Sunday, 16 July 2017


Discussion from the last two blogs has spilled over and it finally it becomes clear what the forum wars are all about.  In one corner we have Tony Bennett, Richard Hall, HideHo and Petermac claiming Madeleine 'died' before the 3rd May and the man seen carrying the child was NOT Gerry McCann.

In the opposite corner we have Ben (I wanna run the biggest FB page) Thompson and his thugs who support the theory of Goncalo Amaral, but then go away with the fairies.  I don't know what Ben's beliefs are, I've never had the stomach to read him - is it paedophiles?  I know he's anti Textusa's swingers, but he gets himself in such a frenzy, he must think there was more to Madeleine's disappearance than an accident.

Both factions are of course bonkers, essentially they have stepped into this game of Cluedo and made it their real lives.  Not only are they trying to insert themselves into the plot, but they want starring roles!  All their theories are based on TEN year old files that had all the crucial parts withheld.  And, I can't stress this enough, they weren't there.  These theories come from their over active imaginations and the comfort of their armchairs. 

Regardless.  What it all now boils down to is the Smithman sighting - because that will determine one way or the other when Madeleine 'died' (yeh, I know).  Those desperate to prove Smithman wasn't Gerry (mostly Bennett) have conducted a very nasty campaign against the witnesses in this case in order to discredit them.  For two years Bennett was stalking the wrong Smith family!

I believe Mr. Smith.  Not least because his statement stands out from the others, the tapas group especially, for being so brutally honest and human.  It is clear from his words, that he is suffering an almighty crisis of conscience, and who could blame him?  Gerry was the grief sticken father of a missing child, you can understand his reluctance to point the finger. 

Death before the 3rd?  Those trying to prove Madeleine died before the 3rd May are literally trying to force square pegs into round holes.  In order for their theories to stand up, they must prove at least, a dozen independent witnesses have lied. To do this they have quite literally 'made up' back stories connecting these innocent bystanders to the McCanns.  They have long since crossed all lines of morality and decency and they aren't even aware of it. 


I am rapidly approaching my 60th birthday (Monday :( ) and I am sad to say, my beloved laptop is as knackered as myself!  If you are regular visitor and you enjoy my blogs, or even if you don't, lol, please consider a small donation - the monetary equivalent of a birthday card or drink!    

I have been undergoing a bit of a transition recently, as some may have noticed, but I have realised that I cannot let my 'Mcann' blog/commentary go. I think for many it has become a regular port of call, which I am immensely proud of.  I am proud too, that I run a McCann blog, that calls for calm, compassion and consideration for the feelings of those involved.  I'm proud too that people from all sides of the argument can come together here to exchange views civilly and with respect for each other.  As popular as this blog is, it doesn't pay and I would never put up a paywall. I would write regardless, tis true, even if I had to go back to the old feather quill and the back of a discarded shoe, but the laptop is a whole lot easier, especially one not held together with a couple of hairclips and a bandaid.   


  1. Gordon Bennett16 July 2017 at 11:44

    I think the timing of the last photo too is a reason for the "war".
    One camp thinks only the date has been changed and the other think Madeleine has been superimposed on a later photo (possibly 18th May) with a level of skill usually only available to intelligence (and counter intelligence) agencies.
    I have no idea if either is right,but both sound plausible to me.
    Then again the photo could be genuine and taken on the day claimed.

  2. It's highly unlikely that the whole truth will ever come out officially in this case.

  3. First off, Tannerman, was a complete fabrication of Jane Tanner's who later became Crecheman, a complete fabrication of Andy Redwood's.
    Smithman was no doubt Gerry and those buttoned trouser legs.
    The Smiths were about to board a plane to help with the PJ investigation but were halted the same time that Amaral was moved off the case, courtesy of Gordon Brown.
    Meanwhile, it must be apparent that the Smiths have been requested to lower the % assuredness of it being Gerry and consequently to quietly go away.
    One thing that has always bothered me: if it was Gerry carrying an alleged deceased MBM how come it was Kate who smelled of cadaverine and Gerry did not?

    1. ''if it was Gerry carrying an alleged deceased MBM how come it was Kate who smelled of cadaverine and Gerry did not?''

      that is assuming they never change or wash their clothes. Don't forget the weeks that passed between the disappearance & the use of the dogs.

      As for the 'cadaverine' who's to say specifically when that cadaverine was picked up. Was Kate's positive clothes the ones she was wearing the night M went missing.

      There is nothing with the cadaverine alerts, WHEN they relate to.

      Considering you have few clothes with you on holiday, you would think the clothes the McCanns had on the night M went missing would have been through the wash several times.

      Rather like Cuddly Cat!

      IMHO the dogs without any scientific clarification stand as a red herring, rather like Jane Tanners sighting, years believing she saw the abduction.

      A simple case of a cover up of neglect, on the hoof.

    2. "..Was Kate's positive clothes the ones she was wearing the night M went missing."
      Yes. Those chef's check trousers, were.

    3. Good summation 13:04, I agree.

      As to Gerry's clothes, who can say. What a shame the police did not get hold of those buttoned trousers. I have a feeling they were dirtied somehow and in kneeling in front of the police, he created a reason for any earth or dirt that may have been on the trousers rather than a signal to the freemasons.

      As 14:36 said above, the clothes they had with them would have been washed many times, it wasn't until July that the dogs were brought in. Amazingly, Kate was doing washing on Saturday the 5th May! And I believe when the police did arrive with the dogs, she had just put a machine load on.

      I think you are wrong too say the dogs are a red herring. They don't make false alerts, if they did they would be useless for the tasks given. And they made 11 alerts, two specialist dogs, separately, and in the same places and they only alerted to McCann related items. Those alerts are far too significant to caste aside.

    4. Ros at 18:46
      Cadaverine evidently persists for a very long time and Eddie (and Keela) knew their stuff (ask Sandra).
      After all, alerts were made on the Hire Car, driven to then very closed Huelva August 3, 2007 - 3 months after MBM's 'disappearance'.
      Coupled with the wardrobe, sofa, Kate's blouse & trousers, some of the kid's clothes alerts we can trust the reliable dogs.
      So if Smithman was Gerry - where was he going? Also, if something had happened earlier in the week then it would have been far easier to tennis bag someone away without the world's glare.
      Possibly Smithman night was a hastily concocted but temporary 'solution' to occultation to be revisited (Huelva) when the eyes of the world were maybe a lot less diligent.
      Yet...was there not a later picture of Gerry in those button-leg trousers? Still cannot figure out how he managed to avoid cadaverine contamination.

  4. Hey Rosalinda I'm really glad you haven't given up on blogging about the McCann case! Your blog was one of the first I ever read on the case and I love your openness and irreverence as well as your very detailed knowledge of the case. I love the fact people can come together here and you allow (almost everyone) a voice, even the cantankerous and downright rude can have their say and your put downs are priceless. I hope you get your new laptop and would like to contribute but can't see a donate button - please point me in the right direction.

    Regarding Smithman, I'm not sure if this is the cause of or just a pretext for causing trouble. It seems odd that some people would undermine the whole effort of informing the public about the misinformation shrouding this case by simply turning on those who hold slightly different views to their own. So if Smithman is a pretext that still leaves the motive for causing trouble and discrediting others a mystery perhaps?

    I believe Madeleine probably came to harm between May 1st and May 2nd. I don't think Mr Smith is dishonest but I place greater importance on the lack of DNA evidence in the apartment than the sighting by Mr Smith and his family. I was reading the case file a bit yesterday and the first officer on the scene noted that the bed Madeleine was supposed to have been taken from looked as if it hadn't been slept in. The abductor has left the bed pristine with neatly folded sheets. Secondly, it's too high risk, reckless even to parade around the streets. Thirdly, there's the sighting of Jane Tanner at the top of the road, keeping what seems likely to be look out. This seems like a more significant sighting to me and I think RO's absence, his washing of sheets and generally suspicious behaviour suggests his involvement in some way.

    These are my cobbled together thoughts on Smithman - I'm a bit rusty but I think it's easier to explain this sighting than it is to explain a lack of DNA and a bed that didn't look like it had been slept in.

    Regarding the last photo, Gordon there is a really good thread on this on MMM and I came round to the view that it was possibly photoshopped. In his rogatory statement ROB said he went through the photographs on KM's camera on May 3rd but the photographs were either too dull/dark or older so they chose the older ones. I genuinely believe they did not want an up to date photograph to be released and if the last photo was on KM's camera then why not use it? It was perfect! Again from a parent's perspective, the more recent the photo the greater chance you have of your child being accurately identified. Is that what they wanted?

    1. Smithman I think Jane, is so much more than a pretext for causing trouble. For Bennett, it is as if his life depends on it.

      I think most of those involved are simply unpleasant, argumentative malcontents who use forums to snipe at people anonymously. They probably don't care about Smithman one way or the other, but they can see how much it winds Bennett up.

      Even by obsessive stalker terms, Bennett has gone way over the top with this part of his barmy theory and if he can't persuade someone, he will attack them. When I flounced from CMoMM followed by hundreds of their members, it was because we couldn't and wouldn't accepted his outright dismal of the Smiths' evidence and determination to incriminate Robert Murat.

      Some (might only be me, lol), suspect Bennett may have done some kind of financial deal with the McCanns (via their barristers) at the door of the Court. Something along the lines of, please don't take my house and I'll convince the public that the Smiths didn't see Gerry. He owed them more than £350k, so losing his home was a real possibility.

      Anyone familiar with this case will know how much trouble the McCanns went to, to play down the sighting of the Smith family. The efits released during the 'great revelation' on Crimewatch, had been in the parents possession for several years. They were part of a report prepared by their former private detectives. They didn't publicise them because, wait for it, they couldn't afford to publicise Smithman and Tannerman, so they went with Tannerman.

      Once again, it was the McCanns' own bizarre behaviour to the attention of the sleuthers. For many years we (myself included)couldn't understand why Gerry and Kate 'buried' this sighting. Well we could, because the description sounded exactly like Gerry, which of course was confirmed when the efits were eventually released.

      That the man seen by the Smiths looked like Gerry should not have mattered if it wasn't him. It was a far more convincing sighting than Jane Tanner's - the Smiths were a party of six. That sighting would have convinced the sceptics there was indeed an abduction, but far more importantly, his daughter was missing! He should have been begging them for every detail they had!

  5. Hi I've just found the donate button it's on the web version!

  6. Gordon Bennett16 July 2017 at 11:44

    ''I think the timing of the last photo too is a reason for the "war".One camp thinks only the date has been changed and the other think Madeleine has been superimposed on a later photo (possibly 18th May) with a level of skill usually only available to intelligence (and counter intelligence) agencies''

    You're flattering a lot of people there, Gordon.I have a mate who's interested in photography and has Photoshop. I've watched him work it.It's way too complicated for me.But he's shown me 'tricks' that people use.He even showed me how to 'solve' the most famous 'alien caught on camera' one.The one that says an alien is standing behind a little girl ( colour pic 1960s) that's baffled generations.Removing one layer at a time the picture quality remained the same.But the alien had gone back to the costume department of whichever B-movie studio it came from.The reason one camp thinks the date's changed is because if it hasn't been changed they have no 'shrewd discovery' to hang their hats on.The same applies to the camp who go for the 'superimposed' argument.It takes 5 minutes to uncover a superimposed / edited photograph on photoshop. If it's being suggested that the intelligence agencies did it, consider this:No photographs is a preferred option rather than photographs that will be under scrutiny around the world in a digital age. The 'reason for the war' is personal. As I've said, too many people hijacked the case to make it about themselves.

    Anonymous16 July 2017 at 13:04

    ''First off, Tannerman, was a complete fabrication of Jane Tanner's who later became Crecheman, a complete fabrication of Andy Redwood's.''

    First of all, that's a pair of opinions that haven't been proved.I don't disagree with you, but it needs to be exposed by proof.Tanner had a motive I suppose as a friend of G and K. What's Redwood up to-who's his 'friend' ?

    ''Smithman was no doubt Gerry and those buttoned trouser legs.''

    Smith doubts it, he's said.

    ''One thing that has always bothered me: if it was Gerry carrying an alleged deceased MBM how come it was Kate who smelled of cadaverine and Gerry did not?''

    The 'official line' refutes this though.

    Anonymous16 July 2017 at 14:36

    ''that is assuming they never change or wash their clothes. Don't forget the weeks that passed between the disappearance & the use of the dogs.''

    Exactly.Why is this rarely touched upon.

    ''IMHO the dogs without any scientific clarification stand as a red herring, rather like Jane Tanners sighting, years believing she saw the abduction.''

    Tanner talked herself into a corner and a pact of silence coincidentally followed just after.But she-or anyone in the tapas mob- couldn't have logically had any say in using the dogs as a red herring.The police could-but that's a separate set of lies-so what was their motive to hide the truth and obstruct and manipulate an investigation ?

    ''A simple case of a cover up of neglect, on the hoof.''

    Ironically, the one thing nobody's tried to cover up is the case of neglect.Both parents volunteered that information( leaving the children alone).Gerry says that according to some law somewhere it doesn't constitute neglect 'legally'.Maybe he's 'legally' right.But it's only semantics-leaving kids alone is neglect anywhere.In his defence, maybe it helps their conscience while secretly they're aware of it being neglect.But it still isn't murder.And while this is still officially a missing person case, nobody would back that horse. Logic and history says that her being alive would be classified as a miracle.They don't happen much, unfortunately.

    1. ''First off, Tannerman, was a complete fabrication of Jane Tanner's who later became Crecheman, a complete fabrication of Andy Redwood's.''

      First of all, that's a pair of opinions that haven't been proved.I don't disagree with you, but it needs to be exposed by proof.Tanner had a motive I suppose as a friend of G and K. What's Redwood up to-who's his 'friend' ?

      FGS, they showed crechedad walking IN THE WRONG DIRECTION on crimewatch!!!! Who knows what redwood was up to but he certainly was NOT corroborating Tanners story. If they wanted to match it up then they could have shown him walking in the SAME direction as Tannerman, but they did not. I for one would be interested to know why they think a man walking in the OPPOSITE direction could be who JT saw? does she not know her left from her right??
      Somethings rotten in the state of denmark methiks.



    Were the Smiths leaving Kelly’s bar at 21:50?

  8. "Both factions are of course bonkers, essentially they have stepped into this game of Cluedo and made it their real lives.
    And, I can't stress this enough, they weren't there. These theories come from their over active imaginations and the comfort of their armchairs." - Ros

    LOL. Yes, Ros.

  9. It's unfortunate but not surprising to see the 'Smithman Affair' ( I like to give the more boring aspects of the debate movie titles to make them seem slightly exciting) come back around on the magical McCann carousel.As predicted, everything is doing an another lap of honour in the hope that something 'missed' a few thousand times might be spotted this time.

    Eye witness testimony is notoriously unreliable at the best of times.Hundreds of Social Psychologists have demonstrated how flawed it is. No QC worth his salt wouldn't have a tight grasp of that. A prosecution QC would know the ground would be shaky. If other confounding variables are taken into account, it shifts from shaky to dangerous.In this particular instance there would be the sheer variety of efit suspects ranging from scraggy haired, skinny and spotty, to Richard Hall-lookalike- from the side- walking like a zombie- and on to Robert Murat's girl-dressed-like-a-man friend.I won't throw 'Lady in Purple' into the mix as i believe 100% that this one was a lie from Murat's mother( 10 years delay in remembering?Don't think so Mrs M.Take the anniversary cheque and shhhh). Another spanner in the works would be the strength of the sodium glare of the street lighting that transformed dazzlingly white buildings of the day into dim yellow ones at night.I know people are pointing to the 'pink' pyjamas. If they look pink in a dim yellow light they're probably not pink.But it's useful for many theories so forget that.Then we have the resemblance to Murat shared by his local lookalike and Payne( though he goes free due to a receding hairline).It couldn't be any more confusing. Or could it ?

    Enter, Generic McCann.It would be great if he was 20 stone or 6 ft 8,or if he had a bald head or long hair.But he fits the worst possible demographic if you're hoping to single him out by appearance.I'd say 5ft 10, medium build Caucasian male, collar length brown hair. OK that's the worst in a predominantly Caucasian European country, but PDL has a large enough population already there that fits this, and even more passing through.Now put him in the sodium glare on the move walking nearby a night creche around the time parents are collecting their sleepy children.Not a 'slam-dunk' is it ?

    Remember some of the earlier popular(?) theories ? Clement Freud was dragged in after revelations about him and his befriending of the McCanns. It was a stretch.But his links to his family isn't-Mathew Freud /Freud Communications, who took over the spin for the powers that be and his personal friends.He fits the demographic.And there was Philip Martin Edmonds. Sleuths implicated him because his Aunt Margaret Hodge ( MP) helped cover up a child abuse claim in Islington in 1980s.Bit of a stretch. But he was in PDL at the time and allegedly cut his holiday short and left to Switzerland sharpish.He looks like Gerry McCann( try google images)-especially in the glare.You can play with all kinds if you get bored enough....

    But common sense can have a say too if allowed.If a McCann did kill their child, or find her dead and panicked how would they act ? We've heard about the supposedly staged screaming.Would they A- run out into the streets as the pubs emptied or B- wait until the middle of the night and sneak out then choose to wake up and discover the abduction.

    Smith was trying to be helpful, unaware that a circus had began.A man being focused on by a camera on a sunny day descending steps isn't the same as one viewed from the side in the dark moving left to right.But it was worth mentioning even if only to eliminate someone from police inquiries.He expressed more than 'reasonable doubt' about his own sighting, a jury wouldn't need to have any.
    I suppose it leaves those who pray that it was Gerry McCann ( ergo Maddie was dead) so they can pat themselves on the back one question ; why would Smith lie in either of his statements.

    1. You know an awful lot about a subject you claim is another boring aspect of this case Ziggy. Your defence arguments could have been written by an expert, or someone googling intently to find eyewitness rebuffs, lol.

      The eyewitness evidence of the Smith family was clearly of importance to Scotland Yard. It was central to that revelation episode of Crimewatch.

