Tuesday, 1 March 2016


 It is almost 9 years since little Madeleine McCann vanished while on holiday with her family in the Algarve. It has been the subject of 3 police investigations (for the PJ this is second time around), and has had the full time attention of 30 homicide officers from Scotland Yard for 4 years.  

But still nothing.  Despite the fact that little Madeleine could not have made herself disappear, there have been no arrests, no charges brought against anyone, not even those whose neglect led to her disappearance.  Bizarrely, one of the primary carer's of Madeleine has even been given an award by a leading British Charity - for services to children presumably.  

Nobody wants to add to the grief of the family of a missing child, but in a case where the mother has refused to answer police questions and wishes misery and fear on the detective who was searching for her child, is an Award really appropriate?  And presumably, with thousands of missing people on their books, why does this Charity continue to publicise the one child that is most likely to be dead?  The blood and cadaver dogs alerted to exactly what they are trained to alert to - somebody died in Apartment 5A and Madeleine has not been seen for almost 9 years.  

I think the case of missing Madeleine McCann has perfectly illustrated the contempt the mainstream media seems to have for the general public.  No matter how ludicrous a story, someone says 'yeh, they'll buy that', and the printers are set in motion.  The newspaper industry is collapsing because the public have woken up to the fact that their daily papers have been lying to them.  Anyone studying a media course will be fascinated at the simplicity of Team McCanns's original masterplan (campaign), and appalled at how easy it was for a small group of manipulative people to pull the wool over so many eyes.  

Heaven knows what Operation Grange have been up to this past 4+ years, they have had enough time to establish how many stars there are in the universe and quite possibly the meaning of life, but they still appear to be no nearer to discovering the truth behind little Madeleine's disappearance.  It seems as if they have gone to great endeavours to make the obviously fabricated story real.  Even revealing such snippets as a smelly man prowling the Algarve and climbing into the beds of small, blonde haired British girls.  Presumably, this is because leaving small kids on their own and going out for a meal is something unique to the British.  Forsooth!    

The snippets over the years have been enough to keep the forums and the conspiraceloons buzzing, and they were right, I fully understand the mentality behind the media silence and the sensitivity of the situation.  That's why I want no truck with Petitions, investigations by self appointed vigilantes, or any interference with the due legal process.  I believe there are officers in Operation Grange who are of the same ilk as Goncalo Amaral, that is, they are acting on behalf of the victim, little Madeleine.  

What I object to is the hurt that is being inflicted on real people as this facade continues.  In my opinion it was obscene to put Coral Jones, bless her heart, through the ordeal of sharing a stage with Kate McCann, especially now that so much IS known about Madeleine's disappearance.  Whilst every compassion should have been shown to Mrs McCann, and still should be, these awards are wrong on every level.  Has Kate McCann ever used her experience to warn other parents about the dangers of leaving small children alone?  Or is the subject taboo in case the more obvious danger of accident might come up?

But it is not just people like Coral who are being forced to admire the Emperor's new clothes, it is all those families of genuinely missing kids, and genuinely missing people who would give anything for a fraction of the publicity that has been given to Kate and Gerry McCann.  Madeleine is probably the best known missing child in the world.  Her picture has been distributed on every continent. Everyone who has ever been to Portugal has been interviewed.  How many more tabloid headlines can they get out of Madeleine?  Where will it end? Can the people of PDL now sleep safe in their beds, knowing there isn't a prowler or a gang of paedophiles on the loose?  Don't they deserve an answer? All those who's names have been dragged through the mud to prop up the abduction story?

Should generous donors continue giving to the Madeleine Fund, in the hope she will be found alive one day?  Has the Home Secretary got value for the £10m+ of taxpayer's money she has spent on this case?  She doesn't look like the kind of woman who would tolerate a fluffy answer to me.  She sort of reminds me of my old (always angry) maths teacher. 

We were told in a blaze of publicity that the Home Secretary gave Operation Grange its' remit.  I expect it will be the heads of those who drew up the actual remit that will roll, rather than that of Mrs May herself it this ends with no answers.  But of course that will only be in the event that any heads are required.  Who knows, there may yet be commendations and awards, if their remit was to keep what they are doing secret, then they have somehow managed it.  I don't think any of us have a clue what they are up to.  I have an inkling, but I will save it for my Agatha Christie version. 

