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?

Saturday, 19 May 2018

Witchsmeller Pursuivant

Afternoon all.

For those of you growing tired of wall-to-wall coverage of an English man marrying an American woman, let's have a look and a laugh at Bonkers Bennett's latest 

Bennett was enjoying his full-time role of Witchsmeller Pursuivent now he had retired as a pretendy solicitor
To be absolutely fair, not all of my 60 points by any means were strong ones, and a few members here were right to point out that some of them were quite weak.  
It was a pile of unmitigated shite 

However, as I suspect you agree,
In other words "As you had better agree, on pain of banishment" 
it is when you consider the whole collection of 60 points, and put them altogether, that the very idea that the Smiths ever saw anyone at all crumbles away - and IMO crumbles away to nothing.
It might do in your opinion, but I would suggest that most people are not demented enough to believe that an entire family of normal, decent people would simply invent a story and all, including a child, lie to the police.

I want to suggest that there are five key alleged facts in this case which IMO are NOT facts at all. Again IMO, these five bogus facts are blinding many people to the truth.
So I am guessing these are the facts you have substituted with raving, wind-the-tinfoil-tighter gobshitery, are they? 

These are the 5 bogus facts IMO:
Here we go: 

1. That the Last Photo was taken at about 2.29pm on Thursday 3 May
Oh, quelle surprise. 

2. That Madeleine was seen alive by Catriona Baker at about 5.30pm on Thursday 3 May
So another lying witness, is what you are suggesting 

3. That the Smiths saw anyone at all
And just decided, en masse, to lie to the police. Uh huh. 

4. That Mrs Fenn heard anyone (Madeleine or any other child) crying from 10.30pm to 11.45pm on Tuesday 1 May, and
Ah yes - Mrs Fenn. Useful to have a sadly deceased witness, about whom you can lie with total impunity 

5. That Nuno Lourenco's claimed near-kidnapping of his daughter by Wojcek Krokowski was genuine.
You are simply off your shiny, extra-terrestrial head 

I suggest that these are the facts in each case:
Of course you do. 

1.  The Last Photo was taken at about 2.29pm on Sunday 29 April
Because the sun, blah blah blah. Your weather data is absolute cobblers, you do know that, don't you? You used data from a position miles away; the weather in the PdL area was much better

2.  That Madeleine was NOT seen alive by Catriona Baker at about 5.30pm on Thursday 3 May
And another witness you accuse of lying. Of course, she wasn't the only witness, was she? But let's face it - she probably won't be arsed to sue your flabby arse

3. The Smiths saw no-one (OR, if they did, it was no-one connected with Madeleine's disappearance
Oh really? Well, here is a departure. You have spent years claiming the Smiths saw no-one, now you are suddenly vacillating. Why is that - lost the courage of your (lack of) convictions? The Smiths reported what they saw, quite rightly. It was for the authorities to determine if it was connected or not. Witnesses are not required to determine first of all whether their evidence is relevant before reporting it; that would be a sure-fire way to ensure most witnesses never come forward.

So, after defaming and hounding them for years, are you now admitting that they did see someone? If so, when can we expect your full, written and abject apology and retraction?

4. Mrs Fenn did NOT hear any child crying, and
No - an elderly lady just decided to make up a story and report it to her friend - even before Madeleine went missing. Yes, that makes lots of sense. Your harassment of Mrs Fenn is particularly reprehensible, you dandruff-encrusted curtain-twitcher

5. Nuno Lourenco lied about the alleged kidnapping at Sagres.
For what possible reason? Seriously, for what possible, earthly reason? Idiot.

If people could accept that the five statements I've just typed above are correct, they would perhaps be far more ready to accept the several strong lines of evidence that point to something very serious having happened to Madeleine on Sunday afternoon or evening.
But they won't accept that they are correct because

1. They are not
2. You are insane.
3. You have a track record of being hideously wrong.
4. You're an absolute twat.
5. There is ample, irrefutable evidence of Madeleine being alive on 3rd May

Hanging on to any one of the bogus facts causes people to make absurd statements.
They are not ''bogus facts''

They are inconvenient facts because they contradict your batshit crazy version of events

Within the past few days for example, I have seen this ridiculous statement made on a Madeleine forum: "I agree that Madeleine died four days earlier, but I still believe the Smiths saw Gerry McCann carrying Madeleine's dead body". This was by someone who cannot let go of her conviction that the Smiths saw Gerry McCann, despite what appears to many now to be overwhelming evidence that he did not. Who on this earth would keep a dead body for four days and then walk down the streets with it, and at the very same time as the abduction cry was being raised?  
I don't know - the sort of idiot that would try to cover up the death of a child which occurred on a Sunday, perhaps?

