Sunday, 14 October 2018


There’s clearly a lot more to little Madeleine McCann’s disappearance than the simplistic narrative put forward by her parents and their friends on the night she vanished. A narrative accepted without question by the entire British establishment and senior police officers who should have known better. Madeleine was stolen in the night by a bogeyman - yeh, the mythical monster we use to make naughty children stay in their beds and go to sleep. Guess what kids, he’s real.
Child snatchers are mostly grotesque characters from children’s story books, comical caricatures of the dangers that surround us, if we don’t eat our greens or go to sleep when the light’s out. We take comfort in the fact they are not real, our parents will protect us, or we can always hide under the duvet.
Gerry and Kate made this mythical creature very real. So too did their entire bandwagon. Not much tops a child stealing predator for front page news.  Whilst New Labour were calling out for us to carry ID cards and line up to submit our DNA for a National Database and Jim Gamble wanted to police the lawless internet.  What better way to promote all these causes than the cherubic face of a missing child?
But, let’s put all the intrigue aside for just one moment, because I want to reply to a very interesting question posed by one by one of my regular contributors, JC (probably not Mr.Corbyn :( or the other ‘JC’)). How about we just forget it? Not JC’s exact words, but you get the drift.
To those of use who can merely observe, it would seem both Operation Grange and indeed the PJ, are caught in ‘check’, that is not quite check mate, because there appears to be a tenacious few, who, like Goncalo Amaral, will never give up.  A police investigation isn’t about protecting people from their crimes, it is about getting results, and by results, I mean convictions. The police build the case for the prosecution, not the defence.
As most of my readers know, retribution is the part where I wuss out.  Punishment is something I just cannot get my head around.  I find the word medieval and it's connotations barbaric.  I was never able to smack my children, the idea of it was abhorrent to me.  And before any smartass jumps in, they have grown up to be kind, decent, gentlemen with impeccable manners.  No smacks were ever needed.
But back to punishment.  This is where myself and other gentle folks back away.  We are not emotionally involved, Madeleine wasn't ripped from our lives.  I can only speak for myself here, but the face of Ian Huntley incensed me!  And if I am honest, it incenses me still.  If I were in his presence, I fear I would physically attack him.  When I see shattered mothers speaking on behalf of their children, I feel their pain, and I feel their anger and I fully understand their need for retribution.
I don't feel any of that in the case of Gerry and Kate.  They are the ones who had their beloved child ripped from them.  I don't think there was any malice intended that night, in fact I feel much the same as Goncalo Amaral, that is, there was a tragic accident.  On those grounds alone, we could all say, how about we just forget it, these people have suffered enough.
But it doesn't end there.  Because if Madeleine died on 3rd May, everything that happened thereafter was a crime.  Some might say there were multiple crimes carried out by multiple characters, some who were reporting directly back to the British Government!  If the McCanns were to be prosecuted, they could and probably would, name names.  Any trial of the McCanns and/or their friends, would reduce to farce if they claim they did not act alone.  Who's idea was it to start a Fund? Hmm Who's idea was for the parents to take Amber Alert to the European Parliament? Again hmm.  The police had the mobile phones and all the numbers the McCanns and their friends phoned that night.  Perhaps even 'who arranged the burner phones?'.
When you start to look at the number of witnesses etc, you can begin to see the scale of potential crimes committed in this poor child's name.  Gerry and Kate may indeed have been the unfortunate victims of fate on that night, but everything they did after that was premeditated.  Now that's cold.
Along with an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, society also dictates that no-one should profit from crime.  I don't know what the exact laws are, but some might say, the McCann family, all those lawyers, spin doctors , and psychologists who flew out to PDL.  Maybe too all those police agencies despatched from the UK to assist the Portuguese police. 
The biggest charge of course is perverting the course of justice.  Is it possible the UK will despatch to Portugal all those lied to the PJ? How  many would that be?  You can see  why the Tapas 6(?) requested a private  plane.  The number liable to those very serious charges could run to dozens.  All those of watching the shenanigans going on in PDL, could see how disruptive the McCanns media campaign was to the Portuguese police.
It was a circus of Team McCann's making. 
Should they get away with all that?  And indeed, everything they have done since Madeleine disappeared? Starting with their very cruel campaign against Goncalo Amaral, the detective who searched for their daughter.  It could be said that they have suffered karma in bucket loads, they still don't have that 'innocent' statement from anyone who matters.  Simply by trying to keep up the pretence and the unrealistic image they created for themselves, they are already in purgatory. 
I think the decision not to just let this case drop, was made a long time ago.  Probably an agreement was made between David Cameron and his Portuguese counterpart and it would not have been to cover up for the two doctors.  No former Prime Minister wants 'authorised a cover up' on their  historic record.  From a diplomatic perspective, the Portuguese were much maligned for their investigation into Madeleine's disappearance with Goncalo Amaral labelled as a 'disgraced detective' and the PJ labelled as incompetent and corrupt.  The parents of Madeleine were successful beyond their wildest dreams, in getting the entire British establishment blaming the Portuguese police for Madeleine's loss.  There was much for DC to put right.
They may not have been aware of the number of players when they first began, but their continual requests for more funding suggests they don't intend to leave anyone out.  But again, back to that crazy scenario of the McCanns, their extended family and all those ambulance chasers who were on the first flight, being taken back to PDL to face charges and possible imprisonment.  Like almost everything in this case, if you scratch the surface there is always another layer beneath.  The reality of all those who should be charged flying out to face a Portuguese criminal court has to be miniscule.  Will Portugal ask for their extradition?
For older members of the McCann and Healy clans it seems ridiculous, but how about the Tapas friends, their siblings and Clarence Mitchell?  Will they all fly out to PDL willingly?  What about those experts? Superintendent Hill, Jim Gamble, the psychologists, the family liaison officers?  All are witnesses to the beginning of the Fund and the spectacular media campaign, not to mention the highly irregular separate [from the police] 'search' by the McCann family.
Quite a few people face quite a few  charges I would say, which is why I'm not screaming at OG.  On the other hand, all those who forcibly pushed the abduction story, will never be able to relax until OG is filed away stamped 'abduction'.  For them, their weakness and greed, is always just a breath away from public exposure.  Those crime experts who have staked their careers on the parents being found innocent. 
Sadly, it  is only strangers who fight for justice for Madeleine.  Kate has forgiven her daughter's abductor.  Again, not normal.   I am sure that madness that possesses me when I see the face of Ian Huntley, possesses the mothers and fathers of murdered  children every time they think of their loss.  I can't help but be cynical about Kate's bizarre 'I forgive the abductor' press release.  I don't see pious and self sacrificing, I see,  'I've got nothing to say about the abductor' (because there isn't one).  It also carries the connotations, 'ffs don't ask me to speak directly to the camera'. 
It's difficult however, not to compare this case to that of missing Shannon Matthews.  Shannon was of course found alive, and her disappearance basically mimicked Madeleine's but the donations were much, much, lower.  Shannon of course survived, but there would have been an outcry if the powers that be had said, how about we just forget it.
Karen Matthews faced justice in a criminal court, in front of a jury of her peers and she was sentenced to prison. 
For Karen Matthews there was no stampede of lawyers, CEOP and government appointed press officers rushing to Karen's side.  Karen was a graphic illustration of broken Britain and the broken benefits system.  The family and friends of Karen were as proactive as Team McCann, but without the online shop and good quality wristbands.  The friends of Karen however, believed her implicitly, until they didn't.  When the truth dawned on them, they were genuinely shocked, none of them said, let's keep this going, it's a good earner, they went to the police. 
What happened  on the night of Madeleine's disappearance triggered a complex web of lies that spawned, who knows how many, crimes, who knows how many suspects?  Which begs the question, how did OG and the PJ split the case up?  I am guessing the PJ will cover Madeleine's disappearance and those directly involved.  The original crime.  OG I presume will handle the British end.  Those crimes that might relate to fraud etc.  Is it mere coincidence for example, that the McCanns hired not one, but two firms of private investigators who were criminally corrupt?
I actually feel so closely involved in this case now, that I am finding it quite frightening to think of the reality of a prosecution or several prosecutions taking place.  I don't even like Kate, but can see that she is very fragile and emotionally over  wrought. I don't think she could handle any form of questioning, especially not in the witness box as a defendant. As for being sent to a Portuguese prison?  Kate's fragility, the real and the fake, has I am sure endeared her to many.  It is hard, if not impossible, to see the cunning and the conniving underneath.
Gerry however, gets what he deserves.  He has a real struggle to hide the 'smug'.  He has Trump's 'still winning' air as he taunts the police with noooooo evidence.  One image of Gerry that chills me to the core, is the press conference the parents gave with an aged progressed image of their daughter behind them.  For some reason Gerry got the giggles, and was struggling to contain them.  To see a picture of your child as she would look if she were alive can't be anything but traumatizing for a parent.  I broke down whilst watching the same on an episode of Quincey!  But to laugh, may God forgive him.  On my last blog I received a post from some  students who had spotted Gerry lying 37 times, just on the parts of the case they studied.  He's a bad liar.  He has no control over his micro expressions (duping delight) or his body language.  On occasion he looks as though he is  suffering a flea infestation. 
My own personal favourite is the parents interview with Sandra Felgueiras, where Gerry shows all the finesse of a trembling adolescent in the presence of the attractive gym mistress.  I'm not knocking him, I too became a blabbering heap when I met the Cadbury's Milk Tray man.  He was even more handsome in the flesh than he was dressed in black and sneaking into ladies' bedrooms.  I offered him tea, coffee, anything - quite literally anything.  But back to Gerry's performance in that interview.  In his defence he was equally smitten with Jeremy Paxman.
But this was confident Gerry, talking to a woman (easy peasy), he had the air of man that said, we just had a drink out back together, they were on first name terms.  Gerry went straight into flirt mode, despite the fact that Kate's claws were digging into his thigh or the palm of his hand.  I think he was sending her telepathic messages, 'don't worry, I've got this'.  Kate is weirdly possessive of Gerry, but that's too big  a subject for here and now. 
Because this case has gone on so long, most people don't really care one way or another what happens to those who made the child disappear.  Happily there are no angry mobs, or seekers of vengeance.  Even Goncalo Amaral who has suffered more than most at the hands of Gerry and Kate, seems content to let fate run it's course.  He has back, that which was taken from him, his freedom of speech.



    Maybe you should check your calendar.

  2. I wholeheartedly agree. This has become a monumental bore; these people have been lionised for an act of child neglect for which any working-class couple would have been prosecuted. The British taxpayer funds an investigation while the McCanns sit on their fund. Let it go now; nothing is ever going to be achieved.

    1. You have said so little and yet so much highmyope. Therein lies the backlash against the McCanns. We all know how these doctors would have been treated if they came from the same background as Karen Matthews. They most certainly would not have been lionised (good word!)for their responsible parenting.

      It became a class issue because it was a class issue. We all know full well how less educated and less erudite parents would have been treated. The Portuguese, and kudos to them, weren't falling for it, but the British government were so astonished an English couple abroad could string a sentence together, they fell at their feet. The British elite, so blinded by snobbery, made great big blathering buffoons of themselves for a couple of con artists who weren't able to fool anyone else.

    2. It wasn't class was we understand it, rather the McCanns were NHS doctors, the untouchable class of new labour. Gordon Brown the aspirant labour party prime minister was contacted by his brother's best mate Gerry McCann;'Sherry Blur', wife of Tony Blair (PM) personally rang scouser Kate Healey McCann. Brown didn't want a scandal involving doctors employed by his beloved National Health Service on his watch, during an electoral campaign.

    3. anon 08;09
      Is that enough to keep it covered up now?
      Oh wait,Blacksmith says there was no cover up and all will be revealed in a year or so.

    4. This whole operation has been driven by snobbery and xenophobia. The compilation of the "dossier" that brought about the death of Brenda Leyland (who had broken no law) must have involved breaking data protection laws. I always thought that Grange would end "not with a bang, but a whimper". I wonder if there will be the usual articles about the "suspects" who have been smeared in the yellow press over the years. Will Dave Edgar take over and harass Portuguese citizens who have "links" with the Ocean Club and "might" have been in Praia da Luz on May 3 2007?

  3. Whether you want to forget all about it or not is irrelevant in my view.
    Blacksmith says we all should take our seats for the performance and it's going to be a belter.
    I take the opposite view, the show's over.
    Grange has secretly ended and the case will remain forever unsolved so forget about it we will have to,like it or lump it.

    1. One way or another, Grange is over. The Grange pages have gone from the Met website. No longer appealing for info, Smithman no longer being sought, no new age progression. Now why would that be? Case solved awaiting charges? Unlikely IMO. More likely solved but not enough proof to charge. Maybe someone could do a Bennett-style FOI to ask why all references to Grange have been removed by the Met Police? :) They are clearly not seeking any more help from the public. Anyone wanting their phone number to report a possible lead would struggle to find it online, apart from on old Find Madeleine posts.

    2. As a follow on to my post and views (19:06), if a convenient patsy should die sometime in the future that will stand up to scrutiny with the help of a media campaign to convince us,then Grange will re-open again.(conveniently).
      It's less of a burden on the taxpayer that way!

    3. Hello. We may take opposite views but not about whether Grange is over.

      I quote, if I may, from a short post I made on NT's blog six days ago in which I observed largely the same Grange activities/non activities that you have mentioned above. It finished:

      "Conspiracy Nutter: "You mean Grange has been secretly killed off??!!"
      No, Mr.CN. I mean that one way or another Grange has completed its operational work, did so, as far as I can judge, around the turn of the year. It's post-operation time now."

      So we're more or less in agreement. Where we differ, naturally, is why.

      Whether any prosecution of anyone will follow is another matter, and one about which I am ignorant. My own subjective belief, of which I've made no secret, is that Grange has made progress in directions that they will not discuss further, such as the Tanner evidence.

      All I would claim in defence of my own exchanges about the case is this: that in the next act - which may run for a year, not three hours - people will see for themselves whether the broadly optimistic view I've taken of the two new investigations is confirmed or refuted by events. It is falsifiable or confirmable.

      Whichever occurs it will add something, however little, to people’s knowledge of the affair: refutation (i.e. “vindication” of the McCanns reputation, started by the police themselves and followed by politicians MSM etc. for instance) will warn people that I’m not really a reliable guide to the affair and any future views of mine should be treated with caution or derision. So they gain.
      That is something I’m perfectly happy with.

      Now compare this with the arguments on the other side – about the existence of patsies, tenth tapases, corrupt police obeying political instructions to kill the investigation etc.

      By definition, since all these are secret conspiracies over which poor little us have no control, then the next year, say, isn’t going to refute anything or benefit anybody because they won’t be discovered, smart devils. Indeed, failure of these mysterious plots to come into the daylight will be taken as proof of how cleverly they’ve been carried out.

      At least I give people the chance to see for themselves if I’m a fraud, a liar or misguided by the way the affair now develops – I don’t have an out card. Do you think that applies to the Usual Suspects?

      And if their theories are all irrefutable and they can always talk their way out of the failure of their claims to manifest, who exactly is gaining by their contributions? Apart, that is, from the McCanns?

    4. I'm glad at least that I did not receive a load of hang e'm and flog e'm posts from an angry mob. Which proves once again, that the McCanns' greatest fear doesn't exist. Though fair dues to them, their daughter's disappearance did attract more than it's fair share of rabble rousers. Take a bow Bennett.

      If there were to be a consensus, the overall result would be apathy, no-one cares, it's gone on too long, enough already.

