Sunday 4 October 2015

THE UNTOLD STORY OF MADELEINE MCCANN - UPDATE 14/10/15



https://youtu.be/bAxV59swCwg

http://www.theuntoldstoryofmadeleinemccann.com/ 

UPDATE;  14/10/15 
In response to interfering with the investigation and timing of Sonia's documentary.

When Sonia began her documentary, this case had been going on for 7 years and looked likely to be going on for another 7 more. Questions needed to be asked, it started the ball rolling.   

As an experienced and professional journalist, she understands the difference between investigating a story that is of public interest, and interfering with the due legal process. Sonia, unlike a few of the loons who have attached themselves to this case, has a bit of common sense!  And, like the rest of us, wants justice for the child and for Brenda Leyland, who is still, disrespectfully, being referred to as a troll. 
  
Unfortunately, the most prolific commentators on this case have no understanding of how the media world, or indeed, the real world, works.  They judge the media by their own 'high' principles and standards, that is 'don't talk to her, she is no better than she ought to be'. This of course shuts them into a cloistered little society with limited membership, lets face it, most of us wouldn't be good enough, lol.     

But back to the media.  The powers that be, whether they like it or not, are kept in check by public opinion.  We live in a democracy, if the public don't like you, you are going nowhere.  These How to Win Friends and Influence People wars are now being fought on social media.  Twitter and Facebook are the Cullodens and the Waterloos of the 21st Century, you live or die by your 140 character missiles. 
 
In the past, bad news, and negative publicity could be hidden by a sensational story that might drop in out of the blue, or one that could be manufactured out of something that has been lying around for 6 months. But this is not a lesson in media, lol, the role of the investigative journalist is to tackle injustice on the public's behalf  If it were not for the fact that the public DEMAND to be informed, then the powers that be would be able to get away with pretty much anything.  The first thing on any wannabe tyrant or despot's checklist, is censor the press.  Brave journalists like Sonia Poulton should be applauded, anyone remember Watergate?

In the case of missing Madeleine McCann, the public were asking why no-one had been prosecuted, and why the authorities could not see what they could.  The public had also witnessed so many clumsy and transparent attempts to shut them up, resulting in the death of an innocent woman, that serious questions were being asked, and the MSM were not listening!  And it wasn't just a few cranks in a seedy internet forum who were questioning the abduction story, it was thousands, thousands of ordinary people like Brenda Leyland. People who were not members of weird cults. 

Sonia took a huge leap, when she began making her documentary, she has been asking the questions we have all been asking for the last 8 years, and she has been asking the right people!  What she has done has been beyond courageous, as many of us have discovered asking the wrong questions can seriously affect your life and career!  This case has attracted some of the most malevolent creatures in our midst, people dedicated to destroying the lives and careers of others for the sheer pleasure of it. 

Is she in league with Murdoch?  Good heavens, presumably whilst not having drinks with James Bond, she is cavorting on the back of a horse with Rupert?   Sonia took a huge risk when she began her documentary, but she has survived, not only has she survived, but she remains as popular as ever and is welcomed on television as a commentator.  She has blown open the myth that the McCanns are untouchable and she has footage that will become all the more valuable when the walls go up - which they will.  

If a documentary, or indeed any factual program is to be successful, it has to be current and bang up to date.  And in this fast moving 'breaking news' age, it has to be fluid and adaptable right up until the moment of broadcast - the timing is crucial. Unfortunately, some have been in conspiracy mode for so long, that they can't see beyond their tin foil hats. 
 
  
We are all on tenterhooks at the moment, something appears to be happening - Operation Grange have a deadline.  Sonia has all the footage, and all the interviews and is ready to go! 
  









UPDATE 10/10/15 - MURDOCH SHILLS

I think Tony and CMoMM are struggling to find new aspects of this case to tear apart.  They have scrutinised every minute detail of the photographs, the shutters, Smithman etc to death, some several times over, and their minds are firmly set in conspiracy mode.  A cup stopped being just a cup for them many years ago.

What they singularly fail to do, every single time, however, is to ask the basic question, 'what would be the point?'.  Given the vast scale of this crime and the number of high powered people involved, where do they think Tony Bennett and CMoMM, or indeed any of us, fit into the bigger picture?

We are all of us, without exception, armchair detectives.  Our research, our opinions, and our conclusions are based on files that are now 8 years old.  The chances of any of us being called as witnesses for the defence or the prosecution are zilch, we are onlookers, no more, no less.  Nothing we say or do will have any relevance whatsoever in any future criminal trial. 
 
When the truth about Madeleine's disappearance is eventually revealed, the MSM will be going after the 'main' characters, those actively involved in the initial crime and the cover up.  Tony Bennett may see himself as a main player in the case, but he really isn't.  Other than giving the McCanns several sensational headlines over the years to support their victim status, Tony and all his research, will have no impact whatsoever on the eventual outcome of this case.  The publicity he has had so far served the purposes of the McCann PR campaign, a deeply unpleasant man victimising the family of a missing child. 

This case is much, much bigger, than Tony Bennett and the deluded people who support him, the public's interest lies with the disappearance of the little girl, not the strange people who have latched onto it.  Do they really believe that global media magnate Rupert Murdoch is devising cunning plans to entrap Tony Bennett and his cohorts? lol. 

Tony is not a major player in this case, his views only become relevant if the press need a sensational 'hater' headline to support the McCann's victim status. These articles are initiated by the McCann press department and given to 'friendly' journalists.  The Madeleine case is still of public interest, McCann stories sell.  Tony Bennett is the villain of the piece.  He is the leather clad thug with knuckle dusters, the bad guy tormenting the nice family, but he has had his day, his services are no longer required and he's been left more bitter, and more angry, than he was before. 

I have no idea what Mark Souster was after, maybe he did want to write an article critical of Tony Bennett, CMoMM and the 'antis' on his 'friend' Brian Kennedy's behalf, but I doubt it.  If Brian Kennedy was still supporting Kate and Gerry, I doubt they would look as haggard as they do, and I doubt they would be shifting money around in their accounts.  Equally, Mr. Souster has expressed his support for Goncalo Amaral, therefore his proposed article may have been an opportunity to spread the word about Goncalo's defence Fund.  As it is, we will never know. 

We have no idea what Mr.Souster's relationship with Brian Kennedy is, other than a shared love of Rugby, but once again, the creationists have taken a tiny bit of knowledge and filled in all the gaps for themselves, based on fear, paranoia and very immature imaginations.  They have decided Rupert Murdoch is out to get them (lol) and they have now holed themselves up in their bunker for another session of mutual back patting and discussions on their latest near miss.  Phew.  And Mr. Souster? If he wanted confirmation that a certain group of 'anti's' are a cult like coven of brain dead morons led by an evil, bible bashing fanatic, he now has it in bucketloads.     

As for Sonia and Mark Souster being paid 'Murdoch Shills' out to entrap the antis, I can barely type this for laughing.  Step aside Kate and Gerry, step aside Duchess of Cambridge, Syrian Refugees and Prime Ministers shagging pigs heads, we are holding all the Murdoch front pages for Tony Bennett! 

Addendum

It seems Mark Souster has now deleted his twitter account.  And who can blame him?  Bennett, and his little model army are out to destroy him, just as they set out to destroy Sonia Poulton.  They have trolled him relentlessly on twitter and these busy little researchers are working their socks off trying to find some 'dirt' on him.  His change of career direction is described by Bennett as a 'lust for money', the idea that he may have family to support hasn't of course, crossed Bennett's narrow little mind. 

The bigger question should be, why is Bennett out to destroy any journalist who asks questions about the McCann case?  Since the release of Sonia's trailer there has been much weeping, wailing and gnashing of teeth in the CMoMM forum, what is it they fear?  Why, all these years on, are the hard core that surround Bennett, so terrified that their real identities might be revealed? 

As I have said before, I don't think Bennett is in the McCann's employ.  He is too much of a loose cannon, and he personally wants the attention, he doesn't want to share it with anyone else.  For what it is worth, I think he truly does believe the whole world is out to get him. His paranoia and fear are a byproduct of reading the bible too literally and the comparisons he sees between his struggles and those of the good Lord. 'They know not what they do' he pleads, as the sane people nail him to the cross, or more accurately, ignore him completely.  

To Mark Souster I would say, don't let this very tiny band of malcontents affect your life in any way.  When they get bored with you, they will return to Smithman or Sonia, or myself, lol, although the subject of this week's 'research' seems to be your goodself, JillyC and Isabel McFadden. All, people who have dared to ask questions without their express approval and people who remember what the missing Madeleine case is actually about.  

Don't let them drive you off Twitter Mark, or allow them to influence you in any way.  The majority of people who follow this case know all about Tony Bennett and his nasty little gang of trolls, and they treat them with the contempt they deserve. No-one will judge you by what they say, a mere glimpse at their forum, gives the casual observer a good idea of what the ideology of that forum is. It is driven by an angry, bitter megalomaniac (most of the trolls are himself under different guises) who's attempts to head a massive cult movement have failed miserably (again).  People did not donate to his Madeleine Foundation as they did to the McCann's Fund, nor have they raised him shoulder high while singing his praises. Nor will they.  In a nutshell, they are a small band of misfits, terrified of their own shadows, who lurk in a tiny corner of the internet, despised by almost everyone.  Don't let them get you down.         

___________________________

Update

Regarding the door stepping issue, I think we need to get some perspective.  The only way to confront injustice head on is through door stepping and as investigative journalists traditionally go after those who are evading the law for whatever reason, it is an essential part of their role and long may it continue.    Stopping it doesn't protect the good guys it protects the bad guys.