Or maybe the sort of idiot who stalks the wrong person for years, because it hasn't occurred to him that there could be two people called Smith.

I saw someone else say: "I agree Madeleine was already dead for some days, but I think Gerry was carrying another child".
But your fuckwittery relies on them passing another child off as Madeleine, you daft dick.
This is utter madness! Who, among the Tapas group, or anyone else for that matter, would 'lend' their three-year-old child, clad only in pyjamas, for Gerry McCann to walk through the streets of Praia da Luz, at 10pm on a dark, cold night, at the very time that the alarm was being raised?
Or to impersonate her at kids club, even?
People have surely completely lost their reason when they come up with crazy ideas like these.
Massive irony klaxon

As I've said many times before, in this case so replete with smoke and mirrors, EVERY statement must be carefully examined to see if it has the complete 'ring of truth' about it.
Well, we can be absolutely certain the only ring around yours are a kind of scummy deposit, with grey hairs embedded in it
Yes, even the statements of Martin, Peter and Aoife Smith and that of Mrs Pamela  Fenn.
Yes - nice people who probably won't bother to sue you for the scant remains of your pension
And if there are legitimate doubts about the truth of any of these four statements, then they must be largely, or wholly, disregarded.
There are no legitimate doubts about them - just malicious ones circulated by you and the massed ranks of the Menopause Choir, led by Jill "Confessions of a driving instructor" Havern and Verdi "Shitwittering twatdangle" Bluesy

And in addition, we have the problem posed as to how an abduction hoax (which has succeeded for 11 years) could have been executed in under four hours, during which time the Tapas 9 all sat down for dinner at about 8.30pm-8.45pm.

You're kind of stupid, Tony. 

Tony and sidekick Verdi captured in a lighthearted moment - they have just posted another FOI request

Wednesday, 16 May 2018

Stalkers Anonymous

Once again, Captain Baldybonce in on the case, stalking his latest victims

 The McCann - Totman - Weinberger Nexus

Post by Tony Bennett Yesterday at 23:18
After the 'revelation' last week that Tannerman/Murat/Monsterman/Crecheman was now no less a personage than GP Dr Julian Totman, I remembered some notes I made about Drs Weinberger and Totman that I wrote privately and never published.
You should have stuck with that 

I thought I would publish them now because the story of how Dr Totman was Tannerman all along had some parallels with Dr Paul Weinberger's wife Jeni helping the abduction narrative along with sighting of a suspicious red-haired cleaning lady, Yvonne Albino.
What parallels? They both gave information to the police? Seeing as they were both in PdL at the time it is hardly unexpected, is it? As for claiming that she ''helped the narrative along'', you have clearly learned absolutely nothing from your many court appearances 

If you look at my notes, it seems that Kate McCann contacted Jeni Weinberger a few weeks ahead of the May 2009 Mentorn Media/Channel4 'Mockumentary', in order to get her to repeat her 'sighting' and do an efit for the programme. Totman's claims of having been ignored by the Portuguese and Leicestershire Police rather echoed what Weinberger also said.
He didn't say they had ignored him, even in the only source, ie a tabloid newspaper 

And I wondered if there was, and is, some kind of hidden nexus between the McCanns and the Totmans and the Weinbergers.
Of course you did. 

For example:

1  The Totmans and Weinbergers stayed in an apartment close to the McCanns when they were in Praia da Luz
It is hardly surprising, is it? They booked with the same company and went to the same resort. Anyone staying there would be staying "close by" 

2  The Totmans and the McCanns and their friends seem to have played tennis together
It was a resort chosen by many for its sporting facilities. There were not many guests; it is hardly surprising that they played tennis together 

3  Gerry McCann's research interests have a connection with the research interests of Dr Paul Weinberger
No they don't. They simply don't. McCann's area of expertise is cardiac imaging, Weinbergers is in vitro diagnostics. Completely different 

4  It seems slightly eerie that Dr Julian Totman should identify himself as Tannerman, a very unlikely tale, and that Jeni Weinberger should also be keen to help our Kate McCann by re-submitting her 'sighting' to Mentorn Media/Channel 4 for their documentary.
Why ''eerie''? Why ''unlikely''? He clearly states that he thought he might have been the person seen and he expressed that opinion to the police. I also can't see why any potential witness wouldn't want to help, but then I'm not a prematurely senile fruit and vegetable botherer with a Freedom of Information fetish 

About my notes below.  1. They were made in collaboration with one of CMOMM's fairly regular posters and 2. They were made about FOUR years ago and so are NOT up-to-date....

