How many more false sightings will there be of Madeleine McCann? (ARTICLE)

Tony Bennett wrote:

Kololi wrote:Good morning Mr Bennett

Just read your piece and thought it made some fair points. It would be a shame, however, for it to have a spelling mistake and I noticed one that you can correct if you wish:

umlike Madeleine’s

It is in section F. Problems with previous sightings

Take care

Thanks very much. There were about 6 or 7 typos altogether and hopefully I've corrected them all now.

Your welcome. I only noticed that one tbh and it is nice that you took it in the spirit that I meant it. I was a little concerned that you may think I was nit picking but it did jump off the page at me.

Take care

jkh wrote:

vaguely1 wrote:I don't understand why giving up his job means that he knew she wouldn't be found.

Maybe, like a lot of husbands, he wasn't the main bread winner?

Are you saying he also is in on the conspiracy?

Well, let's put it this way. If Maddie had been found later that day he'd have been out of a job. Even Maddie's own father didn't give up his job so why did Uncle "It's not bad for a bunch of amateurs" John McCann?

Maybe he has a different set of priorities, because his niece was missing.

I don't imagine they approached him with a job offer by saying "We've buried your niece in Portugal, jack in the job, you're set for life".

I'd like to think that he did what he did to support his family. I'd like to think I was married to a man who would do the same in the circumstances.

The very fact he gave up his job, not knowing what was going to happen would be what leads me to believe that he is not the main breadwinner in the family.

Unless you think he is 'in on it' then I'm not sure what you're getting at

:flower:

Perhaps he's old enough/saved enough to retire or take a sabbatical.

Perhaps, rather than pack in his job, he could have taken a couple of weeks off on compassionate grounds on the assumption that Madeleine or her remains would be found sooner rather than later.

Autumn wrote:Perhaps, rather than pack in his job, he could have taken a couple of weeks off on compassionate grounds on the assumption that Madeleine or her remains would be found sooner rather than later.

You should ring him and tell him.

Mr Bennett, your article contains an extremely serious error, which I am happy to put right.

You claim on several occasions that the source of the current newspaper stories, some of them quite ridiculous, is 'Team McCann'.

these new ‘sighting’ stories emerging from the McCann Team and their chief spokesman.

And so the McCanns, their lawyers and advisers have got hold of the file of claimed sightings, and are beginning to publicise them.


As you acknowledge in passing that the files were released to the media, who appiled to the prosecutor for them, how can you claim that it is the Mccanns who are publicising them? This is simply disingeuous nonsense.

Are you aware that Clarence Mitchell told the press to lay off the New Zealand 'sighting'?
Are you aware that Isobel Duarte has gone on record to say that these details should not be publicised, as they might endanger Madeleine?

vaguely1 wrote:

jkh wrote:

vaguely1 wrote:I don't understand why giving up his job means that he knew she wouldn't be found.

Maybe, like a lot of husbands, he wasn't the main bread winner?

Are you saying he also is in on the conspiracy?

Well, let's put it this way. If Maddie had been found later that day he'd have been out of a job. Even Maddie's own father didn't give up his job so why did Uncle "It's not bad for a bunch of amateurs" John McCann?

,Maybe he has a different set of priorities, because his niece was missing.

I don't imagine they approached him with a job offer by saying "We've buried your niece in Portugal, jack in the job, you're set for life".

I'd like to think that he did what he did to support his family. I'd like to think I was married to a man who would do the same in the circumstances.

The very fact he gave up his job, not knowing what was going to happen would be what leads me to believe that he is not the main breadwinner in the family.

Unless you think he is 'in on it' then I'm not sure what you're getting at

:flower:

His niece is missing and his main concern is the Fund that it became his priority?

How is that going to make a difference to the search for her?

He could keep job and still manned Fund. How heavy duty did he expect Fund managing to be?
How did he know there's going to quite some in the Fund worth giving up job, or that the Fund is going to last forever? Was built-in plan already in place for long term fund? Why? Didnt they expect her to be found?

jkh made a good point. Without beating round the bush, JM was in it from the word 'GO' - my opinion anyway.

Is it that you're worried that you might be paying his benefits out of your taxes?
8)

In it? where does the word go start......once he found out that his brother had buried his own daughter, or before they went on holiday?

Snowy wrote:Mr Bennett, your article contains an extremely serious error, which I am happy to put right.

You claim on several occasions that the source of the current newspaper stories, some of them quite ridiculous, is 'Team McCann'.

these new ‘sighting’ stories emerging from the McCann Team and their chief spokesman.

