Thursday, 24 March 2016


As wicked as the actions have been and indeed still are, it is hard not to feel sympathy for them.  No matter what the outcome of Operation Grange, they will always have the shadow of suspicion over them.  Even if DCI Nicola Wall makes a statement blaming a deceased predator and the Queen gives them a Royal Pardon, they will never be able to shake it off. 

For people with the full range of emotions, the idea of living like that would be horrendous, even without all the suspicion, they will never enjoy privacy and anonymity again.  While they were imprinting the face of Maddie into the conscience of the world, they were imprinting their faces too.  Doh!  For them there is quite literally, no hiding place.  Some might say that is punishment enough, Heck, I might even say it myself if they were not continuing to persecute Goncalo Amaral and others. 

I cannot understand why they continue to keep themselves and their family in the public eye.  They know how unpleasant it can be having the world's press focusing on your every move, yet they continue to invite this for themselves and vicariously for their children. Imagine how the twins must have felt to read their mother was in danger of being shot when she ran the Marathon. A ridiculous story taken from an, albeit distasteful conversation on FB, that referred to starting pistol with a little flag that said 'bang'.  Those kids could and should have been protected from that nonsense, but it was their parents who were selling it! 

The twins are at that self conscious age where their privacy is vital to them and it should be respected.  They don't want to be different from their peers in any way, so it must be excruciating for them to see the constant 'Madeleine' headlines. And the parents can't blame Goncalo Amaral for the newspaper billboards, they are the ones who want publicity whatever the cost.  Goncalo asked the Judge in Lisbon to hold the civil hearing in camera, the McCanns opposed this and newspapers ran with front pages proclaiming the twins were under threat of kidnap.  Not the kind of thing a kid wants to read at the newsagents on his/her way to school. 

The McCanns fear what their children may read on the internet, yet they employ a PR Agency and a professional spokesman skilled in the fine art of grabbing headlines.  Not to mention the £500k they paid to Bell Pottinger to keep them on the front pages for a year.  These are not the actions of caring parents. 

It seems from the recent performance of Clarence Down Under, preparations are underway for the 10 year anniversary.  It's a big one for sure, and one if played correctly, should really tug at the big hearts and wallets of the UK's billionaires.  Perhaps Kensington Roof Garden has already been booked and the stars are being lined up? It may even have been one of metrics and deliverables on the wider agenda? 

Australia might have got a mention too.  Whatever the outcome, they will be looking for a new start.  Their 'fame' has crossed over into the 'notoriety' range and they will need a place where they are much less well known.  Unfortunately, their campaign has been so successful, there can't be many places left.  Yet still they chase publicity.  Clarence, far from retired from the case, is seeking out new campaign opportunities.  Why a gig in Australia?  Who knows, the speaker circuit is probably very competitive and the Madeleine case is his USP, but the other side of the world is not exactly convenient for those repeat bookings.  

Whether the McCanns will ever seek privacy and anonymity is debateable.  All their actions since the night Madeleine disappeared, suggest the opposite.  At any time during the past 9 years, they could have chosen to get back to quiet unassuming lives for the sake of their remaining children. 

The ten year anniversary is undoubtedly a big event, and some might see the devotion of the McCanns to their 'search' for Madeleine, and their support of Missing People as admirable.  Perhaps awards are in the pipeline?  Others might see it as a show of bravado, 'ah, look at those poor parents, they will never give up', and hit the paypal button. The bravado of course lies in the planning of a major event, it's as if they are saying to SY, 'we don't give a flying one what you say, we are not going to let a Fund raising opportunity pass by'.  Even the discovery of blood and cadaver odour in their apartment and car, didn't stop them from going ahead with their 100 Day shindig. They really have got more front than Harrods. 

Maybe we will see a new 'Awareness Campaign' for Year 10, with another picture of a shop window dummy age progression picture, and some new sightings in Australia? Unfortunately, they can't really say Madeleine has been forgotten or her story has faded away, because they have successfully kept her in the news for 9 years.  Finding a new angle won't be easy, but it's not impossible.



  1. Spot on regarding the twins, I'm shocked that they are now deliberately subjected to publicity with recent headlines like "Kate McCann: 'The twins know all about her disappearance". And as for dredging up a long-forgotten nonsense 'kidnap' post from some obscure forum years ago, by one of their witnesses at the recent trial, which then became huge front page tabloid headlines, words fail me.

