Monday 2 May 2016


In July 2007, British National Search Advisor, Mark Harrison suggested that the Portuguese police should bring in two dogs who were specially trained to detect blood and the scent of human cadaver.  Keela, 'the most amazing dog in Britain' and on a higher rate of pay than the Chief Constable, and Eddie, the cadaver dog who had never given a false positive in over 200 cases.  Mark Harrison asserted that 'if the dogs came to signal Maddie's death, then it would be a fact'. 

The dogs not only signalled, once, twice, three or even 4 times, they signalled 11 times and only in relation to the McCann possessions.  And they told a story, behind the sofa, in the wardrobe, and in the back of the hire car.  The scent of the poor child's body clung onto to her cuddly toy, her mother's clothes and her last places of rest.  She left all the clues behind.

Whilst the alerts of the amazing British dogs changed the entire course of the investigation, without scientific evidence to back it up, they could not be used in a Portuguese court.  This loophole has been Gerry and Kate's lifeline ever since.  When Gerry says 'there is no evidence', what he really means is there is no evidence that can be used against them in a Portuguese court. 'Find the body and prove we killed her', he challenged, seemingly knowing that they couldn't. 

Taunting your opponent is never a good idea, especially when you are standing on a very wobbly pedestal.  I suspect for a lot of Portuguese police Gerry and Kate have made this personal, everything from sardine munchers to fucking tossers is no doubt stored within their collective memories.  If they had just kept their traps shut, maybe it would all have gone away.  

The supporters of the McCanns have done everything within their power to discredit the evidence of the blood and the cadaver dogs.  Initially they claimed the handler was prompting the dogs to alert -  why the world renowned Martin Grime would risk his and his dogs reputations and futures to incriminate Gerry and Kate is a mystery.  The dogs fecked up in the Attracta Harron case claimed the McCanns, err, no, they didn't.  The evidence must have been planted said Kate's mum, which of course begs the question, why would the Portuguese police leave a child predator on the loose in their home towns in order to frame Kate and Gerry?

Like most deceivers trapped in a corner, the McCann and their entourage have a tendency to over explain everything.  Kate was a GP, she was always in contact with dead bodies (which makes her sound like Shipman) and the car was used to transport the twins smelly nappies.  Note to K&G, you empty contents of nappy in lavatory before bagging and binning.  But I digress, the ever helpful proactive family and friends, gave explanations of sweaty sandals, rotting meat, dripping blood and regular trips to the garbage dump.  This lot really need to attend some sort of basic NVQ hygiene course.  Meanwhile, don't let them borrow your car. 

There can be no denying there was a foul odour from the boot of the hire car. In Goncalo's documentary of The Truth of the Lie, he explains how a witness, a neighbour of the McCanns' holiday villa, came forward to state that the boot of the hire car had been left open several nights running.  If human beings could detect the smell to the extent that they have to air the boot night after night, how likely is it that the dogs got it wrong?

The McCanns evidence against the dogs is flimsy and has nothing to back it up.  If they had an expert witness who could dispute the findings of Eddie and Keela, they would have produced him/her a long time ago.  As it was, the over explaining Gerry, had to make a last ditch appeal to the Portuguese Judge to ignore the dogs' findings as their farcical damages claim against Goncalo came to an end.


  1. When asked by the judge if he was an expert
    on these dogs he replied 'no'.

    Dogs 1-0 Gerald

    End Of

    1. Sorry, there's a correction to the score in the big match. There was two dogs, so the score is :

      Dogs 2-0 Gerald (Unbelievable, Jeff).

  2. When asked on 'Twitter' recently if he had any explanation for the dogs' alerts Jim Gamble's response was...'Goodbye'

    1. Dogs 2-0 Gamble.

    2. He's one sinister-looking cat, auld Uncle Jim:

  3. 14:04 - those pesky dogs just won't go away.

    Does anyone know offhand how Summers and Swan explained the alerts of the dogs. I know Jim has pointed people in their direction before. Whatever it was, it obviously didn't make any difference to peoples' belief and it's not even memorable!

  4. '' (snipped) Again, Grime
    thought it possible that the cadaver dog was reacting to cadaver scent contamination.
    Referring to the dog’s reactions to both Cuddle Cat and the clothing, the handler cautioned: ‘No
    evidential or intelligence reliability can be made … unless it can be confirmed with corroborating
    In his 2008 book, Amaral drew a far more definite conclusion. ‘Eddie barked,’ he wrote, ‘ ....... ''

    There is quite an extensive FACTUAL account of the dogs, also at the begining of the book the search GNR dogs.

    I think, by covering te ground factually, then using the quoted words of Grimes they basically left conclusions to the reader.

    Since, I have to say I agree, that unless you have supportive forensic evidence, the dogs become merely a pointer, in other words it would stand up in a court of law.

  5. Eddie and Keela's alerts might very well stand in a court of law in USA! Coupled with demonstrable lies, the missing child, no evidence of an intruder or an abduction, etc. Recent cases there have accepted specialist dog signals as evidence in the absence of a body. But UK and Portugal seem to have different rules of evidence. Luckily for the parents in this case.

    1. Lesly I don't know if they dog alerts will ever stand up in court or if the mccanns will ever end up in court but eventually the story is going to be have to be told to the public and in a balanced way. when it does it will be the dogs above every other bit of evidence which will convince them of the McCann guilt. Other than producing a live Maddie No other evidence can override them and the public is a pretty big court to be judged by even if we don't get a court of law and we should always be so grateful for Martin Grimes and his wonderful dogs.

    2. I absolutely agree that the work of Martin Grimes and his dogs is wonderful. All specialist dogs and their handlers do exceptional work, in many kinds of tracking - missing or trapped people, drugs, explosives ... everyone marvels at the work they do and trust them to find what they have been trained to find. So signals by a cadaver dog and a blood dog have to be taken seriously despite what the McCanns and their supporters would have us believe. No question.

  6. Pat Brown may be a professional profiler but if the data she is given is nonsense, her conclusions will be nonsense.

    For example, her knowledge of Hillsborough. Her view is tainted by ex Superintendant Peter Mac, whose recent input on her blog states, the public believe the fans were drunk because thats what the Police and press told them.

    But Peter Mac is one of those ex police officers promoting again and again that the fans were violent and drunk.

    Read his comments on CMOMM, as recently as last year.

    These comments were repeated, even after the conclusions of the 2012 HIP report, absolved the Liverpool fans of being drunk and disorderly.

    Peter Mac knew better.

    The Mccann case is similiar. Nonsense about Madeleine disappearing before the Thursday, nonsense about the weather and on and on. Looks like Peter Mac knows more than the PJ.
    So if he is a source of Pat Brown's knowledge, she knows very little.

    This is not meant to be argumentative, but certain commentators on this case, because they may be profilers ex policeman, ex solicitors, are lorded as having superior insight and knowledge, so we should listen to them without question. When in reality they know sod all.

    And finally, I have writen to Pat Brown, regarding Peter Mac and Hillsborough, to no avail.

    1. Pat Brown has been (and still is) very angry at the way people have responded unfavourably to her blogs - and it shows. This is very unprofessional and it has obviously clouded her judgement and objectivity. She used to be quite good once upon a time, but the way she pulls statistics out of the air and comes to conclusions without proof of anything, would be a major worry in a UK court scenario if she were to appear for the prosecution. Pat thinks the McCann case is comparable to the OJ Simpson case - that says it all really.

  7. Hi JJ, yes, I fear there is an air of 'I'm right, dead right', coming from that direction, and for me that is always a turn off.