      You say Gerry has a generic look, lol, yeh sure if he were in Rothley, but not so much in a small Portuguese village. Ok, you do give some acknowledgement to that, but seriously Ziggy, what are the chances of the abductor being the same age, build, height, clean cut etc? And indeed, a doppelganger for the father?

      The Clement Freud stuff, Margaret Hodges etc, is nonsense. Clement Freud was probably just a dirty old man with a famous name. We rarely if ever hear from women left traumatised by the inappropriate mauling of drunk Uncles if they are just,plumbers, for example.

      As for 'how would they act......'. It is possible Gerry answers this himself Ziggy in one of his blogs where he makes a very poignant statement about the way people act when desperate. I can't remember the exact wording but it is all on Pamalam's website.

      And I must ask you Ziggy. Why the anger toward Robert Murat's mum? Many of us have known about the 'woman in purple' (believed to be Jane Tanner) for many years. Long before it was highlighted on the 10th Anniversary. Isn't more likely that certain spin doctors were putting in extra time over the anniversary period? In the old days they had regular 'sightings' appearing in the tabloids, almost one a week at one point. Now they have to dig a little deeper for a distraction.

  10. Gordon Bennett16 July 2017 at 18:58

    @ Mr Sawdust
    Maybe you can get your mate to have a look at it and see if there is anything dodgy about the photo.
    The date changed camp claim they have consulted experts and they say no higgery pokery has taken place apart from the day the photo was taken.
    However,if the "faking" (if any) is to an above professional standard (ie Government agency) then maybe the experts can be fooled.
    Your mate might spot what others have missed.


    (By Tracey Kandohla)

    ‘Scotland Yard detectives are carrying on vital work on home ground insisting: “We don’t have to be in Portugal to find Madeleine.”’


    “Police have just 11 weeks of funding left to try and crack the case. If they need more time and resources they will be plead with Home Secretary Amber Rudd to approve an extra cash boost for the second half of this financial year.”


    “Clarence Mitchell says he remains hopeful Madeleine McCann is still alive”

    Nothing really changes.

  12. Gordon Bennett16 July 2017 at 18:58

    'higgery pokery' ?? lol. I now officially prefer that to jiggery ;-)

    I'll ask him to take a peep.He has another angle based on something not published anywhere but i'm not allowed to divulge it.He doesn't use blogs or fakebook apart from advertising his business.He thinks all forums and blogs are full of maniacs and killers.No idea who gave him that idea(( whistle)).

  13. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton16 July 2017 at 18:46

    ''I think you are wrong too say the dogs are a red herring. They don't make false alerts, if they did they would be useless for the tasks given. And they made 11 alerts, two specialist dogs, separately, and in the same places and they only alerted to McCann related items. Those alerts are far too significant to caste aside.''

    It depends on what your idea is of a red herring really.The dogs alerts were always going to be the biggest talking point in this investigation and so called 'mystery'.By biggest, i should add in terms of anything of any worth( as opposed to people bringing their favourite Lolita or swinging theories to the party to meet others who are avid CSI fans ).

    As you know by my previous posts, I always do the 'the scientists said no' dance. That isn't purely just to antagonise the massed ranks who want a McCann head on a stick.It is sometimes, but only when aiming at some halfwit whose idea of debate is to get all shouty, sweary and silly.I've posed the question as to why the evidence was shelved after so many alerts.I don't say I agree that it should be shelved.If anything, I think further tests should be undertaken and I question if Luminol and ultra violet lighting was utilised and, if not,why not.It's used in all countries now.I questioned if scientists were told to shelve it in the same way a certain copper was told certain areas of the no-stone-unturned investigation were to be avoided.There could well have been evidence of a death having taken place and there could well have been blood too.DNA may well have been present.If they say it wasn't the blood or DNA of a McCann-who did it come from. More importantly-why hide that ?Which brings me to my idea of a red herring...

    If Madeleine's fate was known from the outset by a core of people involved in this tragedy, and it was decided that, at all costs, it should never be more than a mystery, the 'clean up' would have to begin early and fast. That would involve silencing anyone who might open their mouth and mess it up( T9) and coming up with a reason to remove the initial team of investigators who were treating it as a crime( Amaral and Co).That was done.It would only be a matter of time before the public and reporters started asking about forensics.That could prove to be a fatal flaw and bring the house of cards crashing to the ground and a lot of people would have been somewhere in it's debris.So, call in the best in the business with near-perfect strike rates and then shelve their findings.The aim of this would be to suggest that if the best sniffer dogs in the game can't find anything sufficient, nothing sufficient is there, move along.Clean up done.Sealed.

    The story so far would support these ideas.But the story itself, as far as i see, doesn't make any sense if it was all just to protect two doctors on holiday.Doctors hold important positions in the medical community but can be replaced, fired, or jailed.This was too efficient a job merely to protect doctors.Too many politicians wanted it monitored from the inside.To me, that smells like a cover up that stretches beyond protecting ordinary people.

  14. Does anyone know why the MMM forum have hidden the Smithman thread?

  15. My guess would be it has become abusive 20:35, they just can't help themselves.

    1. It's on a different heading now.

  16. What a load of bipolar bullshit.

  17. I've just done a bit of a Smithman refresher and there are a few things about these statements that worry me. In statement one the male is quite nondescript and 'thin' and Mr Smith says he wouldn't be able to recognise the man from a photograph. One thing he is sure of is he is definitely not Robert Murat and he bases this on two sightings of RM in bars, one a full year and the other eight months before. Would you remember an inebriated man from a bar you'd only seen twice eight months later? They must be ten a penny! That's a bit odd IMO. The other issue is that in the later statement, when the British press had turned their attention on the McCanns, not only could Mr Smith now recognise the male from a photograph but he is eighty per cent sure it's GM and he bases this on GM's mannerisms whilst carrying one of the twins. Another small issue is that in his first statement he described the girl as being about four but Madeleine was very small and I think if she was held in this vertical position her size would have been noticeable, so although she was almost four she would have looked much younger. It feels like a retro-fit to me. The timings are out as well - the link to the bar receipt (above) shows the Smiths bought their last drinks at 10:22 pm but they all say they left the bar at between 9:50 and 10:00 pm - even if they knocked 'em back that's still a huge discrepancy!

    I don't think Mr Smith is dishonest but I really don't think he is a reliable witness IMO. So I think he was probably well meaning but I really don't see him as credible. In his first statement he did say that there was nothing unusual about seeing a child being carried at this time of night - I think it's an honest mistake.

    1. Happy Birthday Ros

      I notice the myths legends and lame attempts to prove the Smiths liars or mistaken are spreading here.
      There is no bar receipt showing the Smiths bought their last drinks at 10.22pm. If there is can anybody produce it.

      There is no bar receipt that shows any proof of the Smiths movements one way or another.

      Jane Cook, you may believe Madeleine was small for her age, certain witnesses who were there did not and gave police statements to that effect.
      Why would the Smiths retro-fit their statements and involve their 12 year old daughter in perverting the course of justice?
      No one ever addresses this question!

    2. I don't think Mr Smith was consciously retro-fitting, I think he was trying to be helpful. The other day my husband lost his laptop - he remembered putting it down near a washbasin in a public loo, he was convinced that's where he left it. It was found somewhere else, he just built a narrative out of what he remembered and his Imagination filled in the blanks. Regarding the bar receipt, I've never seen this before but someone up thread posted it - I've no idea where it came from!

      My opinion is only opinion, I don't think anyone can be sure on this subject. I just think if Madeleine had been in the apartment on May 3rd there would have been some trace of her DNA.To me this is harder to explain than the Smith sighting. I don't think it's perverting the course of justice just someone muddying the water!

    3. Jane Cook 14.05

      You stated it feels like (Smith)was retro fitting to me
      Now you say he wasn`t
      You state the Smith statements worry you and then promote tittle tattle regarding bar receipts with no proof whatsoever

      You do not think 12 year old Aofie was trying to pervert the course of justice, just trying to muddy the water in a very serious crime

      Why would a 12 year old want to do this?
      Why would her parents subject her to this strain?

      Alice in Wonderland and real life are different and it is unfair on the Smith family to spout total tosh

    4. No I didn't say he wasn't retro-fitting, I said he wasn't doing it maliciously. No I do not think they were perverting the course of justice - as the police said he seems very sincere and there have been lots of bogus sightings. I wasn't 'promoting tittle tattle', I referred to the receipt but said I do not know its provenance. I'm really not passionate about this subject, it's a piece of evidence and needs to be considered in conjunction with other evidence such as timelines, DNA etc - all I'm saying is it needs proper scrutiny like any other piece of evidence .

      I also think that disagreement regarding Smithman is a convenient smokescreen. Andrew didn't get all hot under the collar about Smithman, he was a foot soldier in a phoney war, designed to discredit the Mccann # and extinguish discussion. We may not have the full picture yet but I think we're all getting a bit closer to solving that particular riddle. Glad to see Jill posted on CMoMM today and hopefully the truth will out quite soon now.

    5. Jane Cook 19.19

      (the bar receipt) is a piece of evidence and needs to be considered;
      That is the whole point.
      The receipt of 10.22pm does not exist,its tittle tattle and a minutes scrutiny would show you that but no, lets disparage the Smiths at every opportunity.

      Andrew whoever he is may or may not be promoting drivel,you certainly are.
      what has Aofie Smith done to you, explain why she as a 12 year old would want to muddy the waters and your need to blacken her name 10 years later.

    6. @jane cook

      I referred to the receipt but said I do not know its provenance. I'm really not passionate about this subject, it's a piece of evidence and needs to be considered in conjunction with other evidence such as timelines, DNA etc - all I'm saying is it needs proper scrutiny like any other piece of evidence.

      I agree with JJ,Please could you post this piece of evidence, ie receipt for 10.20pm as in 10 years ive never seen or heard of it.

      Otherwise please stop promoting tittle tattle as evidence, its really not helpful and im afraid makes YOU look as though it is YOU who is trying to muddy the waters.

      I look forward to seeing this receipt, thanks.

    7. I think there has been some misunderstanding.

      "When questioned whether on the night in question she remembered the visit to the bar by witness Martin Smith and his family, she replied that she does not remember given the lapse of time between the events and because the bar is daily frequented by dozens of clients of different nationalities.

      All the available documentation was requested concerning the expenses in the bar on the night of 3rd May 2007 as we were given the cash register from which photocopies were made referring to the period between 20.00 and 24.00, which is annexed to this report."

      Smiths, possibly 21:50

    8. If I've misunderstood the receipt and muddied the water I am sorry, I thought the receipt was all the same customer and was a tally of their drinks. If only one of these is the Smiths, 9:58 then that is consistent with their story but I don't think there is any need to get rude or personal just because I misunderstood the receipt. 10pm is still very late for someone to be walking around the streets, openly - it's certainly cutting it a bit fine and would be incompatible with other evidence that suggests a very methodical, clinical response by all concerned.

      We are never going to agree, I am not trying to discredit, I simply take a different stance on this. I think it would be incredibly reckless for GM to be so brazen and as it looks to me that he had ample help, it would also be unnecessary IMO. I also think that from a psychological perspective, if a makeshift hiding place was found at the last minute, there is no way GM would stay in the apartment for most of the night, dealing with the PR campaign. He would be out there, anxious to ensure the makeshift hiding place wasn't discovered - that's consistent with his controlling personality IMO - he even asked the police to bring in the search dogs - maybe calling their bluff but risky nonetheless. I believe all removal of evidence was done before the police arrived - GM seemed absolutely confident that his plan was foolproof. This is my opinion, no more or less valid than anyone else's. I think Mr Smith's behaviour has been dignified throughout - I just think his evidence doesn't stack up, IMO. Thanks anonymous at 06:50 for clearing this up!

  18. We all know a certain someone who likes to drag mental health into the mix - you're giving the game away Anonymous.

  19. Happy Birthday Rosalinda! Many happy returns xx

  20. July 5, 2017

    'Secret FBI information about who funded the 9/11 attacks will remain hidden indefinitely after a Miami federal judge reversed herself last week and decided that the FBI was not improperly withholding it from the public.”'


    'Former Sen. Graham said what’s happened, including the FBI’s resistance to disclosing classified information about 9/11 and who was behind it, is evidence that the Freedom of Information Act needs significant reform.

    “The most fundamental question now is whether the Freedom of Information Act as currently written and administered is a barrier to Americans’ fundamental right to know what their government is doing,” Graham said.

    Judge Altonaga’s order requires the government to draft a proposed final summary judgment order for the court’s consideration by July 11.'

    1. 17.7 @09:53

      An item of genuine significance. Thank you.

    2. @10:12

      You are more than welcome.


  21. Can someone tell me if this is true...that the McCanns drew attention to the Smithman sighting twice in the Channel 4 Mockumentary of May 2009? If so, does anyone know if this was the first time that they came out in favour of the Smithman sighting? Thanks

    1. The Smith sighting is mentioned in the Cutting Edge more or less as follows - That Martin Smith thought it was Gerry McCann but that claim had been investigated and ruled out by the Portuguese police -And this last bit "ruled out" is precisely what they wanted to convey. Very much in line with the "we were cleared by the archival dispatch". This is, as you know, false, since the Portuguese Police never ruled this sighting and the possibility that it was GM out . They could not prove it, but they did not rule it out.

      They also did the same recently saying that Martin Smith had now said he was wrong. But those are 3rd party words, never was this stated by the Smith family directly or indirectly.

    2. Smithman got a fleeting mention in that documentary 11:09, and he was changed considerably! He was given long hair and he was carrying the child in a similar way to the man described by Jane Tanner. In a nutshell he bore no resemblance to the man described by the Smith family.

  22. One of many strange things about Martin Smith's evidence is why he kept changing the age of the man he saw. In his first statement (26 May 2007), he said '35-40'. In his second statement, he said '40'. When a summary of his statement was uploaded to the Find Madeleine website back in 2009, the age was given as '34-35', rather precise, don't you think, after 2 years?

    1. Martin Smith mentions the age twice , first as you state 35 to 40 and in his 2nd statement , around 40 which is consistent with between 35 and 40.
      What OFM decide to publish is their own responsibility and interpretation of statements, because Martin Smith himself never mentioned that precise age bracket of 34-35.

    2. It is not Martin Smith who mentioned age of man '34-35' but Kate McCann ('madeleine', p. 371).

      Witness Two sighting
      Age of man 34-35

  23. This is evidently no ordinary case of 'child abduction' given the lengths taken and depth of the UK Government's interference. So how important was the 'Smith sighting'? Important enough for Brown to halt their (Smiths) trek back to da Luz at the same time removing Amoral. Looks like they wanted no witnesses, other than the plainly fabricated Tannerman 'sighting'.
    Whereas I am fairly sure the Smiths did not know Murat I am damn sure Gerry did, from that one "Oh I'm not gonna comment on that" reply to a reporter, and his and hers hastily beaten retreat, thereafter. What that means is another story.
    As to the Smiths only feeling alerted when they saw Gerry hefting a twin down the 'plane steps, well, people may harbour nagging doubts for ages for many reasons, not the least seemingly that they might be interfering, look foolish or misguided.
    If one is to moot that every move the Mcs made at the end of and after that holiday was part-controlled by 'dark forces' then it will always remain opaque as to what was real and what was deliberate false flag disinformation and obfuscation.
    Lastly, should anyone ever consider Op Grange to be legit then all you need look at is Crecheman and how fantastical and ridiculous that was when Redwood threw that nonsense into the mix on Crimewatch. Crecheman should be called "SixYearsInAcomaMan".

    1. All I took from Gerry's remark 11:40, was Gerry lording it over the press! He was trying to give the impression that he was far more in the know than he actually was. Remember, at all times Gerry and Kate were trying to give the impression that the police considered them victims and were keeping them fully informed. And of course it was clear at that time, that Team McCann were running a very slick media campaign to steer attention away from themselves.

      LOL at 'sixyearsinacomaman', and I agree!

    2. Ros, liars lie, ergo..."Oh I'm not gonna comment on that" when a simple NO would have sufficed.

  24. @ Anonymous 11.09 If you go to this YouTube link, you'll find the full Mockumentary film, 'Madeleine Was Here':

    In Part 4, after 5 mins 35 secs, the Smithman sighting is discussed in detail, with the narrator basically saying 'Martin Smith saw the same man as Jane Tanner, but 40 minutes later'. I'm pretty sure Joan Morais or someone did a full transcript of the prog, but I can't find it at the mo

    1. Thank you for the link , yes around 14.20 onwards they focus on Smith sighting. With the sentence , as above, that the Portuguese police had investigated it and it was not GM. The remaining by the narrator and GM is to convey that Tannerman and Smithman are the same. If Tannerman is Smithman and Gerry was speaking to Jez, then Gerry is not Smithman. that is , in my opinion, their intention. In fact , I think that Tannerman had to be created because GM was seen by the Smith family and there is , in my opinion, the explanation for the clothes being similar.

      The Smith statements were already in the files that were released to the public, so they had to be aknowledged somehow by merging him into Tannerman, otherwise it would look very compromising for the parents if they they hadn't mentioned this possible abductor site.

      It is mentioned by them but always with the disclaimer that the Police ruled it out that it was Gerry or that Martin Smith retracted , both incorrect facts.

      Also of importance, GM has an independent alibi for 9.15 (Jez) but he does not have any for 9.30 to 10 pm. Food for thought.

  25. Tao is a tightrope,
    so to keep your balance,
    may you always, Rosa,
    manage to combine
    intellectual talents
    with a sensual gusto,
    the Socratic Doubt with
    the Socratic Sign.

    that is all I can
    think of at this moment
    and it’s time I brought these
    verses to a close:
    Happy Birthday, Rosa,
    live beyond your income,
    travel for enjoyment,
    follow your own nose.

    W H Auden (with T’s interference prompted by the occasion)
    Alternatively, google W H Auden Many Happy Returns. On the first page, go to Lunchbox Poems : Many Happy Returns.

    A due consideration is to follow in due course.


    1. What a beautiful poem and thank you. I must confess, I do not at present understand all it's meaning, it may take a few readings to do that! It could be like the perplexing Mr. Prufrock, with individual lines that will strike at the appropriate time. Again, many thanks, and kindest wishes.