And so the McCanns, their lawyers and advisers have got hold of the file of claimed sightings, and are beginning to publicise them.


As you acknowledge in passing that the files were released to the media, who appiled to the prosecutor for them, how can you claim that it is the Mccanns who are publicising them? This is simply disingeuous nonsense.

Are you aware that Clarence Mitchell told the press to lay off the New Zealand 'sighting'?
Are you aware that Isobel Duarte has gone on record to say that these details should not be publicised, as they might endanger Madeleine?

So what is stopping them from preveting the Press from applying for the release on their behalf, or for the matter asking them not to publicise? Or better still take out injunction, or set CR on them which is what they are notorious for?

They can't have it both way. They dont like it when their spin backfired on them - too bad.

Bet the Press know that and is deliberately playing them at the games.
Asking to lay off NZ sighting is to prevent them looking ridiculously stupid and conniving perhaps? Because they knew Interpol had checked and ruled that out already. But because they created hullaboola over unreleased files to suit their agenda, the PJ and Press by releasing, are exposing them their scum - by showing the public exactly how useless and irrelevant the mccanns fussed about files were, and that their fuss was aimed at keeping up their pretendy abduction.

As for ID saying the release could harm Madeleine, what a load of bollock.
The mccanns keeping Maddie high profile is doing much more harm. The abductor would have gone underground long ago. They think nothing of victimised the innocent little girls and their families - these are the people harmed by the mccanns.

vaguely1 wrote:Is it that you're worried that you might be paying his benefits out of your taxes?
8)

In it? where does the word go start......once he found out that his brother had buried his own daughter, or before they went on holiday?

Their fraud scam is more worry-worthy if anyone is worried.
Their illegal deed (?) should be their worry and no one else, people just dont like to be fooled.

GO starts from when he was phone call informed .....or do you think otherwise?

What fraud scam? What illegal deed?
Phone call informed about what?

Snowy wrote:Mr Bennett, your article contains an extremely serious error, which I am happy to put right.

You claim on several occasions that the source of the current newspaper stories, some of them quite ridiculous, is 'Team McCann'.

these new ‘sighting’ stories emerging from the McCann Team and their chief spokesman.

And so the McCanns, their lawyers and advisers have got hold of the file of claimed sightings, and are beginning to publicise them.


As you acknowledge in passing that the files were released to the media, who appiled to the prosecutor for them, how can you claim that it is the Mccanns who are publicising them? This is simply disingeuous nonsense.

Are you aware that Clarence Mitchell told the press to lay off the New Zealand 'sighting'?
Are you aware that Isobel Duarte has gone on record to say that these details should not be publicised, as they might endanger Madeleine?

Is that like when the PJ told the McCanns not to advertise Maddie's eye defect as they might endanger her? Seems they went right on ahead with that little marketing ploy.

aiyoyo wrote:

vaguely1 wrote:Is it that you're worried that you might be paying his benefits out of your taxes?
8)

In it? where does the word go start......once he found out that his brother had buried his own daughter, or before they went on holiday?

Their fraud scam is more worry-worthy if anyone is worried.
Their illegal deed (?) should be their worry and no one else, people just dont like to be fooled.

GO starts from when he was phone call informed .....or do you think otherwise?

Phone call informed what though? That Madeleine was missing, or that they had disposed of her?

If you think the man unlikely to give up his career to look after his family on the off chance that he could go back to it in less than 24 hours, I find it equally unlikely that he would give up his job to become involved in a cover up for his nieces death.

Maybe it was all planned.

jkh wrote:

Snowy wrote:Mr Bennett, your article contains an extremely serious error, which I am happy to put right.

You claim on several occasions that the source of the current newspaper stories, some of them quite ridiculous, is 'Team McCann'.

these new ‘sighting’ stories emerging from the McCann Team and their chief spokesman.

And so the McCanns, their lawyers and advisers have got hold of the file of claimed sightings, and are beginning to publicise them.


As you acknowledge in passing that the files were released to the media, who appiled to the prosecutor for them, how can you claim that it is the Mccanns who are publicising them? This is simply disingeuous nonsense.

Are you aware that Clarence Mitchell told the press to lay off the New Zealand 'sighting'?
Are you aware that Isobel Duarte has gone on record to say that these details should not be publicised, as they might endanger Madeleine?

Is that like when the PJ told the McCanns not to advertise Maddie's eye defect as they might endanger her? Seems they went right on ahead with that little marketing ploy.