    I got a long PM from Petermac shortly after I joined CMoMM, basically telling me how much my libertarian views disgusted him and that my blog was a disgrace. I can't say I was terribly enamoured of him after that. I still found some of his posts interesting, but it was the 'I'm right, dead right' attitude to the last photo etc, that stopped me reading.

    Pat may have experience of profiling, but she doesn't live in the UK and she has no feel for British culture or the mood of its' people. If she is being guided by Petermac on Hillsborough, then she is only getting the v. narrow views of a small group of Hillsborough police defenders who have have been discredited and are despised by the British public. The determination of the Hillsborough families has rocked the UK establishment to the core. Those who accused the fans themselves of causing the disaster have been forced to apologise and those continuing with those disgusting allegations are held in contempt. If Pat is not aware of that, then it calls her own judgment into question.

    1. I like Pat but I think she tends to be too quick off the mark. I recall a comment from her on her site on the same day as the inquest of Brenda. In not so few words she said that it was 'suicide,these things happen and that was it'. What research had she done into the inquest within the same day? The answer to that has to be little to none. I think she'd get a better reception from us on this side of the pond if she did the homework herself.

    2. I see that Pat has been kind enough to prove my point for me above by tweeting "If the Scotland Yard Review is Legitimate", when in fact we know it is an investigation.

      Sorry Pat,please do the groundwork,you will be received in a better light.

    3. Doesn't say much for hotel security in general when someone can walk in unchallenged carrying one or more canisters of helium. Brenda must have been very strong too, as they're quite heavy. RIP Brenda.

    4. Well someone seems to have done some research 16:24.
      Take a look at the last 3 comments on the Brenda Leyland post here on Cristobell's blog.

    5. Hi JJ @11:32, he's dead right, based on his ability to believe what he's been told by people he doesn't believe. How the hell do those two judgemental freaks know when anyone arrived? Fact is, they don't, it's all founded on perception, personal beliefs and assumption.

      Frankly, it's clear to me, this case has attracted some very insensitive judgemental types and I can guarantee they wouldn't KNOW (the truth) if they were told. Good, I'm glad, Sean and Amelie need protection from somewhere.

      Oh, and Ros, you, Gerry and Kate, the tapas 7, the entire Ocean Club and even Jim Gamble would be invited around to my place for some rest and relaxation (smoke that it's the law, Kate can have a cocktail!) before I would give the time of day to those devoid of human kindness, fearful, parochial squares.

      I'm pissed off with the lie, but they seriously bully Kate, Gerry, the extended family and two innocent little kids who are, no less than, clearly struggling with mountains of adult loathing.

      Ignorant hateful people, and as for mouth almighty, Brown, she's solved precisely sweet beggar all and is too full of ego and lack to solve this.

      Well, the evidence speaks for itself.

      Peace and joy to all decent folk, you deserve it. X

    6. Cristobell, I am shocked and disappointed to hear of the message you received from PeterMac.

      I am beginning to wonder now if the reason he left CMoMM was due to something other than that he was sick to death of the childish bitchy comments about you and Sonia.

      If he is, and always has been, a wind-up merchant as some people are saying, it will be a big shock. Not unprecedented though - there was a fake retired judge a few years ago!

  8. I'm amazed that the hugely popular Rick Astley has managed to find the time to get involved with the new Madeleine charity song. He must get millions of fan letters every week and trying to answer all those surely keeps him very busy all the time, not to mention all the recording contract offers he has to deal with. Well done Rick!


      He is also rumoured to be a member of CMOMM.

    2. Rick who??????????

    3. 17:27 Maybe CMoMM Researcher Rick D. Hall?

  9. JJ @11:32

    "But Peter Mac is one of those ex police officers promoting again and again that the fans were violent and drunk.

    "Read his comments on CMOMM, as recently as last year."

    Whereabouts, please?

    1. Search CMOMM topic "Hillsborough,Families Braced for revelations".

      A selection of comments:

      Peter Mac
      Sunday September 16th 2012..... An urban myth is being created across the columns. People seem to be interpreting that there were no drunken and ticketless fans, but this is nonsense.

      September 17th. .... 3,000 or so fans who did arrive, were tanked up.

      Russian Doll tried valiantly to combat Peter Mac's diatribe and the fact that CMOMM was allowing and promoting these discredited lies. She obviously got nowhere and left the forum.

      In January 2015 Peter Mac writes..... They were crushed by morons who were ticketless, late and drunk(abridged)

      Read the entire topic, the bile and lies exude out of every page.

      The Mccann case follows the same pattern .Peter Mac is right and any body with a different view is stupid!

    2. JJ @14:49

      Thank you for the reference and the examples.

    3. JJ @14:49

      "Read the entire topic, the bile and lies exude out of every page."

      Thank you, I have. I didn't notice the 'bile and lies' however, at least not emanating from Peter Mac.

      In addition, the (abridged) statements you cite take on a different complexion when read in their proper (and complete) context.

      Peter Mac also says the following:

      "The bullet kills, but the person who fired it bears responsibility for the death.
      The police fired the bullet when they opened the gate."

      Does that sound like a man rushing to defend his former colleagues with 'discredited lies'? I hardly think so.

      Having perused all seven pages of the CMOMM topic you identified, I am unable to share your point of view regarding Peter Mac's attitude to the Hillsborough disaster and, by extrapolation, that Pat Brown has been influenced by 'nonsense' of his.

    4. @ 3rd May 17.38

      I was asked for examples not to list all of Peter Mac's guff.

      Look up his other comments for yourself on other threads. e.g. with hindsight there should have been heavy cordons filtering out, ticketless and drunken fans (3rd April 2014.)

      What does ticketless and drunken mean to you, please explain.

      Russian Doll wrote: There is no evidence of 3,000 latecomers and the CMOMM forum should not allow the Liverpool fans to be spoken about in this way, after the findings last week. I had hoped for better. What do you think she meant then?

      And finally, Peter Mac wrote and I quote. ' The ones who died were the youngsters at the front who HAD tickets, who HAD arrived on time and who were NOT drunk.
      They were crushed from behind by the morons who were all three of those things and who should never have been allowed anywhere near the ground.'

      Are you seriously saying Peter Mac never wrote these words?

    5. JJ @19:30

      "I was asked for examples not to list all of Peter Mac's guff."

      No. You were asked, in effect, for a link. The (selectively edited) examples you chose to provide have provoked this exchange.

      You seem to think any reference to football fans being 'ticketless' and 'drunk' is beyond the pale. Or would the Liverpool fans of yore have been the only ones guaranteed to turn up with tickets, and sober into the bargain?

      'Russian Doll' speaks of 'no evidence of 3,000 latecomers'. But hadn't the match already started when that crucial gate was opened and the crowd surged in? If so, then that's a lot of latecomers regardless.

      I did not say anything like 'Peter Mac never wrote these words', referring to his observation that the ticket-holding (and sober) youngsters at the front were crushed by those behind them, not all of whom would have been ticketless and/or drunk I imagine, but you cannot seriously believe that NONE were (ticketless or drunk that is). That would amount to special pleading.

      I think if you read Peter Mac's comments throughout the thread you identified - dispassionately I should add - you might notice that he is consistent in his criticism, not of the fans but of the police, who should have anticipated the situation, planned for it and dealt with it appropriately. They did not, and that was their failing.

      The status of the fans does not alter that fact, something which Peter Mac has also acknowledged.

      Hence I view your personal criticism of him as unjustified.

    6. @ 3 May 22:30

      The similarities between Hillsborough and the Mccann case are staggering.

      As with the Mac case "experts" quote reams of drivel you now bring your nonsense here.

      The match had not started when the crucial gate was opened. If you cannot grasp a simple core fact and do basic research, what is your agenda?

      The inquest spent two years coming to their decisions listening to all the evidence, but you and Peter Mac know better.

