Well, her loonyship didn't blog last week, so brace yourself for a double-helping of lunacy
So many. So very, very many posts.......
Well, absolutely - Child Abduction 101; be seen by as many people as possibleWe have absolutely no doubt in our minds that it was an intended encounter. Smithman walked deliberately into the Smiths when he had plenty of time and opportunities to avoid them.
No one is able to judge what others decide in situations in which they see themselves put in. The same person can react differently in similar situations, differing only in state of mind between circumstances.
Chosen specialist subject: Stating the bleeding obvious
If someone was bonkers enough to be walking about with a dead kid, I don't think you can make any assumptions
But there’s something called instinct. Saying that everyone withdraws their hand from a flame is not being judgmental but realising fact. As we are being factual when we say Smithman would have done all he could to avoid crossing with the Smiths if he was carrying a compromising (dead or abducted) child in his arms.
There is a difference between 'intentional' and 'not avoided'. So which is it? I have a horrible feeling you are about to tell us
And because he didn’t avoid the Smiths when he could have perfectly well done so as we have shown, we have stated that this encounter was completely intentional on Smithman’s part.
And there it is.....
Today, we are going to take that intention a step further. We are going to show that Smithman didn’t simply walk intentionally into the Smiths. He waited for them. He literally ambushed them.
I don't think Bennett's audience qualifies as ''all'' tbh, but we'll let it go for now
We know this. Move along.Gemma O’Doherty published in the paper edition of the Village Magazine on Feb 3 2017, “Maddie: did the BBC bend the truth?” (published online on Feb 9). In it she said that Martin Smith and his family maintain all that was said in 2007 and 2008 about this sighting and because they did maintain all the BBC had to correct the “innocent mistake” made by Richard Bilton in his documentary when he said that they had changed their minds about who they had seen.
That isn't quite what was said, now is it? This is what was said:
Mr Bennett was told by the Met as a reply to one of his many FOIs he has sent, that Operation Grange was no longer looking for the man in the e-fits which surfaced in 2013 by UK Crimewatch. We will speak of this later in the post.
" The MPS will not comment on whether identifications have or have not been made however the efits do not form part of any current appeal."
As you speculated, dear. Speculated. There is no evidence she was ''forced'' to do anything
That should be interesting.
The part of the article we say she wrote, is centred around the Smith sighting.With it she confirmed the veracity of the Smith sighting - something only disputed by the very few who insist on inventing a new wheel, a square one. It is something we will return to when we speak about Insane at the end of the post.
I think the overwhelming majority of people accept that the Smith sighting is perfectly genuine, with the only question being "Who was it and what, if anything, was he up to?"
The dotted line showing Textusa's failed sobriety test caused much hilarity when presented in court
It's not 3 different locations though, is it? It is three points along one journeyWe remind readers the Smith sighting is Smithman having encountered 9 members of the Smith family in 3 different locations in Praia da Luz.
It's not from a verified source and has to be treated as such
The first was inside the Rua da Escola Primária where he crossed with Peter and his pregnant wife, the second on the corner of this street with Rua 25 de Abril where he crossed with Martin Smith, his wife and the 2 toddler grandchildren who were with them and the third with A. Smith, then a pre-teen who was with 2 of her cousins of similar age.But it’s not only the veracity of what the Smiths have said and is in the files that Gemma O’Doherty has confirmed. She has confirmed the veracity of something that isn’t in the files and that the blog has been the only one saying it happened: the Smiths addressing Smithman.
It’s in this passage of her article:
“As he passed close by them on the narrow street, the child appeared to be in a deep sleep, her head placed over his shoulder and arms suspended down her body.
She was blonde, aged around four and wearing pyjamas. Despite the chill in the air, her feet were bare. Martin and his daughter Aoife noted that her skin was very white. The man carrying the girl was middle-aged and more formally dressed than the average tourist, in beige trousers and a dark blazer-like top.
A member of Martin’s family made a comment towards him that the child was sleeping but he did not respond or make eye contact, keeping his head down as he hurriedly headed in the direction of the coast.”
It's something that we spoke about in our post “Three Little Words, Ten Huge Facts” whereby we stated having read the following in a Sky News article, this:
“Martin Smith, from Drogheda in Co Louth, was on holiday in Praia Da Luz with his family when they bumped into the man just before 10pm on May 3 last year. The Smith family's suspicions were aroused because the man made no response when they asked if the barefoot child was asleep. "He just put his head down and averted his eyes, which is very unusual in a tourist town at such a quiet time of the year," said Mr Smith.”