We can imagine..... 

Dr Paul Weinberger

Dr Paul Jerome Weinberger is now aged 46, and was just 37 when he was on holiday with the McCanns in 2007.   

He was there that week with his wife Jeni Catriona Weinberger, who is a big noise in the art world, being - amongst other things - the Founder and Director of The Get Mucky Art School. 

They had a child aged the same age as Madeleine in 2007.
And the point of this is what? 

Paul Weinberger is currently the Chief Executive Officer of Diasolve Ltd, which makes a variety of medical devices. Both he and his wife are its sole Directors:

Even more significant? More significant that what, you old fool? There is nothing significant about his company. 
he is a standing member of NICE - the National Institute for  Clinical Excellence  - and sits on their Diagnostics Advisory Committee. And he was former Chairman of BIVDA - the ‘British In Vitro Diagnostics Association’, and is still on its committee.
And that isn't significant either. He is a well-respected scientist in his field, there is no reason why he wouldn't be asked to be on such a committee.  

Now that is of some interest to us because all of the McCanns’ three children were born by in vitro fertilisation, or IVF treatment, as it is generally known.
You really are a stupid person.

All ''in vitro'' means is, literally, ''in glass''. It refers to any test, experiment or process conducted outside of the body rather than inside. So if you go for a blood test, it is conducted ''in vitro''. Mr Weinberger's expertise is in diagnostic tests and assays for various diseases, I understand, and nothing to do with IVF. This is like saying it is suspicious because Gerry once had a blood test.
The McCanns have given few details about the IVF treatment they had and do not say at which hospital they received help with this for Madeleine.
And why should they? That's completely private 
They do however say that they moved to Amsterdam in January 2004, when Madeleine was 7 months old, and there received the successful IVF treatment which resulted in their twins, Amelia and Sean, being born the following February.
And, Mr Nosy? 

The subject of Madeleine’s DNA has cropped up frequently. When the Portuguese Police asked the McCanns for items on which Madeleine’s DNA could be found, there was nothing. Not on the pillow Madeleine slept on, not in her bedclothes, not on her clothes, not on her toothbrush - nothing.
Absolute bollocks.
1. They never asked them for items containing Madeleine's DNA
2. None of those items was ever tested for her DNA 
It was only when Gerry McCann made a visit to England three weeks after Madeleine’s reported disappearance that he was able to produce a sample of Madeleine’s DNA from a pillow in his home in Rothley.
The FSS clearly requested an item or items which would yield a sample and he would have been asked for one away from the crime scene and which as far as possible would contain her DNA and not other family members. A pillowcase is ideal 

Then there was an allegation that there was a 100% match between Madeleine’s DNA and samples of blood and body fluids found at sites connected  to the McCanns  where  a cadaver dog had alerted to the past presence of a corpse in the McCanns’ apartment and in their hired car.  
No there wasn't, nor was one found 

The government-controlled Forensic Science Service later re-tested these DNA samples, pronounced that they were now ‘contaminated’, and that therefore although it was certainly very possible  that these blood and body fluid samples were from Madeleine, that could not be proved with any degree of certainty.   
Utter, utter bollocks. No such event took place and nor were any such claims made 

One story that rumbled on in the summer of 2007 was that Gerry McCann was not Madeleine’s father, a leak that emanated from the Portuguese Police. A Portuguese newspaper, 24 Horas, and a magazine, Tal e Qual, published these sensational allegations, claiming that “detectives were intending to use DNA samples to confirm their suspicions he was not the sperm donor behind the successful IVF treatment that led to her birth”.
Why are you rehashing this? It was a completely false claim 

The Daily Mail ran a headline: ‘Gerry is not Madeleine’s real father’, referring to what they said was ‘the latest attack by the Portuguese media on the McCanns’,

and the McCanns immediately threatened  to sue. They were set to issue libel proceedings against the Portuguese magazine, but that became unnecessary when  it folded a few months later.  The McCanns never sued the newspapers, however.

Genetic questions also arose about the Oldfields’ child, because, highly unusually, two birth certificates are in existence for her.
A genealogy researcher wrote:
A member of CMOMM, you mean? 

“With the Oldfield’s daughter Grace, there are two separate entries, one for Grace Ruth M E Oldfield, and the other for Grace Ruth M E Mampilly. The parents were married in Caerphilly in 1999 and their daughter was born in 2004. The only explanation I can think of for this is in the case of surrogate births, where the surrogate mother who has actually given birth has the right to be the first to register the birth, with the parents being able to follow that by registering the birth in their own name subsequently”.
Total and utter cock. And completely irrelevant in any case. 

