Sunday, 21 February 2016

WHY I WON'T SUPPORT THE RICHARD HALL VIDEOS



My spambox has been especially busy this past couple of days with sneaks from the cesspit trying to promote the Richard Hall videos.   Just for the record I am not going to publicise theories that name and accuse all and sundry of lying and being involved in a heinous crime.  I think it is morally reprehensible that people who through no fault of their own are being 'investigated' (stalked) by groups of self appointed vigilantes who have put them on public trial and found them guilty, based on nothing more than their own prejudices. 

I watched the first videos that Richard Hall produced and was deeply dismayed at the 'school boy' errors and the obvious input of chief conspiracy loon Tony Bennett.  Richard seems like a nice enough guy, but he has either been totally bamboozled by Bennett (many have, see his Wiki entry) or, and I hate to say this, he has been too lazy to check the facts out for himself.  Another reason of course, may be the 'answer to every question', the old filthy lucre.  The mystery of Madeleine McCann is a global phenomenon, documentaries, books etc about the case could potentially make millions.  Even justice seekers have to earn a crust.

I fully understand why the disappearance of Madeleine has gripped the inner detective that lies within all of us,  For some of us the need to know who dunnit, how they did it and most of all, why, can be overwhelming.  In the early days, I would have compared my own obsession with this case  to Sir Edmund Hillary's need to reach the top of Mount Everest, giving up was never an option.  I read everything, and I mean literally everything I could find, and in the early days, thousands followed and commented on this case.  It took a long time to sort the wheat from the chaff, but I had a few golden rules.  If the theorists I read dismissed or worked round the evidence of the dogs, I stopped reading (Birch) . If they dismissed the work of Goncalo Amaral and the PJ, I stopped reading (Bennett, HideHo, Textusa).   If they stuck rigidly to their own theories 'I'm right, dead right', I stopped reading (all of them, plus Peter (last photo) mac). 

Eventually, I reached the conclusion, that the only people who know exactly what happened within Apartment 5A, were the occupants and those present at the time, and they ain't telling.  The police may be able to work out a scenario based on the forensic and witness evidence available, but will it be strong enough to convince a jury?  It should be remembered that the 'authorities' have resources and facilities that the armchair detectives can only dream of.  With their limited 9 year old evidence (PJ files), their theories are already nearly a decade out of date. 

The problem with 'bad' researchers like Tony Bennett, is that they bring all their prejudices to whatever they do.  Tony Bennett had already reached a conclusion before his 'research' into this case began - that is, it involved deviant sex and had links to the hated Labour government of the time.  All his work thereafter has been led by confirmation bias, he has been looking for evidence that will support his own conclusions.  Those who support his work, will have the same prejudices, ergo, they will empathise, his words will be theirs too. 

Whilst confirmation bias has its' audience, it rarely, if ever, leads to the truth.  And for those of us who want the truth and nothing but the truth, it just isn't good enough.  It would be like  cutting the edges off round pegs, forcing them into square holes and saying 'that'll do' or even Sir Edmund settling for a ledge near the top because be 'wanted to go home now'.  These theorists are trying to satisfy our need to know with very dodgy, makeshift props that fall to pieces if you give them a prod.

Unfortunately, the McCann case already has an established and very dodgy audience.  Many thousands were initially drawn to this case because they were appalled that the mainstream media were bending over backwards to excuse the child endangering and gross negligence of this group of doctors in the lead up to the holiday season.  They were also quite clearly, in yer face, covering something up. Unfortunately, it also attracted droves of the self righteous and the sanctimonious, who used the case as a platform to tell us just how perfect they were, the usual nutters (psychos, misfits, obsessives, wannabe stalkers) and those who wanted to lead angry mobs. 

The largest group 'the usual nutters', have mostly, moved on to other targets and victims, but as becomes clear if you google 'McCann', a number still remain.  The majority who remain however, are still here because they care very much what happened to that little girl who went missing on her holidays.  They are here because they cannot accept that a small vulnerable child can just disappear with no-one being held accountable.  They are the good people who won't stand by and allow evil to flourish. They are here because they understand that the evil behind that child vanishing is still eating into innocent lives.  They are appalled at the injustice of a decent cop having his good name and reputation slandered because he has never forgotten what this case is all about.  They are appalled that an innocent lady could be driven to her death by the dark forces who will literally go to any lengths to keep the truth hidden.  I can only say, God help those who are living with that dark hand over them, they have lost their freedom.  The majority of us are here now because we haven't forgotten Madeleine, and because we cannot stand by and say nothing whilst this evil air of corruption continues. 

I think it is fair to say that this case has shown millions of tabloid readers just how much they have been manipulated.  They now know beyond a shadow of a doubt that their newspapers can and do lie to them.  In the pre internet days, news could be contained within borders, the opinions of an entire nation could be swayed and manipulated with make or break front pages.  Cover ups now are virtually impossible, most of the population walk around with camera phones and instant updates on anything they want.  This case has illustrated how the mainstream media have lost control, newspaper sales have plummeted, well known journalists have been exposed as part of the establishment, no longer led by a search for the truth, so much as regular job and pay cheque.  On that one aspect I will commend Richard Hall, he does at least pursue his ideas, even if they are a bit off the wall and in the case of the Holocaust denier, downright objectionable to many of us.  I don't want his work banned, nor do I want to steer people away, I always advise people to check these things out for themselves and to have faith in their own judgment. 

Whilst I am all for fearless documentary making, I have no respect for those that are not guided by honesty and integrity.  The most groundbreaking and indeed the most successful of those documentary greats are the ones that target the main players and resist the temptation to go off at a tangent to massage their own egos.  Four hours of 'look at how much work I've done' is a turn off for most people.  The urge to say, shut up and get to the point overwhelms most of us within the first 30 minutes.  The 'A' list presenters and commentators can show how much work they have done within a 2 minute segment, they don't have to accompany it with a biography and a time and motion study. 

Not only has Richard Hall been led off on a tangent by Tony Bennett - distastefully, all the people being accused in the Richard Hall videos have no right of reply.  They are targeting people who are bound by their own (decent) morals and values, and quite possibly judicial secrecy. Just because we are able, if we are that way inclined, to track down all the people named in the released PJ files doesn't mean that we should.  Those 'researching' the witnesses do not seem to understand that what they are doing has gone above and beyond that which most of us would consider socially acceptable behaviour.  In my opinion, it borders on psychopathic, there is something a bit 'Salem Witch Trials' about getting a crowd to point a finger at a selected target.  But above all else, it is sleazy and it is creepy and it is no doubt why many of them, hang onto their anonymity for dear life.  

The continuation of the abduction story is not without victims, people who are being made to suffer and live in fear to perpetuate the myth that Madeleine was taken by a stranger.  An effective government keeps the masses in check with fear.  Fear of aliens (the ones with dark skins who carry backpacks) and fear of paedophiles (one lurking on every corner and waiting to climb in the kids'  bedroom window when the lights go out).  Being named and shamed is a dark secret fear held by most of us.  We can always find something to torment ourselves with if we put the effort into it. But mostly we very protective of our personal boundaries.  Of course, attention seekers like myself are always vying for centre stage, but most people like to lead quiet unassuming lives, or they want to be known by their own talents, not their connection to an infamous missing child case.  It was her connection to the Madeleine case that led directly to the death of Brenda Leyland, something those naming and accusing the witnesses in this case should probably bear in mind when they share these videos.    

Those promoting these supposedly truthful accounts of what happened to Madeleine McCann are contributing to the trauma of those who are simply trying to get on with their lives.  The accusations against Robert Murat are unspeakable and the possible repercussions do not bear thinking about if a gullible deranged viewer decides to take this form of justice one step further.  All employers now google potential candidates, how many  of those named in the PJ files have seen their lives torn apart by these zealous 'researchers'.  For libel  purposes, I expect the damages are at present incalculable. 

 I will not add to their suffering by sharing the malicious and accusatory words of people looking for a short cut to easy money by claiming to 'know' what happened to Madeleine McCann.  Or more accurately, what everyone in PDL was getting up to that night, bar the people in Apartment 5A.  In any event, the answer is cash.  Media sensations like the Madeleine story are few and far between, it was bound to attract opportunists, people who would use the case of a missing child to set up a pretty pointless Foundation.  I have no problem with people making money from their talent, but stalking innocent strangers online is not a talent and accusing them of covering up the death of a child is despicable.  However, I don't want to ban these pulp  fiction chancers, nor do I want to silence them, the only way to deal with them is to challenge them directly and point out all the glaring, and downright ridiculous, flaws in their confirmation bias approach to research. 

