Tuesday 11 October 2016


[In response to comment on previous blog]

Many thanks 22:07, I don't bother very much with CMoMM these days, whilst it makes a good study of psychopathy, it's stuck in an endless cycle of rehash and there is rarely anything of interest.

I had a look at that thread and the letter sent by 'Jill' (Bennett) - obviously everything signed off by him goes straight in the shredder, lol. OMG, my sympathy lies with the recipient, imagine having to read that pile of old bunkum? I'd rather have my toenails extracted one by one, or go waterboarding in Guantanamo Bay!

Who the fffff... do they think they are? Its like a crowd of drunks having an extended game of Cluedo then presenting themselves at the local police station, saying we've solved it!  It was the butler in the pantry with the dagger, hic.  The lack of signatures to their petitions shows they are not representative of the public. And what is it they want?  I'm afraid this is where we get into pitchfork territory.  Given the hostile and aggressive manner of the CMoMM forum, it is clear that several of them are taking this matter far too personally. 

Because this case involves a small child, it is emotive and attracted extremists and vigilantes.  Some people feel so passionately about child protection that reason and logic flies out the window.  We are programmed to protect our young, it is not a bad thing, but some unscrupulous people will go out of their way to harvest that anger and need for retribution.  That is, they will use it to stir up an angry mob.  In the case of Madeleine, that manipulation of public opinion is prevalent in both camps.   

There comes a point where we all have to ask ourselves why we are still here?  As a manic depressive with OCD, my own 'addiction' was a way in which to blot out the real world.  My need to solve the puzzle that was Madeleine's disappearance, was as strong as my need to get to the final page of an Agatha Christie novel.  I have to say I reached the 'beyond reasonable doubt' stage many moons ago, but like everyone else, that final 'how they did it' part remains elusive.  

I think like many of the antis, that there is something integrally wrong in our society when a little girl can go missing without explanation.  We are civilised people who defend the vulnerable from the wicked, it makes us human.  Had the McCanns been honest at the beginning, the world would have been gentle with them.  Accidents and even crimes of passion, happen - the McCanns claim Kate was offered a 'serve 2 years' deal, a compassionate option if true.

However, it is all the crimes committed since that irk the most.  The way in which they paraded themselves as victims and used the loss of their daughter to amass a large personal fortune.  None of the public's very generous donations have been used to assist anyone outside of the 'family', in fact, it would seem, the bulk of the fund has been used to protect the reputation of the parents.  And worse, much has been used to destroy the name, reputation, family and life of the detective who was simply doing his job, looking for Madeleine.  They continue with their sheer bloody minded agenda to destroy Goncalo Amaral, as it appears they have now lodged another Appeal. 

For myself, and I'm sure with many others, this case has opened our eyes to a  whole new world.  Six months into reading everything I could find on this case, I began to see what a phoney society we are living in.  It was a revelation moment.  Not too dissimilar to when I entered higher education in my late 30's and discovered religion was bollox, movies send out hidden messages and our society is ruled by newspaper barons.  Who knew? 

Despite all of that, I still believed that we had the greatest justice system in the world, the best police and the least corrupt politicians (60's indoctrination education) and a basically free press.  Can't believe I was once that naïve. This case has demonstrated how easy it is for the establishment, or indeed anyone with a proactive family, to manipulate public opinion using the MSM. 

Unfortunately, for them, the internet has done away with borders and for all the UK tabloids publishing McCann propaganda, the real story from Portugal was getting through and spreading like wildfire.  Ergo, for the last ten years we have been watching McCann and McCann .v. WorldWideWeb.  I mean ffs, who employs lawyers to watch social media 24/7?  How come two doctors don't have any friends or colleagues with the guts to use the words 'paranoia' and 'bottomless pit'? 

Those who ask why we are still here, don't seem to understand that what has been seen cannot be unseen.  We have watched in astonishment as undeserving people have been elevated and enriched by this tragedy.  The parents especially who are still demanding £400k from the former detective and public recognition for their supposed good works.  These parents have been fundraising since the moment their daughter disappeared.  Whilst the locals and holidaymakers physically searched for their missing child, they were plotting on how to make Maddie's face go viral.  'Did you go out there and physically search?' 'well we wanted to, but we were really busy' says Kate.  Wtf takes priority over searching for your missing child, grrrrr. 

But I try to avoid getting personal, gawd knows, the McCanns and their wider family have enough to worry about, but hearing that they are continuing with their libel actions against Goncalo Amaral, sticks in my craw. I cannot understand how those police officers working on Operation Grange can stay silent whilst another detective, just like them, is being persecuted by this manipulative couple.   I do of course appreciate the police have a duty to protect everyone, including the McCanns, it's their failure to stop and prevent crime.  The Fund continues, gullible people are still being fleeced (every penny will go on the search) and the financial claims against Goncalo Amaral are immoral, if not illegal.  Not to mention of course, the ruthless way in which they demanded that an example be made of an innocent member of the public and the deed was done. That should scare all of us.

Anyhow, returning the multi paged diatribe of Jill Havern (Tone the Bore), I seriously hope the government department tasked with reading the tripe (poor sods) have a loons and nutters post bin marked 'read later - if ever'.  With Tony Bennett a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing.  He has managed to hone his targets down to civil servants who are, by the law of this land, obliged to read his lengthy epistles.  We can only hope the suicide rate among that particular demographic doesn't rise dramatically.  If I were them, I'd choose head in the gas oven every time. 

The only one who doesn't realise Bennett is talking complete twaddle is Bennett and maybe Richard Hall and a small assortment of (harmless, we hope), right wing psychopaths and loons.  Given the volume of correspondence from Tone the Bore, I would imagine the recipients give them little regard.  I noticed on that thread, that another poster had received a more detailed reply than 'Jill', which I found a tad amusing. 

Bennett is drawn to this case because he believes some sort of deviant sex is involved.  In his loony creationist head, he believes he is surrounded by sinners enjoying a lot more carnal knowledge than himself.  He is fire and brimstone, a preacher without a pulpit or an audience.  He deprives himself of television and popular culture, and he wants it banned for everyone else.  

Who can calculate the amount of damage he has done to the official search for Madeleine.  I have no doubt his antics alone built the wall around this case. The constant bragging that he has a huge audience of angry justice seekers is effectively a nasty threat.  The authorities have no option but to increase the McCanns' protection.  The McCanns have struggled to provide evidence that they have been targeted or threatened as a result of the Goncalo Amaral's book, all they had was Bennett's Madeleine's Foundation.

The truth is, the majority of people who do not believe the McCanns have not made retribution against the McCanns, their life's work.  That would be creepy.  They want to see justice for Madeleine, by they want to see it via the democratically agreed justice procedures.  Many, myself included, have a real distaste for vigilantism, it seems to attract all the wrong kind of people. 



  1. The CMoMM forum is a weird place nowadays. Thousands of members (?) yet so few of them post anything. I know there's not much McCann news but they could discuss other issues in quiet times.

    Oh, Mr B did actually do that a few days ago with this topic.......


  2. I agree - I think it has been taken over. It is not a pleasant place to be and many have wandered away from it - dont blame them

  3. I read here regularly and I also read CMOMM, having followed the case from the start. The CMOMM research seems to be pointing in the direction of Madeleine dying on the Sunday or Monday. This is supported by folk like PeterMac, HideHo, Richard Hall, Jill Havern, sharonl, Tania Cadogan and, yes, Tony Bennett. Can I just ask you to tell us clearly if you completely dismiss their collective research and conclusions on this point?