Operation Grange began with the kind of front pages the McCanns would pay half a million for, it was full of hope with an aged progressed image of Madeleine and a statement from DCI Redwood that they were looking for a live child.  It was like another Clarence the 'big boys have arrived' headline, with detectives from the civilised world arriving shipshape and Bristol fashion to sort out the mess.  No scruffy clothes and fags hanging out their gobs, or vino with lunch for this lot.  With pristine suits, sensible haircuts and cheese sarnie at their desks, they were going to go over everything the PJ had done before them, picking up on their errors and telling them where they had gone wrong. 

Yet 4+ years on, these smartly dressed party poopers, seem to know less than the Portuguese police did in 3 weeks!   I can see why Operation Grange are probably having a great deal of difficulty in finding an exit strategy.  They will at some point have to say whether Mr and Mrs McCann were involved in the disappearance of their daughter.  There is no way out of it.  And once they do the floodgates will open.  It may be that there is a long line of dominoes balancing precariously, because when the first ones go down, the rest will follow. 

This case has done the reputation of Scotland Yard no good whatsoever.  It has led to even more accusations of corruption and the covering up of heinous crimes on behalf of VIPs.  I am far from naïve, but I still believe most people are inherently good, and that homicide detectives never forget the victim.  Time will tell of course, but in the meanwhile, crimes are still being committed in this poor child's name and real people are suffering as a result of those ongoing crimes.

It has been 9 years and no-one has been arrested or charged for making this little girl disappear.  In 2011, the UK stepped in (why?) virtually assuring the public, that 'our' police could do better, and heaven knows they have had more than enough resources, but still there is no result.  As I say I do not want to do anything that will interfere with the investigation (I am totally opposed to Bennett's Petition), but I do question the morality of allowing crimes that cause direct harm to others (such as the McCanns demands for damages from Goncala Amaral) to continue.  The Madeleine Fund and the McCanns 'Search' are highly suspicious, yet gullible people are still being encouraged to donate. 

Among the many things that bug me with this case, is the total lack of respect that the country of birth (my heart belongs in the fields of Ireland and the hills of Scotland) can be so appallingly patronising to the Portuguese.  I am offended on their behalf, not only am I offended, I am now embarrassed on England's behalf.  This case has brought out the inherent racism that exists within the British Establishment.  They accepted without question the word of two white British suspects over the word of the  foreign police.  And they opened up Operation Grange with the memorable words that neither the parents or any of their friends are suspects.  In other words the investigation began with all the Brits ruled out!

Yet, for all the posturing and all the thousands and thousands of files that Operation Grange have gone through with a fine-tooth comb, they still appear to know zilch.  It's like they said to the PJ, 'we will take your embarrassment and multiply it by a 1,000'.  Because it appears, they too have been outwitted, outplayed, or out politicised.  I can't see any awards being handed out for 'no, we can't solve it either' and I wouldn't want to see the wrath of Mrs. May. 


  1. What is a 'toothcomb' ? Is it like a toothbrush ?

    1. That expression should be written: with a fine-toothed comb.

  2. "Presumably, this is because leaving small kids on their own and going out for a meal is something unique to the British."

    According to Jane Tanner (10.5.07) it's a perfectly normal thing for the English to do:

    'It is normal (culturally, traditionally, education/examples seen) [for] English tourists to leave, for some time, their small children alone in the bedroom/apartment to sleep while the parents are absent'

    "They will at some point have to say whether Mr and Mrs McCann were involved in the disappearance of their daughter."

    That was the very first ball Redwood knocked into the covers. You say so yourself three paragraphs later:

    "And they opened up Operation Grange with the memorable words that neither the parents or any of their friends are suspects."

  3. Very well said.


    Anonymous at 08.51

    A 'fine toothed comb' picks out bits that more widely spaced teeth miss.

  4. "A 'fine toothed comb' picks out bits that more widely spaced teeth miss"

    Yes it does. No such thing as a 'toothcomb' though.

    1. There is such a thing as a toothcomb but it's a dental structure.

      I have a reputation as a pedantic old git but even I wouldn't nitpick about a slightly inaccurate expression!