Sky News were not implicated in the death of Brenda Leyland because they argued that their actions in door stepping Brenda and broadcasting the footage was in the public's interest.  Whether exposing a middle aged lady to hate and ridicule for discussing the high profile people involved a high profile criminal case, was in the public's interest is debateable.  Brenda wasn't conning the public nor was she a danger to anyone.

Kate and Gerry on the other hand are conning the public.  They have, since the very beginning, been appealing to everyone to 'join their search' for their daughter.  They have used every opportunity to remind us that Madeleine is still out there and still needs finding.  They have never given up and they will never give up.  As we speak they are preparing a new campaign by moving money around, in readiness for when Operation Grange give up.  They are finishers they are not going to be beaten by a group of cops (like Amaral), who they do not believe to be on the same intellectual and social level as themselves. 

If Kate and Gerry were selling a product that didn't exist, or that wasn't theirs to sell, they would quite rightly be prosecuted for obtaining money by deception.  They KNOW Maddie can't be found, their facial expressions give them away when, especially when asked about sightings. The McCann's are not talking a few little old ladies into having new driveways or double glazing, they are appealing to the whole world to keep looking for a child (who will never be found) and for cash donations to a fund that will never be used to find her.

The McCanns have left many victims in their wake.  They haven't just covered up their child's death, they have persecuted those who have sought justice for her and they have hoodwinked hundreds, neh thousands into believing that they are searching for their lost little girl.  Their appeals for help (and cash) know no bounds, the case has never gone away and they have never returned to their 'normal' lives, because they maintain a media team and pay good, hard, cash to keep themselves in the  news!  The McCanns are seasoned veterans when it comes to the media, they know how to snatch a front page off a Kardashian and they are steered by a circle of advisors straight off the set of a political comedy by Armando Iannucci. 

This very bizarre case which began with the disappearance of a small child, may well turn out to be one of the biggest scams the world has ever seen!  Right up there with 'I've a got a bridge to sell you'.  If I were a defence lawyer arguing that the doorstepping of Kate McCann was in the public's interest, I would have to say, I rest my case.   :)

_____________________



And for the critics, some of us have been trying to get the truth about Madeleine McCann's disappearance into the public domain for the past 8 years and now we have something tangible out there, some are going out of their way to find nonsensical things to whinge about! 

Err, the message for those who missed is:  Sonia is confronting this cover up of Madeleine's disappearance head on - not pussfyfooting behind closed doors or playing Cluedo in a forum for 8 years.  She is asking the questions that matter, the ones we have all been discussing for 8 years, directly to the people who can answer them! 

I watch a lot of real life documentaries, its a passion/obsession.  The ones that hit home are the ones that stick with the story and the ones that use the drama of the story to keep the audience's attention. Sonia is spot on, she has gone for the key words and the key phrases, the ones that attracted the big audiences at the very beginning.  For those who tend to forget why we are all here, we are fighting a huge injustice, an injustice that saw the tragic death of a child being cynically used, not only by her parents but by those we trust to protect us, to enrich and empower themselves. Worse still, our own mainstream media appeared to be 'in on it' - no one was speaking out for Madeleine!  And those of us who did, suffered the consequences. 

As to a comparison between Sonia doorstepping Kate McCann and Sky News doorstepping Brenda Leyland.  Brenda was a lady who preferred to live a quiet, unassuming life, away from the limelight.  She was the epitome of a private person.  She used the name 'Sweepyface' online, and she knew if it was public knowledge that she did not believe the Kate and Gerry McCann, she would be universally despised and caste out of society, as indeed happened. 

Kate on the other hand, has courted the media from the day her daughter disappeared.  She and her husband shamelessly use the media to get everything they want.  They paid £500k to keep their story on the front pages!  All their press conferences and media appearance have been carefully stage managed and within their control and for 8 years they have been able to dodge direct questions that demand direct answers.  In addition, Brenda had not lost a child in mysterious circumstances! Isn't about time someone asked Kate and Gerry to tell the truth about their daughter's disappearance? As to those comparing the two, there is no comparison. 

165 comments:

  1. Well said Cristobell! I admire Sonia for her guts and determination to tread where others fear to tread. Why people choose to discredit her is beyond me, at least she's attempting to get answers from the horses mouth so to speak. She should be supported. like you've stated she is asking questions that matter, and so far is the only one prepared to do that, good on her I hope her documentary is successful, that will shut her critics up once and for all.

    ReplyDelete
  2. This cover up and elevation of those two child-neglectors into national and international celebrities makes my stomach churn. As does the vilification of the Portuguese Police who concluded the patently obvious. Namely, that the child died in the apartment and that there was no abduction. However, I cannot help but comment on your double-standards Rosalinda regarding Sonia Poulton and Tony Bennet. You have accused Bennet of harassing the McCanns, and yet you are in effect portraying Sonia has a heroine for going to Kate's house! I don't suppose you'll publish this post, but I'll still keep reading yours. They are a very good and have a bite about them which Bennet's posts and comments about this case lack.I have thought that the McCanns sued Bennet because they knew he was too passive to fight back. I would where we can watch the Sonia Poulton doc. It's hardly likely to be shown on any of the McCann-supporting mainstream British channels is it?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Bennett leafleted Rothley at a time when none of us could be sure of the facts behind Madeleine's disappearance. His intention was to stir up hatred against the McCanns within their own neighbourhood.

      8 years have since passed, and there are no doubts whatsoever. In addition, Sonia went straight up to the McCann's front door, she did not sneak around posting leaflets in the surrounding houses, nor did she try to stir up an angry mob.

      She did what every investigative journalist does, she went directly to the source, the source incidentally, who have refused to answer questions for 8 years. Sonia confronted Kate McCann directly, because she had done her research. Martin Brunt clearly hadn't, or more sinisterly, Martin Brunt deliberately went along with a disingenuous publicity stunt that went horribly wrong.

      Kate McCann is not a shy, private person who doesn't want her neighbours to know about her business, Kate is seasoned, publicity hack, she has nearly as much experience as dealing with the media, as the House of Windsor (she has also had similar protection).

      As tragic that it was Brenda Leyland died, we cannot now handcuff all journalists and stop them from doorstepping people. If we did, there would be no more Cowboys and Builders. Fear of exposure is a mechanism that keeps most of us in check. It stops us making ejits of ourselves, diddling other people and keeps us out of straight jackets and heaven forbid, the criminal dock. It keeps society in order. Some people do genuinely fear being talked about.

      I do not agree with Martin Brunt did, but he should have made a few rudimentary checks before he went along with publicly exposing Brenda Leyland as a vile internet troll. Clearly she wasn't, and anyone within his research office should have picked up on that, as indeed should have Martin, as ultimately, he went ahead with it.

      Much as the world of journalism is a cynically toe curling, world of backstabbers and inflated egos, decent journalists will never destroy an innocent person just because they can. They will however, devote their lives to challenging those who would harm us, and those who use deceit for their own evil ends.

      Sky News were vindicated in the death of Brenda Leyland, because they argued successfully, that it was in the public's interest to broadcast their exposure of Brenda as an internet troll. What public interest did it serve other than to incite an angry mob to turn on this gentle, middle aged lady, who posed no threat to anyone? That is the question we should be asking?

      ut morally, they know what they did stunk.

      Delete
    2. Oops, should have ended, Morally, Sky know what they did stunk. And coincidentally, the crack down on internet trolls didn't happen. Scotland Yard confirmed that they were not going to take action against Brenda, nor indeed, against anyone else named and shamed in the Wiki Hate List. Those who think Operation Grange are in the pocket of the McCanns, should perhaps take note of that. Thus far, we are still here, and we still discussing the disappearance of Madeleine.

      Delete
    3. Thanks for you reply Rosalinda. It is less than eight years since Bennet's leaflet drops in Rothley. And the leaflets did contain some facts about the case. I don't agree that they were to "stir up hatred" against the McCann. Anymore than your own blogs, Pat Brown, Jill Havern, Brian Johnson, Joana Morais etc.etc. Team McCann have been playing the "stir up hatred" card against anyone and everyone who disputes the abduction fairy-tale since day one.

      Delete
    4. "there are no doubts whatsoever"

      Is that what the film's going to say?

      Delete
    5. 16:39, whether Bennett was attempting to stir up an angry mob is debateable, the media at that time certainly saw it that way. As indeed did I, I think it was an appalling thing to do, effectively he was creating an enemy on the McCanns, ones who wouldn't have to trouble too far to throw a few bricks.

      As I say, it is open to interpretation, but direct action is intended to arouse a public response, and Bennett was very specific in the area he chose. It was morally reprehensible and I have no doubt it lost him a lot of followers, particularly as he had no way of knowing whether the McCanns were guilty or not, it was 8 years ago!

      Delete
    6. Yes Rosalinda, Bennet's motives behind the leaflet drop were "debatable". As I have intimated previously I personally believe his motives were similar to your own and the other bloggers I have previously referred to. And indeed Sonia Poulton. It's interpretation and opinion of course, but I still find it odd that you can condemn Bennet's leaflet drop and yet hail Sonia knocking on the McCanns door! I know which course of action I would regard as harassment and "stirring up hatred" And finally in actuality Sonia has no more knowledge of the McCanns guilt or innocence than Bennet, you, me or anybody else. .

      Delete
    7. Entirely up to you what you believe 20:07, it bothers me not either way.

      However, I do take issue with your final sentence. If I did not believe beyond a shadow of a doubt that the McCanns were involved in the disappearance of their daughter, I would not be blogging about them.

      Delete
    8. Well yes Rosalinda, I understand the reasons for your blogging. But you seemed to intimate the Bennet leaflet drop was wrong - not just for harassing the McCanns - but also because he had no conclusive proof of the McCann's guilt. What I'm saying is that you, me, and everybody else have no conclusive proof either. That does not disqualify any of us of course from believing "beyond a shadow of a doubt" that they are guilty. I certainly believe that and would not be reading your posts if I believed otherwise. As I've stated previously, I rather prefer your more acerbic posts than Bennet's rather passive comments on other threads.