  2. That Kate and Gerry use their children's names in their publicity stunts is crass and way outside the bounds of responsible parenting. They sue others to protect their children, when they should in fact be suing themselves, as they are the ones who have kept their kids' names in the headlines for the past 9 years.

    They claim the little boy was upset by something Goncalo Amaral said on the school bus radio (????), how upset must he have been at the 'kidnap' headlines - they were all over the front pages. The McCanns quest for publicity at any cost will probably traumatise these kids for decades. What child wants to see picture after picture of their parents' distress? Or worse, read details of their love life?

    If the McCanns truly wanted to protect their children, they would have stepped back from all the publicity and allowed them to lead normal lives. Instead they have made them party to legal actions, civil claims and pleas for sympathy for themselves.

    It has always been within Kate and Gerry's power to stop the headlines, and unfortunately, as the twins get older and get information from outside the 'family', they will see that for themselves. I expect as teenagers they will have a lot of questions.

  3. Throwing the most likely hypothesis aside of a minute and believing this case is an abduction... What are the odds she ended up down under? It's hard enough to smuggle tea bags into that country. So why is CM wasting his time and the funds money? Wouldn't 'campaign' money be better off searching mainland Europe?

    1. I believe that this is the latest angle. Kate has stated that she thinks that Madeleine "is not a million miles from the Algarve". (Incidentally, where would one have to be if one were a million miles from PdaL?) My heart goes out to the inhabitants of the Algarve, if that is where the search will continue.

    2. 10:08 I wonder if Clarence is testing the water in Australia? The McCanns may be looking for a whole new start, and the other side of the world may be one of their few options.

    3. I agree Highmyope, the people of PDL have been put the mill time and time again, the McCanns really don't care about the damage they are doing to the people and the economy of PDL. It is almost a vendetta against the Portuguese, with their paid shills trying to convince the world, the Algarve is filled with child predators and the local people are protecting them.

      It is unbelievably nasty the way that the McCanns have turned on the people of PDL, people who did so much to help them in those early days, people who were out searching day and night while the McCann party sat by the swimming pool and continued their holiday.

  4. I see bennett the blonk is in full "the Mccanns are liars" mode again all over the internet.

    1. If that's Andrew again, move on please!

    2. @ Terry29 March 2016 at 10:40

      what is it like being wrong all the time Terry? I made the comment about bennett and I am certainly not Andrew!!!!

  5. It was just completely irrelevant on the topic, a characteristic of Andrew.

    I'm quite used to being wrong a lot!

  6. Hello Terry.

    Firstly - I have not posted a comment on CB's blog for a long time now. Secondly - when I have left comments in the past, then I always write my name at the end. Thirdly - there are other people out there (lots of) that have a dislike towards TB (not just me).

    I would quite like to move on from that awful chapter of having lies and false accusations hurled at me, so I have no intention of wasting my breath on that man anymore.

    Hope you can move on as well, Terry.

    Apology accepted anyway.... and thanks to anon@10:40 for your honesty.

    Keep up the good blogs, CB.

    Regards, Andrew

  7. Glad to see your still alive & kicking old girl, came across a load of old emails from the old AOL days and couldnt resist seeing if any of the old gang are still about, only managed to find you though :( I still speak to Amanda & Ints on FB but havent a clue where everyone else went, lost the link to the last forum ages ago and havent bothered to try & retrieve it so have lost touch with everyone else, sorry if this is off topic just wanted to say hello :)

    1. Lovely to see you Bev, or should that be Mrs Bouquet, lol! :) I mentioned how I once had the nickname of Waynetta, ha ha, actually,I laugh my head off when I think back to the old Europe and Ya Gotta Laugh boards, it was a surreal time and the Friday Night Balls were hilarious! Most of my memories are fond ones.

      Anyway, good to see ya old girl (right back at ya, lol), I do hope you are well. It would be lovely to hear from the old crew, much water has gone under the bridge, and hopefully we can now communicate without Writs being issued or handbags being drawn! ha ha.