      Ye gods, there are people even sadder than I am.

  5. Well apart from the 'nit picking' remarks. It's a worthy round up of where things stand today.

    But let us recall, what went before Miss Fluffy-speak's first refusals and the previous government & the scoping exercise, by Gamble (£100k) the basis to which the case could be investigated in the UK. Next of course the Sun's blackmail with headlines & the relationships of PMs and editorial control of said newspaper.

    Moving on, worthy also of mention of the number of actual investions, two Portugal & one UK. Is the constant reviews, whether in full - as happened on the exit of GA or the constant change of lead in the UK Op. Grange - each newbie on the block, no doubt looking over the pile of files again, and again.

    What next?

  6. When a child dies because of an illness or an accident, the sense of loss is overwhelming and grief puts other emotions out of order. Parents are nonfunctioning and long term depressions are common. Blaming each other and/or distance themselves from their partner is another frequent aspect. Some parents even lose their will to live, and coping with everyday activities becomes a struggle. Remaining children who grieve their brother or sister have to be taken care of and comforted in the midst of parent's own grief. No, not everone cries all the time. And Not every couple get a divorce. But getting on with sports, organising a fund, planning trips abroad (without the remaining children) , looking fresh and rested with matching jewellry on interviews shortly after a loss doesn't seem too common either. And are grins, smirks and the more subtle 'Dupers delight's even compatible with grief??
    Because if that (an accident) is what happened to Madeleine, why has the unexpected loss of a child rather given the McCanns an energy boost than sorrow?

  7. I would like to know how on earth you can say that OG have found nothing, they haven't given a running commentary on the investigation just as they said they wouldn't.

    Another thing, I doubt if the Portuguese are at all offended by OG as they are working together.

  8. Ros - this is probably one of the most messy incoherent blogs you have ever made.

    I am sorry if Operation Grange have not given you (and people like you) daily briefings at 9.00 to update you but it is something you will have to live with.

    1. Operation Grange are acting on behalf of the victim, Madeleine. It doesn't matter that they haven't me an answer, but they haven't given the missing child the justice she deserves. Nine years on and still no-one has been arrested or charged with her murder and/or disappearance.

    2. 15:14 Don't you think it would be a good idea for Operation Grange to stop putting out reports that the parent's/tapas are NOT being considered as suspects! why bother telling the public anything. Innocence as far as I'm aware hasn't been proved yet, until it is how can they justify excluding the parent's without giving a reason why they think like this! It's a complete mystery after delving deeper into this case that they still take the majority of the public for fools. Carry on it will make no difference. The public know the McCann's received full backing from the UK government above any other missing child in history, that alone set alarm bells ringing and they're ringing even louder now, almost deafening.

      Justice for Madeleine is what the public want and I personally couldn't give a toss about her parent's, as long as those responsible for what happened to Maddie are made to pay for their crime.

    3. "Don't you think it would be a good idea for Operation Grange to stop putting out reports that the parent's/tapas are NOT being considered as suspects!"

      The police don't have to keep putting out reports that they are not being considered as suspects. They have already stated it. Once is enough unless other evidence is found.

      If you think that 9 people were able to hide a secret such as the disappearance of a young child for 9 years, from family, friends, lovers, police, through thick and thin, through enormous guilt, then you are a fool. A guilty secret like that would eat away at you. Someone would have broken or given something away many years ago.

      Anyway, I know one of the couples who were there that evening. They (mistakenly) believed that the children were safe, being about 50 metres away and within the complex. They were checked on, perhaps not enough some might say. The McCanns were totally distraught. My friends were there, they witnessed their behaviour, their reactions. The hotel was searched high and low, not just by the police. If Madeleine was there, alive or dead, then she was being kept in an extremely well hidden place.

    4. Thank you for contributing 22:29, and you explain things that with a stretch of the imagination could well be feasible. How have they kept it going? That is probably one of the biggest hurdles those who lean on the side of innocence must overcome. It is impossible for them to have continued.

      However, when you consider the seriousness of the crimes involved, keeping that secret would dominate your entire life. It's not a pleasant way to live by any means, but look at the alternative?