      Delete
    9. Scotland Yard forwarded the dossier to Leicester, B. H-H said so. Why?

      Delete
  3. Great article, Rosalinda.
    Just got a couple of mates to watch the trailer and it's whet their appetite, having hitherto been a subject that automatically induced eye rolling and snoring. Top work.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Hear hear, Rosalinda (for me, a very beautiful name, which fits its bearer). For my sins, I've been known as Iacomus, Iacovus, H, and even Muttley, lol :)

    But I simply couldn't agree more with what you write above, and especially the HUGE contrast between Ms Leyland & K8 Mc; the latter of whom has DESPERATELY *CRAVED* the media spotlight - it's uttterly extraordinary how the Rothley duo have ripped the UK Public off these 8 years!

    ReplyDelete
  5. Although I admire Sonia for challenging Kate McCann, did she really expect any answers, not likely! Therefore one must ask, was her endeavour to make that forward taster just to create sensationalism so as to bump up public enthusiasm for her long awaited documentary, let us hope it was well worth the long wait.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 19:39, any good journalist will take their chances 19:39, every day might be their 'lucky' day. Up and until recently Kate and Gerry have been very welcoming to journalists, you could almost say it is part of their everyday lives. Who knows what was going to happen, Kate might have had plenty to say!

      Delete
    2. Good job Jerry didn't answer the door I can't see him answering any questions politely.I wonder if he was at home when Sonia called?

      Delete
    3. 04:32, knowing Gerry as we do, even if he had been at home, he would have sent Kate to the door.

      Delete
  6. For information, I am not publishing posts that call my blog a hovel. As if? lol

    ReplyDelete
  7. Cristobell, you are a coward

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Cristobell you are a coward, says anonymous at 01:35, too cowardly to put a name or face to his/her deranged rants. As you are the one who is hiding, not me, who is the coward?

      Delete
  8. Who gave authority to the Leicester Court to vindicate anyone?

    ReplyDelete
  9. I stopped the trailer clip by clip. Probably Kate opening the door. Not sure.
    What Sonia said to her: I'm not convinced that the soundtrack wasn't added and in that case, she could have said anything to Kate. I was uncommonly clear sound.
    Cannot for the life of me see why the cameraman is fairly steady following Sonia's rear towards Rothley Towers and has lot control of his body when filming from behind the hedge. Was it a bee or a wasp? Makes no sense.
    Why are we then treated to a photograph of both the cameraman and Poulton right in front of the door - was this before or after he'd done his little dance behind the hedge? Who took the photograph? The sound man may not have been needed if the sound was added later.
    Note also that there are no other sounds of a door opening or external sounds mixed in, it's just Sonia's voice.
    Whole thing looks a little artificial to put it mildly.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Tigger, I see your pal Bennett is also going down the 'Sonia had the set built' route lol. Here's a little tip for both of you before you embark on another intensive 8 year research project, Ask yourself the simple question 'what would be the point?' - this may save you much labour :)

      Delete
  10. Why would be the point of faking it? Its all very well studying it frame by frame, and kudos to you for your dedication tigger. Walking up driveways and knocking on doors is pretty much everyday stuff. The McCanns aren't special, despite everything they tell us. They are ordinary people who live in an ordinary house. Do you think Sonia had a set built? lol

    ReplyDelete
  11. Have you found the name and breed of Brenda's dog yet Ros?

    I mean you have done so much research and are such an expert - it should be a simple question to answer - yes?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nah, but you crack on, you are doing a grand job. Let me know what you find. See ya next year?

      Delete
    2. Hello 21:10,

      There were/are two dogs, one's called Catherine and the other's name is Helen.

      Have a lovely, productive and fun-filled day.

      Delete
  12. Ros says:

    "whether Bennett was attempting to stir up an angry mob is debateable, the media at that time certainly saw it that way. As indeed did I, I think it was an appalling thing to do, effectively he was creating an enemy on the McCanns, ones who wouldn't have to trouble too far to throw a few bricks."

    Did you Ros go for a drink with bennett before or after you were applauded at what he did?

    ReplyDelete
  13. I did indeed, and a very interesting experience it was, lol, also 2/3 hours I will never get back :( Don't think he was too happy either, As I am useless with mobile phones, I gave my sons his number, and he had 19 messages!

    I think you meant to say 'appalled' at what he did. It was 'after'. That is I had knowledge of it. But, I am a people watcher (most writers are) and he was just such a character, I couldn't resist. And please don't misinterpret that, I would have as much as enthusiasm for a tet a tet with Uriah Heep or Hannibal Lecter. Unfortunately, for Tony, he went straight to uninteresting pile, you can tell when someone has the 'x' factor and know sure as eggs is eggs they are going places and you can of course tell immediately, when then aint.

    I have been following the Madeleine case from the beginning. Of course I wanted to meet him! You will note however, that I have never subscribed to his 'Madeleine Foundation', nor have I signed any of his Petitions or cretinous letters to broadcaster demanding programs be banned!

    ReplyDelete
  14. 'caste' out of society? Jeez! Where did you get your mythical degree in English? Mail order from the USA? As for suggesting in that statement that not believing McCann earns social pariah status, drop the drama that's nearly as bad as 'Bennett put a hit out on me'.

    Got to address this. You really expect us to swallow Poulton has been engaged on an intensive 8 year research project!? Sure, interviewing you & Birch. Some serious research there . I don't know when this intrepid self called journalist finds time time to sleep. Righting social injustice, exposing David Icke (yawn), busily admining her troll patrol and still finds time for, I'll have say it again, it's so funny, '8 years intensive research'. Now that really does deserve one of your much loved Lols

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You mock my degree, yet your comprehension skills are around D- or fail at GCSE level. lower tier, lol. 8 years intensive research refers to Tigger, Tony Bennett and the Jill Havern forum who are currently studying Sonia's 1.30 trailer, frame by frame for discrepancies and signs of conspiracy.

      I don't know what kind of ignorance, fear and paranoia rules their lives, if they believe walking up a driveway and knocking on a door requires the elite services of MI5/6, a newspaper magnate and the building of a movie set, lol.

      Delete
    2. "Sandra7 October 2015 at 01:13

      'caste' out of society? Jeez! Where did you get your mythical degree in English?"
      Have you "Sandra" ever heard of a Proof reader? They're employed to correct spelling etc.
      When a writer goes at a gallop, whether truth or fiction, there is no time to spell check. The flow of the narrative is what matters.
      Correction comes later.

      Did you not know that "Sandra"?

      Delete
    3. My writing style, if I have one, she said modestly, lol, is stream of consciousness, but 'gallop' is good too :) Many thanks Soj.

      Not so modestly, and in response to Snook in the cesspit, I do not put myself on par with Summers and Swan - I am way above them!

      Delete
  15. Was it actually Bennett who did the leafleting? Reports seem to vary. There was a woman involved who ended up pleasuring Her Majesty because of some sort of fraud committed against a vulnerable relative. Please refresh my memory.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 14.10: The woman you are alluding to is Debbie Butler. She did some of the leafleting in Rothley along with Bennet and other members of his Madeleine Foundation.

      Delete
  16. "Kate will answer every question put to her – she has nothing to hide."
    Justine McGuinness - 06 September 2007
    ***
    "I spoke to Kate at about, errm... half eleven, eleven to half past last night."
    "What did she say to you?"
    "Errm... she just told me that she was alright, errm... and she sounded quite strong. Errm... she had fought her corner in her interview with the police yesterday, errm... and I think, errm... I felt quite proud that she'd been able to do this knowing how distraught she is at Madeleine's disappearance... "
    Susan Healy - 08 September 2007
    http://www.mccannfiles.com/id192.html

    ReplyDelete
  17. Can someone kindly inform Sonia please, Brenda Leyland was not cleared of wrongdoing six months after the incident. She wasn't approached, interviewed, arrested or charged by law enforcement, hence, she couldn't possibly be cleared of anything.


    Thank you!♡

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A very good point.
      Brunt implied she was in big trouble though which must have added to Brenda's distress at being outed.
      How Christobell can exonerate Brunt of blame is beyond me, unless .... Brunt = Sky = Sonia = Christobell.

      Delete
    2. If you believe her to be 'Brenda', then yes. Brunt will fully redeem himself eventually though & that's a promise.

      The target and the misery has caused a reaction partially expected and it has also created a nightmare they are completely ignorant of.

      Sweepyface was Gamble's mate off tag & malleable Mason can't prove a thing. Fact!

      Our Martin also, he hasn't a hope in hell of proving whether a characterful eight-year-old boy died in 2005, no more than he can prove the existence of MBM.

      I have empathy for the family, especially the children, but who cares about the child's legacy?

      Love and light to all sentient humans ..xx

      Delete
    3. I can see Soustergate from both sides.
      I bet Jill and Tony are now kicking themselves as to their knee jerk reaction. Maybe poor Jill is now wishing she played it quiet and should have set up a meeting before exposure.
      However, this is the age of vanity, you more than most should empathise there Christobell, as by nature all bloggers are vain. Please cut TB some slack too. He's had a brilliant success this week which has gone unnoticed here.

      It seems that posters such as Peter Mac, submit much information to the investigation and the theory that the event happened earlier in the week could blow the case apart. Perhaps as you're so clued up, you might comment on this? Better than defending a journalist, who you say are tough by profession.
      Why then be so patronising to say, "Don't let them affect your life." "Don't let them get you down."

      Mark Souster is either a tough journalist or need's mummying by Christobell. Can't be both.

      Hang on.
      Brunt = Sky = Sonia = Christobell = Souster = Murdoch = Times Then to dear Jill who broke the link.