  4. 11:22 Yes, I do. I think it absurd that they, from their armchairs and laptops think they know better than Goncalo Amaral, the detective on the spot. Actually, it is not just absurd, it is laughable.

    In addition, in order for their 'collective' thesis to work, it would mean several of the independent witnesses are lying, that is, they are perverting the course of justice in a possible murder investigation. Those are very serious criminal charges that would probably carry prison time and accusing people of such crimes is morally reprehensible as well as libellous.

    All the names you have listed, are completely disregarding the human aspects of their interference in this case, the real lives affected by their perverse and distasteful accusations. CMoMM, HideHO, Richard Hall, Jill Havern, Sharon, Bennett (especially), have stalked and harassed witnesses in a police investigation that has bugger all to do with them.

    Any 'researcher' who distorts the available facts in order to confirm their own thesis, will never get the right result. Stephen Birch dismisses the dogs to 'under Murat's patio' theory, and Bennett et al, dismiss the witness evidence in order to pitch their 'died on Sunday' theory. They are all going for a USP to promote themselves, their results have little to do with the truth.

    1. "their results have little to do with the truth".

      Something of a bold claim given that we don't really know, even now, what 'the truth' is.

      "Any 'researcher' who distorts the available facts in order to confirm their own thesis, will never get the right result."

      They'll no doubt come up with a result which is right for them though - a fact applicable to whatever camp is doing the theorizing.

      Personally I think 'conspiracies' have at least one legacy in common. If we take JFK/9-11/Madeleine McCann, while everyone is tearing their own (as well as each others) hair out over who pulled the trigger, flew the planes or 'abducted' the child, the question of who really called the shots gets conveniently overlooked.

      I seriously doubt the McCanns, who could not even get their own stories right in the first place, were responsible for controlling events around them, much less the participation of an abductor or two.

  5. How do you feel about PeterMac, Cristobell?

    His behaviour of late has been very odd. He is apparently too busy to post on the forum, yet he e-mails Jill Havern and she posts what he has said.

    I lost faith with him when he insisted that the last photo is genuine (on the strength of the opinions of two random experts) when it's as plain as the nose on your face that, if it was genuine, it would have been produced immediately and not several weeks later.

    1. I think you're being unduly harsh on PM. Whilst the photo may be genuine, the date stamp is probably not, hence the McCanns' delay in introducing the evidence, i.e. not before the data were altered

    2. If the photo was genuinely taken on the Sunday, what reason can there be to pretend it was later?

    3. Overlooking any reference by the McCanns to the date/time in question, they eventually presented the photograph itself as the last to have been taken of their daughter.

      What then would you, or any other right-thinking person, have made of the claim that the last photograph the McCanns had of Madeleine was one taken on the first day of a six/seven day seaside holiday (i.e. not pretending the date was later)?

    4. The McCanns were desperate to hang on to the cutesy toddler Madeleine for their publicity campaign. The cherubic Maddie, being far more lucrative than the rapidly growing, almost school age Maddie from the tennis pics.

      The photo they were promoting was the toddler Maddie in her Christmas party dress not the 4 year old. The 'last picture' has those same cherubic qualities, Maddie looks younger and more baby like. I suspect it was taken on the first day as she is wearing her new holiday clothes, but I wouldn't read too much into it. It was probably selected as it was an appealing picture of the child, and closer to the 'red dress' picture than any others.

    5. Rosalinda,

      First of all, thank you for allowing comments.

      "I suspect it was taken on the first day as she is wearing her new holiday clothes, but I wouldn't read too much into it."

      But then why Kate's explicit emphasis on May 3?

      I wonder who saw Madeleine on May 3 in her peach-coloured [!] smock top from Gap and some white broderie-anglaise shorts from Monsoon during Mini sail or Mini dance, for example. Or is it just Kate who’d pictured how lovely she looked in them? How about Fiona Payne? Didn’t she notice Madeleine’s clothes whilst Madeleine was striding ahead of Fiona and me?

      Spot the difference:

      Kate McCann in ‘madeleine' (on Thursday 3 May)
      “She was striding ahead of Fiona and me, swinging her bare arms to and fro.”

      Antonella Lazerri in The Sun:
      “She was striding ahead of me, swinging her bare arms to and fro.”



    6. Rosalinda 13.10 @10:08

      "It was probably selected as...an appealing picture of the child, and closer to the 'red dress' picture than any others"

      Which it was, but identified by the parents as the 'last' picture taken of Madeleine on that holiday, which it wasn't.

      So what do you suppose was the more important attribute at the time - cuteness or finality?

      (See another's anonymous comment - 12.10 @21:51)

    7. I don't know if it was the last photo or not 12:46, but I don't intend tying my head up in knots trying to figure it out!

      I don't have any doubt that the McCanns were up to all sorts of things with regard to the photo's etc, they have been playing everyone since Day 1, simply by releasing the toddler red dress picture which bore little resemblance to the little girl who went missing.

      The finer details are only significant if you have doubts about the parents being involved. It's as if you have to prove it to yourself, and I speak from knowledge, I have been there!

      From the toddler picture of Madeleine to Kate clinging onto Cuddlecat, we have been played. From a human behavioural perspective, it is far more likely that Madeleine wore her new clothes at the start of the holiday. Don't we all? The first day is that opportunity to put on those new togs, its all part of the excitement.

      The McCanns, from a marketing perspective, were putting forward the most appealing photographs they had. The 'last' photograph illustrated what a happy family holiday they were having.

      The lack of other photos may simply show what a detached, pretentious bunch they were. Too into each other to be arsed with taking pictures. I sort of imagine them looking down their noses at the non professionals with their enthusiasm for capturing every precious moment.

      As to your final question, cuteness played a significant part, but there were other factors. I'mm not sure what you mean by finality?

    8. "I'mm not sure what you mean by finality?"

      It's simply a noun related to the adjective 'final', which is another way of saying 'last' (as in 'last photograph').

      I don't think the McCanns ever felt it necessary to refer to the 'cutest' photograph however.

    9. I think we are in agreement 10:57, my clumsy wording may have confused things. It is too posed and happy to be the last day and you don't make an excited little girl wait 5/6 days to wear her new Gap togs. By the end of the holiday, you don't care that the kids are dishevelled and covered in ice cream, by that time you are at your most relaxed and carefree despite struggling to find something clean for the kids to wear.

      I haven't read Petermac's book, though I have skimmed through his 'last photo' thesis. I'm afraid these guys make reading about the Madeleine mystery hard work, many readers, like myself, have a short attention span!

      As an ex policeman, I'm sure Petermac is telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, and probably has an indexed and categorized diary and inventory of all his involvement in this case - m'lud. He must show loyalty to his comrade (Bennett) for a number of reasons.

      1. They were both involved from the start - brothers in arms
      2. Bennett and CMoMM are the only outlet he has for his own books.
      3. If he shows a lapse in judgement by hooking up with Bennett, he loses credibility as an ex policeman
      4. Bennett's antics are borderline illegal, if not out and out criminal. If or when, any charges are brought against Bennett and CMoMM, he has to ensure his own nose is particularly clean.

      I think the handleful of people who still post in that odious place have good reason to be paranoid about anonymity. They are very strange.