      Sadly, the McCanns are not the only parents in the world suspected of being involved with their child's death or disappearance. Several decades later the 'secrets' of Jonbenet Ramsey's death have never been revealed. A cloud of suspicion remains over the heads of the Aisenbergs, the Irwins and the Celis family. Life goes on.

      As for distraught - what does distraught look like? To the viewing public, neither Kate or Gerry ever appeared distraught. Lisa Irwin's mother on the hand, cries buckets of crocodile tears as did Susan Smith, the mother who had murdered her two sons, then claimed they had been abducted.

      In appearing so often in public, it is only natural that they were going to be judged. It is human nature, we can't switch off our instincts. There wasn't even any sixth sense necessary, Kate and Gerry are not naturally endearing and their wooden performances when discussing their missing daughter was bound to arouse suspicion. In this age of communication, we all know what real grief looks like. We have seen the sheer agony of mothers like Coral Jones and Kerry Needham - the more empathetic among us, could even feel that pain.

      Of course, not being likeable is not enough to implicate them in a crime, but when we know we are being lied to, we become more alert and hostile.

      I'm afraid I don't accept the word 'mistake' - you make a mistake when you are ill informed and under pressure. None of these applied. These were educated people who should have been aware of the very real danger of one or more of the toddlers having an accident. That was the danger, not abduction by a paedophile.

      It wasn't a mistake I'm afraid, it was a deliberate decision, possibly a collective decision, but it was premeditated and a risk this group took every night. And bizarrely, there appears to be no remorse from any of them.

      The behaviour of the McCanns and their friends and relatives was also off the scale, I'm sure many who tuned in were as curious as myself as to what they would get up to next.

      To the watching world the behaviour of Madeleine's parents has been a long running soap opera. It is so extraordinary that those of us hanging on in there for the finale, daren't miss an episode.

      It is hard sometimes to believe that there can be such wickedness in this world 22:29, but closing our eyes won't make it go away. Nobody sane wanted to think badly of the parents, but there comes a point where those being lied to will refuse to allow the deceit to go on any further. Because basically when someone lies to you, they are insulting your intelligence, and few of us can live with that.

      Is it possible to carry on as 'normal'? Absolutely and then some. I presently have a penchant for watching real crime documentaries, and it is astonishing how many normal, stable, pillars of the Church and the community live secret double lives.

  9. I can guarantee that bennett the blonk is goading the Mccanns, is the main source of Hall's videos, and WANTS action taken against him because he believes there will be a massive GoFundMe appeal to support him.

    He is a complete and absolute fool who has conned so many people for so long that they don't recognise that his one and only aim is to make money out of the case of a missing child.

  10. Maybe in the Hall video thread, but here now. The first hour of the first video was a very good overview of the situation and used evidence for those who know little. Since then, in video 2 and 3 we have more conjecture and supposition and let's make a list of that not relelv\ant and claim it is important.

    Worse is the dismissing of all witnesses and nannies, implicating some collusion with the McCann's. Why they would do this is not covered.

    This is a terrible video based on Hall's conjecture based on Bennett's conjecture. So annoyingly inaccurate, it's not worth starting with the errors.

    How many people are involved in this socalled cover up? Tapas 7. All the Nannies, Mrs Fenn and niece? Err?

    A good hour could have been cut about dismissing some media source reports, painful filler. Ditto all those researchers. Bennett, Macleoud, Taylor. Their opinion is not evidence.

    Richard Hall, you have got into this mess, you can get out of it. Aside a possibility of maybe in the next video, if Madeleine died on Sunday, aside all collusion what happenened to her body? Would two year old twins not vocalise about not seeing their sister for four days?

    As a McCann sceptic, I cannot recommend this video to anyone. It is an indulgent piece of crap.

  11. bennett the blonk has stated on Justice Forum:

    "To view, select, delete, amend, omit and crop all their photographs on their SD card(s), and put what was left of them on to two CDs, handing them into the PJ on Wednesday 9 May. The result was the useless 'grey-scale' images we see in the PJ files."

    Apart from the unsubstantiated first sentence - look at the second sentence:

    "The result was the useless 'grey-scale' images we see in the PJ files."

    What his massive brain the size of a planet doesn't realise is that the photos in the files produced for the DVDs were black and white scans/photo copies from printouts - not the original photos.

