Tuesday, 24 May 2016


Note:  No witnesses took part in this reconstruction.
I got told off on twitter the other day because my last blog promotes the neglect theory and by a process of deduction, it means I support the parents.  Apparently 'we all know' the neglect was an alibi to enable the abduction.  I pointed out that I'm not actually in the 'we all know' gang and never have been. It seems I am not a truthseeker because I do not accept the party line - there was no neglectA bit rich considering I have spent over 8 years battling this injustice in my own name and taken all the abuse that went with it, including over 100 pages of mentions in the notorious 'Death Dossier'.  Ce la vie. 

Twitter spat over, let's look at the 'neglect' issue and some of the barmy theories that surround it.  Loathe as I am to mention the outside interests of the prominent Maddie theorists, for those new to this case, it could save them hours of being led up the garden path, and possibly 20+ quid for the videos.    

Many are being introduced to this case via Richard D. Hall documentaries.  This is unfortunate because not only have they had to sit through 4+ hours of tedium, they may well have gone on to read copious volumes of Thus Spake Tony Bennett.  For all of that, they have my sympathy, at least the lawyers at Carter Ruck got paid by the hour. 

Before taking the works of Richard D. Hall too seriously, I suggest viewers look at his other main area of interest: Aliens.  As for the verbose preacher and creationist, a quick glance at Tony Bennett's Wiki page should tell you all you need to know.  His rightful place is on an orange box at Speakers Corner, but as he probably has no listeners there either and may well be barred, he has brought his deranged rantings to the Madeleine case. This has suited the machinations of Kate, Gerry and Team McCann, because it gave them an enemy who was bound to drive legions to their side.  If you believe God made the earth in 7 days, and in living a clean life of chastity and temperance, then Tony's yer man, and to be fair, you're probably beyond help anyway.   

The authoritative way in which the documentaries are presented give the impression that its' creators have some sort of insider or specialist knowledge about the disappearance of Madeleine McCann.  They don't.  They have the same information as the rest of the general public, ie. the 9 year old Portuguese files.  From these they have concocted stories that come purely from what they personally are projecting. 

Are there really paedophile gangs and swingers everywhere? Approaching the grand old age of 59, it's not something I have ever come across, in any environment (outside of the convent), and I have lived a far from sheltered life.  Could this group of doctors be deviant enough to take their kids and mother in law on a sex holiday?  Who thinks like that?  The problem is, they have had 9 years to chat among themselves and a simple accident just isn't enough. 

Unfortunately, in order to make the facts fit their theories, they have accused a large number of independent witnesses of lying.  And in order to support these accusations, they have pried into their personal lives  of these witnesses in order to smear and discredit them.  Richard Hall and Tony Bennett for example, continue to accuse Robert Murat (the first suspect), despite the fact that the PJ really did clear him, that is, they were pursuing the McCanns, not Murat, when Goncalo Amaral was removed from the investigation.  What Hall and Bennett are doing is despicable, they are literally hounding him. 

In order to give their on sale documentaries a beginning, middle and end, these armchair detectives claim to have solved the mystery.  At the moment, given the interests of the producer, the hot tip is aliens, which is well worth a fiver each way.  I've never been able to sit through them, so I have no idea where he is going. 

Those claiming 'no neglect', really haven't paid very much attention to the characters of the tapas group.  They all had high flying careers and they were all very competitive, they spent their days running and playing tennis.  For many professional, middle class women, childcare is seen as menial.  You can see from their statements, that there were no mother hens within the group, even Fiona Payne's mother preferred to play tennis than look after her grandchildren.  They were all 'right on' women, determined to have as much freedom on that holiday as their husbands.  The men meanwhile, were jockeying for the position of alpha male, as illustrated by Gerry in that short bus clip.  Seriously, does anyone see Gerry staying in to look after all the kids while the others went out to dinner?  

Apart from the arrogance of the group, no adult in their right mind would take responsibility for 9 babies and toddlers spread out in different apartments or all in one room.  What if one kicked off?  What if they all did?  Kate couldn't cope with 3!  The idea is far more chaotic than using the night crèche.

The statements show that some of the adults suffered sickness and diarrhea and stayed in their apartments and this is the thrust of the 'no neglect' argument.  Most of us know that dicky tums are part and parcel of going away.  The tapas groups speak freely about the babies having diarrhea and vomiting and Russell had to stay in to change his daughters sheets etc.  I have no doubt the children were unwell, which makes the decision to leave them alone all the more horrifying.  So if the kids had dicky tums, the adults probably did too. Rachel says she was in her apartment on the Tuesday night.  This is the night Mrs Fenn hear a young child crying in Apartment 5A for 1.4 hours.  If Rachel was looking after all the children, she wasn't doing a very good job of it.

