Thursday, 18 December 2014

And now for something completely different.........

I don't normally post stuff from other blogs or forums, but this is just too good to ignore

With acknowledgements to Cristobel from whose forum I have nicked this, and Tigger who didn't so much tear Tony Bennett a new arsehole as completely remodel his entire digestive tract, upon discovering that Bennett had been seriously libelling the wrong man.

This speaks for itself, hopefully. Bennett, you are a total fucking wanker. 

TWO MARTIN SMITHS - response by Tony Bennett

Post  myositis on Tue Dec 16, 2014 6:26 pm

I’m responding to an article by your member ‘tigger’ on her blog which has apparently been reproduced and discussed on one of your threads.

The central allegation she makes is that I falsely claimed that a Martin Smith in Dundalk, an inventor who has golfing business interests, is one and the same as Martin Smith from Drogheda who, 13 days after allegedly seeing a man carrying a blonde girl clad in pyjamas on 10pm on 3 May 2007, reported his sighting to the police.

I admit to having made an honest mistake. I think the Drogheda Smiths are Martin and Mary. A Martin and Mary Smith are also shareholders in the golf companies. It was not only a mistake, it was a bad mistake. 

In correspondence with the Dundalk Martin Smith in October this year, I admitted the mistake and apologised for it.

In his initial e-mail to me (9 October), the Dundalk Martin Smith wrote: “I, personally, fully appreciate that what you wrote was done in good faith and with the best of intentions and I think your interest in getting to the truth of Madeleine's disappearance is admirable in the extreme. But I should advise that the other people you mention in the post may not be so understanding”.

Despite doubts about the authenticity of this e-mail, I decided to accept it as genuine. 

In my post about the Dundalk Martin Smith’s business interests, I had referred to my doubts about his golfing company’s listed Directors, who included CEOs of international businesses. These were set out in an application for funding he’d made to ‘BES Opportunities’. He explained this to me as follows:

“The information that you found on BES Opportunities in Maynooth, County Kildare (link: was scraped by the owner of that site without my consent. Hence the inaccuracies, mis-spellings, typos and sketchy information. It was gathered willy-nilly from several sources and could be nothing but incomplete. However unlikely it may seem, it is accurate in some regards. John Coleman (ex-Bose) is a partner and substantial shareholder. We served together as army officers many years ago. Count Andreas Faber-Castell is a long-standing, close personal friend and is a board member”.

I replied the same day: “Clearly if I have mistaken you for the Martin Smith whose claimed sighting is now at the heart of the Madeleine McCann investigation, then I have made a genuine error and will take steps to correct it”.

The following day, Dundalk Martin Smith replied:

“Thanks for your prompt response. You obviously appreciate my position and concern”. He then gave details of what posts he wanted removed from the CMOMM forum, ending: ”Again Tony, thank you for your prompt response. It is really appreciated. Best regards, Martin”.

On 11 October, he wrote and said: “Thanks a million Tony. Much appreciated. Good luck with your continued search for the truth. Martin”.

And after all the posts were removed, he replied: “Tony, It would seem that you were as good as your word. So all's well that ends well. Many thanks. 
And I really do hope you get to the truth of the affair”.

I had of course suggested that it was the Drogheda Martin Smith who had concocted details of his Directors. That was wrong and I have apologised for doing so.

The Drogheda Martin Smith has been variously described as ‘a retired businessman’ and ‘a former Unilever Director’. I have no information to contradict this.

It is not the first honest error I have made whilst researching matters relating to the disappearance of Madeleine McCann over the past years. But along the way I believe I have also contributed some worthwhile new facts and insights.

So far as my doubts about the claims of the Smiths regarding their sighting of ‘Smithman’ are concerned, and about the two e-fits, and other matters surrounding the man whom DCI Andy Redwood asserted on Crimewatch was now his ‘central focus’, these doubts all remain.

I do not intend to enter into any discussion about the above statement. I would also point out that the poster named as ‘russiandoll’ has repeated on your publicly-viewable forum the errors I made about the owner of the golf businesses. You may wish to reconsider whether you wish that (and similar) material to stay on your forum.

I suggest that now that I have responded to the claims made on your forum you may wish to now deactivate my membership as I do not intend to post here again.

Tony Bennett
16 December 2014, 6.30pm

Saturday, 1 November 2014

Dickhead of Dock Green.

Evening all

Well, it's that time again. Textusa has delivered her latest serving of utter bollocks and it falls to me to point out it's failings. Really I could just draw a big circle around it and write ''It's all complete wank'' across the middle, but I know you have grown to expect more of me than that, so read on.