Among the victims of all the Madeleine related spin offs, is Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Information.  The case of missing Madeleine has been, and is, being used by those lobbying for new privacy laws and restraints on what the media publish.  It is also being used by those who want legal access to all our computers.  For our own protection, doncha know.  Their battle cry is 'think of the children'. 

But I have digressed.  I haven't watched Richard's videos, nor will I (at this stage).  I am very precious about my time and at the moment  I am desperately seeking episodes of Family Guy (suffering serious withdrawal symptoms). I am still vexed at the 4 hours I 'lost' last time I watched the Hall videos.  I am still struggling to forgive Mark Wahlberg for The Happening (a title that takes irony to the extreme) for the 2 hours I will never get back.  Though it must be said, he has gone some way to make up for it with Ted.  The Hall videos however remain in the never go there again closet.

It would be wrong therefore for me to pass judgement on Richard's videos, I only have knowledge of his previous videos that I am afraid left me less than enthralled.  Apart from the absurdity of armchair detectives 'knowing for certain' what happened to Madeleine from the 9 year old evidence, I am horrified that real people associated with this case are being targeted and put on public trial by groups of vigilantes.  For some people, enough is never enough, they want/need that 'satisfying' end and if it sits comfortably with their own view of the world, as near as dam it will do. 

These Madeleine theorists are not justice seekers nor are they tackling the real cover up that is going on.  They are not life's achievers, they are not the movers and shakers, they are the fly by nights who zoom in, spend 5 minutes taking stock of the situation, before passing their expert opinion, and flying back off (probably via UFO) back to their real interests (aliens in Richard's case, the new world of Sodom and Gomorrah in Tony's).  They don't really care about the characters involved, they don't see them as the real people they are, they are as real and empathetic to Richard as his extra terrestrials and to Tony, as his band of demons.  They are collateral damage in their individual quests to become Cult leaders.  Also, Robert Murat got a huge payout for the dreadful slurs against his name and reputation and that irks some people, even to this day. 

I have become very philosophical in the years that I have studied this case.  Not only have I examined the motives of all those involved, I have carefully examined my own.  I have long forgiven myself for my obsessive need to 'solve the puzzle', it is a human trait shared by many, a driving force some might say.  Of course there are more important and imminent problems to solve all around me, but I'm fixated on this one, a bit like Sir Hilary.  I now know the 'answer', in as much as I am 98% there on how the strings were pulled, but I couldn't possibly say.  As to the logistics of how the actual scenario played out, I know only as much as Goncalo Amaral shared with us in his book The Truth of the Lie

I can take an educated guess at the psychology of what lay behind the actions of the inner group, but that can be nothing more than an opinion. Though I have to say, it is a very informed opinion.  One of the modules of my degree course, included deconstructing literature, and it was subject I took to with great relish, and have pursued ever since.  Tis my nature to deconstruct everything, an irritating trait, but I've learned to live with it.  And the McCanns and the witness statements have given me so much to deconstruct!

With Gerry's blogs and Kate's diaries, they saw a 'Kardashian' future of flashing paparazzi with newspapers and magazines queuing up to buy their story.  They put their love of the cameras and airtime above their own self protection. They switched off that part of the brain that was telling them every time they appeared on camera and gave interviews they were giving themselves away. 
They truly believed they had anyone who listened to them, fooled, every opportunity to speak directly to the public was taken, because they believed the more they talked, the more convincing they would be.  None of their advisors it seems has had the nerve to point out they have been digging themselves deeper and deeper into a hole. 

Kate perfected the 'look at how sad I am' whiney voice, almost at the outset of this case.  I'm guessing it's the one that has worked so well and on so many occasions since childhood.  They have told the abduction story so often, they probably even believe it themselves.  Kate even manages faux outrage at the suggestion Madeleine could have got out of the apartment on her own, she almost has to stop herself from saying 'haven't you been listening'.  It vexes her when her judgment is questioned.  One can almost see the 6 year old Kate stamping her feet and threatening to be sick.  But I am not going to deconstruct the huge volume of videos and texts available in this case just now, suffice to say that for anyone studying human behaviour, deceit, body language, psychology, actually any 'ology', this case provides volumes of resources. 

In the early days, the MSM were rushing for the opinion of Kate and Gerry(or they were just giving it via their press office) on major news stories and childrens' issues.  The epitome of good, solid, middle class family values and phenomenal fund raisers.  In other words, an advertiser's dream.  Their 'cash value' took precedence over the morals and scruples involved.  The Tapas Group's half arsed form of parenting was not only whitewashed,  it was almost recommended as ditzy sofa queens rushed to console Kate by saying 'we all do it'.  Thus ensuring that the prisoners of Mother England are not only looked down on by our European neighbours for the thuggish behaviour of our football hooligans and inability to cope with alcohol, we are also known as habitual neglecters of young children.  The British establishment treated their Portuguese suspect status as totally insignificant, almost with contempt, with the then head of CEOP Jim Gamble, sitting alongside the two arguidos publicising a 'live' missing child.  The Portuguese would not have shelved their investigation if there were any prospect of finding Madeleine alive and if there was a child predator on the loose in the Algarve.  There is no evidence of an abductor and there is no evidence of Madeleine being alive.

Despite all of the above, Kate 'we checked on them every half hour' McCann was made Ambassador for Missing Children and no doubt had lots of parenting advice books lined up for the highest bidder.  For those thinking this is entirely a joke piece, the aforementioned really happened.  Mrs 'it worked so well for 5 nights' Mcann is the face of a major charity.  Whilst the theorists are chasing their own preconceived ideas, they are overlooking the obvious injustices that are staring them in the face and continue to affect the lives of others.  They are targeting the nannies, the neighbours, or anyone who ever set foot in PDL or played golf, and they are overlooking the fact that a mother who left her very small children on their own, and makes no apologies for it, and who left 48 police questions unanswered is the face of a major charity supported by the Establishment. 

From what I do know, Richard is sticking with his initial thoughts (or should I say Bennett's initial thoughts) that is he has veered off into the realms of 2 degrees of separation and a vast amount of speculation, by a deranged 'researcher' who is quite obviously a couple of sandwiches short of a picnic - and a nasty one at that.  Will I be watching the videos, nah, I think I'll stick with the far more enlightened world of  the Griffins.  



Ps.  I am astonished that those who left the Jill Havern forum because of the cesspit's harassment of the Smith family and other innocent witnesses, are now promoting the videos of Richard Hall on the Candyfloss forum,  This is despite the fact that Richard has not only expanded on Bennett's initial stalking and harassment, he has raised it to a whole new level and taken it to a bigger audience.  Live and learn.

234 comments:

  1. Perhaps you would like to give us a list here of the 'schoolboy errors' that Richard D Hall made. I'm sure he would be interested.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Absolutely cracking piece of writing Cristobell. Hits the mark in so many ways.

      As for a list of school boy errors, lets start.....

      RDH stating the phones were off for 32 hrs,
      wrong.

      RM rushing home within hours of booking his flight,
      wrong

      Fiona Payne retracting her id of RM in December
      2007,
      wrong

      Rachel Oldfield retracting her id of RM in Dec 2007
      wrong,

      Stating there are no independent witnesses, that M was alive after Sunday 29th April,
      wrong.

      and on and on and on.

      He got this latest load of crap from HideHo and as usual never checked anything. Anyone with two brain cells knows it will not stand up to scrutiny.

      Another concerted effort to try and show Gonçalo Amaral and the PJ, as totally inept. Well sorry Mr Hall it is not working!

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

      Delete
  2. Not Textusa @19:28

    "There are multiple witness accounts, photographic evidence and documented evidence that Madeleine was still alive at tea time on 3rd May."

    Who photographed Madeleine at tea time on 3 May?

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

    ReplyDelete
  4. I try to be objective and not dislike anything "just because". Maybe some are influenced by Tony Bennett and/or Hideho, but there are plenty of others who share the same belief regarding the time of Madeleines death. This 'earlier than Thursday' is nothing new, or invented by Hideho. Dr Martin Roberts has also, several times before, written blogs about this. One is called the 'X factor'. An excellent piece about all the strange things happening earlier in the week that suddenly make a lot of sense if Madeleine died earlier (Sunday). There is also a blog by him about the Monday 30 of April - equally interesting. So if You don't want to read/watch/listen to something because it happens to share the belief of someone You don't like - then check out Dr Martin Roberts' blogs. The older ones can be found at mccannfiles.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dr Martin Roberts totally rocks.