  8. not really anonymous. (Bjorn Sundberg, Linkoping, Sweden)
    Hello Rosalinda!
    I appreciate much of what you say, especially regarding the Madeleine Case

    Here are just some thoughts about why the McCanns feel that they have to keep themselves in the public eye, which you discuss in your text
    Their dilemma today is, as I see it, that they can never stop talking in public about their hope of finding Madeleine alive. In case they should keep quiet for some time, people would soon think that they may have given up on Madeleine, or even worse, from their perspective, people would begin to suspect that they know that Madeleine is dead, and Madeleine dead, does not exclude them from the suspicion of a crime, but Madeleine alive does, and that is the very reason as to why the they publicly keep on pretending to look for Madeleine alive and refuse to “admit”, that it is more likely that she is dead, than kept alive by some monstrous paedophile. The McCanns’ motivation for what ever they are doing in the name of Madeleine is fear and not compassion or love. Why do not the McCanns just let people read Gonzalo Amaral’s book, so that the readers can decide for themselves, who is telling the truth?

    Kate and Gerry have been in the lime light for so long now and have been given so many chances to tell people their “truth” and Kate has in her book “Madeleine” tried to persuade everybody about her innocence. Why do innocent people, who have unlimited amounts of money at their disposal, thanks to a Fund, they control, fear that people are not going to believe them? Could the reason be, that the truth is what they fear the most?

    1. Hi Bjorn, and good to see you :)

      Keeping Madeleine alive in the public's eye does indeed present Kate and Gerry with a terrible dilemma. But we should remember, they have faced worse and they are nothing, if not tenacious!

      I think what they fear most of all is the public believing Madeleine is dead. In fact, that has been their battle cry in every civil action they have brought. It is a front of course for 'we need you to believe us, in order to get the Fund back on tract'. The Arguido status was a severe impediment to their Fundraising, people no longer trusted them and they have been trying to win that trust back ever since.

      To be fair getting 500million hits on your website and thousands pouring into your coffers every day could even tempt the Pope. What a boost to the ego, it must have been have been like having a winning lottery ticket every day. They were much buoyed by the cash donations, said one insensitive relative, yeh, I bet they were!

      Everything went wrong for them when Goncalo Amaral put forward the theory that Madeleine died in the apartment. Any psychologist or enthusiastic amateur, would shiver at the pathological hatred the McCanns and their entourage have for Dr. Amaral. He cut off the gravy train!

      Their need to defend themselves is as pathological as their hatred of Goncalo Amaral. It is illogical, and if their advisors were putting their clients' interests above their own gain, they would have pointed that out long ago. Vexatious litigants will not stop until they have ruined themselves. Sadly, such is the legal profession, the VLs will not stop until the funds begin to dry up. Until then, they will be valued clients. Someone within Carter Ruck agreed to watch the rantings of Tony Bennett 24/7 at an hourly rate. Maybe the Law Society should have the same stringent rules as the GMC?

    2. Is the world at large really searching for Madeleine McCann? Last summer we travelled in France, Belgium, Luxembourg, Italy, Switzerland and Germany. Nowhere did I see a poster or a sticker. Dining with neighbours in France I mentioned Madeleine McCann and got blank faces. If one were to attempt to take a picture of an adolescent girl, one would probably be assaulted. This would deter any attention seeker or fantasist.

      People have lives of their own, complete with joy and woe. Even if Madeleine was abducted, she is almost certainly dead. Who is going to bother peering into the face of a young girl who looks like the latest image?

    3. highmyope, I asked one of the McCann shills on twitter to explain what the 'searching' actually entails. I didn't get a reply. As you say, staring at young teenage girls and taking their photos is a tad antisocial, and more than a little creepy. Quite frankly, if Madeleine were still alive, after 9 years, even her own mother would be hard pushed to recognise her.

      The idea of a new 'search' for Madeleine is so vague and abstract, that it is nonsense. What exactly do Kate and Gerry want the public to do? Do they want us to go out physically searching? Do they go out physically searching themselves?

      If the search is to be restricted to live 13 year old girls, it becomes more sinister. Thousands of innocent families with teenage girls could be falsely accused of all sorts of things. What of the effects this search will have on their lives? The MSM have already published photos of gypsy children and accused their parents of stealing them.

      The 'search' of course is just a ruse to continue asking for donations because there is no practical way the public can help the McCanns other than to give them cash.

  9. Hi Andrew, good to see you in such fine fettle! :) And I applaud your decision to move on, I have done much the same myself.