Oh my god - seriously? You think Sky News responds to you?!
Ha ha ha ha ha ha - you are seriously demented, woman! There are many reasons a page can be deleted - including 'quoting' a witness when he didn't speak to them. No-one takes your blog seriouslyIt just goes to show that even then, in April 2010, some important people gave the blog more importance than the readership then would seem to indicate.
Further evidence of your delusions. If you wrote in your blog that it was Tuesday, and Kate McCann later said ''Tuesday'' you would claim it was because of you. You are nuts.
Oh, so not just Sky, but now CNN are hanging on every word of a demented menopausal blogger 😂
Sky News, after reading us, understood the importance of what was said in that passage and quickly took it off. CNN has done something similar, when it deleted a video in which they showed some esplanade and tried to pass it off as Tapas. Unfortunately for CNN, we have screengrabs of that video in our post “The proof the Ocean Club reads Textusa”
But Sky News wasn’t the only media running this story, as it also was mentioned in the Daily Mail article (appeared in paper edition only), by Sandra Murphy and Vanessa Allen published Jan 03 2008 “EXCLUSIVE: Tourist met rude man carrying child in blanket on night Madeleine vanished”:“AN IRISH holidaymaker has spoken publicly for the first time of his disturbing encounter with a man carrying a child wrapped in a blanket on the night Madeleine McCann disappeared.
Now investigators hired by Madeleine's parents hope Martin Smith and his family can provide a crucial breakthrough.
Speaking from his home in Drogheda, Co. Louth, Mr Smith recalled the sighting, which is strikingly similar to one by a friend of the McCanns, Jane Tanner. In hindsight, the retired Mr Smith said, the mans rude behaviour should have aroused his suspicions.
He explained: "The one thing we noted afterwards was that he gave us no greeting.
"My wife Mary remembered afterwards that she asked him, 'Oh, is she asleep?' But he never acknowledged her one way or another.
"He just put his head down and averted his eyes. This is very unusual in a tourist town at such a quiet time of the year."
Their description of the barefoot child and the man, who wore beige trousers, echoes that of Miss Tanner, who said she saw a man carrying a sleeping child away from the McCanns apartment about 9.15pm.(...)
The couple were with their daughter Aoife, their son Peter and his wife Sile, as well as four grandchildren Tadhg, Cole, Aisling and Eimear.
All nine met the man holding a child but their recollection differs slightly from Miss Tanner's.
"In the image she gave, the man was holding the child forward in his arms. The man we saw had put the child over his shoulders. But Luz was very, very quiet at that time of the year and the likelihood of two young children being carried around like this is very small.
"Also, our timings are a bit different. She saw the man at 9.15pm. We say 9.45or 9.50pm and the sighting was only a five-minute walk from where the child was staying.
"I don’t know if this information will help the McCanns. We kept interested in whats going on but we tried to avoid the limelight."
"I told them we went for dinner at the Dolphin Restaurant and then went on to have just one drink in Kelly's bar, just 50 yards away.
"We would normally have stayed out longer but my son and his family were going home the next day.
"As we made our way back to our apartment in Estrella da Luz, we met a guy with a child that appeared to be asleep.
"It looked like a blonde child, and I thought she might be four years old, as she was the same size as my grandchild who was with us.”
Please note that this was in January 2008, before Martin Smith’s memory would be jolted in September that year into remembering that the man he saw was Gerry.
“A member of Martin’s family made a comment towards him that the child was sleeping” (Gemma O’Doherty), “when they asked if the barefoot child was asleep” (Sky News) and “my wife Mary remembered afterwards that she asked him, 'Oh, is she asleep?'” (Daily Mail) give us the certainty that Mrs Smith addressed Smithman.
“Oh, is she asleep?”, are only four words but their importance is immense.
Okay - let me stop you there.
Martin Smith denied speaking to these 'journalists' and took legal action against several news organisations. It seems as if the Mail was probably the source.
As neither report now exists, and we know Mr Smith took action against the papers, I think you have to dismiss that report altogether. From the PJ files:
He has given no stories or helped in any photo fits. He sent a solicitor’s letter to six papers in relation material that was printed that was misquoted. The Evening Herald paid his solicitor’s fees and all papers printed an apology. His photograph appeared in another tabloid paper and this matter is being pursued at the moment.So I think you can stand down, Maria. Those articles have disappeared because they were bollocks, and not because Sky News is hanging on your every word, petal.