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

      Delete
    3. ... and the likes of Mr Philip Edmonds 'claims' to have taken a photo of his sons with Madeleine in the background - and you believe him. He has spoken, therefore it is so? Wow.

      Delete
    4. ......this information came only from an e-mail supposedly sent to a self-appointed researcher who has a reputation for being economical with the truth.

      It can't be accepted as evidence.

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

      Delete
  5. Not Textusa @20:13

    "I didn't say she was photographed at tea time."

    I beg to differ. What else could "photographic evidence she was still alive at tea time" imply?

    "She was photographed earlier in the day for certain" doesn't fit the bill, given the interval of time remaining before tea. It's also far from certain in my opinion.

    "We also know that she was captured in photos taken by another parent on the same day."

    You have the advantage over me. I don't know that, although I think I've read a claim to that effect (was it by a Mr Edmonds?). I don't recall ever seeing the photograph published though.

    "Witness accounts and creche records prove she was alive at tea time." Again, I'd be somewhat reluctant to accept these as proof, but we all have our own criteria I suppose.

    Personally I shall be mighty glad if and when matters come to a head and our respective speculations are dispelled.

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

      Delete
    2. Perhaps Mr Not Textusa can provide a plausible explanation for the huge discrepancies in witness statements in respect of the 3 May high tea?

      I for one struggle with the fact that 2 supposedly educated, highly intelligent doctors cannot tell the same story twice or even synch said events. The ' we expect discrepancies ' won't wash with me. Yes I expect times could be out by minutes but the Gerry was already with the kids out up against Kate's signing the creche register? Please!

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

      Delete
    4. The creche records are opposite to Kate's version in her ' account ' of the truth. Explain that one?

      So Kate tells us she joined Gerry, who was already with the kids, after her jog but according to creche records Kate signed them out?

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

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

      Delete
    7. Anon @01:48

      "So Kate tells us she joined Gerry"

      Strange.

      Statement Catriona Baker:

      Kate went to get Madeleine from the Tapas Bar area and according to what I remember she was wearing sporting clothes and I assumed that she was practicing some form of athletics. It was around 15h25/18h00. I think that Gerry was playing tennis.

      Delete
  6. Me too... how can the 'creche records' prove she was was alive at tea time? Would we be happy if the PJ / OG didn't question the validity of these records? I believe that the Creche records (as we have seen them) were drawn up after the event and cannot be taken at face value.
    I happen to believe she did not die until early evening but I certainly would not pin this belief on the creche records or a photo that has never been published. Whats the matter with people?

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

      Delete
  7. Personally I am convinced a certain amount of persons are flat out lying about seeing Madeleine. The other "witnesses" might think they saw her, because they remember a blond little girl aged 3-4 being among others. There's a difference between conscious lies, imaginations and being fooled by your own memory. It's simply a mix of statements of which none is rock solid. As for the photograph mentioned above, I wouldn't bet on it either.
    ANYTHING the McCanns put emphasis on - which they strongly do on things that Madeleine allegedly did on certain dates - are huge red flags and need to be tested. They keep saying that their last memory of Madeleine is the 'Last Photo', and they always add that it was taken on Thursday just to make sure nobody forgets. Ask yourself WHY.

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

      Delete
    2. Any thoughts on why the Mccanns chose to circulate an image of Madeleine where she was at least 12 months younger when they had an up to date picture on hand?

      Seems very odd to say the least. Children of that age change rapidly and I would defy anyone to say, having never seen her before that had they bumped into 'Tennis' Madeleine they would instantly recognise her as 'red dress ' Madeleine.

      Delete
  8. Not Textusa @22:02

    Presumption would appear to be your stock-in-trade; that and being unnecessarily rude.

    I know what you said in the first instance (it's been quoted several times already), but if you believe your first statement conveys exactly the same meaning as your second version, then I suggest, with respect, that you are the party that is 'hard of thinking.'

    As for not seeing one or more photograph's 'because it's nothing to do with me', over the past nine years we have all seen plenty of photographs, in the press and elsewhere, despite their being nothing to do with any of us.

    I do not disbelieve the statement of the witness that he submitted his particular photograph to the police, but I am under no obligation to accept that the photograph shows Madeleine McCann at some unspecified time on the Thursday, any more than I am obliged to believe in the Loch Ness Monster because others claim to have photographed it.

    (On second thoughts, strike 'with respect')

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

      Delete
  9. "would you care to explain your view on those?"

    No. Since you "really don't give the tiniest fart what (I) believe or otherwise" I'd be wasting my time; time which would no doubt be better spent improving my understanding of 'evidence'.

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

      Delete
  10. RDH spends another 4 hours promoting a theory that, apart from the Macs and the Tapas 7, there are no statements/proof that M was alive after Sunday 6th May.

    5 minutes with the PJ files will tell you this is total rubbish made up by HideHo and others to push their agenda.

    And what does this theory come down to in the end? It is that Gonçalo Amaral, the PJ and OG are totally inept, useless and lazy and that the only real investigation has been done by a sad old git in Essex, a retired plod and a nutter in Canada to name but three.

    Their 'research' is worse than useless, in that they either embellish data, or they omit and ignore anything which doesn't fit their theory and they lead their disciples in a world of fantasy, nastiness and on- line stalking?

    If you cannot see that RD Hall is a charlatan, you should go to Specsavers!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You put that so much more succinctly and eloquently than myself JJ, you often do, and for that I am very grateful :)

      I don't really have the stomach for researching people, other than a glance at their 'wiki' entry - but, there wasn't very much about Richard at all. To be fair I didn't really look any further, due to all the aliens! That 3 score year and 10, is rapidly approaching, every hour counts! These days, I stick to things that amuse and/or enlighten me.

      I once had an hour long telephone call with a well known 'anti', which must have been going well as 60 minutes on we were still chinwagging. However, when the conversation turned to clones I had to make my excuses and hang up. Had the word clone come up in the first 5 minutes, I would have got away a lot sooner!

      Delete
    2. LOL JJ don't you be afraid to say what you think. Great Post

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

      Delete
  11. Thank you for your advice. Unfortunately it's a day late and quite a few dollars short.

    Just as an aside, your antagonism is unbecoming and does nothing to strengthen your argument. You may ultimately be proven right in all you say. Photographic evidence of Madeleine McCann's being alive at tea time that Thursday may yet turn up somewhere. On the other hand you may be called upon, eventually, to 'eat humble pie', although your present verbal demeanour suggests you might choke on that.

    At this point I think I'll follow Cristobell's lead:

    "If they stuck rigidly to their own theories 'I'm right, dead right', I stopped reading."

    ReplyDelete
  12. candyfloss has replied to you Ros:

    "candyfloss Yesterday at 8:32 pm
    Just been reading the replies to the blog, and your update Cristobell. Just to make it clear, we are not promoting anything here, not the video or certain blogs, and that includes yours, we just provide links for people to read and make up their own minds and discuss. So now you want us to censor do you? I thought you were for freedom of speech, surely by not allowing people to discuss things then like elsewhere, who do not allow links to places they don't like you are censoring... People are discussing the video here that is all, if they think it is ok, that is their opinion, some will not go for it, but at least both sides are allowed here.

    Just to add my opinion, I am certainly not in favour if the video does repeat the views of Tony Bennett re the Smith's and Mrs Fenn, which I absolutely, totally disagree with."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Candyfloss is right, you are of course free to discuss and provide links to whatever you want, incidentally, do you provide a link to Bennett's 'Madeleine Foundation' or a 'charity' that supports his legal actions?

      I am puzzled however, that those who were so vehemently opposed to these 'researchers' interfering with witnesses in this case, have no problem with them being named and accused of lying in the documentary.

      Richard Hall is doing exactly the same thing as Tony Bennett, in fact worse, he is taking these fabricated allegations to a bigger audience.

      Those praising Richard's videos, are accepting without question, that all the potential witnesses for the prosecution are lying. That they are actively working to discredit the case for the prosecution, is an anomaly in itself.