  26. Gordon Bennett17 July 2017 at 16:31

    I was wondering about starting up a third camp regarding the last photo.
    Both arguments could be right (or both wrong ) with the date being altered as well as Madeleine being superimposed onto the image
    And while I am in a photo mood, I see that Freedom has changed "her" picture.
    Nothing to do with me was it? lol.
    Oh and happy birthday Rosalinda.

    1. Hello Gordon
      When KM's camera was analysed by Stuart Martin on May 9th 2007 it was found that the time and date had not been set and none of the 43 photographs on her camera had any created dates recorded. So where did the last photo come from? We know KM took it but was there another camera, one set to record the date? We know KM's camera was the camera ROB used to select photographs of Madeleine from for posters, some of which were presented to the police on the night of May 3rd raising suspicion because of the provenance being so strange. This is another issue I have with Smithman BTW, I definitely think there is too much evidence of planning.

      Here's the link to the case file - I'd be interested to know what you think.


  27. " costello Today at 9:40 am

    candyfloss wrote:
    Is this correct, I hadn't heard this before?

    N.M‏ @AdirenM · 19h

    Unlike & before the #McCann put an injuction on his assets, Amaral donated the proceedings of his book to a Moçambique charity for children.

    Yes Candyfloss I'm sure this is correct,I have read this before."

    If that is true - and I am sure it is not - then amaral is not going to be a happy chappy after winning the case.

  28. A fine poem, major T.Auden was a genius but his work was secretly written to give students of it terrible migraines.The cad.It appears the one you chose was about embracing intellectual pursuit and intuition in equal measure and enjoying the voyage.But, knowing Auden'd penchant for the complex, it could be about the hidden dangers of smokeless fuel.

    Happy Birthday Roz and many lunar returns xx. I too have a poem...

    A girl i once loved called Regina...
    ( work in progress)

    Poor old Generic name, Smith,he's getting a right old seeing to.I recall a woman online once upon a time saying she was curious as to what my handsome visage was like.I told her just to think Mel Gibson.She lolled.I said i did to a one-eyed man galloping past me in the dark. Isn't a bit of that going on here ?Few drinks, moving target, darkening night ? margin for error surely....

    I wish i was 35-40. But, seriously, in that light at that distance i would look it.Nobody can guess an exact age, especially from an angle in the dark or even close up.We would ALL give an approximation.If asked how old the passer by looked, who says ''37'' ?

    I think the gravity of the situation leading to statement number 2 must have effected Mr Smith.He must have asked himself, bearing in mind the global hysteria, media frenzy and political panic '' would i swear on a Bible that i saw GM ? '' Eye witness testimony see....

    So, Mr Brown ( Mr Brown and Mr Smith and the Egg Man..sounds more and more like Reservoir Dogs) panicked it seems. Doesn't surprise me.He panicked from the off and he was only the Chancellor then.What are you afraid of Mr Brown ? You and your fellow weirdo Blair ? Who's pulling your collective strings so that you pull others ?Curiouser and curiouser , this malice in wonderland...

    Good news up there ^^^^ re the judge reversing her 9/11 decision.Good because it virtually-if unintentionally- rubber stamps 9/11 as an inside job. Time to being the David Kelly fight to the fore now. That will cause some very squeaky bottoms.Especially Blair and Dubya.

    1. Many thanks there for your kind birthday wishes Ziggy, I'm afraid I didn't take in the rest due to an excessive intake of ice cold lager on a hot afternoon :)

  29. Yes, Gordon at 18.03, it is entirely down to you that Freedom has been forced to show her true likeness!

  30. I may be speaking out of turn but, fortunately, I can't help myself. Such is my shy and retiring nature..

    I'm noticing a drip drip happening on here lately and it's turning into a drizzle.Usually, that's the time you shut the windows before it rains. I'm referring, of course, to the number of references to, and links from, other blogs.Have their arguments spilled out onto the pavement and they're choosing to stagger into here now ?Or is the agenda some bizarre 'virtual world domination'. Whatever floats your boat I's hard to find anything worthwhile regarding proper, lucid, reasoned debate about the case without bumping into the unusual suspects; the 'big names'.They're all over the place telling anyone who'll pay attention about their facts and truths. it's an all out shitfest and there isn't a fly net to be found.

    I followed a couple of the links last night. I had to read a couple of theories more than once as I thought I'd misunderstood something.But no, they really ARE that mental.Does logic and common sense give these people shingles ?It's bad enough to be obsessed and blinkered to the point you're one door-knock away from the Hotel Stupid without running around trying to indoctrinate the horde into some kind of virtual Jonestown. This is what happens when society holds to liberal a stance on straitjackets.Mind you, having said that, i can well imagine the 'names' would learn to type with their face anyway.

    Give them an IQ test at the door, Ros. Or mittens.

    1. well well well, a post of ziggys i kinda agree with AND kind of enjoyed!

      This is what happens when society holds to liberal a stance on straitjackets.Mind you, having said that, i can well imagine the 'names' would learn to type with their face anyway.

      Give them an IQ test at the door, Ros. Or mittens.

      Almost poetic and bought a smile to my face...thanks ziggy.

      Ps. i have asked on numerous occasions to hear your "theory" in full, when will you be ready to post it?

  31. I think it was on 20 September 2007, 11 days after he saw Gerry & Sean descending from a plane, that Martin Smith declared he was sure that Smithman was Gerry. Well, I say 'sure', but, well, um, say 60% to 80% - ish. So will someone tell me why, when Brian Kennedy comes on the 'phone 3 months later, and says "Will you help us, Martin?", Martin Smith doesn't say: "Get lost! I've already told the Portuguese police that Smithman is Gerry".

    1. I have pasted the relevant section below , from Martin Smith local police in September 2007. Where it is clearly stated he refused to speak to BK. I don't know what made him change his mind months later to provide the Photofit to Exon , but he did . I guess because they were insistent . The same way Jeremy Wilkins agreed to talk to them , although he stated he does not like their methods . From the TV programme " the Mccanns and the Conman " you can see their detectives employed intimidating and ilegal methods . So insistence / bullying from Haligen's boys . Just like they did to people in Luz .

      "He has been contacted by numerous tabloid press looking for stories. He has been contacted by Mr Brian Kennedy who is supporting the McCann family to take part in a photo fit exercise. He has given no stories or helped in any photo fits. He sent a solicitor's letter to six papers in relation material that was printed that was misquoted. The Evening Herald paid his solicitor's fees and all papers printed an apology. His photograph appeared in another tabloid paper and this matter is being pursued at the moment."

  32. @ Gordon Bennett 16.31 Maddie couldn't have been shopped in to the 'Last Photo'. Why not?

    Because Petermac, the ex-pat Nottinghamshire police superintendent, wrote to two acknowledged experts who both said that all the shadows in the photo were consistent and could not be faked. They also ruled out photoshopping, although admittedly this was based only on an initial inspection.

    One of the two did some forensic analysis, especially the shadows. There were some photo experts on CMOMM who fully agreed with this analysis, I think they were rogue-a-tory, JRP and Blue Bag.

    That means we are left with the question, was it taken on Thursday? These are the facts: Only Saturday and Sunday were warm, sunny day, the weather changed on Monday.

    Everything in the photo fits Sunday - warm & sunny, everyone in shorts, by the pool, Gerry wearing sunglasses and with a sheen of sweat on his forehead.

    On top of that, can anyone show me any photos of Maddie taken on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday? No. And the Tennis Balls Photo doesn't count, it was apparently taken on two or three different days and even by at least two different people. Much has been made of the patterns on Gerry's sunglasses, mostly by Ms Textusa.

    Kate's 'book of truth' tells us that on the Tuesday, 1st May, it started to rain, but in spite of that they went to the beach in the afternoon, bought ice creams and Gerry bought some sunglasses (none of this tallies with the crèche records, but that's another story).

    Is it not a whole lot more likely that Gerry had sunglasses with him on the flight over to PdL, wore them on Sunday for the pool photo, and that Kate McCann made up the story about the sunglasses so as to 'fit' with their bogus story about the Last Photo being taken on the Thursday?

    1. Anon 17 July 20.10

      Kate does not write, in spite of the rain they went to the beach. She writes, we went to the beach and then it started to rain.

      It can happen to anybody, why do you have the need to twist everything?

      You quote as facts, that only Saturday and Sunday were warm and sunny

      Can you tell us where the weather data collecting station in PDL is?

      In 10 years nobody has ever produced weather data for PDL and that includes the PJ

      There are pictures of holiday makers in shorts and light shirts on Thursday 3rd May. Are these pictures fake?

      Is it possible that Gerry lost or broke his sunglasses but no everything must be a conspiracy.

      Surprise us all and give us weather data for PDL which supports your 'ludicrous' facts and not the nonsense taken from the grim book of fairy tales aka CMOMM

      Stop the tittle tattle.

    2. "That means we are left with the question, was it taken on Thursday?"

      No it doesn't.

      You write: "Because Petermac, the ex-pat Nottinghamshire police superintendent, wrote to two acknowledged experts who both said that all the shadows in the photo were consistent and could not be faked. They also ruled out photoshopping, although admittedly this was based only on an initial inspection."

      I'll leave aside the unintentional comedy of the "sources" you have quoted and point out the facts.

      What you quested is known as "an argument from authority". People gave up using that as a method of discovering the truth in about 1450 CE so you're around half a millennium out of date.

      Try and get it into your head that nothing ever follows from people's opinions except more opinions. You don't really understand that, do you?

    3. Anonymous (17.7 @20:10) also writes (before posing his/her question):

      "One of the two did some forensic analysis, especially the shadows."

      So we've given up on the 'argument from authority' tactic. Have we given up on forensics also?

      The position of the sun in the sky and the direction/length of resultant shadows are not matters of opinion are they?

    4. 1) Of course they're matters of opinion.

      2) The question of retrospectively determining the "correct" shadow in a photograph is an exceptionally difficult one mathematically: the earth, I believe, is a sphere, the subjects of a daylight photograph are three dimensional objects on the moving sphere while a photograph is a static two dimensional image on a plane surface.

      Look up "map projections" on Wikipedia, or somewhere better. The starting point for any possible assessment would have to be an exact GPS plot of the figures and the time correct to milliseconds. And even then it would be a matter of opinion.

      3) You mention forensics - the application of scientific analysis to judicial proceedings. There has been no forensic analysis of the photos and nor is there going to be: it is not an area of police study in the case, primarily because it is not driven by any factors previously unearthed by the investigation,leads nowhere and can never be separated from opinion - and to investigate, perhaps I could remind you, is to choose, time-wise, money-wise and, particularly, sanity-wise.

      It is a pure forum subject - invented on the Mirror forum by an innumerate crank with a ruler and a projector in 2007 - and it has been all downhill from there.

      The most devastating objection to the whole concept of looking for evidence of planning for death before May 3 - apart from the fact that there isn't any - is that no such planning was required to get rid of the child without being caught.

      All the parents had to do was to take Madeleine walking on the cliffs and carefully ease her over the edge without bruising. No witnesses, no cover up, no problem.

      But that's a bit too simple for forums, isn't it?

    5. ...and this is why people with opinions and manners avoid Blacksmith. Ironic he lambastes opinions when he is the most opinionated (and one of the rudest) commentators on this, right from the days of Mirror Forum and 3As.
      Not only that, but for all your mellifluous wording, you have never made a straight point in your whole job-lot of arrogant opinions/blogs.
      Attitudes like yours put off so many people who can bring ideas to the table. Please stick with your pompous and imperious self on your own blog and leave here to be what it is, a discussion where ALL are welcome.

    6. ALL are welcome here 10:04, and I feel privileged that John Blacksmith posts here. I couldn't disagree with you more on JB's blogs, throughout this long media war, his has been the voice of reason.

      Blacksmith, like myself, hasn't claimed to have solved this case, and unlike the other commentators and 'big' names, he hasn't cherry picked witnesses named in the police files to accuse them of lying. And he most certainly hasn't put them on public trial in a kangaroo court presided over by a corrupt religious zealot.

      Whilst I agree the remaining members of the public who still follow this case WANT specifics, but Bennett, Hall and Petermac don't have them! They have incomplete files that are 10 years old. Anything they have comes from the murky depths of their imaginations.

      Like Blacksmith, I too am condemned for not making a 'straight point', but those reading should bear in mind that we have to consider libel laws and we have to be guided by our own conscience.

      Bennett and Thompson are not so reticent in their accusations, and look at where that has got them? Bennett has a Court Order against him and Thompson is known as a vicious internet thug. Will they ever get a book or movie deal? I doubt it.

    7. But reading what you write, Ros, is understandable and clear - never dogmatic like Blacksmith is. He shares the same attitude as e.g.: Fleffer, Textusa, Pat Brown, Hideho and if you do not agree you are left in no doubt as to your lack of cognisance, reasoning capacity and how you cannot even tie your shoelaces.
      So I agree with you; none of us are The Oracle - but you'd be forgiven for considering some who think they are.
      Meanwhile, I hope you are colouring/tainting your assessment of Richard Hall's extensive vids just because Fleffer stuck his oar in. He captures as much as anyone, of the past 10 years, as pertinently as one can, to any newcomer or those dipping in as a reference - although the mccannfiles is THE archive as far as I am concerned.

    8. Anonymous 17 July 2017 at 20:10

      “There were some photo experts on CMOMM who fully agreed with this analysis, I think they were rogue-a-tory, JRP and Blue Bag.”

      Could you please post some quotes or links re the above experts’ opinions?

      Thank you.


    9. The post above yours, Ros, goes back to the 3As when a poster began putting up deliberate inventions, claiming that the information was coming directly from Leicester police.

      All attempts to expose this were met by a coterie of believers who came out with the same argument as this poster – “please don’t be nasty and leave us alone to get on with our theories (i.e. fun)”. Needless to say, that tricky stuff, evidence, revealed that he was yet another “disgusting liar” gaining his fifteen minutes before exposure. What did that make his supporters? Well, what exactly?

      Two points. First, your poster talks about “manners”. If ever there was a sentence that demonstrates the moral deformity that has taken hold of McCann fanatics then it is that one: people talking of “manners” and courtesy while indulging in their fun hobby.

      And what is that hobby?

      It is repeatedly claiming that two living people executed the unbelievably ruthless murder of their own young daughter, using an elaborate series of pre-planned deceptions to ensure that the child could be murdered in their own time and without detection. That is the only conclusion that these attempts to invent evidence can lead to.

      There couldn’t be a more serious accusation, about killers, paedophiles or anyone else. People have killed in their own defence when falsely accused of much, much, lesser crimes. People have been lynched in this country as a result of far less serious accusations in the past few years. It is playing with fire.

      No investigators have ever suggested, broached or, as far as we know, even considered such a filthy accusation against the pair. Yet this character talks of others having “bad manners”. Jesus Christ. There are no words for such gruesome and gratuitous moral depravity except that it damages your own soul.


      Evidence in a judicial process consists of two things, the “chain of evidence” and the “chain of custody”. Anyone interested in facts can easily determine that the images cannot form part of either. So no evidence about the photographs can ever be used in court.

      That, of course, is why they are perfect for forums: nothing about them can be proved so “debates” can go on for another ten years: the task of establishing the facts has thus been junked in favour of the game, the hobby, of playing with fiction. Just like snuff porn.

      Getting off on suspicions that spring purely from your own imagination, not facts, is a very risky – and addictive – pleasure.

    10. john blacksmith

      Hello, john

      I owe you an apology for having been quiet since your kind reply to me, for which I’m most grateful, on the previous blog. I only found time to quickly post for Rosalinda on her special day. I am unable to extricate myself from what I am presently involved in and pay sufficient attention to blogging.. I will return to reply and comment asap.

      Peace and good wishes.


    11. Agree John, I don't think there has ever been a more unpleasant gathering of like minded people since Hitler started his National Socialist Party. Even now, there is no sense of self awareness, they believe they are entitled to put whoever they want on public trial. They are nothing more than vigilantes.

      The worst offenders are hung up on deviant sex. Bennett with his paedophiles and Textusa with her swingers. Pointing out that their weirdo theories and narratives come from their own freaky imaginations never goes down well. As you say, it spoils their fun. The truth is 99.9% of us do not see 3 year olds as sexual, even if they are wearing blue eye shadow. And we have never heard of groups of professional people swapping pictures of toddlers for sexual purposes. Wtf? This is pure Bennett and just about as sick as you can get, but amazingly, hundreds have latched onto it. I guess they are missing the News of the World, but even the NOTW didn't come out with the sick shit invented by the McCann obsessives.

      You have probably hit the nail on the head JB, 'please don't be nasty and leave us alone to get on with our theories (ie. fun)'. You and I undoubtedly spoil their fun JB, because we won't acknowledge they are right (as if, lol)and we won't endorse their intrusive, amoral behaviour.

      I believe beyond reasonable doubt that Gerry and Kate were involved in Madeleine's disappearance, but it's not my place to make the family's life a misery. I can and will challenge lies and corruption, but we are not conducting public trials. I think your philosophy is much the same JB, we can challenge and highlight injustices, but we are not here to persecute anyone.

      I think with the forums, the members have a place in which to trash strangers anonymously, it began with the McCanns, but they are founded on vitriol so anyone will do.

    12. 11:57

      "And what is that hobby?

      "It is repeatedly claiming that two living people executed the unbelievably ruthless murder of their own young daughter, using an elaborate series of pre-planned deceptions to ensure that the child could be murdered in their own time and without detection. That is the only conclusion that these attempts to invent evidence can lead to."

      Such may well be the hobby of some, but it is by no means "the only conclusion that these attempts to invent evidence can lead to."

      Evidence (actual, not 'invented') suggests that the abduction of Madeleine McCann on the night of 3 May, 2007 was bogus; furthermore that it was anticipated, and therefore planned by someone, somewhere.

      Given the absence of the child, coupled with forensic indices of death, it is entirely reasonable to infer that the child was in fact dead when eventually removed from the apartment.

      The 'how' and the 'why' of her demise remain as yet undetermined and speculation along those lines remains rife. You may find that distasteful but among a cross-section of people it is sadly inevitable, however inappropriate or insensitive.