      BTW, I'm not a member over there. Banned!

      Delete
    4. You are right of course, the global media magnate Rupert Murdoch, spends his days walking around his garden singing 'how do you solve a problem like Maria/Tony B' in a high falsetto voice. He can't think of anything else. Ditto her Majesty's Government who are probably having a cabinet meeting as we speak.

      Tony Bennett is of course far more important to this case than Kate, Gerry, two labour prime ministers and the entire British secret service because through his hard work and diligence he has solved this mystery from the comfort of his small office in Harlow! He alone can prove that the entire Smith family are liars, including the toddlers and the unborn foetus, and that they definitely didn't see Gerry McCann on the night of May 3rd.

      As for Madeleine dying earlier in the week. Righto. Lets just dismiss the findings of the original Portuguese investigation who were on the scene and the conclusions of Goncalo Amaral - what do they know huh? The only evidence that counts is that produced by the man from Harlow who clearly knows more than all of them put together.

      Rupert was saying to me, only this morning, while we were having brekkers at Chequers, what a threat the towering intellect Tony Bennett, is to the British establishment and peace in the Western World. Sonia and I were tucking into the eggs Benedict, as they put in a call to Barack, and he of course agreed. If only Jilly hadn't broken that link eh? doh!

      Delete
    5. Sonia may not have complete awareness regarding the tentacles and magnitude of this case, she might have been used along with the journalist responsible for the Sun article.

      Let's give her a chance and wait and see!

      Delete
  18. Yeah I mock your assertion that you have a degree because your spelling and sentence construction are appalling. Nothing wrong with my comprehension skills. I can see straight through you and your 'journo' buddy. The gospel according to Hutton and Poulton is the truth, no one is allowed to disagree with it or they are labelled haters with an agenda. Free speech rules eh? Unless it happens to be the opposite of your theory. You have not the slightest self awareness, constantly accusing others of your crimes.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not an assertion 13:51, I have a framed Certificate on my wall along and pictures of my Graduation Day in my book Cry and You Cry Alone - or do you think they were staged? lol.

      Your comprehension skills however, leave a lot to be desired. You really must ensure you understand a text before passing adverse comments on it, or you will look very stupid.

      Neither I, nor Sonia, have ever claimed to know what happened to Madeleine McCann, we are not purporting any theories, we are merely commenting on what we have seen. We are both educated enough to understand that an audience will always interpret what they see and read in their own unique ways, We can only report, we cannot indoctrinate, we don't have that power, though kinda flattered that you think we have, lol.

      As far as hating everyone who disagrees with us, I can only speak for myself, and being 'hated' for having a different opinion, has been a way of life for me, lol. Happily, I haven't got the time, the energy, or even the inclination to 'hate back', life's too short, and my time is too precious.

      As for accusing others of my 'crimes' - what crimes? All I have on my 'criminal' record, is a couple of instances where I exceeded the speed limit, and I haven't accused anyone of that! lol

      Delete
  19. Here here cristobell great blog I read all that nonsense on cmomm about Mark S. Where do these people get off dragging people down. At the beginning of that particular thread there was much enthusiasm about the prospect of the Sunday Times doing and article before the crazies waded in and dragged them all down to the suspicious hate the world place they live in. Finally it was pwew we escaped a bullet there we almost let somebody in that might do some good

    ReplyDelete
  20. Two things.

    Number one, prove beyond doubt, Madeleine was sighted during the week.

    Number two, proof needed the children were left alone.

    They said both, but we know they are liars.
    She is lying for him. Been there, done it.

    Get out Kate.



    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I cannot prove either, I was not there, and after all these years the witnesses have probably moved on.

      However, I have more faith in the word of the police who were there, who were on the scene, and who interviewed all the witnesses personally, than I do in the lunatic theories dreamed up by Tony Bennett in his Harlow study. Why Bennett and the other armchair detectives think they know more than Goncalo Amaral and the original investigation, is beyond me, and its troubling that people like yourself buy into it.

      Delete
    2. Leicester was there to stifle the investigation according to Snr. Amaral, they summoned the dogs. Why?

      Delete
    3. Goncalo Amaral believed Baker's afternoon tea with Madeleine tale, he didn't know who she was at the time. When has such a highly educated woman ever been a nanny working as £100.00 a week (ish) employee for Mark Warner at the Ocean Club? Read her statement, that wasn't written by some chavvy party girl as some of the press images portrayed 'the nannies' to be at the time.

      Delete
    4. ?? Statement drafted with legal/CRG help, maybe?

      Delete
  21. Many people suspicious of the sanctioned storyline went straight to the net in an effort to determine the truth.

    I wasn't one of those people, it took me about two years to hit the keyboard. When I first began delving into the debris, investigators were digging around looking for the provenance of Cuddle Cat.

    No-one could find CC for sale anywhere, although there was always an aesthetic resemblance to something I'd seen before, for me, it was a minor issue.

    Eventually it dawned on me what the cat reminded me of, the scale is different but the visual appearance is the closest found, it's from a children's TV show made in 1974, the show's called Bagbuss, there are very few characters in the show - there is a Madeleine though.

    Not so weird really, as all ideas originate from somewhere, whether by means of cognisant awareness or subliminal suggestion.

    Not judging or accusing, for when in crisis it's human nature to use what you know. Kate never looked comfortable with that soft cat stapled to her hip anyway, not ever!

    All people need to do to end the frustration and confusion about this case is to read Kate's eyes; she's not the monster people think she is.

    And Gerry? Gerry was taking direction very well, he was a spectacularly brilliant little scholar, undoubtedly so.

    ReplyDelete
  22. There was a very interesting thread at Jills starting to prove the timeline was wrong.
    Lo and behold, along comes Mr Saviour from the Times and the thread gets abandoned.
    How neat is that!

    ReplyDelete
  23. But Goncalo Amaral was not there long enough to make any conclusions based on "long enough" investigation and deep insights. Paolo Rebelo did see what Amaral never had the time to discover. There was no neglect. All pieces do fit together when the neglect myth is once and for all abandoned! And yes, I am convinced that whatever happened to Madeleine, happened earlier in the week. Do read Dr Martin Roberts "X factor" . Think!! What reason could there be the McCanns practically wanted to rub the neglect into our faces, as well as Madeleine was "alive and well" with family until the claimed abduction. Just to make people think that there was no time to "fix" things the very same evening....And they've really been successfull-neglect myth and being with family/creche whole week myth- still believed in 2015. Amazing!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There was nowhere to make cabbage dishes at the Tapas Snack Bar, check the cooks' statement. The Millennium was the 'only' restaurant included in a Mark Warner half board option.

      Anyway, if Tierney can prove she worked for MW, all is forgiven!

      Delete
    2. 23:37. I amazed that you believe the theories of the armchair detectives over the theory of the real ones who interviewed the actual witnesses in the hours and days following Madeleine's disappearance.

      Who had time to 'prep' Warners' staff? And how would they know which staff to prep? And then there is the group who were closer to Madeleine, while devising their 'abduction' scenario, did they also prepare statements giving details of when they personally last saw the child? That's a hell of a lot to remember, and as there were 9 of them, the chances of discrepancies goes through the roof.

      In following this case, I always try to stick with the philosophy of KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid), and, forgive the bragging, it has served me well. I'm not dismissing the theory that death may have occurred earlier in the week, there was no neglect, or indeed that the MW resort in PDL was Orgy Central, with this case anything is possible, but I think it extremely unlikely.

      Whilst I find some of the theories of the armchair detectives fascinating, I can't help thinking some have got way too much time on their hands and extremely vivid imaginations. Their information comes from files that are now 8 years old, but more importantly, they have no access to the actual witnesses and never will have.

      The spoken word makes up only 20% of the way in which we communicate, the written word even less. Without face to face contact, you are missing out on the body language, the micro expressions, the gestures and the true character of the person. The armchair detectives have only the statements to work with, the Portuguese police had the real thing.

      It is also worth bearing in mind, that whenever there is a crime or an incident, the police collect statements as quickly as they can. And there is a reason for this. The first statements are the ones that count.

      Delete
    3. Oh so Paolo Rebelo is an armchair detective? He was THERE and THEN, and - surprise - reached to the same conclusion as HideHo!!
      About body language and micro expressions...did Goncalo Amaral see any of that? Die he actually meet the McCanns (or 'actual' wirnesses) face to face?

      Delete
    4. Goncalo Amaral was the head of a team of detectives, each one gathering evidence individually or in pairs. Naturally the team liaise with each other and share their information, and it is through this process that a conclusion is reached. It would be impossible for one lone detective to interview everyone personally.

      Delete
    5. @ Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton16 October 2015 at 15:45

      Exactly - and the conclusion of the Portuguese authorities was that there was no evidence that the Mccanns were involved in any crime.

      But of course, you know better.

      Delete
  24. If, in time, they could overcome their embarrassment and hire a top-notch movie director, someone on the Spielberg level ...they could spare the decent folk, tell the truth, and still come up smelling of roses. Employing the same old dual function media methods is just piling up more trouble.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Just wanted to say, there's absolutely no evidence any media outfit has been gagged in this case. Ask Gaunt, for starters!

    ReplyDelete
  26. Madeleine's "sticker book", lots of little blonde girls and ubiquitous pink, but no scientific evidence of her existence.

    But God bless the child that's got his own, that's got his own.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Over the years I've heard numerous times the Smith family are a lovely family, not only by internet debaters, I've also heard such from local community members. They most probably are a decent family.

    However, Martin Smith did not see GM walking down a built-up thoroughfare with a dead Madeleine. They are not that stupid, also, if Ros met Martin privately (not saying she should) a clearer picture may emerge.

    How about this, they were merely trying to help, everyone was!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 02:30. How can YOU say what Martin saw?