Frontline News

Textusa pictured during the war years, when she headed up a crack team dropping hilarious propaganda across Europe. Her famous ''Mr Churchill wears thongs'' leaflet is said to have changed the course of the war.
The “The McCann Hunting Party 11”, one of the most expensive “games” ever to have taken place is reaching a decisive phase.

The battle is raging.

There aren’t any cavalry charges yet or even artillery fire. Outside, the battlefield appears to be calm. Only troop movement breaks the stillness.

Jesus, don't let her watch Saving Private Ryan again 
Pieces on the board are being moved, placed where they progressively eliminate the opponent’s possibilities, tightening the circle.

The quiet battleground contrasts with the noise and confusion that we’re certain must be going on inside the walls of the respective HQs.

Now is the time to guess where the enemy will attack. To guess what forces he’ll use. To try to determine when the D-Day is, and when the H-Hour will come. Now is the time to decide which manoeuvres are diversion and which ones aren’t.

Tension is in the air. One can feel it.

Okay........well, that was a complete pile of wank. Now, would 

you like to have another go at explaining what the fuck you are 

on about ?

Every move the opponent makes that is missed is a mistake unable to be rectified. Every reaction to a distraction is an unforgivable revelation that will not go unnoticed.

Oh really? Like what, Einstein?
The way the hate-campaign ended abruptly with Brenda Leyland’s death, has given the Government BHs the upper-hand. Not only that, it has taken away completely the initiative from the Swinging BHs.

Okay, hold it right there.

There was no apparent end to any ''hate campaign''  A 

few people shit themselves lavishly for a couple of 

days, and then it all went on pretty much as before.

So who the hell are these ''Government BH's? ''

And who are the ''Swinging BH's''? And spare me the 

horseshit about how hundreds of people all know what 

went on but have kept quiet for 7 years because of the 


Their September counter-offensive was to stall. Now they fight desperately for the same objective. The difference? They no longer control timelines. The initiative has passed completely to the other side and SY is clearly showing that.

Yadda, yadda, bullshit bullshit........
For example, one telling sign, in our opinion, is how SY suddenly started to show very little interest concerning the pending decision on its 5th rogatory letter. The “burglar” story has been put on hold for now.

It has advanced straight towards the 6th rogatory letter even before it is written. What is the 6th about? FORENSICS.

This month SY has “surprisingly” doorstepped the INML and blurted out for all who could hear that they wanted to review all the 2007 forensic evidence on the Maddie case. Not the one eventually found in the 2014 Praia da Luz Humiliation Week.

Reviewing the forensic evidence is completely routine 

in all cold case reviews. Next. 

No, they want new results from “old” evidence that was collected in 2007.

Yes, that's why they ''review'' them. Do stop me if I am 

going too fast for you. 
Forensics. The word that scares most BHs. Not because it may incriminate the McCanns, as it may, but because that incrimination and subsequent charging of the couple will open wide, as we have explained, the MADDIE’s PANDORA’s BOX. Forensics is the key to that box.

Oh dear. Here we go. Deploy those horseshit 

countermeasures now
Forensics was the word we highlighted back in our “SY’s Significant Moves”. And we narrowed that word down to “curtains” in our “Sweet 16” post.

Oh yes, we remember. Umpteen pages of highly concentrated cack. It took ages to get the whiff out of the servers, I can tell you.....

Since then curtains and DNA on curtains have filled the MSM headlines on the issue.

Let's get this right. The papers had the ''curtains'' 

bullshit story long before you tacked your drawers to it. 

DNA in hairs, hairs on curtains, curtains of the kids’ bedroom it’s been said. Curtains that are supposedly currently stored in INML it’s also said.

Much has been mystified in this case. For example, all blonde little girls can be confused with Maddie. Apparently, every little blonde 3/4 yr old girl looks alike. One cannot tell one aprt from the other. Even if one has taken care of them for 3 or 4 days in a row, one was still unable to tell them apart. I’m sure when Gerry or Kate went to pick Maddie up from the crèche, the nanny on the front desk asked if they could point her out because, you know, for us they all look the same. But that is not for this post.

Thank fuck
Another myth in this case is that the samples with DNA are microscopic in size. We debunked that in our “Does Size Matter?” post.

Did you bollocks. You pointed to a circled mark and declared it was ample to provide lots of DNA, which was absolute horseshit. They all tested negative for all the usual - blood, saliva, semen, etc. For all you know, they were sodding ketchup. And no amount of ketchup is going to yield human DNA. Well, not unless their hygiene routines are very suspect, anyway. 

The sample may be small, tiny or even minuscule but is never microscopic.

Christ, you are scarily dim. 

DNA itself is invisible. 