      Equally sad in my opinion is the constant bickering on social media, including forums - even here, where the playground spats take place and contestants seem oblivious to the fact that the important decisions are arrived at in the staff common room, not behind the bike sheds.

      Perhaps this is the forum behaviour you allude to at the close. Nevertheless it is far from the only game in town and not one everybody chooses to play.

    13. Blacksmith - King of the Non Sequitur. I have never claimed that anyone murdered anyone else. Furthest I have ever gone is "deceased by accident" so please do not put words in my mouth, Your dictatorial Highness. To borrow your less than eloquent, foot-stamping erroneous aphorism, maybe you are the 'disgusting liar' by suggesting such.
      Matters not. You used to be vaguely informative but Sergeant's Inn and Spudgun were 1000 times better and at least intelligible.
      Plus, you have not the slightest clue re my profession when you call my machinations a 'hobby'.
      What I am not, however, is a washed up braggart throwing unsupported accusations around.
      But then, you never could stand criticism.

    14. I did hesitate on publishing this one JB, but you might have fun replying to it, or not, up to you.

      To 13:39, I too used to read Sergeant's Inn and Spudgun, but can't agree. Spudgun if I remember rightly, wrote very few articles and ditto Sergeant's Inn. Blacksmith always stood head and shoulders above.

    15. Fair play, Ros. Sergeant's Inn and Spudgun, as you should recall, kept us very well informed on 3As.
      Legibly so.
      Not something you could ever accuse the Bureau of.
      Not so much 'through a glass darkly' as opaque wooden Stein locked firmly away in a cellar hidden under the San Andreas Fault.
      Apart from slinging around unsubstantiated accusations here, his blogs were/are devoted to his own lexical semantics magnificence delusion.

    16. @13:35

      Jolly well put.

      Thank you.

  33. Gordon Bennett18 July 2017 at 10:32

    This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    1. Gordon, I fear I have may have accidently deleted your comment, please resend if I have.

  34. Gordon (forgive me, a mongrel image of Gordon Brown and Tony Bennett's charms hits me every time I see your name) I think you are poking a veritable nest of vipers and Mr Sawdust is starting to reel.

    He's already in a tizz now the date of 18 May has raised its credible head as the birthdate of TLP. We are edging ever-closer to a simple truth:

    Either the shrine photo in the church and in the villa bedroom showing Madeleine alone has been shopped, as Gerry's elbow is nowhere to be seen, or that photo has been shopped into the Last Photo. Which is it?

    If the latter, then all bets as to the date of the photo are on. The clothes, temperature, motivation and the timing of GM's UK departure indicate 18 May as the likely candidate.

    And where would THAT leave the McCann tale?

    1. @ Anonymous18 July 2017 at 11:44

      18th May?????????

  35. @ Ros Hi, just read your intro, and you wrote:

    "In one corner we have Tony Bennett, Richard Hall, HideHo and Petermac claiming Madeleine 'died' before the 3rd May and the man seen carrying the child was NOT Gerry McCann".

    I think I'm right in saying that PeterMac and HideHo prefer not to accuse Martin Smith and his family of fabrication and settle for the view that the family saw someone else, as you suggest. However, both insist on an early death, so the Smithman sighting becomes irrelevant in their eyes anyway. By contrast, Bennett @ Hall effectively allege that the Smiths lied - for what motive, they are unable to say.

    I have to say I am troubled by both these sightings: Crecheman and Smithman. According to Op Grange, Crecheman is an unaccompanied bloke (no mother in sight), carrying a blonde girl clad only in pyjamas, in the dark, away from the night crèche. (Various people have demonstrated that if he was walking in the same direction as Tannerman, he did not take the shortest route from the crèche, another point that makes Crecheman a suspect sighting). Now, if the Smiths are right, on the very same evening, about 45 mins later, they saw a DIFFERENT man, also unaccompanied, also with no buggy, also wearing similar clothes, also holding a young blonde girl, also with white/pink pyjamas etc. etc.

    This seems to me beyond co-incidence.

    There is one other matter that the Smithman = Gerry supporters need to consider. Namely that Martin Smith and Jane Tanner both emphasised that the man they said they saw 'did not look like a tourist'. On top of that, we have Nuno Lourenco 'phoning Amaral's men early on Saturday 5 May stating that he too nearly had his daughter kidnapped by a man who 'didn't look like a tourist'. That man was later identified as the Polish gent, Wojchiech Krokowski.

    Can some one please give us a description of what a man 'who doesn't look like a tourist' looks like?

    And can anyone give a rational explanation for why, in succession, Jane Tanner, Nuno Lourenco and Martin Smith all described the would-be abductor in strikingly similar terms and all of them using that meaningless description: 'Didn't look like a tourist'. How on earth could Tanner and Smith say this when both only saw the man for a few seconds, in the dark?

    1. Well! If someone did not look like a tourist they would obviously look like someone who lived and worked in the country in question.
      Most people assume that this was a standard question that the Portuguese Police asked when interviewing non Portuguese speaking witnesses.
      One would hope that they have removed it from the list as it seldom, if ever, elicited the correct answer especially in this case.
      If you think that Jane Tanner, Nuno Lourenco and Martin Smith all described the would-be abductor in strikingly similar terms then you have been drinking too much of the Bennett Kool Aid. Jane and Nuno certainly sang from the same hymn sheet but the Smith Family witnesses (not just Martin)told it as they saw it.

    2. Nuno Lourenco never said the man didn't look like a tourist . Here are his words :
      "In so far as the suspect is concerned, he describes him as masculine, Caucasian with Latin colouring, curly dark brown hair that ran to his neck and in a pony tail. He was between 35/40 years of age, of medium complexion, and around 170 to 175 cm in height. He did not have any particular marks or signals and did not wear rings or other jewellery. He wore a cream coloured beach hat. He also wore dark glasses."

      I agree with 17h04 regarding this being a question by the police in relation to Tanner and Smith .

    3. I believe 'SixYearsInAComa' man is an invention of Operation Grange 11:45 - I wondered at the time if they were going to give Jane Tanner some sort of immunity. Some might say her evidence from 2007 perverted the entire course of justice in this case.

      I think Tannerman appeared because Smithman was seen by a large Irish family on the night and the McCanns wanted a long haired swarthy man to be the chief suspect, rather than the white, short haired, clean shaven Gerry lookalike.

    4. Ros said, "I believe 'SixYearsInAComa' man is an invention of Operation Grange"
      Yes! Total fabrication, wasn't it? Orchestrated to exonerate Tanner.
      Redolent of "HeartAttackOnaPlaneIsThereA DoctorOnBoardMan?" and "ATMwalletThiefMan", both inventions to lend victim status to the Mcs.
      Failed of course, but undertaken, nevertheless.

  36. "And the Tennis Balls Photo doesn't count, it was apparently taken on two or three different days and even by at least two different people"

    LOL. How is this possible?

  37. I've just spotted this on FaceBook - it makes for an intriguing read...

  38. Gordon Bennett18 July 2017 at 15:16

    @ Rosalinda 14.41
    No problem . You had me worried there ,thought I had said something bad lol.
    I cant be bothered to type it out again, but all I want to say is I look forward to any comments from the friend of Mr Sawdust regarding the last photo (and anyone else) and I am just as open to possibility of it being genuine as fake.

    And at 11.44 Lol, the thought of a mongrel of Brown and Bennett. Made me laugh.
    More like a mixture of Sid James, Reg Varney and a bit of Benny thrown in, lol

  39. Anonymous18 July 2017 at 11:44

    ''I think you are poking a veritable nest of vipers and Mr Sawdust is starting to reel.''

    I don't 'reel' easily, sorry.

    ''He's already in a tizz now the date of 18 May has raised its credible head as the birthdate of TLP.''

    You're referring to the last few posts on 'Forum Wars 2' ( for those who might wonder about this nonsense).I was politely and tactfully trying to dismantle the idea ( after deciphering what it actually meant).I regret even starting now.It deserved little attention at most but i foolishly threw petrol on the garbage.But, if this '18th of May' theory is 'credible'-fire away.Explain it without sounding as though your Horlicks has been spiked.Feel free to quote the relevant interaction from Forum Wars 2.

    By the way, all, is the general consensus now that Mr Smith was 'in on it' too now ?Are we ignoring margins for human error or benefit of hindsight ? Tanner i understand( she was part of the group), but what was /is Smith's supposed 'angle' ? He isn't any part of the Government or Met or Tapas 7 /9. And if this consensus is reached, will the 1960s 'I Spy' theory of doctored /edited photographs and confusing weather reports be used to bolster it or support it. Adding the 18th of May to the mix actually cancels almost every other theory about an abduction, murder, accidental death, emergency meetings with diplomats Amaral and -well anything full stop.

    If you're looking for that silver coin in the muddy pool, stop jumping about in it.You know what happens if you do that...

    1. Gordon Bennett18 July 2017 at 20:16

      @ 18.27
      Actually Mr Sawdust, the theory is not outlandish.
      My understanding of the situation in a nutshell (anybody correct me if I have it wrong) is this...
      The Mccanns needed to have a photo to prove Madeleine was alive and well on the day of the claimed abduction, but didnt have one, so had to stage it.
      This was possibly done on the 18th May, just before Gerry left for the UK and Madeleine was later shopped or whatever you want to call it onto the image( I call it doctored for a deliberate pun) by person/persons unknown, possibly in the UK.

    2. Again 18th May - that's twice today - why?

    3. There are a couple of really good threads on this on MMM with a great deal of detailed analysis all leading towards May 18th as the likely date that a photograph of Gerry and Amelie was taken with Madeleine added later. A number of people came at this from different angles and arrived at the same conclusion. I'm rusty and can't remember much of how I for one got there but it's well worth a gander, Gordon! I was interested in the shadows which I didn't think were consistent. I'm not trained but did A Level Art History and I thought there should have been a shadow where Gerry's arm and Madeleine's intersect. There is also an interesting video on YouTube which uses the same basic principles of a sundial and time of day to make this point. Also, as someone pointed out earlier, we know there has been some photoshopping because there are two versions of the same image of Madeleine and the image of Madeleine minus Gerry and Amelie first appeared in the church shortly after GM returned from a trip to England. It isn't just cropped, that is the point.

      The hypothesis that May 18th was the date the original photo was taken was based on a photograph showing Gerry and the twins arriving at the Ocean Club on this day wearing the same clothes, hair same and weather consistent. Was the last photograph taken on this day? Before you pour Scorn on it, Ziggy have a look at the thread - I can hear the sharp intake of breath and see those nostrils flaring, LOl!

      If it's the case, Whoever did it knew exactly what they were doing and what time of day to take the 'base' photograph. It's only a theory - but an interesting one and one I came to view as possibly viable but I should add I am not stating anything as fact and never would. If however, this photograph was on KM's camera we need to know why it was the only dated photograph from the holiday and why it wasn't released straight away as it is the clearest, most up to date image of Madeleine available. Also, why it was the case that ROB's rationale for choosing an old image was the holiday photographs were too dark. I'm rusty, haven't done much sleuthing for a while so this is just a broad outline of the discussion of the last photo, from memory but it's worth looking in to if you are interested because a lot is resting on the provenance of this photograph.

  40. @Anonymous at 11:45

    Redwood’s ‘Crèche dad’ (who walked in the wrong direction) transformed into ‘a guest at the Ocean Club’, according to The official site to find Madeleine McCann:

    Based or more recent information, the Metropolitan Police now believe this man may represent a guest at the Ocean Club who was carrying his daughter back to their apartment.

    However as it is not possible to be certain that these two men are actually the same person, if you have seen this man in the pictures or suspect who it may be, please contact the Metropolitan Police's OPERATION GRANGE

    whilst showing two pictures of Tannerman.


    Not felt to be a tourist because of the clothing worn says Kate McCann in her account of the truth concerning Witness One sighting as well as Witness Two sighting. (JT: big heavy jacket and trousers; MS: cream or beige-coloured trousers.)

    I know that many tourists wear shorts and T-shirts, also in the evening, but is it true that most Brits wear long trousers in the evening?


    1. Hi NL :)

      The McCanns and Tony Bennett are determined to make crecheman (SixYearsInAComa) man, the same man seen by the Smiths - yet from the original statements in the police files, it is quite clear they are completely different.

      For me, it is not just the fact that Smithman is a doppelganger of Gerry, it is the bizarre way the McCanns have acted in relation to this sighting, especially as it supported their claim of abduction.

      Their private detectives Exon, provided a genuine lead, one that could have blown the case wide open 10 years ago. What reason could they possibly have for ignoring it? Their claim that they could not afford to publicise TWO sightings, is absurd. Every newspaper would have put those efits on their front pages free of charge. They were chomping at the bit for Madeleine stories, it would not have cost the McCanns anything.



    1. Gerry's a lot of things but he's not stupid.

    2. 'Gerry's a lot of things but he's not stupid'.

      Fair dues 22:05, but let me just give you a small quote from one of Gerry's blogs:

      'Sometimes people do things for reasons that even they cannot understand. An act of madness, an accident or sudden impulse can lead to consequences that people may never have imagined or intended. Faced with such a situation we believe any human soul will ultimately suffer torment and feelings of guilt and fear'.

      Those are Gerry's words 22:05, written on 28th August 2007, a week before both Gerry and Kate were made arguidos.

      An 'act of madness', 'a sudden impulse' - maybe running through the streets of PDL with a deceased child?

    3. 18.7 @22:05

      "Gerry's a lot of things but he's not stupid."

      He just believes Portugal lacks a navy, despite its Mediterranean coastline.

    4. @ "Anonymous19 July 2017 at 13:46

      18.7 @22:05

      "Gerry's a lot of things but he's not stupid."

      He just believes Portugal lacks a navy, despite its Mediterranean coastline."

      Portugal's coastline in on the Atlantic not the Med.

    5. "It is too hot, give him a minute, going to get some fresh air.”

      0:45 "Stick to the official line."

    6. Unknown @16:24

      "Portugal's coastline in on the Atlantic not the Med."

      Thank you, I know. The Med. was referred to by McCann somewhere along the line (Don't ask me where. It's unimportant).

    7. LOL 16:24, Sadly, since Trump has been elected, there is a very real place for 'Stupid' in this world. Most of us would think it stupid to even try and cover up a tragic accident as a money spinning abduction, as well as unthinkable. And to most of us it would be unthinkable that our US cousins would elect a complete moron as president. It wasn't Trump's towering intellect that won him the presidency, it was his ability to con society's most vulnerable. Those willing to believe anything. Aided and abetted of course, by the sheer greed of those who surround him.

      The MSM have for decades pulled the strings where the public's emotions are concerned. Want to stir up race hate, sift through the crime figures and highlight Blacks, Muslims, minorities. Who do you want to target this week folks? It's that easy.

      We have all been dancing to the tune of media barons for decades, if not centuries. They can make or break anyone they choose. In the aftermath of Madeleine's disappearance they could have vilified the parents or turned them into saints. They chose the latter. Would they have done the same if the tapas group hadn't been doctors? Had the dad been a brickie and the mum a care worker, would they have been placed on such a high pedestal? It's the most obvious point, but it's never going away. I just don't see the brickie and the care worker getting personal calls from Tony Blair and Gordon Brown. Does anyone?

      At the heart of this case lies snobbery, and I should make that a big 'S' and devote an entire blog to it. I don't think anyone can, or would even attempt to, pretend the same kind of assistance would have been given to someone like, say, Karen Matthews. And I mention Karen Matthews, because when her daughter went missing, where were to assist in the hunt? Shannon was at an age where it was far more likely that she had been approached online, and they didn't even need plane tickets.

      Yet again, I have digressed, apologies. It takes a certain kind of stupid to attempt the unimaginable, that is why most of us don't even try.

      I'm waffling so will continue on another post.....

    8. The missing word after 'where were' was CEOP.

      Back to stupid. Many doctors are not as clever as they think they are - an argument that takes us to Arts v Science. As an Arts academic, I confess I have limited knowledge of science, a Science academic, it follows, would have limited knowledge of the Arts. Probably why both Kate and Gerry were not natural authors. Mieow.

      It is actually their lack of knowledge of the world outside of medicine that has enabled them to carry off such an incredible feat. Had they overthought anything they have done, it probably wouldn't have happened.

      To quote Del Boy 'he who dares, wins'. Incredible feats are achieved by those brave enough to try them. How they did it, we may never know, but the McCanns were able to project such a positive campaign to find their daughter, that it overrode all the huge question marks. By anyone's standards it was an incredible achievement. Destiny I think brought Gerry McCann and Clarence Mitchell together. It was almost Scarlett and Rhett in it's significance, you Sir are no gentleman, and you Madam, are no lady. Not sure which is which, but it was all there on that first flight when they decided on world domination.

      Stupid or just downright reckless, the McCanns pretty much achieved everything they set out to. For a while there they had public opinion in the palm of their hands.

      It was never sustainable. I suspect all involved are just as amazed as the rest of us that the abduction story is still considered a viable option and they haven't been arrested.

      I won't even hazard a guess as to what is going on now, either Operation Grange will thrown in the towel and admit to the watching world, that they have been completely outwitted by their prey. Or they have spent 6 years following wild goose chases in order to sustain the good name of British doctors not only here in the UK but worldwide. I hope Scotland Yard are aware that in preserving the good name of this group of doctors, they are in fact destroying their own.

  42. Gordon Bennett18 July 2017 at 21:37

    @ 20.55
    The theory originates from a blogger called Textusa I believe and was around two years ago.
    I am still to be convinced either way, but I dont think it should be dismissed out of hand.
    As for the 18th May, I would imagine this was the most likely day because of opportunity, (no police /media interviews etc,etc) and weather conditions.
    It may also be the case that they were waiting for instructions from elsewhere on what to do and how to do it...I just dont know.

  43. That's about the long and short of it, Gordon. I didn't realise Textusa had concluded 18 May was TLP date until afterwards, but a lot of work and consideration of this theory was done on the MMM forum back in Feb 2016.

    The link to the thread is here, for anyone who wants to copy and paste to read. From page 3 on the link.