The Pj might have advised that but the officers in the UK explained clearly what the options were. They had a choice and they made a decision given the full facts...pros and cons if you like. Her eye was the one thing that was unique and that could identify her much much easier. It was either that along with all the risks that came with it or not....and the risk with that was that if anyone saw her then they wouldnt be so sure it was her and not report it.

Dont forget the PJ didnt want to release any e fits or photos. The golden hour was a concept lost on them. Would you say that was good advice as well?

They trusted the experts information.....what is wrong with that?

jkh wrote:Maybe it was all planned.

Murder she wrote... Tosh!

There's always going to be a pro and con to identifying something so identifying but when one is looking for a small fair haired 3 year old, unique features are just what might get her found, could you live with yourself if it transpired that not knowing about it meant the abductor got away and an opportunity lost.

Be like advertising for your lost cat as missing female black and white cat but failing to inform the public that said black and white cat has one blue ey and one green eye, thus reducing the chances of correct identification significantly.

Inyx wrote:

jkh wrote:Maybe it was all planned.

Murder she wrote... Tosh!

Tosh probably, hopefully - but still, this little list does make me wonder:

Gerry said on airport bus that he wasn't there to enjoy himself
Speed and professionalism of the Fund/website being set up
2006 seen on website when Maddie went missing in 2007
Naming Fund after a police forensic manual "No stone unturned"
John McCann gave up well-paid job despite having house, wife and kids to support
The last photo of Maddie believed to be fake
Kate's strange diary
Gerry's strange blog
Disregarding police advice about releasing information about Maddie's eye
Trademark, marketing ploy
Twins left in unlocked apartment after Kate raised alarm
Twins left in creche during aftermath while they went fundraising
Smiling and smirking, no real tears
Whoever Madeleine's with she'll be giving them her tuppenceworth
Well it was our holiday too
Staged walks, jogging, globetrotting, not searching
Gerry planning events months ahead
No evidence of abduction
No jemmied window
Gerry alleged to have dumped Fridge
Amaral believed Maddie's corpse was frozen or kept cold
Curtains washed, sofa moved, no sheets on twins' cots
Rotting meat, dirty nappies transported in hire car
Lies and inconsistencies, changing statements/stories
Tearing Maddie's book to write timeline before police arrived
Deleting text messages and phone records the night Maddie disappeared
Gerry having presence of mind to update his Friends Reunited profile to remove babysitting reference
Washing Cuddlecat and using it as a prop for staged photoshoots then dumping it once back in the UK
Framing Robert Murat
The Wider Agenda flipchart
The excessive mileage on the hire car
Blood/marks on walls and floor behind sofa
Cadaver scent in apartment and car and on Kate and Maddie's clothes
David Payne and Gerry's alleged 'paedophilic' conversation reported to police by two doctors
David Payne's alleged 'bathtime' visits
Jon Corner's strange remark about Maddie's special quality and charisma
Ward of Court
Question 41: Is it true that in England you considered giving up Madeleine's guardianship
Claiming to be devout Catholics which was denied by Kate's mother
Sedatives mystery
Not answering police questions
Not going back to Portugal to do the reconstruction
Refusing to take lie detector test
Excuses made for evidence found
Discrediting sniffer dogs
Not requesting the re-opening of the case before the deadline on 20 September 2008
Not taking Amaral's advice and making a formal request to the British police to find Maddie, despite their insistence that she is still alive
Saying they couldn't talk about the investigation because of their arguido status, but now their arguido status has been removed they still won't talk.

-----
Mr Amaral removed from investigation
Mr Amaral's dog killed with serious head injury
Sergey Malinka's car torched

And last but not least : there's no evidence Madeleine is dead, there's no evidence her parents are involved into her disappearance.
There's been no charges, no conviction.

Inyx wrote:And last but not least : there's no evidence Madeleine is dead, there's no evidence her parents are involved into her disappearance.
There's been no charges, no conviction.

You Pro's sound sooooo much like Gerry, it's freaky.

I wonder why they washed the curtains when they were only there for a week?

Does everyone wash the curtains in a holiday apartment or is it just me who's a lazy sloot?

When you are saying the truth there really are very few ways of saying it, unfortunately, I suppose we could put more effort into it, dance a jig while repeating the facts, repeat them but this time to a thumping drum and base beat?

jkh wrote:I wonder why they washed the curtains when they were only there for a week?

Does everyone wash the curtains in a holiday apartment or is it just me who's a lazy sloot?

They didn't.

Okay this one's a joke right and I fell for it

I wonder if it was because the curtains were floor length and draped in the blood that Keela found?

Definitely not rising anymore