    The man is ridiculous, and certainly not worthy of our time Andrew. I think people are wising up to his brand of attention seeking, that is pointless and trivial civil actions that enable the creature to show off his ( legal knowledge. On this occasion, I think the lawyers from Carter Ruck who had to read his address to the universe, earned every penny. I don't know if the McCanns woke up to the fact that they were throwing money down a bottomless pit. Or it may be that not one of them can face any more of Bennett's endless piffle. Can you imagine what his FOI requests are like? They too have my sympathy.

    I rarely look at CMoMM these days, they are still discussing the same old topics and ones that will not make one iota of difference to whether poor little Madeleine gets justice or not.

    I have to confess, when I first began reading about this case I was as obsessive over the finer details as those on Haverns. I had to know for certain, one way or the other, whether the McCanns were involved. And the pros may find this hard to believe, but I WANTED to prove myself wrong, because believing these parents were involved would have destroyed what was left of my faith in human nature.

    Whilst 99% of me could see all the evidence, I still had that 1% of doubt and while that remained I would not comment negatively about the parents. That 1% niggle kept me captivated in a way I have never experienced before or since, it took me on a journey of discovery that has opened my eyes to so much, it would be impossible to capture in this 'trying to be brief' reply.

    I was searching for that 1% that would take me beyond reasonable doubt. That which seems so obviously now was, at that time, still part of a huge big puzzle. At one time, I wondered if the McCanns had sought professional advice on how to act in front of the camera. But to be honest the piece of advice these two have taken, or it came naturally, is 'the public will believe anything'. And if you tell them they are wicked if they don't believe you, they will believe that too.

    I had what literary critics would recognise as a touch of the old 'workshop of filthy creation' syndrome, (rare in females allegedly), that is I was driven insane by my need to discover the answer, I was devoting every waking hour to my quest.

    I suspect that many of us who have followed this case from the beginning or even those who discovered the mystery later on, will recognise some or all of the above! I am sure each of us has a memorable moment, the point where we found that 'clincher'. Mine I think was the very short video of Gerry laughing and joking 6 days after Maddie disappeared. He is standing in a doorway making comical hand gestures.

    There are of course hundreds, but the revelation by Kate in her book Madeleine, that she and the other parents put their children back into the crèche the very next day, also confirmed there was no abductor. And in my opinion any parent who put their kids into a crèche in the aftermath of a toddler being 'taken' knew that too.

    I think once you get to that point where there is no room for doubt, proving the finer points becomes less important. It won't actually make any difference to possible future proceedings. The amateur theories are based on very limited information, most of it nearly 9 years old, and no doubt, most of it now superseded by the new investigations. I suspect we only know a fraction of what has been 'going on behind the scenes', with all sorts of sensational headlines just waiting for the word 'lifted'.

    Whilst the finer details of the 'last photos','crèche records' etc have a limited audience, when the proverbial hits the fan, it will be lost in the stampede for the 'new revelations'.

  10. @ Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton30 March 2016 at 00:30

    "I am sure each of us has a memorable moment, the point where we found that 'clincher'. Mine I think was the very short video of Gerry laughing and joking 6 days after Maddie disappeared. He is standing in a doorway making comical hand gestures."

    Are you sure that was your turning point Ros?

    1. It was one of hundreds to be fair 21:11, ALL the interviews for example had 'wtf' moments and like most people I was astonished at the lack of emotion from the parents.

      Kate and Gerry blame Goncalo Amaral for the fact that people don't believe them, but the doubts kicked in for most of us long before Goncalo's book. The parents gave themselves away with their odd behaviour. It's been said that no-one knows how they would behave if we lost a child, but the fact is, none of us would have behaved the way they did.

      Even if the McCanns had been successful in silencing Goncalo Amaral and the original Portuguese files had not been released, the public would still have been suspicious. The anti McCann forums and websites had sprung up long before anyone even knew Goncalo's name.

      Kate and Gerry McCann are just not likeable. There is nothing endearing about them, but for some reason, they believed if they kept appearing on our screens we would grow to like them, but their constant appearances had the opposite effect. Not because Kate sees herself as slim, attractive and enviable, but because she and her husband are blaming everyone but themselves for what happened to their daughter. There is no guilt and no remorse, and that's chilling.

