The Annual Nottextusa Awards for Outstanding Fuckwittery

Afternoon all.

Well, the end of the year draws near and it would be remiss of me to allow 2015 to slip into the 
ether without acknowledging some fine, noteworthy fuckwittery, gobshittedness or foilhattery
 in the field during these last 12 months.

So I can exclusively announce that the categories are as follows:

Biggest Troll

Most Feeble Comeback

Best Performance by a Supporting Sock

Most Obvious Sock

Most Cringeworthy Moment

The "More Tinfoil, Matron" award for Spectacular Conspiralunacy

The Best Use of Knowledge Gained from Wikipedia

The Most Outrageous Fibber

The Pedro McSporran Memorial award - a special award in the gift of the academy,
 for spectacular fuckwittery above and beyond the call of duty

The Antony Bennett Memorial Gobshite of the Year award

.....the evening rounds off with the most sought after award of all

The Twat of the Year, 2015

Competition is, naturally, fierce, but it's not too late to nominate your favourite. 
Entries close on 30th December. 

Is it because he's Blackie?

The Skulking Loon has posted pages of dribbling nonsense about the Blacksmith's Bureau posts, which I can't be arsed copying over.

So let's settle for this summary

"Blacksmith believes that Madeleine was abducted. Blacksmith does not believe a word of what Martin Grime said. Blacksmith says that the Tapas group as a whole were so ashamed of their poor child care arrangements that they hastily made up false details of their 'checking' regime. Blacksmith says that the abductor is still at large and that Madeleine could yet be found alive. Finally, the theory of Blacksmith is virtually identical to those of the McCanns and of Operation Grange. That is why his attacks on CMOMM have become so vicious of late, now accusing us all here of a deep need to hate people and being guilty of a type of 'Jewish blood libel'. Make no mistake. This is deliberate hatred by Blacksmith towards this forum"  

So, Baldybonce, a few questions:

1. Where does Blackie say that he believes Madeleine was abducted?
2. Where does he say he does not believe a word Martin Grime says?
3. Where does he say that the Tapas made up false details of a checking regime because they were ''so ashamed''?
4.  Where does he say the abductor is still at large?
5. Where does he say Madeleine could yet be found alive?
6. What are the following theories: The McCanns, Operation Grange's, Blacksmith's

Oh - and I'm looking for actual quotes - not simply your claim that they are all contained within an article, or your liberal interpretation of something completely different.

And of course he refers to your gaff as a cesspit. It IS a cesspit.

Oh incidentally for anyone wanting to read Blacksmith's words for themselves, the blog in question may be found here
http://madeleinemccannaffair.blogspot.co.uk/
I would strongly recommend people do so, rather than the ''cut up words for a ransom note'' version the Whinging Tramp has offered you

Achtung!

Well, the Balding Tramp is in fine form today. 

Some of the troops have dared to disagree with him. Clearly this can't be allowed, so off he goes, shouting them  down and ridiculing them. And before anyone says ''But Nottextusa, that's exactly what you do to him...." you are right. I do. But the difference is, I'm right and he's wrong, and I do so here, which is my gaff, and if he doesn't like it he's perfectly at liberty to fuck off at his earliest convenience.

So let's have a look at some of the shite he is coming out with

REPLY: Discredit one crèche timing???

3 question marks - that is El Trampo's way of saying ''you are a fucking idiot; I spit on your grave'' 

Here is a list of 19 separate problems with the crèche records, compiled IIRC by HideHo:

Ah yes - the créche records. Never, in the field of human conflict, have a few scraps of paper been pored over by more fucktards

1. Cat Baker for some reason starts entering the words ‘Cat nanny’ on the crèche sheets from Monday 1st May.

No!!!! Oh my God, this could blow the case wide open! Seriously, what the fuck? 

2. The morning and afternoon creche records should have been on two separate sheets. There were in the other groups. Yet the Lobster group records were kept on one sheet instead of two.

So fucking what? Maybe they were short of sheets! 

3. The Portuguese Police in July 2008 issued a DVD with nearly all the witness statements and documents on them. However, they withheld the creche records for the group in which the McCanns ‘ twins were placed for the morning of Sunday 29th April. That could be because there was incriminating evidence on them. 

And it could be because they had been mislaid - to assume they had incriminating evidence on them is top grade conspiralunacy. 

4. The Portuguese Police also withheld the twins’ crèche records fr the morning of Thursday 3rd May.

No they didn't. Their absence does not mean they were withheld, loony. 

