Monday, 25 January 2016

THE EVIDENCE OF MRS FENN

In response to 23:55, (A Matter of Neglect) and your uncertainties regarding the evidence of Mrs Fenn, the McCanns upstairs neighbour, who was in all evening, on the night Madeleine disappeared. 

You question the discrepancies  between what Mrs Fenn said in her statements and what she said when she was caught in the headlights of an oncoming juggernaut.  I think the poor woman may have found herself under a barrage of attention that frightened the life out of her.  Not just from the media and the Portuguese police, but from British police agencies acting on behalf of the parents - and of course the Fighting Fund of the very proactive Team McCann.

By the time the evidence of Mrs Fenn became public knowledge, Kate and Gerry were the world's most famous and sympathetic victims.  Anyone criticising them or their horrendous form of childminding was likely to be torn limb from limb by an angry mob.

I can perfectly understand the predicament Mrs Fenn found herself in, and it is a tragedy that those assisting the McCanns have done so much to blacken her name.  Imagine how she would have felt reading all this if she were still alive?  Then imagine how she must have felt in the aftermath of Madeleine disappearing when the world's press set up camp outside her apartment?

It is not easy to speak 'on camera', I once inadvertently confused the date my mother died and I didn't correct it because I had a limited amount of time and I had more important points I wanted to make.  This was taken by the dossier compilers as conclusive evidence that I was 'liar'.  They now put 'proven' in front of their reams of libel, lol. 

As for hearing a child cry for 75 minutes and doing nothing - again I sympathise with her predicament.  How horrendous would it have been if she had involved the authorities and this large holiday party had turned on her? She was surrounded by them, quite literally, her apartment was directly above the McCanns and next door to all of theirs.  No doubt over the years, she witnessed many groups of British tourists behaving badly and had learned not to interfere. 

I think we are being led astray by questioning the evidence of Mrs Fenn.  The real question should be, why didn't Kate and Gerry run straight up those stairs to ask her if she had seen anything?  She was the most likely witness, she had been in her apartment all evening and the parents were claiming an abduction. Their first contact with Mrs Fenn, was, according to Gerry, when she spoke to him from her balcony asking what had happened and if they would like to use her phone.  She, made the first approach, and Gerry's bizarre reply was that 'a girl' had been taken.  He didn't mention that it was his own daughter, he didn't ask her if she had seen anything and no he didn't need to borrow her phone, thank you very much.  Or as they say in Essex, End of.  

Kate remembers it differently.  Mrs Fenn, was the nosey neighbour from upstairs with the plummy voice who had treated her predicament as if a 'tin of beans had fallen off a shelf'.   She and Fiona were so outraged at her lack of concern for their distress, that they too, didn't bother to ask the most obvious of questions.  'Did you see, or indeed hear, anything?'.  'The fiend that broke into our apartment would have made a hell of a racket prising open the steel shutters and climbing into a room that contained 3 sleeping babies - your apartment is directly above ours, you MUST have heard something'.     

Instead of begging for Mrs Fenn's help, the McCanns have gone all out to discredit her, Kate especially with her spiteful comments in her book Madeleine. They have regularly appeared on our TV screens pleading for anyone who saw anything to come forward, yet they had no interest in the evidence of someone they knew was on the scene and had a bird's eye view.

They were also hard selling their own particular form of half arsed parenting.  Mrs Fenn's statement that she heard a child crying for 75 minutes was hugely damning. At that time the McCanns and indeed the other doctors, could have faced serious charges of child endangerment.  Charges that would have immediately ended all their high flying careers.  Mrs Fenn was then, and arguably, is still, a huge thorn in the 'responsible parenting' defence.  As for nobody else hearing the 75 minute crying session, who would  have been brave enough to admit it if they had? 

As far as Team McCann's fighting fund were concerned Mrs Fenn was the enemy.  Had there been a real abduction, Mrs Fenn would have been their star witness and new best friend.  She could, knowingly, or unknowingly, have held that precious key they keep talking about.  Whilst Kate and Gerry were broadcasting heartfelt pleas for anyone in Europe, Africa, the Americas and the Far East to come forward if they had ever holidayed in PDL, they were ignoring the woman upstairs!

Mrs Fenn was an ordinary woman who suddenly found herself besieged by hungry journalists, Flash Harrys, and men in grey suits and dark glasses. I think what she experienced, was probably on par with the terrible closing in Brenda Leyland felt when she took her own life. I truly hope Mrs Fenn's final years were peaceful and contented, I see  her as another victim of this scam (I hope I am wrong) and my heart goes out to her family.  I think those judging the witnesses on the statements they gave in the aftermath of what must have been a traumatic experience for all of them, should hang their heads in shame. Do they ever stop and think for a moment how they would have felt in the same situation?  It takes a lot of courage to put your head above the parapet.

It is curious that those investigating the witnesses online, always seem to target those who could cause the most damage to the abduction, responsible parenting, heads of defence.  Their arguments are based on pure speculation and supposition.  Tony Bennett has taken 'Six Degrees of Separation' and dwindled it down to Two.  Simply being the same nationality/ religion/ species, is generally enough for a guilty verdict.  And Tony Bennett is led by a warped mentality that sees everything as sexual.  Start a thread about deviant art on the cesspit and watch the whoopy begin.   (that should increase their numbers ;) ). 





227 comments:

  1. What is so confusing about this case is that if you follow some of the most important eye-witness (unbiased hopefully!) testimony a narrative emerges which would be consistent with Detective Amaral's opinion that Madeleine died in apartment 5A.

    A next-door neighbour hears extended crying coming from the apartment one night. This would be consistent with something traumatic having gone on in the apartment. The McCanns and their friends ignore and/or are rude to Mrs Fenn. This would be consistent with them having something to hide. The McCanns and their friends - who cannot be described as unbiased witness as they cling doggedly to only their own version of events - give inconsistent and sometimes conflicting testimony. This would be consistent with not telling the truth. They are vague about times, events and their testimony is peppered with unnecessary qualifiers which is highly suggestive of fabrication or distortion of events. Social worker Yvette Martin is an important eye-witness. She finds their behaviour, especially that of David Payne, suspicious. The Smith family are also important witnesses. The fact that Kate McCann is insistent that Smithman must be the same person and cannot be a different person to Tannerman suggests that their testimony most unwelcome and can only be countenanced if the two sightings are morphed together. This suggests that the Smith sighting is relevant to what happened and important. And that the Tanner sighting is a red herring to be clung to at all costs.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A very good post (and yours cristobell).

      It always intrigues me (and fascinates me), when that man, Tony Bennett, pipes up with his knickers (and socks) in a twist when the subject of Mrs Fenn or the Smiths pop up. The blue ink comes straight out in attack.

      You never see Jatyk or any of those loons ever discuss Smiths/Mrs Fenn. Nope, their remit is dissing the dogs etc and abuse everyone who doesnt believe the McFairytale. Sadly, Bennetts remit is to diss the Smiths and Mrs Fenn (include Murat) at all costs. As if his life literally depends on it.

      Fascinating but appalling.

      Regards, Andrew.

      Delete
    2. Tannnerman has long been put to bed & zapped by DCI Redwood - explained away as 'creche dad'

      The MET did their job? was this new info from the crimewatch appeals that creche dad stepped forward after 5 years, or was it hidden in the pile of files, from whatever source. One can well imagine, that it wasn't a hidden statement in the PJ files, else they would have been hanged, drawn & quarted by now. Of course, if care to believe creche dad, nameless & faceless actually exists.

      Delete
  2. And meanwhile in the real world I see that "blonk" - aka bennett has been over to UK Justice Forumis pushing yet another video/DVD of Richard D Hall - for sale at £20 and UK tour appearances at £12 per venue.

    If anyone in the world believes that bennett is not behind, contributing to and getting money from Hall's money making scheme on the back of missing Madeleine Mccann - please let me know.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not been on that forum. Don't think i ever will if TB on it.

      A very successful businessman is Tony. Everything he touches turns to gold. Or is that shite due to him making a mess of absolutely everything, including his own sad, failure of a life.

      He's certainly desperate to try and make a few quid off Madeleines name. Sick.

      Will pay him a few quid to cut my lawn if it keeps him out of trouble and stop spouting nonsense.

      Regards, Andrew.

      Delete
  3. Hve you ever wondered why the PJ did not immediately call at the neighbour and ask the questions you ask in this blog?

    They were in fact the investigating Police force.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I am talking about the moments following Madeleine's 'disappearance' 18:39, the 'golden hours' when there is real hope of getting an abducted child back.

      That the McCanns, who were already claiming Madeleine had been abducted, did not ask the closest witness is bizarre. People (not the McCanns or their friends)were organising searches - who or what were they looking for?

      Jane Tanner claimed to have a seen a man carrying a small child, yet she didn't bother to mention to the searchers 'he went that way'.

      You say why didn't the PJ question Mrs Fenn. You must remember that the McCanns were distracting the Portuguese police away from themselves and away from their own actions while at the resort. They were trying to get sightings all over the world, anywhere but in PDL.

      We don't know what evidence the PJ have from Mrs Fenn, not all the PJ files were released. The fact that the McCanns have been so hostile to Mrs Fenn, suggests they fear what she had to say.

      Delete
    2. @ Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton25 January 2016 at 20:13

      you say "We don't know what evidence the PJ have from Mrs Fenn, not all the PJ files were released."

      You say you have read the files - you will therefore have seen the interviews that the PJ did over the first few days. The Mccanns did not have any influence on who they interviewed. Jane Tanner reported her sighting to the Police immediately.

      There is no evidence anywhere that the PJ interviewed the immediate neighbours (including Mrs Fenn) in the "golden hours". If they had then Amaral would have referred to it in his book.




      Delete
  4. Not saying I agree with him by any means, but I've grabbed TB's 12 points hat he's put up today in support of his theory on Mrs Fenn, so we can all see what he's on about:

    These are at least TWELVE reasons for disregarding Mrs Fenn's account:
    1. She didn't make her statement until 111 days after the date Madeleine was reported missing.
    2. She only made this statement after being prompted by members of the McCann Team or those working for them.
    3. Two days before she made her statement, there was a flurry of major articles in the British mainstream press, all forecasting precisely what she was going to say before she made her statement (clear breach of the fabled Portuguese judicial secrecy rules, by the way).
    4. She made a convoluted statement explaining that the crying was not of a child 'two years or under'. Howe exactly could she tell the difference between the crying of a 2-year-old and a 3-year-old? It's nonsense, isn't it? It looks like it was contrived to suggest this was Madeleine.
    5. Only one child crying for 75 minutes? What about the other two?
    6. Mrs Fenn says she 'phoned her friend Mrs Glyn about the crying at about 11.00pm. The only thing Mrs Fenn reports is Mrs Glyn saying: "I'm not surprised". How credible is it that these two women would allow a child to be heard sobbing for a continuous 75 minutes and yet not pick up the 'phone to someone?
    7. Mrs Fenn claimed she had a 'burglary' attempt. She gave four different dates for this burglary attempt: one week before, two weeks, three weeks, and finally 'several weeks'.
    8. She gave different versions of the incident: 'He climbed in through a window' or 'He broke in' or 'He entered with a key.
    9. She gave several different versions of whether she contacted the police, including: "So shocked she 'phoned the police immediately" and "Nothing was stolen so I didn't bother reporting it".
    10. She gave a highly unlikely account of what actually happened: "Tried to grab his ankle as he jumped out of the window" [this was a first-floor window and the concrete floor below was a 12' to 15' drop.
    11. Afterwards, she told journalists to "ignore what I'm supposed to have said", adding: "It's all rubbish".
    12. Not one other resident, holidaymaker or staff member head this crying during a period of 75 minutes - so there is no corroboration of it.