In May 2007, what the tapas friends feared the most was criminal charges of child endangerment, child abandonment and child neglect.  Charges that would not only bring them public shame, but that would end their medical careers.  The Portuguese Authorities could well have seized ALL the tapas children and placed them in care.  Understandably, they were all frantic and on their mobile phones all night.  And to those who say Maddie died earlier in the week, why did they leave all their phones calls to the night of the abduction?  Especially as they could have made untold phone calls in the days leading up to that night and ensured those calls couldn't be traced.  
There is no greater criminal charge for up and coming medical professionals than child endangerment.  Unless you go into the 'perv' areas as discussed elsewhere, what could be worse?  So why on earth would 4 doctors confess to crimes they did not commit?  And they do not acknowledge they committed any crime in leaving those children on their own.  They have been justifying the checking since night one.  Their defence to any child neglect charges has been in place since the very beginning, because those were the charges they feared.

The reason Kate and Gerry fail to acknowledge that they did anything wrong, is because it would make them culpable for child neglect (at the very least) and it would be used against them in a Court.  They have lessened the neglect charges, by changing their actions from the reckless (or even wicked and premeditated) act of abandoning their babies, into an honest mistake anyone could have made, and naivety at worst. Kudos to them, it has been their greatest success.

Imagine that group of parents going out to dinner each night and leaving their babies alone and vulnerable would send a shiver down any caring adult's spine, which is why it is so difficult to accept.  However, instead of spending hours, studying phone records, timelines and graphs, I suggest those searching for the truth, skip the tedium and read the statements of the Tapas group.  The characters that come through in those statements will tell you all you need to know.  Sometimes a cup is just a cup.  




  1. Just look at the T7 line up - hardly what you would call young and irresponsible. A rather strange group to actually consider any wrong doing. Conservative, middle of the road, mature, professionals.

    So what went wrong?

    I have only one lasting thought on this saga, apart from a child from 5A crying for over an hour.

    Explain to me, how this lot went to bed? May be they didn't sleep - who knows. But why didn't they organise themselves to be out & about, available, after all there are nine of them. They could have 'rested' in shifts.

    As hard as it is to believe that these people left their children, night after night it's equally hard to believe their subsequent actions.

    Who knows? How many police investigations & reviews. How many private investigators. How much public awareness and lastly £12m+ MET investigation. And still nothing. OK the MET and the Portuguese still have balls in the air, and that is exactly where they are IN THE AIR.

    You certainly are right about the twist in the tail over the issues of leaving the children.

    1. 'balls in the air.'

      Swinging theory again?

  2. The 'no neglect' idea did not originate with either RD Hall or Tony Bennett, but with the PJ's Paulo Rebelo, who replaced Goncalo Amaral as co-ordinator of the investigation:


    1. At 22.45 you made a statement of fact about where ""the claim" originated.
      You were challenged on the evidence for your claim and it is clear from your replies that you had no such evidence.

      Instead of withdrawing your unfounded assertion you have wriggled and attempted to avoid accepting that your claim had no factual basis.

      Pretty much par for the course.

  3. I understood the 'no neglect' theory came from Textusa and HideHo. Are you saying it was part of the official investigation? If so, it is news to me.

  4. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LETTER_KATE_MCCANN.htm
    Now under Paulo Rebelo's watch, it was leaked through a Portuguese newspaper seven children were together, no mention of the eighth child...all of the tapas had lied about neglect. Kate McCann, inside of two months wrote to Paulo Rebelo asking for him to 'share' information.

  5. There is no evidence whatsoever that Rebelo believed the children were all in the one room.

    This nonsense started with an article in the Sun on October 9th before Rebelo took up his duties on the 12th October 2007. His appointment confirmed late Monday 8th October 07.

    What is wrong with people? Believing idiots and fantastists like Hall and Bennett and now Sun reporters but dismissing the PJ Files and anything by GA as lies.

    GA was there and knows more than we do.

    If anyone has direct evidence of Rebelo, please produce it, if not, why keep writing total rubbish
    and perpetuating myths long since discredited.

    1. It's shame when myths daft theories perpetuated best to stick to files and rational ideas only then important theories emerge from the facts imo. Se

    2. It's shame when myths daft theories perpetuated best to stick to files and rational ideas only then important theories emerge from the facts imo. Se

  6. JJ @10:05

    "This nonsense started with an article in the Sun on October 9th before Rebelo took up his duties on the 12th October 2007. His appointment confirmed late Monday 8th October 07."

    Perhaps you'd rather read a Guardian report?


    "The Portuguese police force overseeing the hunt for Madeleine McCann last night placed one of its deputy national directors in charge of the investigation, following the dismissal of the previous chief investigator and the departure of his second in command.