    You will have to join as a member to see it, though, as this is in the infamous 'hidden' section of the forum. There is a simple reason why much of the forum discussion is hidden - merely that it IS mooted discussion and theory that concerns real people. It was felt that such speculation should be done behind closed doors for the protection and consideration of everyone. The vast majority of the constructive scrutiny of the case is thus private, but membership is free and open to all.

    Cristobell, I hope you don't mind the reference to the forum here, it is done in the interest of the case as people are now discussing the 18 May. The reasons this is mooted are complex and involve comparing clothing etc worn on other photos so it is impossible to explain without referring to these photos. The discussion was about 10 pages long and the conclusions make much more sense if the reader absorbs the full discussion. Thank you for permitting the reference.

    1. It's a one off 23:07, I'm not really happy to advertise a forum that publishes non stop abusive comments about me. I'm not a murderer, paedophile or con artist, just a commentator, but I am the target of hate for the majority of 'antis', especially on the forums where anonymity means anything goes.

      Their objective is to silence me and get me off the internet - and I am quite clear about that, I have a spambox full of vitriol with those exact demands, and I am sure most of it is coming from members MMM.

      Ah well, I suppose while all the antis in the forums and on twitter are attacking me, they are leaving the McCanns and all those involved in the cover up alone.

  44. I've asked on this thread as well as Forum Wars 2 : Explain the 18th of May theory WITHOUT sounding like you're kept away from sharp objects.

    Let's pretend it was 18th of May and the photo shoot is set up.The lighting's right,the clothes are 'accurate' -shoot.


    Bear in mind that the official 'gone' date was May 03.Between that date and the 18th, blanket coverage on all media platforms had been happening daily( and nightly) in newspapers, TV and online. We're talking millions of eyes and ears.It was impossible to escape.
    Why were UK diplomats panicking on May 03 and moving mountains ? Madeleine was alive and well and fit enough to attend a photo shoot . In other words, not missing, not abducted, not dead. Maybe she was brought back to life just for the day ( in line with cloning experiments etc).Fortunately, the day chosen was the day the population of PDL were all staying behind closed doors and curtains and all reporters were in the bars. So, they were able to go for it, get it over, and put Madeleine back in her secret hiding place.

    So now, we have a scenario that doesn't really consider her being abducted, being killed or dying on May 03( or before according to others).We have a new one.She was being secreted somewhere. Where, why and by who ? And would those behind the scheme feverishly phone around the world and to TV stations and Media on May 03 ?

    I'm prepared to accept in a small way that photographs may have been cropped or edited.Not for the purposes promoted by 'sleuths'. Most people do it with holiday snaps.

    As a small experiment, i saved images mentioned to my desktop. I know how powerful, clever and professional photoshop is-I've seen it in action. I have what I consider a superb programme on my computer that takes 2 minutes to download and install free. It can do anything as well as photoshop (unless you work for a magazine). I managed to make the same photograph look as good 6 times and each one heavily edited differently.

    I was up at my mates tonight-the one i said uses photoshop. He was actually using it when i arrived( he has 7 kids so millions of family snaps).So i asked him to look.His conclusion was that nothing special had been done and just shrugged and said -and I quote- ''i stopped following the McCann thing online ages ago because of stuff like this.An awful lot of people are strange and they let that effect their hours of boredom.I don't know what the f*k's wrong with half of them''

    I got this blog up on his computer and told him to browse a few posts on a few threads.He laughed at a few of the 'short and sweet'ones ( polite description).He scratched his head figuratively and literally at a few.He found particular amusement in the spats i'd let myself get involved in.Then he had a 'lightbulb' moment.I don't interfere with his lightbulb moments. He as a spooky eye for meticulous detail bordering on OCD. He whipped a few tools out i had no understanding of from his days as a website designer.The smirk arrived after about 20 minutes.He wasn't looking at photographs either.All he said was ''i see the game on this blog now..a few rogue posters.'' It wasn't a slight against the blog or Ros.

    The plot thins...

    1. LOLZiggy, I'm kinda with your friend on 'what the f*ck's wrong with them'. Absolutely volumes and volumes of nonsense has been written about the last photograph, like JB, I too remember the in depth analysis from the Mirror and the 3As.

      It was of course odd that it took 2 or was it 3 weeks to be released. It certainly came after the toddler in her Christmas party frock picture that barely resembled the missing Madeleine as she was when she went missing.

      I don't rule out that the photograph was, let's say, adapted, simply because of the time lapse before it was released. But like every aspect of this case, the 'sleuths' have taken a small detail and created an entire narrative around it based on pure speculation. They can argue with each other until they are blue in the face, but essentially their 'research' means nothing. Neither Petermac or HideHo will be called as expert witnesses for the prosecution.

    2. It makes me smile when CMoMM goes on about the two "renowned experts" who have declared that the photo is genuine.

      One of them has never been named, so we can't check out his or her history, and the other is possibly the only person who thinks that the photos of Lee Oswald are genuine!


  45. Gordon Bennett19 July 2017 at 12:02

    @ Rosalinda 9.44
    I dont think the issue of the last photo is a small detail although I agree some obsessive people have hijacked it.
    For me the whole case hangs on The Last Photo.
    If the photo is genuine then I am prepared to overlook other discrepancies and believe the official story (with some lingering doubts). But however, if the photo has been "doctored" in any way, either date changing, photoshopping or both, then I dont.
    Why would anyone innocent want to fake anything? Especially if being discovered would ruin your case.
    Even if you had limited evidence to prove your innocence, would you risk it, or would you trust in justice to prevail in the end?
    I know the police have been known to plant/fake evidence in the past to increase the chances of a conviction and sometimes to frame someone, but why would a wholly innocent person want to do that?
    That "wholly" part for me could be key.
    Maybe the Mccanns are not "wholly" innocent....they know what happened but didn`t do it themselves.And any faking (if any) is not of their deciding, but just going along with "advice"

    1. 12:02

      'Maybe the McCanns are not "wholly" innocent....they know what happened but didn`t do it themselves. And any faking (if any) is not of their deciding, but just going along with "advice"'

      Personally, I don't think 'maybe' comes into it.

    2. "If the photo is genuine then I am prepared to overlook other discrepancies and believe the official story (with some lingering doubts). But however, if the photo has been "doctored" in any way, either date changing, photoshopping or both, then I dont. Why would anyone innocent want to fake anything? Especially if being discovered would ruin your case."

      To remove extraneous information which would otherwise detract from the focal point of the picture. ie MM.

      It's not faking or doctoring, with all the connotations of those terms. It's no different to cropping. Photographers have been doing it since the birth of the camera.

  46. Moira19 July 2017 at 10:08

    Don't get me started on the JFk stuff. I could fill the O2 stadium with stuff i have on it. it's the 'daddy' of them all. It put 'conspiracy theory' in to the modern lexicon.Thank God for that at least. It was the main reason that people began to question the rubbish fed to us via the MSM by our great rulers. That's the most important development post war. I have to laugh at the 'ex CIA' phrase trying to sound important and trustworthy as sources for anything.There's a series 2 episodes in now on the docs channels. Ex CIA (again) 'proving' Oswald was the lone gunman.The intro that sells the series in trailers says '' I don't believe in conspiracy theories.I believe that Oswald acted alone, but was supported by a big team behind the scenes''. Erm it was a conspiracy then ?

    He carefully 'forgets' little details like the exit wound at the back of the skull being the size of a grapefruit( proof of being shot from the front).He recreates the shooting too. JFK moving slowly in a car left to right, thousands of adoring members of the public milling around and a 5 second window of opportunity to shoot 4 times all replaced by a stationary head and shoulders made of dense jelly and nobody around.No mention of Gerald Ford( future president) admitting that he lied in the Warren Report or the photograph of Jack Ruby and Richard Nixon( future president) smiling and sharing jokes before the event.

    Maybe we should get the CIA to look at the May 18th theory.It sounds right up there street.They'd blame ISIS.

    1. "Don't get me started on the JFk stuff."


  47. Gordon Bennett19 July 2017 at 12:02

    Would two intelligent people release a doctored photograph to the world in the digital age ? Or would the police ? It would be easier not to release it at all or doctor it.There's no need for so many photographs to be released in the hope that it would help the investigation or search. The poster ( Everton shirt) is more than enough.The photograph has become important to the point of sheer desperation to those who need it to be 'edited'.Nothings happened in ten years so they're making things happen.It's about them-nothing and nobody's obsession.

  48. So let's get this straight - Gerry returned to OC with child in tow on 18/05/07, sat beside the pool and had the photo taken. Then they later photo shopped Madeleine into the photo and released it to the world.

    He did this in front of the world media, other OC guests and the local Police/GNR and nobody noticed?

  49. @Anonymous 14.07, no, you haven't got it straight at all. Here's the reality:

    The McCanns were living in Apartment 4G until the 2 July. In context, this is the mirror opposite of Mrs Fenn's apartment (above 5A) at the far end of the 2 blocks, As such, it directly overlooks the children's round pool. It is the place the kids will gaze down on day after day as the temperature gets hotter.

    After the disappearance the McCanns, their family and friends continued to use the OC facilities. It is well documented that they were often relaxing at the poolside, still playing tennis and still using the crèche. People were used to seeing this. It wasn't unusual. It therefore would have been commonplace for Gerry and his daughter to be sitting cooling off at the pool directly outside of their apartment. The snapping of a photo is a second's work, even if onlookers observed this why would they think anything of it? In addition, the OC remains a walled private complex for guests, members of the public and the paparazzi would not have been trampling all over it two weeks after the event. And it is reasonable to assume if the photo was taken with a motive in mind they would have taken reasonable steps to ensure they took the picture at a time of relative quiet.

    The taking of a picture of Gerry and Amelie on 18 May, a hot day (unlike 29 April and 3 May, which were both in the low 60sF) would be entirely unremarkable, despite the events of the previous fortnight.

    1. 17.06

      Reality or insanity

      You state Sunday 29 April was cold and Thursday 3rd May was cold. So 'they' decided to take the photo on Friday 18th May and doctor it, but other fools in the tribe state Sunday 29th April was the only hot day that week in which to take the photo.

      Where did you get your PDL weather data from? And could you provide it for Friday 18th May.

      It would be enlightening for us all to decide whether it is evidence or the pure tittle tattle of fevered minds.

    2. @ Anonymous19 July 2017 at 17:06

      That's exactly what I said at 14.07 - they did it and no-one noticed or batted an eyelid!

    3. I did the research back in January, the links were for a weather recording website and was data for Sagres, 13 miles from Luz. Here's the relevant part of my copied post:


      "Right, I have done some research into the temperatures of the possible dates mooted for the taking of The Last Photo. These are the temperatures recorded at Sagres, 13 miles away.

      Sunday 29 April, PeterMac's suggestion and the doctrine of CMoMM:
      Max temperature 17degrees C, about 63 degrees F.

      Thursday 3 May, the Official date from the McCanns:
      Slightly warmer at 18 deg C, 64 deg F.

      12 May, Maddie's birthday. Similar clothes worn by GM to those in TLP:
      Warmer, 20 deg C, 68 deg F, but still not hot.

      18 May, 2 days before GM returned to the UK. On his return on 22nd with Clarrie the the photo was released on 24 May. According to PeterMac's book, Aunty Phil also flew to Portugal on 22nd. Photos of the 18th May also show GM wearing the same clothes as in TLP:
      Max temp 27deg C, over 80 deg F. Imo the only day of the 4 hot enough to reflect the conditions seen on the photo and induce such a sweat on GM.

      Interestingly, Textusa also goes with 18th:"


      Interestingly, it was warmer on the Thursday than Sunday 29, the date rammed down everyone's throat by CMoMM as being the only possible day that was warm enough.

  50. Anonymous19 July 2017 at 14:07

    ''So let's get this straight - Gerry returned to OC with child in tow on 18/05/07, sat beside the pool and had the photo taken. Then they later photo shopped Madeleine into the photo and released it to the world.

    He did this in front of the world media, other OC guests and the local Police/GNR and nobody noticed?''

    finally...i was beginning to think id fallen asleep and woken up in Andy Warhol's unconscious.

  51. Anonymous19 July 2017 at 12:25.

    Hello. You don't owe me any sort of apology. I wasn't expecting a reply and there's no need for one. Thank you again for the kind words in your original post. A belated happy birthday, Ros.

  52. A question for John Blacksmith: do you post as "The Bogart" on You Tube?

    1. Anonymous19 July 2017 at 17:06

      ''@Anonymous 14.07, no, you haven't got it straight at all. Here's the reality:''

      Then follows a couple of theories and hypotheticals. This is the biggest enemy of supposed debate, discussion, arguing, theorising or sleuthing. Before even beginning to enter into the fray you need to have a clear understanding of 'truth', 'reality', 'ideas' and 'theory'. To convert theory or idea into fact or reality you need evidence that defeats any argument against it.It doesn't matter how strongly you believe something or how strongly you disbelieve something, without that tangible evidence, it's just talk and theorising.No idea or theory can 'prove' an alternative is wrong. That's why so much frustration arises from so many who think everything is 'obvious'. Any 'obvious' that has nothing to hold it up would be torn to shreds in a court.Then the 'reasonable doubt' would be outlined to a jury.The result is obvious.

      I'm still waiting for a reasonable or partially sane explanation about this bizarre May 18 story.Even allowing for the ideas outlined above it's impossible to stretch much further to fit it in.If anyone thinks this happened on May 18th what happened from may03 until that date ? What were they waiting for ? Was it a case of ''we can't kill her yet, the sun isn't out and we'll need some sunny photographs as evidence later'' ? This brings the scenario into cold blooded pre-meditated murder or some bizarre baby sale. Would they take a gamble that NOBODY near a swimming pool in such a nice setting on such a nice day wouldn't stop to admire a nice family scene or yawn and have a stretch on their own balcony and catch it in their eye line ? These are people who had been on every news channel in the western world and on the front of every newspaper and who were apparently relaxing near a pool in the middle of a small town that had recently been plastered with posters of Madeleine.The place would be full of cameras even without the press.It's a holiday resort in the sun.All it would take is one snapper to catch it and call the media or police or post it online.Then, the McCanns, Blair, Brown, Murdochs puppets et al would be up to their eyes in God knows how much scandal and fall out.

      All of this over how a photograph is interpreted in the suspicious 'public domain'.Nobody realistically holds out hope of Madeleine returning.But strange things can happen and where there's life there's hope.How about these lunatics bear that in mind instead of having a little girl dead and buried and probably murdered in the middle of some deranged whodunnit.

    2. Anonymous19 July 2017 at 13:35

      1) “Such may well be the hobby of some, but it is by no means "the only conclusion that these attempts to invent evidence can lead to."

      2) You cannot see that the only conclusion to be drawn from “these attempts to invent evidence” - by which I mean the Hidiho junk, allegations of a photograph designed to show that the child was alive when she wasn’t, or as part of a plan in advance of her death such as the crèche stuff, the substitute child and other products of the imagination – is that the parents are guilty of ruthless, premediated, murder?

      What else can it be? The Portuguese investigation pursued an accidental death theory, building on the evidence of panicky, incompetent, spur of the moment attempts to cover up a death. The inventions run counter to that thesis and therefore counter to all the known case-file evidence and investigation.

      There is no evidence of pre-meditation.
      Pre-meditation before death means murder, in this case an outrageously wicked murder. The fact that you quail when I spell out the brutal truth of what your inventions imply is your problem, not mine. By the way, have you seen a Cesspit post by Hidiho or Baldy’s nineteen socks about these inventions adding “of course we accept that it was accidental death” at the end? You haven’t. Get real and face the moral consequences of what you’re doing instead of trying to worm your way out of them.

      3) “Evidence (actual, not 'invented') suggests that the abduction of Madeleine McCann on the night of 3 May, 2007 was bogus; furthermore that it was anticipated, and therefore planned by someone, somewhere.”

      I’m sorry, that is untrue. You have no warrant to make such an assertion. There is no such evidence and that’s it. And you take refuge in the weasel-word “suggests”. Evidence does not suggest anything: it is the imagination that suggests, not evidence, whether correctly or otherwise. In your case, it’s otherwise.

      4) “Forensic indices”?

      Using pompous phrases doesn’t make them true. There is no “forensic”, i.e. scientific, judicially acceptable (and therefore determining) evidence of death. Much as I admire Mr Grime, one of the few dignified people in this farrago, he and I both agree that the dogs’ evidence itself is not determinative. Otherwise it would have been determined in court, wouldn’t it?

      5) “The 'how' and the 'why' of her demise remain as yet undetermined and speculation along those lines remains rife. You may find that distasteful but among a cross-section of people it is sadly inevitable, however inappropriate or insensitive.”

      Yes, it does remain rife, to hobbyists like yourself, who take pleasure in it. No, I don’t find it distasteful, I find it cowardly and immoral.

      It is not a cross-section of people making these allegations: it is one thoroughly dishonest Forum leader and a tiny but noisy group of malicious and ignorant people who enjoy accusing others of murder. Do have fun.

    3. 19:25

      My initial response:

      Arrogant and

      Paragraph 2: 'You cannot see that the only conclusion to be drawn from “these attempts to invent evidence” - is that the parents are guilty of ruthless, premediated, murder?'

      Paragraph 4: 'By the way, have you seen a Cesspit post by Hidiho or Baldy’s nineteen socks about these inventions adding “of course we accept that it was accidental death” at the end? You haven’t.'

      Implying that there is at least one other conclusion which might be drawn.

      "Using pompous phrases doesn’t make them true"

      Indeed. Which is in part why the following is untrue:

      "You have no warrant to make such an assertion"

      I'll contact the magistrate forthwith.

      Before I do so, which of my 'assertions' do you find troubling?

      Is it (a) that Madeleine's abduction was bogus (as per the original Portuguese conclusion), or (b) that the Thursday night pantomime was anticipated (by both parents and significant others, and for which there IS evidence already in the public domain)?

      It matters not for in the immortal words of Rhett Butler, 'frankly I don't give a damn'.

  53. I see that Hideho has took over Tony's job to convince the gullible sheep on the CMOMM forum that Madeleine died much earlier. Another well-placed WUM to discredit Goncalo. Enough said and if you've been around for a number of years then you'll know that.