    1. And who did the cropping?

  12. Most sane people doubted the truthfullness of Jane Tanners improved memory. More and more details with time. But doubting the nanny when she does the same "trick" by remembering high tea one year later (after visiting the McCanns...) is not suspicious at all??

    It's easy for some to say that Richard D Hall is wrong, but coming up with evidence - solid evidence - that undoubtedly points to Madeleines presence after Sunday hasn't been accomplished by anyone so far. The so called proof is too fragile, and RDH merely shows it.
    Goncalo Amaral believed in the Payne visit, but that was even gone in the Crimewatch reconstruction. One lie means more lies. Quiet obvious in this case.

    1. Sanity prevails at last!

    2. Madeleine's presence after Sunday has been established by the PJ and the British police and both have said so, many times.

      On the other hand, we have a proven liar, RDH, saying she was not, and he received a lot of his information from a greater proven liar, Bennett, working out of their bedrooms and with no investigative powers to question witnesses whatsoever.
      Do you seriously think there is any comparison?

    3. No, her presence was not established. It was assumed early on, just like the abduction was assumed initially. Then what happened? Gradually another picture emerged. Again, it's legitimate to accept that the abduction was a lie, but the rest is the truth and nothing but the truth?
      Investigative powers? You can question a witness so many times, it doesn't make him/her more credible. Especially when the memory improves each time. You don't see anything suspicious with that?
      Just as you say "there is not a single proof of an abductor, no signs of a break in" etc , others could answer "oh yes there is, Jane Tanner saw a man, other tourists saw lurking men outside the apartment, one unidentified fingerprint was found etc. Yet you don't believe them. Why? Because they are simply not credible. When you take a closer look you see they are a mix of lies, misunderstandings, willingness to help, imaginations. And that is exactly what Richard D Hall has done, taken a closer look at the "proof" and then presented it in his video. What's wrong with raising relevant questions. He is not claiming to have all the answers. How does that make him a proven liar?

    4. anon 1 March 19-16

      Complete nonsense! the abduction was not assumed by the GNR or the PJ.

      RDH is a proven liar regarding Murat rushing home, phones off for the same 32 hours, Payne and Oldfield retracting their ID of Murat in December 2007 and on and on and on.

      Lets not forget the weather reports, complete made up bullshit.

      Thursday was as warm as Sunday, whether you like it nor not as the records prove.

    5. So what you're saying is that the police immediately saw through the lies, the fabricated abduction? Great! And they are still working in that direction? How clever to rule out the abduction directly from day one. No energy wasted on that then.
      Now who is a proven liar?!?
      The weather report are complete made up bs, you say. Ok so now the weather stations in PdL with actual documents of cloudcoverage and temperatures are lying as well? You are doing the same you are accusing others of.

    6. Anon 1 March 21:24

      Perhaps you would care to enlighten us where the weather stations are in PDL where these official readings and documents were produced backing up this Sunday was hot and Thursday was cold nonsense.
      Go on surprise us all with official data and not something produced in someones bedroom!

    7. @JJ 1 March 2016 at 20:06

      Which records do you mean, do you have a link please?
      I would really appreciate if for statements like yours, people would link to the source of it. Otherwise it's the same as believing the contrary just because somebody else said so.

      I'm not lazy, so I went to search on the PJ files for the weather conditions. The only information I found, was a request from the PJ to the meteorological institut and the response from them, requesting to confirm acceptance of the costs first.

      I also googled it and found a link to cmomm. A poster named Gillyspot listed the weather conditions and also added (that's how I like it) the source of it:

      The measured weather is from Faro, approx. 95 km away from Praia da Luz. Apparently there wasn't a remarkable difference in temperature or windintensity beetween 29th of april and 3rd of may 2007. Sunday was mostly clear during daytime and thursday partly clouded. But still, imo, if the weather conditions on sunday were mostly good enough to wear summer clothes and sunglasses, it was also partly good enough to do so on thursday.

      So JJ, I agree with you on this, but only because I could find the information by myself. I'm a sceptic person, I look for substantiated opinions, reliable sources, facts, not just someone claiming "bullshit"...

    8. I know PeterMac has done extensive research on the weather, and it wasn't from someone's bedroom. He presented it on cmomm a while ago but it should still be there. (With links)!
      But maybe PM is on your hate list too @ JJ?