      There is a lot of 'real' police work in Petermac's contributions, I don't doubt the experts he has consulted, he is the thorough type. I went off him when he was a signatory to a letter to the BBC demanding the McCann Crimewatch documentary be stopped, vetted by themselves, or whatever their demands were. As those who know me will be familiar, I feel quite passionately about censorship of any kind, and if I'm honest, I change my entire opinion on a person's character as soon as they use the word 'ban'. Tis a pet hate.

    10. It was a 'show, don't tell' narrative device 16:56, the picture illustrated that everything they were saying was the truth. Happy family by pool. It was also an especially flattering picture of Madeleine. She looked much younger than she did in the tennis photos, more like the toddler in the red dress picture. I know here are all sorts of conspiracy theories about the apparent 'age difference'. I think they are nonsense, kids just like us, look better, or worse, in a different light. Whoever selected the photo, chose the most appealing.

      The McCanns do of course have good reason for wanting us to believe it was the 'last' photograph. Not for the completely blown out of all proportion argument that Madeleine 'died' earlier in the week. That argument is nonsense by any sane person's judgement. Nothing will persuade me that these people carried on their holiday for 4/5 days as if nothing had happened. And nothing will persuade me that witnesses outside the immediate group, lied to cover such a heinous crime.

      Sadly, common sense doesn't play any part in the thinking of the, lets not beat about the bush, conspiraloons. For some reason they seem to think they have stumbled upon (worked day and night for) some sort of deviant sex group, be it paedophiles or swingers. It fits their own perspective of the world they live in. An accident or even a crime of passion is not enough for them, there has to be something more, and they are gleefully filling in the details and perversions themselves.

    11. "The McCanns do of course have good reason for wanting us to believe it was the 'last' photograph."

      And that reason is...?

    12. To illustrate their perfect family holiday 17:59. Remember, up until Madeleine disappeared, it had been their best holiday ever. Whilst their friends and kids had upset holiday tums, the McCanns were trouble and stress free. There was no reason for them to make Madeleine disappear, no troubles in the marriage, no behavioural problems with the kids, no money worries or extra marital affairs. Ie, all the usual reasons behind murder and crimes of passion.

      The McCanns were desperate to prove that they didn't have any 'dirty little secrets', they were pitching themselves as the perfect family. They care very much what the neighbours and indeed the general public think. They have created an entire industry to protect their image and reputation, tis one of the more bizarre aspects of this case.

      Absolutely, no-one, other than the conspiraloons, are suggesting Madeleine died earlier in the week, didn't go on the holiday, or was a clone. And if anyone seriously believes, one photograph, with or without the correct date is all the McCanns have to rely to prove Madeleine was alive on the Thursday, has lost the plot.

      Again, the idea that these armchair detectives somehow know more than Goncal Amaral (and his team)is ludicrous.

      Absolutely nothing has come to light for the conspiraloons, only the sordid digging around in the dirt carried out by themselves. Remember for over 2 years, Bennett was stalking and harassing the wrong Smith family!

  6. Hello Caroline, I suspect Petermac is very embarrassed about his connection to Tony Bennett and CMoMM, as indeed he should be. He is obviously trying to distance himself by posting via Jill, but it just makes him appear pretentious and more than a tad cowardly.

    He has written interesting stuff in the past, but like Bennett, he has that smug 'I'm right, dead right' attitude that should usually precedes a fall.

  7. Great blog cristobell super post!!

    1. Many thanks John, I lost my mojo for a while there, lol, but it feels like it is back! :)

  8. Caroline wrote: "If the photo was genuinely taken on the Sunday, what reason can there be to pretend it was later?" I should have thought the answer was obvious - to make it look as though she was alive on Thursday when she wasn't. I am sad to see even PeterMac put down like this. The experts he went to weren't 'random', they were each top-notch in their field. Their opinions surely put all the photoshopping poppycock to bed for ever. PeterMac's evidence overwhelmingly proved that the Last Photo was likely taken on Sunday. And where are all the other happy photos of Maddie for the rest of the week?? Missing, like Maddie! You can't count that Tennis Balls photo as we have two or three different people saying they took it on two or three different days. I don't think the 'early death' folk are knocking Amaral, they are just saying that much more information's come to light since he was booted off the case.

    1. 21:51, no more information has come to light for the armchair detectives, all they have are 10 year old files, and once again, the presumption that they know more than the detective who was on the ground is ridiculous.

      Those claiming Madeleine died on the Sunday are asking us to accept that 4 young families continued their holiday as if nothing had happened. That is, they carried on playing tennis, going to the beach, putting their kids in the crèche each day and enjoying tapas each evening. Seriously?

      Despite one of the most traumatic events anyone could experience, the sudden death of a 3 year old, you think these families just carried on enjoying their holiday? Waiting for the penultimate night mention it? How chillingly cold and callous is that?
      The problems these conspiraloons have is their complete disregard for logic and common sense, they will claim literally anything to make their theories fit.

      As for the lack of pictures, I think this was more of an adult 'lets show off how sporty we are' holiday, the kids were very much secondary in their plans and spent most of their time being looked after by others.

  9. You talk about Bennett PeterMac etc. 'stalking and harassing' witnesses. Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it Brian Kennedy whose men were found to have intimidated witnesses into silence (Hollingsworth article in Evening Standard, back in 2008/9)?

    1. The witnesses in this case have been the target of many unfortunately. However, just because Brian Kennedy did it, doesn't mean its OK for Bennett and his little band of weirdos.

      Most of us have our own moral guidelines, however, Bennett doesn't have any, nor does HideHo, they have taken the names and details of people who gave statements, and put them on public trial. I personally think they should face criminal charges, these are not people lobbying for justice, these are blood seeking vigilantes.

    2. Perhaps, rather than asking if something you don't know is true, you can provide evidence that Brian Kennedy "intimidated" witnesses - a criminal offence, by the way.

  10. You won't be able to. No, the ineffable Mark Hollingworth’s gossip is evidence of nothing, so don’t bother googling it. So let me help you out.

    Carter Ruck told Bennett that his envy-ridden posts "...will clearly have been understood by readers to allege (as you no doubt intended them to) that our client has taken part in a criminal conspiracy to conceal the fact that Kate and Gerry McCann were responsible for the death of theirdaughter Madeleine in their holiday apartment in Portugal and that they subsequently disposed of her body and lied to the authorities about her fate; and/or that in particular, our client intimidated witnesses into keeping silent about potentially relevant evidence".

    Bennett publicly apologised, grovelled and withdrew the junk articles. Kennedy did not crucify him in court or take his beloved 90 grand away from him to pay some of his costs. If he had done perhaps people like you wouldn’t be repeating the libel from behind a mask of anonymity.

    Which, of course, you’ll go on doing, because you aren’t interested in the truth.

    1. I wasn't aware of that John, thank you. Bennett does seem to have had a personal vendetta against Brian Kennedy, and you are right, Bennett oozing jealousy out of every pore as usual.

      I think however, that everyone Bennett comes up against, or who's details he has managed to obtain, should avoid him like the plague. Taking legal action against him feeds his need for self publicity, though as to why he wants that ugly mug frightening the public is anyone's guess. Once he latches on, he is almost impossible to remove, I feel for all his past victims.

      Brian Kennedy, like the McCanns, I suspect, soon cottoned onto the fact that Bennett was getting his jollies from their attention - once you hit ball back at him, there is no getting away.