They didn't address him
Firstly, they tell us there was proximity, Smithman wanted to come so close that one of the Smiths felt the impulse to address him.
No - where on earth do you get that from?
Secondly, they tell us that Smithman stopped, he did not pass by the second group, made up of Mr and Mrs Smith and 2 of their grandchildren.
Utter bollocks. One - the interaction never happened, it was made up by a journalist. Two - nobody reported Smithman having stopped, so stop making up bollocks
Thirdly, they tell us Smithman stopped, and stopped for a significant period of time, allowing Mrs Smith to ask him that question. Mrs Smith started the question with a “Oh”, as if the contact was prolonged in such a way that she felt the need to address that man holding the little girl who just stopped and stood there near them. And they thought he was rude, not because he walked away but because he simply didn’t answer the question while he stood there. Add crucial seconds, please.
It never happened
Fourthly, they tell us that the Smiths assumed Smithman was not a local man as Mrs Smith addressed him in English.
It never happened
Fifthly, they tell us that there was a direct vocal interaction between Smithman and the Mrs Smith, reinforcing the idea of proximity and time he stopped to allow talk.
It never happened
Sixth, they tell us that the child was alive, as held her between him and the Smiths, so they could see her well, and it would be ridiculous for Smithman to do that if the child was dead.
Seventh, it reinforces the fact that Smithman wished to be seen.
Eight, it clarifies that his heading for the stairs towards A. Smith after crossing with Martin Smith is far from innocent, as the natural reaction would have been to head away from the group, up Rua 25 de Abril.
What the actual fucketty-fuck are you on about?
Ninth, the McCanns not considering this sighting as a very important one, which they didn’t when they gave much more relevance to the Pimpleman sighting than to one in the 2009 Mockumentary means that by then, they knew that this sighting would compromise completely their version of events.
You do know that getting the angle wrong in a documentary is not obstruction of justice, don't you? Because I am starting to wonder
Tenth, by intentionally distorting in this Mockumentary where the crossing had happened and the way the child was being carried (one would never ask a stranger if the girl was asleep if he was carrying her the Tannerman way but rather ask “is she ok?”), both of which are explained in detail in the various Smith statements in the files (which the McCanns so painstakingly and carefully took so long to translate) they have purposefully misled and obstructed justice.
How is it 'unnoticed' if you have been rambling on about it for fuck knows how long?
4. The Mockumentary alleyWith that unnoticed passage in her article, Gemma O’Doherty has helped confirm that the encounter was intentional on Smithman’s part.
He's never heard of you either
However, we have had another person helping with this and very much like with O’Doherty’s article passage, no one noticed his help. We’re talking about Richard Bilton.
But to understand in what way he has helped, we have to go back to the 2009 Mockumentary AKA Channel 4 Documentary “Madeleine was here” and see how it helped mislead in a crucial piece of information, which Bilton helped unravel.
Trust me when I tell you that absolutely no-one gives a shit.
We’re talking about the alley which the Smiths walked through before crossing with Smithman on their way home, that links the Rua 25 de Abril to the opening by Rua da Calheta where the Dolphins restaurant and Kelly’s bar, both used by the Smiths that night, are located.Under the influence of the Mockumentary (we should have known better) and of a picture from the PJ Files, we erroneously discarded this alley in 2013 and 2014 when we wrote the posts “Intentional - Not debatable fact” and “Speed”.In the posts mentioned we used the pictures above and as can be seen, we practicallyleft that alley out. These pictures served as a baseline to illustrate how Smithman, had had plenty of time and opportunities to avoid the encounter in question.
Jesus, my will to live is ebbing away. Get the fuck on with it
In fact, in our post “Textusa is a liar”, written in 2010, the blog explained why it had disregarded the alley: “I didn’t tell you also that most of the path taken by the Smiths is a stairway. Quite a steep one at that. It’s not clear in aerial the view:”Please note that in the photo on the right, taken from the PJ Files, there is a man walking up the alley. Apparently quite an irrelevant detail but as we will see later, far from being so.And please remember these words we then said to describe the alley “most of the path taken by the Smiths”.
That's because it was night, you dozy mare
You know what, guys, I am just going to leave the next bit out, because it's just her wanking herself into a coma about some bloody alley.