      Punishing someone for a crime so long after the event, seems like justice overstepping the mark. Look at the Kavanagh hearings, his 'crime' was 36 years ago. He has more than made up for his early misdemeanours through a life of, ok I'm just going to say it, sainthood. Once a low life shit, always a lowlife shit, doesn't apply. The time for his being held accountable for his crimes is gone.

      There is something unsettling about confronting people with crimes committed decades ago. The motives of those pursuing them become questionable, unless of course they are tracking down the monsters of Hitler's Third Reich.

      No-one is questioning the longevity of OG as a personal vendetta, but those on the receiving end of the investigation, will undoubtedly see it that way. As long as the investigation is alive, they are wriggling on the hook. Those responsible for Madeleine's disappearance must feeling very uncomfortable indeed. Why aren't OG asking for more funds? Why haven't they made any further announcements? If I had a hand in Madeleine's disappearance in any way, I would be climbing the walls.

      Quite deservedly some would say, if the above sense of impending doom were applied to a gang of child traffickers. Transposed to the child's parents and their extended family, it seems kind of cruel. On the heads of their professional helpers however, we can only smirk and put up the middle finger.

      Whilst followers of the whole Madeleine saga, both pro and anti, have become desensitized to the point of lethargy, for those directly involved, their fears have been ratched up several notches.

      Best case scenario. There is no conclusion, and OG will quietly put all their findings, 6 or is it 7+ years of investigation, up onto a shelf alongside Indian Jones' Arc of the Covenant, in a giant warehouse? Never to be seen by the human eye?

      I'm going to take a stab at saying, I think that's unlikely. For one thing, if a government department gives you £12m+ of taxpayers money, they will want to know what it was spent on. As will taxpayers if they are pushed. That's the thing about democracy, public servants are held accountable for every penny they spend.

      Now, I am not saying the files of Operation Grange will be disclosed online PJ style, but their work and their findings will be scrutinized. I don't know right now who by, but I do know our politicians cannot use the police and the secret services as their own personal army. Though I suspect, at the end of his reign, the going barmy Blair, may have made attempts at establishing just that. Think Squealer training the Dobermans. That of course was all part of an Orwellian nightmare, but it's a warning from history we can never ignore.

      Are Operation Grange such a brain washed army? Lol, I very much doubt it. Each officer involved in this investigation knows how high the stakes are. They have witnessed the demolition job done on the lead detective from the original investigation.

      This is far from over, and I agree with Blacksmith, the lights have gone down, the curtains are waiting to draw.

    5. @ JB
      Thankyou for the reply.I assume you meant me even though a couple of others said roughly the same.
      I'm quite happy to wait a year to see what happens.We have waited 11 so what's another one.
      I hope you are right and I'm wrong as I do hate cover ups and people getting away with things,but do we all shut up now and forget about it until we hear something further of an official nature? It cant effect any possible trial now what with the talk that has already gone on over the years surely.That is probably already way more than enough to prejudice one anyway.
      As for your 'Usual Suspects', not me,I'm an independent with my own views.Not as optimistic as you it would seem.Pessimistic perhaps? I prefer realistic myself.

    6. Hi Anon @21:35 I agree with your stance and also consider myself a realist, rather than a pessimist or a "Usual Suspect". I'm not sure whether it could be argued that the huge wave of condemnation of the McCanns on SM would prejudice a trial, although I think someone claiming that Mark Draycott, one of the 4 remaining officers on Grange, has discussed M time of death with them might cross that line.
      This guy has been removing his web footprint since this claim surfaced, including his LinkedIn profile, so it obviously rattled him.

    7. Tenth tapas?
      Not the one who left the resort early and had some very important connections?

    8. 09:55
      Doesn't that person have a history of making dubious claims?
      Although even if untrue, I suppose it would worry the detective.
      And you are probably right it would be bound to be brought up by a defence lawyer whether it was true or not.

    9. Hello @21.35. No, I certainly did not mean you when I talked about the Usual Suspects. I have listed most of them on the Bureau and elsewhere; they are the bloggers and forum leaders who at every opportunity claim that Grange is a fraud or worse and actively encourage others to believe the same.

      My objection to them is that they have fallen for a McCann con hook, line and sinker and by doing so have assisted Kate & Gerry McCann in the latter's attempts - which I have described - to obstruct or intrigue against the investigation into the disappearance of their child.

      Leaving aside the points I made above about unfalsifiability - if K&G were in the Old Bailey dock then all of them could, and would, say the trial is a "fraud" and they will be smuggled out of the country by Scotland Yard at its end etc. etc. - this is not about mere differences of opinion.

      I repeat my objections to the whole gang - not their followers - are that they are actively helping the McCanns, whether through ignorance, over-ambition or, in Bennett's case, through corruption.

      The latter is why I told the Amaral group that under no circumstances would I work with them unless Bennett was excluded completely from their ambit and activities. My reasons were that he was a direct and potent threat to the future of Goncalo Amaral. And they agreed to my conditions.

      We're not talking about mere opinions here: we're talking about realities and actions over the last eight years. Before he was squeezed out, Bennett had managed, one way or the other, to provide serious evidence against Goncalo of great value to the McCanns in their legal attacks on the detective, as you will see if you look at the evidence of Michael Wright in Lisbon.

      Since Amaral won it is no longer important to me to counter, actively, the way in which people tried to trap him - the McCanns lost and there's an end to it. But that doesn't mean I'm going to shut up about the reality of what they've done and continue to do.

      Objecting to Grange is acting on behalf of the parents, end of story. How could it be anything else?

    10. @ 9:55
      It was just a coincidence of course that Ziggy tried to fool us with a wind up about someone being in contact with Grange a day or so before this person came up with their claim. I wonder if they read here too aswell as being on that madhouse twitter mccann hashtag.

    11. Hi @14.20 and 11:52
      I didn't know about Ziggy's wind up, but I don't think it's unlikely that I.McFadden called Grange. She says her friend @Tealtraum had previously spoken with Mark D, so she could have got the contact details from him. What I do think is unlikely is that Mark D discussed MM death theories with her. I am sure the Grange detectives are completely professional & would never express an opinion on the case to an outsider. I think that blatantly false claim was inserted purely to get one over on Bennett who is pushing the earlier death scenario. However the fact the claim has been made in the open & seen by many people could be damaging to a prosecution case. I just wish these people could cease their pathetic ego games.

    12. And now for some facts to back up what I wrote above.

      From beginning to end the McCanns claimed in the libel trial that the publication of Amaral’s book had a) adversely affected the “search” for the child by suggesting that their hands were not clean and b) had endangered them by making them vulnerable to freaks and nutters who believed in their guilt.

      These were very important claims and took up a huge proportion of the McCanns’ case. Their emotional component made it difficult to counter them. Both Mr Bennett and I provided evidence to the court. Mine, as I’ve written before, was to provide statistical evidence for the defence team that it was untrue and impossible for the publication of the book to have triggered any notable activity at all in the UK because only three of the MSM papers mentioned its existence at the time, without details.

      Mr Bennett’s contribution to the trial was, although indirect, of considerably more importance than my minnow. All the claims of endangerment lacked any actual evidence to support them – except one.

      Michael Wright testified: “The 3Arguidos and Madeleine Foundation. He says Tony Bennett invited Gonçalo Amaral to do conferences in the UK. These forums were full of speculation focused on GA's conclusions. People said those conclusions must be true because GA had been in charge of the initial investigation…activity was increased and heavy in March/April 2009.”

      The 3 Arguidos stuff was discounted as irrelevant as well as impossible to confirm as genuine. Not so the Madeleine Foundation evidence: emails existed proving that Bennett had offered all-expenses paid invitations and desperate appeals for Goncalo to attend his wretched and dirty little organization's conference.

      The long and the short of it is that the only evidence ever produced to support the McCanns’ inflammatory claim came courtesy of Bennett. What a coincidence!

      And in 2009 Bennett had started working with a notorious long term pro-McCann blogger, poster and “researcher” calling himself, among other names, Chaos Raptors. The “research” involved keeping files on critics of the McCanns. Nice one Bennett.

    13. I am baffled by the idea you put forward in your comment that crimes that have been committed many years ago should be forgotten. Don't the victims and the families of the victims deserve justice? Why should someone who has committed a serious crime be allowed to live his life while the victims still suffer? Also, what if an innocent person had been convicted, would this mean that we should leave the real culprit alone, as so many years have passed and it would not be nice to bother him now?

      The Golden State Killer was found and arrested in 2017 after killing at least 13 people and raping 50 and committing over 100 burglaries over a period from 1974 to 1986. Should the California police just have forgotten the case? No, they did not forget and with advances in crime detection they were able to find him.

    14. @ Mr Blacksmith
      Are you suggesting that Bennett works for the McCann's and is a sort of double agent?
      I have heard this claim before but not been sure what to make of it.
      Perhaps something to do with the court costs he was apparently let off or had reduced?

    15. Hello. I won't say any more on the Bennett problem for the moment. The concerns about his motives can be found elsewhere on the net.

      Given the pain and distress he has caused a number of innocent people in his own interests, as a noisy Christian he has much less to fear from internet criticism, however severe, than from the reception that will greet him when facing his God.

    16. Amen to that John. I agree with your thoughts on Bennett entirely. He is nothing more than an attention seeking busy body driven by ott religious fervour.

      Bennett is too much of a buffoon to be working for anyone, and he is completely without honour. His word means nothing, as he has demonstrated time and time again.

      The chaos he has brought to this case is entirely of his own making. He has imagined freaky scenarios and made them real in his own head and the very tiny brains of the handful that follow him. Is there an agenda behind his meddling and interference? I don't think so, he is not intelligent enough to have an agenda let alone follow one. I think he seeks martyrdom, except when it comes to the crunch he backs down.

      Sadly, for many years, his was the charmless and odious face of those who didn't believe the McCanns' abduction story. Cometh the hour, cometh the man, he provided the parents with all the evidence they needed to demonstrate they were being persecuted [because of GA's book].

      But as you say John, karma will be heading Bennett's way, in the Christian sense he will probably fry.

  4. Hi Rosalinda,
    After reading your recent article,("How about we just forget it"). I have to admit, you are right, and the police forces and Portuguese Judiciary should never give up on this case.

    It's just the mechanics of prosecution that bothered me when police of two countries are very unusually up against the establishment, not just the original perpetrators of the crime.

    As one of your posters noted; in Portugal crimes like this can be tried by a judge alone which would be a great thing in avoiding a media circus.

    There are many criminals involved in this drama from the parents at the top of the pyramid to the base consisting of government officials and spin doctors of team McCann.
    But like you said, - never give up.
    Have a nice day.

    1. The mechanics of a prosecution are mind boggling JC. Is this the point when the extradition lawyers come into play? How many Brits will voluntarily return to Portugal for a trial? Either as witnesses or defendants? I think we all agreed, there are more than two persons involved.

      If the investigation has been complex, the trial or trials must present a nightmare for the prosecutors. But we must assume the British are working hand in hand with the Portuguese, because the investigations are so closely entwined. Didn't representatives from the British Crown Prosecution Service fly out to Lisbon to meet their counterparts?

      That's the vexing thing about following this case JC, just when you think there is an end in sight, you see the multiple problems the police and the prosecutors face.

  5. I mostly agree but I urge everyone to look more closely at the Soham case. I think the Madeleine McCann case and the Soham case have more in common than meets the eye, if only because I think both are surrounded by a political fog so thick you could practically cut it with a knife. I don't think Ian Huntley is guilty and I think the conviction is a travesty of justice. Gerry McCann, on the other hand, walks free. Some might also consider this to be a travesty of justice.

    1. I have to strongly disagree about Huntley , or Nixon as he was know before his first sexual offence
      Those that don't remember his defence , he claimed that one of the girls had asked for water fallen in the bath , drowned the other girl had seen this and in a blind panic killed her accidentally . believe it or not the court even brought in his bath , to see if it was possible it wasn’t

      We must also remember how he tried to cover up his crime replacing his perfectly good tyres , being over helpful at press confrednces after all he was the “last friendly face they saw”

      We all know where we were the day they announced the kids had been found , It was a very sad day at football grounds when the announcement was made over the tannoys

      Its one of those cases I covered that really got to me.

      , Hunley once attempted suicide he was admitted to the Pinderfield Hospital Wakefield I was going to be watching the hospital all night

      I didn’t even have time to close my boot and a prison van drove in at high speed and that Cunt was wheeled out I ran forward but the police shouted to get back , anyone from Wakefield reading this will know there is a carpark at the fromt of the Hospital the police were stood on a grass banking buttons drawn , the police were more concerned about us getting pictures and were quite threatening I said he is a murdering bastard. Or words to that affect , they just shouted to get back

      I did get a few frames then the van drove off at high speed I always though silly thoughts really of dressing as a doctor and landing a punch on him or worse , but being so close to that monster seeing him face to face , never forget it

      Innocent my arse

    2. Nobody thinks the Soham case was a travesty of justice 11:27 I don't remember any criticism of the police, why should there have been? If anything it was the opposite, we could see the scale of the police investigation and the dedication of the officers involved. Just as we could see that in Portugal, despite the disingenuous claims of Team McCann.

      I believe you are here to stir the pot 11:27, who knows why.

  6. 11:27 (ziggy?)
    While I think there were goings on at the USAF base that were covered up,I think they were a coincidence and Huntley is guilty.
    Do you remember the A6 murder by James Hanratty?
    That was supposed to have been a miscarriage of justice, but much later advancements in forensics proved he had done it.
    For me Huntley is not a patsy.
    I do strongly believe however that Grange have been looking for one and even though I think the case is now shelved,if a suitable patsy turns up dead in the future it will be seized upon to free the McCanns of any lingering suspicion.
    Then they can relax and enjoy the wealth the affair has brought them,which I suspect is their allowed compensation from the establishment for what happened and for keeping their mouths shut.

    Now that last bit is going to get peoples backs up here I'm sure.Some controversy to stimulate debate.

    1. Lol, I'm afraid the idea of a 'patsy' is not viable enough to get anyone's backs up 17:42, but fair dues on introducing some controversy, that I always appreciate.

      I think 11+ years on we can accept that laying the blame for Madeleine's disappearance on a 'patsy' was never going to work. The release of the Portuguese police files has provided too much detail of the crime for a new piece of evidence to be introduced at this late stage. And besides which, you are omitting the human factor. Any one of the dozens involved could spill the beans at any time. Only the truth will fit the evidence available.

  7. Home Office in the media

  8. When Blacksmith turns you you know this is a blog of last resort. Any place to have a voice of nothing.

    Maybe you should look at his last post on this blog Ros.

    1. Hi Unknown 15 October 2018 at 21:22

      I really wish you'd have a voice of "something" here, but I haven't seen it yet.

    2. Actually Unknown, 'The Last Resort' was a very popular chat show in the 80's hosted by Jonathan Ross. It's popularity lay in it's being subversive and broadcasting the kind of entertainments the snobby news channels wouldn't touch.

      My blog grew out of all those banned and censored in other forums and I say that with pride. Yes. Here, the undesirables (myself included lol)have a voice, so - your welcome :)

      I'm therefore not insulted Unknown, but flattered, should I decide on a name change for my blog, 'Last Resort' would be among titles I would consider :)

  9. 11:27 is definitely Ziggy
    If you want to get under the wire as a blog mole, first you praise and agree with the content and then you say in the same breath something like, convicted self-confessed Soham killer Huntley is innocent.

    It adds a bit of ad absurdum thrill to mock the serious stuff.

    The intention of the writer is to throw the blog conversation for a loop while he chuckles hunch-backed over the keyboard in his mother's basement, clutching a bottle of pills in his left hand.