      Anyway, I am delighted to see that you are still upsetting the odious coven John, Good on ya!

  11. And I’m glad to know that you are feeling better.

    Meanwhile, for a lasting reminder of the MSM and its “values” readers should go to guido fawkes and follow the link to a certain Jane Kelly, ex-Daily Mail and her “All the lonely people spill out bile in the online cesspit.”

    Gratified as I am that my description of you-know-where is now becoming a standard description of that place in the wider world, less gratified that she mentions a blacksmith who is nothing to do with me, M/S Kelly is worth reading both for the thesis of her piece –“It’s OK for me to refer so someone as fatface on twitter cos I’m a journalist” and for her very revealing – and repulsive - comment about Brenda Leyland and the dossier.

    As I’ve said before – you don’t need to search for hidden villains in the McCann case while the real enemies of the truth, like M/S Kelly and the MSM she represents so well, are in full view.

    1. google "the conservative woman jane kelly online cesspit"

    2. Many thanks John and others for the link.

      She does seem to have a bit of an elitist attitude towards the use of social media. OK for her to say the first thing that comes into her head on social media, but anyone else who does it is a sad lonely troll or writer of poison pen letters. I haven't looked at much of her work, but it appears her entire body of work is poison pen, she doesn't seem to have a good word to say about anyone. How sad and lonely is she? lol.

      She brings to mind another 'only we should be allowed to post' journalist Grace Dent with her outrage at the 'lawless internet' - if just anyone is allowed to publish their work, it will show up just how crap we are.

      Jane Kellys attack on Brenda Leyland takes malicious communications to a whole new level. Her victim, Brenda is deceased, she is therefore attacking Brenda's close family who are still mourning her loss. How despicable is that?

      As you say, she demands the privilege to vent her spleen whilst denying the general public the right to reply. She talks about the internet as if it were a bad thing. Probably OK if restricted to a select few, but lawless while available to ordinary people like Brenda Leyland.

      Her own odious personality explains the way in which she is treated on twitter. I personally wouldn't give her the time of day, but she obviously sets out to wind people up.

      I have to admit I did once, whilst in wind up mode, suggest to a Ban Halal Meat activist that he might be a lot happier if he became a veggie. I then spent the next 2 days blocking right wing fanatics preaching to me about Mohammed. Oops!

      Having been around McCann for so long, I have learned to laugh at online abuse, or at least, not to take it too seriously. These creatures don't know me and never will, and I think there is something a little sad and pathetic in hiding behind anonymity. If they haven't got the guts to reveal their identities, they haven't got the guts to do much else, and I'm certainly not going to live in fear because of them, as if!

      As for former Mail journalist Jane Kelly, well karma is coming her way John. Because of the lawless internet, she now has to compete with other writers on a level playing field. The public can choose what they read, not what they are given. There are many rising stars out there who will make mediocre writers like Jane Kelly irrelevant. No wonder she is bitter!

    3. Should add, if Jane Kelly had taken even a cursory glance at the subject she was writing about, it would have been quite obvious that Brenda Leyland did not have perm!

    4. I have always thought of myself as rather a happy person. Apart from a few knocks along the way I consider myself to have been extremely lucky. Working in a profession I love, equally content when not working, life was jammy until the Daily Mail and its columnist, Jane Kelly, decided to re-write it.


    5. Many thanks for that 10:35. Seems this odious creature has made a living writing malicious poison pen articles. Absolutely bizarre that she is calling Brenda Leyland a troll, what a hypocrite!

    6. You couldn’t make it up. Journalist Jane Kelly asks Michael Walker if it’s okay to manipulate facts as long as it’s not offensive.


    7. Is this the same Jane Kelly? She is a former Daily Mail journalist who claims to have been fired for attempting to introduce Mail readers to 'German expressionism'. She's also an artist of the "Stuckist" school. Pete Doherty and Myra Hindley feature in her paintings. www.stuckism.com/KellyJane/

  12. Not having much luck finding it John, is the article still there?

    1. c,bell google : the conservative woman jane kelly online cesspit

  13. http://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t13108-richard-d-hall-talks-to-tony-bennett-about-freedom-of-speech-leveson-the-mccanns-and-the-part-they-may-have-played-in-the-death-of-brenda-leyland

    Richard D. Hall talks to Tony Bennett about Freedom of Speech, Leveson, The McCanns and the part they may have played in the death of Brenda Leyland.


    Watch - if you can stand it - the 2 most boring men having a chat.


      And now for the interesting bit - watch at approx 0.22 secs into the video. It shows bennett with a caption stating:

      "Tony Bennett
      Solicitor and Campaigner"

      Now that is clearly misleading at least and a deliberate lie in the normal sense.

      Unless bennett has been accepted onto the solicitors roll again since he left then it appears to be a deliberatE misrepresentation of his status that shall be reported to the SRA.

      Of course he can choose to have the video amended and issue an apology in the public area of havern's forum.

      Hall should similarly amend all copies of the video on the internet.

  14. In one of John Blacksmith's pieces in 2009, written just after Tony Bennett attended a House of Commons Select Committee into press reporting standards, he spoke of a 'tall balding tramp':

    "The Alice in Wonderland effect was enhanced by the sight of McCann being flanked on both sides by the unlovely, indeed grotesque, bookends of Adam Tudor Smith and Clarence Mitchell, while a tall balding tramp who had apparently wandered in from the street sat behind all three, alternately fixing them with a crazed stare or scribbling on a dog-eared notepad, perhaps drawing pictures for his own pleasure of a skimpily dressed Madeleine".
    Who exactly was Blacksmith referring to?

    1. I think it's one of those you have to work out for yourself 22:43, all the clues are there! lol

  15. http://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/jane-kelly-all-the-lonely-people-spill-out-bile-in-the-online-cesspit/

  16. Ros I hope you don't mind me directing a question to John regarding Brian Kennedys involvement. I know John that you are of the opinion that there was little or no interference from government or people in power that the MSM created the mayhem which surrounded the case. I tend to lean more towards your interpretation than others who have made accusations of political and powerful interference. However Brian Kennedys role in it all does confuse me. Maybe it was too strong an assertion by anonymous at 22:00 that he intimidated witnesses but what do you think was the craic with him holding meetings with Martin Smith and Robert Murat etc and travelling to countries of potential sightings.

    1. With the indulgence of Ros, I hope, here’s my reply and, with respect, some words on my own position – which the usual suspects, the poor sods, have now decided is “a secret shill and protector for the McCanns”.


      Look, I am not a so-called expert on the McCann Affair but merely a commentator who opted seven years ago to support Goncalo Amaral in every way I could. In the end we got a full libel trial rather than what we suspected was an attempt to crush him with bluff and lies and, while it was a horrible experience for GA, it confirmed almost everything we had surmised about the strength and honesty of the claimants’ case – except that it was even more threadbare than we suspected. So far we seem to have got what we wanted.

      That is also true of the investigations. Alongside GA we called the first one “the interrupted investigation” for sound, evidence-based, reasons and campaigned for another one. The government granted that in 2011. Again, we got exactly what we were hoping for. Now we wait to see what the results are, while refraining recently from speculating on who might be charged since that could interfere with the judicial process that we always sought.