      Who knows what a troubled person is capable of in a 'moment of madness', and the sudden death of a young child could certainly trigger madness.

      As for my meeting up with Mr. Smith - I would not dream of troubling him 02:30, I don't think any of us should be interfering in the official police investigation. Mr Smith and his family are entitled to privacy - the hounding of this family is morally repugnant - just because we can obtain private information about other people and publish it online, does not mean we should. Most of us have moral boundaries, Bennett sadly, has none.

      As for the Smith family 'trying to help' - good grief, that excuse is even more ludicrous than the convoluted thousand page explanations from Bennett! I suggest you read Martin Smith's statements 02:30, they come straight from the heart, no ums and aahs like the Tapas Group, but an honest account of what he and his family saw, and how troubled he was at recognising Gerry McCann coming down the stairs of the plane.

      Whilst most people were trying to help, it is absurd to suggest that a loving grandfather and father would involve his entire family in a deception that would pervert the course of justice and put all of them (including his 12 year old daughter) at risk of criminal prosecution.

      Delete
  28. I don't believe Kate would copyright a faithful image of her own child, no matter what anyone says.

    ReplyDelete
  29. As for the highly trained dogs, Keela detected the smell of human blood and Eddie was trained using:

    1) Actual decomposing dead human bodies?

    2) Other?

    Also, why did Grime leave the UK and spend 3 years working in the US, where is he now and how did The Sun receive the video footage of the dogs? Was the film free or did someone/more than one person pay money for it, if so, who was the seller?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There is no question of the dogs' abilities 06:26, the 'unreliable' bit comes straight from the former (prime) suspect Gerry McCann's mouth! They didn't mistakenly alert once, twice or even three times. ELEVEN times they responded to the smells they are trained to respond to.

      I do not know the technicalities of how the video came into the hands of the Sun newspaper, but taking an educated guess, it probably made up part of the Portuguese files that were released to the public following the shelving of the case in Portugal.

      Some might say the release of the official Portuguese police files scuppered any chance of this case ever being covered up successfully. The video of the dogs is especially damning.

      Delete
    2. As it was meant go be. Why did Leicester (distrusted by Goncalo) deploy the dogs, and why is a damming video still on YouTube?

      Delete
  30. Why did a doctor who hadn't seen Brenda Leyland for twenty years testify at the court in "Leicester" at all, and why is this deemed acceptable? Suicide by helium had already been determined, the Daily Star had previously informed us so. As you don't!

    So many press cameras were present along with several furtive mainstream media reporters, why was no footage from outside the court shown? Are they fooling themselves or a few so-called internet trolls?

    What does this make Mason in such an environment then, a Gonk? I was anorexic at twelve and suicidal at fourteen ...how weak and totally pathetic to use this. Trapped, emasculated, bullying fools!!!

    No wonder G looked flattened after the Helen Leyland incident and Kate had pleading in her eyes, toughen up guys, embrace the light and stop relying on buck eejits to solve your problems, they've done you more harm than good. Clearly and unarguably. Plus, Mason knows nothing of the character, spirit, personality and courage of the lost child.

    She hasn't got a flying clue.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Helen Leyland? Typo or Brenda's dog?

      Delete
  31. Quote from Tony Bennett to Ben Thompson 10/10/15:

    'Ben, you get on with your agenda, and I'll get on with mine. - OK?'

    I really can't add anything to that, but someone might have a 'doh!' moment, lol

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If you told him the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth he'd label you a WUM.

      The last photo must have been taken on Sunday 29 April because of the weather etcetera, and they had obviously arrived on the 28, why? Because they said so, but not before proclaiming during initial filming that they had been there for TWO WEEKS.

      Gamble requested photographs from the previous two weeks which he said he'd sent to Portugal.

      He did not.

      How do they know they didn't arrive on the 21 April, in fact, how do these tunnel vision know-it-alls know anything?

      That man is rude, very very rude indeed!

      Delete
    2. Strange terminology for a former solicitor to use, 'research' would have been more appropriate. That's unless of course he has slipped up, and an agenda is exactly what motivates him! You'd have thought one of his loyal followers would have pointed out this error... if indeed it was.

      Delete
    3. I don't think Bennett has any idea of how much he reveals about himself with his often, ill chosen words 14:14, lol. From a psychological perspective, he is textbook stuff, all his dark sinister thoughts often leak through. I just hope his victims know that he is a crank, nothing more, nothing less, and absolutely no-one is interested in his research.

      I don't think his use of the word 'agenda' was a Freudian slip. He does have an agenda, but in his black and white world, HIS agenda, is for the good of mankind, and he would happily burn at the stake for it.

      He believes he is right, dead right, and it is everyone else who is wrong. Unfortunately, in order to be right all the time, he has to manipulate the truth so it falls into line with his own straight and narrow path of the righteous.

      He doesn't care who he hurts along the way, (like Kate and Gerry he has no empathy) he has to prove he is right, and his 'good fight' has to be acknowledged. Those who make him suffer (disagree with him), must be made to suffer twice as much, again, like Kate and Gerry.

      Fortunately, most journalists see Bennett as a crank, he was useful in the early days when Madeleine stories were getting top dollar, but now the main event is coming back into focus, his publicity stunts are yesterday's news.

      From a humanitarian perspective, Bennett is a very sad case, one cannot help but wonder what sort of background would produce such an odious character.

      He is of course best ignored, but he is such a pest that it becomes impossible. Again, like Kate and Gerry, he will never give up and he will never stop stalking and hounding people. I personally would like to see him face criminal charges, but his mental state would probably rule out prison and make it virtually impossible to impose any sanctions or restrictions on him.

      Delete
    4. Notice the terminology he uses, it`s very dictatorial and military, nearly everyone and everything is the enemy, his psyche is in a constant battle imo, hence the paranoia. It`s definitely got worse and the owner of that forum is condoning it unfortunately, goodness knows why because it has harmed what was once a decent forum.

      Delete
    5. Cristobell. To prove everyone wrong he (Bennett) has to be certain he's right, so far he's proved neither!! I wonder why the forum owner doesn't knock him off that pedestal that he places himself so highly upon. I think the Police must be sick and tired of the FOI letters they frequently receive from him, and probably fob him off with the tiniest bit of information just to appease him and get him off their backs.

      I watched him being interviewed by R Hall a while back and was yawning half way through, It reminded me of the old gramophone records that used to get stuck in a groove and never quite reached the end, lol.

      Delete
  32. There's not a scintilla of evidence to suggest that security services were involved with the PdL carnival, regardless of what plod and Hercule Poirot's evangelical paranoia says.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Rosalinda, if you knew for certain it was an accident and they freaked out, would you be prepared to forgive them if they told the truth?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think the McCanns lost that option 8 years ago 12:00, when their freaking out turned into a massive cash fraud and the deliberate persecution of those who knew the truth.

      Whilst the initial 'accident' may have become forgivable, all their actions afterwards have been premeditated and deliberate. Even now, as I type this, they are still bombarding twitter urging people to 'search' for Maddie. Imo, it is beyond wicked to pretend that a child is alive and findable, when you darn well she isn't! How many thousands of people have they hoodwinked and are hoodwinking still?

      Delete
    2. Too right cristobell, beyond wicked and beyond belief. Their actions afterwards is what has convinced so many people that they are innocient. Normal people just cannot comprehend how a mother and a father could keep up this charade when talking about their own baby. What makes it so much worse is that when the truth comes out and the rest of us have moved on there are 2 young children who will have to leave the rest of their lives under the stigma of what those 2 done. That goes for the children of the rest of the tapas gang. Did anyone of them ever at anytime consider the legacy they left their children

      Delete
  34. If I remember correctly you (Ros) said that you didn't bother reading bennett's comments anymore and wouldn't be commenting on him anymore!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 21:33 Whilst I am able to ignore most of Bennett's attention seeking antics, I will not let him get away with destroying other people's work and hounding people off twitter. The man is a 'troll' in the true sense of the word, in order for HIS 'work' to be the definitive word on the Madeleine case, he must destroy the work of everyone else. 'The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil, is for good men to do nothing'. (Edmund Burke).

      His collaboration with Richard Hall has not been a success. Just as people don't want to read his rambling sermons, they don't want to watch 4+ hours of videos that take forever to get to the point. If Bennett has invested in these videos and was hoping to make a fortune, then I would imagine he is very disappointed indeed. His Madeleine Fund didn't make him rich either. My sympathies lie with Richard Hall, he has been well and truly hoodwinked.

      Bennett fears Sonia's documentary, because, in a nutshell, it will knock the socks off his own. Sonia works in the MSM, and that fact alone consumes him with envy, no-one is asking him onto Sky TV to comment on current affairs. Sonia is popular with the general public, people want to hear what she has to say, Tony has an audience of 2, 3 tops, if his polls on CMoMM are anything to go by.

      The current smell of burning martyr that emits from Jill's forum is once again a manufactured product of Bennett's twisted mind. He has interpreted the casual enquiry of a journalist as a fiendish plot to 'get him' devised by none other than Rupert Murdoch himself.

      To justify his absurd claim, both he and Jill Havern, are now laying the blame for Brenda Leyland's death at the door of Sky News, the media outlet, rather than at the door of Gerry (I want an example made) McCann and Jim (lets get them all in the dock) Gamble. Once again, he and CMoMM have lost the plot and are focused on shooting the messengers.

      Watching twitter these past few days, has been like watching the Brenda Leyland tragedy all over again, as Bennett, Jill Havern and the low lives from Stop the Myths, hound and persecute Mark Souster relentlessly, to the point where they have driven the poor man off twitter. It is a sickening spectacle and one that I won't stand by and watch in silence.

      Should add, whilst Bennett and Havern were lifting my tweets in seconds, there was one that they pointedly ignored. I wonder why that was?