    I think some of his points are very weak, but not all of them by any means

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Rather than Tony coming up with 'points' to discredit any independent witnesses...... Is it plausible for him to change his 'agenda' ( as is mentioned on his site), and to concentrate on the tapas group of liars. That quite clearly and obviously lied. Simple for the 'researcher' although sadly its a lot more complicated than that. Hence all the desperate blue guff on certain 'remits' or 'topics' as you see fit.

      Regards, Andrew.

      Delete
  5. Many thanks 18:29, I've had a look through them, but they are similar to the rest of Bennett's nonsense, all speculation and supposition. He is filling in the gaps with his own warped view of the world, he does it every time.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I feel he could be hauled before the courts again. He is getting more and more libellous against many people. The Smiths, Robert Murat, Mrs. Fenn. Etc. Dementia maybe?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's what he gets paid to do.. Or not pay.. Whichever way you look at it.

      Regards, Andrew.

      Delete
    2. As a co-producer, imo, of the Richard D Hall videos I think he is raking it in. Wake up Carter Ruck!

      Delete
    3. If I was Mr Smith, I'd seek Mr Bennett out and kick his fricking face in. But that's just me.

      Delete
    4. If I were Mr Smith, I'd ruffle Mr Bennett's hair and give his greasy tie a yank. Maybe even pinch his naughty bottom.

      Delete
  7. Ros, you wrote: "The real question should be, why didn't Kate and Gerry run straight up those stairs to ask her if she had seen anything?" Great point! In that situation I would have been round ALL the neighbours' doors, knocking frantically saying: Did you hear/see/notice anything? I checked out TB's claim about Mrs Fenn not making her statement until 20th August on pamalam's site and it's true. Got to be honest, why did she wait 3 months? She heard a girl crying for 75 mins? She had a burglary with a bloke jumping out of her first floor window? And her niece Carole Tranmer saw a suspicious bloke in the McCanns' garden just hours before Maddie was abducted? It takes her more than 3 months to report this? V. strange

    ReplyDelete
  8. It didn't take 'more than 3 months'
    Carole Tranmer contacted the police in the UK as soon as she got home. This is all in her rogatory statement, if people would only read it.
    There is no indication that it took Mrs Fenn an age to contact the police either. The police spoke informally to many workers and followed up later. In the short term they were probably more interested in following up the strongest leads and conducting the search.
    Bennett's comments are a load of bollocks, as usual.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nonsense Carole tanner made no mention of the 75 minute crying of a child. Her statement was about seeing a guy exiting one of the tapas 7 apartment. I'm sorry cristobel I rarely agree with Bennett but there is something fishy about Mrs Fenns testimony. Team McCann while promoting the responsible parenting angle also had to ensure that people thought they were negligent enough to allow the abduction. That's why Michael whatever you call him told the papers the next day that they were upset that people were accusing them of being on the tear and not not looking after the children. Nobody at that stage knew the story never mind made judgements about them. That story was planted to put it clearly in the minds of those interested that while appearing to defend the McCann they clearly put it in the publics mind that there was an opportunity to abduct the child. The same happened with Kate McCann and the ref to Mrs Fenns in the book. Ridicule Mrs Fenn but remind people that her story supports the position that they left their children unattended. I don't know how Mrs Fenn came to be involved in it and I believe by her later statement about it all being nonsense,that she regretted getting herself involved but I believe she was part of the plan to convince the general public that there was enough negligence to allow the abduction. I think that we will all be shocked at the people involved in protecting the mccanns and I'm sorry but the evidence suggests that Mrs Fenn is one of them.



      Delete
    2. Time for a reality check methinks.

      Yes, the McCanns were promoting the neglect, but only in the sense of 'look how well it worked the previous nights'. They had to convince the world THEY did nothing wrong. Their (collective) biggest fear was charges of neglect/child endangerment.

      Those who believe there was no neglect, need to go back and read or re-read the smug, pompous, 'we did nothing wrong, so kiss our arses' statements of the Tapas group. There is no remorse, there is no acknowledgement of the danger they were putting their children in. They didn't even say they would never do it again. They were right, dead right. Chillingly, there is no compassion towards their children, not even the ones who were unwell and lying in their stinking nappies.

      And by Danger I do not mean the 1 in a zillion chance a wandering paedophile might happen upon an unlocked apartment and 3 abandoned babies. I'm talking about the danger of leaving lively toddlers alone in the dark, in an unfamiliar (not childproofed) apartment, for even one minute, let alone 75 of them. The clear and obvious danger was ACCIDENT.

      But back to Mrs Fenn. Do you honestly believe that an elderly woman of good character would pervert the course of justice in a missing child case and lay herself open to very serious criminal charges and possibly, prison? Just how powerful do you think the McCanns are?

      I do not understand why some of the antis are so intent on including innocent bystanders in this heinous crime. They are just not satisfied with the bleeding obvious, they have to try to spice it all up a bit.

      Whilst I applauded the release of the Portuguese police files, I doubt they realised just how many obsessives would devote their lives to them. Or, on a more sinister note, how many were salivating at all the private details they could get their grubby little mitts on. The files turned into a charter for stalkers, busybodies, malcontents and dirty old men with binoculars.

      Bored with the McCanns, they now believe they have some sort of right to investigate and put on public trial, people who did no more than their civil duty and co-operated with the Portuguese police.

      This is a form of mob justice that sickens me and the majority of the watching public and the mainstream media and it is probably one of the reasons that the antis were tarred with the pitchforker brush.

      I almost retweeted a pro McCann troll the other day, where he quoted the ruling in the Bennett case. Basically it pointed out to Bennett that as an ordinary citizen, not involved in law enforcement, he had no right to demand that the McCanns, or indeed anybody, answer his boring blue questions (or words to that effect). In other words, who the feck does he think he is?

      Researching the lives of strangers online is not an admirable pastime in the eyes of anyone. What do they hope to do with all their 'research'? Do they believe they will be financially rewarded in some way for all their prying?

      Implicating the people they are investigating, doesn't justify what they are doing, and it doesn't make them sound any better. Imagine how Mrs Fenn would feel if she were alive and reading the cruel things that are being said about her? Have no lessons been learned from what happened to Brenda Leyland?

      The Jill Havern forum (cesspit) is also full of libel against living people. Bennett is pointing his spindly finger and shouting 'LIAR' at everyone, apart from the McCanns that is.

      Whilst studying the McCann case is a compelling and often gripping pastime - indeed, I have myself been 'hooked' this past 9 years, we have to remember that real people are involved and there is a line. Just because you can do something, doesn't mean you should.

      I think for some of the 'antis', reality is but a distant memory, they have become so fixated on the minutiae that they have lost the plot - quite literally. In the case of Bennett, I think he should be charged with perverting the course of justice.

      Delete
  9. Why be afraid to report? She could have done it anonymously, just tell the MW staff that a child is crying. Or ask someone else to make the call, maybe pretending to be another tourist staying nearby. Very strange that she actually did nothing. And then leaving a statement 3 months (!) later....
    The burglar stories sound more like scenes from a Pink Panther movie than real incidents.
    The McCanns didn't hide this, they wanted to promote the idea of neglect. Mrs.Fenn just got the wrong day, I believe. Whoever made her leave that statement mixed up the dates. Kate and Gerry were very keen on telling the world about "the crying episode", makes you really wonder why that was so important to get through. Why would parents insist on putting themselves in a situation where every other sane parent says 'the McCanns are lousy, neglectful parents'? WHAT is worse than that?
    (Well I can think of some things...)
    Anyway, I tend to believe that Mrs.Fenn was useful to get the neglect mantra going. Not talking nicely of her in the book (by Kate) is another smokescreen among others in this "true account of what happened"...
    I guess Mrs.Fenn was so fed up with everything., the poor woman wanted no part of it any longer, she said finally "it's all rubbish"!

    ReplyDelete
  10. Most of the stuff this gobshite comes out with is easily debunked

    These are at least TWELVE reasons for disregarding Mrs Fenn's account:
    1. She didn't make her statement until 111 days after the date Madeleine was reported missing.

    That was up to the police, not her. There is no evidence she delayed going to them, and her niece spoke to the police within days

    2. She only made this statement after being prompted by members of the McCann Team or those working for them.

    Absolute cobblers. No evidence to support this claim at all.

    3. Two days before she made her statement, there was a flurry of major articles in the British mainstream press, all forecasting precisely what she was going to say before she made her statement (clear breach of the fabled Portuguese judicial secrecy rules, by the way).

    The police announced they were going to re-interview people they had already spoken to, Mrs Fenn being one of them

    4. She made a convoluted statement explaining that the crying was not of a child 'two years or under'. Howe exactly could she tell the difference between the crying of a 2-year-old and a 3-year-old? It's nonsense, isn't it? It looks like it was contrived to suggest this was Madeleine.

    There was nothing convoluted or contrived about it. Idiot.

    5. Only one child crying for 75 minutes? What about the other two?

    What about the other two? What is his point here?

    6. Mrs Fenn says she 'phoned her friend Mrs Glyn about the crying at about 11.00pm. The only thing Mrs Fenn reports is Mrs Glyn saying: "I'm not surprised". How credible is it that these two women would allow a child to be heard sobbing for a continuous 75 minutes and yet not pick up the 'phone to someone?

    Perfectly credible. How was she to know the children were alone? Neighbours won't usually call the police because a child is crying.


    7. Mrs Fenn claimed she had a 'burglary' attempt. She gave four different dates for this burglary attempt: one week before, two weeks, three weeks, and finally 'several weeks'.

    No she didn't. You have taken that from tabloid papers

    8. She gave different versions of the incident: 'He climbed in through a window' or 'He broke in' or 'He entered with a key.

    No she didn't. See above.

    9. She gave several different versions of whether she contacted the police, including: "So shocked she 'phoned the police immediately" and "Nothing was stolen so I didn't bother reporting it".

    No she didn't. See above.

    10. She gave a highly unlikely account of what actually happened: "Tried to grab his ankle as he jumped out of the window" [this was a first-floor window and the concrete floor below was a 12' to 15' drop.

    Cobblers. You don't know which window.

    11. Afterwards, she told journalists to "ignore what I'm supposed to have said", adding: "It's all rubbish".

    No she didn't. There is a transcript available of what she said. She denied that she had spoken to any papers. They simply made it up.

    12. Not one other resident, holidaymaker or staff member head this crying during a period of 75 minutes - so there is no corroboration of it.

    So what? That doesn't mean it didn't happen.