  54. This is all getting way too pompous. JB you say the PJ pursued a theory of accidental death and this is true but one of the first red flags for the PJ was the production of high quality photographic images on the night of the disappearance. In fact they felt so strongly about the dubious provenance of these photographs that they tried to establish the credibility of the McCanns' version of how and where they were produced. This has not yet been fully established and I hope it is an ongoing line of enquiry because the AT and ROB version of events is dubious IMO.

    There are other examples of the PJ looking beyond the accidental death on May 3rd narrative, the conclusion of phone record analysis suggests an earlier date should be considered - this was a PJ conclusion, not Hideho's.

    So for me, analyzing the last photo is part of a process very much started by the PJ. Basic questions about the provenance of this last photograph need to be answered. The most fundamental one being whose camera was it taken on? It seems highly improbable that it was KM's because the date and time were still set at 0000 on her camera and none of her holiday snaps had a date or time on them. Once these and other basic questions about the creche records, phone records and photographic records have been answered, I will happily fall in line but until then I think we need to keep our open minds. I've got a feeling the PJ are a lot more open to possibilities than some of the scoffers on here.

    1. Good God Jane - that A level art history has a lot to answer for.

      I suppose repeating the old rubbish year after year keeps you occupied.

    2. Unfortunately, 'open' is probably the least used word used in connection with anything McCann case related whatsoever.That's ironic considering this has remained officially unsolved for over 10 years.It's used by the Met intermittently when talking about the investigation they've been pretending to be carrying out at great expense. it justifies the spending- just like the 'leads' do. The lack of anything changing is evidence enough that they're just making the right noises.As long as the case is 'open' nobody's a suspect and no official death has occurred.What anyone outside of their inner circle( ie the public) thinks about that doesn't matter nor ever will.Photographs are off the table as it would take about 30 minutes in a forensic or even photographic lab to analyse one.I think it's safe to say they're not still studying any.Have they studied any and found something incriminating of someone ? If they have, they've kept it quiet for a reason.If they haven't, they haven't. You can call heads or tails all day, nobody can say anything definitive out here.As for everyone and that dirty word 'open', it's a different story.

      Looking through some posts, it's clear that not that many minds remain open. The majority of people have their theory which they've researched to death and have had a deep impression made on them to the point that it's become a truth, ergo, everything else can't be right.They're totally dogmatic about something which has no evidence or credible eye witness testimony (officially) to prop their theory up.Subjective reasoning is employed to fit their ideas with little or nothing is done to test the opposite theory.Arguments are inflated by this air.Opposing arguments are deflated by it.The PJ files are called to the witness stand frequently. The same files that have been pawed over by several officers of two countries. Why aren't they using anything from them ?

      One side( by far the largest) have decided that blood/DNA/cadaver scent proved that a child had died in an apartment.It doesn't ID an actual killer or cause, just a death.But forensics have decided that the blood and DNA don't pass muster.But what of the cadaver ? More importantly, if those who think it all points in one direction, why aren't they directly accusing those responsible for shelving it of perverting the course of, or obstructing justice.They can't hold their position without doing so in my books.To claim scientists were in the thrall of two doctors as well as politicians and police is a bit of a stretch.I can't accept it was because of social status or profession.They're doctors not Bishops or Royalty.But, the case is closed to them, it just can't be proven. Challenge this and risk 'rank' being pulled ( the longer you research it the more senior your rank and, therefore, more valid your opinion).Yet still the clock ticks...

      I'm all for challenging lies and embracing truths.But not until i have proof of both.Theories, I entertain,examine and discuss.When theories are discussed without bias and with an open( sorry) mind a lot can be learned and a lot can be discarded. It's a refining process like oil and gold.You clear away the muck until you eventually have the finished and valuable article.If you throw more muck on top instead, you're taking one step forward two steps back.If nobody changes that, its only steps in circles. Delicate and inflated egos aren't useful tools of investigation.

    3. Hello.

      The photographs. Can you tell us who in the investigation states they were one of the first "red flags"?

      As far as I'm aware the questioning about photographs and photocopiers had nothing whatever to do with "dubious photographs" but was about the inability to get at what exactly the Nine had been up to after 10PM. The question of photographs was bound up with the general question of exactly what had gone on between Jon Corner and others in making material available to the public and the media before the police arrived. I'm sure you'll correct me when you post the source for "dubious".

      "So for me, analyzing the last photo is part of a process very much started by the PJ."

      I have the Case Files: please quote the case file showing what the PJ "started". I don't know what you mean by "for me"; the evidence is either in the case files for you to post here for us, or it isn't.

      "Basic questions about the provenance of this last photograph need to be answered."

      I haven't the faintest idea why you believe that.

      "There are other examples of the PJ looking beyond the accidental death on May 3rd narrative, the conclusion of phone record analysis suggests an earlier date should be considered - this was a PJ conclusion, not Hideho's."

      I don't want to embarrass you but I hope you are not referring to the Paolo Reis inventions which purport to be part of the Case Files and which are not.

      Can you please quote the translated case file reference? I have not seen it. After I've seen it I'll comment. Thanks.

    4. Thank you for going easy on me. Yes I was referring to the Paulo Reis report and I do think it has validity, certainly the conclusion makes sense. Again I would say the fact that the PJ felt analysis of the creche records was necessary, supports this IMO. Regarding the posters, I'm using inference to infer that if the PJ went to the trouble of trying to determine whether or not the photographs printed on May 3rd were printed on sheets or rolled paper (only available in booths) they must have at least entertained the possibility that there was some pre planning. Again I think that's a reasonable inference and I personally do not hold firm views on this, I simply entertain it as a possibility.

      Regarding the camera used to take the last photograph,
      which one was it? Again I think that's a reasonable question that hasn't been answered yet. KM tells us in her book that she ran back to get her own camera from the apartment to take the tennis ball photo. Again I'm using inference here but this photograph could not have been date stamped because if it was, it would have eliminated the total confusion around who took it and on what day it was taken. I'll allow for some initial confusion but a year later would they still be sending out mixed messages about who took it and on what day, if it was dated? We also know that ROB took KM's camera to try and obtain a suitable image from which to print out posters, whilst the PJ took photographs clearly showing one of the cameras sat on the apartment table. He said the holiday photos were too dull and that's why he chose older images because the quality, suitability of the holiday photos wasn't good enough. Now we know ROB had a busy night, washing sheets and sifting through photographs but would he miss the clearest most recent and pertinent image of Madeleine which should have been the last image on her camera?

      So I want to know if it wasn't on KM's camera that night, which camera was it on and once basic questions of provenance (which camera, what day, by whom) have been satisfied then I'll happily accept that this is an irrelevance. I want to know which camera was set up to show date and time and if the McCanns had more than one camera - the likelihood that they had two very similar cameras, one Olympus and one Cannon seems improbable but If it can be established that's fine but I'd ask why didn't they tell ROB that they had another camera with an up to date photo on it and save him all that trouble. I do not see how you can dismiss discussion of the last photograph as entertainment for crackpots if you do not even know whose camera it was taken on. If there is evidence of obfuscation then I think it's reasonable to ask questions and the fact it took over two weeks, a trip back to England and a return to Portugal accompanied by the dodgiest of many dodgy relatives and hangers on is enough to alert me to the possibility of foul play.

      I hope this isn't just more ammunition to shoot me down with because I get the impression many people's views on here are intransigent and I only chipped in yesterday because I was irritated by the rather hectoring tone of people who think they've got all the answers. I certainly do not think I have any answers - I'm very much still looking for them.

      Jane Cook

    5. This comment has been removed by the author.

  55. Gordon Bennett19 July 2017 at 23:17

    If the camera can't be found or identified,then maybe it wasn't any instructions on how to do it the Mccanns were waiting for (if you believe the 18th May theory),but an expert to arrive (from the UK?) to take the 'base'photo?
    That could explain the delay and why the 18th.

  56. Amazing Jane or What's up doc as you were known on the MMM forum. You claimed to know next to nothing when you joined there a while back but now see yourself as some sort of expert on this blog now. Maybe you should enlighten readers here what your game is all about. As you're certainly playing one.

  57. Maybe you could enlighten me, anonymous about what my game is, I'll make cuppa, maybe do a bit of ironing and then get back to you to find out what game I'm playing - I can't wait and hope it's a good one. Can I be cheeky? If I'm going to have a superpower, can it be flying please as I've always fancied that ...

  58. Why does the 2-bit, bombastic bloggyist Blacksmith call us "hobbyists"? I had no idea he had been seconded to Op Grange in any paid official capacity.
    Everyone should be allowed a theory, an opinion, or a posit here without Superintendent Blacksmith's fallacious second-guessing of a poster's intent, investigative credentials and moral standing, the patronising, anachronistic living-off-a-'name', autocratic self-appointed 'expert'.
    He is, to use his own condescending term, a hobbyist like we all are.
    Ironic he decries Bennett on CMOMM whilst occupying exactly the same haughty position, here.

    1. Why so aggressive? And what's with the name calling 10:18? Posts like these display the ignorance of the sender, if you have genuine argument to oppose John B's opinions, then why not use it?

      you are doing to John Blacksmith, what the members of the MMM did to me whenever I logged in. That is, you are merely hurling abuse for the sake it.

      Everyone is allowed to have a theory 10:18, but it is absurd to expect that theory to go unchallenged. We are all searching, or just hanging on, for the truth 10:18.

      I am grateful to John for stamping on the myths that have been created by the headcases. They have muddied the waters for those following the case and those just looking in for the first time.

      I do understand how easy it is to become fixated on the minutia of the case files and the what if's - I've been there! I spent too many years nodding off to the complex game of Cluedo that was going on inside my head - it took the place of counting sheep, lol.

      I was going through a particularly difficult time in my life with bereavements, and the mental logarithms were a form of escape. I also belonged to an (unmoderated) chat room where theories were discussed and thrashed out (quite heatedly) but not to the great depths of the Mirror Forum of the 3As, where, I have to say I was completely out of my depth. Not on knowledge about the case, but by the aggressive and fanatical approach of the 'king pins'. I think in retrospect, the very brutal internet wars were organised affairs, with the McCann Media monitors plentiful and working overtime.

      It would be fair to say I spent as much time thinking as Rene Descartes - he came up with 'I think therefore I am'. I came up with, there is no way of knowing unless one of the main characters spills the beans. Not quite as profound, I know, but enough to ensure a good night's sleep.

      Those caught up on the minutia have made it their life's work. They have spent years, microscope in hand, scrutinising pictures of kids and studying weather charts and the blossoming times of shrubbery (I kid you not) - and for what? Will Petermac be called as star witness for the prosecution like something from the movies?

      Those fixated on the minutia have lost the plot 10:18, that is they have stopped looking at the bigger picture altogether. Look at Bennett for example, if you want to drive him mental, just say 'Smithman'.

      I've published your comment on this occasion 10:18, but if you comment again, would you please observe the etiquette of this board. You seem to have the capacity to make a valid point (you use big words and spell them properly, lol), so why not do so, without the rudeness?

    2. Thanks Ros. Agreed regards language, but I do not swear or lie. Be aware I was not the one calling others a "disgusting liar", so we can leave that specific example of aggressive parlance to those who issued that. Touché?
      I do not treat other contributors here with disdain, quite the reverse. I was , in part, hoping to stand up for those talked down to by the roaming 'expert'.
      In the scheme of things we have had Pamalam, Steel Magnolia, Morais (of old) and yourself willing to lend a platform to a spectrum of viewpoints (unlike Bennett and Hideho), not gone unnoticed by many, hence why your blog is currently the busiest for footfall and traffic.
      The #mccann tag has always been a bear pit or 'Romper Room' which is only useful when it is host to breaking news links.
      You of course know that part of the attraction here is to have a go at certain people (like you did with Ben and always with Bennett) interspersed with the full breadth of commentary regards the whole McShooting match.
      In the end, this is your blog to do with as you want. I would love to see the blend of McDebate and 'personal evaluation' continue here as opposed to the sterile "repeat after me" type forums we all have come to know and loathe.

    3. Many thanks for your courteous reply 18:14, it is much appreciated. I will part give you the touche, as I do actually consider John Blacksmith to be a roaming expert, and I feel privileged that he posts her. He has done an enormous amount of work over the years, and he has been the voice of sanity, especially when the loons ruled the roost! He is deserving of our respect.

      I am smiling ear to ear at your second paragraph, I have walked the gauntlet to get here! I love chatting to others online and I love to hear alternate opinions. It is a learning experience for me and I hope it is a learning experience for my readers too. For me, nothing is set in stone, we and the world around us, are constantly evolving.

      I am a battle worn veteran of the forums 18:14, and what bugged me more than anything was admin pulling the plug whenever a debate began heating up.

      I truly don't believe in censorship, but those posts I haven't published are just tirades of personal abuse and hexes on my future. Why should I give them a platform?

      Romper Room is a good name for #McCann - it takes some kind of insane devotion to post there 24/7. As you say, useful for breaking news links, but that's it.

      I do of course use my blog to have a go at certain people - but only those who deserve it. As one witty poster put it, 'don't attack a woman with a microphone'! lol. It was not so long ago that Bennett, Thompson et al were calling for my blog to be boycotted and ostracised. And besides, I have a constant struggle with my inner bitch - sometimes the bitch wins, what can I say? lol

      Your post has made my day 18:14, I always had a bonkers dream that people could come together from both sides of this endlessly compelling debate, without the need to kneecap and disembowel each other. And I believed such a forum could only come about through peer pressure. The fool who comes on with the one line insult disappears without trace. The poster who presents a clear and cogent argument is inundated with replies.

      I think this forum separates those who want simply to name call, and those who take the opportunity to exchange ideas with someone not in tune with themselves. To my mind, there is no shame whatsoever in being wrong, I often am, but I see only the joy in learning something new. Not only the pleasure it gives me, but the pleasure it gives to the person who has enlightened me. Tell a small child, or even a grown up, 'I did not know that' and watch their face light up.

      The Forums and the Facebook pages make me shudder 18:14, naturally I was banned from all of them - never for bad language or bad manners though, lol.

      Thank you for responding, and like yourself I hope the interesting discussion continues :)

    4. Ros, your reply at 23:01.
      I too have been around same as you, got ousted for 'robust views' from many a place, abhorred the dreaded 'thread closed' as liberally applied by Hideho, the culling of threads that get heated, etc.
      You are being very honest about what it is that attracts traffic, because, although the McCase is a cornucopia of intrigue all on its very sweet own, you do have to make some allowance for the different temperaments of contributors, those who have different opinions and you allow them space to vent.
      I find it both ironic and heart warming that, after all the crap hurled at you over the years from know-alls and bigheads, your blog remains the only place where we can discuss this like you would down the pub.
      Unlike CMOMM, the atmosphere has never been one of aggression, here. Sure, feelings are worn on the sleeve here (good!) but you don't stand for unrelenting abusive commentary, except, as you say, for those your feel deserve it. I agree with that! We all know who they are.
      If you say/write anything someone will be offended; it's how it is. How you react to that is always going to be uniquely personal.
      So, given none of us know how many Bundleman were abroad that night, at what times, seen by whom, which direction they were going in (and so on) we can only make speculative assumptions, throw in some common sense, our opinions and see if that mix yields any further insight.
      Was Tannerman invented because the Smiths saw Gerry? Or just a fabrication by Tanner (et al) to lend clout to there having been an abductor per se?
      It's all still up there for debate and no idea, opinions or thought is, for me, off the table.

    5. Thank you for your thoughtful reply 06:20 - I love the 'down the pub' analogy! I think I would have made a great pub landlady, I love to entertain, and I love to hear others' stories, the hostess with the mostest, lol.

      I actually feel immensely privileged 06:20, that people take the time and trouble to read and respond to my musings, an audience is the best thing a writer could hope for.

      I have studied the PJ files, the statements, the book of Goncalo Amaral, etc, but I have learned just as much listening to the often insightful views of Blacksmith and others. JJ for example, has stopped me in my tracks, more than once and made me have a re-think, and the same applies to so many contributors on here who introduce new perspectives. With their one sided views, the main Madeleine forums are stuck in a time warp, they are on their zillionth spin cycle and they can't squeeze any more out of the limited topics they have restricted themselves to.

      I've always been a bit of a pied piper for waifs and strays 06:20, not saying you are a waif or stay btw, but since childhood I have always reached out to those who appear friendless or without a voice. Those kids standing on their own in the playground, or those co-workers eating alone at their desks. I absolutely hate to see anyone excluded, I think it is one of the cruellest aspects of human behaviour. Maybe it's because I'm usually the one being excluded, lol, but I'm much too arrogant for that. When I take someone under my wing, I know that if they can't speak up for themselves, I can. The forums unfortunately, are like religion, more about who they exclude, than who they include. The spiteful girls who gang up to pick on the loner who doesn't fit in.

      I am happy to give a voice to anyone 'even to the dull and the ignorant; they too have their story' [Desiderata] It is amazing how much anger and rage can be washed away simply by open, civil, discussion in a pub like atmosphere!