As someone who regularly extracts it, I can assure you it most certainly is not invisible

Stains producing it may or may not be visible. Some stains may only be visible with a light source, but if illuminated by light source, they become visible.

Oh please, you have no idea what you are talking 

about, and even if you did it is of no relevance anyway 

The result (DNA) is of microscopic proportions but the sample from which it originates from is not.

Textusa's IQ results are back
Some samples due to their composition and/or the kind of material on which they are may become invisible to the naked eye. Others may be invisible to the human eye because of human action.  Stain #3 is an example of that. It couldn’t be seen but was there all the time. If the dogs had not signalled that particular location, other means of testing would not have been used and that stain probably would never have been detected to this day.

What utter rubbish
A sample has to be able to be physically collected. A fingerprint leaves a mark. So do palm-prints. Is it possible to extract DNA from fingerprints? “To answer this question, consider this: when people touch things, they may leave behind DNA from cells sloughed off upon contact. How many cells are sloughed off depends on various factors, including how much they sweat. A number of scientific investigators have observed that DNA can be obtained from a wide array of fingerprints, but not all fingerprints give DNA profiles. The amount of DNA associated with a fingerprint will vary from person to person and can vary within the same person.”

Despite all their hard work, Textusa's teachers discover she still doesn't know what year it is. The files show there was no searching for fingerprints or palm-prints on the living-room walls around the couches. And the stains and smudges that were found there do not look anything like finger or palm-prints, as we showed in our “Does Size Matter?” post.

Horseshit. Presumably the idiot does not understand 

that a UV light source can also identify the location 

of fingerprints

A hair may be caught on the fabric of a curtain. Could a burglar, carrying Maddie have left a hair clinging to the curtain because he was a sweaty man wearing a short-sleeve shirt on a chilly night? Before you go and say Bundleman was wearing a coat, for SY he doesn’t exist. We’re speaking about second man, Burgundyman, at the same location and around the same time carrying a blonde little girl.

There is no witness testimony indicating anything of the 

Revelation: The Met previously released an image of the shirt which witnesses said the suspect could have been wearing
Despite resorting to desperate measures, Textusa's optician still can't find a chart she can read from five feet away 

But Burgundy man, according to the Daily Mail, wore a long-sleeved shirt. Maybe he didn't wear gloves which isn't reasonable for a pre-planned burglary but one is not looking for his reason just his DNA on the kids' bedroom curtains.

The Daily Mail? Oh for fuck's sake......
Maybe he brushed his head against the curtains and left some hair there. A hair that went undetected by the LPC forensic experts who combed that room the next day.

A hair SY thinks may have been left because a man passed, allegedly, ONCE through that window carrying a child and MAY have brushed against the curtains. Yet the fact 3 little children dressed and undressed in that room for days in a row and have left only small quantities of their hair there is not thought by the Met to be suspicious.

Small quantity? It wasn't a small quantity. There were 53 hairs containing mitochondrial DNA which matched Kate and all her children, so they could have come from any of them 

The first question one has to ask is, from where did SY get the idea there may be overlooked DNA from the abductor on those curtains? After all, that window area was looked at with a very, very fine tooth comb by LPC .

Firstly, it appears to be the living room curtains not the bedroom, and a forensic review is a normal procedure. There is nothing out of the ordinary at all

And if the curtains are supposedly at the INML, how does SY know of this? Has someone been fiddling with them there and leaked this to the Met?

No, that information is in the files, moron. 
We can’t see what possible new information could lead to having SY suspecting that the kids’ bedroom curtains may contain a hair, undetected up to now, that may prove to be the crucial clue. So it must be a hair collected in 2007.

They said nothing about a hair - you invented that. 

This is a normal review. Forensic evidence will always 

be re-visited in a case review, to check that nothing 

was missed and in case newer techniques can find new 


CdM article says 444 hair-strands were found. Cutting to the chase, 98 had no correspondence with any DNA profile and in 19 partial results were obtained. That means we have 117 unidentified hair-strands.

Where is the link between these 117 hair-strands and the curtains from the kids’ bedroom? We haven’t seen anything that may suggest that.

There is nothing to suggest that. So don't suggest it, 

Is SY throwing around wild cards in the hope one of them turns out to be an ace?

But the biggest problem this “hair-in-curtain-of kids' bedroom curtains” presents to SY is the curtains themselves.

It's the living room,not the bedroom curtains. The moral 

is ''don't believe shit you read in newspapers''
They are not at the INML. In fact , if they haven’t been replaced, they are where they’ve always been, in apartment 5A.

Yes. And? 