    2. Well said Cristobell. For me their behaviour was strange from get go. The smiling and kissing by GMC of the babies in the crowd outside the church beggared belief. As you say they were not likeable people even though the media and the sofa queens tried to paint them as caring loving parents. For me the moment was when they were made aguidios. I'm a big believer in allowing the low enforcement agencies having the last say. I just knew that unless the evidence was overwhelming that the PJ wouldn't have gone down that route and the release of the files proved that it was.

      In all honestly GA book was not the most damming media. Sandra Felgueiras interviews with them were priceless. I watched them again last night and when you know as much as you now know you realise how brilliant she was and how much research she had done into the case. People talked about the Paxman interview and how he lured GMC into a false sense of security before hitting him right between the eyes. SF done it ten times over in each of the interviews she had with them. GMC though she was a woman to be charmed when in fact she was the one doing the charming before hitting them right where it mattered. For me she is often an unsung hero of getting the truth out there.

    3. I agree 12:29, the Sandra Felgueiras interviews were indeed priceless. They are totally knocked off kilter by her direct questions and they visibly squirm, as they attempt to keep their own agenda at the forefront.

      Gerry I think, totally misread her natural charm and may even have believed he had won her over. I have to say the feminist in me was delighted as she danced circles around him. Gerry is one of those patronising alpha males who see women as fragile half witted princesses or raging bull dykes. Guess which category Kate fits into.

      I don't think she will be 'unsung' once the full story starts to unfold. If there were a top ten of WTF McCann Moments, 'Ask the dogs Sandra', would be number one. That is, she got the kind of response from a subject that a journalist can only dream about. Would Gerry have been quite so trite with Jeremy Paxman?

    4. Too true cristobell. He certainly would not have been so trite with Jeremy Paxman. Her response " ask the dogs Gerry no I think I will ask you, don't you feel free to answer me" was just classic. What did the eejit think she was going to say tee hee with him and agree that the dogs were useless. If I was writing the Hollywood script for this when its all over GA and SF would be the Heros

  11. Ros says:

    "Kate and Gerry McCann are just not likeable."

    And that is the whole truth of the matter to you isn't it Ros - you don't like them and therefore you feel you are entitled to have your "over the garden fence" opinion. (i.e. with no facts). Of course you will always attract the type of person who has opinions but no proof - read the "opinion" posted on here.

    For some reason you take this case as personal to you and that your personal opinion has some reflection on the outcome of the case case. Wrong!!!!

    You can step away and stop looking about this case at any time you want. You choose not to do so for your personal benefit = it attracts people to you blog.

    The Mccanns have never been arrested, never mind being charged, taken to court and convicted.

    Their daughter in missing - they can not step away like you can.

    Prove that you can attract an audience without the Mccanns or bennett the blonk. That is a challenge to you.

  12. In other words, stop writing about the McCanns! Nice try, 18:29, but either by accident or design, I have in depth knowledge on this case - I have studied it intently for almost 9 years, and my readers appreciate my expertise.

    My opinions on the McCann case are widely read by both antis and pros, and if you know anything at all about the laws of supply and demand, you would see how ludicrous your suggestion is. I am providing a service, a running commentary if you like.

    It has taken several years to sort the wheat from the chaff, and most people don't have the time or the inclination to plough through all the evidence. They want the plot summarised and they want points of interest to muse about later.

    I write about the McCann case in a way that would appeal to myself as a reader, that is, in the words of Forrest Gump, 'explain to me as if I were 4 years old'. I want the writer to pick out the bits that are relevant and discard the fluff.

    And I'm afraid for me, this case is personal. For many years I have been the victim of an organised campaign to destroy my credibility as a writer and as a human being. They have destroyed my reputation and I won't stop until I have restored it. My reputation means as much to me as Goncalo's reputation means to him. I can't step away anymore than he can.

    As for Bennett, he had the power to rile me for a while there, but he won't have it again. Bennett is the kind of hate preacher who brings out the worst in human nature, he is all about punishment and retribution. His outrageous demands in the McCann case unfortunately, tarred us all with the same pitchforker mentality. He has done much damage to Madeleine's cause with his publicity seeking behaviour. I urge anyone who still believes in him, to chick out the Tony Bennett Wiki entry, look at his history of Trusts and Foundations, look at his character.