  10. Anon 15 Oct 17.42

    I was under the impression like a lot of other people that the PJ had jurisdiction over this case seeing as it happened in Portugal. Grange may well be investigating the Fund seeing as that was established in the UK but Madeleine went missing in Portugal so what does that have to with Grange. They were only looking over what the PJ had done to see if anything had been missed it then turned into a full investigation apparently. If Grange want to find a patsy how will that go down with the PJ?

    As for the McCanns' wealth, I doubt they'll have a penny left after they've paid all their court costs and settle with Amaral, unless they've squirreled £millions away in off shore accounts nobody knows about, not even OG.

    Re: Huntley, this is a Guardian article about his taped confession:

  11. If Operation Grange is legit as some people say here,then how come the remit was to look at abduction only?
    And also why were the tapas 9 not re interviewed?
    Any cold case review goes back over everything surely,starting at the beginning again.

    On the other hand if it's not legit.....

    1. Anon 14.44
      Maybe we will soon find out.
      I just read Bennett has phoned Grange and left a message on their answer phone and he has also submitted a FOI request too for info on Grange.

    2. Operation Grange is still ongoing, I got a personal email response from them (not the auto response) on the 10th. #McCann

  12. Sometimes it's good to go back and recall some of the more bizarre statements made in this case. For instance, in 2007 John McCann said they'd already had a year to grieve. That can only mean what it says on the tin. The whole thing was one giant hoax.

    1. Ah this is very interesting. Can you give any source for this?

  13. 14 May 2011

    'It was suggested by Lord Harris of Haringey, a Labour peer, that the Prime Minister had “driven a coach and horses” through operational independence and had forced the Metropolitan Police to work outside its jurisdiction.'


    '“It again embroils their officers in a high-profile investigation, where the chances of success are unclear, and which will divert limited investigative resources away from other matters.” Lord Bradshaw, a Liberal Democrat peer and vice chairman of Thames Valley Police added: “I am mightily worried about the politicisation of the police force. What appears on the face of it to be fairly innocuous orders... it’s a fairly short step from there to telling the police they have got to investigate this rather than that.”

    “This did take place in Portugal where the Met’s writ doesn’t run. I doubt if they have got many Portuguese speaking officers. I don’t believe that our police can investigate the Portuguese police force.”'


    'Kate and Gerry McCann yesterday dismissed the criticism of the review. Speaking in Dublin, Mr McCann said: “I’m sure it will go a long way to [addressing] one of our key disgruntlements, which was that British police had lots and lots of information and it was just sitting there and no one was looking at it.

    “The Met has excellent expertise in reviewing major crimes, so we are very pleased and we would like to thank David Cameron for his intervention,” he added.'

    British police had lots and lots of information and it was just sitting there and no one was looking at it?

    1. Even if I forgave Gerry everything else I could not forgive him his appalling use of the English language. Disgruntlements! Wtf? It's right up with metrics and deliverables. I have a particular dislike for pompous idiots who use big words believing it makes them sound educated and well informed. It doesn't.

  14. L'enlèvement de la petite Maddie - Documentaire

    Crimes & Co

    1. Hi Rosalinda. If I can make just one more foreigner (outside the UK) take more interest in the Madeleine case, would you object to that?

      Alors, le Sujet, c'est ”L’Enlèvement »
      Bon Soir, and Hello Anon 16 October 2018 at 20:39

      J'ai tout à l’heure vu ce documentaire que vous avez mentionné. Bien sûr, je l’ai vu auparavant, mais c'est la première fois que je l’ai vu au doublage en français.

      Je ne sais si vous êtes Français(e) ou non, mais il ne faut pas oublier, que ce documentaire n’est qu’un conte de fée bizarre ou un spectacle de théâtre burlesque.

      Néanmoins, cette histoire est racontée maintes fois, toujours de la même manière. En effet, elle est à l'origine de tous les mensonges sur le destin de la petite Madeleine.

      Cette histoire s'était reproduite quelques années plus tard dans ”Crime Watch », avant tout dans de divers articles des journaux internationaux et aussi dans des "talk shows" au Royaume-Uni et ailleurs. Le message a toujours été le même, seulement les formes ont été modifiées.

      De toute façon, ce documentaire, qui était rédigé quelques semaines après la disparition de Madeleine, peut aujourd'hui avoir un effet éclairant sur la facilité avec laquelle on peut mentir et tromper tout le monde si l’on ne tient pas compte des faits vrais.

      À l’époque cette histoire semblait être probable et peut-être crédible, simplement parce que la police portugaise n'avait pas encore sérieusement commencé à soupçonner que les McCanns pouvaient être coupable d'un crime au-delà de toute compréhension.

      Enfin, je voudrais juste dire, que je m'oppose au doublage en français dans ce documentaire (évidemment,si souvent en France, sous-titré serais mieux à mon avis), car il cache la langue utilisée par les McCanns, ce qui rend difficile la compréhension de leurs véritables personnages faux.

    2. Hello anon 16 October 2018 at 20:39
      "L'enlèvement de la petite Maddie - Documentaire"

      Re; mon commentaire 17 October 2018 at 19:56

      J'ai écrit que j'ai vu ce documentaire, mais je l'ai bien sûr, aussi regardé. Je m'excuse.

  15. 14:44 anon
    Mr Blacksmith is very knowledgeable about OG so maybe he can answer the questions you have put forward.
    I would like to know his views too about Mark Rowley saying the McCanns have been ruled out as suspects. Is this just a trick to lull them into a false sense of security?Possible I suppose but as you say anon 14:44,why is the remit not to keep an open mind and consider all scenarios like any other police investigation.
    Just looking at abduction only when there is plenty of other evidence to say something else could have happened is just pain daft to me and reeks of cover up.
    Maybe Blacksmith can clear all our worries up?

  16. Hello 14.44. No, I am not very knowledgeable about OG;I have no sources of information that others here do not have. I have done what others have and analysed information - not newspaper reports - publicly available about the operation and given my interpretation of them.

    I have written about Rowley's comments a number of times before; I have given clear reasons why there are severe problems about any comments from the Yard about individuals at all, including the legal fact that a "review", which Grange was until 2013, cannot name suspects without making it no longer a review. And I have pointed out the simple and undeniable fact that the syntax of his verbatim answers to questions about whether the pair are suspects collapses into unintelligibility, i.e. meaninglessness. I wonder why that should be; surely a cover-up operation which if exposed would put its members behind bars for many years would choose smooth and comfortable liars, wouldn't it? Rather than an incoherent struggler?

    I do not believe Scotland Yard are either "daft" or "reeking of cover up" and that is why I am looking forward to seeing what they have produced. I don't wish to be unhelpful but your "...clear all our worries up" question does not come across as sincere. In any case it lies beyond my abilities to do so.

    1. JB I do find contradictions in your missives; you have no knowledge on OG, yet you also find that OG has operationally concluded. Yes, we all wish to see what they have produced, but of course, us mere plebs won't ever see it.
      You are wise enough to comprehend the scope of the OG remit; to conduct an investigative review of the disappearance of Madeleine McCann.....As if the Abduction occurred in the UK.
      A cunning scope! Read it again and recognise the non-outcomes.
      So after spending GBP 12m and taking 7 years, Scotland Yard conclude that; there is no evidence that she was abducted in the UK!
      We also know the parents were strictly out of scope; "they were covered by the Portugese investigation" according to SY's AsComm Mark Rowley.
      So JB, do we really wait and see...or wait, watch and wither for another year? Either you have naively misinterpreted, or you are deliberately misinterpreting in your dissemination.
      TiocFaidh Ar La

    2. "So JB, do we really wait and see...or wait, watch and wither for another year? Either you have naively misinterpreted, or you are deliberately misinterpreting in your dissemination."

      You appear to be treating the disappearance of Madeleine McCann as a four year old does when told he'll have to wait till next Xmas for a present.

      Are you serious? Are you seriously saying that your "waiting, watching and withering" has any importance to anyone? That Operation Grange is here to stimulate you in some way?

      I have said this many times before, on occasion here: if you think there is something wrong with this country's organizations of state, get off your watching, waiting and withering arse and do something more than writing anonymous letters. That's what citizens of a democracy are meant to do; that's what democracy and citizenship is about - contributing and acting, not watching like a voyeur and moaning.

      If you won't get off your arse to act against supposedly corrupt institutions, in whatever way you can, who do you think is going to do so? Father Xmas?

    3. JB; You failed to answer the question. The death of Madeleine Beth McCann, the parental conspiracy and ensuing pervertion of the course of justice really does concern me, even as a non-Brit citizen. I actually can't though, get off 'my arse'to address the lack of accountability in the British democratic system.
      However, I do know your not naive, you do write a blog (but with no feedback), so here I am, asking you now, post your initial attempt at ridicule. Are you erroneously or deliberately misinterpreting OG? Over to you.


    4. Your post of your own beliefs ended by stating explicitly that I must be either erroneous and naïve or deceitful in what I write to people on this forum ("deliberately misinterpreting").

      Perhaps in your social circles that is considered to be the correct manner to ask for the courtesy of a reply and the opening of a dialogue.

      Not in mine. Get lost.

    5. JB. I have reflected on your responses to my simple question regarding your dissemination of information regarding the outcomes of the findings from operation Grange. Firstly you deflected, failed to answer the question and told me to get of my arse as a democratic citizen.
      secondly, you failed to answer the question and told me to get lost. Not nice.
      I have reflected and recognise that within my 'social circle', it is pointless to pursue this form of query with a such a person as your goodself. I leave now to the readers to draw their own conclusion as to your reporting on operation grange and its conclusive outcomes. Over and out old chap.

  17. Reverend T. Ben. Nit17 October 2018 at 10:41

    Good God!

    I believe I have a new disciple!
    The lovely young lady Textusa is now name checking me on her site.
    Or is she a man?
    You never can tell these days,what with their long hair and make up and all that.
    Good God! Make up? Are they pansies for God's sake. Or is it patsies? Nevermind,I believe it was that Sawdust fellow that started it all.Wearing those boots and plucked eyebrows.What ever was the fellow thinking!

    Anyway,I have been looking for a new Sister to join me in my study for a glass of Buckfast after sermon and I'm getting a little tired of Sister Verdi.
    Doesn't seem to have the spark she once had and her abrasive nature keeps upsetting my congregation.
    It can't be anything to do with the menopause either,that was decades ago.
    I need new young flesh and blood to join me in my battle to defeat the wicked knight of the big round table Sir Blackspot and his valet NT.

    Come Lady Textusa, forget these songs of darkness and dismay sung by our enemies and join me on my crusade to seek out the secrets of the Holy Grange.

    Amen to that!

    1. Enjoyed your sermon Rev.

      Keep 'em coming you Son of a Preacher Man!

  18. Hi Rosalinda,
    I was just checking out the "Find Madeleine fund" which is still going strong and pleading for donations.
    It is an amazing document crafted by the most cunning lawyers who made sure it was engineered as total protection for Madeleine's parents. And not for "finding" their missing daughter, that part of it is merely a legalised afterthought.
    After all - the participants in the charade knew the girl was dead and disposed of on the night of 3rd of May.
    But hey - might as well create a cover story and an alibi to boot and go one step further in marketing the dead girl's body by creating a "find Madeleine Fund".
    The "Fund" is also enhanced by their fake legal definition; "Leaving no stone unturned limited". A real skin crawling definition with subliminal meanings that were no doubt unintended as to the real whereabouts of where the child's body might be in the wastelands of Praia da Luz.

    Finally after pilfering 200,000 pounds from the fund for a mortgage on the McCann's house, the penultimate paragraph reads:
    "None of the directors (The McCanns included) have taken any money from the fund as renumeration".
    Laugh out loud - or more likely cry softly for the little girl up against such evil.

    1. I am interested in your statement about the £200,000 "pilfered" from the fund for a mortgage. The McCanns did pay two mortgage instalments on their home in Rothley with money for the fund. They have now acquired fixed assets. Are you suggesting that they have sold their house to the limited company in order to ring-fence it in the event that Amaral or someone else sues them? It's something I have wondered about.

    2. If I remember rightly JC the Fund has a clause to 'support Madeleine's family'. That's a great big cover all, and can include anything they wish. As in 'support Madeleine's family...…. to sue people, especially Goncalo Amaral'.

      I doubt all those donors expected their cash to be used for lawyers, but effectively that is what appears to have happened. Even from the very sparse details that were released about the Fund in the first year only 13% was spent on 'searching'.

      The Fund has been the opposite of transparent, who knows how much they collected or how much they spent on the search. Millions appear to have gone through their hands at a remarkable speed.

      The subject of the Fund is another glaring omission from all their interviews. I only remember one journalist questioning them about the dodgy detectives they hired, and Gerry quashed the question by saying it was all legit now they had Dave Edgar.

      It is not of course unreasonable to ask two former suspects what they did with the £4m or was it £5m they received in donations, but of course, it will never happen.

  19. Hi Rosalinda, jc, JB, NL,Reverend T. Ben. Nit and others

    Madeleine and Jamal

    Foreign ministers from the G 7 group are said to be concerned about what may have happened to the Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi.

    In a statement very recently they all affirm their commitment to defending freedom of expression.

    "We encourage Turkish-Saudi collaboration and look forward to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia conducting a thorough, credible, transparent, and prompt investigation (Daily Star 17th October 2018)"

    What kind of results can you expect if you ask a main suspect and his/her accomplice to investigate a crime they both are likely to be involved in?

    The Saudi regime along with the corrupt Turkish regime will naturally do everything in their power to conceal the truth in a similar way as the British-Portuguese investigation has done in its collaboration with influential magnates close to team McCann. In both cases, only independent international tribunals should deal with the cases.

    The Saudi and Turkish legal systems have never had any legitimacy to investigate, prosecute and judge in international crime cases and the British and the Portuguese judiciary system have from a moral perspective lost their right, given the way in which they’ve dealt with the Madeleine case. I really wish that I could see things differently as far as the Madeleine case is concerned, but I can’t.

    1. Björn (18 Oct at 10:58)

      Hoppas allt är bra med dig.

      As you know, I don’t believe the McCann case is just a case of a missing child, but an issue with wider implications.

      (“So that's what we're trying to get agreement between the two governments and the two police services." - Bernard Hogan-Howe, Nov 2013)

      As for the disappearance of Jamal Khashoggi you mentioned, G7 foreign ministers’ statement in full:

      “We, the G7 Foreign Ministers, of Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom, the United States of America, and the High Representative of the European Union, affirm our commitment to defending freedom of expression and protection of a free press.
      “We remain very troubled by the disappearance of prominent Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi. Those bearing responsibility for his disappearance must be held to account.
      “We encourage Turkish-Saudi collaboration and look forward to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia conducting a thorough, credible, transparent, and prompt investigation, as announced.”

      And an interesting Opinion piece (IMO):

      "What did U.S. intelligence and the White House know about the disappearance of Jamal Khashoggi—and when did they know it?"

      Något att tänka på?


    2. Ja, NL!

      Hartelijk bedankt.

    3. Hallå där NL 09:55
      Jo, Tack allt är bra.

      Vi måste nog se både Khashoggi-fallet och Madeleine-fallet i ett större perspektiv och i bägge fallen finns det politiska intressen att försvara.

      "As you know, I don’t believe the McCann case is just a case of a missing child, but an issue with wider implications"

      Quite right, and now we have yet another international crime case of a high dignity and there's already just as much confusion surrounding the mysterious disappearance of Khashoggi as it has ever been in the Madeleine case.

      I've just read Rosalinda's take on the Khashoggi drama and just like me, as you can see, she's pessimistic about the crime being solved. However, I have a few things to say, which aren't really mentioned or speculated about in the MSM articles or in the news reports. I'm not quite confident about how to put my words without accusing anybody, but I shall try and it's up to Rosalinda to decide whether to publicise it or not.