      You are right and everyone else is wrong. A bit like the PDL weather!

    7. JJ @09:09

      "You are right and everyone else is wrong."

      And you are a hot head.

      If, as you say, the match was not already underway when the gate was opened then my QUESTION is of course null and void. Given your tendency for selective quotation however I think you're right about its being a 'core fact' worth checking.

      As for my 'agenda', I have none. Nor do I regard you as an arbiter of the truth.

    8. @ 4 May 10:13

      It is not as I say

      It is a fact of truth fought for by decent families for a long hard 27 years and analysed by a jury for 2 years.

      The gate was opened before the match started and still you persist in smear and innuendo.

      If you consider me a hothead for exposing your lies so be it.

    9. JJ @10:58

      Answering my own question, courteously, as you might have done, there were several gates involved and the fatal over-crowding occurred before 'kick off'.

      The question your original comment first raised in my mind has been answered over the course of this exchange.

      Thank you again for the reference to CMOMM. You would have done well to have left it at that.

    10. @ 4 May 13:52

      When caught out do you make everything up as you go along.
      There were NOT several gates involved.The case centres on the opening of ONE gate Exit gate C.

      Read the official findings instead of spouting absolute crap.

      Neither Madeleine or the Hillsborough families have a chance of justice while people like you make it up and expect the rest of us to believe without question.
      The difference on this blog is Cristobell allows debate and the challenge of statements and long may it continue.

      Produce one iota of evidence to back up your claim there were several gates involved.

    11. JJ @15:31

      As I said earlier, you're a hothead.

      "Produce one iota of evidence to back up your claim there were several gates involved."

      Here are three iotas. Will that do?
      (Taken from

      "Opening the exit gates"

      2.2.64 A low, gated metal fence separated the outer concourse at the turnstiles and the street approach along Leppings Lane. In 1988, all but one of these gates leading from the road into the outer concourse were closed, whereas in 1989 all but one were open.[43]

      2.2.65 Video coverage from 1988 showed these gates on the outer concourse closed from 11am. A 1989 video showed that, in this instance, they were not closed until an attempt was made once congestion was recognised.[44] ACC Jackson was unable to explain the difference in approach but blamed a small element of the crowd who had been drinking and were anxious to gain entry into the stadium.[45]

      2.2.66 As congestion built to dangerous levels, Supt Marshall radioed an urgent request for stadium exit gates, close to the turnstiles, to be opened to allow fans into the ground. In his message he stated that there was a real possibility of fatalities if relief was not immediate.

      That's 'gates', plural. And reference to 'all but one' means there were more than two (='several').

      Since you've seen fit to be continuously abrasive, let me also say something about your comment downstream -

      "A true profiler looks at all the evidence not one slanted, bigoted view"

      For someone so versed in profiling and the need for a balanced view, I wonder quite why, when quoting Peter Mac, you repeatedly neglect to include the context in which his comments were made?

      Your opening example for Sunday September 16th 2012, for instance:

      "..... An urban myth is being created across the columns. People seem to be interpreting that there were no drunken and ticketless fans, but this is nonsense."

      Those are undeniably Peter Mac's words, but so too is the sentence which follows, and which you chose not to include:

      "When they say ”This is not about drunken and ticketless supporters,” they do not mean that they were not drunk and that they all had tickets. They mean that the report is focussing on an entirely different level of responsibility."

      The 'nonsense' Peter Mac is referring to is false understanding of what the report actually says in this case. He goes on, referring to the same quoted sentence:

      "It means that drunkenness and ticketlessness was normal, but that it is the job of the police to deal with it. Why else would there be so many police on duty both inside and outside the ground?"

      Elsewhere he says:

      "It doesn’t matter IF they were drunk and had no tickets.

      "It doesn’t matter THAT they were drunk and had no tickets.

      "That is not the issue.

      "The police failed to keep the situation under control.

      "They surrendered. They gave in. They opened the gate.

      "That is the issue."

      Hardly the words of a police apologist, are they?

      I have no intention of debating the rights and wrongs of the Hillsborough disaster. What intrigued me was your desire to question Peter Mac's integrity and, by extension, that of Pat Brown, by way of the Hillsborough topic, which you introduced.

      Taking a balanced view is not accomplished by going off half-cocked, calling people liars when you don't even know them, and supposing people know 'sod all' that have spent longer in their respective professions than you've been on the planet.

    12. JJ @15:31

      "Produce one iota of evidence to back up your claim there were several gates involved."

      From Hillsborough Independent Panel - disclosed material and report:

      2.2.67 In his WMP interview for the criminal investigation, Supt Marshall stated that as he was unaware that the exit gates were identified as A, B and C he had not named the gate that should be opened.

      2.2.71....The WMP investigation team also questioned whether C/Supt Duckenfield understood his instruction to 'open the gates' related to Gate C only or to Gates A and B as well.

      2.2.76 There remains some discrepancy about who opened Gate B.

    13. @ 5 May 09:25

      This is Superintendent Roger Marshall who in his written police statement two days after Hillsborough wrote:

      I did not see Gate B opened at any stage.

      So two days after Hillsborough Marshall clearly knew which gate was which but a year later after talks with brother West Midlands Police Officers, he could not remember which gate was which.

      How very strange!

      Do you not realise all of the West Midlands Hillsborough investigation team, are under investigation for falsifying documents, perjury and general dishonesty over Hillsborough.

      Duckenfield and Marshall are under investigtion for a number of reasons including trying to allege a junior officer was to blame for opening the gates, so you are quoting totally unreliable testimony.

      You have obviously been beavering away through the night, so tell us about the West Midlands Police Hillsborough Investigation Teamleader, Detective Superintendant Stanley Beechey.

      That will give all of Ros's readers food for thought.

      At the start, I said I was not being argumentative but I truly cannot understand how people like TB, Peter Mac, Pat Brown, RDH, are lauded as founts of knowledge when their utterings do not stand up to any sort of scrutiny.

      The four mentioned above in various degrees, have been persistent in trying to prove the PJ and GA did not investigate properly and dilligently.

      Why, only they can tell us. I believe the PJ &GA did investigate properly and are the only people I have faith in.

      Different opinions and view points are fine but when people state I am right, so you should listen, I check. When somebody writes, the findings of the Hillsborough inquest jury, are wrong, I think what bloody arrogance.

      Do you have anything to back up your claims, from any Police Officer not under investigation for corruption?

    14. JJ @14:06

      Give it a rest will you!

      I had no intention of discussing the Hillsborough disaster when first I asked you for the CMOMM link, and no desire to do so now. The question I had in mind could just as easily have arisen in another context and has been well and truly answered anyway. It is one I never made explicit and do not propose to do so.

      "You have obviously been beavering away through the night."

      Wrong. My response to your demand for 'one iota of evidence' was implicit in my observation yesterday (13:52) regarding gates, plural, which you chose to disbelieve.

      At the start you said you were 'not being argumentative', and yet you have been nothing but ever since. You have accused me of being a liar ("If you consider me a hothead for exposing your lies so be it."), a fantasist ("When caught out do you make everything up as you go along."), a bigot ("You are right and everyone else is wrong.") and 'spouting absolute crap.'

      I am not making any 'claims' about Hillsborough or anything else for that matter. I don't intend calling for 'back up' therefore.

      I leave it to you to tell readers here about DS Stanley Beechey if you wish, since this appears to be a particular area of interest for you. It isn't mine.

    15. @ 5 May 17:40

      Oh dear, such rudeness.

      You seem to forget this is not CMOMM but Cristobell's blog. It is her decision what is discussed not yours, you do not have to bow and scrape to anyone here.