      Has Richard investigated the tapas group for example? Their connections to the Algarve, or maybe who is was who so kindly supplied and delivered 6 brand new mobile phones to the tapas group on May 4th, as they were waiting to be interviewed at the police station?

      Why are Tony Bennett and Richard Hall steering the emphasis of this crime, away from the main players and onto people on the periphery?

      All these people they claim are lying have no reason to lie! At the time Madeleine went missing, most people believed that she had been abducted, ergo, the life of a 4 year old child was at stake. And apart from the child's 'it was a good marketing ploy' father, absolutely no-one would take a risk with a little girl's life.

      Apart from the massive moral dilemma, this is the most serious of crime where perverting the course of justice could well involve a prison sentence. Why would a decent guy like Mr. Smith involve his loved ones, including his 12 year old daughter in such unspeakable deceit? Those imagining such scenarios must have very strange minds.

      It seems to me Candyfloss, that some in your forum are still trying to hang onto the idea that Tony Bennett's intentions are somehow honourable. Perhaps, begrudgingly, they still give him credit for putting his neck on the line and being some kind of martyr. To those I would say take 5 minutes to read Tony Bennett's 'wiki' entry and history of trusts and foundations.

      Some still believe that Bennett is not in this for the money and this is supported by the fact that membership fees for the Madeleine Foundation were minimal. However, Bennett set up his Foundation at a time when the real Madeleine Fund were receiving millions by way of public donations.

      He is just as much an opportunist as those who rushed to the McCanns' aid. He took up Madeleine's cause, using her name and her face - Fund and Foundation can be very confusing. He was expecting millions of instant followers and new members for his Foundation. And he was performing every publicity stunt he could think of to get his face on the telly or the front pages.

      Whilst it is fair to say I detest everything that Tony Bennett is and stands for, I detest seeing kind, generous people being fleeced. And I hate to see people being taken in by biased propaganda.

      Of course the videos should be discussed, and I'll take a look at the comments, I may even be irked enough to join in, lol.

      Delete
    2. So in order words, if Cristobell doesn't like it, don't give it house room?

      How right on sister!

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

      Delete
    4. I wrote on MMM last year that RDH was a charlatan and the reasons why.

      It was removed immediately by Candyfloss/Freedom and I was told he certainly wasn't that and I was censored. RDH is still repeating deliberate provable falsehoods and lies and he is being lorded as a beacon of truth.

      How can anyone discuss anything if you cannot even use the word charlatan, which describes RDH to a Tee.
      It would seem it is fair sport to promote the lies of Bennett, and RDH and belittle the efforts of Gonçalo Amaral and the PJ at every opportunity.

      Both sides do not get fair treatment. Why pretend they do, Candyfloss?

      It would appear everybody is taking part in a conspiracy and is a liar and perjurer, except the Macs and the Tapas 7.

      How strange?

      Thank you Cristobell for allowing freedom of expression, which does not seem to appear anywhere else, in the case of Madeleine McCann.

      To be clear RDH DVD's are a farrago of lies and deception, aimed at destroying the lives of witnesses, supported by a motley crew of buffoons who cannot read or think for themselves.

      In 9 years never a detailed investigation into the lives of the Tapas 7, that should tell you everything you need to know.

      Delete
    5. To me, a charlatan is a person who knows full well that what he or she says is false and is trying to gain an advantage (usually financial) in the process.

      I do not feel that RDH comes into that category but I certainly think that he is being unduly influenced by unreliable sources.

      You are doing the same thing as TB does - calling people with whom you don't agree names like buffoons and charlatans.

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

      Delete
    7. Monty

      Hall is setting himself up as an expert and selling the product of his 'research'. Five minutes reading the PJ files would show him his DVD's are wrong.
      I myself amongst others have emailed him pointing out his mistakes He has chosen not to correct them. So by dictionary definition he is a charlatan, whether you like it not.

      Anyone following his theories without checking his lies for themselves, qualifies as a buffoon, loony or gullible idiot, whether you like it or not.

      His films are based on lies. If you are happy with this, it is fine but for many it is not.

      He is destroying lives for financial gain. If you are happy with this that is fine, but many of us are not.

      So what would you suggest we call him, a Gerrymanderer?

      Delete
  13. I agree that the MMM forum does it best to provide links to all videos and blogs as that's what freedom of choice is about.

    There are links even to L'Azzeri-lies-in-the sun who has on occasions posted bile-filled rants about the forum.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Hall's videos are clearly intended to provoke a legal response, but they're so obviously made by lunatics I doubt they'll get their wish. Must try harder next time if you're really so desperate to hand over even more money each month.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. LOL 13:15, but it just about sums it up!

      Bennett will do everything he can to hang onto his 'victim of the McCanns' status. However, far from being an old age pensioner bullied by the establishment, his wiki entry shows a lifetime of stalking, harassment and publicity seeking.

      For him, the courtroom is his stage, given the funding, he would take ANY case as high as the European Courts. You may be right, perhaps they are going for a legal response, Bennett usually is, it gets him the media attention he craves. Not to mention free publicity for the videos and his books. He's an old hand at all this.

      Delete
  15. What is it with you lot? If people want to spend their own money on RDH 'S DVD that's up to them. What's it got to do with you? Is it YOUR money? What is it about this case that makes people fall out over stupid things. I have my own theory but I wouldn't dream of telling anybody with a different one that THEY are wrong and only I am right. Grow up! It's pathetic!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Like Gerry, I have no problem with people purporting theories Caroleann, but if you purport a theory, discussion is inevitable. And that's as it should be, sometimes the thoughts of others give us a new insight.

      What I dislike is the naming and accusing of real people who cannot reply and cannot defend themselves. In the case of Robert Murat, they could be placing him in danger. Imagine for one moment that you are the mother of one of these nannies, or the daughter of Mrs Fenn. How would you feel?

      Delete
    2. Here here Caroleann.

      Delete
  16. Ros says

    " I would have compared my own obsession with this case to Sir Edmund Hillary's need to reach the top of Mount Everest, giving up was never an option."

    What an amazing comparison!!!!
    -----------------------------

    " It would be like cutting the edges off round pegs, forcing them into square holes"

    Erm Ros - round pegs don't have edges - I think you meant cutting off edges from a square peg to get them in a round hole.

    But what the hell these details are not important to such a literary expert like you.

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

      Delete
    2. Anon 22 Feb 19:42

      There is medical help available at your local zoo to help with your Cristobell venom affliction.

      I bet the tribe sang and danced naked for hours around the totem plank when you discovered Cristobell's 'error'

      Oh! what joy your lives must have.

      Delete
  17. Cristobell, what is your view on the article The Sirens of The Lambs by Dr Martin Roberts ???

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

    Just interested to know, no deep dark hidden meaning... lol

    ReplyDelete
  18. Why does it have to be either Amaral or RDH, as if they were each other's opponents? They're certainly not. RDH speaks with respect about GA. And if the Portuguese investigators had continued their work, the inconsistencies would have become more and more transparent. Time is the key here. They did not have the time to check...check...and check again for contradictions. We've all heard the expression 'Nothing in this case is what it seems', and that the nature of it is somehow different from others.
    Who knows what's in the non-official parts of the files? GA :s findings are based upon what the investigation had reached to within a time limit. Again, had more time been given...GA gave some hints later on that he knew more, much more. Well guess what, I believe he started to realise that the time line was an invention (as his colleague P.Rebelo pointed out). But G. Amaral couldn't proceed more with his hands tied, so to speak. And we all know he received enough trouble in the aftermath.
    But strange, the same people who accuse RDH of being a conspiracy theorist while they praise GA, seem to forget that GA himself has been called exactly the same.
    For those who say that 'all people are liars', according to RDH - please read the article by Bridget O'Donnel again. " My six months with Madeleine". She is very representative of the nature of statements from people who claim they saw Madeleine. Nobody accuses her of being a liar. She practically admits that she's not sure if it actually was Madeleine she saw on the tenniscourt, "she must have been there".....Why'must' she have been there? Oh yes, because she was a blond little girl dressed in pink.
    No, Richard D Hall merely points at how vague and weak many statements are.