    Bennett is doing his usual - keep repeating until people assume it's the truth. He's a lying arse.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Is that you, Nottextusa? More keen as ever to drag TB in the mud. As usual no substance in your 'answers', but of course you're entitled to your opinion...but that's all that it is.

      I think most people would do something if they heard a child crying for that long. In a holiday complex, the staff available? Social services in other cases? The police might not be the first option here. But I would definitely go and check whether there is someone else in that apartment.
      The "it's all rubbish" comment is even on youtube. But there you go, just spouting your usual 'No she didn't'. Without even checking facts.

      Delete
    2. There is also a transcript of everything Mrs Fenn said in that exchange - she was denying she ever spoke to a journalist.
      If you really think most elderly people would be contacting the authorities because they heard a child crying for an hour and a half when they had no reason to suppose the child was alone - who would? - then you are out of your tiny mind.
      TB is a wanker of the first magnitude; but you go on kissing his arse if it keeps you happy

      Delete
    3. So you would definitely do something 05:45, seriously? Have you not seen the way some groups of British tourists behave when they are abroad? You think the frail, elderly Mrs Fenn should have called the authorities and put herself at risk of retribution from this party of 9 adults? Do you not see the dilemma she faced?

      We can all talk about what WE would have done 05:45, but we weren't there. It is easy to show bravado with the benefit of hindsight, and its easy to claim we would have been heroes, but it has bugger all to do with reality.

      Delete
    4. In response to terminally dim BB1 on JATYK2, my 'circle' would never leave their babies alone to go on the lash with their mates. So they are already way above your circle where 'class' is concerned.

      Delete
    5. 22:55 - yes indeed, Bennett has certainly studied at the Goebbels School of turning the lie into the truth. The man is wasted, he would have flourished in the reprogramming division of Room 101. If you don't say 2+2= 5, we will put a cage of rats on your head or force you to read hundreds of pages of blue writing. I'd opt for the rats, I think most of us would.

      Delete
  11. @ Andrew, 20.17 I am a member of both CMoMM and MMM (I find both useful) and was on CMoMM when you were there Andrew. You asked why TB never has a go at the 'Tapas group of liars'. You often said this on MMM when you were posting there. Admittedly TB has never had a 'pop' at Dianne Webster, but as for the other 6, if you look at his posts on CMoMM over the last two years: He accuses Jane Tanner of fabricating Tannerman and falsely identifying Murat as the abductor a few days later, David Payne of lying about his visit to G5A to see Kate on the evening of the 3rd, Matthew Oldfield for fabricating his 9.30 'check' and Rachael Oldfield, Fiona Payne and Russell O'Brien for falsely stating they'd seen Murat near the Ocean Club on the night of the 3rd. He's got all the other 6 labeled as liars, then! You'll have to find some different ammo to fire at him, Andrew!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. He also has many others labled as liars. So who done it? the butcher the baker or the candlestick maker, Murat, Melinka, Redwood, Mrs Fenn, anyone of the Smith family, Jeremy Wilkins, the list goes on.
      I would guess seceretly he thinks God is a liar to, for not answering his prayers to the "who done it" question.

      Delete
    2. Whether anyone wants to believe Mrs Fenn's claims is rather a strange double whammy. Since she fully supports the McCanns abili that they were not there and the children left. Madeleine does the same, as on the morning of her disappearance, where ere you stuff when we were crying.

      So whichever way you want to jump with these pieces of information, which probably are one of the same, since ''last night'', yesterday, whenever doesn't exist in the mind of a child - merely when they remember & tell (or tale, as the case might be)

      So which way do people want to remember the saga of the McCann children, homealone & support the McCanns abili of being away when it all kicked off?

      But we must remember, this is not neglectful behaviour but 'reponsible parenting'

      Nearly approaching the end of nine years, it's all water under the bridge. Certainly on the MF various pieces of information was being discussed & that of 'someone' hearing the children cry, in those very early days.

      You only have to look at the article of JW's partner, O'Donnell who confirms they were 'door knocked' that night - but didn't see the need to help with the search.

      So one, might well image Mrs Finn was approached on that night. And probably, as was the case for that night heard & saw nothing.

      Mrs Finn RIP.

      Delete
  12. Another case of how much Bennett owes the McCann's or vice versa?

    ReplyDelete
  13. @ 21.51 Agreed, Carole Tranmer made a statement a few days after Maddie went missing. Only about the suspicious man, though, not about the burglary and not about hearing any child crying. One report says she was there when the burglary happened, but I don't think she was. But there's nothing to suggest that Mrs Fenn made any statement before 20th August. I just find it very odd that all the British newspapers knew what she was going to say two days before she actually said it. How often does that happen in a police investigation? What I want to know is who exactly was the source for all those stories on the 18th August. I think I can guess...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes there is, actually.
      When she made her statement, the police announced they were RE-INTERVIEWING people they had previously spoken to, as they were following up on the burglar angle. Well in that case, they had clearly spoken to her before, but perhaps decided at that point that there was no need to take a statement. And that's why it was in the paper on the 19th August.

      Delete
  14. I Think that we mustn't allow our defence of innocent people slandered by TB get in the way of what was happening here. Most of us have no doubt that there are higher powers that be who intervened in this case to protect the mccanns for whatever reason. What was needed was somebody with great marketing skills to convince the public to believe that the opportunity existed to abduct this child because in reality most people as time went on would without some evidence of opportunity begin to doubt the story. The very clear evidence from Kate McCann and Mrs Fenn and Michael Wright helped cement the neglect theory. I'm sorry if that means pointing the finger at an old woman now dead. As for Mrs Fenn not reporting the crying esposode giving the same situation I'm not sure I would have reported it. Often kids cry for hours while their parents are there but I know the thought of any retribution from the mccanns and their buddy's wouldn't have stopped me. I don't believe they were beer swelling thugs who terrorised the resort they holidayed in. I'm not British thank goodness but I have been to very many resorts where British families have stayed and I'm yet to come across the type of group you discribe who Mrs Fenn would have been afraid off. Maybe you are thinking of young folks who feature in the like of Ibiza uncovered or a time when the English football team qualify for a major tournament

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The McCanns and their friends were the type of people who went out and left their young children on their own 12:04, I doubt she had a very high opinion of them.

      Delete
  15. What is so confusing about this case is that if you follow some of the most important eye-witness (unbiased hopefully!) testimony a narrative emerges which would be consistent with Detective Amaral's opinion that Madeleine died in apartment 5A.

    A next-door neighbour hears extended crying coming from the apartment one night. This would be consistent with something traumatic having gone on in the apartment. The McCanns and their friends ignore and/or are rude to Mrs Fenn. This would be consistent with them having something to hide. The McCanns and their friends - who cannot be described as unbiased witness as they cling doggedly to only their own version of events - give inconsistent and sometimes conflicting testimony. This would be consistent with not telling the truth. They are vague about times, events and their testimony is peppered with unnecessary qualifiers which is highly suggestive of fabrication or distortion of events. Social worker Yvette Martin is an important eye-witness. She finds their behaviour, especially that of David Payne, suspicious. The Smith family are also important witnesses. The fact that Kate McCann is insistent that Smithman must be the same person and cannot be a different person to Tannerman suggests that their testimony most unwelcome and can only be countenanced if the two sightings are morphed together. This suggests that the Smith sighting is relevant to what happened and important. And that the Tanner sighting is a red herring to be clung to at all costs.

    ReplyDelete
  16. "Whilst Kate and Gerry were broadcasting heartfelt pleas for anyone in Europe, Africa, the Americas and the Far East to come forward if they had ever holidayed in PDL, they were ignoring the woman upstairs!"

    Bravo! Common sense at last. Why would you ignore the most important eye-witnesses and instead be following up 'sightings' in Timbuktu? Only one reason.

    I think the whole 'Missing' thing is a bit of a scam. Certainly the 'Missing' organisation here, given that Saint Kate is on board. But also the one in the US with Ernie Allen. That looks dodgy too. How and why are they allowed to get away with this?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Glad you mentioned the 'missing organization' 12:49.I've recently been researching the 'missing organization' and I see that one of their funders is 'The Freemasons' Grand Charity'.(www.missingpeople.org.uk/home/our-funders-page.html).The Freemasons' Grand Charity seems to be a very generous organization with accounts that can be viewed (https:www.grandcharity.org/pages/annual_report_accounts.html).All donations to various causes are listed (masonic and non masonic). I've looked through the accounts from 2008 to 2015 and I can't find any mention of any donation made to the 'missing organization'. My research is in the early stages and I will come back and update you with any progress I may make.

      Delete
  17. Why is Bennett taking an educated guess at what Mrs Fenn might have said if the police knocked on her door? How does he know she didn't see or hear anything? Why is he once again, taking exactly the same stance as the McCanns?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Another educated guess... because the Mc's tell him what he can and can't write. It's to do with being let off oweing a large amount of money.

      As long as he trashes any independent witnesses and muddys the waters as much as possible. In other words, distorting the truth.

      On a sidenote Tony. Any news on the shameful 'death threat' comments you accused me of?

      As everyone knows, i have rang you several times in the past to try and speak to you (although you wont speak), to ask you to stop making up ridiculous lies about me.

      What a complete loon. I see straight through you old chap and you can't stand it.

      Regards, Andrew.

      Delete
    2. Interesting Ros - how many "educated" guesses have you made about the Mccanns over the years? (particularly Kate and her feelings and actions)

      Delete
    3. I've never put words in the mouths of the witnesses mouths 18:28 - therein lies the difference.

      Delete
  18. @ Ros - have you any evidence that the Tapas group went out on the "lash" as you call it?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Fourteen bottles of wine shared by a group of nine equates roughly to one and a half bottles each. Try for yourself drinking a bottle and a half of wine in less than two hours.

      Delete
    2. Err... please point us in the direction of where you got the information re the 14 bottles of wine ...

      Delete
    3. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-491693/Portuguese-police-Were-Kate-Gerry-drunk-night-Madeleine-vanished.html
      There are other sources suggesting the same, however we know for sure from the police files each diner recieved a complimentary bottle of wine with thier meal, equalling nine bottles, minimum.

      Delete
    4. My word Thomas Barrett, I trust that not all your theories are based on such selective reading. I opened the article and it quotes those people who actually served them as saying that the group did not drink excessively and had not drunk excessively on that night.

      Delete
    5. Anon@13.49. Please show where I have put accross any theory.
      Throughout the E.U. there are regulatory licensing laws in relation to the sale of alcohol. Contravening such laws would be detrimental to the licencee and the employee.
      Apart from the patron themselves, it is also the resposibility of the licencee and staff to ensure customers do not drink to excess.

      Delete
  19. By their own admissions, that's what they did but it's hard to believe that four sets of parents would do that.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They went for a meal with drinks - is that "going out on the lash"?

      Delete
    2. Whether they went out on the lash or out for a meal with drinks, they left the kids on their own! These attempts to make it sound more upmarket are pathetic, the result was still the same.

      Delete
  20. @ http://cristobell.blogspot.com/2016/01/the-evidence-of-mrs-fenn.html?showComment=1453833558556#c8755273921307638575

    your attempts at making out to be going out on the lash are what is pathetic.