      Ha en bra weekend

  20. Phoebe is sure kicking Bennett and Verdi's arses over at Havern's hell hole.
    What a gal!
    She must surely be banned soon,the other'crusaders'have.

    1. She wont get anywhere and nor will anyone else.
      People need to ask themselves why did Bennett get let off so much court costs by the McCann's?
      When you work out the answer to that question you can see why Bennett is working so hard to discredit the Smith sighting because that is key to the case.
      Some of Bennett's disciples are also helping him like Verdi and co.
      I wonder what they are getting out of it? They can't be stupid surely and blindly follow their master, so is Bennett giving them a backhander too?
      Makes you wonder!

    2. 10 10
      Pay offs?
      Bennett perhaps,or rather he had to pay out less,but not the others.
      They are gullible enough to cling on to his shirt tails and go where ever the loon takes them.
      That's what disciples do! Follow a cult leader without question and if you do,you will be banished from the group.
      And that is what will soon happen to Phoebe,just like it has with the others who dared challenge the 'Holy One'.

  21. You nailed it (Bjorn@10:58)
    To imagine the Saudis would ever conduct a "thorough, credible, and transparent investigation" into the murder in their embassy of a journalist critical to the Saudi regime.
    I imagine if anyone spoke the real truth of what happened he/she and families would never see the light of day again.

    Here is a supreme example of the fox guarding the hen house.
    Governments can do what they want.
    We just have to hope the British and Portuguese are not in that same class.

    1. Hi JC at 18:13
      "We just have to hope the British and Portuguese are not in that same class"

      Yes, let us hope for the sake of justice.

    2. Oublie ça, Björn: они одноклассники…

    3. Scary thought JC, that is, Britain and Portugal collaborating to hide a crime. Portugal however, is still a fairly new democracy, and public bodies are far more accountable. That's why we saw the release of the Portuguese police investigation.

      The British too are kept in check by democracy and in a high profile case like Madeleine McCann's, every 't' will be crossed and every 'i' dotted. The world, quite literally, is watching.

    4. I have been watching the updates on missing Jamal Khashoggi with great interest, I am totally hooked on CNN and MSBC and super impressed by all the experts they have on hand.

      Sadly, this diplomatic incident seems to be symbolic of the moral decline that is gripping those countries who are moving to the extreme right.

      Even the most creative minds in the world could not come up with an innocent explanation for why Mr. Khashoggi was seen going into the Saudi embassy, but never leaving.

      I don't think the Turkish Government is in cahoots with the Saudis. It was the 'Turkish' who brought Mr. Khashoggi's disappearance to the world's attention. It is they who are releasing the facts and the audio tape.

      And it was Turkish investigators who went into the embassy to examine the crime scene. Albeit after a team of cleaners had gone in and it was freshly repainted.

      I'm surprised actually that the Saudis allowed the Turkish investigators in at all. The embassy is essentially Saudi 'turf', and arguably the premises falls under Saudi jurisdiction. Perhaps that was their thinking when they chose the venue.

      I think it highly unlikely that those responsible for Mr. Khashoggi will ever be brought to justice, some appear to be within the circle of the Crown Prince and therefore untouchable.

      Trump has made it clear that there is no way he will give up Saudi cash, and who knows what they have got on him, so I suspect he will be helping them to come up with some sort of innocent explanation.

      My own prediction is that Trump et al, will do all within their power to blacken Mr. Khashoggi's name and somehow make MBS the victim. I think Don junior is already on the case. They will somehow justify the Saudi's need to interrogate Mr. Khashoggi, perhaps he knew of a supposed terrorist attack for example. How they explain the bone saw however, may prove more tricky.

    5. Hello anon19 October 2018 at 11:33
      "Oublie ça, Björn: они одноклассники…"
      Clever remark. I'got the message and I'm afraid you could also be right.

  22. Hello Rosalinda, NL and others

    What must the democratic world do to prevent the Khashoggi case becoming a myth like the Madeleine case? Whom should we put our faith in?

    I'm just as surprised as you are Rosalinda, that the Saudis allowed the Turkish Police to search the consulate, and I suppose that included the area around the building. The only positive thing in this tragedy.

    This is a mess with so many people involved, in different countries and on so many levels. Yet, this case must first of all be treated as an ordinary crime case, till there’re evidence of a political crime. In doing so, the first person to be taken in to be questioned before rumours become the basis for arrests and prosecution, ought to be the person, who last saw Khashoggi alive, namely his dear future wife Cengiz.

    No matter what reasons she may invoke for not being interested in answering all questions asked by the authorities (first of fall the Turkish police), then hopefully also be by trustworthy detectives appointed by Interpol, she should immediately be made an official suspect.

    We must at this stage be very sceptical about her own story, which so far has been about the planned wedding and about all of Khashoggi’s friends, which she intended to invite etc.

    If she would have (I don’t claim she has) something to do with this horrific crime, it must be established in an international process of justice as soon as possible. She may of course just as well be completely innocent and then ruled out of a further investigation, still she must be thoroughly investigated before that.

    Here are the reasons as to why I believe it’s so urgent to investigate this person.

    -Cengiz probably has far more international contacts than the McCanns have ever had, in order to create a sustainable long living myth about Khashoggi being kept alive somewhere in the Arab world. This must not happen.

    -Cengiz is said to have been waiting at least 12 hours outside the Saudi consulate, but did not call the Turkish police, as far as I know, although she must have known that Khashoggi was at risk and might have been harmed.

    -Allegedly, she also ”took care of” Khashoggi’s two mobiles before he met his destiny, making it difficult for him to call for help. Highly suspicious.

    -She is caught on a CCTV camera, about two hours after Khashoggi entered the building and she’s seen as she waves her arm, as if she tried to get in touch with someone outside the consulate. Then she moved out of sight.

    -Her future husband has very recently disappeared without leaving a trace behind, yet she already seems to have a kind of plan for how to deal with media.

    ”Cengiz told CNN that she didn’t feel comfortable doing an on-air interview. But she did agree to answer written questions from Christiane Amanpour” Clever girl I’d say, very calculating, but not particularly emotional though.

    1. I've not looked at this case from the girlfriend angle at all Bjorn. Maybe because I am so obsessed with Trump and seeing him as the root of all evil. Mr. Khashoggi was a journalist for the Washington Post, what are the chances he had a 'hot story', something tying the Saudis to Trump? MBS has already bragged he had Jared Kushner in his pocket.

      The Saudis, like the Russians, have bailed Trump out of his past bankruptcies and own an entire floor of Trump Tower. I think as Mueller closes in, there will be more murders, the Trumps are a crime family in the same way as the fictional Corleones.

      Trump is not shocked at what has happened, expected as he has no empathy, period. Mr. Khashoggi living in the US but a native of Saudi Arabia, must have had all sorts of contacts. And bearing in mind every investigative journalist in Washington wants to nail Trump for something, who knows what information he may have had. Especially on Jared who visited MBS days before he had all his relatives incarcerated in the Ritz hotel.

      Trump's first overseas visit was to Saudi Arabia, who can forget the sight of sword dancing in that strangely Arab male environment. I would not be at all surprised if the Saudis too had a hand in Trump's election win.


    2. Trump wasted no time in honouring the Saudis, despite their appalling human rights abuses and it was quite bizarre that they gave Ivanka $100m to advance women OUTSIDE of their own regime.

      Trump is not nearly as rich as he claims, and has a history of ripping off contractors. Though he has long claimed he wanted to run for President, there is no way he would have used his own money. For despots and tyrants however, a man in the White House who can be bought, was a Godsend.

      I used to be a huge fan of 'House of Cards' and indeed Kevin Spacey. Unfortunately the fictional corruption and abuse of power just couldn't keep up with the real thing.

      Trump doesn't care about Mr. Khashoggi, he's just one person and we are ignoring all the thousands of atrocities anyway. He is siding with MBS he says because of a proposed $100b arms deal and other 'things' the Saudis are going to buy from the US.

      As a salesman he has of course revealed his entire hand and is now negotiating from a position of desperation. Art of the Deal, my arse. I expect Mr. Bone Saw and his gang of cutthroats are laughing their heads off. Who wants to see the President of the USA beg? They do.

      Given the brutal nature of the Saudi regime, we can only wonder what it is the Saudis have on the Trumps and Kushners. If the intention of the collaborators was to kill off whatever story Mr. Khashoggi had, they have achieved the opposite.

  23. Hi Rosalinda,
    I thought I'd throw in a couple of quotes that describe your blog and the feelings I think most your posters agree with.

    It's true everyone who posts on your site does so anonymously because we are all in fear of being tracked down for speaking our minds.
    Luckily in this situation you are brave enough to go public at quite a personal risk I would say.
    So anyway this is for you. As George Orwell wrote:
    "In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary act".

    Further, since I am in quotation mode, the McCann's in my view have stolen Churchill's 1943 Tehran conference remark about the plan to defeat the Axis.
    Quote: "In wartime truth is so precious that she should always be attended by a bodyguard of lies".
    The McCann's have turned this quotation on its head by attempting since day one of their daughter's disappearance to create their own bodyguard of lies.

    Keep up the good work.

    1. Hi jc, 20 October 2018 at 04:20

      I fully agree with you jc, insofar as Rosalinda is courageous, not only because she challenges the official truth about the Madeleine case, but also because she allows so many followers to express their own views on the case, some of whom, like myself, are even more disappointed than she is, with what the British society, and the Operation Grange in particular, are doing in terms of investigating the McCanns.

      There’s definitely an official agenda in the British society, which is rooted deep down in the muddy waters of the British Government, with the purpose of eliminating all criticisms against the McCanns and persecute those who dare speak out against what’s so awfully wrong about the Madeleine case.

      It's also true what you say, that many of us certainly have an uncomfortable feeling about perhaps ending up in some sort of police dossier and then being accused of trolling or something else. Nevertheless, freedom of speech, as the comments on this blog show, is so important to all of us here, that it apparently helps us overcome our fears.

      As for the McCanns, their mental state of mind, which is a kind of psychological disorder, or even a decease I’d say, which could rather be diagnosed as psychopathy than sociopathy, prevents them from seeing the consequences of their own actions, one of which is the death of their own daughter.

      Seeing them as quite normal doctors, going on holiday with their children, who just in a moment of desperation suddenly become Mr and Mrs Hyde and therefore aren’t responsible for what they’re doing is also totally wrong. I’ve learnt that some people tend to think so.

      Only from the perspective of their mental disturbances can the McCanns’ decisions and actions be understood and perhaps forgiven if they would only be so nice and tell us the truth. The McCanns are today just as they were before in Rothley and as they were on their holiday in PDL. Nothing has changed there.

      I have just watched a you-tube clip showing Gerry and Kate smiling, joking and laughing at Madeleine’s birthday party in PDL just a few days after her disappearance, one of many that she never got the chance to attend herself. Those who cannot see the absurdity in it must be of the same kind as the McCanns and should immediately seek some sort of medical help before it’s too late.

    2. Well it hasn't done my writing career any good JC! Especially in the early days when I was demonised on social media. There was even a dedicated website 'The Lies of Rosalinda Hutton' where those with an obsessional hatred of me could scoff at my media activity - every tweet and every comment I made online, anywhere, was captured and put up for discussion, or should I say scoffing? Not to mention the photoshops of my face, they were particularly amusing. There was an especially fetching one of me in a nun's habit, lol.

      Sadly JC, I'm at the 'ffs are we there yet' stage. For my sins, I already know way too much about this case, and although my blog is entitled 'Unbound', in reality I am restricted in what I say. I know that my blog is carefully monitored - just look at how quickly the duty watcher jumps in when they get a sniff of something libellous.

      There is also the little matter of nothing yet being proved within a Court of Law. When you are published by a major publisher, you are literally given a crash course in libel law, and by the final chapter you know exactly what you can and can't say. I credit myself that this knowledge has enabled me to keep this blog away from the controversy that surrounds others. At the time of the Brenda Leyland tragedy, I was very well known to Team McCann, Summers and Swan et al, but they had nothing that could even remotely be seen as trolling. Those trying to label my blog as a hate site have failed miserably.

      One of my favourite studies at uni was art and culture JC, and I became fascinated at the way in which artists, writers and musicians were able to capture 'moments in time' within their art. Even the dozy Jane Austin captured the spirit of the Napoleonic wars. And they are able to be subversive, that is they could disguise their political messages in their paintings and in their poems. The genius that was William Blake would stroll around London in the red cap of the French Revolution or sit naked in his front garden. He was too eccentric to be taken seriously, those in power clearly didn't 'get' Tyger Tyger or those dark satanic mills they happily sing about.

      No idea how we got there JC, lol, except to say I am used to being a minority of one on most subjects JC, once it becomes mainstream I move on, ha ha. And I think it will become mainstream again in the not too distance future JC. The findings of Operation Grange are bound to cause an uproar, whatever they might be.

    3. Hi Bjorn thank you for your, as always, interesting post.I don't know that there is an official agenda to cover up what happened to Madeleine McCann. In fact I doubt there are many, or indeed any, MPs who have taken a personal interest in this case. It is a highly sensitive subject and the image of the McCanns as victims, first of an abductor, and then as victims of our free press. That image is firmly embedded in the minds of the public and politicians.

      Theresa is probably more familiar with Madeleine's case than most. She was Home Secretary when CEOP prepared a report on Madeleine's disappearance, which she sat on for 6 months until Cameron told her to proceed in response to a tabloid front page plea from Madeleine's parents. To be honest I doubt very much that the subject of Madeleine comes up in cabinet meetings Bjorn, and if it did, the collective response I am sure, would be leave it to the police. This present government's hands are clean in this case. They weren't in power in 2007. Why would Theresa May cover up something that had nothing to do with her?

      I think the McCanns image as professional, hard working parents has protected them from any serious questioning from interviewers. No-one, literally no-one, wants to see them given a hard time, they are parents of a missing child. Had they been unkempt, uneducated and feckless we would be looking at an entirely different narrative.

      The McCanns want us to believe they have official protection Bjorn, it gives them power if the public image the British establishment are on their side. For me the incumbent government (New Labour) took a huge step away from the case in around June 2007. And Clarence confirms it in his comments to Vanity Fair - they were unable to get anyone of ministerial level to see them. All they were offered was a medium level consulate. How dare they eh? Gerry only deals with those at top management level doncha know, and with a few 'do you know who I am's' thrown in too I suspect.

    4. Both Gerry and Kate are intriguing subjects to study from a psychological perspective, which I can't wait to get onto, once the proverbial hits the fan. Psychopath, Sociopath, unfortunately this is one of those nuggets of information that just won't stay in my brain. If anyone has a simple tip on how to distinguish one from the other it would be greatly appreciated.

      Another good point you made was that Gerry and Kate are still the same people they were in 2007, and the same people they were before that fateful night. Kate I think, begrudged all the other adults having a good time while she was stuck with 3 toddlers. Gerry too had those same begrudging attitude, but he got past it by simply doing what he wanted anyway. And to all those trying desperately to bring child sexual abuse into the case, note, all the adults wanted to spend time with each, not the kids. That clip of Gerry on the bus saying 'ffff off, I'm not here to enjoy myself' was never going to bode well.

      I am of an age where I can look back on my sons as babies and toddlers and see just how incredibly demanding they were! But as much as I loved spending time with them, I also loved the freedom of being away from them and getting drunk and acting the goat with my mates! I had a theory that happy mummy equals happy child and it worked.