5. Nanny Charlotte Pennington is missing from the list of crèche staff given to the Portuguese police by Donna Hall of Mark Warner on the 4th.

So? How is that anything to do with the creche register? 

6. Nanny  Stacey Portz claimed that Gerry Mccann signed the twins in on the afternoon of 3rd, but the crèche sheet says that Kate McCann did.

So what? She was mistaken. 

7. Stacey Portz claimed that Kate McCann collected the twins on the morning of  the 3rd, but Fiona Payne gave evidence that Gerry McCann did this.

Again - so what? Witness testimony is often inconsistent. 

8. The signatures of parent Robert Naylor are significantly  different every day.

Big deal 

9. Robert Naylor enters the wrong room number for his room every day.

Again - big deal. Maybe you have the wrong room number for him. He seems consistent; B1 

10.  Russell O’Brien enters ‘Emma’ instead of ‘Ella’ for his daughter on the 1st May.

No it looks as if someone else was writing it in and misheard 

11.  Russell O’Brien enters the wrong room number (5B) for his room (which was 5D) on Monday 30th April.

Oh dear - what a calamity 

12.  Russell O’Brien enters 5B again, but then changes it to 5D, twice on Wednesday 2nd May.

Call the police 

13.  Russell O’Brien enters ‘R O’Brien’, instead of his daughter’s name, on the same afternoon.

So he wrote in the wrong column. How is that suspicious? How is any of this suspicious? 

14.  On enlarging the McCann & Naylor signatures, there are several identical writing styles starting from the 29th, suggesting at the very least that one.parent might have signed in more than one child.

So what? It's no big deal if they did. Often the person with the pen will fill in the names for a group arriving together 

15.  On Monday 30th April, Madeleine is mysteriously signed in at 3.15pm and then out again just 15 minutes later at 3.30pm by Kate McCann.

Most likely to be a mistake and should read 17.30. Even if she was signed out again, so what? According to your lunacy she had disappeared by then 

16. Kate McCann’s signatures on Madeleine’s Lobster creche record on the same day look different from those on the twins’ Jellyfish creche record.

Are you a handwriting expert? Then don't offer an opinion on something you know nothing about. 

17. For some reason Kate signs herself ‘KM Healy’ instead of ‘K McCann’ on one occasion - on Wednesday 2^nd

She was usually know as Healy, so it was probably done on autopilot. 

18.  Kate McCann does not sign Madeleine into the Lobsters group at all on Tuesday  1st May

So what? Her father did! 

19.  For some reason, the Portuguese Police’s final report does not mention Sinead Vine, the twins’ carer almost every day, but only Stacey Portz.

And your point is what? 

Surely to goodness Kaz you don't accept these crèche records as accurate?

Do you????

More aggressive question marks, Baldy?  

You and your collection of tagnuts like Hidehalfwit, the extensive sock drawer and the Simpleton Chorus  - Verdi, Aquila et al - are pulling the world's collective plonker. 

Lying Lunatic

Time for some more from the Lying Lunatic.

As ever, he is engaged on:

Mission:Make people believe Madeleine died before the 3rd May

Consequently, he comes out with this bollocks. Bennett's bollocks in blue, in keeping with tradition 

So let's now look at a summary of Inspector Pinho's report. Remember the issue is not whether there was a 'mini-sail' that morning - there was - but whether Madeleine went with the rest of the group.

Place: Praia da Luz, Lagos Officer responsible: Manuel Pinho, Inspector - SUMMARY:

Pinho: "Today (10 May 07), accompanied by Joao Barreiras and Catriona Baker, the 'nanny' responsible for the missing minor, we retraced the places and times at which they left the resort area to go to Praia da Luz. We were told by Catriona that they went to the beach on Thursday between 10 and 11 o'clock…and that Catriona, with Madeleine and 4 or 5 more children, walked toward the beach - about 100 metres".

But Alice Standley accompanied the children on the route and on the boat. Three children sailed with her.  Chris Unsworth transported the children in a red amphibious boat (a life-saving boat) until the boat reached the open sea, and, a few minutes later, returned them to the beach to pick up three other children from the group.

Both state that the children did not have any contact with anyone else during the time they were at the beach, as was the case also during their walk to the beach.

So, both these witnesses, according to Inspector Pinho, deny that Cat Baker went sailing with Madeleine’s group that morning. Neither, it appears, did either Alice Standley or Chris Unsworth say that Madeleine was in either of the boats of three children that went sailing that morning. There were 7 children in the Lobsters group.

It looks like the other six children in the group all went sailing, in two boats of three each, but that Madeleine did not.