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

      Delete
    2. Yes he does.
      Statements like Bridget O'Donnels hardly qualifies to the standard of being called evidence. "Sweeping statements" is a more accurate name there, as in what others have said aswell. So what's wrong with pointing at the LACK of evidence right left and centre?? That is probably what belongs to the part G.Amaral describes as he "knows more, much more". Do you call him a conspiracy loon too? Or even more his colleague P.Rebelo, who put the whole official time line in question? They were there, on the ground. Once they realised that the Tapas group had lied extensively, they also saw the weakness of other 'accounts'. Which finally made them question in what way, under which circumstances, Madeleine really had died.
      Every conclusion is based upon something. If that base turns out to be less solid than you thought from the beginning, you'll have to rebuild some parts.

      Delete
    3. Anon 22 Feb 23:11

      This is exactly what is wrong with RDH and his "investigation".

      Bridget O'Donnell has not given a police statement which is available to the public but RDH quotes from her tittle tattle newspaper article, that M may or may not have been there and uses this as hard evidence.

      On the other hand, her husband Jeremy Wilkins, has in his official police statement, stated M was certainly alive and healthy on Tuesday 1st May.

      But of course this blows the loony gang's theory out of the window, so he/they rely on spurious newspaper articles, fantasy, supposition and lies to support their nonsense and disregard all police statements/evidence and there are still idiots drooling over Hall's/Bennett's crap.

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

      Delete
    5. The two nannies?!? Ask the nearest available neuron how independent those nannies really are, given the fact they knew the McCanns before the holiday.

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

      Delete
  19. Thank you, Rosalinda, for this bit on the Hall videos. I just wrote another one myself concerning his bizarre conclusion that are not based on evidence but on his theory, his agenda. I am glad to see another speak out on the matter;

    http://patbrownprofiling.blogspot.com/2016/02/from-theory-to-profile-how-agenda.html

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

      Delete
    2. Many thanks Pat, it's a great piece and I have left a comment. I especially like the way you have dismantled the total lack of logic applied to the bizarre conclusions of Mr. Hall. Would the cream of British special services hide the body of a child behind a sofa in a holiday apartment? Would they leave the McCanns to use their own hire car to move the body? If this is an example of the work of MI5/6, the UK security forces must be the laughing stock of the world.

      Delete
    3. Likewise, Rosalinda! (And, may I add, that I am a fan of your writing style? I think you are a fabulous wordsmith!)

      Delete
    4. OMG ......................It's a love - in American style. Hug anyone?

      Delete
  20. Not Textusa,

    Not Textusa21 February 2016 at 23:07
    Two nannies who knew Madeleine. What reason would they have to lie?

    In this vídeo, Charlotte Pennington says this: “I was working that night at something called “Drop-in Creche”. We had one child left and... the mother came in, picked up the child and just mentioned “hang on a minute, I've just seen a guy who’s run past me, who seemed really distressed and I recognised him as being a guest at Mark Warner but he was shouting out something like 'Maddie' or 'Abbey' or 'Gabby'.”
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=InJLmyakzeE
    On the other hand Jacqueline Williams says: “After this, the "missing child procedure" was initiated, which consists of an organised search, spread over different areas of the complex. The witness immediately helped in the searches, whilst her colleague Charlotte remained at the crêche, looking after the other children that were there and waiting for the arrival of the last parents, after which she also began searching.”
    http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JACQUELINE_WILLIAMS.htm

    One of them is lying. Which and why in your opinion?

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

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. One nanny saying she leaves crèche leaving behind colleague and children and the other nanny saying that was the last child is not hearsay and is not a small difference. It's a discrepancy as big as Tanner saying she saw Gerry on one side of the road and Gerry saying he was on the other side. I suppose that for you that can also be swept under the rug as hearsay?
      Who says I agree with the RDH vídeos? They’re pathetic and my opinion is that Bennett has stupidly thrown you a nice juicy bone for you to sink your teeth in and you're having a ball. Fortunately Katie Holt has smothered them. By the way, what do you think of Holt’s article?

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

      Delete
    3. I meant Katie Hopkins, of course

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

      Delete
    5. I'm not arguing about the videos. I'm arguing about you saying nannies don't lie. Just gave you an example they did.

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

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

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I have read them. Have you, Not Textusa?

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

      Delete
    3. Yes, in their entirety, and parts of them many times.

      Delete
    4. All this competitive 'have you read the files' is nonsense imo NT.

      I have read all the files! I'm afraid I sat back and let the more dedicated and meticulous go through them with a fine toothcomb while I waited for the highlights. After that I focused on areas that interested me.

      It may be that if I had myself scrutinised every page I would hit have hit on that one clue that would solve it all, but I'm not a detective and life's too short.

      To be honest I get all the information I need from the writings of Kate and Gerry and their regular appears in our papers and on our screens. After all these years the minor details are no so important.

      That's not to say they won't be. Should this case ever reach a trial, it will be another 'OJ Simpson' - we may all be waiting with baited breath as Cuddlecat, rather than a leather glove, is passed around the courtroom.

      It is not necessary to have read the files in their entirety to have an opinion NT. It was not the minute details that convinced me the parents were involved, it was so much more.

      The points that you argue don't really matter. For myself they mattered in as much that I had to know beyond a shadow of a doubt that the parents were involved before I could comment negatively.

      At the moment, I don't really see the point in bickering over 9 year old evidence, and I am baffled as to why some people get so worked up about it.

      Delete
    5. Ooops, that should have said I HAVEN'T read all the files. Hope that makes more sense.

      However, since writing the above, I feel I have been a trifle brusque. I do like your likely (not too lively)contributions NT, and kudos to you for doing the slog. Your indepth knowledge often shines through!

      I think it is your occasional intransigent stance that sometimes irks me. Other people's opinions are also valid. I don't know if you are young or old. If you are young you probably still think you know everything, but if you are old and still think that an authoritative tone can change an opinion, then you still have much to learn.

      But mostly I jest. I like the banter, just not the 'must prove my point' standoffs. I think, to be honest, the theories of Mr. Bennett and Mr. Hall have pretty much been annihilated. They have gone so far off the plot, there is barely anything credible left.

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

      Delete
    7. I don't find your hostile approach to debate very helpful NT, you get hung up with and very angry about, miniscule details that don't matter a jot. We are not now and never will be the investigators, our 'conclusions' count for nothing. Do you honestly think your 'evidence' will be produced in any future trial?

      You have claimed to have read the files, but you don't know what was taken from the boot of the car to be analysed. All you can offer is 'air' of variable temperatures, mostly hot. In fact you have not been able to answer any of the very simple questions I have put to you.

      Most people haven't read the files in their entirety, Kate claims it took her six months, probably exaggerated, but there is a hell of a lot of reading there nevertheless. And having read all the files you have still not convinced me that you know more about the case than Goncalo Amaral or indeed myself.

      And yes, every opinion is valid, I'm not about to introduce a rule whereby only those who have read the entire files are allowed to comment. Many readers here are new to the finer details of this case, and many dip in and out as it suits them. In the 'real' world, the Madeleine case is not that big a deal.

      I personally welcome new and fresh approaches, others bring new ideas and different perspectives and these are often enlightening. I went off the forums because they became entrenched and hostile to newcomers who didn't agree with them. I prefer open debate, and yes absolutely, everyone's opinion is valid.

      Having waded through this quagmire of a case this past 9 years, my golden rules have served me well. Nothing irritates me more than having my time wasted. On a few occasions in the past I got my fingers burned by taking it as read that the author was sane. My rules enable me to avoid that now and move swiftly on.

      Reading the entire files does not make you more knowledgeable than anyone else NT. In fact, some might say, you knowledge is heavily diluted because you have had to take so much in, Jack of all trades, but master of none. But even if you were Master of all trades in this case, you still weren't there! Goncalo Amaral and the PJ were.

      Delete
  23. Textusa has zilch to do with neither Tony nor HideHo. You of all, NT should know that. I believe as a matter of fact she has more in common with you than with TB and HideHo. Textusa is also determined that Madeleine died on the evening of May 3d, as she believes they all played theatre and pretended that "everything was normal" paralel with cleaning actions, disposal of body etc etc. Oh yes I'm aware of that you disagree with the swinging, she and her apostles are pretty much alone on that one. Equally the Last photo, TB, RDH, Petermac and I'd guess a whole bunch of more people dismiss Textusa's photoshopping lecture (as you) so I think it's fair to say she stands in a category of her own.

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

      Delete
  24. So reading the replies here it is best to stick to the PJ's/GA's theory. The only stumbling block for me here that goes against logic is the dog reactions/evidence in the hired Renault. IIRC GA stated something like a body in a frozen state was thawing?