    The mystery of Madeleine's disappearance is not a mystery, and I, and I'm sure hundreds of others, will not accept such a blatant Lie from our government, our media and the police. This is the age of information, injustice can and should be challenged. I cannot stand by and say nothing while this wicked lie continues.

    1. You really don't have a clue what you are talking about. All you care about is this blog. The McCanns and Bennet are used to attract folks here. No more no less. IMO.

  13. Supply and demand 23:26, both I, and my readers are interested in this story. The McCanns have kept themselves the topic of conversation, they have an audience, people who's interest they aroused and who will follow the case through to the end.

    The McCanns and indeed yourself, have every right to reply to what I say, or to put forward your own opinions. You don't need to silence me or make me go away, you simply have to forward better arguments.

    As for the McCanns not having the option of walking away, that is a complete lie! They chose to launch a global campaign to find a child who isn't missing and they chose to pay 500k to stay on the newspaper front pages.

    They choose now to continue their action for damages against Goncalo Amaral knowing that he has committed no libel against them. And it sounds as though they are going to continue with their search if SY closes without a result. These are all choices that the McCanns have made for themselves, they can't blame others for everything.

  14. An absolute classic from bennett the blonk:

    "Tony Bennett Today at 6:25 pm
    It is not nice to suggest that anyone is not telling the truth."

    Says the excuse for a man that ended up in court for accusing the Mccanns of "not telling the truth".

    The pitiful man who has accused everyone who was in PDL that week in early May 2007 of "not telling the truth".

    The weasel man who was "not telling the truth" live on TV after the court case.

    The wimp of a man who was "not telling the truth" when he apologised to the Mccanns in front of a High Court Judge.

    The piece of excrement of a man who posts on a cesspit that is dedicated to telling lies about the Mccann.

    Well done.

    1. Bravo. The excuse for a man is pitiful. For an elderly man it's quite sad really. So many years chasing shadows. All for what?

    2. @ Anonymous2 April 2016 at 21:52

      all for his personal financial gain. Remember he charged people to be a member of his "foundation" - he sold leaflets a long time ago - and now he is involved in the Hall financial scam.

  15. I notice that bennett the blonk is in his post and run mode again on Justice forum - he posts rubbish and then runs away - he never ever stays to enter into debate about his rubbish.

  16. He must be trying to regain the money he lost with the court case.
    Unfortunately for him he could lose lot more when C.R. are informed of his ongoing libel against the family of a missing child.

  17. Incredible - bennett the blonk and hidehopeless are having a battle about who has interfered with Operation Grange the more.

    On the one hand we have alleged phone calls from Canada - on the other hand we have a photo outside a police station.

  18. Re: Sky News - 6 months to find Maddie

    Post Verdi Today at 8:36 pm
    Apologies for going off top for a moment but I had to chuckle.

    I received a letter today from HM Revenue and Customs asking instructing me (shiver shiver shake and quiver) to verify something by way of an official declaration.

    Not for them the landlord of the local 'Pig and Whistle' who's probably the most honest bloke you could ever meet. No, not for them some lowly, probably dishonest burly chavvy publican - they look to the more upstanding members of society, such as doctors, lawyers, police chiefs and such like.

    Now where did I put that yellow pages directory, must be somebody in there that will verify a document for someone they don't know from adam - for a fixed nominal fee. Rats, Berty would do it for a pint..


    This is what CMOMM has been reduced to!!!!!!!

    1. I see via JATKY that he trying to get a convoy together for another publicity seeking trip to Downing Street. All the legal action taken by the McCanns hasn't made one iota of difference to his quest to get his ugly mush on the front pages. For them I suppose it is more headlines, and more evidence of harassment for any future claims. Amd that is without of course, taking into consideration, the effects of Mr. Bennett's actions on any possible future trial.

      He hasn't done Madeleine's cause any good whatsoever, in fact he has probably hindered it. 'Antis' have never had a fair hearing because Bennett got us all tarred with the same hater/ pitchforker bad name as himself. Anyone who still believes there were philanthropic reasons behind Bennett's Madeleine Foundation, really needs to check out that Wiki page.

      I am really glad that so few have signed his Petition, and my sympathy goes to those who have. Bennett, like most wannabe paranoid despots, collects lists of names, IP addresses, internet history and whatever other personal information he can. He is always preparing a legal defence for that light bulb moment when a former friend/ally/ acquaintance wises up to his mendacious ways. Oh to be a fly on the wall when the old biddies in CMoMM realise that they have been conned.