But there may well be some other explanation for this unusual occurrence of two different birth certificates.
None of which is any of your business, sticky-beak 

Paul Weinberger’s career history before becoming the CEO at Diasolve included two years at Lumora Ltd as its Chief Marketing Officer, and before that he was the Director of Clinical Development at Enigma Diagnostics, the post he held when he holidayed at Praia da Luz when the McCanns were there.
Also none of your business 

(I have deleted the link to Mr Weinberger's profile)

His specialism whilst there was to promote the company’s role in IVF techniques and diagnostics
No it wasn't. You clearly have no understanding of the difference between "in vitro" and "in vitro fertilisation". The man develops laboratory tests, assays etc - all extremely valuable work in terms of disease diagnosis and treatment and nothing whatsoever to do with IVF.
- in partnership with major pharmaceutical company GKN. He was with Roche Diagnostics for nine years previous to that the world’s largest diagnostic company. He and his wife appear to have a second home in Newton Stewart in southern Scotland. 
Why is that relevant or any of your business??? 

His line of work had parallels with Gerry McCann’s career path,
No it didn't 
which included 

(link deleted)

Gerry McCann’s Research Interests

“I am particularly interested in LV remodelling and the use of comprehensive cardiac MRI to better manage patients with known or suspected cardiac disease.
I'll translate that for you, dickbrain. He specialises in diseases which cause changes to the wall of the left ventricle of the heart (the biggest chamber) and specifically the use of cardiac magnetic resonance imaging to diagnose and monitor those patients affected. 
 In addition, I have run a number of trials using cardiac MRI as end point in clinical trials (eg STEMI) and in early phase II studies, assessing the efficacy of novel interventions in cardiovascular disease in partnership with various pharmaceutical companies”.
Absolutely nothing in common with Mr Weinberger other than a common interest in Life Sciences. It is like finding common ground between a dentist and a podiatrist. 

One curiosity about the couple was that Mrs Jeni Weinberger was one of a number of people at the Ocean Club that week who reported possible suspect abductors.
Why is that curious? Why??? 
Both her and a Mrs Godwin reported suspicions about an overweight red-haired woman, a cleaner, Yvonne Albino, allegedly seen outside the McCanns’ apartment in May 2007. The Daily Mail reported on 4 March 2010:


“The McCanns’ investigators believe the red-haired woman was Yvonne Albino, a cleaner from Silves. Another witness, Jeni Weinberger, from Salisbury, Wiltshire, said she saw a woman resembling Mrs Albino outside the McCanns’ apartment in May 2007”.
So she saw something and reported it. What is curious about that? 

One of the McCann Team’s investigators, Dave Edgar, described the cleaner’s movements as ‘suspicious’, but the Portuguese Policer had checked her out early on in their investigation and found nothing suspicious.  .
More details about Jeni Weinberger’s actions emerged in another report, which claimed that

 “…on returning from Portugal in May 2007, she had informed her local police force - Wiltshire - about a possible ‘sighting’ of an abductor. She went on to claim that Wilshire Police contacted Leicestershire police who failed to follow up her lead. It was only when she received an emotional phone call from Maddie’s mum Kate, nearly two years later that a photofit based on her description was put together”.

She is also quoted as saying: “When Kate asked me to help, I agreed immediately. But the police should have asked two years ago. It was only after Kate got in touch that the woman learnt two other witnesses saw an identical man… I can’t believe our three sightings weren’t linked earlier”.
Get to the point, Shiny Head 

So I raise these points about Jeni Weinberger. The ’phone call from Kate McCann to Jeni Weinberger was nearly two years after May 2007 when Madeleine was reported missing. Could this ‘phone call have been made to try and ‘spice up’ the forthcoming  Chanel 4 documentary, shown in May 2009?
Then that point relates to Kate McCann, not Mrs Weinberger 

Did the Weinbergers and the McCanns know each other prior to 2007? - this seems possible on this evidence.
No it doesn't; there is literally no indication of that whatsoever 
Did Jeni Weinberger really believe that two years after the event, her recollection of the suspicious woman she said she had seen two years earlier could really help to solve the crime? Could she honestly help to compose a ‘photo-fit’ of her, a whole two years after having seen the woman?
It doesn't matter what she thought - she was asked to help and she did. Most people who are not tinfoil hatted fuckwits like you would be only too happy to help. 