So we have to make a choice.

Do we believe Cat Baker?

Or Alice Standley and Chris Unsworth?

So, lets see what the report ACTUALLY says, because when Baldy ''summarises'' something it usually means the truth gets lost. The following is the actual report, not Baldy's interpretation of it

 Description and Result of Activity:

On this date, in the company of my colleague Joao Barreiras and Catriona Baker, the nanny responsible for the missing minor, we reconstructed the locations and the moments when they left the resort, in the direction of the Praia da Luz.

A photographic report was made, which is attached. 

We were told by Catriona, that in the last days they went to the beach on Tuesday afternoon (01 of May 2007), between 15H30 and 16h30, on Wednesday (the next day) at the same time and on Thursday between 10 and 11h00 (see attached map).


The following route was taken: 
1. The parents leave the children in the Mark Warner “BABY CLUB”, which is situated next to the principal resort reception which is open 24 hours; 
2. Next, Catriona, with MADELEINE and 4 or 5 other children, headed in the direction of the beach on foot. The walk was about 100 metres, although not in a straight line;
3. The infant educator always went in front with the children following, and all held on to a “summy snake” (a long snake-like object that allows the children to walk in single file);
4. After leaving the “BABY CLUB”, they descended the stairs to the main reception, went through the entrance gate and crossed Rua Direita (principal road of Praia da Luz) in the direction of Beco das Palmeiras; 
5. Next, they turned right in the direction of Beco de Nordeste, and afterwards turned left and descended stairs next to a house called “Casa Ortiga” and which is numbered 17; 
6. At the bottom of these stairs is situated Travessa das Redes; 
7. Upon crossing this street, they descended along a parking area, in the direction of the boardwalk, which is situated along the beach; 
8. Afterwards entering the beach, they walked along the boardwalk until they arrived at a zone with a red awning and various parasols; 

During the first two days, the children played and made activities in the sand. On Thursday they sailed close to the beach. 

On this day the sailed in a small yellow catamaran. 

Employee Alice Standley accompanied the children during the sailing trip made in this boat. Three children at a time would travel in her company. 

Employee Chris Unswork transported the children, in a red amphibious boat (life boat), to the embarkation and a few minutes later, would return them to the beach and then pick up the 3 remaining children from the group.

All state that the children did have any not contact with anyone else during the time they were at the beach, neither during their walk to the beach. 

All state that they did not see anyone suspicious looking at the children or in the surrounding areas. 

Catriona states that she no notice anything out of the ordinary during the trips she made to the beach or returning to the resort. 

Signed by the officer in charge.

So, let's count up Baldy's lies, shall we?

''But Alice Standley accompanied the children on the route and on the boat.''

Well, the report actually says '' Employee Alice Standley accompanied the children during the sailing trip made in this boat. Three children at a time would travel in her company.''
There is no mention of her accompanying the children on the route.

''Both state that the children did not have any contact with anyone else during the time they were at the beach, as was the case also during their walk to the beach.''

The report actually says '' All state that the children did have any not contact with anyone else during the time they were at the beach, neither during their walk to the beach. ''
All includes Catriona, who Baldy seems to imply was absent

''So, both these witnesses, according to Inspector Pinho, deny that Cat Baker went sailing with Madeleine’s group that morning.''

Complete, barefaced, Baldy lie. They say nothing of the kind.

'' Neither, it appears, did either Alice Standley or Chris Unsworth say that Madeleine was in either of the boats of three children that went sailing that morning''

At no point in the report is this referred to. There is no indication that they were asked, or that the question needed to be asked 

'' There were 7 children in the Lobsters group.''

Lie. The register clearly shows there were six children present, including Madeleine

''It looks like the other six children in the group all went sailing, in two boats of three each, but that Madeleine did not.''

Complete lie. Brazen, barefaced lie.  

So I make that 6 barefaced lies in one post. Defend that, arsehead. 

Latest from the Lunatic

From Barmy Bennett, the following:

 Seven terrorist plots in the past year - Freedom of Information Request, 17 November 2015

  Tony Bennett on Tue Nov 17, 2015 7:17 pm

I've sent this request to the Home Office and have already had an acknowledgment:

====================================

Information about seven terrorist plots in the U.K. in the past year  

 

In the Daily Telegraph yesterday (16 November 2015) I read these words about ‘seven terrorist plots’ that had been ‘foiled’ in the past year:

QUOTE: 

 “British intelligence services have foiled seven terror attacks in the past year, including one in the last month, David Cameron has revealed. The Prime Minister warned that while the plots were on a smaller scale than what has been witnessed in Paris, the attacks in the French capital were "the sort of thing we have been preparing for" and that such attacks "could happen in London". Mr Cameron told a press conference at the G20: “Seven is the correct number – obviously I can't go into too much detail. It is seven plots that have been started in the previous months.”