    "Paulo Rebelo, based in Lisbon, takes immediate command of the inquiry"

    Notice the phrase 'immediate command' (with effect from the 8th btw.) which accords with use of the past tense in the SUN (on line) article of the 10th.

    1. Anon 11.09

      Do you have any evidence other than tittle tattle newspaper reports?

      The answer is no.

      Do you seriously expect us to believe that Rebelo was given command late on Monday evening in Lisbon and gave an update to the Guardian on Tuesday morning, without flying to the PDL area and consulting the PJ on the ground, or reading the case notes.

      The newspapers made the story up as per usual. Can you produce evidence that Rebelo said the children were all in the same room, from a reliable source, not newspaper crap.

      Is that so difficult to do?

    2. I couldn't agree more JJ. How many times does it need to be said: a media article or piece is a conduit, not a source. Why can't people understand and accept this, which is a rule, not an opinion?

      People also have the misguided belief that if a number of articles carry the same info then it is more likely to be true. Not at all: it means they derive from a common source - which must be traced and validated before it has any worth.

      Still, most of us know by now that anyone who quotes newspaper articles as sources is either so ignorant of the rules of truth establishment that they aren't worth reading or they are trying to buttress an untrue claim.

    3. JJ/John Blacksmith

      That's that then.

      "There is no evidence whatsoever that Rebelo believed the children were all in the one room."

      And the 'police sources' who first fed the story to 24 Horas (the common denominator for UK media spin-offs) were speaking out of turn, if indeed they said anything at all, so ultimately we are left with a disreputable Portuguese tabloid's interpretation of investigators' thoughts on the matter.

      "The newspapers made the story up as per usual."

      And yet McCann spokesperson, Clarence Mitchell, did not deny the reports. His observation about getting seven kids to sleep is as much a genuine denial as announcing that tea tastes sweeter when you add sugar.

      Nor did he think to accuse Hall, Bennett, Textusa, Hi-de-Ho and whoever else of starting the rumour.

      "Believing idiots and fantasists like Hall and Bennett and now Sun reporters but dismissing the PJ Files and anything by GA as lies."

      Whereabouts do such irrelevant, provocative, unfounded accusations feature among the rules of 'truth establishment' btw.?

    4. Anon 18:24

      Calling Hall and Bennett idiots and fantasists is not provocative or unfounded.

      It is a fact.

      They lie, deceive, misinform and speculate again and again.

      If you believe them, then you are gullible.

      In Halls video, Buried by mainstream Media Part 4' around 50 minutes, Hall states the 3 tapas who identified RM outside 5a, all changed their minds by the end of 2007.
      Bennett also repeats this nonsense again and again.

      Check for yourself and then tell us how do you account for FP&RO confirming their ID of RM in April 2008 in rogatory statements to the Leics Police.

      These statements are in the PJ Files for you to read, but fools like yourself prefer the lies of Bennett/Hall to the PJ's official record.

      It is of course your right to believe the lies of Bennett and Hall but please do not insult the intelligence of people who can read

      This is just one example of their stupidity there are many more.

      If Hall\Bennett cannot get basic facts right why do you support them?

    5. JJ @20:20

      "...please do not insult the intelligence of people who can read"

      You're quite safe.

      "..fools like yourself prefer the lies of Bennett/Hall to the PJ's official record."

      And you base that equally unprovocative comment on...?

      The title of the above essay is 'What is Worse Than Neglect?' although few would think so reading these comments, and just as few reading the essay itself for that matter, unless you believe slagging of Hall and Bennett at every opportunity is conducive to constructive discussion. I don't.

      I get no sense of their relevance to the issue of 'neglect' from the essay itself and even less from your acerbic criticism of their statements concerning matters besides. That does not make me a 'supporter' of anyone, except, it seems, in your own volatile mind.

    6. Oh dear! 20.20 is rattled!

      How dare anyone insult the intelligence of the mutual fan club gathered here.

      Perhaps,one day we too can dream of reaching the intellectual capacity of this elite, moral and above all, correct group?

    7. Keep dreaming 00:31, you've got a long way to go.

  7. cristobell I'm sorry I don't think you are right on this one. I have read the statements and you are correct they tried as best they could to minimise the danger they put the children in but the story of neglect was already out there at the time. They couldn't very well say you know what guys we were all telling lies we didn't leave the kids alone. What people were looking to know when that story broke was is this the first time they were left alone. If the answer was yes then it greatly increased the suspicion on them. The story that it happened 5 nights in a row dispelled those suspicions to an extent. The tapas 7 obliged immediately by admitting they had left them all week. If they had no alternative motive why not just say that this was the first night and minimise it in ways such as we just popped down to the bar or we had a quick bite and ran again while our partner stayed with the kids. Doing that however would not serve the alternative objective which was to allow room for the abduction to take place

    1. No problems if you don't agree with me 12:25, I welcome alternate views and theories. Whilst I still think anything is possible with this case, the 'no neglect theory' just doesn't gel for me.