      The McCanns deserve to stand trial simply for making, or at least trying to make, their negligent form of child minding the norm. Instead of a cock and bull story about an abductor, they would have done better to point out the dangers of leaving such young children on their own. Their lack of guilt and remorse irks some, myself included. Their only crime, leaving the children, and for that they claim they have been punished enough. And with their media monitors battling it out online, they managed to make the very serious crime of negligence/child endangerment, inconsequential. And worse, anyone mentioning was seen as a hater/pitchforker. 'Anything to be learned' asked one interviewer, 'yeah, an expert told us what we did was well within the bounds of responsible parenting' Gerry replied.

    5. And finally, lol

      The ugly reality of whatever happened in PDL that night has since been hidden beneath the shiny, polished veneer of all (there were 6)doctors involved. Their word was accepted by the British establishment, above the findings of the Portuguese police. Jim Gamble of CEOP appeared on breakfast TV with them!

      A huge number of people will be very embarrassed when the truth comes out Bjorn. Not least because it exposes the huge class divisions within our society. Would Sir Bernard HH, Jim Gamble and DI Hill have given such unreserved support to Karen Matthews? Well we know the answer there, they didn't.

      Gerry and Kate do appear to have erased the memory of Madeleine's disappearance from collective psyche I think Bjorn. They worked so hard to learn and recite their abduction story, that it is quite possible they have even convinced themselves.

      Going through all those interviews must have been a hair raising ride I think Bjorn. They have to be so careful not to slip up with any aspect of the abduction story, and they have to keep up the 'perfect family' image the created in 2007. There is no room for human emotion. When we are emotional we are unfiltered, which is why I suspect, those first police interviews are so important.

      Either by choice or design Gerry and Kate have been able to avoid any hard or controversial questioning in the interviews they have given. However there have been a few occasions where they have been taken off script. Most notably by Sandra Felgueres but also in another memorable interview with a female journalist, when Gerry felt the need to explain, in a fairly opaque way what the funds were needed for.

      Gerry is hopeless on the squirming front, he believes he is a good liar because he has got away with it all his life, but the reality is the opposite. Actually it is because Gerry and Kate would be so easy to interrogate, that it is why it is so astonishing this case is still dragging on.

      The only explanation must be that Gerry, Kate aren't talking to the police and never have. The police therefore have had to build their case from the outside in. That they haven't given up is, I think, significant.

    6. Hello Rosalinda (22 October 2018 at 13:12), and thanks for feed back

      I personally feel so embarrassed and ashamed when I listen to the McCanns being interviewed and I also feel so sorry for those naive journalists, who ask them meaningless questions and who’re more or less compelled to sympathise with them and to feel compassion for them.

      However Oprah Winfrey managed quite well some years ago to keep a distance to them, and of course Sandra Felgueiras as you mention. Maybe, after all, the Operation Grange may close in on those responsible for Madeleine’s death. Who knows? Let us at least hope so.

    7. @ Ros who says "Even the dozy Jane Austin..."

      Do you mean Jane Austen?

    8. Hi again Rosalinda
      just a few words regarding your comment on one of my posts.

      "I don't know that there is an official agenda to cover up what happened to Madeleine McCann" (22 October 2018 at 13:09)

      There probably or hopefully is not, but there might still be a sort of attitude among many officials, MPs, ministers and others, who may have inside information or just general knowledge about what’s going on in the OG-investigation, to be very careful about what they say about the case. Thus, not a conspiratorial pact of silence really, but rather a pact of pretended disinterest in the Madeleine case, I’d say.

  24. Reverend T. Ben. Nit20 October 2018 at 11:40

    Good God!

    Backhanders? Pay ups?

    I hear the work of Satan and must set the record straight at once!

    Unholy creatures who say I am corrupt need their mouths washing out with soap.

    Money is the work of the devil and I will have no part of it.
    Apart from of course donations to my church,that is a different matter and please give generously!

    Now where was I?
    Ah yes,the court case.

    Tis true the nice Mr and Mrs Mccann did invite me into a side room at the court house for tea and a chat.
    Earl Grey I believe it was and a rather large slice of Victoria sponge too.
    Such a nice couple and there lawyer was with then and two other shifty looking characters in suits.
    One of them said he was from some special arm of the police,or was it branch,can't remember now.And the other one said he was from military intelligence.
    Good Lord I thought,are we at war?.
    Anyway, they said they had to be there for protection from all the online trolls.

    Good God trolls?

    I of course told them no such creatures exist and nor do aliens either.
    In fact I even told that Hall fellow that the other day.
    Rather strange chap with an odd fashion sense.
    Walks around wearing a silver hat on his head! Whatever is he thinking for God's sake?

    Anyhow back to the story,the McCann's said that it was very unfair of the judge to award so much costs against me and they wanted to help.
    What a very very nice couple!
    They would reduce my costs by 93%!
    They wanted to make it 100%,but said that might look suspicious!

    Good God,how helpful of them!

    All I had to do in return was to point out that the Smith family were mistaken in seeing Gerry that fateful night.
    Mr Smith had drunk too many pints of Guinness and was seeing things.
    He may even have been making the whole thing up as he wanted to cause trouble.He was in league with that Murat fellow too.Another shifty character!

    And all I had to do was repeat the above to as many people as I could as often as possible and until my very last day on this earth.
    The man from military intelligence added he hoped I live a long life and wasn't at all accident prone.

    How nice of him to think of my well being!
    As I said,they were all extremely nice people.

    All very easy I thought, so readily agreed.

    So,there you have it,all above board.

    My only employer is the almighty himself!

    Amen to that !

    1. Many a true word is spoken in jest

  25. "Discussions between Khashoggi and those who met him during arrival at the consulate in Istanbul led to an argument and physical altercation that led to his death, the state TV report said."

  26. What a joke!
    Verdi has called time on the Smith thread after Bennett was trapped defenseless on the ropes and having his arse brutally pummeled by Phoebe.
    She is not standing for his bullshit of deliberately discrediting the Smith sighting.

    But Verdi again comes to his rescue.
    So much for debate at that cult house!

  27. Anon 19 Oct 14.01

    Phoebe is still holding her own and winding up Verdi. It's quite amusing really to read.

    I have to come to Pheoebe's defence though in case she's on here, that she described the clothes that "Smithman" was wearing in her last post but forgot to mention the buttons on the cream trousers that one of the Smith family members saw (I can't be bothered at the moment to trawl through their statements), although I think it may have been the daughter.

    GM was pictured wearing a pair of beige trousers with buttons on the side. So according to Verdi/Bennett who is lying?

    Also referring to Verdi/Bennett, the same person in my mind, we also have willo'thewisp on CMoMM, another Verdi/Bennett pseudonym, one minute writing garbage nobody can understand then in another comment speaks perfect English.

    1. Anyone reading at CMOMM can now see what sort of a place that is if they didn't already know.
      Totally dominated by the loon Bennett and the vile Verdi.
      Both out to rubbish Smithman and anyone else who dare suggest otherwise.
      There is an obvious reason for Bennett (he may have done a deal for reduced costs),but what is Verdi's motives?
      Love for Bennett maybe? Or some other reason?
      And what about the forum owner too?
      Is she just sitting there powerless in awe of Bennett?
      Makes you wonder.

    2. I very rarely look at CMoMM these days, I kind of see them as caught in a time warp discussing the same subjects over and over again.

      I have now had a look and agree with the above posters, Phoebe is doing a brilliant job of exposing the petty little tyrants for exactly what they are. I imagine many are cheering her on, myself included.

      Bennett's need to take Smithman out of the equation surpasses the parents, which is odd on every level. Given his lack of character and moral fibre, it is feasible that he did a deal with the McCanns, 1)to stay out of jail and 2)to prevent seizure of his assets. We know for example that he gave the McCanns' lawyers the names of his forum members and others who criticised the McCanns online.

      I suspect though, that discrediting the Smith family was all his own idea. He was captivated by the fact that Robert Murat had 'porn' on his computer and that fits in with his religious crusade to expose any deviancy that goes on behind bedroom doors. He seized on Robert Murat, preferring the first arguido to arguidoes two and three.

      That he has had to create a false narrative to incriminate Robert Murat, matters not a jot, the man watches porn ffs! Bennett also salivates at the idea of there being a network of VIPs who sexually abuse children. So again, he has used a bit of creativity and religious fervour to find sexual connotations and child abuse in this case. Look at this creepy group of researchers' analysis of one family's holiday snaps. Who tf saw a 'Lolita' sexuality in playfully applied makeup and oversize clothes of toddler Madeleine dressing up? Head creep has taken a family's happy memories and smeared them with his own dirty mind.

      There is no way that Bennett has ever been taken into the McCanns' trust, for the simple reason that he is not trustworthy and cannot keep a secret. He uses anything, literally anything, to get attention, could you imagine what he would do with a secret given to him by the parents?

      Bennett gave 'his word' to the media on the steps of the Court that he would not harass the McCanns again. On that I rest my case. As Maya Angelou said, 'when someone shows you who they are, believe them'.

    3. When it came to the crunch Bennett sold his soul to the devil for saving his assets.
      So much for principles.
      Real campaigners have stuck to their guns come what may.Even gone to prison or been shot at dawn.
      Not Bennett.Thoroughly corrupt IMO.
      I'm beginning to wonder about Verdi too!


    4. It just gets sillier by the hour.
      Now some other clown called Sharoni says Phoebe is allowed to post on other subjects but is very naive and needs to do more research on Smithman before she challenges the 'excellent' work of the other morons on there.(sorry I meant researchers)
      Can that place go any lower?

    5. @ Andy
      I couldn't agree more.
      Nor put it better myself.

  28. Have tried, but just cannot understand Willowthewisp.

  29. 30 + honest hardworking detectives of OG quickly establish Detective Superintendent G. Hill of Surrey Police/CEOP was in PDL without the authorisations or permissions of either the UK or Portuguese Police and thereby breaking several laws in the UK and Portugal.

    They report their findings to DCI Redwood/Wall but they have neither the authority or seniority of rank to interview a Superintendent.

    DCI Redwood reports to the Commander and overseer of OG. DAC Mark Rowley who does have the necessary seniority to question Superintendent Hill on his illicit actions.

    There is a conflict of interest as Rowley was and is Superintendent Hill's boss for a number of years at this time.

    An outsider would think Rowley would have stepped aside and allowed Hill to be interviewed by another Senior Officer.

    A cynic may think that is exactly the reason Rowley remained in charge of OG.

    OG will not close, there will be far too many FOI's but neither will there be any developments. The hierarchy of the MET will not allow it.

    Gerry, Kate and the tapas set have no fears of any repercussions, the show is not about to start.

  30. VGT conference
    21-22 February 2007
    Washington D.C.



    It does exist:


    Post by Verdi Today at 13:04
    Would CMoMM members please note:

    Forumotion are having technical problems which is preventing some members from logging-on. You are asked to be patient whilst the forumotion technical team resolve the issues.

    Thank you.


    How convenient that she can log on and post but others can't?

    Notice it is only "some members".

  33. It's incredible really how this case gets so many people wound up and at each others throats.
    And some even turning into cult leaders and arbiters of the truth.

    Bennett has always been doing it of course, poking his nose into anywhere.

    But what were the rest of us doing pre 2007?

    I wish we could turn the clock back.
    I prefer my old life!

    1. Gosh, yes, HP, 2007 seems a world away. I remember watching the news reports in astonishment, I didn't then think there was any possibility of them being involved. And it would have stopped there, but every time they or a family member, or friend, made a statement, it became more and more suspicious.

      Unfortunately, they themselves made their lives a gripping reality TV show, by inviting the press in. At a time when they should have been searching the wastelands of PDL with their bare hands, they were touring Morocco and Europe!

      As for preferring your old life, I remember joining a forum (the AOL Europe board) and one young mum jokingly saying she hadn't hoovered since June (it was September) ha ha. I roared with laughter, but it shows how glued to the story we all were.

    2. Ros 22 Oct 10.38

      "I remember watching the news reports in astonishment, I didn't then think there was any possibility of them being involved.".

      I'm not having a go at you as I enjoy reading your blogs and I comment occasionally but I'm also astonished at the naivety of people who were sucked in by the McCanns from the very beginning. Perhaps people, like yourself, were too kind hearted and wanted to give them the benefit of the doubt.

      However there are those of us, me being one, who are cynical and question anything and everything and I was quite shocked and annoyed that the McCanns dragged the twins out in front of the world's press a day or two after Madeleine disappeared and were photographed going for breakfast standing in front of the restaurant (I think it was, with lace curtains at the full length windows) as they wanted to keep their routine as normal as they could!!

      That was one huge flag to me, having two very small, young children stand in front of many, many camera crews with lightbulbs flashing, something they'd never witnessed before and must have been extremely frightening and alarming for them.

      Not forgetting that it was later established that they never used the restaurant for breakfast anyway, so it was all one big charade pretending to take the twins for breakfast when they didn't even go there. All done for photo ops and to garner sympathy with the public.

  34. I am not sure what to make of the claims about Mr Bennett and the court costs etc so propose a solution.

    If Mr Bennett is a man of honour and integrity perhaps he would like to grasp the chance to set the record straight.
    Especially as allegations of this nature are a very serious matter.
    Whether true or not.

    Either here or at his own site,I propose he swears before his God that he did not do a deal for reduced costs which included discrediting the Smith sighting or any other aspect of the case.

    If Mr Bennett signed any confidentially agreement which prevents him legally discussing the details, a simple yes or no to doing any kind of deal will suffice.

    I urge you Mr Bennett to take this opportunity to clear this matter up once and for all.

    1. @ HP or should I say "Gosh yes HP"

      "I wish we could turn the clock back.
      I prefer my old life!"

      No-one is stopping you apart from yourself - do it. It is not compulsory to read about or comment on the Mccann case - it is your choice.

    2. Mr Bennett is being humiliated by his own dishonesty. Not the dishonesty of whatever he might have done for the McCanns but something more basic.

      For over a decade that disgraced ex-solicitor has been told time after time that if you pick on someone, like a Mr Smith or a nannie or whatever, make an accusation against them and then demand proof that they are NOT guilty of what you claim it is impossible for them to defend themselves.

      Unless they sue (which I wish they would since it would only cost them a couple of hundred for a solicitor's letter these days - libel is much simpler now - and they would get a retraction and grovelling apology from him within days).

      That is because of the truism that "you cannot prove a negative". Mr Bennett has been hoist by his own petard as other people have done to him exactly what he has done to others - make a nasty claim and challenge him to refute it.

      He is so thick, and blinded with his own egotism, that he cannot see that it is the truism that is making him an object of disgust. The fool actually posted his bank statements on the net to demonstrate how much he was paying back to the McCanns etc.,thinking that would help - and was gormlessly amazed when people asked him to prove that the figures were genuine!

      If he gets someone to post vouching for the integrity of the financial figures he posted, then people will do to him what he has done to the PDL nannies again and say "we don't KNOW that this person is telling the truth, prove that he/she is".

      That is what happens when you simply can't learn the rules of your trade and were born deficient in human feeling. It is called "an endless regression".

      Smith's reputation and that of the nannies will, I think, eventually be cleared by other legal proceedings - but Bennett will never be able to get out of "you sold your soul to the McCanns" in his lifetime. Good. Excellent. That's what he deserves for his wickedness to others.

    3. Hey Profit man.
      What about Verdi?
      Her quest is to trash Smithman too.
      I dont know about any God,but she is so into Bennett,you should have challenged her to swear on him, she's not bent as well.

    4. What a shame we aren't in medieval times John, when the odious Bennett would been hoisted by his own petard quite literally. (I'm still watching The Tudors, lol).