    6. Ros at 21 July 2017 at 08:08
      Pint of lager, please Landlady!
      This caught my eye: "..forums are stuck in a time warp". They are, which is why hardly anyone posts in them these days. Disagreeing with the Admin too often can mean a ban, ostracised and given McPariah status.
      This past 10 years we've seen it all, haven't we? From accident and cover up to deliberate with a motive. It's a broad church but many forums have set themselves up as champions of one single hypothesis: "Swingers holiday!" "Bio-engineering conference!" "Paedo ring!" "It happened on the 3rd and any dissent - sling your hook!"
      We'll get nowhere without agreeing to disagree. Forum after forum has strangled disparate opinion to its own particular ethos. Whereas here, each new blog remains akin to a blank canvas periodical for us all to paint our thoughts on. Just as it was back in Mirror Forum/3As days. I don't know of any other place where we can have a right old ding-dong and shake hands afterwards at the end of the night.
      OK, back to Smithman being Gerry? Thoughts range from: yes, no, Smiths saw nobody, Smiths in cahoots with the Mcs, alarm raised anywhere between 9:15pm to 10pm. Was Tannerman cobbled together because the Smiths DID see Gerry (Smithman)? Whatever the timeline was, the Smiths said they thought the person they saw carrying a child was 60-80% Gerry. If they were in cahoots they would not have said anything would they, certainly not putting Gerry in the frame?
      For now, I'll conclude with extracts from the PJ Files:

      "He [Martin Smith] states he was watching the 10 PM on BBC and saw the McCanns getting off the plane and coming down the steps. He states it was like watching an action replay of the night he saw the male carrying the child back in Portugal. He states the way Gerry was carrying his twin triggered something in his head. It was exactly the same way and look of the male seen the night Maddie went missing"

      - AND -

      "In relation to the video clips of Gerard McCann and the person I saw on 3rd May 2007 when I saw the BBC news at 10 PM on 9th September 2007 something struck me that it could have been the same person. It was the way Gerard McCann turned his head down which was similar to what the individual did on 3rd May 2007 when we met him. It may have been the way he was carrying the child either. I would be 60-80% sure that it was Gerard McCann that I met that night carrying a child. I am basing that on his mannerism in the way he carried the child off the plane."

  59. Some corrections to this thread are in order.

    Whoever said Sunday 29th April was colder than Thursday 3rd May was totally mistaken. The lunchtime temperature on Sunday was 21 deg C (70F) while the rest of the week it mostly only reached 17 deg C (63F), quite a difference. Petermac on CMoMM produced a chart of cloud cover on each day from a nearby weather station. Sat & Sun 28th & 29th were sunny throughout except near dusk. All the other days were mostly cloudy. Almost every indication is that te Last Photo was taken on the Sunday. I have found it very interesting to see who opposes this theory, and why.

    As for Nuno Lourenco saying that the man (Sagres man/Wojchiech Krokowski) 'did not look like a tourist', I suggest you have a look at Goncalo Amaral's book, which clearly says that he did say that. It's in the chapter headed 'Sighting at Sagres'.

    Jane Cook has talked a lot of sense on this thread, except where she supports the absurd 'Last Photo taken on the 18th' claim. Where please is there any link to a photo of Amelie & Sean in the same clothes as they were wearing as on the Last Photo?

    1. Anon 10.50

      Nobody in ten years has provided weather data for PDL.

      Where was the nearby weather station of which you speak?

      The figures Peter Mac produced do not support what you have written, as you must know. So are you working on the theory that if you write dross and drivel often enough, we will be taken in.

      I think you are in the wrong place.

      Stop the tittle tattle aka, total bollocks.

    2. The statements are there to be read re Nuno Lourenco. He never said that . The passage from Amaral 's book is unclear as to is it him Amaral who thinks the man does not look like a tourist or lourenco. Fact is the statements do not coroborate that he said that . Quite the opposite .

      As for the weather , as far as I remember many went to the beach on Thursday and that is verifiable by looking at the paradiso cctv . There are several people there which shows it was a warm enough day . I've never seen that weather chart you mention but it will be of little value unless it's by the national or local weather institute . Temperatures vary during the day and cloud masses are often partial only , which means that you have periods of sunshine and periods of overcast skies . I sincerely don't understand how can someone reach a conclusion that a photograph has not been taken on this given day based on an assumption that there was constant total cloud coverage all day . No one can make such an assumption without a 12 hour detailed chart , which only the PJ might have .

      If you're prepared to think this happened days earlier then you cannot accept accidental death and you have to accept that more than 20 unrelated people are lying . That is , excuse me for the honesty , quite impossible .

      If you think that Nuno is anymore than an attention seeker or an overly concerned father , then you also must believe that the Polish man and his wife are involved . Because that's who Lourenco positively pointed at . So what was their involvement ?

  60. Thank you Anonymous @10:50 for your Conciliatory tone. There is a thread on MMM. I only entertain this theory as a possibility in the absence of any satisfactory explanagion as to why this most pertinent photograph was not released immediately and the issues of obfuscation that clouds the issue of the cameras and photographic evidence in general. The image (It's actually just GM and AM, SM isn't on it) is on the thread mentioned. It shows them entering the Ocean Club on a very sunny day and it is only a few days before GM returned to England. Like everything else in this case, I try to keep an open mind, do not attach myself to anyone theory and believe there are too many holes to solve most of these riddles.

    That said I do believe that Internet Sleuths can hit upon credible theories and uncover evidence. This has happened in America with the Steven Avery case and SA's attorney takes a very positive attitude towards sleuthers, referring to their contribution and communicating with them on Twitter.

    I just think it's a shame that it is considered grubby in this country - even people who do it themselves want to taint and smear others in a very tribal way - the whole point of sleuthing IMO is its a team activity - ten minds are better than one! I have to say I didn't experience this level of rancour when I was looking into the SA case, I know there were attempts at sabotage but generally it felt like there was more cohesion - maybe I didn't pick up on it but I certainly didn't encounter the level of personal criticism I've experienced here!

    Anyway I digress, nice to talk to you Anonymous.

    1. I am interested in the sleuthing Jane - not familiar with Steven Avery case but will look it up.

      I imagine historically, sleuthing goes back centuries Jane, it certainly went on when the Lindberg baby went missing and during the trial of OJ Simpson. I know, because my dear old Dad, wouldn't miss a minute of it, lol, and knew every detail!

      I don't think we can help ourselves quite honestly Jane, it is almost instinctive. However, with sleuthing, there are very blurry lines. I know we have all seem films where someone totally unexpected comes up with the 'smoking gun' to save the day.

      What makes me uncomfortable Jane, is when amateur sleuthers cross the line. That is when they begin to intrude on the lives of the characters involved. In this case, the sleuthers have publically accused innocent witnesses of lying. CMoMM for example, is full of libel! They have made all sorts of heinous and grubby accusations against the McCanns and their friends, based on heinous and grubby thoughts that go on in their own heads. Swapping kiddy porn, Sex parties - WTF? Sorry Jane, it does make my blood boil. No matter what we may think of the parents or their holiday party, years of those kinds of accusations are just plain evil! These people claim to care about children, Madeleine especially, yet they are quite happy to mentally scar her siblings!

      Ten minds are better than one for discussing theories and chewing the cud Jane, but, for me at least, there has always been a very distinctive line. Some people should ask themselves before they press send, how their words will affect others, and in this case, especially all those kids approaching their teens, who's parents are constantly being accused of atrocities unheard of in civilised or even uncivilised society.

      Apologies, I didn't mean to scold, but I have a real intense hatred for vigilantes. I think they are just very cruel people who like to gang up on vulnerable people in the hope of beating the shit out of them. It's nothing to do with Law and Order - they have already dispensed with that, and are dishing it out themselves.

      Sleuthing in the old days, was never as public as it is now, and where the line should become clearer, many just brush it out of the way. That puzzles me Jane, I am no Christian, and according to one old boss, when Armageddon arrived, I was 'going to fucking fry'. He was an hilariously funny and full on gay man, who was Head of Humanities and we were having a quick smoke in the bike shed with the Head of English and discussing an especially passionate A level essay by a religious zealot.

      It astounds me therefore, that the clean living pillars of the church and community devote so much time to discussing so much smut? The kind of smut us regular folks have never even heard of. And all this comes from the creepy Bennett and even creepier Peter Hyatt. They have declared themselves without sin (Bennett doesn't even watch the telly)and casting stones left right and centre.

      I'm all for discussing theories, or whatever else comes up Jane, as a teacher yourself, you know I'm sure how much more we can take in when we listen to the thoughts of others and indeed, have the opportunity to float our own ideas.

      Many thanks Jane, and great to have you here, you have added much to the discussion :)

  61. (Thursday 10 May, 2007, police station in Portimão)

    “Gerry was taken in to be interviewed while I remained downstairs. I made use of the long wait I anticipated by sitting down with a notebook, pen and my camera, containing dated photographs of the holiday, and trying to write a detailed account of everything that had happened the week before.” (KM, ‘madeleine’)

  62. Jane Cook.

    You made claims in your post about the investigation and its evidence. That’s the easy bit, isn’t it? That’s what Pit posters, for example, do all the time. But this isn’t COMM so now we get to the tricky bit:the facts.

    1) Your first claim stated a supposed fact about the PJ. I asked:

    “The photographs. Can you tell us who in the investigation states they were one of the first "red flags"?

    You have been unable to provide anyone. Because they don’t exist. So you weren’t telling readers here the truth about the supposed “red flags”. You weren’t being fair to the PJ. Doesn’t that worry you at all?

    Instead you have slipped into Hidiho mode and are now claiming “inference”. Uh-huh.

    2) You wrote: "So for me, analyzing the last photo is part of a process very much started by the PJ."

    I replied: “I have the Case Files: please quote the case file showing what the PJ "started".

    You haven’t been able to do so. It doesn’t exist. Instead you post:

    “I'm using inference to infer that if the PJ … they must have at least entertained the possibility that there was some pre planning. Again I think that's a reasonable inference and I personally do not hold firm views on this, I simply entertain it as a possibility."

    So you asserted it without evidence and now you say you inferred it and that you “simply entertain it as a possibility”. But that’s not what you wrote, is it?

    3) Now we come to your most serious claim.

    "There are other examples of the PJ looking beyond the accidental death on May 3rd narrative, the conclusion of phone record analysis suggests an earlier date should be considered - this was a PJ conclusion, not Hideho's."

    I asked: “Can you please quote the translated case file reference? I have not seen it. After I've seen it I'll comment. Thanks.”

    Instead of quoting the PJ files in support of your flat assertion you have quoted a completely non-existent “phone record analysis”. So your statement that “this is a PJ conclusion, not Hidiho’s” is completely untrue, isn’t it? You misled every one of the readers of this site.

    Any unbiased reader here, whether they hate me or not, has just seen a typical piece of Cesspit-type “research” – no sources at all, belief that a Paolo Reis invention is part of the Case files, for God’s sake, and completely untrue claims.

    There is nothing personal in this M/S Cook and your opinions are nothing to do with me and thank you for replying. But you have been caught out. Wittingly or unwittingly you have deceived members of the public reading this site by quoting non-existent sanction for your fake facts. You shouldn’t do it. As a matter of conscience, you shouldn’t do it. It’s not fair.

    Of course, this is all Blacksmith bullying, isn’t it?

    1. Wow you are an angry man! No it does not bother me that I use inference - it bothers me a great deal more that your own mindset is so rigid.

      I did not state anything as fact and if that's what you inferred then maybe that's why you avoid inference, because you're not very good at it!

      Any theory I think is plausible is only that - a theory which is meaningless unless it can be substantiated and I have said repeatedly, that there are simply too many holes to know the truth but there is nothing wrong with discussing theories as long as you do not present them as facts and know their limitations . Regarding the conclusion of Mr Reis, I believe he presents a detailed, credible report that deserves careful consideration. Even if it is not part of the case file it still constitutes evidence and the PJ did carry out analysis of the creche records, that is a fact and again I think it's reasonable to infer that they at least entertained the possibility of an earlier date. Frankly, I think it would be highly irresponsible of them not to even entertain the possibility of an earlier date and I do know - as a fact - that Amaral had regrets about the way the McCanns were treated with kid gloves - he said that in his book and I interpreted that as not challenging their narrative robustly enough. So I do believe they entertained the possibility of an earlier date but maybe that was too late. This is my opinion, I am entitled to it and I'm not budging on that one Mr Blacksmith.

      You are way too literal for me and if it makes you feel good to present things in such black and white terms I'll let you get on with it but do not tell me I've been deceptive or promoted fake facts because that would be rather ironic from a man who thinks he is the Arbiter of truth.

      I do not think you are a bully - I'm certainly not intimidated by you - but I find you way too rigid and that truth saddens me because I've always enjoyed your blog and never really thought of you as such a literal thinker, infact your writing has plenty of inference and that's what makes it interesting, because you bring your interpretation to the facts. Maybe I need to go back and re-read your blogs now I've actually heard you in dialogue and realize how Gradgrindian you are...

    2. "You are way too literal for me and if it makes you feel good to present things in such black and white terms I'll let you get on with it but do not tell me I've been deceptive or promoted fake facts because that would be rather ironic from a man who thinks he is the Arbiter of truth. "
      Which is exactly what I am saying.
      See that, Ros? ^^ Not just me is it?

    3. So you've got no shame then about your deceptions regarding sources? No shame about having quoted a well known invention in your statement that "it was the PJ's, not Hidiho's theory". That was a statement of fact, by the way, not an inference - and you made it. Yet you have the gall to rewrite history by posting "I did not state anything as fact".

      Anyone who lies to themselves like you do isn't going to tell the truth about others. You are a serial libeller and you have no shame about it.

      Some time, perhaps, while you're on this "it's all harmless opinion stuff", you might think of the innocent nannies at PDL who never asked to be involved in this circus and yet are labelled by you and your colleagues as accessories to covering up a killing. They have parents and friends - what do you think the effect of your lying is on them?

      You disgust me.

    4. Where have I ever referred to a "killing"? Where have I ever "labelled" "innocent nannies"? Who are my "colleagues"? The man who wants only facts and thinks he is the only one entitled to opinions has suddenly abandoned the facts for a lot of emoting and abusive language.

      If I disgust you my guess is you are easily disgusted, Mr Blacksmith, for my part I'm just shocked that you can be so hateful towards someone who you have never met and has always tried to be mindful of how she expresses herself. Let's just stay at different ends of the playground.

      Jane Cook

    5. Anonymous 20 July 2017 at 23:23

      “…someone who … has… tried to be mindful of how she expresses hersel.”

      Your posts are exemplary, Jane.

      “Let's just stay at different ends of the playground.”


      Please stay.
      Make yourself comfortable.
      Coffee or tea? Biscuits?
      It looks like a nice day…:)


    6. Thank you T @ 09:20 I am just about to put the kettle on and will share a virtual cuppa with you and try not to take Mr Factsmith's vacillation between fact and fury too personally!

  63. Gordon Bennett20 July 2017 at 12:33

    @ 10.50
    I dont see why the "18th May" theory is any more absurd than the Sunday 29th" theory.
    I would have thought from a pro Mccann perspective both are absurd.
    The weather details higher up the thread and yours are interesting though.
    I do wonder even if the temp on the Sunday was 21c, would that be enough to work up a sweat sitting still. Granted Gerry could have been running or playing tennis just before, but is there any evidence for this?
    Also, I would like to know if it is possible from anyone, being no expert myself, to set up a camera with the time and date out by any number of days of your choosing before a photo is taken?
    Could for example the date be set 14 or 15 days behind? Or is it like a phone or sat nav where it is done correctly automatically? (or can it be overridden?)
    And dont assume from that question I support either theory (or the 3rd May) All three are plausible to me.

  64. I do of course realise that this is a really old interview clip, but how come no-one ever seems to either refer to it or discuss it? (i.e. Gerry's sister's claim that Kate was apparently about to be charged with Madeleine's "accidental death")

    1. Do you have a title to the video that I could look up 12:43?

    2. "Know The Truth ~ Why did Gerry's sister expect Kate to be charged with accidental death"

  65. Even if we entertain the idea of some jiggery pokery with photoshop for whatever reason i still await a credible explanation or feasible scenario painted for me about the 18th May, including a likely explanation for all the hysteria and fuss from the 03 May until 18 May.Reasons for the photoshop jiggery pokery are optional.

  66. Anonymous20 July 2017 at 01:14

    '' (a) that Madeleine's abduction was bogus (as per the original Portuguese conclusion), or (b) that the Thursday night pantomime was anticipated (by both parents and significant others, and for which there IS evidence already in the public domain)?''

    I'd be interested in some elaboration on this. I was troubled by the wording of the initial post( how a bogus abduction could be anticipated).I'd like to know what the evidence is that you say IS already in the public domain that states that both parents and significant others were aware a bogus abduction was already in the works ahead of the event.I haven't seen it.That doesn't mean it isn't there.Could you share it with us ?I'd also like to know what evidence caused the Portuguese to conclude such yet not act on it.

  67. Gordon Bennett20 July 2017 at 17:08

    @ Mr Sawdust
    Someone has provided a link to Textusa higher up the thread along with weather data to support the 18th May theory.
    As she is the starter of that idea it would be best to go there to read about it.

    1. Don fetish gear and gimp mask before you enter and be prepared to throw your keys in a ring. Textusa (an old spinster or trio of sisters apparently - no-one knows) believes Madeleine disappeared because there was a Swingers Convention going on in PDL. Let that sink in.

      Apologies Gordon, that wasn't personal, but Textusa is probably as responsible for many of the lunatic myths as Bennett et al.

    2. Gordon Bennett20 July 2017 at 17:08

      ''@ Mr Sawdust
      Someone has provided a link to Textusa higher up the thread along with weather data to support the 18th May theory.
      As she is the starter of that idea it would be best to go there to read about it.''

      I'll pass thanks Mr Bennett. It may have been blazing sunshine.It may have been pitch black . There may have been hurricanes. It doesn't explain how the most famous family on the planet and the most famous missing toddler would pull it off unseen in the exact location where it happened, two weeks after it happened. Explain that, or have textusa explain it without it sounding like a ridiculous mystery short story penned by an 8 year old.

    3. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton20 July 2017 at 18:20

      ''Don fetish gear and gimp mask before you enter and be prepared to throw your keys in a ring.''

      lol I'm beginning to see a hitherto well concealed ( what's the word now ) 'side' to you Ros. From PG to X rated in one day. I could get to enjoy this :)

    4. I cannot stress enough that all Textusa's theories begin with the premise that Gerry, Kate and all their friends were in PDL for a swingers holiday. The location for this swingers get together, a family friendly holiday resort that welcomes and caters for children.

      What kind of people would take their kids and mother in law along on a sex holiday? Do those kinky resorts in the Caribbean offer daycare and night nannies (of the regular kind)? No. Because no-one does that, not even in the crazy world of McCann Mythology.

      I think those making claims of deviant sex, should have those grubby claims chucked right back at them. Where tf, do they get the weird ideas from? I have walked on the wild side many times, but I have never encountered, or even read about in the NOTW, groups of doctors going on a wife swapping holiday, with kids in tow! These people work together, can you imagine it without your skin crawling?