      To me that is a very simple position indeed. As to the various claims made by some pretty unsavoury characters about the “real culprits”, protection etc.: unlike Dr Amaral I have maintained since 2009 – and it cost me the support of most of our Portuguese friends – that such views would never fulfil the hopes placed in them, whether it was Goncalo’s mistaken belief that MI5 was involved or the numerous lurid fantasies in the cesspit, Facebook and elsewhere. I have seen not one whit of evidence to make me change that view.

      I know very little, and care less, about Mr Kennedy: he is a figure of no importance in the crime at issue but he happens to be rich and successful, which makes him a marked man for the various losers and Puritans in the anti camp. One of the mistakes they make is to believe that wealthy people are different from others and that people like Kennedy, who, by the way, is not super-rich, spend their time in secret machinations and, most importantly, are never fooled.

      The few that I have known have been reassuringly banal and anyone who has followed football clubs can see the catastrophic errors of judgement that wealthy businessmen make once they step out of their own field.I remember the mother of the richest man in England at the time saying to me "yes xx is all right but he often needs a rocket up his arse".

      I don’t like it when rich people “buy into” an important case, just as I don’t like the hedge fund millionairess who is currently attempting to use her wealth to influence the Brexit debate in court but I see no evidence that Kennedy was anything more than a fervent believer in the McCanns’ innocence who used his money to get closer to it than others without the ackers. But, as I say, I don’t really care about him: in a world full of dangers and challenges why go round looking for stage villains to boo?

    2. "Goncalo’s mistaken belief that MI5 was involved"

      Do you have any evidence in support of that observation, i.e. that Goncalo was indeed mistaken?

    3. Blacksmith, have you seen that you're honoured with a poll on CMoMM? There are a lot more votes than usual; someone has been raiding the sock drawer.

      1 Lay off Blacksmith. He's a great writer who nearly always hits the nail on the head 4% [ 1 ]

      2 He's sometimes good and he's sometimes bad 24% [ 6 ]

      3 He's a pompous, foul-mouthed egotist who's been wrong countless times and keeps on attacking those who've done the most research on the case 64% [ 16 ]

      4 Rather not say 8% [ 2 ]

      Total Votes : 25

    4. If you take away vote number 1 which was me and then subtract the socks of Bennett you have around 12 current dwellers in the cesspit.A fitting number who blindly follow a nutjob with a messiah complex.

    5. 5 This poll tells you all you need to know about its creator and 25 contributors.

    6. LOL, the big eejit has banned so many people he has no-one to debate with. His need to convince the curious that his is the most popular forum on the net, is hilarious. His constant need to deride others is distasteful, and who tf, uses words like scatological, yuck, yuck, yuck.

      His latest diatribe against the awesome John Blacksmith, might just as well scream, I'm so jealous it hurts. The only way I can get people to read my work is with a Court Order, why does no-body like me?

      Bennett could provide enough material to keep several psychiatrists conferences going for several days. He is beyond reason and logic, so incapable of free thought, that is, he is probably not sane enough to prosecute.

      I always vote on those polls just so I can see how barmy the result is! I treat it as the nonsense it is, a way in which to convince the 'watching world' ha ha, that at least 12 people believe his deranged theory. We must take it as read, that the handful of remaining 'real people' are also off the loony scale, and quite likely an assortment of socks run by Bennett himself. Unfortunately for him, his odious character always shows through, he's fooling no-one, lol.

      I think the reality is, very few people read there anymore let alone join in the discussion. Their loony theories, no other opinion allowed, and banning of everyone who disagrees with them, has left remaining only that tiny few who are happy to wallow in human waste.

      Tony Bennett, HideHo, Textusa, Richard D Hall, Stephen Birch etc, ALL approached their research with confirmation bias. Actually, I should throw Summers and Swan into that mix as well. That is, their minds were already made up at the start and they have spent the last 9+ finding clues and evidence to back up their own particular theories. I suspect rafters were raised in both the paedophile and swingers camps as they painstaking scrutinized every pebble in the last photo! They have allowed their need to shout 'I told you so' to get way ahead of them. It's like they are trying to stake a claim in the finding of Madeleine, before Scotland Yard, the PJ or anyone else beats them to it.

      The fact that they are accusing innocent people of lying shows how unscrupulous they are. My heart goes out to the Smith family, Robert Murat,the nannies and even Brian Kennedy and the McCanns themselves, who have had their lives invaded by those ghouls.

      I am truly mystified as to how people can get to adulthood without having any awareness of the effects their actions may have on others. How would HideHo feel if someone on another continent did an online expose of her because she gave a witness statement to the police? How would she feel at being called a liar without being able to reply?



    7. I know there are those who will accuse me of hypocrisy in view of my many blogs on the Madeleine case. I will point out however, that I did a huge amount of research before I began to comment negatively about the McCanns. I needed to convince myself beyond reasonable doubt, there was no way I wanted to add to the pain of the family, if there was even a 1% chance that I was wrong.

      Unlike the aforementioned, I began my research wanting to prove the McCanns' innocence. I wasn't quite ready to lose such a large chunk of my faith in human nature. And the research I was doing was purely for myself, I have an insatiably curious nature, I didn't just want to know, I needed to.

      In it's heyday there were hundreds of Madeleine websites and forums, nearly all claiming to know exactly what happened. There was way too much to read so I quickly became discerning. If the author changed any part of the dogs' evidence or the statements to fit their own theory, I stopped reading. I have also never had any interest in the 'detectives' who use six degrees of separation link people to heinous crimes. Eg, the McCanns have been known to visit Ireland so the Smith family MUST be involved.

  17. Someone's been reading here and, rather than responding naming you or your blog, has updated a thread with "those who, parrot-like, say things like: 'Amaral was right about everything". How haughty lol.

    1. LOL Tonyfan. Since Bennett failed spectacularly to get my blog boycotted, he and his minions refuse to mention me by name. I suspect they do most of their bitching in the members bit, ha ha.

  18. Anonymous 13 October 2016 at 17:59

    Showing a nice family picture on the sixth day of their holiday might be the reason, but why didn’t Kate include ‘her last photograph’ in her book (May 2011), if only for the cuteness factor?

    Why the detailed description and not the accompanying photograph?

  19. "Do you have any evidence in support of that observation, i.e. that Goncalo was indeed mistaken?"

    No. I make everything up.

    1. I think I've taken up too much of Ros's space to add more.

      It is a matter of record that Goncalo Amaral and I have had differences of opinion in the past. Not about the disappearance, since as a layman I defer completely to his knowledge and expertise, but about relationships with UK institutions, including the intelligence services. I don’t intend to reopen them.

    2. john blacksmith14 October 2016 at 16:11

      I think I've taken up too much of Ros's space to add more.

      perhaps you would open up comments on your own blog then.

    3. 'Will the real John Blacksmith please stand up!(On second thought, please stay seated. It makes no difference).

      Goncalo Amaral being no more nor less human than the rest of us, he is by no means infallible. Right about some things, wrong about others no doubt. What I find intriguing is the particular bias you and others attribute to his accuracy.

      A professional with decades of experience in law enforcement, his case-related observations, you contend, are perfectly valid, his assessment of the obstruction he clearly felt at the time not so.

      For those in the 'cesspit' to which you scornfully refer, Goncalo's intuition that MI5 had something to say about the matter has a degree of validity, whereas certain of his earlier observations regarding the fate of Madeleine McCann ought perhaps to be viewed in a different light nowadays, taking account of more recently accrued information, so to speak.

