It's a long way to Tipp-a-Loony..........

Earlier today Pat Brown published a very sensible, well-constructed and interesting post.

She pointed out, as I have, that if you make up stories and theories which are a load of bollocks it is music to the McCann ears, reinforcing the idea that the web is full of tin-hatted loons. (I may have paraphrased slightly)

Predictably, this drew the Head Loon out of his cage, or lead-lined bunker or wherever it is that he lays his hat, to say the following:

 Re: Pat Brown: Why the McCanns Love Conspiracy Theorists

  Tony Bennett Yesterday at 10:34 pm

Hi Pat, if you are reading this.

I'm sorry Pat, but I think you are making a big, big mistake here.

She isn't. You're probably about to, though 

You penultimate paragraph says this:

"If only all the focus of everyone - the public, the police, and professionals - simply looked back at May 3rd, 2007 and analysed what went wrong that evening, how the McCanns likely dealt with it, and what they could have done to destroy the evidence of their involvement and, most importantly, focused on where her body might be  - the one piece of evidence that could lead to an actual conviction - maybe then, this case would have a chance of being solved and justice done".

Indeed. A very good point

Your analysis is virtually identical to that set out by Goncalo Amaral over seven years ago. "Madeleine had high tea with the nanny Cat Baker at 5.30pm to 6pm. Cat Baker is an honest and credible witness. The family went back to their apartment around 6pm. Some time after that, Madeleine suffered a fatality in the apartment. The McCanns quickly got rid of the body from the apartment and no-one knows where it is or what happened to it. The McCanns pretended that Madeleine had been abducted and raised the alarm about 10pm that evening, or a few minutes before". And that's it.

What - you mean the vastly experienced senior detective who was on the scene and involved in the case from the beginning? Yes, how could he possibly know more than a balding bespectacled failed solicitor with a mac and a shopping trolley? Unfathomable....... 

But if you still buy that, how, please, can you account for:

(1) the wholesale contradictions between the accounts of Gerry and Kate McCann, Cat Baker and Charlotte Pennington about the alleged 'high tea' at 5.30pm, so painstakingly analysed by Lizzy 'HiDeHo' and others?

There are no ''wholesale contradictions'' In fact, there are barely any contradictions at all

(2) the immediate and long-term involvement of a raft of top government media advisers, Foreign Office officials and ambassadors, leading members of public relations firms, assorted branches of the British security services, dozens of lawyers, a $12-million, four-and-a-half-year long enquiry which has got precisley (sic) nowhere, and so on? 

Media advisors - there was a huge media presence in what was potentially an embarrassing case, coming as it did hot on the heels of the arrest of some brits in the USA for leaving their kids alone while they went out to a fireworks display.

FO officials etc -  any UK national is entitled to Consular assistance when abroad

PR firm - employed by Mark Warner

Branches of the security services - like who?

Lawyers - brought in by the McCanns and Mark Warner

a £12m enquiry - Well, Medusa had his nuts in a bench vice. 

(3) the clear lines of evidence suggesting that the so-called 'Last Photo' was not taken on the Thursday afternoon, 3rd May? 

This is another of your cons. There is no evidence whatsoever to show that the photo was not taken on the Thursday. Repeatedly saying ''It was sunnier on Sunday'' is utterly meaningless. Also, We know that other photographs exist of Madeleine on the same day, so your ''theory'' is completely nuts.

You do this a lot, Bennett; claim that there is 'clear' evidence, when in fact you have simply made it up. 

(4) the apparent lack of clear and credible evidence of Madeleine being seen by anyone after the Sunday of that week, as set out in a very clear article published here last month, also by Lizzy 'HideHo'? - and

Well, that is total and utter hogwash. There are numerous witnesses that can attest to her presence, plus a written record from the Kid's Club, and her image captured in photographs. HideHo is a half-witted fence painter with too much time on her hands 

(5) the evident advance planning of the manifestly fabricated statement of Nuno Lourenco about the alleged near-kidnapping of his daughter at Sagres, and along with that...   

Evident advance planning - according to you
Manifestly fabricated - according to you

Again, these are merely your opinions at best, delusions at worst. There is no evidence of planning or of falsehoods in the statement - you just need people to think so to fit your bonkers theory. 

          

(6) the near-identical descriptions of 'Tannerman' by Jane Tanner and of Wojchiech Krokowski by Nuno Lourenco - and, for that matter, of 'Smithman' by the Smiths.

They are not ''near identical'' and I have covered this before in some detail. I think you are of the opinion that if you repeat something often enough it becomes the truth.

One significant difference for example is that Krokowski had quite long hair, and was wearing it in a ponytail when Lourenco saw him. He also clearly has long hair in the CCTV footage. That does not match either of the other descriptions, and that's just for starters.

Of course, you neglect to mention that Tannerman has been identified and eliminated. You neglect to mention it because it does not fit with your  halfwitted theory.

Unless you have got simple, pat answers to all of these conundrums, you might be more helpful if you supported and backed those who engage with these issues and try to find honest answers to them.

No conundrums there. That took me about ten minutes - there you go, consider it a gift. 
Why should anyone support and back you? You couldn't find your arse with both hands, and you are full of crap. 

As a criminal profiler and someone experienced in the workings of the criminal mind, surely you must acknowledge that every attempt there has ever been to cover up any crime, big or small, is a 'conspiracy' of some kind?

She is. You're not.

Some criminal conspiracies are much more complicated than others - and I think I've helped to uncover two pretty big ones in my time: 1. the passing-off of the killing of Stuart Lubbock as a 'drowning',

The cause of death was drowning. To the best of my knowledge, no-one has been found guilty of any charge relating to his death, and nor has an alternative cause of death been ascertained.

and 2. the alleged 'tragic accident' of Lee Balkwell being killed whilst allegedly working in pitch black on a concrete mixer at 1.03am in the morning. 

There is no proof that it was anything other than an accident. His employer was found not guilty of Manslaughter, but convicted of Health and Safety breaches. I seem to recall your claim - again unfounded - was that he was murdered. 

I agree that some of the ideas about the crime of responsibilty (sic) for Madeleine's disappearance are frankly crackpot, such as the obsession some have with angles in Gerry's sunglasses.

That is a crackpot one, but no more so than many of yours, especially the Sagres nonsense 

But you may be over-reaching yourself if you think all of us with enquiring minds

You don't have an enquiring mind. You have a suspicious and stagnating one

should simply swallow wholesale the claim that Madeleine suffered a fatality between 6pm and 10pm on 3rd May, pack up enquiring and, as you put it, 'focus on where her body might be'.

It's probably the only way the case will be solved. It certainly won't be solved by you looning over a Pole.  

- Disappointed, Harlow

Ah, diddums.