      One of the first things he did when taken to Court by the McCanns, was to hand over a list of 'antis' to the Judge and other side.

  19. I thought that you and Sonia might want to go........

  20. It's interesting how history repeats itself. When I started reading about this case and visiting forums and blogs several of the more astute posters noted how Bennett arrives, establishes himself as some kind of authority (just as he has done on CMoMM) and then proceeds to derail practically every discussion and instead post up utterly pointless polls.

    He has proclaimed over the way that any suggestion that any of the McCann photographs have been manipulated in any way at all is 'preposterous'. Why? Apparently because two 'experts' have said so. And armchair detectives, even those with some knowledge of photo-shop, cannot be trusted to see with their own eyes evidence of manipulation.

    Given the caliber of 'expert' that has been feeding at the Madeleine trough, I wouldn't trust a single word that any of them said.

    In any event, it is extremely common to air-brush or photo-shop photos that are used for PR and marketing purposes. Madeleine's own father thought the early poster (which is heavily manipulated, imo) of his daughter looking much younger than nearly 4 was 'a good marketing ploy' and ensured via his PR team that it was published throughout the world, then why on earth would some of the photos used for PR and marketing NOT have been altered? The idea, of course, would be to make sure that photos of Madeleine would pull on the public's heart-strings to bring in the dosh to, supposedly, 'find' his daughter despite the fact that the lead Portuguese detective thinks she died that week.

  21. In fact Bennett's assertion that it is 'preposterous' to suggest manipulation of photographs is, in itself, 'preposterous' as we KNOW that Madeleine McCann did not have a coloboma. So the early poster campaign which very heavily emphasized the coloboma MUST have been manipulated. This is FACT.

    Any photograph of Madeleine which shows a coloboma rather than a few fleks in the eye (as described in her passport details) would have been manipulated and is therefore a fraud. What would the two 'experts' say about that?

    It is the way that Bennett ignores facts and evidence - e.g: the Mrs Fenn crying incident/the Smith family sighting - and instead promotes his own dogma that is so damaging to debate. What is fascinating is that he is rather like the kiss of death to a forum. You could definitely see that happening on CMoMM and it's clearly happened before (3As?)What is his real agenda I wonder?

    The photographs are a great example as they are 'hard evidence' of what the McCanns would like us to believe.

    Given that TM's witness statements, the McCanns media interviews and Kate's book are not exactly 'the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth' then I would not expect the photographic evidence to be 'the truth' either.

    And considering that, astonishingly, not one person from that large group of friends was able to produce one single photograph of Madeleine during that week at the very outset - instead relying on a photo probably produced in the UK of a girl who looks much younger than nearly 4 - then I would not trust a single of the photos put forward by TM.

    The only footage that I think might be authentic is the airport bus footage which shows the McCanns and Paynes at East Midlands airport and Madeleine and Ella boarding the plane. There would be hard evidence of the numbers of adults and children in the group from the people carrier taxi rides both in the UK to the airport and in Faro to Ocean Club. Plus obviously evidence from the MW group booking, made by Payne, in the UK.

    A certain number of plane seats would have been allocated for adults and children. And then on arrival at Ocean Club the McCanns and Paynes were taken to their apartments in a mini-bus by a MW rep.

    That is a long journey during which seats would have been pre-arranged. The children would have needed child seats and maybe booster seats too. Plus special meals and colouring packs on the plane. Lily Payne would remember that journey and would remember whether Madeleine was travelling with her.

    So if the girl climbing up the airplane steps with Lily Payne and sitting on the airport bus next to Lily Payne wasn't Madeleine McCann, then who the heck was it? No stranger is going to plonk their child in the midst of another family.If it was taken during another holiday then I still believe that Lily Payne would remember that particular holiday. She was nearly three and looks very mature for her age. How could she not remember the holiday when her friend Madeleine was, allegedly, 'abducted'? That holiday would stand out in all the children's minds as the one during which a big bad bogey-man crept into the McCann children's bedroom one night and stole Madeleine. Apart from anything else, I think it is incredibly irresponsible of TM to have promoted this theory - which police never believed from the very outset - as it is hugely fear-mongering. As Kate herself notes in her book stranger kidnapping is very rare and most abductions are parental/family with only 16 percent involving strangers. There is absolutely no evidence, as GM might say, that Madeleine McCanns case is any different. I think I will believe the lead detective on the case rather than TM and the pink one.