      I remember many years ago, before I embarked on enlightenment, being horrified by a statement I had read in a newspaper. The author claimed the two biggest evils in the world were capitalism and religion. The first I accepted without question, but religion? Surely not? And yes, even I am gasping at my naivety.

      The Cristian soldier Bennett, demonstrates all that is inherently evil in holding such irrational, unwieldy beliefs to the point of insanity, evil insanity in his case. It is not enough for him to devour what little intelligence he has with his malignant thoughts, he believes he has been chosen to devour others too.

      With no evidence (the stuff he makes up doesn't count), he has accused Madeleine's parents and their friends of indulging in and or/covering up, child sexual abuse. He is beneath contempt.

      I don't find anything likeable about Gerry or Kate and I believe they know a lot more about Madeleine's disappearance than they are saying. However, they are still human beings and they have children who will, soon enough, start reading about their sister on the internet.

      Naturally, I think it ridiculous to censor news on the grounds that the subjects have children might read it, there should be no place in our society for that kind of restriction being put on the press.

      I think however, that we all have a responsibility to consider the effects our words will have on others - not just the children. That is, we should have our own moral compass, a line we will not cross.

      Among much good advice given to me by my wise old dad was 'don't destroy someone just because you can'. I always had the gift of the gab, but sadly, his sage advice took the fun out of it.

      I always imagine myself to be great writer, scenarios where future generations are deconstructing my prose and trying to interpret the meaning therein. Sadly, I fear the general consensus will be 'yeah, she was mashed'.

      Common sense (another repetitive chant from my dad), is a factor notable by it's absence in Bennett's world, common sense would tell him it is wrong on every level to dissect people's lives on a public forum. He has appointed himself investigator, interrogator, Judge, Jury and wannabe hangman. His and indeed others, such as HideHo, poking their noses into the lives of those witnesses named in the police files is pure hang your head in shame.

      These people call themselves 'researchers' but in reality they are stalkers and peeping toms who justify their odious behaviour by pretending to care about Madeleine. They have no regard whatsoever for the living children, all those children on that holiday, who must read such horrible and heinous accusations against their parents.

      Something I have learned, again and again in my life, is that evil people use children to mask their own malevolent behaviour. Publicly they are saints, privately they are monsters.

      CMoMM may call themselves researchers, but the truth is, they are no better than those thuggish vigilantes who make arrangements to meet suspected perverts in car parks, with baseball bats.

      What they share is a total disregard for the rule of law and democracy. They operate under 'guilty until proven innocent'. Guilty that is, in their own kangaroo courts where the Judges are psychopaths who hide behind anonymity.

      I could go on, and will …..

    5. I know many will accuse me of hypocrisy because I host a blog where the Madeleine case is discussed. In my defence, this is a high profile human interest case and people want to discuss it. It may even, (probably will,)turn out to be the crime of the century. Of course that doesn't take account of the fall of the house of Trump, but it will be right up there.

      Bennett may have Christian values, but he has no moral boundaries. Happily his diatribes are not interesting enough to keep anyone reading, especially not those young people affected by it.

      He has had his '15 minutes' John, he may not have kept his word to the McCanns, but the newspapers have abided by them. They are no longer using him as the 'face' of the antis.

      Team McCanns choice of Brenda Leyland as the example made of those who criticise the parents online, was disastrous for them on every level. Their quest was to persuade the public, internet trolls were disguising themselves as 'normal' people, harmless old ladies etc. It was a spectacular 'own' goal! The public could see that it was 'ordinary' people questioning the abduction story, not hate filled thugs.

      Brenda's face has now replaced Bennett's. Sky news didn't expose an evil misfit, they exposed a pleasant, likeable lady, who was representative of the thousands who follow this case online. I think JG has a bit of a thing about 'Invasion of the Body Snatchers', if it's not paedophiles inhabiting the bodies of our friends and neighbours, it's vicious internet trolls.

      But I jest. It is always good to see you John, you have for many years, been the voice of common sense in this case.

    6. 7:44
      Verdi swoons over Bennett's every word so is either brainwashed or bent like him.
      I go with the latter.

  35. "Björn 22 October 2018 at 14:09
    I personally feel so embarrassed and ashamed when I listen to the McCanns being interviewed"

    Hello embarrassed and ashamed Björn from Sweden. Thankyou for your post. May I suggest that you don't listen to Mccann interviews - that should solve your problem.

    Incidentally what was the last interview that you listened to?

    1. Unknown22 October 2018 at 20:0

      Hi dear one, and thanks for comment.

      The last interview, that I watched and listened to was Fiona Bruce’s 10 year anniversary interview with the McCanns. Indeed, embarrassing, but also very revealing, so I just couldn’t resist.

      I’d very much have liked to listen to Simon Armitage’s interpretation of the medieval poem ”Pearl” and his interview with Gerry. Do you by any chance have a link to it. ( Susan Roberts BBC Radio 4, September 29)
      Gerry says:
      ”As a family we'd worked with Simon Armitage before and know what a sensitive, thoughtful writer he is. When I read the ”Pearl” poem, I could see echoes in it with Madeleine’s SITUATION and our loss.” (Media Centre 12.09.18)

      Yes, of course we all understand that,don't we, as ”Pearl” is a medieval poem about a father, whose child DIED at the age of two.



      Gerry McCann:

      "And Kate was screaming 'Madeleine's missing, she's gone', and I was like 'she can't be gone'. And running in, I was like looking in the bedroom, she wasn't there, and then checking everywhere in the apartment, even in places I knew she couldn't be, under kitchen sink, in cupboards and, and it was disbelief, when she said Madeleine's missing. Disbelief, shock, horror. And then panic, and, and terror. 'Cause I could only think of one scenario. At that time."

      Checking everywhere in the apartment? Behind the sofa?

    3. Thank you for that excerpt 12:06, it is revealing on many levels. I'm immediately drawn to 'cause I could only think ONE scenario at that time'.

      Why immediately go to the worst? The kids were alone, what's to say a neighbour hadn't found her outside and taken her in? They would be the first scenario I would have thought of. In fact the first scenarios any of us think of, are safe ones. To go from zero to abducted by a paedophile at such lightening speed raises all sorts of red flags. I don't know why Gerry, Kate and the group didn't immediately knock on the doors of their close neighbours. Then there are the brief encounters they had with Mrs Fenn, the elderly lady who lived above them. Gerry told her a child had been abducted and Kate was downright rude to her. Neither asked if she had seen or heard anything.

      I still find the statements of first two police officers who arrived at the scene, among the more fascinating. These two ordinary cops could see straight through the charade that was being played out in front of them. Kate called them Tweedledum and Tweedledee, probably because she could see they weren't buying it.

      Yes, behind the sofa is indeed conspicuous by it's absence, probably because the sofa had been moved and he didn't want to draw attention to it.

    4. Gerry and Kate are not cultured people Bjorn, I doubt they while away their evenings discussing obscure medieval poetry.

      Gerry truly believes he can blag his way through anything. In fact his blagging has taken him pretty a long way thus far. He has never been able to show the pain he feels at the loss of his daughter, and that's if he feels any pain. I wouldn't normally say something so cruel, but that clip of him acting the clown within days of Madeleine's disappearance was chilling. He is too expressive with his face to hide his insincerity. There are clips where he cannot hide the duping delight and at least one occasion where he is visibly stifling a fit of giggles.

      He is not half as convincing as he believes he is, which is compulsive, but uncomfortable to watch. Those feelings of shame and embarrassment Bjorn we feel when someone is obviously lying. To someone extent he is aware that he comes across as smug and condescending so he swiftly moves the focus to Kate, the grieving mother. It's as if he has little microphone in his ear saying 'your losing them Gerry, switch to Kate's sad face'. Unfortunately, Kate is only fractionally less sympathetic than Gerry, the nation hasn't taken her to their hearts either.

      To finish, I began by calling the McCanns uncultured, but I'm not familiar with the Pearl poem either. However, if the father in the poem acknowledges his child is dead, I can see how that would prove tricky for Gerry.

      How do Gerry and Kate explain their position now? Do they continue with 'no evidence Madeleine is dead?' All these years later and no sightings of Madeleine, that chant sounds particularly worn and unbelievable. They believe as long as Madeleine is not declared dead, by Operation Grange for example, they can continue their search as before.

      The legal clauses in Madeleine's Fund (not a charity) state that Madeleine must be found and her abductor brought to justice, for them to give the remainder of the Fund to children's charities or whatever. Both Gerry and Kate have always been perfectly clear with the 'and her abductor' part. It was a soundbite they wanted to imprint on the public subconscious.

      Some might say, as there was no abductor, that the Contract was lock tight. Ie. there was no way they would ever have to give up Madeleine's Fund to anyone else. If the Fund were truly altruistic, it would have made donations to many good causes over the years, it hasn't.

    5. Hi again Rosalinda ref. your post 23 October 2018 at 17:14

      "Those feelings of shame and embarrassment Bjorn we feel when someone is obviously lying"

      So true, Rosalinda and sometimes our emotions and feelings are more reliable than scientific analysis of facial expressions.

      If Gerry would just wash his psychotic or duping smirk off his face, it would at least be less embarrassing to watch him talk.

    6. I think Gerry has led a very charmed life Bjorn, in that his parents and siblings put him up on a pedestal and protected him unreservedly. His mother was shocked that anyone could do such a thing to 'a doctor'.

      Kate too, looks up to him, she often prefaces her own views and opinions with 'as Gerry said'. I find her deference to him irritating, she is a grown woman and a qualified doctor, the helpless female stuff grates.

      In any event, there is something strangely satisfying in seeing someone as deeply unpleasant as Gerry McCann making such an ass of himself. There is a stark contrast between Gerry's 'I'm the king of the world' interviews in the early days and the sheepish Gerry post the Crimewatch revelation. The wind has literally been knocked out of his sails. There are no more demands for metrics and deliverables.

      I don't think we will see much of the duping delight anymore Bjorn, because it would appear the duping has come to an end.

  36. I have asked before but it didn't get through Ros's spam box.

    What happened to the book that you were going to publish by Christmas last year Ros?

    1. I have this past year been suffering from deep clinical depression 20:39, I'll spare you the details, because you have probably already guessed them. Your enquiry was to make me feel bad about myself. You succeeded.

    2. Why did you ask that question, anonymous person? Come on, try giving a truthful answer.

    3. We won’t get one. Still we can help it out until it tries.

      Anonimoron: I was genuinely interested - knowing smile.

      JB: No you weren’t, you f*****g liar. Try again.

      Anonimoron: Rudeness won’t help you.

      JB: Don’t divert. Just answer the question. Truthfully.

      Anonimoron: - -

      JB: Come on – you can do it, you really can. You're anonymous so mum won't know.

      Anonimoron: All right, all right, you horrid, horrid bully – because I wanted to hurt her! [bursts into tears] Is that what you wanted? [Cries some more] I’m all on my own you know.

      JB: Of course you are. Now f*** off.

    4. Ziggy has asked the exact same question in the past.
      Coincidence maybe?

    5. I have encountered so much cruelty of late John, that an act of kindness brings forth tears. I'm sure that's not what you intended, but they were tears of gratitude.

      That post was just the latest of many sent by this particular Anonimoron, my spam box is filled with dozens of missives carrying similar spiteful messages, I hadn't realised I had let that one slip through to publication.

      I don't usually, or try not to, give them a second thought John, they don't know me so it can't be personal. It is disturbing however, that there are people out there who take so much pleasure in causing others pain.

      Of course some would argue that I am bringing pain to Madeleine's family, but that I will not accept. Not believing someone's lies is completely different to plotting ways in which to push a manic depressive over the edge. This case has, sadly, attracted a number of grim reapers.

      But in a way, I am glad I let that malevolent comment slip through and I'm glad that John so valiantly came to my defence. Perhaps my readers should know about the poison pen letters I regularly receive. There is something deeply sinister about those who proclaim to defend the McCanns. Beginning of course with, not one of them dares to use their own names.

    6. Hello Ros.

      Anonymous hate is what killed Brenda Leyland.

      As I wrote recently, the greatest known-for-certain crime of the McCanns is that they stirred up hatred on a gigantic scale that continues to shock: just point any outsider at twitter McCann and watch them gasp at the hatred unveiled on all sides.

      I won't play childish games of "You started it". It has nothing to do with game points to state that the written evidence demonstrates quite irrefutably that the McCanns were not responding to any hatred, or even criticism from the outside world when they began to attack others. They were pre-empting.

      Michael Wright, on May 4 2007, told the London Standard in direct quotation that "There has been some negative spin put on this, with people criticising them for leaving the kids and going on the tear...but that's nonsense..."

      There had been no negative spin by anybody anywhere when Wright spoke. Alnost nobody knew anything to criticise - only that there were reports of a child going missing "from its bed". He was lying. Nobody had criticised the McCanns. It was Michael Wright who was inventing a critical, "nonsensical" opposition, a "side", which he then attacked.

      And many hours before, as we know, the McCanns began their war against the Portuguese police by making untrue accusations about them.

      Again, they were inventing an "opposition" which they could then demonise using the media.

      That is why the Lisbon Appeal Court said they had lost the right to privacy - by taking their lies to the people via the media instead of just lying to the police. The people had and have a right to respond to that attempt to use them.

      I've read blogs of yours where you've havered and worried about being unfair to the couple. Most thinking critics of the pair have done the same.

      With you the pain-bringers sneer at that as "indecision". No it isn't - it's called having a conscience.

      It's always a shock to find out how many malevolent people there are - but it was the McCanns who began the process of loosening the soil so that worms like the person above could crawl out. All to save their sorry arses from the police.

    7. Ros 24 Oct 05.00

      Don't let some snide remark about a book get you down, what does it really matter in the scheme of things. If you write a book it will be torn to shreds anyway by those who can, it doesn't really matter to a lot of people whether you write one or not. I'd forgotten all about it, but it doesn't make any difference to my life in one form or another.

      What matters is that we have a forum here that people can comment on and vent their feelings, thoughts and ideas regarding the McCanns, which is very rare now.

      Over the past I have said to friends "I'm going to do this, I'm going to that" but when push comes to shove I really couldn't be a*sed. I've been meaning to have double glazing put in my house for the past 10 years, I still haven't got around to it and still shiver through every winter, but that's for me to deal with not anyone else.

      Still keep writing your blogs, we would not be here otherwise.

      I don't know if you remember but when you wrote your very first book regarding your time in a home I replied that my aunt (who is now 92) was in a Catholic Home in Shepherd's Bush I think it was, her time there was horrendous, it was only over the past 10 years she told me about what went on there. So you and I go back a long way.

    8. I remember in the old days when hundreds, if not thousands, were posting in the forums and readers comments sections of the National newspapers. The supporters of the McCanns operated in packs, that is, their mission was to seek and destroy.

      Sadly, I saw it happen over and over again, and of course I too was subject to the savaging of the rottweiller pack on an almost daily basis. For me, the more they tried to shut me up, the more I wanted to know why.

      But kudos to them, they were very successful, most normal people wisely, would just exit the discussions declaring they didn't need that kind of grief. For those who stuck it out, it became safer, and the norm, to comment under anonymity.

      And you are right John, it was an organised, proactive campaign to scare away anyone who questioned the abduction story and it began the night Madeleine disappeared.

      It has always been about protecting the parents, rather than finding the child. Why did they need an aggressive internet campaign to push the abduction story? Could it be because it was so unbelievable?

      I expect Gerry has been able to tick off many of the plans (wider agenda)from the whiteboard he gleefully showed off, to make it look as though he was actually doing something, and not enjoying an endless holiday at Warners' and donors' expense. 'Look at me being all managerial and talking about metrics and deliverables', what a hero. Meanwhile others at the resort were giving up their holidays to go search for his daughter.