    Stick to the facts Ros.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton26 January 2016 at 18:39

    Your attempt to discredit them says more about you than them - anything to knock the Mccanns eh Ros.

    Stick to the known facts.

    ReplyDelete
  22. To the anonymous (naturally) questioner: the phrase "on the lash" was provided by Michael Wright, on behalf of Gerry McCann, on May 4 2007 to the London Evening Standard. He used it in the context of claiming that the negative "spin" on the McCanns' supper the previous night was untrue, adding that the group "weren't out on the lash or anything like that". But you won't find any such spin anywhere, however hard you look, because there hadn't yet been time for anyone to spin anything anywhere - except the parents themselves. In other words Michael Wright was indubitably not telling the truth but was getting his rejoinder in first - a rejoinder to spin that he and Gerry McCann had invented! But that won't worry you, will it, eh, anonymous? The sourced details are in the Cracked Mirror.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Evening JB
      Yes, it reminded me of the League of Gentlemen and the denial "We didn't eat him!"

      Frankly, it's immaterial. They went some distance away; they could neither see nor hear the children, they left a door open. It makes no odds whether they were drinking themselves rigid, limbo dancing or having a colonic. It was the neglect of the children which was the problem, not the reason for it. The swift intervention of their apologists that they were doing civilised, doctor-y things like having tapas and a cheeky merlot are all designed to say ''These were responsible parents'' They were certainly responsible. Responsible for the loss of their child.

      Delete
    2. Great post 20:11, and couldn't agree more, there was nothing respectable, civilised or doctor-y, in what they were doing. In fact, I am astonished they were able to convince ANYONE that their behaviour was not 'chavvy'.

      Anyone caught in the act of endangering their children would come up with a string of excuses and reasons to justify their actions. There is NO excuse, young children should not be left unattended in ANY circumstances.

      It has always been a question of 'class' with the McCanns and their friends. There is probably a touch of the God complex in all of them. That they were an aloof and arrogant group seems apparent. They presented themselves to the world as an elite group of professionals, far removed from the raggle taggle lives of those below them on the evolutionary scale.

      They immediately took charge of the investigation, treating the Portuguese police as if they were minions with a limited number of brain cells. They told the police it was an abduction, they told the police to distribute photographs and they told the police to shut the borders. They are doctors, people rarely, if ever, question their authority.

      Gerry's comparison to 'dining in your garden' was clearly ludicrous, unless of course, he assumes we all live on vast estates with a holiday complex in the middle.

      They dismissed the first policemen to arrive on the scene as Tweedledum and Tweedledee, demanding to see their superiors. Just as they dismissed the government's offer of a low level consulate, only a Minister would do.

      There is no humility about these good Catholics and pillars of the community, their sense of entitlement was finally being acknowledged. They had seized control of the 'Search' for Madeleine, the work of the police became secondary and inconsequential.

      So successful was their campaign to demean and discredit the Portuguese Police, that the world accepted without question, that the investigation was botched. Those darn sardine munchers, just wouldn't do as they were told.

      I think 'The Force' (God Complex)is very strong with this particular folie a deux, they believe, so they make others believe. A bit like Donald Trump.

      Delete
  23. Good evening to you: I think I recognise your eminently sensible (Amazonian?) voice. I included a minor plaudit to Ros on today's Bureau. She deserves it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You do indeed, I think. I shall pop over to the Bureau, not had a look today. Yes, I don't always agree 100% with Ros, but I do more often than not and admire her fortitude in the face of the Balding Buffoon and his various appendages.

      Delete
    2. Many thanks John, and I am indeed grateful to your goodself for being the voice of sanity over the years!

      Delete
    3. @ john blacksmith26 January 2016 at 20:49

      It's a shame you didn't spell Ros's name correctly on your blog when you said "I exempt Cristobel".

      Or did you mean someone else?

      Delete
  24. Nearly nine years on and you are all spouting the same old rubbish.
    The McCanns will never be prosecuted. The British and Portuguese police both agree they are innocent. Get over yourselves. Even better get back in the real world.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Since when did it become the remit of police forces to decide who is guilty/innocent or not?
      Not suspects (at this time I may add) does not equate to innocence.

      Delete
    2. I've never seen this police statement 21:19, please feel free to publish it here. And I don't mean the ancient ones that date back to when this game began.

      Do police go around declaring people innocent? I thought they were the investigators, not the Judge and Jury.

      Delete
    3. They decided that there was no case to answer. It's you who declare them guilty

      Delete
    4. Who or what do you think Investigation Grange have been building a case against 09:02? There has been no mention of abductors from the police in over 2 years. No dangerous predators have been arrested, and no paedophile gangs have been rounded up. If Madeleine were alive and being cared for, why haven't the police rescued her?

      If Madeleine is alive and findable, why are Operation Grange winding down? Why haven't the police given the McCanns anything positive to support their campaign and proposed 'new' search?

      What, if any, evidence do Scotland Yard have that there was an abduction? Why are they not sharing it with the McCanns?

      In Kate's extended confession ('Madeleine'. she described how they kept up the pretence that the Portuguese police did not consider them suspects - right up until they were declared official suspects. Are they doing the same now with Scotland Yard?

      I tend to think that if Scotland Yard considered Kate and Gerry innocent, they would still be touting their fictional stories around Fleet Street and having cosy tet a tets with Lorraine Kelly.

      Delete
    5. The reason Operation Grange is winding down is that the chance of finding Madeleine alive is extremely low. Amaral and his goons messed up the initial investigation - whether you believe that Madeleine was abducted or her parents were responsible for her death. A simple initial search of the apartment would have would have determined whether she was there. That's not hindsight - that's simple and standard police process - even to check if the child was just hiding.

      The reason that SY is not sharing evidence or information with regard to the parents is that there is no FURTHER evidence to give. The parents will not be arrested because SY do not believe that they were responsible, but they understand that as time has passed the chances of solving this horrible crime have diminished.

      Delete
  25. In the words of Voltaire, I disagree with what you say, but I will fight unto death for your right to be a complete arsehole.

    Enjoy your tantrum.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Who's having a tantrum? Just telling it how it is. Your insult is expected. Sad you cannot express yourself without it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh bless. I tell you what, my steamer is broken, so I'm just going to pop a corn cob in each of your ears, okay?

      Delete
  27. So John Blacksmith is on the loose again? I read his latest utterings. By what process of logic or reasoning does he come to the conclusion that it is 'possible' that the McCanns have been telling the truth all the way along? Do tell us, Blacksmith!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Could it be because he has an open mind 01:15?

      Delete
    2. This is Cristobell's site, not mine, and I don't intend to use up her space. Of course you don't really want an answer, do you? Why don't you admit that you're just expressing dislike?

      Delete
    3. John: this is off topic but I do have a reason for asking you. Have you ever been a member of the Maddie McCann Mystery forum?

      Delete
    4. Birds of a feather 01.15.

      Both seem, imo to be gearing up for a 'we always knew Madeleine was abducted' statement.

      It has nothing to do with being open minded. Both have harangued and belittled any who dare support any research theory Mr Bennett has posited.

      As for Mrs Fenn. Complete poppycock. She must have had the hearing of a bat to be able to differentiate the age of a child and pinpoint so accurately through concrete walls.

      I too wonder why she, as a mother especially could listen to the obvious distress of a very young child and do nothing? I do not accept she was apprehensive of the McCann party. I doubt in anyone's wild imagination they had given anyone any cause to think them lager louts. In any case, if she didn't want to become involved she could have made an anonymous call to the OC reception, particularly as the child was allegedly calling for a parent. Even if said parent was in the apartment, the prolonged crying was a valid enough reason to summon help. Could the babysitting parent have been taken ill?

      The absence of any other resident recalling the incident is very strange. Again, I do not accept the 'didnt want to get involved' argument. It like Mrs Fenn's statement, doesn't hold water.

      Cristobell is saying Mrs Fenn was a nice little old lady who is being doubted because she was good enough to report (albeit belatedly), a crying incident which 100% backs the McCann neglect alibi but provided no aid to said distressed child for A, fear of reprisals B, she was unsure if the child was alone. Neither make any sense. Also one child crying? Nonsense. Can anybody say three children, similar in age would night be woken by another's prolonged crying? This was loud enough to be heard from above. 2 year olds wake very easily unless sedated but then IF that was the case, why not all three?

      IF the alleged incident took place it seems the OC residents are the most callous, hard of hearing group ever to be gathered in one place. Getting involved at the time is,one thing but to continue to deny when a child is missing is another.

      What do you think Cristobell? All as deaf as a post or bare faced unfeeling liars?

      Delete
    5. Well deh!?? And how pray Can you claim abduction if you are present in a small apartment without having to make up an even more convoluted alibi than has already been put forward under the neglect banner? Even the Mccanns would have had problems getting anyone to swallow that story so readily.

      Neglect has given endless opportunities to put forward a mystery figure lurking, watching, casing the joint ready to pick the perfect moment to pounce. The crying incident is just one.

      Delete
    6. I have a hunch that Mrs Fenn gave a lot more evidence to the police than we are aware of 14:46. So too, the occupants of the other apartments. This 'other' evidence is probably part of the withheld files and will be part of another huge revelation at some point down the line. Previous rows and arguments heard by neighbours could form part of a case being built against the parents, and making them public could jeopardize any future potential trial.

      The McCanns don't know what Mrs Fenn told the police, neither do we. She was however living directly above the McCanns in the days leading up to Madeleine's disappearance. Given that Kate and Gerry are volatile, impatient, characters, with Kate especially, prone to hysteria, who knows what Mrs Fenn heard during that week. I somehow doubt it was the perfect Stepford family meticulously described by Kate in her book Madeleine.

      That Bennett is making such robust attempts to discredit Mrs Fenn, merely demonstrates how important her evidence is going to be.

      Delete
  28. Sigh..... please read the files. The McCanns were extremely anxious that the PJ should know all about the crying episode. It's in their statements of the 4th of May.
    They even asked the liaison officer to mention it again to the PJ. Read Dr. Roberts' 'A crying shame'.

    ReplyDelete
  29. I can't believe after all these years that people still believe that the mccanns were neglectful. The neglect was introduced to allow the abduction to be possible

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And I can't believe that some people still believe that all the people who saw them dining out and making occasional checks on their children told a pack of lies to the police.

      Delete
    2. I have never seen any statements from other people to confirm that.

      Delete
    3. "I have never seen any statements from other people to confirm that."

      I'm really surprised that the police didn't copy you in on their enquiries - maybe you should complain so that you don't miss out when the next high profile criminal case comes along

      Delete
    4. In that case, I recommend the PJ files. They are very useful, provided one reads further than the Gaspar statements which is, let's face it, the extent to which most people have perused them

      Delete
    5. Why do you think ALL these doctors would put themselves at risk of serious charges of neglect and child endangerment 12:19? Charges that would almost certainly have wrecked their high flying careers.

      Whether they neglected the children or whether they didn't, they were still going to claim that Madeleine had been abducted. What exactly are the 'no neglect' lobby, trying to prove. If it is the fact that the abduction was staged - well, deh! Most of us already know that. Can you explain to me what I am missing?

      I await your answers with great interest.