“Number 10 earlier clarified the number of British terror attacks that have been foiled in recent months after conflicting reports. The clarification suggests that a terrorist attack on UK soil may have been thwarted in the last few weeks given comments by a spy chief last month. On October 28 - less than three weeks ago - Andrew Parker, the director general of MI5, said there had been six plots stopped in the last year. The Prime Minister's official spokesman declined to be drawn on any detail of the plots”.

UNQUOTE

Other news media reported the same facts.

I am requesting information about these foiled terrorist plots. Whilst I fully understand that under normal situations, intelligence matters must remain secret, nevertheless:

(a) These foiled terrorist plots have been made public by the Prime Minister, the Home Secretary and the Head of MI5, Andrew Parker, in recent months (and quite rightly too) and   
(b) The British public has heightened concern because of the number of terrorist plots referred to (seven) and because of the recent atrocities in Paris.

The British public needs to know (1) what these plots were (2) where they were being planned and (3) who was behind them. We need this information so that each and every one of us becomes aware of the source of the threat and where attacks are most likely to occur. I suggest it is inadequate for the government to merely refer to ‘seven terrorist plots’ and then keep us all completely in the dark about them, giving us no more information.

I therefore ask the following Freedom of Information Act questions:

1. Give the precise dates (or if not known, give the approximate dates) when these seven terrorist attacks were planned to take place. 

2. In each case, give the locations where these terrorist attacks were planned to take place. 

3. In each case, state how many individuals are known or thought to have been involved in conspiring to commit each terrorist attack.

4. In each case, state how many individuals have been:
A - arrested and questioned andBcharged with a criminal offence (if charged, state what offence they were charged with) and
B - successfully prosecuted ad convicted of terrorist-related offences.

5. Overall, out of the total numbers involved in planning these terrorist offences, please state how many are now either in custody or prison. 

What on earth makes you think that anyone will or should give that information to you?! These are subject to ongoing investigations by police and other agencies. 

It is none of your business

To release information to you could compromise the safety of  others
It could compromise any future investigations
It could compromise any future convictions
It could reveal details of police procedures and damage the success of future anti-terrorist operations

You are completely mad, and hopefully they will tell you to fuck off

King of the Loons

Latest piece of ignorant lunacy from ''King of the Researchers'', Tony Bennett

''There are many many mysteries about the cameras used on that holiday and what happened to the many photographs on them.

I think the incident you are thinking of is how an Olympus camera, almost certainly belonging to the Paynes, plus two SD memory cards, ended up at the home of Hampshire police officer Detective Constable Martin on the evening of Tuesday 8 May, less than 5 days from Madeleine's disappearance.''

The camera DID NOT belong to the Paynes. There is a perfectly clear paper trail covering this camera, which belonged to a family holidaying in PdL the same week - nothing to do with the Paynes

They got in touch with the UK police on their return to the UK and arrangements were made for a local officer who was an IT specialist to recover the SD cards, images and video footage, which he did. This is the Hampshire police officer mentioned above.

''These items, plus some video footage taken in Praia da Luz, were examined at the Hampshire Police Hi-Tech Crime Unit at Notley the following day. '' 

Yes, as I have stated 

''As far as we know the PJ never knew about this and again IIRC Goncalo Amaral doesn't mention this in his book.''

The PJ certainly knew about it, the correspondence is in the files, which you presumably have not read. Nothing significant was found. 

''I think it is probable that a very senior British police or security services officer from MI5 or Special Branch jetted from Portugal to England earlier that day carrying the camera, the memory cards and the video film with him. ''

No, they were taken home from PdL by the family to whom they belonged. First class looning here; well done. 

''On the very day that D.C. Martin was examining the Olympus and the SD cards in Hampshire (9 May), Gerry McCann and Michael Wright had an appointment with the PJ in Portimao.''

Irrelevant 

''They handed in two CD's of pdf. photo images, which had been carefully edited over the preceding few days by Gerry McCann, Michael Wright and the Head of Risk and Public Relations at one of the world's largest and most successful PR companies, Bell Pottinger.

The three of them had deleted and cropped many images before putting them on the CDs.''

Can you clarify where this information comes from? 