      Who among us has the authority to specify in which direction Goncalo Amaral's interpretations are in error? You? Me? Members of CMoMM?

      The answer at this point in time is clearly 'no-one'. We should all be able to agree, however, that Goncalo is right at least some of the time.

      With reference to the earliest accounts to emerge from the lips of the McCanns, Goncalo writes: "Right away the lies started".

      One of his more accurate statements, surely.

      And yet I wonder what Goncalo (or anyone) would make now of the 'evidence' that the lies in this case actually started before the police investigation even (see the crèche records for 30th April/1st May, where two different fathers each seem altogether unsure of their daughters' Christian names, despite having had 3 - 4 years practice, or that 'tales' were told by members of the Tapas 7 in relation to ostensibly innocuous events prior to the announcement of Madeleine's disappearance.

      I think it entirely reasonable to postulate, that if the lies had already started then Madeleine had already been removed ('abducted' if you'd rather).

      No doubt you, and possibly Goncalo Amaral, would disagree.

    4. I am delighted to have pointed out a few home truths to @janekelly25 JB lol - she retweeted a link to this blog. :)

    5. Stuff produced by Bennett and his band of whackos is not NEW evidence 18:12!

      Let's turn to the crèche records. Are you seriously suggesting that Kate and Gerry carried on with their holiday with the body of their deceased daughter in the wardrobe?

      Ditto their group of friends, who not only continued their holiday, but were actively involved in some kind of weekend at Bernies routine to pretend the child was still alive and well? Seriously? Do you truly believe the nannies at the crèche were so enamoured of Kate and Gerry that they too gave statements about caring for a non existent child?

      Do you think the world's most inept fake abduction story was the result of 5 days planning?

      I'm afraid the conclusions reached by Bennett, HDH et al, are the result of over active and more than a little deranged, minds. They can slam down the crèche records as much as they like but they don't compete with eye witness evidence.

    6. "Stuff produced by Bennett and his band of whackos is not NEW evidence 18:12!"

      I made no such observation. Please don't jump to conclusions. Witness statements ARE evidence however and to be assessed on their own merits, as per your closing sentence.

      "Let's turn to the crèche records. Are you seriously suggesting that Kate and Gerry carried on with their holiday with the body of their deceased daughter in the wardrobe?"

      That's a non-sequitur (ask Blacksmith, he'll tell you). Something which, again, I neither stated nor implied.

  20. To Anonymous 18.12 Good post! I think Amaral was removed from his post in October 2007. He was (deliberately) overwhelmed by the international media blitz. I assume you Ros and John Blacksmith accept that the dogs were right and that Madeleine died. Which leaves us with when and why. I don't see why we can't re-evaluate Amaral's belief in Madeleine dying after 6pm that evening, given the weight of evidence that now points to an earlier death. The weather evidence that the Last Photo was taken on Sunday is persuasive. The absence of Maddie's DNA in the apartment and the near-total absence of photos of Madeleine that week are more indicators. I can't really see why you seem to insist on a death after 6 on 3rd May when we have so much evidence of all the lies told by the McCanns and their friends

    1. The weight of evidence you refer to comes from the deranged camp of Tony Bennett, Richard Hall and HideHo. And it isn't new evidence, it is existing evidence that has been twisted to the extent that these online detectives are calling the witnesses liars!

      The last photo probably was taken on the first day, but that doesn't prove anything other than it was a good marketing ploy.

      Do you honestly believe that Gerry and Kate put the body of their daughter in the wardrobe for 5 days whilst they carried on playing tennis, going for runs and enjoying tapas? Ditto the other families? Seriously?

      Lack of DNA and photographs proves nothing. It is up against the eye witness of people outside the tapas group. The fact that one of the nannies went to school with a cousin of Kate (or is it Gerry) twice removed, is also meaningless. It's like spotting someone you met on holiday in your home town and having to duck for cover. Knowing someone by sight, name or distant bloodline, is not a good enough reason to help them cover up the death of a child.

      As for the photos, the McCanns don't seem to be the 'Happy Snappy' type. It was a holiday of sport and one upmanship, they were there for the adult activities of tennis, boating, running and enjoying grown up conversation. Those convinced this case involves paedophilia, should bear in mind, these adults were doing all in their power to OFFload the kids. There was a big clue in Kate's 'we were so into each other'. And before Textusa goes off into a frenzy, I'm talking about from the waist upwards. Parents of young children crave adult company far more than they crave hanky panky.

    2. I don't know why you assume I accept that the dogs were "right". I do not know.

    3. "I can't really see why you seem to insist on a death after 6 on 3rd May when we have so much evidence of all the lies told by the McCanns and their friends."

      And there lies the problem. You can't see it because, like Bennett, like HDH, you are simply ignorant of the rules of evidence and formal reasoning that you are attempting to apply. I'm sorry but there is no more diplomatic way of putting it.

      Your reasoning in this example is completely false because you are claiming that BECAUSE the McCanns lie a lot it FOLLOWS that they are lying about the death of the child. That is the case you are making.

      But it doesn't follow at all, in any sense: there is no connection whatever between these two separate phenomena, however much you may think there is. It is your opinion which, through ignorance, I'm sorry to say, you have dressed up as a logical conclusion from the facts.

      Don't take my word for it, please, because I don't make these rules - for God's sake if sleuthing is your hobby get on the net or down to a library and learn about these very firm rules of reasoning because without them you are just lost.

      There is no evading them: it is those rules that were applied to send Bennett down for contempt of court. It is never mastering those rules that ensures that Bennett pays out money every month because he never has a defence of truth, only waffle. Do you think there was a legal vendetta against him?

      When something really does follow, such as "the McCanns are self-confessed liars and therefore it FOLLOWS that their word is not 100% reliable" then the conclusion is complete and unarguable, if boring, and as an unarguable statement of fact is immune to libel.

      Equally, nothing is ever going to happen to any of the suspects in the child's disappearance unless a prosecutable case - built on the application of those rules - is presented to a court.

      I'm not arguing with your opinions, I'm not claiming that any opinions of mine about the case are superior to yours, but only with your self-deception - because in the end it will lead you nowhere.

    4. Rosalinda 00:31

      "The last photo probably was taken on the first day, but that doesn't prove anything other than it was a good marketing ploy."

      Adopting the weaker position of 'suggests' rather than 'proves', if, as you say, the last photo was 'probably taken on the last day', that in itself justifies inquiry into Madeleine's whereabouts during the rest of the week, especially when you consider she was apparently photographed on a tennis court AFTER the last photo was 'probably taken on the first day'.

      Ask Blacksmith about the 'arrow of time'.

    5. "Your reasoning in this example is completely false because you are claiming that BECAUSE the McCanns lie a lot it FOLLOWS that they are lying about the death of the child. That is the case you are making."

      Independently of Anonymous :01, that is not a case I would make.

      Even if we soften the edges and constrain ourselves to 'disappearance', rather than death, your 'Madeleine was here until at least 6.00 p.m.' stance invites the interpretation that others were telling the truth that evening, never mind the McCanns (e.g., David Payne, who is on record as having given two quite different accounts of his encounter with Kate McCann inside 5A around that time, one of which includes Gerry McCann, who, according to Payne's statement to police, was downstairs playing tennis).

      Your adherence to the rules of evidence is laudable. There is no more finite a proof than a logical proof (if only jury members shared that awareness across the board).