    I just can't imagine a scenario of whom/how/where/when this event occurred sometime between the end of May and early August when it was seized...

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

      Delete
    2. I'm not sure of the in's and out's of secondary scent transfer
      but here is what stumps me:

      1, Both dogs alerted to the Renault key so implies transfer from a hand.

      2, No dogs alerted at the villa the McCanns moved to. If a hand had transferred scent to the key it suggests that person didn't touch anything in the McCann villa?

      Maybe I'm confused but if transfer to a car key at least three weeks (and up to 2.5 months) after the disappearance, why not also for example a door knob or other item at the villa?

      I'm assuming that a person that used the car/key also spent time in the villa.

      Delete
    3. Hey JJ, what do you think about Not Textusa knowing more than the PJ men on the ground?

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

      Delete
    5. 21:56 Please don't start the bickering again, it is tedious for everyone.

      If you don't mind my putting in my thruppence worth, I would say to NT that the body must have been stored somewhere........

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

      Delete
    7. I'm just asking questions, NT. I'm not going anywhere with this.

      You say that the blood was Gerry's which is fine so strike that off.

      What about the cadaver scent? Both dogs alerted to the key. The reason I'm thinking transfer by hand is that car keys (key card in this case I think) generally only come into contact with hands.

      All I'm trying to figure out is if it is accepted Madeleine was dead in the apartment, when, where and how was she removed and how does the Renault fit in?

      Delete
    8. Tedious?
      JJ can make a point that only the PJ on the ground knew best and anyone saying otherwise is being ridiculous and Not Textusa says he knows more than GA and it's okay for him to say so? I just wanted to know what JJ's opinion is on this. I think we're all entitled to that.

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

      Delete
    10. Well yes NT, and now I am curious as to what other option there could be?

      Clearly the body was moved from behind the sofa, then moved from behind the wardrobe. I suspect it may have rested temporarily in the flower beds outside 5A.

      The hire care didn't come into the equation until 3 weeks later. Using the hire car to move it was imo, another sign of desperation. British missing persons expert, Mark Harrison was on his was to assist the search, and so were the specialised dogs. Another sign I think that shows, the McCanns were not AS assisted by the UK authorities as some people think.

      Yes, it was incredibly risky, but these are risk takers extraordinaire, it takes a lot of nerve to promote a multi million pound 'Fund', spending it like lottery winners, then coming back again and again to ask for more.

      The poor child's body must have been hidden somewhere during the intervening period and due to the warm climate, it is logical to assume a freezer of some description was involved.

      I also remember reading several years ago now, an article by Pat Brown, that explained in quite some detail, the way in which a body can become mummified in sand. Essentially, dried out. It made a lot of sense, but, and I hate being so graphic, the smells that lingered in the hire car are unlikely to have come from a mummified body. A frozen body however.....

      If a freezer was involved, then they must have had local assistance. Of course, this opens up the doors for all the conspiracy loons again. But before we go on a tangent, the body must have been somewhere insecure and somewhere very close by. And btw, if Robert Murat were in on it, they would hardly be pointing the finger at him. If they were helped, it would be more likely that it would be from people they were friendly with, people they could trust.

      Richard Hall might have done better to take a closer look at the Church, or the Priest who says his life was destroyed. And is it usual for victims of crime to be given the keys of the local church for their own private use? Is it sacrosanct to search or 'bug' a church? Gerry and Kate are all about 'in plain sight', they state quite brazenly that their Fund is not a charity, and with hangdog faces they tell us how much they regret they were not there the moment Madeleine was taken.

      I believe that when Operation Grange went digging in PDL, they were looking for that 'temporary', or maybe even, permanent spot - and I am talking about the searches we saw here. The man on foot could not have got very far. Once the car was used, the range could extend for miles in any direction and the mileage on the hire car was astronomical.

      And the smell in the car was not something feint that could only be detected by specialist dogs. The boot of the car had been left open for several nights, and the family witnesses attribute the smell to the twins' nappies, household rubbish and rotting meat.

      But, that 3 week time gap is a mystery like so many in this case. For me, Goncalo Amaral's explanation sounds the most plausible, but if there is something I am missing NT, please do let me know. :)

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

      Delete
    12. You have missed my point NT, the body must have been stored SOMEWHERE?

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

      Delete
    14. If you saying that the body wasn't moved in the car, then you have broken one of my golden rules NT. 'Anyone who dismisses or works around the evidence of the dogs'.

      Whilst you have obviously done a lot of research into the transference of cadaver odour, I think the smell was too intense (boot open, nappies, rotten meat etc) to have come from a secondary source.

      As well as the foul odour in the car, the actions of the McCanns at that time suggest they were panicking. 'It was the only time we lied' said Kate, as they gave the excuse that Gerry had a tummy bug and they had to put off their trip to Huelva. Mark Harrison had been called in and he had advised the PJ to treat the parents as suspects.

      I think it is panic that led them to use the car. The searchers were moving in on them, and the temporary hiding place was obviously not secure.

      Delete
    15. "the cadaver odour alert in the car is not necessarily because a body was transported, but because items contaminated with cadaver odour were transported."
      And you would know this because?

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

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

      Delete
    18. Disagreeing with you is not intended to be offensive NT, but as you will see in my blog, I have 3 golden rules and at the moment you are breaking all of them!

      You are interpreting the evidence of the dogs in your own way, claiming Goncalo and the PJ made a 'mistake' and angrily stating you are right, dead right.

      I am still not clear whether you agree or disagree that the body was moved, as I have said several times the body must have been stored somewhere and you are evading this.

      I am not sure that most people from a scientific background are saying the same as you. If experts were available to refute the suggestion that the car was used, then why haven't the McCanns used them in their 9 year media war?

      You state Goncalo is 'no scientist' but you are overlooking the fact that detectives work hand in hand with scientists and forensic teams, and with respect, he had far more scientific resources available to him, than you do.

      At the moment I see no merit in your hypothesis that the odour in the car came from a secondary source. And to support your hypothesis you are dismissing the 'foul odour' in the car and questioning whether a neighbour really did see the boot left open overnight. Do you think Goncalo was making this up?

      It is all very well telling me 'I know nothing' but you aren't offering anything that would inform me or bring me up to speed. In fact you are asking me to ignore GA and the PJ's interpretation of the dogs' evidence and accept yours without question. As I say, those kind of tactics don't work with me.

      Delete
    19. You have to excuse yourself to Not Textusa, Ros? Why?
      You tell others off with no excuses, so why does he get special treatment?
      Has he become co-admin or something?

      Delete
    20. This is not an 'admin' kind of place 11:41, and my blog is mine alone.

      As for 'telling off' I hadn't realised I was so school marmish lol, though I did once say 'yes, I'm talking to you' to a dozy teenager in a supermarket. Old habits die hard.

      I don't think you have grasped the content of my above post to NT, I'm politely challenging his theories, though he may interpret it as being told off. He considered my earlier post offensive and the later one follows similar lines, so who knows.

      Delete
  25. NT 13:10

    What is the name of the musical instrument?

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

    ReplyDelete
  27. I see the Cristobell Unbound blog has been taken over by Not Textusa. What larks!

    Not Textusa, you claim to have read the PJ files from beginning to end, some parts many times but the files are nothing but a compilation of documentation relating to a criminal investigation, a criminal investigation that was hampered by political influence. The recording of the documentation does not equate to presentation of conclusive evidence nor factual events, it is information open to interpretation.

    It is quite apparent that your opinions are just that, an interpretation of information contained in the PJ files. That puts us all on an equal footing, I don't think it gives you a superior standing only because you claim to have repeatedly read the files and it would seem memorized word perfect. The Tapas9 rogatory statements for example are laughable, nobody with a brain could take them seriously but they are part of the documented information. Why should the reader be expected to accept one witness statement at face value but at the same time totally dismiss another on your say so? Can't we all make up our own minds? You insult people that follow Textusa because you don't agree with her, why is that a problem for you, why can't you live and let live?

    Even more interesting would be an explanation why you have read the files from cover to cover, some parts over and over again, what is the case to you that requires such detailed knowledge? In truth you don't know anymore than anyone else, it's all a matter of personal interpretation which doesn't put you in a place of superiority. You want people to think for themselves and not be fooled by others so why can't you practice what you preach and let people think for themselves? Your repeated attacks on anyone that doesn't bow to your claimed superior knowledge is childish and boring as your user name reflects.