      Delete
    2. LOL I say that everytime I read what he writes but then a new topic comes along and you think I'll just have a look and see how the discussions on this are going only to find out its more of the same "hate the world" nonsense

      Delete
    3. Martin Brunt and Sky News may have just been the messengers as you say, (and I have no doubt that GM & JG were behind it), but if Brunt hadn't doorstepped Brenda Leyland and lied to her about what she could expect from Scotland Yard, she would no doubt still be alive today.

      Delete
  35. TB was rude to me, I trusted him because PM proved himself to be a wholly trustworthy person.

    I am not here to defend him, however, I strongly suggest Sonia questions the individuals in the collective "crank" belief. We are speaking of MSM here, respectfully Sonia, question everything!

    As an aside, with all the drama happening, please let us all remember the other children caught up in the middle of this. They are living this every day, and it's not their fault... they will love their parents regardless.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sonia didn't use the word 'crank' collectively 13:08, she was quite specifically referring to Tony Bennett, the clue was in the word 'he'.

      The aim of Sonia's documentary is to tell the 'untold' story of Madeleine, and as we saw with the teaser, she has gone straight to the main characters.

      I too feel sad for the children, but it is worth remembering that when the McCanns returned to the UK in 2007, Bennett brought a civil action against them to have the twins placed in care. Another reason I think, why the MSM have, up until now, always considered the McCann sceptics to be cranks - and nasty ones at that.

      Delete
    2. I read as 'they', people in the media who hold that belief, just trying to help and cling onto the notion some good will eventually come out all this madness.

      Regarding taking the children into care - it was based on assumption, it was premature and in retrospect - 'cruel'.

      Thanks for your response Ros, life's too short for meaningless wars!

      Delete
    3. 13:56 Apologies, my reply was brusque. Some are trying to say Sonia called ALL the antis cranks, and of course, she didn't.

      As for the 'wars', unfortunately, they are unavoidable. Battles are now fought on social media these days, tis a sign of the times, Rumours and myths can quickly become reality unless they are challenged head on and straight away.

      The McCanns victimhood for example is a myth that became a reality and it has protected them for this past 8 years. The crime against Maddie has been forgotten and the McCanns' 'campaign' (scam) is seen as admirable.

      The only way we can tackle the lies and this ongoing con trick, is to use the same social media to challenge them directly, its a rotten job, but someone has got to do it!

      Many thanks for your interest in my blog and your replies, they are much appreciated. :)

      Delete
    4. Well, it's a good job I'm Vulcan, or so my former significant other used to say!

      No worries Ros, I'm used to you by now!

      Delete
  36. Not much nastier than calling people scum, Ros. There are many unsavoury characters involved in the discussion of the case. Some are disturbing. Some very disturbing. But I'd never call any of them "scum".

    It's not surprising they think we're all cranks. I can't blame them when everybody behaves so childishly.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I wasn't sure about Havern but she has shown herself to be as much as a lowlife as Bennett.
      Keep up the good work Cristobell.

      Delete
    2. 22:14 I did at one time have respect for Jill Havern, but she is hosting a forum that is full of libellous bile about all sorts of people - when all this over there is a very good chance she will be sued or face criminal charges herself.

      She cannot claim to be unaware of what Bennett is doing, it has been pointed out to her many times. He is interfering in a live police investigation, to a point where the contents of Havern's forum may well be produced as evidence for the Defence!

      I have to say that her active participation in the stalking and hounding of a journalist who did no more than make a couple of enquiries, has sickened me to the core.

      Delete
  37. 14:11 CMoMM have abandoned any pretence at being a legitimate discussion forum, their sole purpose now is to destroy the lives and careers of those who are trying to get the truth about Madeleine's disappearance into the public arena.

    Bennett thinks that if he destroys all the opposition, the Richard Hall videos will go viral and he will become very rich indeed. He is completely unaware that his own distorted research and conclusions wrecked Richard's videos from the off.

    As for my use of the word 'scum'? Watching the tag team of Bennett and Havern stalking and hounding Mark Souster on twitter, what else would you call them?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'd call them irrelevant. The only people giving them credibility are those who keep being so easily wound up by them.

      You can't stop them making their films. Nor can you stop what they do on their forum. But you can ignore it, and that's the only weapon that will work.

      Anything else just feeds their egos. They love being attacked. Surely everyone's worked that out by now?

      Delete
    2. He's afraid of Sonia getting aspects wrong, which is ultimately about control. No-one is preventing anyone from hustling for funding and creating their own documentary.

      Good luck to any doers and triers!

      Delete
    3. As I said earlier, 14:57, this is the age of mass communication and social media. Lies and myths can very quickly become a reality unless they are rebutted straight away.

      As much as I agree these creatures should be ignored, if their lies become the truth, the chances of lifting the lift off this case become ever more remote.

      Up until recently, the MSM have believed the 'anti' movement is made up of Tony Bennett and people just like him. That is, cranks and fanatics.

      Numbers count. Its the reason the McCanns buy 'likes' for their facebook page. They have always persuaded the 'powers that be' that the public are totally on their side and that it is only a few cranks who disbelieve them. If a politician wants to be successful, he must go with popular opinion, and if the people love the McCanns, then so will he.

      The McCanns have always used numbers to stay out of jail. Kate even said there would be rioting in the streets if they were arrested! They use their 'popularity' to get those much coveted places on the morning breakfast TV sofas, and the front pages of the newspapers. The message is, 'the public love us', so do what we say, And it has served them well.

      I know you are referring to the bizarre attention seeking antics of Tony Bennett and his cronies, but these antics are supplying the McCann publicity machine with all the 'defence' material they need. This 'anti' group have completely alienated the MSM, and indeed anyone with the means to get truth about Madeleine's disappearance into the public arena. I doubt they will ever be approached by a friendly journalist again.

      CMoMM will of course, die a natural death. They are caught in a time warp having the same discussions we were having 5 years ago. The rest of us are watching the live show.

      Delete
  38. @14.57 "They love being attacked". You could have a point there. They are behaving more and more like a gang of yobbos wanting a war. Just one more piece of evidence to prove that its religious fanatics that seek to slay.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In order to be a martyr, one must have persecutors, ergo, one must go out of one's way to piss people off. Even Jesus could have led a quiet, unassuming life, if he had wanted to.

      Sadly for Bennett, as much as he chucks rocks at people's heads and runs off shouting 'chase me', it very rarely happens these days because people know he is a crank. And note, how he only throws rocks at those who have the attention he craves. He is like an iconoclast lite, he always picks the wrong targets. #Roadsigns #Barrymore #McCann.

      Delete
  39. There was a lady who posted there for a long time, she lived in New Zealand, even though she used to get ripped a lot I loved reading her posts.

    He told her to answer and answer NOW (my caps), very demanding, I haven't seen her since, hope she's OK. I really miss her posts.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Was that Muss Beetle or something like that? She used to post photo's that were never seen before he once praised her for her contribution then started bullying her.I think if he had his way there would only be men on the forum,horrible man that he is.

      Delete
    2. Most good posters took the out door a long time ago.

      3 arguidos being one forum.
      Havern's another one

      Tone the Comb did a nice, scorched earth job on both of those.

      May he rot in the hell of his own making.

      Madeleine (and her fate) was NEVER a priority to Tony Bennett

      Delete
    3. Fascinating. So TB comes along and ruins everything. He can be incredibly rude and overbearing. Yet so sycophantic towards some of the toadies who I suspect are his sock puppets or are they just toadies? It's funny because at first I really believed he was a gentleman and his motives were justice for Madeleine. However he does not have the qualities of a gentleman and I am really not sure what his motives are.

      Delete
  40. There are so many socks on Bennetts forum its unreal!
    Does he really think onlookers don't know what he is doing?

    Get a life Bennett. Time to embrace your family before you embrace your god. IMO.


    .

    ReplyDelete
  41. From the Sun article:

    "“I wasn’t one of the evil ones – and there were a few of those around. I was attacking the McCanns and suddenly I became the object of attack by absolutely crazy people.”

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

    Why have you just tweeted: "Cristobell Author ‏@RosalindaHu 10 mins10 minutes ago
    Lazzerilies (apt name), I have never said 'I was attacking the #mccanns' - why would I? I never have. #Ucantjustmakethingsup lol"
    --------------------------------------------------------------

    ?????

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Any idea which of his deluded dupes is lazz the liar?

      Delete
  42. 23:12 I have never said those words. Why would I? I have never attacked the 'McCanns' and in 8 years no-one has ever found any evidence that I have, because it doesn't exist - do you not think the Sun would have checked through my timeline?

    Strange how on this occasion you choose to believe the Sun!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @ Ros 23.21 It is in quotation marks in the Sun article - if they misquoted you did you take it up with them, did they print a retraction, did you sue them?

      Delete
    2. The Sun article, snore! Why don't you give them a newspaper article to really talk about?

      Delete
    3. 23:29 No, no, and no. Why? Because I have a life and the idea of it sounds utterly tedious. Also, because I want to work with the media in getting the truth of Madeleine's disappearance into the public domain. It is the reason I am here.

      I know I didn't say that particular phrase, that is good enough for me.

      Delete
    4. @Ros 01.42

      How can you expect to work with the media in getting the truth into the public domain when you have evidence yourself of being misquoted in the press?

      You ask why someone should choose to believe the Sun, yet you chose to let the Sun to interview you - sounds like double standards to me.

      Delete
    5. Any writer or journalist will tell you that if you have standards and principles, you will remain in obscurity, lol. It's not that kind of industry!

      Some you win, some you lose, it shouldn't stop you from trying! Sadly, the Sun article didn't cause as big a stir as I had hoped, the intention of the author was to get people talking about the TROLL issue. Are trolls evil demons who should be tracked down and imprisoned, or are they normal(ish) people, like moi? Sadly, the cesspit et al, again, missed the point.

