Friday, 20 July 2018

Masters of Disguise

(Copied over from My NotTextusa blog)

Seriously, guys?

"The most shocking sentence in the book concerned Kate's feelings toward Snr. Amaral so when I googled the name and discovered The Truth of the Lie, things fell into place. madeleine is clearly written as a reply, and it explained the tone of constant self justification.

The contrast between the two books became a reason to seek the truth, whatever it might be. I have watched all the "True Story of Madeleine McCann" videos of Richard D. Hall and many others on YouTube. I've visited a number of blogs where allegiances are easy to divine. As perhaps the most informative, I joined this forum to learn more. Thanks to the efforts of others concerned as I now am about this sad case, for the many questions I've asked myself after reading Kate's book there seems to be an answer. Even for apparently inconsequential things as pink trainers, and a dog attack.

I have since reread madeleine, and with the benefit of additional information, each page is a revelation.

I'm still reading, still learning, and wanted to say Thank You to the founders of the site for this invaluable resource and to its many knowledgeable contributors. Certainly I have not found The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™️ a "cesspit" as consistently labelled by one prominent blogger. Every thread I've read contains reasoned opinions, and views expressed without abuse. I think any fairminded person can see which purported theories hold water."
Honestly, how are you not permanently cringing in embarrassment, Tony? This is the least convincing disguise since Margaret Thatcher pretended to be a human

However, you have convinced Verdi, who normally sneers at any newcomer

"Excellent first post Jonal and thank you for those kind words which I know will be appreciated by al!

A big welcome to you on behalf of admin and members of CMoMM - looking forward to your further contribution."

Monday, 25 June 2018


I am crying with laughter

Behave, Bennett. 

There is no such evidence, just your fairy stories. The satellite image you posted for 3rd May 2007 CLEARLY SHOWS that PdL was sitting under a clear, cloudless sky.

May I suggest you familiarise yourself with the location of PdL and stop making a tit of yourself?

Or, as I suggest is more likely,  that you stop trying to con people.

And if you seriously think that your little poll of deranged Oompa loompas is going to convince anyone, then I suggest you try hitting yourself with a hammer in the hope that you might knock some sense into your calcified brain.

Monday, 18 June 2018


The sidebar at CMOMM states the following:

After forensic analysis of the 'Last Photo' there is little doubt now that the pool photo CANNOT POSSIBLY have been taken on the Thursday 3rd May, but most likely on the Sunday 29th April. So, where was Madeleine at lunchtime on Thursday?

This is complete bollocks

There is no forensic analysis of the ''last photo'' with respect to the time or date it was taken.

I would like Bennett to justify this false claim and also respond to my other posts where I have shown quite clearly, using images HE posted, that there was no cloud cover over PdL at the time this photo was reportedly taken

Thursday, 14 June 2018

Get yourself to Specsavers, you festering loon

The state of this

No they're not, you blind buffoon. You are a fucking idiot 

Okay, as no doubt you will argue the toss about it, in the airport video Madeleine is wearing crop trousers which are also a completely different colour to the full length ones she is wearing in the play area.

Gerry is wearing blue jeans on the bus and khaki shorts in the play area

You are a totally fucking useless researcher

From the man who spent months stalking the wrong  Martin Smith 

Sunday, 10 June 2018


Bonkers Bennett's tweet

You cannot be serious?

That satellite image clearly shows the PdL area basking under a clear blue sky. Zoom in, you blind wanker 

Saturday, 9 June 2018

The Smith Sighting revisited

Afternoon all.

I am posting this in response to a question raised on the previous article.

Okay, before I begin, can I make clear this is nothing to do with Bonkers Bennett and his loopy theory. I regard Bennett as a fraud and a charlatan.

I have taken a look again at the Smith sighting, as I am sure the investigating officers will have done, and it is perfectly possible that what I am about to say has already been raised with the Smiths and clarified.

One of the difficulties with this case is having any reliable timeline, as much of it relies upon people's recollections and can't be verified.

However, the Smith's dinner that night, at the Dolphin restaurant, is one thing which can be verified.

So, in brief, here is what we know.