  68. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton20 July 2017 at 16:52

    ''Do you have a title to the video that I could look up 12:43?''

    you'll find 'johnny on the spot'' Brunt -first with every micro managed government/msm op- planting a few seeds again..

  69. 14:47

    "I was troubled by the wording of the initial post(how a bogus abduction could be anticipated)." ??

    Anything can be anticipated if you know it's coming.

    "I'd like to know what the evidence is that you say IS already in the public domain that states that both parents and significant others were aware a bogus abduction was already in the works ahead of the event."

    Please don't misquote me. I did not refer to evidence as stating anything (Blacksmith would not be pleased. He is unhappy with the idea of evidence being suggestive never mind stating such and such).

    But to answer your question, there are several instances of the parents' behaviour on record which, to my 'hobbyist' mind, share a collective interpretation.

    To give but one example, Gerry McCann's 'phone records indicate a distinct and recurrent pattern of post traumatic behaviour which lasted for weeks - but commenced on the morning of Wednesday 2 May.

    "I'd also like to know what evidence caused the Portuguese to conclude such yet not act on it"

    Again, please do not misinterpret what I have said. Your 'such' relates to 'a bogus abduction was already in the works ahead of the event', whereas I associated the Portuguese conclusion with the idea of a bogus abduction only.

    If I'm not mistaken the catalogue of misdemeanours attributed to the McCanns by the Portuguese included 'occultation of a cadaver' (hiding a corpse in other words), something they'd have had difficulty doing had their daughter been abducted.

    Rest assured, this does not represent the extent of my 'take' on the abduction hoax, only as much as I care to say about it here, but I thank you for your civil inquiry nonetheless.

    1. @ anon 17:13

      "Anything can be anticipated if you know it's coming."

      Is that supposed to be profound or just bloody obvious?

    2. 21:56

      Is your question intended to be sensible or is it just bloody stupid?

    3. @ anon 22:16


  70. Gordon Bennett20 July 2017 at 12:33

    '' dont see why the "18th May" theory is any more absurd than the Sunday 29th" theory. ''

    Both are absurd, yes.BUT, the 29th has slightly more going for it.The 18th May theory only works in an episode of The Twighlight Zone.

    Sunday 29th :

    Nobody outside of the McCann party knew Madeleine. Nobody had been alerted( police, politicians,media).They were strangers to everyone but each other.Any photo sessions wouldn't draw attention.

    May 18th :

    Two weeks saturation coverage on all media platforms and posters all over the world of Madeleine made them the most seen and most famous family on the planet.

    Those minor points aside, the questions raised by the April theory need to be addressed( objectively).

    The April 29th theory suggests that Madeleine had gone by May.So, we have to believe that the Tapas group were all aware of it and all agreed to help cover it up.Basically, their friends readily agreed to risk their liberty, integrity, families and professions by becoming part of a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice and become co-conspirators in the concealment of a crime and a body.That sounds insane.It doesn't sound realistic at all.Unless of course the McCanns were aware of all of them having similar skeletons in their cupboards and had them all over a barrel.Again-silly.

    So, we have Madeleine conspicuous by her absence for three nights and three days.The McCann twins would have to adjust to her absence easily so they could still be left alone each night.Silly.
    Everyone from the group was able to put on convincing acts for three days as they jogged, swam, played tennis, dined, quizzed. Silly.Unrealistic.

    If we believe one of Amaral's early theories- accidental death- why wouldn't the McCanns call an ambulance or taxi it to a hospital ? We have to believe their reaction was 'shit-where will we dump her?''.Realistic ?remember, we're being objective here...

    The supporters of this theory could point to the parents being scared of being charged with neglect.But, they-and the gang- never hid the fact that their children were left alone.Gerry McCann says what they did met the requirements that would render charges of neglect void in a court of law, hence the lack of charges in that area.It doesn't matter what our opinion is about neglect if the law says otherwise.Yes, they made a mistake;it's wrong to leave children alone at night, especially in a place abroad you know little about.But the finer points of law are what matter if charges are going to be brought.

    That leaves the 'plan'.Are we to believe that Madeleine's disappearance, be it a murder, accidental death or procurement took place on the 29th and the gang decided it would be wise to say nothing, hide her until a dumping place was sorted out, or a 'buyer', and carry on as normal until 'showtime' on May 03 ? Does all of this look realistic, or does it( objectively) have the look of something being twisted and contorted in all directions in the hope it eventually fits a theory that has the parents as the perpetrators or party to the deed ?

    A question :

    If the 'pros' get their day in court and the shelved evidence was suddenly declared fit to submit as evidence, who do they charge with murder or manslaughter ? Who do they charge with the concealment of the body ? It doesn't matter how much you hate the McCanns and how irrational it often sounds, nobody will present a scenario that has a prone toddler being killed by both parents at the same time.It asks far too much of a jury and the public in terms of it being realistic.If one committed a crime or caused a fatal accident, it's realistic that the other would stand by their partner.So if both plead not guilty-what then ?

  71. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton20 July 2017 at 16:47

    '' I came up with, there is no way of knowing unless one of the main characters spills the beans. Not quite as profound, I know..''

    surely you meant :

    non est medium ad cognoscendum quoadusque atetur principalis moribus

    ( you're welcome)


    1. LOL Ziggy, but you will have to translate!

      I have been trying lately to make Latin phrases, though that could be French, ha ha, stick in my head. I always had a bit of thing for men who had been taught Latin by a Master wielding a cane, they could always come up with some smart arse Latin phrase, to defend their argument.

      Learning Latin is on my bucket list, not least because it is the basis of the language we use today and of course, my pretensions at being a linguist, but I fear I have missed the boat on that one - you really do need it pounded into you at an early age, lol. :)

    2. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton20 July 2017 at 18:13

      ''I always had a bit of thing for men who had been taught Latin by a Master wielding a cane''

      '' you really do need it pounded into you at an early age, lol. :)''

      Good grief, Ros, have we taken a diversion into 50 Shades country are are you a budding Jackie Collins. It was reading OK until a cane appeared- then i choked on my sarnie. :-)

      ''non est medium ad cognoscendum quoadusque atetur principalis moribus''

      translation :

      '' there is no way of knowing unless one of the main characters spills the beans. ''

      English to Latin or vice versa ( pun intended) is easy.All you need is the ability to use Google and find English to Latin translation(Collins) and have some fun. My Latin is limited.I haven't even been to Lat.

      here's your starter for ten :

      ''quae latine sonat smarter''

      I have a cane though ;-)

    3. LOL Ziggy, I am writing saucy(ish)comedy at the moment, and it may be crossing over! Please do not take it personally, I've reached an age where I find sex (in general) and sex as imagined by right wing preachers absolutely hilarious.

      Textusa is a puzzle, and I'm not a fan of her/their writing tbh, by the second or third paragraph, I haven't got a clue what they are talking about. I have no idea what black hats and white hats are, but suspect they might be psychedelic drugs.

      As for the cane. Whip yourself Ziggy for not doing the reading homework I gave you several months ago! :)


    “As concerns the photos of the child, he says that he only saw what he calls the originals, poster type 10 x 15 cm on photographic paper. He did not see any other type of photos. Upon being shown a sample, he recognises it as being identical.”

    “When asked he say he does not know the quantity of photos, but that there was more than one. He says that of these photos, at least five, he annexed one to the document he sent to the Tribunal and another four were handed to the officers carrying out searches, which were later returned and handed to the police, in due course.”


    “When questioned he says that the photos could not have been printed/revealed at the Ocean Club installations (they do not have this kind of paper). He adds that the photos produced the following day, which he observed, were printed on A4 paper, which was available at the resort.”

  73. Anonymous20 July 2017 at 17:13

    I didn't actually misquote you, I copied and pasted it Re parents awareness / anticipation of a planned abduction, your (b).
    I appreciate the response.

    ''To give but one example, Gerry McCann's 'phone records indicate a distinct and recurrent pattern of post traumatic behaviour which lasted for weeks - but commenced on the morning of Wednesday 2 May.''

    That's a bit of a bombshell.It also appears to discuss a very Grey area unless there's something else I've missed. What constitutes a 'distinct and recurrent pattern of post traumatic behaviour' lasting for weeks that can be indicated by phone records ?Would having your child abducted abroad not constitute a trauma ?I know the key to what your saying is the 2nd of May whereas it should have commenced late on the 3rd /early 4th. Would the clue in those records not be in which numbers were called and how often ? I know there's an army of theorists who talk about him wiping / clearing his history on his phone so he looks like the stereotypical baddie, but Gerry McCann has said himself in interviews that he offered them(PJ) his phone for examination. Even if he did that knowing his call record was wiped, he would have known that his service provider have the records anyway and the police would investigate via them.But, as you say yourself, it's one of ''several instances of the parents' behaviour on record which, to my 'hobbyist' mind, share a collective interpretation.'' I'm not going to offend you with the 'hobbyist' tag, but it's still a 'collective interpretation'.it's one of the more interesting ones and possibly one that both police forces should have scrutinised with a little more zeal.

    The bogus abduction theory should have been followed up by the PJ. Amaral was removed but he was replaced so there's no excuse for it if they genuinely thought they had a strong case.The Met should have reinforced the investigation and followed the leads that the PJ were chasing- even if only to dismiss them for good reason.This area is the area where the police role in a cover up shows it's face.The politicians had already begun within 24 hours.It suggests that it wasn't just an abduction that was 'bogus', but the whole charade from the top of the tree down.When policeman are gagged there's a reason for it and that reason won't be to merely protect Mr and Mrs British on holiday.If Mr and Mrs British are up to no good abroad they get only the normal support from our Consuls.They still pay the piper eventually. What's different here ?

    'Rest assured, this does not represent the extent of my 'take' on the abduction hoax, only as much as I care to say about it here, but I thank you for your civil inquiry nonetheless''

    You're welcome.I'm of a similar mindset.My take on the abduction is in my mind and has been for a while and, like yourself, recognise that it's probably best remaining there for now.

  74. I expect when SY finally finish their investigation and deliver their finding one of the key issues they present won't be when the last photo was taken, why it was taken and whether it was photoshopped or not. It adds nothing to the case. Whether it was taken on the 29th, 3rd or 18th it proves nothing about the case. It amazes me the amount of time has been spent on it over the years. John Blacksmith you rock

  75. Anonymous20 July 2017 at 20:51

    ''"Know The Truth ~ Why did Gerry's sister expect Kate to be charged with accidental death"

    How is asking a question knowing the truth ?

    Either way it doesn't really matter does it. It's part of the story now that KM was offered a deal along 'accidental death' lines.Brunt is paid to invent or rework truth anyway.He's dirt.

    Anonymous20 July 2017 at 21:56

    @ anon 17:13

    "Anything can be anticipated if you know it's coming."
    ''Is that supposed to be profound or just bloody obvious?''

    lol a bit of light relief always a welcome sight :-)

    Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton20 July 2017 at 21:34

    ''As for the cane. Whip yourself Ziggy for not doing the reading homework I gave you several months ago! :)''

    Easy tiger.Besides, it's not the same.I haven't got the legs for fishnets :/

  76. There's no love lost between Mr Swordist and I but I appreciate a sensible post and the way that he did not let the "anonymous" Dr Roberts get away with that garbage about post traumatic disorder and other Deep Thoughts.

  77. One thing I find utterly fascinating about John Blacksmith's angry rants is the way he defends, at every twist and turn, the sacred 'fact' that Madeleine was alive at 5.30pm on Thursday 3rd May. In one of his rants, he said that the 'fact' of Madeleine being alive at this time was one of the few certain facts of the case. Why does he adhere to this alleged 'fact' as though his very life depended on it? There were four witnesses to the alleged 'high tea' at 5.30pm that day: Kate, Gerry, Cat Baker and Charlotte Pennington (though CP only came forward months later). Their evidence is so contradictory about this so-called 'high tea' that no reasonable person would want to rely on any of their statements. Blacksmith rocks??? Blacksmith sucks, more like.

    1. Who do you believe 23:54, the lead detective who carried out the original investigation on the ground at the time the event occurred. Or, a professional busybody in Harlow desperate to get his ugly mug on the telly?

      You have obviously given this matter a great deal of thought 23:54, but have you given any thought to the seriousness of the allegations you are making against these young women?

      You sneeringly refer to the 'so called' high tea, then weasel your way around a straightforward accusation by saying 'no reasonable person' would believe them to make yourself look fair and balanced.

      Actually, most reasonable people would believe the nannies 23:54, this is a missing child case, like any of us their instinct would be to help. You are in no position to rule their evidence contradictory 23:54 - are you saying Goncalo Amaral and the PJ didn't know what they were doing?

      Regarding the 'sacred fact' that Madeleine was alive at 5.30pm on the 3rd - it is a FACT established by the investigating police. One of the first things police establish in a missing person case.

      The idea that Madeleine died earlier in the week and they all just carried on with their holiday, is not only sick, it's ludicrous, and probably worth a new blog.

      By the way, you are not Verdi are you? lol

  78. Ziggy Sawdust wrote: "Nobody outside of the McCann party knew Madeleine".

    How do we know? Cat Baker in 2006 (or before) was a Facebook friend of Chloe Corner, daughter of Jon Corner, Madeleine's godfather. It is therefore very possible that Cat Baker had already met Madeleine and her parents.

    1. @ 23:59

      Ah more in depth "research" of innocent people by the haters in the cesspit I presume?

      Actually - I don't presume - I know it for a fact. How many times have they exposed innocent witness private lives and children etc for their own sordid salivation?

    2. I've never heard anything so ridiculous 23:59 - the daughter of a friend of the McCanns may or may not have known one of the nannies at the resort on Facebook in 2006, ergo the nannies lied to the police. Wtf?

      Would you lie for someone just because you might have met them once? Not just a little lie, but a great big whopper that could see you go to prison for perverting the course of justice?

      The accusations made by HideHo, Bennett et al against these young girls are absolutely appalling. This is where the sleuthing crosses the line, what they are doing is not just libellous, it's very cruel. These are real people!

  79. Anonymous20 July 2017 at 23:59

    Point taken, but in the context of the post i made comparing the 29th April and 18th May it was to illustrate the contrast in likely circumstances of both dates. By the 18th of May they were as famous and identifiable as Posh and Becks or Elvis-plus, people were actually looking for Madeleine. Any idea of them appearing in public for photo shoots without being seen and causing a stir while the world and his dog were looking everywhere for a stolen toddler is stupid.On the 29th they were just a group pf holidaymakers.Those who knew them were a comprised a very small circle.

  80. @Ziggy 0.37 We've battled on this trivial point for over 2 days now and I can conclude one of only 2 things:

    1) You're very hard of thunking, or

    2) You are refusing to acknowledge the following point as this appears to be your only reason to deny 18 May (and that must be pooh-poohed at all costs):

    It wasn't a photo shoot, you silly man, it was a quick snap of a (now famous) father and daughter outside their apartment at the kiddie's pool on a hot day. Probably taken by a family member or friend who people were used to seeing as part of the group. As a casual onlooker, what's to pause and think about? Many similar pictures were taken at the time of the family and their friends out and about at the complex. In fact, seeing them being photographed was probably the commonest sight of all. IF anyone did witness it, it would have been the most trivial of sights and nothing would have been thought of it.

    And 18 May is only a theory, you know. I am of an open mind so please convince me otherwise using a different argument, do.

  81. According to some, we have young girls willing to go to prison for perverting the course of justice by telling lies over the high tea and other crèche matters in order to protect the Mccanns as one of the nannies had a friend who may have been a friend to one of the Mccanns friends?

    We are naming these young people (witnesses) over and over people who may have children of their own and certainly lives of their own

    Posts do not need to refer to these people by name they are not guilty of anything but the muck spreading continues year in year out
    We need collectively to stop feeding and encouraging these morons.
    The infestation, malice and outright lies is a creeping disease and will be challenged as shown on this blog in spades but is there a need to blight young peoples lives ?

    1. Hi JJ, and totally agree. I can imagine how I would feel if one of them were my daughter.

      I did hesitate about publishing the posts with their names JJ, and would ask people not to name them, but I do like to have the opportunity to rebut and knock down the malicious allegations. The witnesses obviously, cannot defend themselves, but we can do it for them.

      I've actually just done a new blog stamping on another cruel myth, the insistence that Madeleine died before the 3rd May!

  82. I am on the fence about whether the Last Photo was taken on Sunday 29th or Thursday 3rd. The reason Ziggy S gives concisely above is one of many good reasons for rejecting the 18th May theory. OK, let's suppose for the sake of a good argument that TLP was taken, just as the McCanns say, at 2.29pm on Thursday 3rd May. We know we have three playground photos of Maddie happily playing in the Ocean Club play area on the late afternoon of Saturday 28th. We also know the McCanns took countless photos of their children. Can any of those why deny that TLP was taken on Sunday 29th, but was really taken during a momentary burst of bright sunlight at lunchtime on an otherwise cloudy day (until about 5pm Thursday) give me just one credible explanation for why we do not see one single photograph of Maddie for any other day in the week...Sunday, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday...?

    1. I don't know either 09:49, but I'm not going to wear my brain out thinking about it, lol.

      Regarding the lack of photographs, the Tapas group to me always come across as 'too cool for school'. That is, holidays are so commonplace, they can't be arsed to get the cameras out.

      But then having said that, I too have been on many holidays and forgotten to get the camera out until the last (and first) day. Not because I was too cool, probably too drunk, lol. I expect many of us return from our hols wishing we had taken more photographs 09:49. The McCanns especially, who must find this particularly painful. However the lack of photographs shows there was no pre-planning, no malice aforethought. They had no idea what fate had in store, if they had, there would have been an abundance of photos.

    2. I don't attach importance to any of the photographs in this case . We can stare at them all we want and start seeing what we want to see or see what is not there .

      However since many present this photo as being taken on Sunday as a fact , can I ask you to substantiate that there were 10 hours of total cloud over the skies of Praia da Luz .

      Please don't take me wrong . I think people can have their theories provided they don't name those they think are involved . What I can't agree with is people presenting theories as facts that cannot be disputed.