    9. JJ 20:06

      Photography is governed by light, not ambient temperature.

    10. If Peter Mac can produce official weather data for PDL that will be very helpful.

      Stuff somebody wrote in their bedroom does not count and that is all we are getting.

      I have not got a hate list but like the facts clear and simple and am fed up being told utter crap from a loony squad.
      Do you seriously think the PJ and OG have not checked the weather with the official Portuguese weather bureau.

    11. Anon 2 March 13-56

      Is your statement meant to mean something?

    12. @ Anonymous2 March 2016 at 13:56

      Do you mean that the photo couldn't have been taken on the 3rd because of the partly clouded light? Partly clouded can also mean partly clear...
      The temperature has only been a question because of the summer clothes and sunglasses on the photo.

    13. @ Anonymous2 March 2016 at 12:42

      Could you or somebody else please, who is familiar with or member on CMoMM give a link to PM's weather research and the source where he got the information from? I tried, but only found again the same list taken from weather underground. Maybe it's on the other topics, but I don't have the patience to scroll trough hundred of pages...

    14. JJ 16:05

      Is yours? (Thursday was as warm as Sunday, whether you like it nor not as the records prove).

      The length of an outdoor shadow is determined by the position of the sun, not the recorded temperature (although the sun thingy is hot - I'll give you that).

    15. @ Anonymous2 March 2016 at 17:00

      So, the issue with the last photo is not about the temperature, but about the time it was taken, or could have not been taken, right? But, if the sun did shine through the partly clouded sky on thursday 3rd, then it could still be possible that the photo was taken on that day and time. Correct me please if I got it wrong.

  13. Getting back on topic Cristobell. I think you done a great job of the impossible I.e. summing up where we are now in the investigation. How true are your words "I think the case of missing Madeleine McCann has perfectly illustrated the contempt the mainstream media seems to have for the general public"

    In what parallel universe do they or OG for that matter think that anyone who has any sort of interest in the case believe the stories that they have fed us. I suppose in a way in there lies the reason they have done it. Its aimed at the majority of the people who will read the crap stories in the morning and not gave it a second thought an hour later. Has the MSM become something that entertains people on the train to work with silly fantasy headlines which grabs our attention for a short while. So short that its not worth doing any serious investigative journalism.

    People like ourselves who have spent a lot of time on this case are jumping up and down in frustration at the crap stories being told while the person sitting opposite us on the train thinks that sounds a bit strange but sure never mind. Have the MSM been doing this for years and its just on this particular time we are the "eejits" who have taken enough interest to realise what their up to. I recall a friend who was who was a keen cyclist who used to jump up and down at how Armstrong was portrayed. Looking back now when she tried to discuss evidence against him I used to cite the old mantra sure didn't he beat cancer and win the Tour de France. Was I any different to the members of the public now who say poor K & G they lost their child and the horrible people on the internet never leave them alone.

    I agree with some of your posters that we don't know what OG have been up to but I can't see how unless the produce a live Maddie, how they are going to come out of this any way only badly. They too have misled the public so much and I don't buy into they had to protect the mc canns from lynch mobs. That may have been the case in saying they were "not suspects" but making up smelly men and predators. How could any sane police force justify that