      Nevertheless the place for applying such strictures is a court of law. Before arriving at that stage one has to accept fallibility in human reasoning, which can afflict even members of the police (such as GA) whose investigations have more than occasionally to 'go back to square one'.

      The ultimate determinant of an investigation's being more (or less) on the right track is the appropriate overall context for the crime (i.e., the true motive).

      "Equally, nothing is ever going to happen to any of the suspects in the child's disappearance unless a prosecutable case - built on the application of those rules - is presented to a court."

      A statement about which there can be no argument.


    6. john blacksmith15 October 2016 at 00:45

      "I don't know why you assume I accept that the dogs were "right". I do not know."

      You can bet the farm on it. That should help you make your mind up.

  21. @Rosalinda, 15 October 2016 at 00:31

    I tend to agree with your reasoning, but suppose, just suppose, M’s potential cause of death wasn’t unthinkable.

    I know this could touch upon a sensitive issue, but M doesn’t look healthy. (I’ve never thought she was an abused child by the way, and I disagree with Bennett’s view on the Smiths and Mrs Fenn, just to mention a few).

    Only my opinion.


  22. I really don't know what you mean by 'wasn't unthinkable' NL, can you clarify?

    I honestly don't think the public are in position to judge Madeleine's health on the few photographs we have seen. She looks like a regular kid to me and those nannies at the crèche never showed any cause for concern.

    We are all keen to know what happened and why, but while fishing for clues online may occupy our human need to solve puzzles, it is meaningless. And should add, a tad ghoulish to scrutinize other people's family photographs with a microscope.

    I am not sure what difference having a pre existing illness makes NL. Perhaps you could explain.

    1. Medical negligence.

      As for the rest I tend to agree with you although I didn't use a microscope.


    2. Apologies NL, I was referring to the rather sickening 'spot the paedo signs' picture threads on CMoMM, rather than your goodself.

    3. Apologies accepted, lol.


  23. For those interested I'll enlarge on these questions of reasoning. It is too lengthy to fit here, though, so I've put it on the Bureau purely for readers of this blog of Ros's and the matters we've been discussing. It is there now.

    1. Thank you. Your view of Mr Bennett in particular is clear enough.

      More generally however..

      "...firstly, the “empty cupboard” has ensured that the McCann supporters have conceded the field and no longer debate but only assert, leaving a vacuum until the investigations are completed."

      Isn't this at the crux of what should be all our concerns regarding whatever is cited as 'evidence' in the case of Madeleine McCann's disappearance?

      Assertions are easy to make and two-a-penny, irrespective of which group is inclined to make them. You were quite correct in drawing attention earlier to the false relations people are so quick to establish as suits their purpose.

      Without unnecessarily giving commentators the 'benefit of the doubt', I think it prudent at least to allow a looser usage of the word 'evidence' than might be required within a totally legal framework. That is not to suggest, however, that such usage should then be employed in support of a libellous accusation.

      When all's said and done, the number of alternative expressions being limited, it should come as no surprise that people settle on what they instinctively regard as the more pertinent phrase, disregarding, unfortunately, the potential for (possibly illegal) overstatement.

      In sum, I take the view that to jettison a line of argument in such debates as take place here, simply on account of quite possibly inadvertent abuse of a word, is akin to throwing the baby away with the bathwater. Overstating a case should not invalidate it out of hand. This is not exactly the Old Bailey, is it?

      Basically however I agree with you. People should be more judicious in their remarks, and certainly in their criticism of others - a generalisation that includes both of us.

  24. No, I couldn't disagree with you more.

    "In sum, I take the view that to jettison a line of argument in such debates as take place here, simply on account of quite possibly inadvertent abuse of a word, is akin to throwing the baby away with the bathwater. Overstating a case should not invalidate it out of hand. This is not exactly the Old Bailey, is it?"

    Forgive me I am not talking about "inadvertent use of words." I am referring, again and again, to people who defame others, gratuitously and untruthfully, and attempt to conceal their inventions as "research".

    With respect, it is not just the fate of Madeleine McCann that matters.The fates of other people - the police at Scotland Yard, the Nannies in PDL, the Smiths, for example, also matter. Their reputations have been besmirched by lies.

    How can you be so moved by the possible fate of a child and so unconcerned about the fate of others who are trampled on with glee and treated as pawns in a game?

    Tell me, what do you think the PDL nannies should do about the filth that is thrown at them? What would you do in their position?

  25. John Blacksmith, I am glad you have finally admitted that you 'don't know' if Eddie & Keela were 'right' or not. Correct me if I'm wrong, but in one of the articles on the Bureau you said that it is quite possible that Madeleine was abducted. I'm most grateful. Now everybody knows clearly where you stand on Madeleine's fate. And why you admire Brian Kennedy.

    1. If I may interject here 20:40, you are demonstrating exactly why the research of Bennett, Hall, HDH et al is nonsense. You have taken a few words of John Blacksmith, and based on those few words you have reached an unwieldy conclusion that he on the McCanns side and is an admirer of Brian Kennedy.

      The fact that JB has been expressing his doubts for quite a few years, counts for nothing. You have proved your point (to yourself), case closed. I do hope you are never called for jury service.

      Do you also believe that the 'Last' photograph proves Madeleine died on the Sunday and the entire holiday party played a macabre game of cat and mouse so they could enjoy the remainder of their holiday?

      Your summation of JB merely illustrates the narrowness of your mind. If that is enough evidence to reach a conclusion, then your powers of logical thinking are seriously retarded.

      Anyway, I'll butt out, I'm looking forward to JB's answer, his eloquent prose and rational thinking have kept my going through many of the dark days of this case.

    2. Oh well. Funny how responses to my explicit and detailed claims never feature detailed rebuttal but only spleen. Now why would that be? That's how it used to be with the McCann supporters until they gave up and fell silent. In case of doubt:

      1) No, I personally don't know if the dogs were right. Apparently you do. Then bring a private prosecution. It should be a doddle.

      2. Yes, I've frequently said an abduction (of Madeleine McCann) is possible. I'll repeat it now: an abduction is possible. At some point you may wish to check the fact that not even zero probability = impossibility. But don't let that spoil your fun.

      3. "I'm most grateful. Now everybody knows clearly where you stand on Madeleine's fate. And why you admire Brian Kennedy."

      4. Thank you for this excellent practical illustration to the post I made about ignorantly drawing conclusions that don't follow from the supposed premisses.

      5. Don't forget the Cesspit/Only in America claim that I am actually working for the McCanns.

      Good night.

    3. "Funny how responses to my explicit and detailed claims never feature detailed rebuttal but only spleen."

      You'll be lucky. They have a tendency to not make it past the editor's desk.

    4. "Don't forget the...Only in America claim that I am actually working for the McCanns."

      Oh really? And when was that claim made pray?

      It seems to have been cast from the same mould that produced your 'number of eyewitnesses' to confirm that Madeleine was alive at 5.30 p. on the Thursday night, three of whom, as identified by yourself, made no reference to the Thursday whatsoever.

      How's that for detail?

    5. John Smith (really?) on behalf the Home Office Direct Communications Unit on 6 October:

      "The Government believes it is right that it does all it can to support the search for Madeleine McCann which is why the former Home Secretary asked the commissioner of the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) to undertake a review of the case in May 2011. The Commissioner considered the request and on balance took the operational decision to bring its particular expertise to the case".