      Delete
    6. If their crime was neglect then I think that they have been punished enough, don't you?

      And if you are so sure that the abduction was staged, and the child was already dead, then I would be really interested to hear your opinion of the timeline of her death - how long she was kept in the apartment, when her body was hidden etc.

      Delete
  30. John Blacksmith rocks truly another amazing insight. I wish John you would write more often but am thankful for the times you do

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I second that.

      Delete
    2. Yes, I am a fan too, and always appreciate when he posts here.

      Delete
    3. Another appreciative reader here saying thank you to you both.

      Delete
  31. 27 Jan 0941 and 1127 Yes to both your excellent posts. EITHER this was neglect, leaving the kids alone each night, with an alleged checking regime in place, OR there was something bad that happened to Madeleine and they covered it up by inventing the neglect. There is evidence that one of them was looking after the children every night

    ReplyDelete
  32. If Bennett or anybody else cared to read the official PJ files it clearly states Mrs Fenn had been interviewed by 10th May 2007. 3 days after the "abduction" max.

    A further formal statement was given in August 07. This was a Police decision not Mrs Fenn's. Her niece Mrs Tranmer's Police statement confirms she was speaking to the British Police on Sunday May 10th. Mrs Tranmer told the Police about Mrs Fenn then.

    More Bennett bullshit. No matter how many times you tell the lie, it will not make it true.

    Let Mrs Fenn rest in peace.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you JJ. Unfortunately the people who are buying into Bennett's nonsense are only reading those parts of the statements he has selected and taken out of context. They are taking his word rather than reading the actual police file.

      Bennett's research is driven by 'confirmation bias', he has already made his mind up (based on his barmy religious beliefs)so he is only looking for evidence that will support his own pre fixed theories.

      He is the worst kind of student 13:00, and would quickly be thrown off any serious or official study. The brightest academics are those who keep an open and enquiring mind and can adapt to new evidence and information.

      If Bennett were a car designer who invented a new gear that drove you straight into a brick wall, he would drive straight into that brick wall (with a car load of passengers), rather than admit he may have made an error in the design. That is the mentality we are dealing with here.

      Delete
    2. Remind me, who is the qualified solicitor and who is selling discounted novels on Amazon?

      You need to stop with this rabid need you have to discredit Bennett at every opportunity. I'll give you one thing Roz, 10/10 for being able to weave an attack into any subject you write about.

      Delete
  33. @12:19

    "the people who saw them dining out..."

    Also saw whoever else was at the table - minus a different one every night I understand. Doesn't that strike you as a little curious? It did the PJ.

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

      Delete
  34. Cristobel and JJ you are attempting to link those who don't believe that there was any neglect with Bennett. I love your work cristobel and follow you always. I think your a great reader of people and your work on the case always makes sense to me. I am no supporter of Bennett I think the mans an eejit and those who gave him support are as daft as the opinion surveys he does. I have not read one word of what he has said on Mrs Fenn my opinion is based solely on my own observations of what went on and my own observations are that Mrs Fenn was part of a definite campaign to promote neglect. As for why would doctors risk their career by admitting neglect I would said to you that those very same people risks much more than their career by preventing the course of justice through lieing to the police. They risked imprisionment. Why did they do that my opinion is that they were being protected by someone or a group of people who gave them cast iron guarantees that nothing would ever come of it and do you know what this person or people have be true to their word. No charges of neglect was ever brought against them and no charges have been brought against them for preventing the course of justice. Mrs Fenn was an old woman she was a victim of the McCanns and when the truth of this all comes out which it will a brave lot of other people who thought they were acting in good faith will tell the story of how they were hoodwinked into participating in this whole sordid affair.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Excellent post. Whenever the McCanns insist on something, one has to study the opposite. Please watch all the interviews that were made initially (and even later on). They INSIST on neglecting their children. They did it to the PJ as well as from every damn sofa in different countries. "It felt safe, like dining in your garden...regular checks...." And so the lie is repeated on and on until it almost has become an undisputable fact. How clever!
      It's neither the first nor the last time in history evil forces get their way with the help of an efficient propaganda machinery.

      This has absolutely NOTHING to do with Bennett, Hideho or anyone else that share a belief that there was no neglect. Doesn't mean we all have to be each other's supporters.
      Just see it for what it is, ask the question WHY promote the neglect ? Overegging the pudding is always a huge red flag.

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

      Delete
    3. That's exactly the point. It's what I meant by using the expression 'overegging the pudding'. Actually Dr.Martin Roberts uses the same words in his brilliant piece "The crying shame".
      They definitely made no secret of their wish that the PJ and the rest of the world all would believe the children were alone (especially when the abductor came along).
      How clever indeed to secure a table for that purpose. Now was that table 1 meter or 2 meter closer to the apartment than the other tables ....?

      How lucky they are. After almost nine years, so many in the public actually still believe the McCanns&co were THAT stupid.

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

      Delete
    5. Unless you believe Madeleine was REALLY abducted (which seems more and more obvious you do), the staged story is of course premeditated. An invented, staged abduction needs to be planned to some extent. Some believe it was a hasty, last minute plan after something had happened while Madeleine was left alone with her siblings on Thursday evening. Others tend to believe something happened to her earlier in the week. So, either on Thursday or earlier. Neglect or no neglect isn't really the issue when discussing premeditation either. The difference lies in the time, minutes-hours to plan the hoax, or days. Premedtation necessary in both cases. Yes anyone is capable of being an active participant if your future is depending on it.
      Maybe you are mixing things up, this is not meaning that Madeleine's death was premeditated. It only means the disappearence (the staged abduction) was.

      Delete
  35. In the Bennett world of bullshit the great leader spouts Mrs Fenn is dodgy, because she never had contact with the police for 111 days. So yet again he is trying to plant the belief that the Macs are the victims of a completely inept investigation lead by Dr. Amaral.

    Bullshit Bennett demands you believe that in 111 days no GNR officer, no PJ officer, no Leicestershire officer, no MET officer, no Special Branch officer, no CEOP officer, asked "has door to door been carried out". "Did the neighbours see anything", and in a 111 days no journalist, highbrow or gutter press, no TV reporter, no radio reporter, knocked on any door to see if the neighbours and locals knew anything at all.

    This is just too stupid for words.

    The official PJ files and Leicestershire police files show contact with the Fenn family first on Friday May 8th and again on Sunday May 10th, but Bennett cannot be bothered to read them. Its easier to make things up.

    The Macs must be shown as victims. We know Bennett needs to discredit Dr. Amaral and the PJ at every opportunity and Why?

    We also know Bennett has serious mental problems but anyone still believing this man and egging him on, is thicker than pigshit.

    Name one piece of Bennett research that stands up to simple scrutiny.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Terry wrote (27 Jan 1159) "John: this is off topic but I do have a reason for asking you. Have you ever been a member of the Maddie McCann Mystery forum?" I don't think anyone has answered this. I am a member of the MMM (candyfloss) forum and, Yes he is! And we are proud to have him amongst us, along with your very good self, Ros. I may add that I am a 'refugee' from the now discredited CMOMM forum and we undoubtedly have the best Madeleine posters on the net as members - Dee Coy, Antonia, Chatelaine and Bampots to name but a few. And not forgetting you too Andrew, love to see you back there posting if you can

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What a strange world we live in. Why would any anonymous person want to invent the fact that I’m a member of that forum? I have never been a member there. The only forum I am a member of – and pretty much disliked by many of its punters – is the MCF forum because I love and respect its owner. I contribute there occasionally but do not debate: I don’t believe in internet debate. In its earlier days, and without asking my permission, they gave a thread to my blogs. Then they dropped them. Out of respect for Cristobell I won’t make a fuss about such a pack of lies.

      Weird.

      Next, thank you for the comments. In return let me say that I have quite different opinions and priorities from Cristobell but feel she is about the most honest and open commentator on the McCann affair around and seems to be to be quite without malice. In return, like one or two other women, she is subjected to horrible and revolting abuse, usually, of course, anonymous.

      How she weathers it I don’t know. I can’t: the maliciousness and sheer evil that accompanies so much comment and in-fighting makes me uncomfortable, aghast, mystified and wanting to avoid it. I have known pretty well at least three killers and many wicked people in a long life and I didn’t think anything could surprise me about human nastiness. Yet, there it is, day after day and it never ceases to take my breath away, which is why, unlike brave Ros, I have never allowed comments. The death of Brenda Leyland was no unforeseen accident: after a brief stay in the cesspit I wrote to Havern and said that the unleashed hatred that she was encouraging there, pro and anti, was going to kill somebody one day. And it did.

      Delete
    2. John has replied and said that he isn't a member.

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

      Delete
    4. I applaud you John Blacksmith. I am a member of MMM and yes it is a really friendly place to post. Why any supposed member would think you post on forums is beyond me.
      costello MMM

      Delete
    5. MMM is a great place. Was a member myself since it originated. Agree, that i didnt think JB was a member though. Also agree with him that forums are trouble. All i wanted to do was join in and seek truth and justice for Madeleine. But all i got was some nonsense from the paid loon who is Bennett and because of false said nonsense, i get banned and lose my voice. So tell me Bennett, yet again, hiw are these accusations, which are false and a pack of lies going... really interested as others are. Rubbish and you know it.

      P.s - hello Costello.

      Regards, Andrew

      Delete
    6. A lot of the better and more controversial posts are in the 'members only' sections of CMOMM and MMM. It's worth being a member for the reading, IMO. CMOMM has chucked the baby out with the bathwater, though, in whooshing the 'Comment left on Cristobell's blog' and the 'Cocaine?' threads, to name but two interesting discussions which have 'disappeared'.

      Delete
    7. Andrew needs to accept that he alone is responsible for being banned from MMM. His drunken rants were tiresome and embarrassing and to ring TB again, knowing full well what trouble that would cause, was utter stupidity.

      Delete
    8. And therein lies my problems with forums at the moment 21:44. I have had so many blogs rejected by HiDeHo (not keeping to the files), and so many posts deleted on MMM, that I am loathe to waste my time on them anymore.

      Unfortunately Bennett is still exerting control over Candyfloss's forum. Candyfloss does not want to enter the fray, so she won't allow anything controversial. Sadder still, she capitulated to Bennett's demands to ban Andrew.

      I'm afraid I just don't get the mentality of that. Andrew was a lively and popular contributor to the forum. If you think of this as a numbers game, by removing her top poster, she played right into his hands.

      I am not for one moment suggesting that it was intentional, CF has a high moral code, and that is commendable. But I can't help but see her punishment of Andrew as a tad sanctimonious and way over the top.

      So, he has the occasional meltdown, so what? The constant taunting of bully boy Bennett could drive anyone on a killing spree. Bennett should be grateful I don't drink these days, or I might have graphically described to him my very strong desire to tear him limb from limb. He can have that kind of effect on you. And I'm a peace loving tree hugger who once called an emergency vet out to a sick hamster at 3.00 o'clock in the morning. I can't bear to see any creature suffer. It's just not me. With Bennett however, I even fantasise about being a Roman Soldier and chucking this particularly annoying Christian to the lions, I could go on.......