      The argument 'no neglect, no abduction' doesn't give much of a window for an abduction to have taken place. Less than 6 minutes iirc. Ergo if they faked the neglect to allow time for an abduction to take place, they were cutting it pretty tight. Some might argue there was no window of opportunity at all. Gerry was outside the apartment talking to Jez and Jane Tanner was walking up towards the car park.

    2. We will agree to disagree cristobell but you do make some good points

  8. Just out of curiosity, does anybody know what Richard D. Hall made of the big flock of sheep which went missing?

    1. They've taken them!

      Who, Richard, who?

      Why, the aliens, of course...stupid.

  9. I don't know where I sit on this issue to be honest. I think I must go down the path of homealone, in it's pure and simple form, this is because, mostly of Mrs Fenn's statement. Equally, the rather strange story KM tells of Madeleine, where were you when we cried etc - which I'm convinced refers to the same night i.e. Tuesday, though Madeleine only spoke of it on the Thursday morning of the day she disappeared & infers the previous night (Wednesday). Children have no concept of time, day, yesterday, this day or that - it's when the remember it.

    Again, along the road of myths the children were only allegedly left for four nights, Mon, Tues, Wed & Thursday, my understanding is they all dined in the Millennium on the Sunday, but IMHO one evening is, one too many!

    Again drawing on Mrs Fenn's statement, she heard the patio doors. As we know they can only been locked from inside, this provides strong enough evidence to me, that they were actually left unlocked.

    Hall's videos I thought were faultless, it's just the wrong conclusions. I could hardly ever find an error in his assimilation of the information. He's got all the right numbers, he has just go the wrong total as the answer - but then, WHO HAS THE RIGHT ONE?

    1. Unfortunately all, the research for Hall's videos began with confirmation bias. He and his chief researcher already had their conclusions, all they had to do was trim and distort the facts to fit. That's why he will never reach the right answer.

      As for who has the right one? My personal philosophy has been to stick with the theory of Goncalo Amaral and the alerts of the dogs. If anyone wanders away from those two direct sources, I simply stop reading!

  10. Glad you've sorted that one Cristobell.

    Everybody else's theories are ridiculous and you as usual are right, following the McCann mantra to the letter.

    Perhaps you can explain, if it was a simple case of neglect followed by accident, how the Mccanns managed to rally the might of the British govt and embassy forces behind them within 24 hrs?

    Never mind, it has given you another opportunity to belittle and denigrate those you still seem obsessed with.

    The only known fact is that there are no known certainties regarding Madeleine's disappearance and death and until such time as, hopefully all is made clear, any theory is as good as the next. Trying to insinuate Hall is a crackpot alien chaser and Bennett is a bible bashing freak just demonstrates how malicious you are.

    IF people wish to buy videos, read other blogs or agree with other theories who are you state you can save them time and money because your blog is the one stop shop regarding all things McCann?

    1. 00:26. I love the 'who are you' statement, it opens up all sorts of possibilities for navel gazing, but I'll spare you. Suffice to say, I am writer who has spent a lifetime studying human behaviour in my attempts to discover what it is that makes people evil. My bipolar is obvious, my OCD, perhaps not so much, but it is the OCD that has driven me to analyse every angle of this case with the same determination as Dr. Frankenstein in his workshop of filthy creation. Anyone with an English A-level will understand the reference, lol.

      I have studied this case in depth for 9 years, from an academic perspective and with an open mind. In the beginning I went to extraordinary lengths to find evidence to support the abduction. I didn't want to believe the McCanns were involved.

      I have left no stone unturned in my quest to discover what happened to Madeleine, but I still wouldn't claim that I know the answer. I wouldn't be so presumptuous - I continue to seek enlightenment, I don't claim I'm already there.

      As for belittling and denigrating, they deserve to be belittled and denigrated, they are trying to make a quick buck, and their tactics are despicable. Who are THEY to research and investigate witnesses who's names they picked out from the police files?

      Not only are they researching and investigating these witnesses, they are publishing and broadcasting their 'findings', as if they were worthy and credible. They are literally putting innocent people on public trial - and handing them the verdict. That's not what documentary making is about, and the reason Hall's videos have a very niche audience.

      In order to make the facts fit their theories, they are accusing (and naming) the nannies and staff at Warners of being complicit. And the malicious way in which they have targeted that nice family from Ireland and Robert Murat, should see them face criminal charges. It's not just libel, it is incitement to hate.

      I will challenge all and any lies in this case 00:26, no matter which camp they come from. People who have an interest in this case are searching for the truth. Whilst stories of swinging and paedo groups might spice it up, it won't provide them with the answers.