The Smith party numbered nine in total, and their table was booked for 19.30
Their itemised bill came to a total of just over 180 euros and was settled by credit/debit card, so we know precisely what time that occurred - 21.27

They then moved on to Kelly's bar where they had some drinks before leaving for their apartment. It was on their way back to the apartment that they believe they encountered the man we refer to as ''Smithman"

I am going to state at this point that I believe the Smith party to be entirely sincere. However, without a fixed reference point, any time estimate is just that - an estimate.

In his statement, Martin Smith said that they left the Dolphin at around 21.00.

We now know he was probably out by about 30 minutes, given that the bill wasn't settled until shortly before 21.30. By the time the party were assembled and ready to move on, it would have been 21.30 or slightly after.

The journey to Kelly's bar would not have taken long, it's only about 50 yards, but some of the party were youngsters, so lets assume it took five minutes. That gives us an arrival time of around 21.35

Here is where the uncertainty arises.

We have the till roll for Kelly's bar, but there are several unknowns.

We know the total for each transaction, and the time. We do not know what drinks were ordered, how many, or how the bill was settled for any of the transactions. We also do not know whether the bill was settled when the drinks were ordered, or on leaving the bar.

That takes us to the next time point on the timeline.

Mr Smith estimated their time of departure as 21.55, because they had an early start the following morning, and the encounter with the mystery man occurring about five minutes later, at approx 22.00.

However - Mr Smith was out by a factor of about half an hour on their arrival time at Kelly's, which raises the question, is the estimate of 21.55 for their departure also out by a similar factor?

I have cross referenced with the transactions at Kelly's Bar.
Here is where it becomes necessary to make an assumption or two

These are the times and the totals for the transactions. I am starting with the earliest one which can possibly be the Smiths, given the time the bill was settled at the Dolphin. They are numbered sequentially on the till roll, so I know none are missing.

1. 21.39.......................... 13.75
2. 21.46..........................   8.00
3. 21.49..........................   8.00
4. 21.50...........................  5.00
5  22.16...........................  8.00
6. 22.24...........................  4.00
7. 22.28...........................  3.00
8. 22.29...........................  1.25
9. 22.31...........................  5.75
10. 22.47......................... 11.00
11. 22.53......................... 16.50

So, if we assume that the drinks were rung in at the time the order was placed, the only one which could be the Smiths is timed at 21.39, which is consistent with them leaving the restaurant at approximately 21.30. That total is also consistent with a round of drinks for a group.

For the next hour, all the transactions are for small amounts, probably equating to one or two drinks. The next sizeable order is not until 22.47, which is probably far too late.

So the question is this:

Did the Smiths really leave at 21.55?

Peter Smith estimated they left the restaurant at about 21.00, and had ''a few drinks'' before leaving at around 22.00
Aoife estimated they left the restaurant about 21.30 and spent about half an hour in the bar, but stresses that she knows what time they left because they had an early start.

So - what do the actual records suggest?

Well, they confirm an exit from the restaurant at about 21.30, therefore the round of drinks purchased at 21.39 is almost certainly theirs. It certainly can't be any earlier, because the transaction immediately before was much earlier, just after 20.00

So unless they absolutely threw their drinks down, it is unlikely that they had moved on by 21.55, which is only 15 minutes later.

My guess is that the real figure is probably somewhat later and that it is very unlikely that they left Kelly's prior to 22.15, possibly as late as 22.30

Now - it is perfectly possible that the police have been able to clarify this with them since, with reference to the till transactions at Kelly's, or if they paid on a card which would give a timed transaction. 

However, considering that the point where they crossed paths with the ''Man carrying child'' was about five minutes after leaving Kelly's I think it is safe to hypothesize that this was unlikely to be before 22.20 at the earliest, and possibly as late as 22.35

I should also say that if the bill for the drinks was settled on departure, then the only realistic options are the ones at 22.47 or 22.53, which would raise the prospect that their timeline is out by a whole hour.

Happy to hear from anyone who has any thoughts on this

Edited to add for the hard of thinking:

The reason why the Smith sighting reached a dead end with the investigation was due to the person Mr Smith thought he saw had an alibi for the time he thought he saw him

If, however, the time was not accurate, the alibi no longer stands. Does it?