      If Ros wishes me to stop posting I will. If not, I will continue where I can, to keep questioning the myths and legends surrounding certain 'experts' and their groupies.

      Peter Mac has made many assertions in both the Madeleine and Hillsborough cases which are the polar opposite to the official findings and you are unable to debate this rationally.

      I wonder why?

    16. @ JJ 5 May 2016 at 20:15

      I agree - Peter Mac, in conjunction with bennett and others has been one of the biggest spreaders of malicious mis-information in the Mccann case for a long long time.

      I notice he disappeared around the same time that the GoFundMe was wound up and after 2 suspicious large payments from "UK police cops" were made.

      Apparently he is now doing "behind the scenes research" for CMOMM

      There is something very very suspicious about him.

      I believe under my right to free speech that I able to make these statements about him on here.

    17. I don't have a problem with what you say about PeterMac, Anonymous at 21.25.

      I can't see any connection between his departure and the closing of the Fund though.

      CMoMM was a spiteful hell hole at the time and it's no wonder that he left. Goodness knows why he is now passing on messages rather than posting them himself.

    18. JJ @20:15

      "Oh dear, such rudeness."

      That's what I thought, and why I echoed back your examples.

      "you are unable to debate (this) rationally.

      "I wonder why?"

      Because I don't appreciate being described as a liar, a fantasist and a bigot, etc.

      Otherwise it's because there is nothing further I need or wish to debate with you. I cannot subscribe to your interpretation of 'rationality' in any event.

    19. I suspect Petermac is embarrassed at his association with Tony Bennett, and who can blame him for that.

      As for his passing on messages rather than posting himself, it is odd. The internet no doubt is as accessible to him as it is to anyone else, it's only people like the McCanns, the Queen, and maybe the US President who need spokesmen, lol

    20. @ 4 May 17:55

      Two points:

      You state I do not know the people mentioned. How do you know this?
      Also you state their experience in their profession is longer than I have been on the planet. Do you have your agents spying on me?

      I have never given my age or profession to anyone, so how do you know about me?

      Either you are in the security services, or you are making it up. I would say the latter as per usual.
      If however you are in the security services,God help the country you are not very good.

  10. Can I just say in a nutshell something about Hillsborough. I watched a documentary a few years back. I always thought it was a tragic set of circumstances, that came together.

    I was shocked to find that the police crowd control had broken down, they (Police & marshals) used a system of backing people up at various points along the route to the entrance, to slow the flow. They had a set procedure for doing this. But there was new officer in charge that did it differently that day.

    The end result was that the flow of the crowd at the entrance couldn't cope and people were being pinned against the outside walls, the police opened the (exit) gates to the stadium thus allowing the flow of people in. This resulted in too many people in the wrong area, pushing the crowd forward again to the front rows & barriers.

    It is one of the moments in your life, like 9.11 you see on the news and will never be forgotten.

    1. I watched it all unfold live on TV. My oldest son, then aged 8 had gone to his first football match at Millwall with friends and I was hoping to see his little mush in the crowd behind the goal.

      Baby son was snoozing and I had the ironing board out in front of the telly. The cameras stayed with the Liverpool game, and I remember becoming hysterical as I watched the screen. I could see the fans getting squashed against the fence and I was screaming at the police to help them but it looked to me as though the police were pushing them back in Just watching it was traumatising, and typing this is bringing the terror back.

      God bless the families and the people of Liverpool, what happened was wrong on every level, and most evil was the lies. The Sun front page was despicable and I detest Kelvin McKenzie as much as I detest Ian Huntley, I'm a non violent person, but he enrages me. Lets hope Karma comes knocking for him soon.

    2. In 1996 there was a brilliant made for TV movie written by Jimmy McGovern. If you want to know about Hillsborough, it is well worth watching, but be warned, it is heart wrenching.

  11. Ros/JJ I agree with you about Pat Brown very much I'm the expert here and accept anything I said. She has written a blog today which talks about her experience of working with police officers who for one reason or another are unable or unwilling to bring people to court who have committed a crime and then says these experiences qualify her to state categorly that SY will invent evidence of an abductor, name innocent people as the abducttor and then say there is not enough evidence to convic. What a massive jump to make when she has no idea whatsoever what SY have been up to.

    1. I don't know which planet Pat's on these days, but it definitely isn't earth.

    2. I am sure we can all agree the Leppings Lane end was the Liverpool end at Hillsborough.

      So when in various posts Peter Mac refers to the 3,000 latecomers coming up Leppings Lane arguing with householders, vomiting in gardens and urininating in the street and describes:

      Ticketless fans
      Late fans
      Tanked-up fans
      Drunken fans
      and Justice Taylor was wrong who, if not people from Liverpool, is he referring to?

      What impression did he pass on to Pat Brown and has she done her own research, to see if this is an honest appraisal of that day, or the view of a select retired police fraternity.

      A true profiler looks at all the evidence not one slanted, bigoted view. If her research has been as "thorough" in the Mccann case, form your own opinion, as to its value.

    3. 20:04 Well I have been debating with Pat on her blog, but it seems the lady is not for turning, lol. She has a reached a conclusion, and that's it.

      I can't agree with her conclusions because she has no more access to the evidence or the thoughts of OG than we do. Her theory is based on what she knows and what she has experienced, she is making no allowances for what she doesn't know.

      For myself, as much as the Madeleine case has shattered my faith in human nature, I still cannot accept that 31 police officers would cover up the death of a 3 year old child.

      As for Pat's 'expediency' argument, it simply doesn't fit. If the goal is to wrap this case up with no questions asked, why drag it out for 4+ years and make it so public?

      Pat concludes that the case will close and life will go on as usual, I'm afraid this demonstrates her lack of understanding of this case and how it is perceived in the UK. Nine years on our tabloids still carry the Madeleine story on the front pages - and even the flimsiest of stories will do. Supply and demand, the public are still interested.

    4. Pat Brown is straight in at number 1 in this week's tosh 20

  12. Today is 9 years since a young girl, a young British girl, went missing.

    In the time since, a lot has happened that shouldn't make us proud as a nation. --- An unprecedented PR operation in the press that has distorted some basic facts about what happened on that night. A simple story became much more complex -- not by facts, but by a strategic campaign to distort.
    -- Various institutions (political; charitable; media; judicial) have been damaged by association with this ruthless operation.
    -- Internet forums and blogs like Textusa, and Anthony Bennett have besmirched the memory of this young girl by taking her memory and pinning it to 'swinging', conspiracy -- whipping up the dimmer lights among us along the way.
    -- A family has compounded its suffering further, putting at risk the integrity of that very family for the long-run.
    -- Many oddballs, and some direct actors, who inserted themselves into the case have felt the financial repercussions and stresses that arise when a smart couple with everything to lose are fighting for their very lives.

    But, despite all of that, the future remains bright.

    Whatever the conspiracy-theorists and the cynics say, Britain has some wonderful institutions that are arguably the least corrupt in the world. Those very same institutions -- our police and CPS -- are engaged in this case.

    Portugal -- a fine country with a score to settle -- has its fledgling institutions on the case too.

    And finally -- one institution (the media) has grown (a little) wise and will no longer fund the litigation strategy of those in scope of those very institutions.


    Soon this case will reach its end game. We will all learn to forgive. Some will work to redeem themselves in the eyes of their own family and society. Others will look back at what they posted on the internet and should hang their head in shame .

    And some wonderful British values will have survived the journey intact: the rule of law, the principle of justice, freedom of press and expression, and the appropriate level of diplomatic respect for our good friends and allies.


    And above all else: a little girl, who had her life ahead of her, will be represented with dignity and remembered in an honest, fitting way.


  13. I hope that Gadfly is right. The problem with this case is that too many people have expressed certainty about what happened early on and now it is difficult to extricate themselves from these positions.