      They also detract from the real issues and injustices that lie at the heart of this cover up. The involvement of the incumbent government and CEOP for example, the threat to our Freedoms of Speech and Information. The persecution of a decent cop who was only doing his job, and last but not least, the horrendous end of that little girl's life and the vulture like way that her name has been seized by the unscrupulous for power and money.

      Having waded through the nonsense of the good ship Hall and Bennett, it would be inhumane of me NOT to point out to potential viewers they will never get those 4+ hours back and may well find themselves up to the necks in sewage.

    2. Rosalinda @11:12

      "Having waded through the nonsense of the good ship Hall and Bennett"

      Like MacBeth d'you mean? ('Anyone with an English A-level will understand the reference, lol.')

      Your essay, paragraph 8:

      "In order to give their on sale documentaries a beginning, middle and end, these armchair detectives claim to have solved the mystery... I've never been able to sit through them, so I have no idea where he is going."

    3. I stuck with them long enough to see that he was bending over backwards to implicate Robert Murat and slander the Smith family. But to be fair, he lost me at the beginning when got Mr. Smith's name wrong.

    4. Rosalinda @00:06

      "I stuck with them long enough...But...he lost me at the beginning..."


    5. Rosalinda @11.12

      So your 'academic studio's & 'lifetime studying human behaviour' makes you the singular expert?

      I'll say it again, who are you (despite your self proclaimed expertise) to tell anyone not to consider any theory alternative to your obviously correct one?

      BTW, you omitted to respond in respect of the backing garnered by McCann & McCann? Anytime you're ready Roz.

    6. 11:12 Having spent 9 years studying this case in depth, I do consider my an expert. A degree only takes 3 years.

      The advice I am giving, is advice I would have greatly appreciated myself, when I entered this murky McCann world. Not only would it have saved me a lot of tedious reading, it would have opened my eyes to the malevolent nature of so many who have attached themselves to this case. I have had to learn the hard way, ergo, I am passing my experience on as a warning to others.

      As for the backing garnered by the McCanns. Between Kate, Gerry and their friends, they have a lot of useful contacts, and they spend the night calling in favours.

      On top of which, Madeleine was the kind of poster child, child protection and missing people charities can only dream of. Everyone, and there were many, who saw a fast buck in this sensational was on a plane to PDL before breakfast Remember, the answer to every question, is money.

      In the early days, Madeleine's cause was a popular bandwagon, and politicians do what politicians do, they hop on board. Who remembers Tony Blair pretending he watched Coronation Street?

      There are perfectly logical explanations as to why the Establishment got behind Kate and Gerry, perhaps if you watched a few episodes of Armando Ianucci's brilliant 'The Thick of It', you might get some understanding of how politics work.

      So how do you think the McCanns got all the assistance they did?

  11. Has anybody a single shred of evidence that Rebelo believed the children were all in the same room.

    The answer is no.

    Hall and Bennett would like us to believe its all a giant conspiracy and only they know the truth and in secret meetings in November/December 07, members of the tapas group, all withdrew their id of RM.

    All singing from the same hymn sheet as Hall puts it in his film.

    But it is not true is it.

    Hall/Bennett made it up. Can you not read the PJ files or are people just thick?

    Bennett/Hall are not suggesting scenarios they are deliberately distorting the truth.

    What is their incentive.

    I see today the mob on CMOMM are urging Hall to investigate Mrs Gaspar and are proudly boasting, "we know where she works".

    Unquestioning followers of Bennett and Hall are truly sick people, it is no wonder they are considered trolls and nutters.
    Suggesting different theories is fine but they lie and twist the evidence and their supporters egg them on to stalk and harass witnesses.

    How can this be justified?

    1. Where is Bennett?
      I don't see him posting anywhere.

    2. Hi JJ, I am so glad that you can see the true nastiness behind it all as much as I can!

      I truly do hope Bennett and Hall face criminal charges when this case come to a conclusion. They are acting like 'trolls' in the true sense of the word. They are stalking and harassing witness and libelling them continually on their forum and in Hall's videos.

      These are not people seeking justice, they are seeking to pervert justice in order to cash in on the global phenomenon this case has become. They want to be first past the post and they want to steal the money making name of Madeleine for THEIR Foundation and their 'cause'. What does Bennett intend to do with his pompous sounding 'Madeleine Foundation'? And he has a history of 'Trusts' and 'Foundations' - check out his Wiki page.

    3. 22:36 You are right, there doesn't seem to have been any sign of him for several days now. Perhaps he has been picked up by MI5 (or is it 6?), he thinks Clarence is a secret agent and everyone's after him, so who knows.