      I have no reason to defend Andrew btw, he hates me, or at least he used to, lol, but the punishment just doesn't fit the crime, and the loss is actually MMM's and victory for the cesspit.

      But back to your very important point 21:44, those who take the moral high ground will always lose readers in droves. People love the gossip and the slagging off, who said what to whom and about whom, and how outraged they all are. It's the reason why the old News of the World and The Sun were/are so successful and the Parish Magazine has only a handful of readers.

      I've not seen what has been said in the inner sanctums 21:44, but I would like to dispel any rumours that I have cloved hooves, lol. Actually, if anybody has any screenshots, I would be v.grateful, they are presently too scared to say my name out loud in case I bring my vengeance down upon them, ha ha.

      I don't know what Bennett is afraid of. I think most people have now sussed that the Courtroom is where he gets his jollies. In his dreams he is a renowned prosecutor saying 'And I put it to you your Honour' followed by a 190 day speech, the roar of the crowd and a GoFundMe site for a statue.

      Most of his victims have cottoned on and see his attention seeking antics for what they are. They are refusing to bite. Even the McCanns can't be arsed with him anymore.

      Delete
    9. Many thanks for your kind words John. Though, I'm not sure my reasons for hanging on in there, are entirely altruistic.

      Unfortunately, my inability to keep my trap shut was the kiss of death to my writing career. I got the major book deal with Random House that I had always dreamed of, but thereafter every door was slammed in my face. I was that horrible woman who wrote nasty things about the McCanns online. I was, maybe still am, blacklisted.

      I don't want to sound like a whiney writer blaming everyone but myself for the failure of my book, I know I am to blame for that, but the massive cooling off between getting the book deal and the publication and what happened thereafter, tells me the blacklist was very real. Before Sonia, none of the mainstream journalists would touch this case with a bargepole.

      There were of course whopping great faults with the whole concept of 'Cry and You Cry Alone'. It was mean't to be a misery memoir, but I stepped completely out of genre, I was going for laughs not tears. Ce la vie.

      Loathe as I am to compare myself to the amazing Goncalo, I too have had to fight to restore my reputation. I have the unfortunate habit of googling myself, especially in the early days, and my name was/is mud. One website was entitled 'The Lies of Rosalinda Hutton' and had a (fortunately great) picture of me photoshopped into a grey nun's habit! When I did an interview for a local paper the replies were so venomous that they had to close the comments!

      I'm afraid the McCanns made this personal. Had they left me alone, who knows, I may focussed on an entirely different subject altogether. Many times, I was really irritated that I couldn't walk away. I felt trapped. Ignoring them wasn't going to work, they were like those dogs who jaws lock when they sink their teeth into a victim. I had to fight back, they were not going to let me walk away, they wanted me to feel misery and fear.

      And they succeeded to a certain extent, my world did indeed crumble around me. I quite literally lost everything. And to that extent I can sympathise with some who post anonymously on the McCann case, why take the risk?

      I don't care about everything I lost, it has given me a new and far more fulfilling life. Losing everything you own, sort of releases you from chains you didn't know were there. You get to see the true kindness of human nature. You see the cruelty too, sadly, but the kindness seems to make up for it.

      I've never really put much store on worldly possessions to be honest and I've never coveted anything in a biblical sense, unless you count Jack Nicholson. I'm not particularly impressed by people's good (or bad) taste and the whopping sum they paid for it. There is no talent to spending money, pretty much anyone can do it. Invariably all they have done is followed the latest trend, then they want to be commended on their uniqueness. Bizarre.

      But I digress, it is my belief that all we really leave when we depart this world, is our reputation or to make it a tad more pompous, our legacy. On my own google searches, the bad still outnumbers the good, the battle continues!

      I've never had the patience or the funds to defend myself against all the wild accusations in a courtroom, but I do have words. And I know they don't have the resources to beat me on that one ;)

      Delete
    10. @Diane.

      It would be nice if you could get your facts in order or at least do some research before you comment. Yes, i have admitted (and never denied) ringing up Bennett in the past....To ask him why and to stop telling lies about me. Never spoke to the pratt as he refuses to speak. The so-called 'death threats', well that was a lie to far. Spoke to the police several times when the accusation was made. Nothing. Lies as usual. Maybe if you were on the other end of said nonsense, then you might see things differently. Or at least you should, but would never wish the same on anyone.

      Regards, Andrew

      Delete
    11. There was more to it as you know.

      http://maddiemccannmystery.forumotion.co.uk/t1165-reply-to-cristobell#48598

      Delete
    12. Andrew I really wish you would stop all this aggravation with Tony Bennett it really is becoming boring now.

      Delete
    13. John Blacksmith, Roz 'open and honest commentator'.'Quite without malice' Are you serious!? Have you checked her twitter feed?
      How is making a sustained and malicious attack on one man and a forum he inhabits 'without malice'? Is implying someone is a paedophile, fraudster and conman 'without malice'? Agree or not with him and I'm not defending him, those kind of accusations are beyond the pale. Insisting he posts proof of payment to CR then suggesting he sticks it where the sun doesn't shine or kiss it ( I forget which), is acceptable? And all because she received a 7 day suspension. Not forgetting the legendary accusations of non existent death threats.

      I also take exception to you trying to lay the blame of Brenda's death at the door of cmomm. How on earth do you reach that conclusion?

      Was Brunt directed to her door by Jill Havern? Did cmomm compile the so called death dossier?

      It seems to me there is a sustained campaign with an agenda going on here but it certainly isn't coming from any forum.

      I used to find Roz's articles enjoyable but recently they seem to be a deliberate attempt to attack, insult or ridicule anyone who questions motives and reasoning.

      Delete
    14. Andrew I actually thought you were on MMM for Madeleine sadly to say you seemed more obsessed with Tony Bennett.

      Delete
    15. 20:56 Could the Twitter feed appearing on CMOMM and Brenda/Sweepyface's deaths be linked?

      Delete
    16. It is easy for those not on the receiving end of Bennett's stalking and harassment to advise those of us who are, how to behave.

      Since I was a little girl, I have never wanted to be anything other than a good (great) writer - nothing compares to my love of the written word. As a troubled teen, I often read 2, sometimes 3 books a day (I counted novellas, lol), in fact, I am the only person I know who has read The Pilgrim's Progress - the convent had very limited reading material.

      Unfortunately, my involvement with this case 'wrecked' my writing career. Not only was I blacklisted, but there was/is a concerted campaign by Bennett, the McCanns and numerous other malcontents to destroy my reputation and silence me in whatever way they can.

      They cannot get me on the 'troll' stuff, because I am not now and never have been an abusive poster. There were no tweets from me on Sky rolling news.

      All my enemies have to throw at me is my documented troubled childhood, I am a careleaver, ergo I must be a chav and a lowlife. They also have my mental health problems, I speak freely about my manic depression, I dont' see it as something to be ashamed of. My enemies however, cite this often, telling me to 'up my meds' or advising that I should be locked up for my own good. The more extreme abusers in CMoMM and JATKY2 even reassure themselves, that in the event I am driven to suicide, I have only myself to blame. In fact I did a blog with a picture grim reapers during one of their especially nasty feeding frenzies.

      I have been on the receiving end of vicious troll behaviour for a number of years now 20:56, but I don't complain and I don't run off and get a policeman. I'm not a coward, I stay and fight. The more these vicious and unimaginative trolls call me Mutton and the daughter of a whore, the more they will incur my wrath. And as the Hulk (a fav movie line) they wouldn't like me when I'm angry.

      I jest of course, I see them as the creepy, crawly little bugs they are. I don't take what they say personally, because they don't know me! Everything they say is a projection of their own inner turmoil, they have no idea how much they are revealing about themselves.

      As you can see 20:56, I am driven by my childhood dream, it is beyond my control (another fav movie line). The more Bennett tries to silence me, the more words I will find to rebut him. Though sadly he seems to have sussed this out, I rarely get a mention these days. Doh!

      Delete
  37. @ JJ ...Name one piece of Bennett research that stands up to simple scrutiny. He told us all that the McCanns' lawyer Edward Smethurst was a senior Freemason in a Lancashire Provincial Lodge and somehow got hold of all the documents to prove that he was a Past Grandmaster etc. I thought that was a useful bit of research, and it hasn't been challenged. Smethurst has also been a Director of the Fund since 2009

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous28 January 2016 at 12:00

      Would that be the same Smethurst that bennett paid £2500 for libel and £7500 costs to?

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

      Delete
    3. 28 Jan 2016 12:59
      More sausages for the pork-munching Smethers and crowd-funded martyrdom for the shopping-trollied homophobe? A win all round.

      Delete
  38. JJ opinions stated here are not about Bennett. Just because somewhere in his looney world he happens to come accross something that other sane minded people think doesn't mean we are all "egging him on". So please stop suggesting that. Personally I can see him getting arrested along with the rest when the arresting starts. @7.50 says" it will not be the first or the last time in history that evil forces get their way with the help of an efficient proporganda machinery" I could not agree more. I recall one member of an efficient proporganda machine who spoke of his work years later and he said its all about getting your message out first and then reinforcing it. The ordinary Joe public believe the first message they hear and it doesn't matter how many denials come along afterwards people will still continue to believe. To this day if you asked the majority of Joe public they will tell you that the McCanns were out on the lash, the shutters were broken and Jane Tanner seen the child being carried. The denial by the ocean club that they were broken or the introduction of Crechdad by Redwood will go unnoticed. Mrs Fenn was IMO used to reinforce a message which was thrust down our throat from day 1.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Opinions stated here are not about Bennett.

      Mine are, the man is barking mad!

      Who is promoting the lies and untruths, Bennett, and people are still listening to his crap.

      Mrs Fenn could not have been used to ram a message down our throats from day one, if as Bennett insists, she never came forward until day 111.

      If you choose to believe the first message you hear and keep believing it, even when it is easy to prove it is total bullshit, you are a worthy disciple of Bennett. Think for yourself, read the case notes for yourself, none of his 'research' stands up to scrutiny.

      Propaganda in the long term, only works with the gullible and the brain dead!

      Delete
    2. So you just resort to insults JJ when all else fails

      Delete
    3. I wouldnt say it was an insult to say Bennett is a loon... or words similar.

      Thats the truth. He is and a liar.

      Thats why i dislike the idiot so much. Because he literally makes up lies as he sees fit. Or gets paid to do it.

      Regards, Andrew

      Delete
    4. Why on earth would he get paid to make up lies about you?

      Delete
    5. He certainly made up stuff and peddled his guff about this case.

      Hes made up no end of lies and nonsense about me.

      Cant be bothered to repeat etc.

      Maybe look a bit more into it if you ever have time. Wish you well.

      Regards, Andrew

      Delete
    6. I think your the loon Andrew. Most people couldn't care less about Bennett and his antics. I for one wouldn't read anything he wrote if he sent it personally to me but he is an obsession with you. What on earth would you resort to ringing up and talking to people who you claim is a loon, and idiot and a liar

      Delete
    7. 13:13 Whilst I agree that the first news story out there is usually the one that sticks, I don't think for one moment that the McCanns had any control over Mrs Fenn.