    The most obvious examples of this are the McCanns' extended family and the many supporters who rallied to their cause. Some lured, I suspect, by the intriguing name No 'Stone' Unturned. So many high-profile people, many running important businesses or working as opinion makers in the media, all telling us that they 'know' the McCanns are completely innocent and that anyone who says otherwise is a terrible hater.
    There were others on the other side who also rushed to conclusions: criminal profiling 'expert' Pat Brown, who wrote a book on what she thought happened; Tony Bennett and his 'Smiths are liars' conviction; Textusa and 'it's all about a swinging cover up'.

    I don't claim to know what the truth is. Personally I don't believe the McCanns because there are too many discrepancies in their stories, too much unwillingness to help the police find their child, and their past tendency to promote highly unlikely far-off sightings while trying to explain away specialist dog alerts.

    But the point is, because I'm a nobody commenting anonymously, I can comfortably change my mind in the face of any new evidence. It seems to me that all the people mentioned above, on either side, are stuck in time at a certain publicly stated belief which they will defend to the end rather than admit they're wrong. That's the big problem with this case. Too many people who 'declared' too early, will lose face in public.

  14. Bjorn/Sweden
    Hello Rosalinda
    Just a few words about the McCanns' strange behavior in their relation to their daughter.
    Madeleine will never be remembered and respected for who she really “was”, if her parents don’t want to admit, that it is most likely that she is dead. I really thought that Kate’s utterance, just a few weeks ago, about Madeleine “not being a million miles away from PDL”, was supposed to mean, that she was now prepared to look for Madeleine’s body, not too far away from where she went missing, which would be the most reasonable thing to do for her, given that she has always believed that there was a fearsome pedophile, who kidnapped her daughter. Nine years have gone by and she does not even consider to search for’ Madeleine’s grave somewhere in or near by PDL. Others have, but she has not. Other people have searched for Madeleine’s remains in PDL. She has not.

    The McCanns' attempt to make people believe, that Madeleine has not come to any harm, has often been distasteful and grotesque, as has their search for small white girls among slightly dark-skinned poor people in Morocco or among Gypsies in Greece, and else where.

    Indoctrinating their surviving two children by planting the image of a live big sister in their consciousness is about the worst thing they have ever done. Here below I quote what Justine McGuiness is supposed to have said about the McCanns’ behavior a few months after Madeleine had gone missing. (Original Source: Expresso; 06 September 2008)

    ”Madeleine’s parents also sent Sean and Amelie a card from their big sister on the twins' third birthday”. Does such a conduct testify about respect for Madeleine or her siblings? Not really, does it? How do the twins relate to that anniversary card today? Do they keep it as a souvenir of their sister’s last farewell or as a piece of evidence of all the lies their parents' have told them. Or maybe Kate and Gerry have, just for safety reasons, thrown it at the dump together with Madeleine’s damaged sticker book, her little pink princess blanket and her worn- and washed-out dear little cuddle cat, because all of it was so contaminated with death.

    1. I am with you on this Bjorn, I find the whole situation with the twins, horribly uncomfortable. This was especially brought home on Tuesday with the McCanns annual vigil. It is wrong on every level that those kids are having to grow up in their missing sister's shadow. They are individuals in their own right, their lives should have precedence. All this searching and hoping isn't good for anyone, the parents are trying to make themselves feel better by making everyone else feel like shit. Do they not have ANY plain speakers within the families?

  15. The dogs were produced by the Brits FOR A REASON. Somebody sold the dog video to The Sun, FOR A REASON.

    Was the Brit contingent trustworthy, or not? Amaral says NOT, so how does that make sense, and why is he now the emerging hero?

    His theory doesn't stack up when actual facts are measured against real time.

    Did he, or did he not assault Sofia? Who exactly is Goncalo Amaral and why did he selfishly write a book when the case was incomplete?

    The whole crazy narrative invokes genuine incredulity and healthy objective questioning, making stuff up such as paedophilia and swinging is time-wasting, sick, damaging and annoying.

    Additionaly, it's most of all, 100% wrong, and provably so. Swinging is the biggest lie of all, and anyone who refuses to see the passports as bogus and still believes Fenn owned that vacation unit - is not interested in the truth. PERIOD.

  16. How much did Bernard Hogan-Howe know about the woman who played the part of Brenda Leyland, and how much does he know about the woman who really died, twice. I wonder??? Swinging is a lie, Jim knows that. How much does Harry know? Whatever the answer, I'll find out.


  17. Playground Man, Playground Man, who is Mr Playground Man?

  18. Here Ros this is woolyback

    1. Ros you say -

      "Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton4 May 2016 at 10:05

      20:04 Well I have been debating with Pat on her blog"

      I can't see any posts by you on her latest blog.

    2. I've just had a look, they are all there, and in my own name.

    3. Ros,your comments appear on Pat Brown's previous post!

    4. @ Anonymous6 May 2016 at 23:48

      ah thanks - found them now - I am not going mad then!

  19. "Richard D. Hall Today at 8:28 pm
    Today I informed Scotland Yard about my films."

    well that should give OG a laugh for a few secs/mins/days/weeks/months!

    1. Poor sods! I sympathise with whoever has to watch them! I wonder if they draw straws on who reads Bennett's shite too, lol.

    2. as bennett knows only too well - when you move out of the forum and small circle of friends world and into the real World - things change very suddenly.

    3. Did the conversation go like this:

      Hi, O.G

      I'm RDH, me and me mates Tony and Peter have examined this case and you and that Portuguese lot don't have a clue.

      You have actually perverted the course of justice by making Crime watch and saying it happened on Thursday.

      Me and me mates know better it was Sunday/Monday. That Portuguese lot never even investigated the weather. That Amaral never had time. He was always munching sardines.

      It couldn't have been Thursday, it was freezing cold. Me mate Peter said so. His neighbours mother sisters cousin told him, you and that Portuguese lot may have access to mega computers and data banks but we have seaweed and tea leaves and if we dont know anything we can make it up.

      Anyway, watch me films and I hope to hear from you soon.

    4. LOL JJ, and I expect that is the way the films will be received by OG!

      Ridiculous that the armchair detectives believe they know more than police, even though they have no access to anything other than the 9 year old PJ files and the wild speculation of a creationist attention seeker. That gave me a giggle, cheers!

  20. Ros - you have removed my post about Peter Mac.


  21. Apologies 23:24, my spambox seems to have pinched a few posts of its own accord! I have 'unspammed' them and hope they now appear. I forget the spambox does this occasionally, so if anyone's post doesn't appear, please do let me know.

    Should also point out there is another very interesting post on Brenda Leyland that was also accidently spammed, that too is restored.

    Again, I apologise, I really should check spam more often!

    1. Thanks for that Ros. I did wonder why the 3rd of 4 comments was missing:)

  22. "Private Eye are still watching !

    Post Get'emGonçalo Yesterday at 2:12 pm
    Thanks to PeterMac for sending this"

    Does anyone else find it very strange that Peter mac only communicates with CMOMM through havern???

    If he can take time to send things to havern why can't he make time to post it on the forum himself???

    1. If it is PM sending these cryptic messages, he is destroying what credibility he had.

      Some would say that he had none to start with!

  23. Well if PM posts himself, others would be able to answer and start a debate...Apparently he does not want that. Don't know why. He did not fear any critics before, now he prefers to be 'backstage'. Is someone brave enough to ask Get'em Gonçalo, she surely knows the reason?

  24. Incredible - Hall has phoned the Met!!!!!!

    he has posted a recording of his pathetic call

    1. What a loser. Just like baldy bonce.

    2. 21:58 Eeeeek, that was embarrassing! The officer could barely disguise his contempt. I doubt the police want to watch Richard Hall's tedious films anymore than they want to read Bennett's tedious letters. These 'researchers' are seriously deluded.