In this case of so many fabrications, we must ask: did Jeni Weinberger really have genuine suspicions about this woman - a sighting the Portuguese Police had long ago dismissed as irrelevant? 
It does not matter a jot whether she had suspicions or not - she reported what she saw. It wasn't her role to decide whether it was important or not 

Perhaps the most interesting thing about Paul Weinberger is that the company he worked for in 2007, when Madeleine was reported missing - Enigma Diagnostics - is a private company, but was explicitly founded in 2004 as a joint venture between the UK Government and venture capitalists Porton Capital Technology Fund.
And he worked FOR them - he had no ownership, wasn't a director, and had no role in setting the company up. 
It now based in the top secret Defence Science and Technology Laboratory at Porton Down, Wiltshire, a government research establishment with a controversial history of involvement in biological research and germ warfare, plus chemical, radiological and nuclear  weapons research.
Okay - let's stop there. 
1. in fact, it is in liquidation
2. It is NOT top secret - it is a science park with units to let and which is devoted to life sciences and biotechnologies
3. DSTL is not concerned with germ warfare or any other form of weaponry. You are thinking of another establishment altogether, which delivers training in that field and which is not based at Porton Down. Try researching events in the last 30 years, rather than the Cold War, where your addled brain still resides 

Dr Julian Totman 

And this brings us on directly to another significant doctor, as the Weinbergers made joint dinner bookings at the Tapas restaurant with another doctor, Dr Julian Edward Bartram Totman, and his wife.
Complete lie. There was one night when both families dined, at different tables. 
They seem to have booked their holiday together as they and the Weinbergers were in nearby apartments at the Ocean Club resort.
There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that they booked their holiday together 

Dr Totman is a General Practitioner from Salisbury, Wiltshire, only a few miles from the Porton Down establishment. It is fairly clear that these were two people - Weinberger and Totman - who knew each other professionally and were friends,
How is that clear? There is no evidence of that at all 
and presumably decided to go on holiday together. 
Or of that 
 Dr Totman actually had a second surgery actually withinthe Porton Down M o D research establishment,
No he didn't. GPs often have branch surgeries and his has one at Porton. Because people live there.  
whilst his wife Rachel, known professionally by her maiden name as Dr Rachel Clapton, was also a General Practitioner in Salisbury.

The Totman extended family is also replete with significant figures in the medical field. For example, Dr Julian Totman has a sister called Marissa, who is a General Practitioner in Surrey).
She is married to a Vivek Muthu, who is the Chief Executive and Founder member of a company called Bazian, which analyses medical research, and was previously Clinical Editor of the British Medical Journal. Muthu had been heavily involved in the controversial debate about whether the MMR jab causes autism. 
He conducted a study. He is a very well-respected doctor and researcher 

One of their ongoing projects from 2007 was with the East Midlands Specialist Commissioning Group in the trials of aortic valve replacement, which of course would coincide with Gerry McCann’s interests as a heart specialist.
No it wouldn't. Gerry McCann is a Cardiologist, not a Cardiothoracic surgeon. Try googling them. 
Another member of Bazian is a Dr Rob Cook, specialist in managing cardiovascular guidelines, who was working in Auckland, New Zealand, at the same time as the McCanns were both living there.

I should say at this point that the McCanns specifically denied having known either the Weinbergers or the Totmans prior to their holiday in 2007
So why are you suggesting otherwise? 
- and of course there is nothing wrong in itself for a group of professionals with similar interests to get together  for a few days’ relaxation. 
As the McCann group did. There is no suggestion these others were part of that 
The Totmans, with their two children aged 3 and 2, arrived in Praia da Luz on the 28th April and stayed in Apartment G4M, apparently just for their second week. There is this strange reference at the foot of their booking sheet, which says;“Please note that activity list will only be showing 2nd week, but guest requires 2 weeks childcare from 28th April”.
Why would the so-called ‘activity list’ only show ‘the second week’? Did they possibly rent a private apartment elsewhere for the first week? 

It seems to be literally an administrative note for the management, to alert them to the fact that he would require childcare. There is no indication whatsoever that the family moved between locations

Finally, your crappy, amateur-hour investigations of these people is as error-strewn as your peeping tom job on the wrong Martin Smith. Get your head out of your wizened arse and stop prying into the private business of innocent witnesses, you creepy, stalking shitgibbon. 

You might also want to give some thought to the fact that despite describing yourself as a ''researcher'' and painting your own portrait as an expert on all things Madeleine, you are still regurgitating utter myths, such as your comments on DNA - so you are either being deliberately deceptive or you are just a fucking idiot