic style completely baffling.

      And again, Textusa, like Bennett and HideHo, is claiming that she knows what happened beyond reasonable doubt. For me, when anyone says they are right, dead right, I switch off - I won't waste my time on closed minds.

      Delete
    4. Well I stoppend reading her posts a long time ago, that is I read them indirectly via Not Textusa's blog. He/she should work as a stand up Comedian:-)) Must be a natural for those kind of writings - I wouldn't know where to start nor have the energy to dissect those cryptic pieces. Bravo!!!

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

      Delete
    6. Hold on a minute Ros:

      "nd again, Textusa, like Bennett and HideHo, is claiming that she knows what happened beyond reasonable doubt."

      Didn't you recently say you would hear nothing against HideHo?

      Delete
    7. Anonymous at 18.27. I remember Cristobell saying that about the accountant Enid O'Dowd, not HiDeHo.

      Delete
    8. I think I was referring to Enid O'Dowd 18:27.

      I said that I had no problem with HideHo, but I think I was being a tad naïve. I hadn't realised just how much she was affiliated to Tony Bennett. I am also very uncomfortable with her research into the lives of people involved in this case through no fault of their own. Implying they are liars is unforgiveable in my opinion.

      What do these theorists intend to do with their findings? They have no official capacity and they don't represent anyone. Most people have grasped by now that the UK government and authorities interfered in the Portuguese investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann to protect the parents. Some might say, they perverted the course of justice.

      The truth however, will come out because the lie is simply not sustainable. There are far too many people involved and there is too much detail available. On top of which, the main suspects have spent the past 9 years keeping themselves on the front pages of the newspapers. Their recorded interviews are a litany of every lie they have ever told. At some stage, all those interviews can and will be used against them.

      What part do Bennett, Textusa and HideHo hope to play in the big reveal? Do they see themselves as witnesses for the prosecution or the defence? Do they intend to create a small army of retribution in the event that their own chosen villains and liars are not prosecuted?

      Will they reject the findings of Operation Grange if they don't parallel their own? In setting up their own investigations, they have already deemed themselves superior to the Goncalo Amaral, the Portuguese police and now Scotland Yard. That they have convinced other people to believe them too is astonishing.

      What differentiates them from the usual gangs of thugs and vigilantes who want to take the law into their own hands?

      I'm afraid, trying as hard as I can, I am still unable to find a valid and justifiable reason to pry into the lives of strangers online. Not only are these theorists poking their noses where they have no business, they are also accusing random people of criminal behaviour. If it weren't for the fact that a live investigation is underway, they would no doubt be facing serious libel actions.

      Delete
    9. "Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton9 February 2016 at 00:10

      I think I was referring to Enid O'Dowd 18:27."

      Ah you mean the woman who turned up at court to give evidence on behalf of bennett but was not needed because her evidence had no relevance to the case.

      Delete
    10. If I remember rightly the Judge found Enid's reports very revealing. However, it just to goes to show how odious Bennett is - that in the face of such overwhelming evidence, he was still able to find in favour of the McCanns.

      Delete
    11. @ Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton9 February 2016 at 01:01


      perhaps you could give a link or quote for that assertion. "That the Judge found Enid's reports very revealing".

      Delete
  46. bennett (posting as blonk) runs away with his tail between his legs.

    On UK Justice forum February 05, 2016, 08:07:52 PM bennett issued the following challenge:

    "Could you please cite ONE specific example in world history of a case where an age-progressed photo has actually resulted in anyone being found?"

    Within an hour a number of examples had been provided.

    Did bennett return to say thankyou? No - from what I can see he has not posted on the forum since.

    Typical cowardly behaviour once again by the head muck raker.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Somebody mentioned this 'justice blog' a while ago.. Recently had a look in... As far as i can see its all McSupporters drowning it out.

    Not seen Blonk or Plonk or whatever his name is. And no interest to seek the odd one out.

    What i would like to know, and sorry for bringing it up, yet again, is why i have been singled out for making death threats to TB with absolutely no proof. Yes, its gone on for a while but why should i not stand my ground. As i have always done.

    Regards, Andrew.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Andrew http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6975.0

      I couldn't care less with anything else you say.

      Delete
  48. I was about to say that you should ask him directly as he will never answer you here - but then realised that would not be a good idea!!

    Just forget him is all I can advise you.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Christobell Thankyou for the update. That was very well written and I agree with every word about the swinging. Around 18 degrees Celcius is pleasant enough for outdoor activities as jogging, tennis etc. Not staying inside all days wrestling on the mattrass, no way that was happening. As for the semen stain on the wall, wasn't that a forum myth? I believe so. (Not that a semen stain would be the ultimate proof for swinging.....;-))

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

    ReplyDelete