      Yes, the Sun misquoted me, it was the Sun ffs, I'm not a complete ejit, I half expected it. The ideology of the Sun being sensationalism and all.

      Naturally, I would have preferred they had quoted me correctly, but ce la vie. I know that within seconds of meeting me, people know that I am not an 'attack' kind of person - as if! lol. You can't pin a label on someone when it clearly doesn't fit.

      So the Sun misquoted me? So what? I'm really not that important! No-one apart from yourself and the bubbling cesspit gives a shit. What I did or didn't say, doesn't make one iota of difference to the McCann cannon, though strangely flattered that you think it does!

      Delete
    6. "Anonymous13 October 2015 at 01:02

      The Sun article, snore! Why don't you give them a newspaper article to really talk about?"

      Are you deriding Ros for doing an interview with the Sun?

      Delete
    7. Calm down it was a joke, it's over, done with. Move on! She did an article for The Sun, not page three!

      Delete
    8. Plus, whether she's right or wrong, I abhor bullying, and 'them' are the most ignorant, judgemental and hurtful of the abduction critics.

      The constant fighting, mind games and tricks in general are a disgrace!

      Delete
    9. @ Anonymous13 October 2015 at 21:48

      Ah so you believe Ros's appearance in the Sun was a joke!

      Delete
    10. Your crystal ball might need a wash!

      Delete
    11. Ros you said " Sadly, the Sun article didn't cause as big a stir as I had hoped"

      Today you have said "And the memory span of a Sun reader is.......................? "

      Once again you have proved that your appearance in the Sun was rubbish and a waste of time.

      Delete
  43. I never met Jill Havern (so I harbour no ill-feeling towards her) - all I know about the lady is, that she runs a driving school and has some beef with the NHS.

    But she lets Tone the Comb run riot on her forum - and seems not to care at all.

    Jill - sweets - the man's a charlatan:

    A charlatan (also called swindler or mountebank) is a person practising quackery or some similar confidence trick in order to obtain money, fame or other advantages via some form of pretense or deception.

    Get rid of the old git, before he gets rid of your forum - is my humble advice.

    The man's a menace

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Bent as a dog's hind leg!

      Delete
    2. Up to her neck in it with Bennett.The" Madeleine Foundation" ,obviously people were going to send money thinking it was being used in search for the missing girl."Fund" and" Foundation" ,very naughty.Team Bennett and Team McCann,same agenda from different angles,money

      Delete
  44. Enjoy Tony's lastest comedy persona, Barry Hutton, whose sole purpose this far is to doff his cap at the great man and praise everything he says. It's really THAT subtle lol http://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t11993p140-journalist-from-rupert-murdoch-paper-the-sunday-times-breaks-ranks-and-offers-to-tell-the-truth-about-madeleine-mccann-in-his-newspaper

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It is quite hilarious TonyFan (love the name), this media war is not without good old fashioned comedy eh? lol.

      Delete
    2. At least Bennett has the excuse that he is off his nut but what is Havern's defence going to be?

      Delete
    3. Good question 22:18. Jill used to be a fairly reasonable and rational person.

      I think what we are witnessing is a good example of gangland mentality. Once you have mixed your blood with your leader, and got all the regulation tattoos, you are never allowed to leave. And of course in the case of CMoMM, we have seen many examples of what happens when you do. Those who have left or started up their own forums are still being torn to shreds. Some on the grounds of guilt by association with moi, lol, or with the current demonic blonde bombshell, the divine Isabel McFadden.

      This gang mentality happens in every walk of life, from the House of Windsor 'Firm', through the Masons, Religious Cults, Street Gangs all the way down to tiny, malevolent internet forums and facebook groups. Tis the reason I have never aligned myself to any of them in all these years, I'm not much of a team player, lol.

      Havern and the hard core few that remain may well find themselves in trouble. As you say, Bennett is too much of a loon to prosecute, given the amount of paperwork he produces, the legal bill could run to millions, lol. I suppose Havern and the rest of them (probably less than a handful), could always go down the 'I was only following orders' route.

      Delete
    4. He's a loon? He's Mr Rational compared to some of the twitter-facebook folk.

      What's your position on IM creating a 'pro' account, with which it's alleged she harassed BL: Did she or didn't she?

      Delete
    5. 17:33. How would I know, lol. Trolls, socks etc, don't interest me. From what I know of Isabel, she is trying to get the truth about Madeleine's disappearance out there, and that's fine by me.

      Delete
  45. I like your posts, Ros, and I share your hope that something may come of Sonia's work. However, the truth is that there is an immense amount of information out there for journalists who wish to dig a little - and I happen to know that Sonia and (perhaps) Souster are by no means the only journalists who think there is more to be told about this case.
    The difficulty is not finding the information, but finding a mainstream outlet for it. However good Sonia's documentary is, in the end it is only as good as her outlet, and the problem she faces is that most of the mainstream outlets have been compromised by their actions earlier in this case. Particularly those that fundraised for the No Stone Unturned fund and attacked Brenda Leyland as a 'troll'. For many news outlets, there is a now vested interest in the McCanns simply being tragic, innocent parents who made a mistake and lost their child, and the ordinary members of the public who doubt them (and by extension, doubt what they read in newspapers and see on the TV) being nasty trolls.
    I wish it were otherwise, and would like to be convinced of that, but until Sonia announces that one of the terrestrial channels is transmitting her programme, I have my doubts. But that is not the same as wanting her project to fail.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you for your thoughtful post 12:12. I think we need to keep our eye on the goal, justice for Madeleine. That OG have been awarded another £2m (not £5m or the previous open cheque), but a figure that suggests they are winding down. No-one wants to wreck the live investigation, least of all Sonia. It may simply be that now is not the right time to release the documentary.

      I don't know what is going on, but I could take an educated guess - these are clearly highly sensitive times. Any honourable documentary
      maker would never interfere with a criminal investigation. Professional journalists have codes of conduct to abide by, and of course their own moral compass, They cannot and should not interfere with the due legal process. Lets, not forget, we are all here for justice.

      Sonia is a professional and she has integrity, that's why she is a popular guest on television, and Bennett never will be. He should bear in mind, that some times, you shouldn't do things, just because you can.

      Apologies for using your post to slate Bennett (again), but since he slurred my dead mother, the gloves are off!

      Delete
    2. @Ros 14.09

      you say "Any honourable documentary maker would never interfere with a criminal investigation. Professional journalists have codes of conduct to abide by, and of course their own moral compass, They cannot and should not interfere with the due legal process. Lets, not forget, we are all here for justice.

      Sonia is a professional and she has integrity"

      Hasn't Sonia been making a documentary about the untold story for over a year when there is an ongoing legal process - i.e. Operation Grange and a Portuguese investigation?

      Delete
  46. Maybe Sonia knows something we don't and that's why the documentary has been put on hold!! I dare say she'll converse with other journalists. Who's to say what information she has, and like any professional is playing her cards close to her chest.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Where on Earth do you imagine that Sonia has found something that no -one else knows?

      Delete
    2. If you read my post properly I said maybe Sonia knows something we don't. Who knows what contacts she has and what they discuss? It's possible that she's been advised to put her documentary on hold for obvious reasons. She must know more than we do otherwise there wouldn't be such impatience/hysteria waiting for the documentary to be shown. There may even be a few people that are worried as to what it contains, who knows.

      Delete
  47. What a horrid man, to disrespect the dead is really scraping the bottom of the barrel. Don't let him hurt you Cristobell. Bennett should be thoroughly ashamed of himself.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Cristobell Author ‏@RosalindaHu Oct 12

      @Harebell22 @JillyCL Money has never been used to find Maddie, they know she is dead"

      How bad is that?

      Delete
    2. If we accept Madeleine is dead then we must accept the parents know. I hate to get graphic, but a cadaver lay in that apartment and in the back of that car for a number of hours.

      To collect money for a child you know to be dead, is wicked beyond words. It is offering to hope where there is none, and it is taking advantage of people's kindness and generosity. That £4m or was it £5m raised for 'Madeleine', could have gone to genuine good causes and helped people in genuine need. Do you not consider that bad?

      Delete
    3. @ Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton14 October 2015 at 13:01

      Ros says "If we accept Madeleine is dead then we must accept the parents know."

      I think you should read that to yourself, and maybe read it out loud.

      If you and your friends accept that Madeleine is dead that is your choice - it does NOT mean that the Mccann's KNOW that she is dead - you have drawn a false conclusion based on what you believe you know. The rest of your comment fails.

      Delete
    4. 19:04. All the signs of death emanate from the McCanns and their belongs. Apartment 5A, the hire car, Kate's clothes and Cuddlecat.

      Gerry and Kate claim they spent the early evening with Madeleine and the twins, and Gerry claims he saw Madeleine alive and sleeping on her bed at 9.00p.m.

      The odour of cadaver takes at least 2 hours to develop. Unless Gerry and Kate left the kids on their own for the entire day and night, they must know what happened to her.

      Delete
    5. @ Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton15 October 2015 at 20:15

      Your comment makes no sense whatsoever - if there was definite proof of cadaver scent on all the items you state don't you think they would have been arrested and charged - or are you saying the Portuguese authorities were crap? If the dogs are your only evidence (of course apart from your expert body language interpretation of Kate) then your case is non existant.

      " Unless Gerry and Kate left the kids on their own for the entire day and night, they must know what happened to her." What on earth does that mean - is it something you have just made up to justify your position?

      Delete
    6. I consider the alerts of the dogs to be definite proof. Unfortunately, on its own, it may not be enough to get a conviction.

      I am not saying the Portuguese Authorities were crap, they were seriously hindered by the intervention of the British Government, and the media storm created by the McCanns. They were being inundated by phonecalls claiming sightings of Madeleine, some of them completely absurd, but all had to be investigated.