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

      Delete
  28. "Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton23 February 2016 at 23:53

    Well yes NT, and now I am curious as to what other option there could be?

    Clearly the body was moved from behind the sofa, then moved from behind the wardrobe. I suspect it may have rested temporarily in the flower beds outside 5A."

    You mean the 3 places that Not Textusa refers to as Textusa's "favourite toileting spots"?

    Just Google Not Textusa + "Thick as two short ones" and read it for yourself.

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

      But you're fine with accepting comments from someone who says what Not Textusa said.

      Good for you.

      Delete
    2. I'm not accepting nor rejecting 12:15, I'm merely publishing them. As should be apparent from the comments I receive, I don't reject comments that don't agree with me.

      Delete
    3. " I do like your likely (not too lively)contributions NT"

      That reads acceptance to me.

      Delete
    4. It was supposed to read lively in both instances, it was a typo. And I do - what a boring place this would be if we all agreed with each other.

      I suggest you explore the English language a little further 13:11, there are hundreds of ways in which we can interpret the written word, however, liking another person's lively contributions does not mean that I agree with them or support them.

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

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

      Delete
    7. The body must have been stored somewhere because if they had left it behind the sofa or in the wardrobe it would have been found. The lack of a body has been somewhat problematic in this case.

      Are you suggesting 'Smithman' placed the body in its final resting place? Why are you being so vague?

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

      Delete
    9. Your problem is the word, 'stored.' A better word would be, 'taken.' The word 'storing' evokes a long passage of time. The accident happened before the 3rd and involved Madeleine falling behind the sofa where she remained for at least 90 minutes. So much for the half hour checkings! In fact she wasn't discovered until the following morning. Her body was laid on the McCann's bed and then transferred inside a tennis bag and placed within a wardrobe. Later that day the Scenic was commissioned to transfer the body to its final resting place. It was only then that the story telling began.
      Before you all start shouting out that this couldn't be so I would just say that with lies and cover ups, anything is possible.

      Delete
    10. I think it is unlikely the alerts in the car can simply be put down to secondary transfer when there seems to be no transfer in the villa or anywhere else for that matter even though a number of items of clothes and, initially, Cuddlecat got indicated to separately. There was so little odour for Eddie he didn't indicate on Cuddlecat later.

      Also I doubt Cuddlecat would come into contact with the key card to give one example.

      I would like to hear your theory/sequence of events though NT.

      Delete
  29. That last sentence is as about as helpful as saying if the PJ had the evidence to prove the McCanns were involved, they would have been charged. Clearly, they were lacking 'court worthy' evidence on several fronts. At the moment you are using the same flimsy rebuttal as the pro mccanns, if the police can't provide tangible evidence, it didn't happen.

    Samples were taken from the hire car, what did they take the DNA evidence from? They were not testing smells or air.

    I am far from convinced that the odour was from secondary transference, secondary transference would have considerably weaker and would not have necessitated the car boot being left open or excuses by way of dirty nappies and rotting meat.

    What point are you trying to make by saying the hire car wasn't used to transfer the body?

    ReplyDelete
  30. Trying to hide the fact that IT WAS???

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

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

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

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sure NT:

      CANINE SEARCH OF MR McCANN'S VILLA, PRESENT OCCUPANCY.

      The villa interior, garden, and all property within were searched by the EVRD.
      The only alert indication given was when the dog located a pink cuddly toy in
      the villas lounge. The CSI dog did not alert to the toy when screened
      separately.

      http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARTIN_GRIMES.htm

      And yes all the items that were "hit" on were collected from the villa and I'm asking if some/one of these items transferred odour to the Scenic then why didn't they transfer to objects in the villa like tables, sofas, beds or more clothes?

      These items would have been in contact sooner and longer at the villa compared to the Scenic, right?

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

      Delete
  34. Take a look at Martin Brunt's 100% match video clip NT. You have read the files, some parts several times over, what physical evidence was tested?

    And again, what point are you trying to make?

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

    ReplyDelete
  36. We are going around in circles and I am getting bored NT, get to the point.

    If you are claiming Goncalo Amaral's 'hire car' theory is ridiculous, you must have a more logical alternative, what is it?

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

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I am not interested in bickering with you NT, if you don't have a point, and that seems to be case, I shall move on.

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

      Delete
    3. Golden rules NT, and you are right, you lost me when you claimed to know more than Goncalo Amaral and the PJ.

      There has been so much nonsense written about this case, I have to be discerning and my golden rules have served me well.

      You have claimed Goncalo Amaral's theory that Madeleine was moved in the car is ridiculous, yet you have offered no logical alternative. And further, you are making the mistake of assuming that you know more than the police on the ground. I'm afraid that is a turn off for me.

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

      Delete
    5. You may be a genius on forensics but your English comprehension skills are very poor, lol.

      By logical explanation, I mean what happened to the body of Madeleine from the night of 3rd May until it was moved in the McCanns hire car? Are you saying it was never moved? A simple yes or no will do.

      As for the Martin Brunt clip, I referred to that, because it is the most familiar reference for most of us. First we have a full match, then we don't. Wadda ya know.

      As for your snotty approach to literature, you have clearly never taught - teachers play catch up all the time ;)

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

      Delete
  38. I'd like to correct an error I made in my last post Ros (that I can't see yet) I wrongly assumed that EVRD and CSI were the same dog and realise now it was double blind testing to determine it was cadaver odour rather than blood. Sorry all.

    The rest of my post still stands, though.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Ros, take it to his blog. He will explain it there.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Explain what?
      One will very likely get a pretty comprehensive account regarding the DNA and dogs.

      But how the Mc's dunnit, very very doubtful

      Delete
  40. Not Textusa @02:34

    "despite the mention in Amaral's book, there is no statement from any individual corresponding to the claim that the boot was left open overnight."

    ??

    A witness was filmed confirming it (in Portuguese) for GA's own documentary:

    41.09 – Witness: "I drive down this street every day to turn my car around at that end, and every time that I passed the house, and I looked at the car, and the car always had an open boot door, day or night. I often passed at night, and always verified it. It was a fact, I reported it, and that was it."

    You'll find both video and transcript at McCannfiles.


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

      Delete
    2. A witness from GA is not good enough for you?

      Delete
    3. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SpTGmkLRuSM

      it starts at 40:58

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

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

      Delete
    6. Well NT, I'm afraid you have reached that 'I'm right, dead right' stage, so that's it for me.

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

      Delete
    8. This NT bloke is sounding so like Tony Bennett now. 'I am right and you are wrong' - on pretty much everything.

      We'll be getting his posts in bolded blue next.

      Delete
    9. @ Nottextusa:

      I have a golden rule too and that is to ignore people, who cannot discuss without getting arrogantly nasty, using bad vocabulary and offending others. But I'm interested about your scientific explanation of the DNA (body fluids) found in the Scenic Reanault. If I remember right, somebody once explained that 15 Allelles were not enough to prouve that it matched to one person, that it could also belong to a contamination of different familiar DNA. I am remembering right or did I not understand well? If not, would you be so kind to explain this better to me? Sorry for my english, I hope you understand my question.

      Zoe, lost in translation

      Delete
    10. @ Nottextusa:

      I think, I don't need your help anymore, Anonymous25 February 2016 at 10:02, has coincidentally just explained.

      Zoe

      Delete
    11. I don't doubt the lady judge who said the car boot had been open day and night for a week, what reason would she have to state this if it wasn't true! the dogs reactions speak for themselves, they don't react meat that's gone off, or dirty nappies.Why would the McCann's need to make excuses for the dogs findings? they'd know they were innocent, so why not just let the dogs/police do their jobs and defend themselves later on like most normal people would. If your child was missing would your priority be to research these dogs to find out how reliable they were? I don't think so, you would put your trust in those investigating, not interfere trying to throw them off the scent.

      From the very beginning nothing the McCann's have said adds up. To cover one lie they've told another, is there any wonder the majority of people don't believe a word they say, and who can blame them.

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

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

      Delete
    14. I can translate passive/aggressive too NT, and I'm getting a bit sick of your aggressive responses to MY readers. Please take your dogma and anger issues back to your own blog.

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

      Delete
  41. Not Textusa: "I already gave you my more logical alternative, which is that the dogs alerted to cadaver odour in the car because of secondary transfer"

    1. Not Textusa if there was a secondary transfer what was the primary source of the cadaver odour and where was it?

    2. Who was contaminated to then become the secondary source?

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

      Delete
    2. Are you insulting my intelligence on purpose or just being an arse? Rhetorical question.