    9. I think it is a symptom of the megalomania that Gerry et all truly believed they could keep social media free of negative comment about their fairytale. They thought they could exercise the same kind of legal muscle in cyber world as they were over mainstream media. They were incredibly naïve, a Gerry statement that we will probably hear a great deal in the coming months. To be fair, Gerry only has to point the jury at Clarence Mitchell and ask 'would you buy a used car from this man?'.

      How can you quantify the innocence of a couple who are deeply religious and doctors ffs. They are smart, well heeled, erudite and personable. They have no financial or personal problems (on the face of it), the only hiccup in their otherwise perfect lives, was the disappearance of the oldest child.

      As most of my readers will know, I have an avid addiction to real crime documentaries on YouTube. They are mostly American, this particular genre seems especially popular in the US. The Brit equivalents, I find a bit too gritty and realistic, which probably makes them superior, but I remain a wuss.

      The US of course has far more murders than the UK, or indeed most of the world, down to the crazy need to bear arms. What I find most fascinating is that so many of the murders are committed by church going pillars of the community. They seem to prefer actual disposal of their spouses to divorce.

      The US however, does not appear to be so class orientated as the UK. That is they will investigate a suspect whatever their rank in society, there are no privileges or allowances given for being a doctor or a highly regarded member of the establishment.

      I think the image the McCanns have created for themselves has become one of those 'be careful what you wish for, you just might get it' prophesies that Gerry and Kate have to live with. For me having to pretend to be something I am not, would be the worse kind of prison imaginable. They are either living under intense scrutiny, or they imagine they are living under intense scrutiny, whichever, they are living a nightmare.

      In a way I have a smidgeon of admiration for them, in that they still think they have the power to scare people as they used to. Their trolls have lost the battle, if not the war, they are defeated. The biggest battle they lost, or should I say threw away, was their claim to being victimised online by people like Brenda Leyland. Brenda was their chosen enemy. Sadly for them the British public were appalled at the targeting of 63 year old who did no more voice her opinion on social media. I'm not saying Brenda's tragedy was the turning point for the McCanns, but it was one of the most significant ones. The victims had become the bullies.

      Thank you again for posting here John and for the nuggets that you bring. There is nothing remotely normal in Team McCann launching a hostile media campaign in the immediate aftermath of Madeleine's disappearance.

    10. "Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton23 October 2018 at 12:04

      I have this past year been suffering from deep clinical depression 20:39, I'll spare you the details, because you have probably already guessed them. Your enquiry was to make me feel bad about myself. You succeeded."

      Your "deep clinical depression" has not stopped you from blogging 30 times this year about the Mccanns - nor has it stopped you posting hundreds if not thousands of comments about your "considered", "expert" personal opinion "dislike" about the Mccanns, nor did it stop you appearing on a video about the Mccanns (described as a "blogger") so your pathetic injured dainty flower posts are rubbish.

      However as you are very ill I will stop asking questions like "What happened to the book that you were going to publish by Christmas last year Ros?" - you know the book you told all your supporters that you were going to publish and I will take my leave as "unknown" and anonymous.

      I hope you get well soon and suggest a way to your recovery is to stop your Mccann blogs (as you wanted to do earlier this year but succumbed to supply and demand) and just move on to other things. As you say in the blog title "HOW ABOUT WE JUST FORGET IT?"

      I will support and comment on any blogs that you decide to make.

    11. Good Evening Unknown24 October 2018 at 19:26

      "What happened to the book that you were going to publish by Christmas last year Ros?"

      You keep repeating the same question by quoting yourself, the one you earlier asked Rosalinda in disguise as anonymous.

      You were then asked by JB as to why you did so, and even if you haven't explicitly answered that question yet, it's so obvious that your motif was to mock and humiliate Rosalinda making her shut down her blog, but it was not because you were interested in what she is/was about to write. I’m sad to say, that I can sense a taste of evil here.

    12. Anonymous23 October 2018 at 17:40
      "Ziggy has asked the exact same question in the past.
      Coincidence maybe?"

      Yes perhaps, but in another way and not for the same reason. Anonymous in that particular spot is "Unknown" and she's (I presume a woman) rude and malicious, while Ziggy VL Sawdust has as far as I know never attacked Rosalinda, me or anyone else personally, though he's always been critical to whomever believes that the McCanns are quilty.

    13. Can you keep a secret Bjorn?
      They are the same person,otherwise known as Michael Wright.
      He also likes to go by the name of Mark.
      Note the similarity,it's often the way with false names.

    14. Even if you are a doctor Unknown, you are in no position to diagnose my mental health condition as that of a pathetic injured dainty flower. You are among those malicious people who push the vulnerable to the edge of insanity, then take glee in calling them mad.

      Unfortunately for you my brain doesn't stop working when I sink into the depths of depression, on the contrary, it becomes sharper and more astute. It is comparable to our senses heightening in times of danger.

      What you and your cohorts fail to understand Unknown, is that the more you attack me, the more I will fight back. I get knocked down, but I get up again, you ain't never gonna keep me down, maybe even, on the odd occasion I will piss the night away.

      You see the big difference between me and those you are protecting Unknown, is that I have the freedom to be exactly who I am, complete with all my faults. I don't have to hide, and I don't have to hide my fears, my insecurities or even my rock bottom clinical depression. I own every mad, bad or crazy decision I have ever made. I don't blame other people for my woes, I blame myself.

      You meanwhile, must hide behind anonymity to make spiteful comments that would see you shunned in the real world. In real life you have to keep all that malevolence to yourself and it must be eating you alive.

    15. And funnily enough Mark Wright is an ex Liverpool player.

  37. "Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton15 October 2018 at 17:46
    There is something unsettling about confronting people with crimes committed decades ago. The motives of those pursuing them become questionable, unless of course they are tracking down the monsters of Hitler's Third Reich."

    Would you like to consider that statement again Ros?

    1. Have you never heard of Simon Wiesenthal Unknown? He devoted his life to tracking down the monsters of the holocaust. He was a Nazi hunter, there were many of them.

    2. @ Ros 23 October 2018 at 12:09

      I have no problem with Nazi hunters. It is the others that I was talking about - rapists, muggers, thieves, abusers, child abusers (both sexual and physical), murderers etc etc - you want them not to be investigated because their crimes are historical/decades ago and you doubt the motives of those coming forward.

  38. Anonymous 22 October at 15:29

    Talking of 'huge flags':

    27 May 2007

    "The McCanns are drawing strength from their twins, two-year-old Sean and Amelie. Kate said: 'The twins are so young they just get on with things, but obviously we don't want them to forget about Madeleine. We are hoping to see a child psychologist to explain what has happened to Madeleine to the twins.'

    She added: 'They help us to get through this. We are a strong family and they were so close to Madeleine, only 20 months apart.'

    Gerry said: 'We could have lost the twins too. There were three children in the room. That's the worst nightmare..."

  39. "Asked whether Brown had influenced the decision, Clarence Mitchell, a Foreign Office spokesman for the McCann family in the Algarve, said: 'Draw your own conclusions.' He said in a statement: 'I can confirm that telephone conversations have taken place between Gerry McCann and Chancellor Gordon Brown. During them, Mr Brown offered both Gerry and Kate his full support in their efforts to find Madeleine, although details of the conversations will remain private.'"

    Draw your own conclusions.

  40. Still no sign of Bennett denying he did a grubby deal to rubbish Smithman?
    When someone slaps you across the face with a glove,it is the honourable thing to accept the challenge.
    That Pagan Profit man did,so why no response?
    Is Bennett honourable or not?
    He must have seen it,or one of his few followers would have told him about it,so why no bible out on the table and swearing forthwith?

    Come on,let's have some action.
    Pistols or swords?

  41. The Mccanns ran up legal fees and costs of around £370,000 fighting the scurrilous accusations of Bennett.

    Ed. Smethurst ran up legal fees and costs of about £53,000 fighting the scurrilous accusations of Bennett.

    These costs the Macs/Smethurst, out of the charitable goodness of their hearts, reduced to £35,000 in total.

    This meant the Macs/Smethurst generously paid the outstanding £380,000 from their own resources and deep pockets, to help Bennett out.

    Such generosity of spirit, no strings of course, but why? The £380,000 would fund a lot of searching.

    The salient point Bennett cannot express an opinion on the McCann case without the permission of Kate and Gerry McCann.

    If they do not like his opinions or leanings, they can halt it at any time draw your own conclusions.

    What a contrast compared to the treatment given to G. Amaral.

    1. @ JJ24 October 2018 at 13:51

      Instead of focusing on the generosity of the Mccanns & Ors perhaps you should say how much bennett has paid out to CR, Kennedy and Smethurst in his quest to smear the Mccanns and everyone involved with them.

    2. I liked the Rev's joke about the McCann's wanting to make the costs reduction for Bennett 100% but thought it might seem suspicious.Lol,what the hell does 93% look like.In fact though,was that the idea,get Bennett onside,but also discredit him too?Get what you want and give him a kicking at the same time.
      Double whammy.

  42. JJ 13:51
    The figures speak for themselves.
    Maybe most of the ordinary posters on CMoMM don't know when Bennett discredits the Smith's that he has an agenda to follow,but the admin team surely do.
    They must be bent too!
    I suppose that's why it's called a cesspit by outside observers.

  43. Does anybody sense a sea change?
    Blacksmith's Usual Suspects are slowly but surely being exposed as frauds.
    Hideho, Bennett,Verdi,Textusa,the whole damn lot of them being shown up for what they are.
    Good! Long may it continue.
    Blacksmith was right all along!

  44. Hi Rosalinda,
    I just came across this gem from Julian Assange's 2014 book "When Google met Wikileaks".
    Assange writes: "Auchi,(a criminal Iraqi oil billionaire) then hired Carter-Ruck, a rather notorious firm of London solicitors, whose founder Peter Carter-Ruck, has been described as doing for freedom of speech what the Boston Strangler did for door to door salesmen"... (further writing to London newspapers and engineering multiple Pages Not Found on the internet for his client).

    The McCanns followed suit when they hooked up with Carter-Ruck shortly after their daughter's death.
    The most expensive law firm in the land you say...but it was nothing, - the McCanns had the funds just like the billionaires too.

    Sadly,the fake "Find Madeleine Fund" quickly steam-rollered into millions in donations from innocent well-wishers hoping to find a girl long since dead and disposed of by the man seen carrying a child's body down the streets of Praia da Luz on the same night as her death.
    This was a monstrous scheme marketed by none other than the parents with the help of criminal spin-doctors.
    Beyond evil is not enough to describe these events.

    If ever Carter-Ruck wanted a resume written from the top, this is it.
    Have a nice day.

  45. Kate McCann (madeleine):

    "Adam Tudor and his colleague Isabel Hudson continue to do a vast amount of work for us, without payment, most of it quietly, behind the scenes."

    1. Adam Tudor speaking to Parliamentary committee Mar 10 2009

      "We sent the complaints to the Express and Star at which point we (Carter Ruck) were working on a normal retainer"

  46. 'Breaking: Lord Hain names Sir Philip Green as the powerful businessman who has "concealed the truth" about sexual harassment, racist abuse and bullying with NDAs.'

  47. There will be no conclusion to this - unless someone breaks down and confesses. OG wil let it wither on the vine and issue some bland statement that it will never be closed and they will continue looking.This isn't an issue about "class" but about power & money...GM was savvy enough to know if he could get money he could buy the best legal brains (libel & extradition) - which he duly did and the power that came with it.They have embarrassed a huge number of people in the highest positions of power because a politician jumped on a potential good news bandwagon and he was followed by any number of people who sought self advancement on the back of the political involvement. And they all got embarrassed/compromised to a degree which is almost unimaginable.

  48. Has T gone walkabout?
    I miss the concur and correct comments.

  49. Hi anon 26 October 2018 at 12:32
    "I miss the concur and correct comments"
    So do I.

  50. john blacksmith 24 October 2018 at 15:35

    “Anonymous hate is what killed Brenda Leyland.”

    Please show us (a proof).

    1. Show us a proof you exist.

      Suggestion: I troll therefore I am.

  51. I am still waiting Mr Bennett for you to swear on your God you didn't do any deal for reduced court costs that involved discrediting the Smith sighting or any other aspect of the case.
    I have seen you posting on CMOMM today so I know you are around and online.Interestingly you are casting doubt on the Smith's again.

    So,let's be having you.

    You got until Monday.
    If you don't or won't respond,then it will be clear for all to see and conclusions reached accordingly.

    1. Reverend T. Ben. Nit27 October 2018 at 10:57

      Good God!

      Never a rude word has ever passed my lips.
      Nor a bad deed either.
      Well,apart from that little incident behind the bike shed with George at the Monastery.
      But that's in the past,I have repented for my sins.It was all rather exciting at the time,but you're only young once.So George told me longingly.
      I wonder what became of good old George.
      But I digress.Now where was I?
      Ah yes,the Smith sighting.
      All quite simple really.
      The nice Mr and Mrs McCann said Mr Smith should have gone to Specsavers.The whole family should have actually.
      One of them even said they saw some peculiar trouser buttons.
      Glasses? The person must have had night vision goggles I'd say.Couldn't possibily be telling the truth,the scoundrel!
      Anyway,who am I to disagree.I am simply a man of God.A messenger for his holy word.
      If the McCann's say it's true,it's good enough for me.They are a most righteous couple.A model for all of us.

      The reduced court costs did help tip the balance too.

      Amen to that!

    2. Well,I gave Mr Bennett the chance to put this issue to bed once and for all but it seems he hasn't taken the opportunity.
      Therefore I'm left with no option other than conclude he did indeed do a deal for drastically reduced court costs.
      Being a Heathen I dont believe in Heaven and Hell so metaphorically speaking,Mr Bennett did a deal with the devil to discredit the Smith family.
      Whether you believe Gerry was Smithman,or as I do,another member of the group disguised as Gerry wearing his distinctive buton trousers while the real Gerry was being seen elsewhere by multiple witnesses,or not,the effect would be the same.It would show the abduction as a hoax.
      So in my view the Smith sighting is the most important piece of evidence in this case and the key to unlocking it.
      The people with most to lose know that too and when a golden opportunity came along,namely Mr Bennett,they seized upon it.
      He was probably told to carry on with the death on Sunday or Monday lark to appear genuine,but at the same time keep hammering out the message the Smith's are either wrong or working for us (the McCann's).Rather clever the last bit actually or dastardly depending from which side you are viewing it.
      They wouldn't have entrusted any 'secret' to Mr Bennett of course so he knows no more than the rest of us.
      I'm not suggesting Mr Bennett did any of this willingly and it probably guts him,but money talks and if he had had to pay back the full costs it would have ruined him.
      When it comes to it,we all have a price and how many of us could say honestly we wouldn't have done the same?
      I'm sorry Mr Bennett, but I dont believe a word you now say and I urge others to do the same.
      You are compromised in my view.

    3. When it comes to it,we all have a price and how many of us could say honestly we wouldn't have done the same?

      In fairness most people would not get themselves in Bennetts position.
      Only a nutter would plough on risking their home to prove what?
      This man, do not forget orchestrated a vicious campaign for over two years against Martin Smith before realising it was the wrong Smith.Golf gadgets should ring a bell!
      Bennett pursued a nasty campaign against Aofie Smith a 12 year old who he believed was an adult delving into her school projects looking for proof of conspiracy.
      Many of us have never believed Bennett and his "research"

    4. 27 Oct 10:57

      Oi Rev
      You sound very like Andy Fish 19 to me.He's obsessed with Bennett too.Always calling him Bent Bennett and taking the piss out of him on twitter.
      Are you going to own up? Go on,you know you want to.