      When the PJ were closing in on the parents, the senior detective Goncalo Amaral was removed from the investigation and the parents would not co-operate with the police.

      As for my final paragraph. you need to read it in context with the paragraph that precedes it. In order for cadaver odour to develop, a body must be in situ for at least 2 hours. Gerry claims to have seen Madeleine alive at 9pm.

      I really don't have the time or patience to give you lessons in basic comprehension, You need to read the text as a whole, and you need to listen when people speak (I expect this failure to understand spills over into your real life) before jumping in with an ill thought out response. If people consider you to be stupid, this is where it stems from.

      Delete
    7. @ Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton15 October 2015 at 21:07

      So basically you have no evidence whatsoever - just the usual forum stuff that has been posted for 8 years that you have latched onto because it fulfils your need.

      Maybe you would like to explain the cadaver scent and the Mccanns enjoying dinner and acting normally with friends whilst their eldest daughter lay dead in the apt?

      Your personal comments about me are both wrong and unnecessary and reveal your true nature when arguing a point - when in doubt attack the poster - or in your case "squish" with a load of lol afterwards. Just for clarity - I do not have a long history of mental issues of the type you love to tell your readers about yourself.

      Delete
    8. 20:41, It;s not just the McCann's body language/cadaver dogs evidence, as well you know. What about the apartment clean up? why would they bother to bleach the floor move the settee to hide evidence. Do you believe an abductor would take the trouble to do that! The dogs seem to have worried Jerry enough for him to find out how reliable they were!! 'incredibly unreliable' eh Jerry, I don't think so.

      The Portuguese did make mistakes but they were obstructed and manipulated, not only by the McCann's and friends, but also our interfering government who made sure they (the McCann's) were removed before the Portuguese had chance to stop them fleeing their country.

      Oh I nearly forgot. Why would Martin Brunt say they expected Kate to be charged with the accidental death of Madeleine? He also mentioned a full alert in the McCann's hire car. Jerry's sister also slipped up when she clumsily said ''They haven't told the twins were Madeleine is'' then quickly changed it to .....they don't know where she is! Then laughed it off. Too late I'm afraid, like someone said ''you can't un-ring a bell.''

      Delete
    9. @ Anonymous15 October 2015 at 23:27

      try reading the files and then repeat what you said - and provide any evidence for what you said.

      Delete
    10. I've read the files thank you and don't need to provide you with evidence, do your own research. Are you saying none of those things at 23:27 happened or was said? Instead of asking for evidence can you prove me wrong? My opinion is based on what I've read, seen, and heard.

      Delete
  48. Bennett is beneath contempt. IMO. What a sad excuse for a man. I wonder what his family think of his all consuming hatred of a family who have lost a much loved daughter?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Maybe we could take a leaf from Barry Sutton's book and love bomb the Tonester? Love is, after all, the answer.

      Delete
    2. He doesn't hate them, they are his meal ticket.

      Delete
  49. Admonishing people because they may be wrong doesn't make the other right, and the truth? The truth in all its simplicity, far too simple!

    ReplyDelete
  50. Correcting self, its not it's.

    ReplyDelete
  51. https://andrearlesmanashay.wordpress.com/2014/10/04/are-cadaver-dogs-reliable/

    Cristobell, Just found the above on another site and wondered if you'd seen it!! As I don't belong to any forum I have nowhere to post it, I wanted to know if you think it's worthy of debate on your blog? I won't be offended if you choose not to reply. I got the link off a group that someone called Pam runs, by all accounts she is a bit of a fruit-loop LOL. If you want you can just use the link as a topic, you don't have to publish this post. Talk about discrediting those dogs!!

    ReplyDelete
  52. The point I was making was intended to provoke discussion Admin, this is after all a discussion forum and the reason we are here. Trying to compose posts that won't offend or antagonise anyone is laborious, kills debate stone dead, and not to mention, it is extremely vexing to have them deleted regardless!

    In my experience, most people prefer honest debates and very few require smelling salts!

    This forum has the potential for lively, interesting debates that should be attracting new members in droves. Without new blood and new ideas, a forum can become stagnant, with the same topics being discussed over and over again, by the same people. As it is, I can say things without being challenged, others can say things without being challenged, and we are all being left dissatisfied.

    I know that I have my unbound blog where I can say anything I like, and I do, lol, but I also like to interact with others. I haven't 'made my mind up', it is a position I very rarely find myself in. I am always open to other opinions and other points of view, I don't assume I am right, as if, lol, I value the perspectives of others because it enables me to see the bigger picture.

    I should also add, I have no problem whatsoever if people disagree with me, I don't take it personally, heaven forbid we were all the same, and if they can persuade me over to their point of view, that's fine too. I have no problem admitting when I am wrong, I often am.

    I have taken the precaution of copying this over to my blog in case it is deleted, but I would urge Admin to consider what I have said, and perhaps allow members to voice their own opinions on this. If most prefer that the discussion on this forum should remain 'tame', that's fine, I am happy to go with the majority, I'll just keep the subversive stuff to my blog!

    ReplyDelete
  53. Ros - instead of making pointless insinuations about the Mccanns involvement in the disappearance of Madeleine, why don't you write a blog explaining exactly what you think happened and why you have drawn those conclusions?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 20:45 I have said what I thought happened in many ways and in many forums over the years, though you are right, I haven't spelled it out.

      I study this case from a human psychological perspective 20:45, I am not a detective in the Miss Marple sense. I believe on that holiday Kate was under a huge amount of pressure. She was a working mother with 3 toddlers, a macho, egotistical husband, and a massive ego of her own. She wanted it all, the prince, the castle and the happy ever after and she wanted to rub it in the faces of her enemies. She has a very angry, and indeed jealous disposition, and Maddie was the apple of her daddy's eye.

      Her descriptions of what her life was like, are descriptions of what she wanted it to be like, what she imagined other people's lives were like, they are unreal. In reality, she is tortured by self doubt, and she is envious of others to the point where she can and indeed does, explode - as we saw recently with the Kerry Needham banning, She is a very angry woman - its all in her book.

      But to the point, Kate is clingingly possessive of Gerry, who knows what the friendly invitation to the pretty Quiz mistress to join their party, may have triggered. I imagine that holiday, and that apartment was a massive pressure cooker.

      I struggle to think of this as a murder tbh, Kate looked traumatised when she first appeared before the cameras, and her arms and wrists were covered in bruises. Some might say they looked like restraining bruises, I think Kate finally blew and Gerry cleaned up.

      It may be that drugs would have been found in Madeleine's body if there was an autopsy, and if they and their friends were habitually drugging their children so they could go out, then they would all be in deep shit. Accidents happen, but drugs in a child's body would take a lot of explaining.

      They are all doctors, they all had a lot to lose. Unfortunately, once the lying began, it became a runaway train. One lie can lead to hundreds, and so it goes on.

      I think the abduction story is far too haphazard to have been planned in advance, the timeline was written out on the torn off page of Maddie's colouring book. Tannerman, was hastily added and ill thought out. Given the arrogance of some doctors, I think they believed no-one would ask them more than a few cursory questions, and they were foreign after all, what ho.

      Delete
    2. @ Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton15 October 2015 at 22:30

      Thanks for your reply - it completely avoided the question and said nothing.

      You have no idea what happened but for some reason based on your opinion on a pair of married doctors, that they must have done it. Well done.

      Delete
    3. 23:02 How rude, can you come up with a better explanation!!

      It's obvious you have no idea what happened otherwise you wouldn't be so dumb. You asked for an explanation and that's what you got.

      Delete
  54. What do you mean by "I think Kate finally blew"?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. " I think Kate finally blew and Gerry cleaned up." sounds like murder to me.

      Delete
  55. Resistor on MMM is taking painkillers that are way too strong.
    She constantly tells us how clever she is and yet she can't see what a sanctimonious kunt she is.

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

    ReplyDelete
  57. I missed this little gem from Ros:

    "Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton6 October 2015 at 09:38

    04:32, knowing Gerry as we do, even if he had been at home, he would have sent Kate to the door. "

    Is that the royal "we" Ros - can you describe how you know Gerry so well?

    ReplyDelete
  58. Ros says:

    "who knows what the friendly invitation to the pretty Quiz mistress to join their party, may have triggered"

    This is from Ros who went for a drink date with married bennett - who knows what that may have triggered?

    ReplyDelete
  59. Where did you get 'date' from? We were not exactly a pair of sweet sixteens, lol. One adult can meet another adult without it being a date, you appear to be trapped in the adolescent stage of your development.

    Please do not judge me by your own dysfunctional view of the world,

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Exactly - one adult can meet another without anything being read into it.

      So why did you say "who knows what the friendly invitation to the pretty Quiz mistress to join their party, may have triggered" - this wasn't one adult meeting another in private - it was an invitation to join a group of friends. Why would you believe it may trigger something.

      Your personal comment about me is noted - it says far more about you than it does me.

      Delete
    2. You are right of course. The chances of a bloke having a drink and enjoying raucous conversation with his mates trying to flirt with a curvaceous and giggly single woman, are probably remote to zilch. I am sure she was invited over to discuss the NHS service and current GMC Police guidelines. My mistake.

      Delete
    3. Oh I see - you believe that all married men are attracted to pretty, curvaceous and giggly single women and it could lead to "trigger" something. And that all these pretty women are trying to have something with a married man in a group of friends?

      That explains why your meeting with bennett was so safe.then because you are certainly not a pretty, curvaceous and giggly single woman.

      I would suggest you never try to represent women with your views!!!

      Delete
  60. Curious as to how the aerobics instructor/quiz mistress and other British "staff" members collected or received their P45's when they weren't employed by Mark Warner?

    ReplyDelete