  25. Oh dear - bennett the blonk is not too happy as it appears a Muslim will be the new London mayor.

  26. Now if he happens to be gay as well that will see a terrible outbreak of feather spitting in Harlow!

  27. So Bennett's now publicly doubting @Fiorifan on Twitter was doorstepped. Only last week he accused Leanne Baulch of impropriety regarding Amaral's GoFundMe then had to apologise. What's that saying about stupid people doing the samme thing, yet expecting different results, again?

  28. I don't think that the two events are comparable.

    I certainly didn't agree with him over Leanne Baulch but I will need to see an article in the Daily Mail before I believe that anyone has been doorstepped.

    1. No? How about a photo of the journalist on her doorstep. Take that back to your weirdy beardy cesspit to write copious drivel about for the next fortnight?

    2. Indeed Tonyfan, the definition of stupid, doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result, sums Bennett up.

      Tony Bennett believes the world was made in 7 days by a supreme being and he believes the word of James Murray, a dishonourable journalist who has been flogging us Clarence Mitchell's lies for almost 9 years. The members of CMoMM still believe if a story is in a national newspaper it must be true. Their naivety after all these years is astonishing.

      Just to be clear. Tony Bennett's education is stunted by his belief in a supreme being and creationism. That is, he has gone through life wearing a set of rigid blinkers that prevents him from absorbing any information outside of his very limited and narrow tunnel vision. He quite literally cannot think outside of the box, he is too indoctrinated.

      In the case of missing Madeleine, he saw an opportunity to make money and to spread the word of an angry and vengeful God. If he were in the USA, he would probably be a tubthumping preacher, condemning homosexuality and promiscuity with the converted putting fistfuls of dollars onto his collection plate.

      The Madeleine Foundation was created to provide a fund for Bennett to pursue his quest for fame and public adulation. In making the name so similar The Madeleine Fund, he hoped to cash in on the donations that were going to the McCanns, he wanted a piece of the action. There is nothing altruistic in what he does, in a world full of injustice, he only selects high profile cases that will bring publicity to himself.

      He will never accept that Madeleine died in an accident or as a result of hysterical, angry rage. For him sexual deviancy lies at the heart of the mystery. He believes there is a paedophile ring that runs through the heart of the establishment, all the way from PDL to Whitehall and he is the Christian soldier sent by the Good Lord to root it out.

      His obsession with paedophilia and homosexuality is beyond creepy, it illustrates his stunted emotional development and for those with any understanding of psychology, a hell of lot more. People like Bennett have no idea of just how much they give away when they get up on their soapboxes.

    3. Tonyfan: who knows what he was there to talk to this lady about? She may have invited him to discuss some local issue; we don't know what paper he was from.

      We need more proof than this.

    4. Amen to that!

    5. Come on Georgia! Stop being a Bennett groupie that's as ridiculous as you can get. Read her other tweets and all the info is there. Why does anyone who disagrees with the loon have to be discredited? And who's we? He's not the Messiah lol

    6. Shucks, there was I thinking that Tonyfan's "Amen to that!" comment referred to mine which was immediately above it.

      I'll drop the royal we. I want to see proof of all the others who have supposedly been doorstepped by the Daily Mail.

      By the way, I was struck off Tony's Christmas card list quite a while ago.

  29. "Re: The McCanns prayer vigil in Rothley 3rd May 2016

    Post Ladyinred Today at 6:14 pm
    Are the children the twins?"

    Obviously she is not in the group of "researchers"

    Incredible - this moderator on CMOMM who has made 2253 posts - asks this question!

    1. They are obsessed with someone they cannot prove existed, but the twins don't even register on the radar.

      And Kate wore the cadaver pants, and didn't bother to throw them away, just as she wrote the book Madeleine and it was titled: madeleine, because she's a bit thick and obviously a body-dumping rampant swinger.


  30. "Re: ‘Maddie police were ignored’ Detectives have waited five months for Scotland Yard leads

    Post Tony Bennett Today at 7:50 am

    Yet more material to put in my next letter to David Cameron about Operation Grange"

    Not only does bennett accept this article from an unnamed "well-placed source in Faro" without question - he is going to write to the PM about it!!!!

    1. Gawd 'elp 'em. Tony Bennett's prose has as much appeal as the small print on the back of a reinsurance contract.

      The buffoon, from his armchair in Harlow claims to know more about this case than the former head of the Portuguese investigation. The reality is, he knows zilch, but he is an accomplished attention seeker, he will do ANYTHING for publicity.

      In his head, he, not Goncalo Amaral, is the hero and Maddie's Avenger, but the truth is, he is a meddling, interfering old man with no moral boundaries whatsoever. He has used the information released by the Portuguese to stalk those who gave statements to the police and to accuse them of heinous crimes. The facts don't fit Bennett's wild sexual fantasies, ergo they must all be lying.

      I think he should be locked in a cell with a load of porn and maybe a male hooker, it might resolve some of his issues.

  31. Why do they investigate? They are rubbish at it.

  32. oh dear - Pat Brown and bennett are emailing each other about the case, deluded fools who think they are important.

    see here

    1. Can't be doing with sloppy egoistic investigators.

    2. I seen that Pat was thanking Bennett for clarifying her position in relation to SY finding a patsy. As you say deluded the 2 of them. I would like both of them to point me to 1 case where a burglar was accused much less successfully prosecuted for stealing a child. I've just watched Hillsborough documentary and people quote this as a look at the coverup there. I would like to remind them that this was the police covering up their failings so they wouldn't be blamed as they should have. This is a different alleged cover up where an entire police force will attempt to cover up for a couple of lying doctors where there is more than ample evidence that their liars.

    3. Good point 23:58, with Hillsborough, many high ranking police officers' careers were on the line, they weren't protecting members of the public, they were protecting themselves.

      The problem the 'I'm right, dead right' theorists have is that they look increasingly more ridiculous as they stick to their carved in stone theories. In order for their theories to work, they must don blinkers and ear plugs and accuse everyone else of lying. Narcissism and paranoia take over as common sense leaves the building.

      I have to say, watching Realist kick Tony's ass is quite amusing, he has Tony tied up in knots because he is arguing with logic and Tony is arguing with lunacy. Hilarious. I suspect he will soon be banned - there is no place for sanity on CMoMM.

  33. John Blacksmith really does rock, his understanding of this case is second to none. His latest blog is about how the Portuguese have every reason for believing that the British acted with outright racism in this case and were assisted by the inferiority complex which the Portuguese themselves displayed. Isn't, that an excellent summary of how this case got so out of hand and the reason why the PJ allowed themselves to become so overwhelmed.

  34. How could the British be considered Racist when Portuguese are the same race ? Xenophobic maybe....

    1. The word racist was used by the Portuguese on the programme. Race has no scientific definition, as we know, but racism implies something more than national disagreements: distrust of the calibre of reasoning and education - i.e. survival power - of one party by the other, either temporarily or permanently.

      The British, enmeshed with the Portuguese by the African decolonizing process, believed that it was senseless and impossible to hold on to Empire by force. In their usual way they invented a spurious moral reason for the decision - "giving people their freedom". Under Salazar after WW2 Britain believed the other party was temporarily so deprived of information about the modern world that its political opinions and decisions were hopelessly unrealistic and self-destructive in terms of the Portuguese blood it would cost. And it seems they told them so.

      After the Carnation Revolution there was acknowledgement in Portugal that the British view had possessed some merit. That didn't make it any more palatable, then or now.