  12. It is a few years since I last studied the police files in depth, so please correct me if wrong, but isn't it the case that quite a lot of the phone calls and texts they made that night were physically deleted from their phones and only showed up when examining the mobile providers phone records?

    If so, that is one aspect as a parent myself I struggle to understand. Yes I would doubtless make hundreds of phone calls and texts myself that night, but why then go to the effort of going through them all deleting certain ones.

    Have the Tapas group ever come up with an explanation as to why they deleted them?

    Oh and the other aspect as a parent I really struggled with was seeing them going jogging and playing tennis in the days following. WHY would you do that???

    1. There are definite discrepancies between the calls on their phones and the calls picked up by the towers. In the rogatory interviews, the tapas group were squirming during the long interrogations about their phone calls.

      Unfortunately Gerry and Kate were on a European tour promoting Amber Alert when the Portuguese Detectives came to England for the rogatory statements, so we don't know what his response was, or if he was even questioned about the deleted phone calls. I don't think he was, but I stand to be corrected.

      The phone business is curious on many levels. You could have knocked me down with a feather when I read that David Payne had new mobile PAYG phones delivered to all the tapas group at the police station. Talk about in plain sight, wtf?

      I don't know that I would have been on the phone all night to be honest. I try not to bother people with my troubles unless it is absolutely necessary, and I have no other option. But that may be just me, and apparently it is very annoying to those love me (yes, there are some, lol). My philosophy is, why make them worry too? When Kate and Gerry were phoning their parents and family, there was still a good chance that Madeleine would be found. The 'abductor' seen by Jane was on foot. At 10.00pm they were still within the golden hour, Madeleine could have been dumped (alive)anywhere within the vicinity. My first reaction would be to get outside and search for her with my own bare hands, nothing would have stopped me. But, that probably goes for all of us.

      The jogging and tennis was bizarre, and in matching outfits! They were continuing with their holiday as if there had only been a minor blip! I am still flabbergasted that Clarence Mitchell spent two months out there as a government employee!

      As for the all the freeloaders who went out to join them - again, I am speechless. Especially as there is little sign of any of them now that the tide has turned and the donations have stopped flooding in. With family and friends like that, you can kind of understand how Gerry and Kate turned out as they did. Their lifelong insecurity appears to be justified.

  13. Hi Bell, hope all is good with you xxx
    I read all your blogs, and so much does make a lot of sense, but my own, very personal opinion (!!!) is that the poor child's 'disappearance' was all arranged before they even went on holiday!

    From what I have read, Kate was forever complaining about how 'difficult' poor Madeleine was, and if I am correct, after the twins were born, the poor child was sent of to her grandparents for Christmas, to make things 'easier' for the poor, exhausted Kate!

    Also, again if I remember correctly, didn't one of the friends say something to Gerry about him looking forward to the holiday, to which Gerry replied he wasn't going on holiday to 'enjoy himself' - eh???????
    And again (yehh I know you shouldn't begin a sentence with 'and' lolol)I found it extremely suspicious that the word 'abduction' was yelled from the rooftops, before anyone had (seemingly) even bothered to try to see if the poor little mite had wandered off! Kate was immediately on to her journalist friend, claiming abudction before any other alternative was even contemplated!

    Also, apparently Kate said 'they have taken her'!!!!! Errr - who, and why say that before any other explanation was considered? Did Kate know this plan was in place, but in her heart maybe didn't REALLY believe it was going to happen???! Then all the cleaning etc., was that just to create a 'red herring' - yehh it would perhaps point the finger at them - a little, but all that was soon dismissed. Whether Gerry actually participated in the disappearance himself I don't know, but his, and Kate's behaviour and attitude afterwards, sorry - but imo it simply wasn't 'normal'. Surely to goodness, and parent whose child had gone missing, and according to them, been abducted, the last thing they would do would be to place their two remaining children into the creche!! Oh they claimed they wanted things to stay as normal as possible for the twins, sorry but bullshit, if the 'abduction' was random then it could quite easily have been someone who worked in the creshe fgs!!! But naaahhh, into the creche they went, whilst Gerry and Kate went jogging and enjoying picnics on the beach!!!!

    I may be completely and totally wrong, but when reading and looking at all that ensued immediately after Madeleine's disappearance, imo the possibility that it was all pre-planned does feel quite logical!

    And Gerry's remark about being a 'proper' family now!!!!!!!!! Bloody'ell!!!!! Perhaps Madeleine in some respects was a 'difficult' child, most are - and yes, having twins can't have been easy, but hell, the pair of them are well paid Drs., I am sure they could have easily employed help if necessary. My gut feeling is Madeleine was surplus to requirements tbh!

    I would be very happy to be wrong about everything, and to eventually find out that the parents had absolutely nothing to do with that poor child's disappearance, and I sincerely hope the truth DOES come out one day!