The files detail every single item that was collected on 04MAY2007 from the kids' bedroom. Every single sample. The kids’ bedroom curtains are not among them:

She then lists everything, for reasons best known to her 

shrink. I can't be fucked with her OCD at this time of 

night, so I am going to delete it all. 
“In this search the following was recovered:
- Yadda yadda

All vestiges from the kids’ bedroom were collected back in May 2007. And the curtains weren't included. They were not collected. They remained where they were.

No shit, Sherlock. 
If now these curtains appear at the INML, someone has some serious explaining to do as to why their collection wasn’t mentioned 

They won't. 

But all this isn't ridiculous. Yes it is.  It may appear to be, That's because it is but in our opinion is very far from being ridiculous. And you're wrong 

To understand its importance, one must understand the communication systems being used. These articles, or better said, these information leaks, are NOT written for you and me. We are simply stokers who keep the fire alive. Snort

The war, let us be very clear, is between Government BHs and Swinging BHs. Oh what a load of shit. Again. Only between them. PJ is a passive player. Not the submissive, subservient one of 2007 but a passive one nonetheless.

So the communication is between the 2 players. Let’s recap on the communications between them:

The face that launched a thousand dingbats. 

On 01SEPT2014, with the Sky News Report, the Swinging BHs told the Government BHs, we want to infilitrate the SY investigation.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
Troll Dossier nominated for Pulitzer Prize. Summers and Swann said to be ''livid'' 

On 09SEPT2014 and 11SEPT2014, with the handing over of the “Tr*ll Dossier” and the publication of the Summers and Swan book, the Swinging BHs told the Government BHs, we will launch a hate-campaign that will make anyone opposing the McCanns a hater, so we will be “controlling” the internet and facilitating the maintainance of things as they are, or if you really do need to present something, let's work on the whitewashing. Please jump on board.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha 

ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha *wipes away 

tears* ha ha ha ha ha ha

An Inspector calls........

On 16SEPT2014, the Government BHs told the Swinging BHs, we’re not interested, thank you.

Uh huh. How did they do this, then?

On 02OCT2014, the Swinging BHs told the Government BHs, we don’t care if you’re not interested. We are going to continue with the hater-campaign and if you so much as lift a finger against the McCanns we will assure you will be considered a hater yourselves.

Sorry, can we go back to the ''Government Black Hats '' for a minute - how did they ''signal'' their lack of interest in your preposterous idea, again?

In death, they all wanted a piece of her. Textusa included 

On 04OCT2014, with Brenda Leyland's death the hater-campaign collapsed.

Please do not stoop to include this family's tragedy in 

your fucked-up fantasy, you piece of filth. 

On 16OCT2014, when SY doorstepped the INML, the Government BHs told the Swinging BHs, we’re going for the kill, we’re dropping burglar and going after forensics.

And how did they do this, then?
This was all between them. We were just spectators. Some more attentive then others but all of us nothing but spectators.

You've never been anything BUT a spectator, you clown. 

Now you may understand the importance of this most recent communications from GBH to the SBH, the28OCT2014 CdM article: 

So you are saying that some imaginary group within the British government is communicating with another imaginary group consisting of hundreds of guests, workers, ex-pats, members of the press and the Pope by means of Portugal's answer to the Daily Mirror?
It might not look like it, but this is apparently a secret UK government memo to the Pope. Go figure. 
“Maddie: DNA of 444 hair-strands was subjected to analysis

In 2007, partial tests were done on 25 samples of blood and saliva.

By Rui Gomes Pando

Experts from the Instituto Nacional de Medicina Legal (INML) analysed 444 hair-strands that were collected by the PJ in following months after the disappearance of Madeleine McCann in 2007, in Praia da Luz, Lagos. According to what CdM found, also subject to forensic testing were 25 samples of blood and saliva and three other vestiges found in the room from where the child disappeared and in the boot of a car. It’s some of these vestiges that Scotland Yard now wants to take to England to analyse again, in a British private laboratory.

The English, as CdM reported yesterday, still want to re-do examinations to a curtain from the room where Maddie slept, which was target of testing in the INML in 2007, and in which nothing relevant was found. The collection of the vestiges was made in homes, cars and couches by experts of PJ’s Laboratório de Polícia Científica (LPC). Among the vestiges there are also samples of hair and saliva from several people who were deemed relevant to the investigation. In the list of the 444 hair-strands subject to be tested, are 432 human and 12 nonhuman, 98 had no correspondence with any DNA profile and 19 partial results were obtained. The request for the re-evaluation of the vestiges will be part of a 6th rogatory letter. This despite a decision doesn't yet exist from the new prosecutor of the Public Ministry of Portimão, Inês Sequeira, for the 5th letter, sent by the British to Portugal.” 