    2. Bennett should be forced to read George Orwell on the 'British'. The British are a splendid race (f race is the right word), rightly or wrongly they have a reputation for justice and equality. It may even have been that among the colonising nations GB were more welcoming to new cultures and new ideas. I stand to be corrected of course, I had a British education.

      Regardless, the Great British Empire became a model of a democracy with a Constitutional Monarchy, for nations across the globe.

      It is all open to debate of course, though it must be said there remains a patriarchal attitude within the British establishment. Ably demonstrated by David Cameron and the Queen yesterday, lol.

      I am ashamed to say I don't know too much about Portuguese history. But having in recent history survived a revolution, they are still very much within the 'transparency' stage. They are in the middle of the Dialectic and very much answerable to the people.

      We in the UK however, are still electing the Eton Bullingdon Boys to rule over us and thanking our betters for the scraps they throw down to us. I always think it is a shame the French pipped us to the post, but there is still time!

  35. "Police Fly To Kos In Hunt For Missing Ben Needham

    Sky News
    9 May 2016"

    great news - let's hope it leads somewhere positive.

    1. I hate to be discouraging, but in my heart I cannot agree with these never ending searches. There is no closure for anyone, least of all the family. Imo, they are prolonging the agony. They are all caught in a time warp and they need to move on and live for themselves.

      I am not saying they shouldn't have hope, but that hope should be tempered by reality. Sometimes hope is worse than despair, because with despair you closure. With hope you have that relentless, nagging pain.

      I do wonder what the police are up to. I suppose from a political perspective, they must be seen to be giving the Needhams as much (yeh, I know) assistance as the McCanns. They are looking for a needle in a haystack, and the cynic in me wonders if it is to bolster the idea that kids are going missing every 5 minutes. Just a thought.

      Kerry is a lovely lady with a lovely family, who has so much wisdom and experience, she would be a great asset to any good cause.

  36. Blacksmith's latest blog on Mr B!

    1. his attempts at humour fall very flat.

    2. Is that you again, Tony?

  37. Bennett the bullshitter is at it again.

    On CMOMM today, Tuesday (3.38pm) he attacks poster grandad. He states emphatically Cat Baker first met Madeleine and the Mccanns on Saturday and had Madeleine in her care all day Sunday.

    Two Cat Baker police statements are in the public domain. Both state she first had contact with Madeleine and the Mccanns on the Sunday.

    But always needing to prove his point, he lies and still his groupies praise his "research".

    How stupid are they?

    Can Bennett produce one shred of evidence to support his claim, Baker first met the Mccanns on the Saturday. The answer is NO as usual.

    The man is a complete idiot and anyone believing a word he says is even worse.

    Poster Grandad then bows to Bennetts 'superior' knowledge. Well, news for you grandad, he just makes everything up.

    We must never forget, Bennett cannot say anything about the Mccanns, without the express permission of the Mccanns legal team.They must be happy with his misdirection.

    1. I do wish he would leave those poor nannies alone JJ!

      I sometimes wonder if all the libel in CMoMM is just another attention seeing stunt on behalf of the honourable one. He needs to keep saying outrageous stuff or he wouldn't have any readers. On top of which, playing the victim (again) might bump up subscriptions to his Madeleine Fund.

  38. "Tony Bennett Today at 7:15 pm

    Just a small point about the forum. The forum has a very serious purpose - to find out what happened to Madeleine McCann. And we continue to make progress.

    But that has been achieved, in part, due to poor theories being robustly challenged. It may seem a tad harsh at times. But we are hear to discuss hypotheses backed by evidence and good arguments.

    Do stay around and help us with this task - in any small way that you can"

    Have you ever heard such self opinionated delusion of grandeur in your life.

    CMMoM has the most disgusting vile threads with thousands of libel and perverted opinions about the Mccanns than anywhere else on the internet.

    bennett encourages them and slips in his vile anti Muslim/gay topics whenever he wants.

    bennett will go down to play pool with the old lags - believe me, my forecasts are much more accurate than his.

    If he thinks that repeating others opinion (instead of having the balls to say it himself) will keep him out of jail - he is very very wrong.

    1. The topic he started about the murder of the gay policeman is one of the worst things I've seen.

      A man had been murdered in the most gruesome circumstances imaginable and all Tony was concerned about was sending a FOI request to find out why the victim had been in The Shard before his death. Thankfully he did for once listen to the concerns of others and decided against it.

      That was apart from asking why such a strange person (i.e gay) was employed as a policeman in the first place.

      Is there nobody in his life who cares enough to try and stop him from making a laughing stock of himself?

    2. I think the laughing stock ship has long since sailed Jenny. He has made a lifelong career out of acting the goat, it is an extreme form of attention seeking. He seeks out high profile criminal cases - he's not interested in the cases that don't make headlines, the publicity he seeks is for himself.

      I think he only has a handful of supporters, those narrow minded enough to accept his drivel as gospel. And of course, those dopey enough to have subscribed to his dodgy Madeleine Fund.

      As for the gay policeman - I agree, his behaviour is repugnant. On what planet has this got anything to do with him. Some might see Bennett's rampant homophobia as a means of establishing his own heterosexuality, some might say he is over compensating. Those who are relaxed in their own sexuality couldn't give two hoots who gets it on with who, why should they care?

      I think Tony Bennett's assumption that he should be consulted on every high profile sex crime is yet another example of his grandiosity and lunacy.

      But as always, my sympathies lie with the recipients of his lengthy diatribes and sermons. Whatever Carter Ruck were paid for reading Bennett's letters, it probably wasn't half enough. I foresee claims for pain and suffering in the future. Cheers for your post Jenny :)

    3. I think when the proverbial hits the fan, Tony Bennett and CMoMM will be exposed for the trolls (in the truest sense of the word) that they are.

      It is outrageous that they are preying on real people, 'researching' their private lives and finances and publishing them on a public message board. The witnesses in this case have, by an unprecedented fluke, had their names, their personal details and their statements made available to the general public, including all the weirdos and psychos who use anonymity to act out their fantasies. In the real world, they are probably nonentities like their spokesman.

      Those who's names were revealed in the PJ files have been fair game for this gang of malicious nosey parkers who want nothing more than to pry into the contents of other peoples' underwear drawers.

      I agree with your prediction 20:27, Bennett is almost as friendless as the infamous two. Most of them are hiding their real identities, and as the end nears, he may well find himself shouting 'et tu Brute', as all the knives come out.

      The problem with trying to hang onto friends with threats, intimidation and blackmail, is that Karma will be waiting around every corner. The first line of almost every defence is 'someone else made me do it'. From toddlers to criminal psychopaths.

      I have no doubt whatsoever that when the sensation of the breaking news subsides, journalists will be looking for new angles. And of course, internet trolling has gone hand in hand with this case - from the off actually. Sure as eggs is eggs, someone will be on the trail of those malevolent malcontents.

      Bennett has served his purpose. He has up until recently been the ugly face of what he calls the anti movement (pompous twat). For his, or indeed anyone else's information, there has never been a 'movement', that exists only his head. Not because of his spectacular lack of leadership skills, but because the majority of the public find the 'research' (stalking) of private citizens who's personal details just happened to drop into their laps, utter repulsive. The majority of us have a moral line, we have boundaries. We all know that we can within seconds, find out all sorts of details about our friends, relatives, acquaintances etc, but we don't because it's creepy. It's on par with hiding in the bushes and peeping in their windows.

      Whilst I don't wish to stop anyone looking up whatever they want on the net, I think there should be criminal charges for those interfering with witnesses in a police investigation.

      They seem to have no awareness of the damage they are doing to people's lives, they are without morals or conscious. Their form of vigilante behaviour has no place in a civilised society. No wonder they are too ashamed to reveal their identities.