It is pretty shameful that this myth about the Olympus camera is still doing the rounds 8 years later, when the information is in the files

Please choose option A = Yes, or option B = Yes.

Anyone noticed the options Baldy offers on his latest ''Poll''?

Basically, all his polls are the same. They go something like this:


A) I believe in Tony 100% and think he should be Prime Minister too

B) I am wrong

C) I am wrong, and also a twat.



So here is his latest

THE LAST PHOTO...

1. I agree with Textusa; this is a composite of three different photographs, like she says

 

2. I don't agree with Textusa but do agree that this photo has been photoshopped in some way

 

3. I agree with the two experts consulted by PeterMac that the Last Photo is a genuine photograph, and probably taken on Sunday or Monday that week

 

4. I have some other explanation for the Last Photo

 

5. I don't know

So, let's take a look at No3, shall we? Which is clearly Tony's preferred answer

It says

''I agree with the two experts consulted by PeterMac that the Last Photo is a genuine photograph, and probably taken on Sunday or Monday that week"

There are two components to that answer

1) That the photograph is genuine

2) That it was probably taken on the Sunday or Monday

However, the question is deliberately designed to mislead, suggesting as it does that the experts agree the picture was taken on the Sunday or Monday.

They do not. That is simply Bennett's theory, based on nothing more tangible than those days were supposedly sunnier, and manufactured to fit his own scenario.

The poll is, therefore, entirely dishonest.

I have no doubt the photo is genuine. And there is no evidence whatsoever to suggest it was taken on a different day  

Return of the Tramp

Well it seems Baldy is really rattled by Pat Brown

QUOTE    "For example, one of the most interesting FACTS is that the McCanns showed NO interest in Smithman and when Kate wrote her book made a statement that IF Smithman was indeed the abductor he had to be the same man Jane saw".    UNQUOTE

REPLY:    I cannot possibly agree with you that this is a fact.

Why not? It is.

These for example are a series of known and admitted facts about the McCanns and 'Smithman':

I doubt that somehow

1. Brian Kennedy, on behalf of the McCanns, contacted the Smiths in December 2007.

Where does that date come from? We know there was an earlier contact 

2. Newspaper articles on 3 January 2008 reported that Martin Smith was 'ready to meet Metodo 3' representatives.

Since when are newspaper articles ''evidence''? 

3. At some time probably in the spring of 2008 Henri Exton and maybe someone else from either Medoto 3 or Oakley International visited the Smiths and drew up two e-fits of faces who look quite different from each ofther.

They drew up two efits. It is your opinion that they look quite different to each other. One would expect two people to have a different recollection 

4. In the Channel 4/Mentorn Media 'Mockumentary' of May 2009, the McCanns TWICE referred to the 'Smithman sighting' in the film, stromgly suggesting that 'Tannerman' and 'Smithman' were one and the same.

But still placing the emphasis on the 'tannerman' sighting 

5. Immediately following the programme, the McCanns uploaded a 30-second audio recording onto their 'Find Madeleine' website of a man with an Irish accent clearly intended to be Martin Smith describing his alleged 'Smithman' sighting. It has been there ever since and is there today, over six-and-a-half years later. That audio recording of the 'Smithman sighting' has been there on their website for a conrinuous period of 2,375 days

And? 

6. Not only that, but in that audio recording, the voice gives the age of the suspected abductor as '34-35', a change from TWO previous statements by Martin Smith in which he had claimed that the man he said he saw was up to 40 years old. It is likely, though not proved, that Martin Smith must have consented to this SECOND change in his evidence.   

Why must he? Have you any evidence that this is the case?

The rest of the extent of the McCanns' use of Smithman is set out on this thread here:     

http://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t11521-smithman-8-the-nine-phases-of-smithman-how-the-smiths-became-part-of-the-mccann-team-in-january-2008

That particular thread is the biggest load of old bollocks I have ever read 

I would respectfully invite you to read and consider what I've said there.

Pat, if I may say so, there is more than a hint of impatience, even possibly anger, in your recent articles which, in short, ask us all over here to accept as a fact that Madeleine died after 6pm on Thursday 3 May.

It is a fact. There are witnesses to her still being alive prior to this

Please accept that there is EVIDENCE, 'Facts' if you will, that suggest otherwise.

No there is not. Not a single scrap.

As a researcher and investigator yourself, please accept that some of us will continue to explore that evidence.

No-one expects you to stop looning 

And, if only just for a moment, please consider that you
may actually be mistaken about this.  

She isn't. 

- Very disappointed, Harlow 

Tough titties.

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.