      Brandon Lewis MP, in a separate reply to Scott Mann MP, dated 1 September:

      "The Government believes it is right that it does all it can to support the search for Madeleine McCann which is why the former Home Secretary asked the commissioner of the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) to undertake a review of the case in May 2011. The Commissioner considered the request and made a decision to bring the Metropolitan Police's particular expertise to the case".

      Agenda anyone?

    6. I suspect the Madeleine file is in the drawer marked 'When I've got time/lost the will to live'. Anyone who picks this file up will be butting heads with the establishment, celebrities and the great and the good. Without the powers of Lord Chilcott, they will have to question former police chiefs and Tony Blair himself. In fact any MP picking this file up will be kissing their career and any future honours goodbye.

      I am hoping that before too long we will have good, honest MPs who will put the people they represent before any TV presenting jobs or Strictly. Ones with the guts to ask questions that really do need asking.

      But I won't hold my breath on that one, and to be fair, I'd feel a bit mean asking a decent MP to take up this particular poison chalice. More likely, I think, the case will 'break' in some other way. The entire chain is made up of dodgy links, something's got to give.

  26. Blacksmith, you rock!
    Anonymous 15 October 2016 at 20:40, you are a rock.

  27. Gerry McCann, Kate McCann and John Blacksmith agree - the dog's findings are rubbish and should be ignored. I had to laugh at your alleged 'explicit and detailed claims', JB. Where might I find those? You've never stated a definite view about any of the evidence about Madeleine's disappearance, in 9 years of blogging about the case

  28. Ros, Isn't it plain looney to think that Madeleine died sometime after 6pm on 3rd May, and that by the time the McCanns sat down with their Tapas mates at 8.30pm they had hidden Maddie's body in a place that no-one could find it? How did they find a totally secure hiding place for the body, then dress for dinner and calmly sit down with their friends? Do you think they told all their mates about Maddie having died? Do you see how ridiculous this is i.e. how they could do all of that in barely a couple of hours?

    1. It's incredible what we can do when really put our minds to it 23:43. As Gerry said in one of his blogs 'An act of madness or sudden impulse can lead to consequences.....'.

      You ask me 'how did they dress for dinner, calmly sit down with their friends?'. I'll come to that in a moment, but do you not see the irony? If you believe Madeleine died earlier in the week then they would have had to carry out that same charade for 5 days.

      How did they get through it. They had to. It was their collective alibi. Kate told us exactly how she did it in her book, giving numerous examples of their worlds collapsing and the chaos behind the scenes, while they appeared bright and optimistic for the TV cameras. When the cadaver and blood dogs were brought into their rented villa, they said Gerry had a tummy bug.

      I don't think for one second they realised how 'big' it would all become. Given their arrogance and sense of entitlement, I think they truly believed the Portuguese police would just accept the word of English doctors and that would be it.

      We don't how they did it, we don't know why there was a collective decision and we don't know why the police forces of two countries can't or won't take this case to a conclusion. It is probably all these mysteries that keep us here.

  29. @ Ros 0124 - Maddie dies, they decide to cover it up, tell their friends who say 'Fine, OK Gerry, we'll back you up', put the body in a bag, dump it in a hiding place where no-one can find it, hide all this from the twins, then shower and dress for dinner at 8.30 as if nothing had happened?? You have got to be kidding!

    1. 09:29 I know incredible isn't it? The kind of story that would grab headlines worldwide and send thousands off on a detective trail. It's not me that's kidding though, it's not my story.


  30. Anonymous15 October 2016 at 22:28

    "Blacksmith, you rock!"

    Have you read his latest? Funny? I almost...well his misspelling of 'mayonnaise' was amusing (two 'n's next time Antony, there's a good boy).

    To be honest I thought most of it was in bad taste, but then what else should we expect from stale ingredients?

  31. I read the piece, which was so not funny it was cringeworthy. But he couldn't even do this short piece without yet another dig at poor old Bennett and his bald patch. Why is Blacksmith so obsessed by him?

  32. I wish they'd both put a sock in it as regards digs at each other.

    1. I cannot agree Gillian. I actually find social media spats quite amusing, especially if, one party at least, has a bit of wit and humour. I actually enjoy it when JB floors the charmless oaf.

    2. Social media spats are one thing, making light of Brenda Leyland's death another.

      A poor man's Frankie Boyle, Blacksmith is intent on deriding those who believe Brenda's inquest, and by extension her death, were suspicious (that would of course include those who actually attended the inquest, which Blacksmith did not).

      No matter how unjustified, extreme, or lunatic some people's views of the Leyland case may be, it should not be treated as a subject of fun, even if only out of respect for the deceased.

  33. My dear (not for publication) RC, many thanks for your kind words, I have kept them for my own delectation, especially the bit about the Ivy! You sound very much like a woman after my own heart ha ha, hedonism rules!

    All the best for your further studies, always a good way to keep the likes of ourselves out of mischief lol, Enjoy my friend!

  34. I don't see anyone making fun of Brenda Leyland's death, I just read the words on the page, I don't add my own bits. I'm afraid you are reminding of the sanctimonious 'think of the children' brigade, that is you are using Brenda's tragedy to take the higher ground.

    Unfortunately, Brenda Leyland's name will be intrinsically linked to the Madeleine case for ever more. It is what it is. And it follows, there will be differing opinions, again, not something anyone can control.

    I don't really buy into the extent that people claim to be outraged by comments they see online and can't help but feel don't they have anything better to worry about?

    Nobody likes to see or hear ill of the dead, and I will always work towards having Brenda's name cleared and hopefully apologies issued.

    Apologies if I have been a tad harsh, but I'm a bit irked with the terminally offended at the mo - see latest blog! lol

    1. "I don't see anyone making fun of Brenda Leyland's death..."

      Then I suggest you read Blacksmith's latest 'blog' for yourself.

      "I'm a bit irked with the terminally offended at the mo"

      As am I with the terminally self-righteous.

    2. I am responding to a post way further up and couldn't see how to reply. You said " conspiraloons. For some reason they seem to think they have stumbled upon (worked day and night for) some sort of deviant sex group, be it paedophiles or swingers. It fits their own perspective of the world they live in. An accident or even a crime of passion is not enough for them"
      I wouldn't see my self as a 'conspiraloon', conspiracies don't have to be fantastical and 'out there', the suspicions of sex abuse come from the Gaspar statement, so I don't think it's people wanting to create something that somehow fits their own perspective. pictures taken of Madeliene by Jon Corner, a social worker believing they had been made aware of David Payne before and missing child protection files would seem to strengthen this angle. This combined with an accident could account for a cover up. Where I believe things start to get into 'loon' territory is suggesting Madeliene never existed, or that all photos of her are 'suspicious' or that certain witnesses have been nobbled depending on how convienient that is to your personal theory. Thinking something or someone looks off, is not evidence. Certain people at the Jill Havern forum do seem to want their personal pet theories to be true so much that it interferes with basic reasoning. Analysing inconsistencies in statements and looking at what is actually physically there (or not) is what Amaral has done. He isn't getting into elaborate theories about days before, altering photos, or whether the Smith family are ALL liars because all he needed to do was have a convincing theory there was an accident in 5a and put it to those suspected, then hopefully they confess. The simplest explanations are usually true. You can't point that out though without getting a patronising lecture about why you are failing to see the 'truth'.