It contains, in our opinion, 3 very clear and damning messages to the Swinging BHs.

First message is the word BLOOD.

25 samples of blood and saliva. Now it's about DNA from blood. Not hairs but blood.

And unfortunately for you, it's tabloid bullshit. As you 

well know, they did not confirm the presence of blood in

any test in apartment 5a 
Blood, a word that sends shivers down the BH spines. If the majority of samples were of saliva, then the word order would have been “25 samples of saliva and blood”.

Hey, shit-for-brains! These results are already in the

files. Go look. No Blood. 
Outside the diligences that were done as result of the signalling done by the dogs, the PJ Files speak of blood in 2 places: Burgau and Quinta dos Figos.

In the Report of forensic examination carried out in an apartment situated in Aparthotel Sol e Mar, Apartment 2C, Burgau done on 05MAY2007: 

The silly cow then reproduces all the results from 

those two locations, in a bid to make the post 15 feet 

long. So fuck it, let's lose that 

*Deleted. Off you fuck*

Some gratuitous pictures from a flat that had nothing to do with the disappearance. 

4 samples hardly account for “25 samples of saliva and blood”. From apartment in Burgau and Quinta dos Figos. None from Apartment 5A.

Note the CdM article abandons “generic” forensics. Now it's about blood. Government BH answering the question we have put in our “DNA is… DNA” post: what are the stains made of? It’s blood.

Christ, she thinks the government are talking to her, 

Second message are the words CAR and BOOT.

The magical word “car” appears in the “collection of vestiges was made in homes, cars, and couches”.

Two cars had forensic evidence collected from them:

There now follows a huge cut and paste job of all the results from the cars. Or there would, had I not just deleted it all on the grounds of ''who gives a fuck?''

The same boot where cellular material was recovered and John Lowe had this to say on mail to Stuart Prior on 03SEPT2007:

“A complex LCN DNA result which appeared to have originated from at least three people was obtained from cellular material recovered from the luggage compartment section 286C 2007 CRL10 (2) area 2. Within the DNA profile of Madeline McCann there are 20 DNA components represented by 19 peaks on a chart. At one of the areas of DNA we routinely examine Madeleine has inherited the same DNA component from both parents; this appears therefore as 1 peak rather than 2, hence 19 rather than 20. Of these 19 components 15 are present within the result from this item; there are 37 components in total. There are 37 components because there are at least 3 contributors; but there could be up to five contributors. In my opinion therefore this result is too complex for meaningful interpretation/inclusion.

Why - ...

Well lets look at the question that is being asked

"Is there DNA from Madeline on the swab "

It would be very simple to say "yes" simply because of the number of components within the result that are also in her reference sample.”

So there is a link to be made between “blood”“boot of car” and “forensics 2007”. And CdM has made it.

CdM is very clear “also subject to forensic testing were 25 samples of blood and saliva and three other vestiges found in the room child disappeared and boot of car.

No-one gives a fuck what some tabloid says. It does 

not trump what the files say, idiot 

The main focus of this CdM sentence for target audience (once again be reminded, it’s not us) is exactly that: “blood” and “boot of car”.

Third message is LIVING-ROOM CURTAINS.

It's in this sentence “The English, as CdM reported yesterday, still want to re-do examinations to a curtain from the room where Maddie slept, which was target of testing in the INML in 2007, and inwhich nothing relevant was found.

If the curtains from the room where Maddie slept never left Luz, then they couldn’t possibly be the target of any tests in Coimbra, where the INML is.

But what matters is, there were curtains that were indeed tested at LPC and in which nothing relevant was found: the white curtains of the living-room, that we spoke of in our “Sweet 16” post:

As Textusa is not allowed sharp objects, her carers are around to lend a hand. 

This is what the report had to say: 

Oh no you don't, Mrs...........

That can fucking go too.......
 Textusa's GCSE Art project still has some way to go.........

The 29OCT2014 article from Express speaks only of “curtains hanging in the Algarve apartment where she vanished”. It doesn’t say the bedroom.

The Ikea sale has really gone downhill 

Tested curtains without any relevant results, only from the living room.

Textusa is invited to have another try at ''Pin a number on the curtain'' after they take away the vodka bottle 

The CdM article speaks of hairs but we think it's really speaking about blood, car boot and living room curtains. All from 2007 forensics on the Maddie case.

You don't have a fucking clue, do you?

What was the actual point of this post?

All it has established is that tabloid newspapers 

frequently get stuff wrong and that you are an idiot.

But we kind of knew that already
Add all of the above and make of it what you will.

Cheers. I have made an enormous pair of bollocks. I think it's fitting.