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.

Really? 

You're kind of stupid, Tony. 

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