  14. If the cops could find the freezer Gerry dumped, this case would be solved.

    1. Sure it would. When are your next meds due?

    2. When I'm next in Portugal and my parents want to go out drinking

  15. If anyone wants any proof that CMOMM invents and uses fake members then read this:

    "Radio report

    Post Cmaryholmes Today at 5:01 pm
    I have only recently looked into the Madeleine McCann case, following a conversation with a friend a couple of years ago. Mrs McCann had been on the tv and I expressed my sympathy with her, saying how awful it must be to lose a child and not know what happened. My friend pointed out that the parents and their friends had been in the habit of leaving their very young children alone night after night so had to bear the responsibility for whatever happened. As a Mum I was horrified (the reason that I had never looked into this before is that the thought of a child being harmed is almost too great to bear so I never read newspaper reports about such incidents.) and I know that I would never ever leave my children unattended, especially not at the ages of those little ones. Anyway, having found this forum (expecting it to be of wacky conspiracy theorists and 'trolls', I have,like many others been shocked by the whole affair. The serene countenances of the 'unfortunate' parents do not in any way reflect what I would expect to see if a child had really been abducted. (I always think of poor James Bulger and Sarah Payne and the faces of their parents,although, of course, Mr and Mrs McCann would have us all believe that they believe Madeleine to be alive and unharmed).
    My point, however, is that I have a strong recollection of listening to a radio report late at night, it must have been Radio 4 as it was my custom to listen late at night, either on the Friday or Saturday the 4th or 5th May 2007, about the disappearance of Madeleine. I recall the reporter saying that the father of the missing child had been running through the resort streets desperately shouting 'I'm sorry, Madeleine' and, of course I remember feeling heartbroken for him and his wife. I have never seen an account of this since, so I wondered if the report of the despairing father wailing through the town was an invention to garner sympathy. I have only heard the Mccanns since say that they are sorry that they weren't there when 'it' happened, not that they were in any way responsible for 'it' happening. Just a thought, only a small detail, I know, and my memory may be playing tricks on me, but I do wonder."


    Posts: 1
    Join date: 2016-03-01


    1. I don't see the prove...
      This could have been me, when I started to become a sceptic.

      But I see another prove, namely that Cristobels Blog is used to discredit (or promote?) everything what has (or not) to do with Tony Bennett directly or indirectly.

      I just don't see what Rosalindas new topic has to do with Tony Bennett, CMoMM or RDH once again. They are not the center of the world, are they?

      So, how about staying on topic and let the sun turn around other thoughts than TB and co.?

    2. Anon 1 March 19.54

      Cristobell mentions questioning the morality of crimes that cause direct harm to others.

      This surely must include witnesses being called liars at every opportunity and this, much of the time, can be traced directly back to Bennett and Hall.

      This includes Mrs Fenn, Mrs Tranmer, the Smiths, (all of them), Cat Baker, Charlotte Pennington, other nannies, waiters, cleaners, chefs, other OC staff, GNR officers, PJ officers, Robert Murat, his mother, girlfriend, anybody who ever spoke to him, Flybe management, any local of PDL, any local of Rothley, any holidaymaker, Boyds, Wilkins, Carpenters, Edmonds, to name but a few.

      The Police investigate, Bennett speculates,...... there is a difference.

    3. Great post. Hopefully C.R. are copying T.B.'s posts and contributions
      to Halls videos with a view to further litigation.

    4. i wonder how pleased his wife will be if he has to shell out the £47.000 for breaking the terms lodged with the court.

    5. I wonder if his wife is still around?
      She would be very unhappy indeed I would have thought. Who would support someone who has cost them half of their pension and could very soon cost them the other half?
      To spent your last days arguing about something that has nothing to do with you is very sad indeed.

    6. @ JJ
      "The Police investigate, Bennett speculates,...... there is a difference."

      I never said something different.

      Just two of Rosalindas 16 paragraphs could indirectly refer to TB&co. The other paragraphs refers to other things and thoughts, which have bigger influence or more to do (imo) with the case.

      I'm not disagreeing with you on the issue of accusing witnesses of lying just because of speculations.

    7. Anonymous 22:16

      Last days? Tony Bennett is immortal.

    8. Anonymous 22:16

      "To spend your last days arguing about something that has nothing to do with you is very sad indeed."

      To spend your days arguing about something that has nothing to do with you is very sad indeed.

      So why persist in doing so?

  16. I agree with every word,a great blog!

  17. It's probably been easy to debunk certain witness statements when trying to get a theory to fit,such as the early death scenario.One statement that stands out to me from the files is Elisa Dias Romao .In that her testimony is credible that Madeliene was alive that week.I don't believe the abduction scenario by the way.

  18. I see T.B. Is residing on the Injustice forum now.
    Meanwhile his home forum is relying on Aquila to keep the venom going.
    The old fool must be feeling neglected.

  19. Verdi has just posted the most cringeworthy post ever.
    He is obviously joined at the hip with T.B. and Hall.
    Maybe one day he will have an opinion of his own.

    1. it's female

    2. thanks for promoting once again...
      Btw, Verdi has enough intellect to build up his own opinion.