    5. Rev = DaveHall

    6. In the name of Christ, who's Dave Hall please, I'm dying to know?


  52. Hi Rosalinda,
    I just looked over one of your older 2017 posts "No freedom of speech for you". All about the "Blood Spatter" debate.
    It is hilarious to read the frenzied attempts of Team McCann trying eliminate the word "blood" from the record. They give themselves away every time on every word of every sentence in their desperate attempt to find anything - anything at all to deflect attention from their clients.

    Who knows, - maybe it was ice cream the tracker dogs detected.
    Perfectly logical for Mr McCann who spent a lot of time after his child's disappearance referencing sources about the unreliability of forensic tracker dogs.

    Another question could be asked of Mr McCann is, whether the missing child Madeleine is actually his OWN child.
    He certainly never indicated this to his upstairs neighbor in the Warner hotel in Praia da Luz.
    The woman, Pamela Fenn, had heard a child crying below in the 5A apartment for many nights in a row, but when this woman asked McCann what the commotion was on the night of May 3rd 2007 after McCann's wife ran around screaming "She's been taken", this man's lame response was "A child is missing".
    Nary a mention of "My child".
    But unhappily that's not enough for a conviction. He's just a stiff upper lip kind of a guy. - Right?

    1. jc at 06:39

      In addition:

      "Upon leaning over the terrace, after having seen the mother, Mrs Fenn asked the father, Gerry, what was happening to which he replied that a small girl had been abducted. When asked, she replied that she did not leave her apartment, just spoke to Gerry from her balcony, which had a view over the terrace of the floor below. She found it strange that Gerry when said that a girl had been abducted, he did not mention that it was his daughter and that he did not mention any other scenarios. At that moment she offered Gerry help, saying that he could use her phone to contact the authorities, to which he replied that this had already been done. It was just after 22.30."

  53. This whole case reeks of a pre-planned set up, so much so that I do wonder if there ever were any truly independent witnesses.

    Everyone was playing a part is the way I see it.

    1. 13:40

      "Everyone was playing a part"


    2. No, not unwittingly.

    3. 21:46

      Who's the director?

    4. A major media outlet.

    5. "everyone is acting, some in big ways" - Gerry McCann

    6. 25 May 2007

      Gerry McCann:

      "Okay, I think, you know, there was a lot of criticism that came from the media about the police response and that has never come from Kate and I, at any point. One, errm... the lessons that will be learned from this, errm... investigation, errr... will be learned after it's finished and not during it. We've got a very good ongoing investigation with excellent collaboration between the British and Portuguese police and I'd like to emphasise, at this point, that it is really important that anyone who was here in the two weeks leading up to that abduction comes forward with any information, no matter how trivial - and if they have not been interviewed already - and I would ask to them to upload their pictures, I do have a web address that I'd like to re-emphasise, which is and if you haven't spoken to the police, there are two numbers: one from the UK, which is 0800 0961233 and if you're calling from abroad, it's 0044 207 1580197 and, I mean, it... it ties in with our own family campaign to keep the publicity of Madeleine's disappearance high.

      "We truly believe that a member of the public holds the information to unlock where Madeleine is being kept. They either will have seen something, that will lead to the abductor being traced, or they will notice suspicious behaviour, from someone, and we truly believe that and I think, you know, we cannot have imagined how successful our campaign to keep the publicity going, regarding her disappearance, has been, but it's because people have seen that and, with information technology, the world is so much smaller and we believe that there truly is a feeling here that the people will not allow this to happen and they want Madeleine to be found and everyone is acting, some in big ways; every small piece of action here helps in the search."

    7. Anonymous 30 October 2018 at 07:59

      Thank you for pointing out the confusion quoting out of context can entail.


  54. Well said Anonymous @ 13:40,

    Once the McCanns had passed around the poisoned chalice to the Tapas 7 there was no turning back for this group of liars.

    Now, the McCanns friends and one relative were hooked in perpetuity by their lies to Portuguese police on interrogation transcripts.

    Unless one of their friends cracks this might be the most gold-plated deal of the century for the duo, by both saving their reputations and avoiding prison time.

  55. I see on CMoMM Verdi is still trying to swat Phoebe away as if she's an annoying fly, the harder you swat it it still keeps coming back, ha, ha, lovely to watch.

    Now poor Verdi has given up trying to reason with her/him and has just posted a comment that:

    Martin Smith's evidence was considered by the PJ to be highly contradictory....this type of witness does not deserve credibility" 24 Horas 7.7.2008

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

    Yeah, right, just as if a police force spending £millions on an investigation would take into account a load of #*&@%# on an internet forum telling them that Smithman is not a credible witness.

    I think their most likely reaction would be "go boil your heads" and the CMoMM "paperwork" would be filed in the bin.

    1. Put it in the bin?
      You cant do that!
      That's important 'research' by Bennett on behalf of the Mccann's.

    2. Ain't no bin large enough.

    3. You have got have a lot of sympathy for civil servants, whose job it is to read the unending diatribes of lunatics like Bennett. Unfortunately, read them they must, because somewhere within the mountain of dross, there may be something 'sane' or even something threatening towards the McCanns. They have my sympathy, if I were faced with being left to rot in a rat infested dungeon or reading the works of Bennett, I would choose the rat infested dungeon every time.

  56. August 9, 2017

    "The United States and Saudi Arabia use cholera to kill Yemenis in a biological warfare."

  57. “Anonymous 26 October 2018 at 20:56

    john blacksmith 24 October 2018 at 15:35

    “Anonymous hate is what killed Brenda Leyland.”

    Please show us (a proof).


    john blacksmith 27 October 2018 at 14:03

    Show us a proof you exist.

    Suggestion: I troll therefore I am.”


    Blacksmithing on the ridiculous?

    He writes “f***” as if he is a demure, untouched virgin. Heavy-footed at humour, rubbish at ontology, he goes straight for ad hominem when politely asked a reasonable question.

    I am not a troll. ‘john blacksmith’ is a nasty piece of work to have insinuated I am. Insinuation is one of his trademarks. I simply called his bluff.


  58. I am not insinuating you are a troll: I am stating that that is what you are.

    In this case your trolling takes the form of asking a question that you know will not be answered for a purpose of your own - because all you wanted was to be rude with a follow-up. You didn't want to find out anything at all, did you? Because you made up whatever mind you might possess long ago.

    Now, I'll ask again - what is the proof that someone too cowardly to give name, gender, motivation, bona fides, occupation or anything else, exists?

    The posts here with the funny little T beneath them have exactly the same status as an anonymous letter to a vicar's wife from a dirty old man. You are not what you want to be seen as, exactly as the dirty old man isn't. He gets his kicks his way, you get yours your way. And as there's no evidence that there's a you, or several of you, or a bot, then you have no rights of any kind - from me or anywhere else.

    So you'll just have to live with the f*****g downside of being an anonymous troll, won't you?

    1. Ain’t that a gotcha!

      I am minded to advise that you drop your Cartesian aspirations, read up, for starters, on Logic, Semantics and How to Write in Plain English, ‘john’ny.

      Go in peace now and get you kicks on Route 66 (writing letters to your vicar's wife).

      Btw, the question of anonymity has been most satisfactorily answered by ‘Not Textusa’, in whose choir of acquiescence you sing falsetto.

      Ich grolle nicht.

      T (black… and proud)

    2. T (above): "Insinuation is one of his trademarks"

      And not commendable. Hypocrisy is another.

      I quote:

      "...trolling takes the form of asking a question that you know will not be answered for a purpose of your own - because all you wanted was to be rude with a follow-up."

      Like this? (18.10 @17:54)

      "If you won't get off your arse to act against supposedly corrupt institutions, in whatever way you can, who do you think is going to do so? Father Xmas?"

      Followed a day later by this response to Anonymous, who was clearly looking for a straightforward response to his earlier question...

      "Perhaps in your social circles that is considered to be the correct manner to ask for the courtesy of a reply and the opening of a dialogue.

      "Not in mine. Get lost."

      To which Anonymous (20.10 @11:05) replied reservedly, "Not nice."

      The farrier's technique of 'throw a punch - ascend the pulpit' is clear, as it was to Anonymous above.

    3. I thought it churlish to pick up on JB's 'troll' hypocrisy to 'T', even after his offensive responses to my original Operation grange questions and the 'over and out' statement closure, but thanks for your noting @13.49.
      It is good to know that others are also collectively watching and noting these behaviours.

    4. Anonymous 30 October 2018 at 13:49

      A superior post! T takes their hat off to you, Master!

      “The farrier's technique of 'throw a punch - ascend the pulpit' is clear…”

      Indeed. Heine would’ve loved your turn of phrase. And to paraphrase Heine (Ideen. Das Buch Le Grand): T falls asleep listening to a dull sermon, and dreams of listening on, and awakes from sheer boredom.

      Muzel tov!



  59. @ Mr Profit man
    Now you have outed Bennett,what about getting Mr Textusa to swear on something to out him as a fraud too?
    I know...his imaginary spinster sisters.
    That's if he has time in between all that swinging and cross dressing.

    1. Bennett and Textusa are like siamese twins.You couldn't get a fag paper between them.The only difference is, one is a swinger and the other one likes to visit buildings of a certain type.
      NT put it well,saying they are two cheeks from the same arse.One cheek having an abscess on it and the other a carbuncle.

    2. You've all got the man wrong.Completely wrong!
      Yes,Textusa likes to pass as a woman and partakes in the odd bit of hanky panky.But hey,we're all grown ups,right?
      He's actually a very clever guy and got you lot swooning over his every word.Text is a WUM for f#ck sakes and enjoying every minute of pulling your plonkers.You plonkers! If you haven't seen the light yet you never will.Jeez,you lot need to get into the swing of things.

  60. Anonymous 24 October 2018 at 16:08

    “What matters is that we have a forum here that people can comment on and vent their feelings, thoughts and ideas regarding the McCanns, which is very rare now.”

    Well said. Concur. Thank you.


  61. 07:59
    (Gerry McCann: "Okay, I think, you know, there was a lot of criticism that came from the media about the police response and that has never come from Kate and I, at any point.")

    Kate McCann (madeleine):

    (5 May 2007, “After making several calls seeking help from Liz Dow, around two in the morning we both went to lie down for a while.”)

    “Still in the dark as to what was being done to help find our daughter – if anything was being done to find her – Gerry and I prayed together and eventually drifted into a brief and fitful sleep.”

    The media must have read Kate's mind.

  62. New Blacksmith out.
    Interim Status Report 30th Oct

    Takes aim at Bennett and Brown.
    Interesting and worth a read.

    1. Anonymous 31 October 2018 at 09:40

      “Interesting and worth a read.”

      I beg to differ.

      Another impotent, manufactured piece of no literary merit. All the usual ad hominems mixed with the author’s embarrassing attempts to entertain, spiced with an even more embarrassing attempt to raise the tone by quoting Wagner. Not recommended to non-masochists.

      And no casual mention on Not Textusa’s by the author?

      Too shy shy
      Hush hush, eye to eye
      Too shy shy
      Hush hush…


    2. "Oh T, you are so witty I really need to start sycophantically praising you erudite wit" like JB does with Not Textusa
      seriously, keep exposing the distractive hypocrisy of our pseudo intellects

  63. If and when this case ever comes to an end, I believe people will be most shocked when they discover where the body has been for all this time.

  64. Anonymous 30 October at 21:53

    "The British Embassy in Portugal is located in Lisbon with a number of consulates in the country. If you are visiting the country and need assistance with regard to an accident, death or arrest then the British embassy would be your first port of call in an emergency."

  65. Morning Rosalinda and Björn

    Would you be so kind as to tell me whether you think I am a troll, I would be most grateful. I am asking you since you are the two persons of whose identity I’m certain.

    Many thanks.


    1. Good morning T, nice to see you, I do hope you are in fine fettle. I don't think you are a troll T, I enjoy your contributions to my blog, there are many occasions where you raise the level of discourse, and for that I am grateful.

      The word 'troll' is still fairly new to our vernacular and I am not sure that it has ever been clearly defined. For me trolls are strange little creatures who live in the Hall of the Mountain King in Norway gathering together for a huge crescendo. Of course today's trolls have nothing to do with Peer Gynt, and are a tad more sinister.

      The case of missing Madeleine attracted thousands of commentators, most of whom quickly learned that commenting on this case could seriously damage their livelihoods, their businesses and even their families. Ergo, most have innocent reasons for posting anonymously.

      There are a few, louder than most, that use the anonymity to unleash their 'Mr. Hyde's', that is the darker, unsociable sides of their personalities that would not be acceptable in the real world. You are not among them T, anything you say on here, I believe you would say if you and I were sharing a bottle of wine or in the company of Bjorn, JC or even Ziggy. In fact I think it would make an interesting gathering!

      You are always welcome at my table T, as too are all who enjoy enlightening discussion and who can exchange ideas without hostility and without sticking their fingers in their ears.

      As I mentioned earlier, most people have very good reason to post anonymously. The media monitoring campaign launched by Team McCann in the aftermath of Madeleine's disappearance is probably the first major example of how social media can be used to threaten and silence opponents. I saw it in action, many, many times in the forums. Troll armies would literally gather and attack selected victims until they gave up and went away.
      'Exposing the Myths' was a website dedicated to naming, shaming and exposing anyone who dared to question the abduction story. It was the 'dossier' handed to the police prior to the debacle that led to Brenda Leyland taking her own life. The only good thing to come out of that debacle? The police KNOW who compiled the dossier, BB1, Tigerloaf etc, the whole odious lot of them.

    2. Should add T, that such is life, those people I like, do not necessarily like each other. As I have said often, JB is often the Oracle as far as this case is concerned.

      I particularly like his recent 'Foundation Lie', putting Kate's 'Madeleine' lies alongside Gerry's 'blog' lies, takes an enormous amount of work, so well done to JB for making it appear simple.

      I happen to agree with JB that Kate's admitting to one lie opened the flood gates and perhaps inadvertently, drew attention to the lies in Gerry's blogs. Have they ever told the truth? I say inadvertently, because as clever as Team McCann think they are, they often make clumsy mistakes. That is, they create the spin, but do not foresee the consequences.

      One example that comes to mind, was Kate's ill thought out statement that the open window may have been a 'red herring'. A statement issued after several Portuguese detectives dismissed the open window as a point of entry of exit.

      Which gives me an idea for a blog!

    3. Waiting patiently!

    4. john blacksmith 22 October 2018 at 21:52

      “It is called "an endless regression".”

      No, ‘in the trade’ it is called an infinite regress, ‘john’. ‘Not Textusa’ would know. Ask.

      No hard feelings.


    5. Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton 1 November 2018 at 11:59

      My sweet Rosalinda

      Thank you so much for you kind and thoughtful response.

      Your mentioning the Scandinavian folklore has taken me back to my early teens, reminded me of my good friend, old and steadfast Väinämöinen, and made me all emotional. Now I’ll go to do some work in the sun, drink rum and think of you. I’ll get back to you when I’m up to it. Please forgive me.



  66. More Blacksmith.
    Status Report 2
    About Textusa this time

    1. JB putting the boot into Tex now.I wonder where next?
      A most deserving target would be Verdi.
      That vile person is well overdue a jolly good kicking for all his/her rudeness to people.

    2. Anonymous 2 November 2018 at 12:22

      “JB putting the boot into Tex now.I wonder where next?”

      Perhaps no boots left.

      “That vile person is well overdue a jolly good kicking for all his/her rudeness to people.”

      Yeah, vile squared would be a hoot!