    1. Hi Cristobell, just a small but important point. You quote 9 children and babies. There are only 8 in total. The Mccanns had 3, Jane Tanner - 2, The Oldfields -1 and the Paynes - 2.

    2. Hi Jo, we haver never got away from this blooming case have we, lol.

      I think Madeleine probably was a difficult child, but for me it is too big a leap to think anything was premeditated. But I know some do think that way, including of course Dr. Ludke, who gave a very grim interpretation of what he thought happened. Given his expertise, I would not dismiss his theory - I would love to know what he thinks now.

      Lovely to see the 'old' names appear Jo, when this is over we will all have to meet up for a drink or a real life 'ball'. Kindest wishes to you Jo :) x

    3. Many thanks 15:29, I was in 'the zone' when typing and had meant to check and return to it. Much appreciated, ta. :)

  14. You really are just skating round the issues Cristobel.You ask the question, 'What is worse than neglect?' and then completely fail to address it.
    I DO believe they left their children alone at night but with the doors locked and occasional checks. The locked doors only became a problem when they had to make a case for an 'abduction.' The real question is why did Madeleine's body have to disappear? What did it show that worried them so much? Children have accidents all the time , sometimes fatally but parents don't feel the need to hide the bodies. Any accident that happened could have been explained away in some way without incriminating the parents .................as I say, children unfortunately ARE prone to accidents. What was so awful about the poor Madeleine's body that they had to lie , lie and lie some more? The accusation of neglect was preferable to what exactly?

    1. But I did answer it 19:10, 'worse than neglect', is the pervy stuff discussed elsewhere - the swinging and the paedophile rings, the deviant sex.

      A good reason for not giving up the body could be that drug use would have shown up in an autopsy. Doctors drugging their children in order to go out to dinner is not only totally unethical, it may well amount to manslaughter. That a child died as a result of their collective decision to sedate and neglect the children, would see all the Doctors struck off, and more likely than not, a prison sentence for child endangerment. There is no need to fabricate elaborate stories involving everyone from Robert Murat to James Bond, neglect and sedation is more than enough reason for the tapas group to lie.

      If all the doctors were drugging their children, it would explain why they have stuck so rigidly to their pact. It may even account for the lack of Madeleine's DNA in the apartment, hairbrush especially. The entire length of a strand of hair gives a history of the donor's drug use, identifying both the drugs used and when they were taken. I know these hair tests are used regularly in child protection to ensure the parents are drug free when contact is arranged. There is no way to get around them. Kate offered samples of the twins hair AFTER they had a haircut, but she is fortunate they did not take it up. Unless she shaved their heads, the drugs would still show up.

      And I agree, neglect was preferable to what? There really isn't much worse (without going into a whole 'Silence of the Lambs' scenario)than sedating their children and leaving them on their own, resulting in one child's tragic death? If that can be proved, it's game over.

      There is also the possibly that there was trauma to the body. Injuries that were not consistent with an accident. Kate's hands and arms were covered in bruises. Some might say they look like restraining injuries. In her book Madeleine, Kate speaks quite freely about her violent temper, without any self awareness, she describes how she punched walls, smashed her arms on the rails and kicked a bed so hard she broke it. This is abnormal, and frankly, quite frightening behaviour from a mature woman with the care of of 3 lively toddlers. Gerry too, is quick to anger, we have witnessed him 'lose it' in several interviews. Whether he was justified or not, it shows little self control from a mature man. That he threw himself on the ground, kicking and screaming, is just bizarre.

      As you say, had it been a simple accident, an ambulance could have been called.

    2. @ ros midnight.

      Wow how many myths and lies can you make up in one post.

      Desperate to come up with any unproven theory as long as it slags off the McCann's.

      Maybe you should stick to what you said earlier - amarals theory works for you and you won't listen to anything else.

  15. I wonder if the 'crying incident' which had to be aired by the McCanns for some ulterior motive is an attempt to discredit any accusations of sedating the children each night. After all a sedated child would not be awake of a
    night .
    I can't honestly believe that someone who had chosen the path of medicine would have such a violent uncontrollable temper. Years of study take a particular type of calm dedicated personality. I know there are exceptions but to me this little snippet of Kate's was more likely her way of explaining the heavy bruising on her wrists. She punched the walls according to Fiona but punching walls doesn't bruise your wrists.

    1. Know anything about mental mechanisms?

      This saga is a classic text book example of them. For example remember the ''Wider agenda'' presentation - yes ROFL - but it's INTELLECTUALIZATION

      The crying episode was a story retold, since someone did have some conscience, so you share the 'thought' you know how it goes a burden shared is a burden halved. Let's call it RATIONALIZATION. As the prick of conscience was witnessed & in the statements it must have taken place. We could hardly attribute this one to PROJECTION\RATIONALIZATION or whatever, but we can identify with it.