      Delete
    3. Class please remember Not Textusa is a McCann sceptic. By his own account, of course.
      JJ, still waiting to hear from you about Not Textusa knowing more than the cops on the ground.

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

      Delete
  42. Cristobell, what is your view on the article The Sirens of The Lambs by Dr Martin Roberts ???

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

    Just interested to know, no deep dark hidden meaning... lol

    ps. as you have now no doubt realised RH, NT is only around to disrupt, i mean, cmon NT, next you will be telling us all that the FSS didnt shut down just in time !!!

    ReplyDelete
  43. The apartment had been let to numerous people before the dogs went in.

    Why didn't the wonder dog alert to the same articles of clothing whilst in the villa.

    ReplyDelete
  44. @17:54

    Words fail me. (Not really. The phrase 'arrogant little shit' comes immediately to mind).

    "I'm afraid a claim from an unnamed 'witness' isn't enough"

    Who the feck do you think you are?

    First you make a spurious claim, then, when you're given your answer, you come back with some defensive elaboration involving your chosen definition of 'evidence'.

    You are merely a commentator at a blog hosted by an author/playwright - not clerk to the justices!

    "Why don't you ask around? You will find that most people from a scientific background will say exactly the same as me. (Really?)

    "Amaral may be a very competent detective, but he's no scientist." (Like you know)

    It's called 'having an education', is it?

    Presumably you consider yourself a scientist. Semantics obviously isn't your bag.

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

    ReplyDelete
  46. @20:15

    Talk to the hand!

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

      Delete
    2. Err, you are anonymous Not Textusa - perhaps if you were using your own identity you might not be so rude and aggressive.

      Delete
  47. If Cristobell will permit me to re-post this:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    George

    I'm not a one to gloat and say I told you so but I told you so.

    Not Textusa has got form. S/he is humouring Cristobell in order to use her blog as a platform for self righteousness. Cristobell likes confrontation to liven up proceedings and Not Textusa is maximizing on the opportunity to promote her/his own ego. S/he urges you to got to her/his own blog because that is the only place s/he can get away with unrestrained abuse and no ground for you to put your point across.

    As I said, s/he is not worth the effort.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 20:52. I don't take too kindly to having someone's else's beliefs being rammed down my throat. And as I said on twitter earlier, I hate bad manners. NT has had his rants and 'last word', but I don't think he has persuaded anybody.

      I will play it by ear, but if he wants to bicker he can stay on his own blog.

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

      Delete
    3. George,
      Agree with all except that Not Textusa is not playing a juvenile game IMO. His knowledge of the files and scientific jargon reveal an uncommon dedication on his part to the case. The 365/24/7 kind of dedication.

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

      Delete
    5. I think it was Cristobell that posted up the Albert Einstein famous quote: 'If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough'. That's where Not Textusa reveals the true self, s/he is not able to explain anything simply because it's all text book stuff. Anyone with 24/7/365 at their idle hands can do the same if they wanted.

      A case of if you say it loud enough and often enough eventually people will believe you. S/he also creates or listens to and then repeats unfounded rumours which speaks for itself.

      It seems Not Textusa has been floating around for a long while pulling the same stunts over and over again but fails to realise that some people have a good memory.

      I'm only passing through, don't like the company.

      George

      Delete
  48. It is clear reading the comments answers to specific questions aren't forthcoming so will comment about a slightly different subject.

    NT, the bottom line for you seems to be that the PJ just didn't have enough for an arrest/charges. I will assume that would apply equally in Portugal and the UK.

    Why wouldn't such a circumstantial case be considered possible if, for example, we compare to the Suzanne Pilley case? In this case there was no blood/DNA/biological evidence but there were dog indications. Nothing was found in the three locations, but they were brought up in court nonetheless.

    I believe David Gilroy to be 100% guilty but it seems to me that if you are a nobody with no money/support then a circumstantial case is indeed enough to secure a conviction.

    Can i ask if you have an opinion about the case evidence (if you are familiar with it, of course)

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

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

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You are entitled to your opinion NT, but you will have to accept the fact that others don't share it.

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

      Delete
    3. The Yorkshire Ripper was caught in 1980. Personal computers were not household items. The internet would only reach the public years later.
      Between 1980 to 2007, it's 27 years. Do you think science stood still all that time?
      Next time use an example from Jack the Ripper to prove your point.

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

      Delete
    5. Anonymous 22:12

      Neither did they have a world renowned leading forensic science service to assist the investigation but perhaps that's just as well :)

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

      Delete
  50. Not Textusa, are you Tony Bennett?
    Both of you are deluded bullies, both of you are rude to anyone who contradicts you, both of you twist facts to fit your stories, both of you reach baseless conclusions that serve your purposes, both of you don’t like Nuala and Textusa.
    Bennett has been silent lately on CMOMM. Maybe because you’re too busy here?

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

      Delete
  51. And forgot to add, both of you think you're the only ones who are absolutely right and anyone who thinks different is mentally retarded.

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

      Delete
    2. Not Textusa 22:06

      "I am right, he is wrong"

      What you hold is an opinion, you cannot therefore state that you are right and another is wrong.

      "I don't for a second think that anyone who disagrees is mentally retarded".

      Yes you do. Not only do you think it but you also say it. That's the trouble with the internet, once written it never goes away.

      That's why you hang around small haunts where you know you have one or two acolytes to join in your games. Even if you totally disagree with Textusa's theories, is it necessary to insult her the way you do? Menopausal harpie, f***tard, mad old bat and such like? What does it really matter if she blogs wild theories about the case, you don't have to read it but it's not only Textusa is it, it's anyone with an opinion that differs from you own.

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

      Delete
  52. NT you say:

    "While he and many others are trying to work out 'what they did with the body for three weeks before moving it in the Scenic', they have lost sight of the fact that other scenarios are far more likely."

    I don't know about anyone else but all I'm asking, given your above opinion, is what did happen to Madeleine's body that night?

    I believe you accept she was dead behind the sofa between ~18:00 and 20:30 on the 3rd May? Given that, what happened to her and where did she go in your opinion?

    Or at least state what the far more likely scenarios are.

    Thanks.

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

      Delete
    2. Thanks for the reply, NT.

      I think it a tad unfair to dismiss others opinions/theories when you are not prepared to share your theories because you don't want to give the McCanns ammunition.

      I will think about some of the things in your post but I'm not sure I could come up with anything better/more likely or overlooked by the PJ or UK police there at the time.

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

      Delete
  53. Not Textusa is watcher on Amazon and is just as obnoxious on there. IMO.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Amaral, in his book, said "We have no doubts, and this was discussed even at the level of Portuguese justice, at the level of the Public Ministry, that there was an alteration at the English lab. The data was manipulated." Yes, it "changed" from 15/19 markers (from police files http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MADELEINES_DNA.htm#p10p2615) So... I'm gonna go along with him on that and - shoot me! - the Daily Mail report that police in the UK tried to hide the DNA results.

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

      Delete
    2. You claim to know more than the experts in this case NT, telling us 'they failed to understand what they were reading'. Can you tell us what qualifies you to dismiss the work of the experts?

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

      Delete
    4. If you can't or won't tell us what qualifies you to know more than the experts and the detectives, then you must accept that your findings will not be considered credible.

      You can shout as much as you like, but without that credibility, all you are doing is shouting.

      Delete
    5. Allow me to assist.

      Very recently medical expert, more recently trained dog expert, yesterday ace detective, today forensic expert.

      There is an extensive repertoire in the histrionics of Not Textusa's attributes. I wonder s/he doesn't put that wealth of knowledge to better use like solving some of the worlds serious problems rather than 24/7 Maddie watch.

      Delete
  55. 32.58 – Professor Corte-Real, who met with the FSS experts, and saw the British scientists’ reports and work notes, explains this issue.

    Dr Francisco Corte-Real
    Vice President, National Forensics Institute

    33.09 – When those 15 alleles are included in a mix, where beyond those 15 we can have another 30 or 40 alleles, that means that it includes biological material from several persons. And there it can be much more difficult, much more inconclusive, because we may have a mixture from several persons, including hypothetically, if that happens, we may have several persons from the same family, and that may even give us the idea, in a way, that a certain missing person may be included, and that is not conclusive.

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

      Delete