      The McCanns and the tapas group were claiming their 'checking' was a responsible form of parenting 13:13. The statement of Mrs Fenn directly contradicts the statements of all the tapas group. They are claiming 15 to 30 minute checks, Mrs Fenn heard crying for 75 minutes.

      And here is another question for those claiming no neglect. If there was an adult present every night, why was a child crying continuously for 75 minutes?

      Delete
  39. 13.13 "Mrs Fenn was IMO used to reinforce a message which was thrust down our throat from day 1". (CLAPS HANDS)

    ReplyDelete
  40. Whatever happened to K.I.S.S.?

    Most of the theories and opinions expressed on here are just nonsense.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Not Textusa (27 January at 21:45)

    The absentees from Tapas dinner list:

    Sunday - Matthew Oldfield
    Tuesday - Russell O'Brien
    Wednesday - Jane Tanner/Rachael Mampilly
    Thursday - Rachael Mampilly

    That's 4 from 5 according to their own statements, but since Monday is the day the McCanns have never been keen to talk about, I'm hardly likely to concede the point.

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

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

      Delete
  42. @Not Textusa
    Read the statements. Several of the group were sick on different evenings. If you focus pre-Thursday, you'll find some very interesting things.

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

      Delete
  43. @costello 19 26.I had to laugh at that post MMM is as bad as CMoMM for being unfriendly.Candy needs to let Andrew back on every forum needs an Andrew and most forums have one,he was one of the best posters on MMM he is nice,polite but best of all he is FUNNY.It's not the case that Andrew Needs MMM it's more MMM needs Andrew and Candy should let him back,personally i think Candy is too weak to be a forum owner so based on that she probably wont let him back on the forum.
    Any forum owner that is scared what a member might say and do should not be running a forum.She needs to toughen up.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Is that you again, Tony?

      Delete
    2. Don't worry about TB or Havern. Other than the usual hangers on the cess pit is finished.

      Delete
    3. It's not the same without Aiyoyo.

      Delete
  44. Not Textusa @17:17

    I stand corrected.

    "Do you just make this stuff up?"

    No. But I did misread Jane Tanner's meandering account as regards Rachael Mampilly, who was absent on the Wednesday, but NOT Thursday.

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

      Delete
    2. Anon@22:02

      You are not entirely wrong, only by name. According to Rachael Mampillys rogatory statement, when Matt and Russell left the table on the Thursday night to check their children and the McCanns, Matt returned to the Tapas without Russell because his child was unwell so he stayed with her in the apartment until relieved by Jane who went back to the apartment when she'd eaten. She then stayed in the apartment while Russell went to the Tapas to eat.

      In fairness to you, I think you can count in Thursday as well as the other days you mentioned.

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

      Delete
  45. @22.14

    Ha no i am not Tony! i was a member of MMM until i left last year and one of the reasons i left was because of Andrew's unjust banning and the paranoia of what you could and could'nt post.

    ReplyDelete
  46. It's irrelevant what the T7 said in their statements because they all lied anyway.

    Fact is this, "negligence" was necessary so there could be an "abduction", so the negligence myth had to be firmly planted in the mind of the public. It was vital, because without negligence there could be no abduction.

    We all know Madeleine died, we all know there wasn't an abduction, so quoting the statements of the T7 as to who was, or wasn't, at the fictitious Tapas dinners is completely erroneous.

    Nuala

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. How do you know Madeleine died?

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

      Delete
    3. Spare us the name calling Not Textusa, there is no need for aggression.

      Delete
    4. 23:48 1)the alerts of the blood and cadaver dogs 2) Scotland Yard digging up PDL 3)'may not have left the apartment alive 4) no updated age progression pics 5) no 'official' appeals to search for Maddie 6) no urgency, now, or ever.

      Delete
    5. Not Textusa, Rosalind says " 1)the alerts of the blood and cadaver dogs" and you say nothing??

      Delete
    6. Anonymous 28 January 2016 at 23:34 you said "How do you know Madeleine died?"

      We all know Madeleine died because Eddie the cadaver dog alerted to the smell of a dead body in the McCanns' apartment, in the garden outside the apartment, in their hire car, on cuddlecat and on Kate McCann's clothes.

      We also know the McCanns lied about the apartment being broken into, that Kate McCann refused to answer 48 questions put to her by the police investigating the disappearance of her daughter and that Gerry McCann couldn't even get his story straight about which door he used to enter the apartment the night his daughter disappeared.

      But leaving those things aside, it's the DOGS who will forever condemn the McCanns. Whichever way this farce plays out, whether or not Madeleine ultimately gets justice in a court of law, the McCanns will NEVER escape the evidence of the dogs. Unbiased, irrefutable evidence from a source totally without agenda, Eddie and Keela told us what happened to Maddie.

      The McCanns will always have the dogs sniffing at their heels. That's never going to go away.

      Nuala

      Delete
    7. Are you aware that the PJ and OG have said that the McCanns are not suspects in the disappearance of Madeleine?
      Or are you still living the 2007?

      Delete
    8. Anonymous 29 January 2016 at 20:26

      It makes no difference what has been said PUBLICLY of course the McCanns are suspects, they're the prime suspects, and for very good reasons. Two very good reasons in fact - Eddie and Keela.

      Nuala

      Delete
    9. After nine years you actually believe the crap you write?
      Show me a cite that says the McCanns are still "prime" suspects.

      Delete
    10. Anonymous 29 January 2016 at 23:11

      I don't need to show anything.

      Fact is this ANYONE who has followed this case knows that Maddie died and the parents staged an abduction. That's fact. The parents lied from the start about the shutters being jemmied BUT it was the evidence of the dogs that told the world that Maddie died. That evidence, from two highly-skilled and highly-trained dogs has condemned the McCanns FOREVER.

      I know that, you know that, and the PJ and OG know that.

      Whether or not there will be the political will to charge the McCanns and attempt some justice for Maddie via a legal route in the courts remains to be seen.

      But she died. We all know she died. Eddie and Keela told us she died. And that will NEVER go away. Even if the McCanns escape justice, we all still know that Eddie alerted to the smell of a dead body in apartment 5A, in the garden outside, on cuddlecat and on Kate McCann's clothes.

      That will NEVER change. Eddie alerted ONLY to locations and possessions of the McCann parents and no-one else. No other apartment, no other car, no other person's clothes or cuddly toy ONLY the McCanns.

      As I said before, the dogs will always be sniffing at the McCanns' heels. That evidence from the dogs will NEVER change, it will NEVER go away. The parents are forever condemned by the evidence of the dogs whether this case is ever tested in a court of law or not.

      Nuala

      Delete
  47. @ Anonymous28 January 2016 at 23:15

    says
    "It's irrelevant what the T7 said in their statements because they all lied anyway.

    Fact is this, "negligence" was necessary so there could be an "abduction", so the negligence myth had to be firmly planted in the mind of the public. It was vital, because without negligence there could be no abduction."
    ------------------------------------------

    Of course the Mccanns could just have waited till the morning and reported Madeleine missing with an open window!

    I wonder why they missed that clever ruse that would have been so much more believable with no neglect implications at all? So much simpler.

    Rhetorical question of course!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you 00:13. The could also have covered themselves for any possible neglect charges by saying an adult remained behind each evening to watch all the children (in their own apartments). There would still have been a window of opportunity without making themselves look like the world's worst parents.

      Exactly what point are those insisting there was no neglect trying to make? If it is the fact that the abduction story was invented, well, we already know that.

      Can you explain to me what difference it would have made if the tapas group were in fact looking after their children.

      Can you explain to me why this group of professionals would risk their careers by admitting child endangerment? Do you think they may be guilty of 'worse' crimes? And if so, what are they?

      I have never bought the swinging theory nonsense. People on the look out for extra marital sex don't take the mother-in-law and all the family along with them. I actually think those convinced the Warners PDL resort was a hotbed of orgies and hows yer father for the upper echelons of society are bonkers.

      Delete
    2. Bonkers? Pitiful bonkers if they envisage the OC PdL as an erotic locale.

      Delete
    3. They weren't risking neglect charges. Someone further up in the comments explains this better than me. They knew they were safe before the alarm was set.
      The difference? Well if the children were supervised then something occured in the presence of one or more adults. Which would offer more "logical" explanations to why this had to be concealed. Instead of trying to come up with a reason why on earth they needed to cover up an accident to begin with. (Tanja Cadogan has dealt with this question extensively in her blog).
      Guilty of worse crimes? Oh yes I think so....If you look at it as a whole, with behavioural patterns included, the sinister nature of this child's disappearence gets more and more visible.

      Delete
    4. We know the McCanns and the tapas friends are lying about the sequence of events on the night of 3rd May 05:47. And whether there was neglect or not, we can safely assume 'something occurred in the presence of one or more adults'. Madeleine didn't make herself disappear. Whether the McCanns were neglecting or not neglecting their kids, makes no difference whatsoever.

      Delete
    5. Sorry if I didn't make myself clear (unfortunately English is not my native language). What I meant was there are more sinister options if Madeleine died in the presence of an adult. Or even clearer; she might have died due to what someone did to her. Whereas in a neglect situation, the way we have been led to believe, there are a few options which mostly have been discussed in forums and blogs... Overdose in sedation, falling from sofa, terminal illness...They all share the same scenario - Madeleine (and the twins) were unattended in the apartment while her parents were having a meal in the Tapas bar. During one of the "checks", she was found dead. And so they start planning the whole abduction scam. Of course you are right by saying that something occured in the presence of adults, but I just wanted to point at the actual difference. Like I said earlier, some scenarios offer more 'logical' explanations for this extreme cover up.

      Delete
  48. it sure is good seeing blonk aka bennett breaching his court agreement on UK Justice forum.

    Is anyone doubting that he is gunning for a GoFundMe to defend himself?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I just had to laugh when Tony Bennett apologised to his viewers for "leaving in" the crass remarks from one of his detractors; those that were written in green. I don't follow this case as much as many others, but am I to assume that those humorous green comments were yours?

      He must be extremely uptight if he thinks he has to apologise for such foul language when you didn't even use any! I mean, what century is this man living in?

      I'm amazed that anyone would think your language is "foul-mouthed". You even use "couldn't be fecked", which I am presuming is a British euphemism for "couldn't be fucked", but it's not one we use in Australia. (Where I'm from).

      As we would say "You really get up this guy's nose" don't you? You're so unladylike, in his opinion. I've a good mind to send him a message telling him he's got a bigger carrot up his arse than anyone I've ever seen, but I would be far too scared to ever "register" on that site!

      I happen to think they're bonkers. I mean, why on earth would an old woman like Mrs. Fenn lie about this matter? I really think that by the time one gets to be in their 80's, they've had enough of other people's business. Unless of course, they've always been hard-core criminals to begin with (clearly NOT the case with Mrs. Fenn), they're hardly likely to start perverting to course of justice just to please a few tourists!

      I really think Tony Bennett has a serious personality disorder of some kind. I'm not qualified to say exactly which one, but I'd wager he's got a borderline personality disorder, which usually encompasses a great deal of the traits of a narcissistic personality disorder.