      PROJECTION must be saved for the THEY DID IT, the abductor.

      Now you can safely go to bed - and your conscience salved.

      The whole saga is like two copies of the same jigsaw puzzle that was dropped on the floor and put back in the boxes without checking or counting, too many pieces in one, not enough in another! And when two pieces are identical for some reason still don't fit. The METs job IMHO was to sort the pieces out & fit them together ............ emmm four years later! they are still looking for the picture on the box. ;)

  16. It was definitely an explanation for the bruising 09:17, but I don't for one second doubt Kate or even Gerry's hysterical behaviour. Educated people are not necessarily emotionally mature. I once worked in the office of a batshit crazy female lawyer who literally threw herself on the floor and tore her hair out in rage if she couldn't get what she wanted - it was quite bizarre.

    Kate's belligerent personality is obvious in her interviews, she struggles to suppress her sneers and her outrage when she is asked an awkward question. The mask can slip in a nanosecond, especially when she is being interviewed by Sandra Felgueires!

  17. I see Natasha Donn is quoting textusa in the Portugal Resident.

    It really is not hard to see how many thousands of rubbish media "articles" have come about through incestuous dealings of groups of people with an agenda against the McCann's.

  18. Ros you say: "'worse than neglect', is the pervy stuff discussed elsewhere - the swinging and the paedophile rings, the deviant sex."
    In which video has Hall mentioned swinging? Or where has Bennett done that?
    If you want to criticise Textusa why mix oranges with apples and bring them in?

    1. Anon 15:59

      In 2010 when Bennett was 'investigating' Robert Murat in one of his drafts of arguido to applause, Bennett wrote
      "I am aware of some case histories where 'swingers' have indeed gone on to take an interest in sex with young children, or to put it another way, amongst 100 'swingers' you might find one or two paedophiles lurking secretly amongst them".

      I hope this improves your knowledge of Mr Bennett. If you require any more information regarding the "research" of Bennett or Hall, please let me know, it's all rotten fruit they espouse.

    2. What a strange world Mr. Bennett inhabits JJ. He leads a chaste, temperate life, scorns popular culture and attends church regularly, yet somehow the deviant sex of others permeates his life to such a troubling degree.

      I, on the other hand, have unashamedly led a hedonistic life of party drugs and promiscuity (not nearly enough)and I have never encountered anything of that disgusting nature. When the music is playing and the booze flowing, the last thing anyone wants is the distraction of irritating children! Has he never been to party?

      And it's not because everyone is trying to hump each other (though, must be said, some are, lol), it's because you cannot relax and enjoy yourself when there are kids around!

      Bennett must be thinking of the type of parties held at Elm House. But that is something entirely different. Those parties were attended by people who's reputations were built on their respectability, their church going and their public abstinence. Their tastes are entirely different to those of the hedonists. Those passing round the spliffs are usually pondering on the problems of the universe and having group hugs, whilst the pillars of the community, let's call them the sadists, are contemplating who to hurt next.

      The more information the better, as far as I am concerned JJ. I want to reach those thinking about taking out a subscription with the Madeleine Foundation, or purchasing 11 hours of speculative drivel.

      Bennett and Hall are meddling with the official investigation of this case. Worse, they are harassing and intimidating witnesses who will be crucial to any future trial. What they are doing is not dissimilar to the Mafia taking out witnesses before the Godfather faces a Jury. They are interfering with witnesses, and that is a criminal offence. Or it should be, because if it isn't Scotland Yard will have to put hundreds into a witness protection programme to keep stalkers like Bennett away from them.

    3. Rosalinda @10:32

      "you cannot relax and enjoy yourself when there are kids around!" (as Kate would confirm).

      Neglect? It's all within the bounds of normal hedonism really.

    4. Most hedonists organise responsible care for their children and they will pay whatever it costs. You can't party on down if you are worried about the kids.

  19. Surely even you Ros have to admit that some of the photographs on the Find Madeleine site are highly inappropriate. The ones where she is wearing make up and jewellery and looking like the most unhappy and the most unchildlike child I have ever seen are strange to say the least. These are NOT photographs of a child having FUN ( ? ) with the contents of her mum's make up bag and jewellery box. As A mum myself of three children I say no, no and no. Swinging I agree is just a distraction but the pervy stuff as you so succinctly put it, is a distinct possibility.

  20. Bennett i believe is in Spain with PeterMac and he is back today (groan groan)He has not been missed.

    1. Foly Huck. What a night out that must have been. It would be like going out on the piss with the Archbishop of Canterbury and Sir Robert Peel.

  21. @ anon 00.43

    Oh dear I hope they have not been having adult time together.