  39. Have to say, the factions online in this case make it feel a little bit like this:

    The one thing that makes me laugh about Tony Bennett (apart from that outfit at Downing Street) is how his lackeys address him - did I actually read someone refer to him as the 'honourable' TB - or am I dreaming that?

    From 2013:

    After the hearing, Bennett said: "I'm sorry for the distress I've caused to them - I'm hoping the way forward will result in both of us drawing a line under the situation."


    I guess this is what happens if your life narrows to the extent that you have no meaningful relationship with a better half, have no money due to not understanding the law, and have been criminalised. Sad really.

    Someone just needs to take the old bugger out, buy him a few history books, treat him to a coffee and say... "See Honourable Tone... there's more to life than being on a forum acting as multiple characters, while drafting letters to the PM that the No. 10 machine will wipe with their proverbial arse."

    If only the case wasn't so serious.


    1. Gadfly, I have seen comments on the forum referring to Tony as an honourable man. That's probably what you're thinking of.

      Stop sniggering at the back there!

    2. Is there any reason why you, Gadfly, can't perform this prescribed act of public service and take Tony out? Maybe you could meet at a local Wetherspoons, you know, talk mano to mano, maybe arm-wrestle him a bit or you guys could even pray together for the Second Coming... Or whatever - and I'm sure he'd love a handsome man to buy him some history books over coffee.

    3. When you put it like that, how could I resist?


  40. I notice bennett in tongue in cheek mode:

    "Tony Bennett Today at 7:28 am

    It wasn't me who alerted to the scent of human cadaverine in 17 places associated with the McCanns nor me who produced overwhelming evidence that the 'Last Photo' was taken on the Sunday, not Thursday."

    So Ros says 11 alerts and bennet says 17 - one of them must be wrong surely?

    1. Is it really due karma not to put him out of his misery?

      If it is, maybe I can understand the noble lie.

    2. In his previous epistles Bennett always quotes 10 dog alerts.

      Perhaps hunting with his own dogs of bore, RDH and Peter Mac, they have uncovered more, or as more usual they have invented a few.

    3. When conducting online investigations, always endeavour to draw data from sources you believe to be telling you a pack of lies.

      It is the honourable man way.

  41. God bless you Madeleine today of all days and comfort to your family who love and miss you so much.

  42. We've had the sassy blonde Metropolitan Police Lady, the glossy bob-haired Possible-Polish-Paedophile (in)profile, and the semi-naked ancient British wrestler guy... T.B.'s current avatar - of a small girl's worn pink pyjamas - horrifies me. Especially at the time of what would be her 13th birthday - it's really not cool.

  43. bennett:

    Tony Bennett Today at 12:21 am

    But if anything, that points not so much to COMARE and nuclear energy but to the possible role of senior Freemasons working on the Madeleine McCann case. The McCanns' bizarre action, lying prostrate before the GNR police when they arrived at the Ocean Club, was a copybook repetition of an ancient Masonic symbol of severe distress - a direct appeal to any Masonic police in the Portuguese police.

    Then again the McCanns' friendship with the pervert Ray Wyre might suggest other influences."

    He needs his head sorting out.

  44. It was bad enough when he created a new sock called suzyb to talk to him on the topic about Edward Smethurst - but now a second one called SUSIEB has joined in.

    Perhaps this is his way of appealing for help?

    1. ah yes - the local lass that followed on from RochdaleEye

    2. Maybe his transsexual polyester homunculi have become self-replicating?

    3. .... and what about Maggs Shaw? Now she was a 'one.'

    4. Maggs Shaw was one of the people who exposed the lies of Hollie Greig's mother, wasn't she? Surely she has no connection with Tony?

  45. I wonder how much money Hall is making from his talks, DVDs and videos on youtube and how much bennett is making from his cut?

    The fact that bennett is constantly checking and publishing viewing figures indicates very strongly that he is profiting from Hall's venture into the Mccann case.

  46. I wonder what lessons we've all learned hitherto, if any?

  47. Oh look - bennett is in the Mail:

    "Other donors included Tony Bennett, 67, of Harlow, Essex, who has previously been convicted of breaking court undertakings not to publish allegations linking Madeleine’s parents to her disappearance."

    1. And part of his punishment was obvious - he had to discredit the Smith sighting at every opportunity. Whenever anyone mentions it, there he is - BANG - 17 pointers here, 12 reasons there, all in bold blue writing, just in case you are watching in black and white.

    2. @ Anonymous14 May 2016 at 20:34


  48. "sharonl Yesterday at 9:01 pm

    Tony is unable to access the internet at the moment but he has just sent me a message which he has asked me to share with you."

    Such a shame - the day he hit the papers again.

  49. I want to point out something that is more than bizarre from bennett.

    He says:

    "The McCanns' bizarre action, lying prostrate before the GNR police when they arrived at the Ocean Club,...."

    Now let's see - bennett is a self confessed devout Church going member of his parish Christian who contributes to Christian news letters and quotes from the bible often.

    But he fails to see, or quite deliberately distorts, the fact that distraught parents on finding their eldest child missing, would be crying and praying next to their bed to get her back.

    How does he reconcile his Christian beliefs with mocking this action?

    Oh yes - it is because he took Amarals book and video as correct instead of looking at the actual statements in the files.

    Now -why would an active, devout Christian do that?

  50. An active devout christian? I don't think so. An old man lacking in morals and forever chasing money without care for his family would be about right.

    1. @ Anonymous14 May 2016 at 23:05

      yes - see my post at

      Anonymous13 May 2016 at 17:49

  51. Anonymous14 May 2016 at 21:23, you said:

    "sharonl Yesterday at 9:01 pm

    Tony is unable to access the internet at the moment but he has just sent me a message which he has asked me to share with you."

    Such a shame - the day he hit the papers again.


    Tried to find this on JH and couldn't. Can you say in which thread this was? Thx


  53. I keep seeing the famous cadaver dogs discussed on various threads.They're important I agree. And the dismissal of the evidence they provided make it even more important. I've seen one objector of their evidence somewhere on here pointing to the dogs failure to locate bodies at the Jersey site. To that I'd say, they're cadaver dogs - not policemen. It's the dog's job to locate the odour of a corpse that's been there before but has since been removed.

    More important to the overall discussion is Katie's attack on them . Keep in mind how the McCanns have followed the party line regarding online forums being 'all conspiracy theorist rubbish' etc. This attitude has accelerated in the last few years in the mainstream. Scripts in films, sitcoms, stand ups, everyone uses the term to promote the image and idea that anyone who who doesn't eat the gruel fed to us by liars is 'weird' - thus discouraging anyone else who might be nursing fancy ideas of free thinking and questioning. So, If conspiracy theories / theorists deserve nothing but scorn and should be treated with ignorance, why would these mainstream outlets and their puppets be working overtime to get online to counter them and build an army of shills ? Why would they worry if it's all nonsense and lies advanced by weirdos?

    Katie McCann dismissed the dogs on camera. She pointed to some obscure murder years ago in America where the dogs smelt death but they were wrong and the suspect wasn't convicted. I can't remember the killers name , it's not up their with Bundy, Dahmer and the other chart-toppers but he's in the list somewhere. So, how could Katie cite his name and crime off the top of her head ? research by any chance ? Maybe she undertook the hours herself ( determined to discredit the one shred of possible forensic evidence ?) or Clarence had his 'boys in the lab' do it when they weren't scouring the net watching all the weirdos they don't fear. As it turns out, Katie was dead right. That did happen. But, had she ( or they) just read on a little, they'd have seen that the killer who escaped sentence confessed when he was terminally ill. The dogs were right after all . I don't think the subjects come up since...