      Whatever he has, I would bet my life that it impacts on his sense of reality far more severely than bi-polar disorder ever has! He doesn't even seem to have the faintest idea how ridiculous he is. He's casting Mrs. Fenn as some kind of aged version of Lady McBeth, and it's so obvious that she was just a normal old woman, who was no doubt honest and honourable. I am just glad that Tony Bennett doesn't work as a casting director of movies, because the plot would make no sense to anyone... Irish grandfathers and Irish children lying to a foreign police force to protect a porn-loving, child molesting, sicko named Murat, because? Well, why would they protect Murat if he was such a character? It would put the Irish family in a similar world, which makes no sense at all. None of what he says makes sense.

      On the other hand, he might just be suffering from dementia of some kind... Whatever it is, you are the very meaning of rational and sanity when put next to Tony Bennett. Oh, the irony of what the man says....

      Delete
  49. I believe Gonçalo Amaral is a decent human being and a diligent and painstaking detective. I do not believe he would not have ensured house to house enquiries and the questioning of the neighbours was not done thoroughly.

    Leicestershire police and PJ police documents confirm Mrs Fenn had been contacted within 72 hours. Bennett states these documents are forgeries.

    Who to believe? GA every time for me.

    Bennett tells us Mrs Fenn, an 80 year old oap, of good character, deliberately committed perjury without any explanation, why?

    We know the Macs need to show GA and the PJ as totally inept and incompetent and who failed to do even basic investigation procedures.
    But why does Bennett? It is often forgotten Bennett can only comment on any aspect of the case with the express permission of the Macs.

    We know the Macs detested the late Mrs Fenn, and hate GA with a passion so they are happy Bennett is trying to destroy the reputation of both, its suits their wider agenda.

    Remember, if Bennett says anything which displeases the Macs, heavy financial penalties will kick in. So he obviously is not displeasing them in his attacks on GA and that is why they will continue.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Very well said JJ. I cannot for the life of me understand why anyone would believe Bennett's made up lies above the painstaking work of Goncalo Amaral and the PJ.

      If anything, Bennett seems determined to absolve the McCanns of any blame for Madeleine's disappearance. A quick glance at the cesspit yesterday, and we have Bennett ending a post 'all roads lead to Robert Murat'. Only in your head Bennett, not in anybody else's.

      Delete
  50. If Amaral and the PJ were not totally inept and incompetent, then why did they not search the apartment for the missing child when the child was reported missing?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So you are saying the GNR officers Roque and Costas are lying when they gave statements stating they had searched the apartment on arrival.Is there no Bennett disciple who can read or is stupidity a requirement for being a member?

      Delete
    2. So if they had searched the apartment, and you believe that Madeleine was not abducted, where was her body?

      Delete
    3. @14:20

      Upstairs perhaps?

      Delete
    4. Anonymous29 January 2016 at 16:42

      says

      @14:20

      Upstairs perhaps?
      -----------------------

      that's a cracker - now you include Mrs Fenn.

      Delete
  51. JJ I have already asked you politely not to link all those who don't believe the neglect theory to Bennett. I too believe that Mrs Fenn was contacted by the police immediately after the child went missing and I believe that the reason there is nothing on file for her is that at that time she had nothing to report.

    ReplyDelete
  52. I noticed that post and that someone asked him for proof that RM's aunt and uncle were running an adult entertainment venue. So what if they were, by the way.

    Nothing has been said since.

    ReplyDelete
  53. For all those who believe that Madeleine was not abducted but her body hidden in the apartment, please provide us with a timeline of what you believe happened from the moment that she died till her body was disposed of. If you can come up with a plausible timeline then some of the abduction theorists might start believing you.

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

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well then, I congratulate you! I don't follow this case as much as many others, but do find it of interest. I'm probably not aware of all the identities of various commentators, so I apologise for not knowing who the green highlights were from. But if your writing style "offends" him, then it's bound to surpass his own.

      Delete
  55. Are we really back in 2007? For anyone that remembers bennett in those days - he used to post a comment on Anorak (usually a quote from Coldwater) and then disappeared and never answered questions.

    He is now doing the same on UK Justice Forum - why they allow him to post is beyond me (but possibly to boost posts as most Mccann forums are dying a death). There are plenty of people asking questions and wanting to debate with him - but what does he do- oh - he posts on haverns about climate change!

    ReplyDelete
  56. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton29 January 2016 at 12:51

    says

    "We know the McCanns and the tapas friends are lying about the sequence of events on the night of 3rd May 05:47"
    ---------------------------------------------------

    When will you realise that opinion is not knowledge Ros?

    You have NO evidence that they lied and your comment is libel.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Then let me put it another way. Due to the McCanns and their friends' failure to do a reconstruction for the Portuguese police and Scotland Yard, and the farcical sequence of events they describe that night, we have very good reason to suspect they are not telling the truth. Should probably add failure to do a lie detector test too.

      Delete
    2. @ Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton29 January 2016 at 19:47

      What a fascinating reply - perhaps you would like to explain what reconstruction the Mccanns failed to do for Scotland Yard?

      You describe it as a farcical sequence of events - they went for a meal and checked their children - what particularly do you find farcical in that? Wrong yes - but farcical no.

      Who demanded that they take a lie detector - was it the PJ - oh no - I don't remember seeing that in the files.

      Continue making things up as you go along Ros - it shows you for what you really are.

      Delete
    3. Anonymous @19.25

      Just out of interest, what would you call the misrepresentation, as fact, of something that could not possibly be true?

      Delete
    4. @ Anonymous29 January 2016 at 21:29

      Just out of interest I have no interest of entering into a discussion with you.

      My comments were addressed to Ros.

      Delete
    5. I'm sticking with farcical 20:08. In 5 days this group of highly educated adults were (individually)still going backwards and forwards to check on their sleeping kids. It wasn't until the last night that one of them (Matt) stood up at the same time as Kate and offered to do her check for her.

      For 5 nights these 6 doctors (well 4 really, the Paynes had a child listening device) were leaving the conversation and their hot meals every 15 to 30 minutes, to walk up and down that hill to check on their individual apartments. It wasn't until the Thursday night, that one 'broke ranks' and offered to check on the McCann children.

      How annoying must it have been to leave that buzzing table every half hour? Yet this group of scientifically trained and presumably logical minded doctors, could not come up with a better (or safer) system than that? No wonder the Portuguese police found their story so incredulous.

      It may sound as though that feeds the 'no neglect' lobby, but it doesn't, it makes the neglect far worse. They simply couldn't be arsed to make proper arrangements for the care of their children. This group of adults were so into each other (not in a Textusa way) that the kids were very much an after thought on this holiday.

      I will agree that no-one demanded they take lie detector tests, but in all the genuine cases I have studied, the parents volunteer because they know that as soon as they are ruled out, the police can concentrate on finding their child. It speeds up the whole process.

      As for the Scotland Yard reconstruction - where were the McCanns and their friends? The parents claim they would do anything to find Madeleine, yet the SY reconstruction was made with actors! And it wasn't even filmed in Portugal.

      Delete
    6. The Macs rang their friends&relatives to tell them the shutters were broken and jemmied.They lied from Hour 1 and go from there .Telling the truth is not libel but baiting Ros shows your intellect

      Delete
  57. 29 Jan 13.22

    The timeline starts Sunday/Monday and NOT Thursday. Fully understandable that the abduction theorists don't buy a timeline from Thursday on, it's not even possible.
    Just as plausible (NOT) as the abduction tale.
    Within several days, there are numerous opportunities to do move around and "do things". No media, no police - no one to keep an eye on them.

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

      Delete
    2. Haven't you got a home to go to?

      Delete
    3. Kate McCann: "Wednesday, 2 May 2007. Our last completely happy day. Our last, to date, as a family of five."

      ??

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

      Delete
  58. Anonymous 29 Jan 19.15: The timeline starts Sunday/Monday and NOT Thursday
    --------------------------------
    So here's a suggestion, not saying this is what happened, but could be:
    ** Something bad happens to Maddie late Sunday, let's say maybe over-sedated, has heart attack
    ** Maddie's body moved from lounge to McCanns' wardrobe overnight
    ** Monday - Maddie's body moved to fridge/freezer in another apartment using blue tennis bag. Frantic 'phone call to Robert Murat to help
    ** Tuesday - Murat arrives, finds property with freezer where body can be stored, body moved in blue tennis bag and taken to property found by Murat
    ** Tues/Weds - plans made for abduction hoax, Nuno Lourenco primed to invent kidnapping allegation re Polish man on holiday (K________), Jane Tanner primed to describe the same man (not a tourist, warm clothes, pale trousers etc. etc.)
    ** body moved from place where Murat stored it and disposed of later, maybe by using hired car weeks later

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

      Delete
    2. No it could not be what happened.
      Have you not read anything about this case in nine years?
      The same old recycled crap.
      The same old Dr Amaral and the PJ are useless

      Are you writing this for devilment or to prove your stupidity?

      Delete
  59. Can someone remind me when Murat was called over, who called him over, and when did he arrive in Praia da Luz. Was it the Monday or the Tuesday?

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

      Delete
  60. You are really going into the macabre there 19:35 - are you seriously suggesting this group of mothers and fathers continued their holiday with a dead child in their midst? That would take nerves of steel - perhaps something the doctors could have withstood, but what about the others? By night 5 they would have been quivering heaps.

    The problem I have with the 'earlier in the week' theorists, is the fact that it is so darn convoluted. It also involves complete strangers lying on behalf of the parents in a missing child case. On a 'can you believe it' scale, it is right up there with the moon being made of cheese. People just don't lie on behalf of others, even close family would flinch. Most of us are hard pushed to lie on behalf of ourselves.

    I also don't understand the need to make the story more complex than it already is. And it is strange that this 'need' to involve others is so helpful to the McCanns. Bennett, for example, only focuses on the witnesses for 'prosecution'.

    Bennett really is Psychology Textbook One when it comes to studying human behaviour. I can actually understand the reasons why he is now trying to steer blame away from the parents and onto Robert Murat.

    Mr. Bennett has far more in common with the 'pros' than he does with the 'antis'. The McCannns are a happily married couple - tick. They are middle class (white) professionals - tick, they are churchgoers - tick, they want more 'child protection' - tick, they want censorship of newspapers and social media - tick, they believe paedophiles (murky ones) are lurking behind every lamppost - tick.

    He may have started out carrying the 'think of the children' banner, but he was completely distracted when he discovered Robert Murat had pornography on his computer. He believes that deviant sex lies at the heart of society's road to hell. Mr. Murat, unmarried at the time (shock horror) was enjoying the life of a carefree bachelor on the sunny Algarve. Why wasn't he freezing his nuts off in the UK with his estranged family, and praising God by flogging himself nightly with a cat-oh-nine tails?.

    Whilst most academics read texts from a psychological, Marxist or feminist etc, perspective, Mr. Bennett reads them from a sexual perspective. Who is doing what to whom when they shouldn't oughta.

    He is convinced all we heathens spend our nights dancing naked around campfires summoning up demons for wild abandoned sex and copious amounts of drugs. I have never been to a party like that btw, but am open to offers ;)

    But again, I seem to have lost the plot, so will leave it there, ha ha.

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

      Delete