  20. Well, I believe that Madeleine was abducted.

    Why? The McCanns are not stupid people. If, somehow, they had killed their daughter or been responsible for her death, through whatever means, do you really think that they would have hidden her body behind the sofa in their apartment and then pronounced to the world that she was missing. And then, some weeks later, find an isolated place to hide a body, bearing in mind that they had no knowledge of the area, then buy some shovels and heavy duty bin liners and then transport the rotting body, all before the constant gaze of journalists and police (please do not say that you don't believe that the Portuguese police did not put a 24 hour watch on who, they seem to believe, were the prime suspects in this case).

    If they would have been responsible for her death, they would they would have talked all night about what to do next. Either they would have persuaded each other that it was best to admit to everything, or they would have made a plan to cover up what they had done before the child's disappearance was discovered.

    1. That's why the "all happened on the 3d of May" is completely ridiculous. It's a mantra created by the McCanns to make people think they didn't have the time for all those things on the same evening. Meaning to conclude they are innocent and the one and only explanation is that Madeleine was abducted. And they've succeeded in that, really. She died earlier. Not only could they talk the whole night, but several days about what to do next. Whatever decision it seems to have worked as they still are not behind bars.

    2. Anonymous 23:03

      Plan B then.

    3. "That's why the "all happened on the 3d of May" is completely ridiculous. It's a mantra created by the McCanns to make people think they didn't have the time for all those things on the same evening."

      What utter tosh! All witness statements, photo evidence, police investigations, point to the fact the Madeleine was alive up till 3rd May. If you want to discount all of this because that suits some fantastical scenario that just happens to have arrived in yours and a few other's heads, then so be it. There are still people out there who believe that the earth is flat. There are also people who believe that the Paris bombings were faked by the French secret service using so called 'crisis' actors.

  21. Bennett quote..
    That statement by Mr Justice Tugendhat is one reason why I really cannot continue to make any more public statements about Madeleine’s reported disappearance. The impact of my actions on members of my family is another. Besides that, the process of defending yourself and pursuing legal claims on your own is both stressful and mentally exhausting. The possibility of being sent to prison, being made a bankrupt and losing my home were all factors which have weighed heavily on my mind. It is time for me to cease making any more statements on the case - not even repeating facts.

    Evidently he no longer gives a toss, spouting crap day in day out is more important.

  22. 23:03,There was evidence of a body having been behind the sofa, no other person had died before the McCann's took up residence. So who's body was removed, and who removed it that's the question that needs answering.As for getting rid of the body those responsible had done that well before the McCann's cried wolf!! No need to worry about being watched or finding a suitable place to hide the body that will have already been taken care of you can be certain of that.

    1. There is no evidence that a body had been behind the sofa. Unfortunately those same cadaver dogs also pointed to dead bodies in Haut De La Garenne in Jersey. Also, think about it, if the cadaver dogs smelt a cadaver on the floor behind the sofa - why weren't there any traces of the cadaver on the back of the sofa itself?

      And, please let us in on your inside knowledge - who disposed of the body?

  23. For the same reason cadaver wasn't found on the bed that Maddie had supposedly slept in 12:07 stop trying to confuse the situation, there were blood spots found on the back of the sofa if I remember correctly, plus when the sofa was moved by the PJ it revealed the stain on the floor and attempts had been made to cover up the evidence. Did I say I had inside knowledge? NO I didn't, what I said is whoever removed the body did so before the McCann's cried wolf. Think what you like It's your prerogative, but please get your facts right before accusing me of having inside knowledge, would you like me to accuse you of being a McCann family member only here to enforce their lies! NO I thought not.

  24. If you can show me where it is reported that blood spots belonging to Madeleine were found on the sofa, then you might have us believing something that you have said.

    By the way, I was being sarcastic about your inside knowledge.

    1. Not Textusa, you could not resist coming back here, could you?

  25. Anonymous? Another pseudonym NotTextusa? You should hook up with carana on the Justice Forum, you seem to have a lot in common.

    You can fool some of the people some of the time but you can't fool all the people all the time. You'd do well to remember that.


    1. No - I'm not anybody who you are referring to - I believe that Madeleine was abducted. But this goes to prove that you'll jump to any conclusion that you want and persuade yourselves that it is the right one.