  22. Interesting post 13:46, I too think there is something very odd about the photographs. The McCanns and their friends were coming towards the end of their holiday and we would have assumed they had taken lots of pictures of their happy brood - its what doting parents of toddlers do. That they didn't have an up to the minute picture available on the first night is bizarre, though not so bizzare, their manipulative decision to go with the toddler picture of Maddie in her Christmas party frock.

    I agree that when the McCanns ran the LQOK for me campaign, it is more than likely that the fleck in her eye was exaggerated. As Gerry chillingly said, it was a good marketing ploy. Eventually the horror of the good marketing ploy dawned on them, or someone pointed it out, because by the time they were interviewed by (spit) Piers Morgan, Kate said they never made very much of Madeleine's eye. And of course, again demonstrating how easily she lies.

    As for the Payne's daughter - an interesting point. I remember the names and faces of my playmates pre-school, so it is possible. But in any event, I think the idea that Madeleine never want on the holiday is just another loony theory from CMoMM.

    Sadly, it is not just the McCanns who want to convince us we are surrounded by big bad bogey-men 13:46, it suits the authorities to have us living in fear too. As for the irresponsible parents passing on the 'be afraid, very afraid' message to their small children, it borders on cruelty. Especially those telling their kids there was an abductor, when they know darn well there wasn't. At some point as the tapas children get older, they will eventually ask their parents why the hell they put them in the crèche the next day while an abductor was on the loose!


    1. I expect all the children in PDL, and indeed many worldwide, were traumatised by the official abduction story. At one point a group of parents had to complain to a cinema about 'Madeleine Fund' adverts being shown during childrens' films.

      Parents have a duty to protect their small children, pre 5s, don't need to know about the big bad world, they need comfort and the security of knowing they are safe. And yes, we should lie to them, they are new to the world and we want it to be magical for them and we want to fill them with confidence. They have got the rest of their lives to learn about all the bad stuff, and if they are fortunate, they can learn wisely, bit by bit as they try to make sense of all that is around them.

      All those involved in the abduction story have taken our greatest childhood fear (the bogey-man)and made it real and highly likely. All previous generations have reached that 'your fooling no-one' stage with their parents, but with the Maddie generation, it's the first thing that comes up on Google.

      Small children need to be constantly reassured that they are safe, especially if they have 'wild' imaginations. When my own children were small, part of their nightly routine before going off to sleep was to say the 'God Blesses'. That is, 'God bless mummy, God Bless Daddy, God Bless Grandand, Nan etc. It wasn't until the little sods started God Blessing every named member of their class (even the ones they hated)AND their pets, that I realised it was a ruse to stay up longer! Doh!

      There are many aspects of this case that I loathe, but manipulating people to live in fear is one of the worst. What the feck is so scary out there? There is more chance that you will win the lottery than have your child abducted. This 'because it happened once' rule, means we should usher in new laws is pure insanity.

      It's like those crazy people who protest that a film or a book, or a record (Marilyn Manson), because ONE psychopath goes off on a killing spree. They fail to take into consideration the other 50million who didn't.

      I think it is tragic that our kids are now virtually imprisoned within their homes, their entire lives 'watched over' by mum, dad or responsible adult. They are missing out on everything that we in 50's and 60's thrived one. The joys of going out to play.

      I feel so sorry for parents living with this constant terror. I wasn't immune, I remember how gut wrenching it was to 'let go' with my own kids. At what age can they walk to school again, if ever, these days. At what age can they go to the park alone, again if ever. Their lives are run around organised events that they are driven to and collected from.

      Is it really so dangerous out there? So dangerous that isolation, obesity and repetitive strain injury is the safer option? Unfortunately, there is no way of getting the statistics into perspective because they are flawed by the overwhelming reaction when an horrific crime occurs.

      Happily, the reality is, that these evil monsters are few and far between and if there are enough whistle blowers out there, and enough dedicated police, they can, to a certain extent, be controlled.

      Sadly, there will always be ones who 'slip through the net', but there is no realistic way of preventing this. Just as our world throws up geniuses, it throws up lunatics.