See you on the other side
I am pretty sure this is bollocks - it is most unlikely she could have a friend
Together with that PJ File photo, where it seems to be a steep stairway made us assume that the Smiths would only have become visible to Smithman when they entered and started to cross the Rua 25 de Abril(red circle below) and that’s where we made our starting point for our calculations and deductions:
But, as we said, we had the help of Richard Bilton in debunking this in his 10 year anniversary documentary he made for BBC.
Not realising the importance that alley had (and has) for the case, he, unlike the 2009 Mockumentary producers, overlooked the necessity of darkening it and this is what happened:
One can see how it all is visible in the night:
The first myth, that of a dark alley, debunked. Here’s another picture taken also at night:
Anyone walking from there can be seen coming from the Rua da Escola Primária.
And we’re not talking about one person but of 9 people in 3 separate groups led by a pregnant woman feeling ill and walking slowly uphill.
Could the steepness of the stairs have hidden the Smiths, and they would only be visible when they reached the top of the stairs of the alley?
6. The myth of the steep Smith alley
I have been in Praia da Luz twice now. Once with the team in 2016, after which we wrote the “Praia da Luz” post and last year together with a friend.
But it was YOUR myth, you dozy cow!
In 2016 one of the places we walked was exactly the route Smithman walked in the Rua da Escola Primáriaand through the alley (repeated this with friend in 2017):We saw immediately that the blog’s assessment of that alley, which we will call it the Smith alley, was completely and totally wrong.The alley is far from being steep:Seen from the other side:Basically, it has 4 sets of steps:The first with 3 steps, then 4, further down, 2 and then 7 steps after which one is at the same level as the Dolphins/Kelly's bar area from which the Smiths came from.The second myth, that of a steep alley, debunked.
So, the correct drawing that we should have used in our posts would have to have been the one above. One taking into consideration the Smith Alley
One must remember that as from Rua Ema V Alvernaz, the Rua da Escola Primária is downhill all the way to Rua 25 de Abril, where the entrance of the Smith alley is located. This compensates the inclination of the steps in the alley itself.
As can be seen, a person standing at the T-crossing of Rua da Escola Primária with Rua Ema V Alevernaz, can see another person inside the alley with the exception of the area, a “blind spot” below:
In case you were wondering, the purpose of all these diagrams is to try to fool her stupid readers that she is clever.
As shown, a person walking in that alley is visible from someone standing on top of the uphill of Rua da Escola Primária, with the exception of that blind spot, before and after it.
By using Google Maps, one can see above that there's an unobstructed view from the Rua da Escola Primária all the way down the alley into the Dolphins/Kelly’s area.
Again, with Google Maps, if one positions oneself in Rua da Escola Primária one can see the following:
What is interesting in this image is what one can see from there, all the way down the Smith alley:
From up the Rua da Escola Primária, Smithman one can the phone booth.
We have used Google Maps up to now but we as we said, we have personal experience. We walked the walk and saw what Smithman would be able to see and what he couldn’t.
And we confirm, my friend does as well, that one can see from the top of the uphill of the Rua da Escola Primária people crossing Rua da Calheta (double yellow arrow below):
One can’t if the people passing by the Rua da Calheta were men or women, as the angle was too narrow and the people crossing were quite far. But we could see people walking on that street passing by from where we were.
That means that Smithman could see clearly, with the exception of the blind spot, the Smiths when they were in the Smith alley.
Above on the left is a photo taken by my friend during my visit to Luz last year.
Oh please get to the fucking point. Seriously, this is time people will never get back and you are just filling it with fart-shaped air.
There is literally not a word of that which makes any sense. Not a word. If he was visible, and that was his aim, then he just had to keep walking. The idea of silently ambushing someone is patently absurd
As can be seen, she captured 2 people in the Smith alley walking away from us and 2 people on the other side of the street about where Smithman crossed with Martin Smith and his wife.
The red circle represents where Smithman crossed with the first group, Peter Smith and his pregnant and feeling ill, slow uphill walking wife. In fact, if my friend started to walk down the street after taking this picture, it would be likely that s/he would have crossed very near, if not on it, the spot Smithman crossed with Peter and his wife with that couple seen walking up. The couple is going uphill, friend would be going downhill.
The purple that can be seen on the background is a bougainvillea across the street in the Rua da Calheta. The one where we could see people crossing but couldn't tell from which gender. Like we said, people walking in that street could be seen from where we were standing.
People walking in the alley would certainly not go unnoticed by Smithman.
Above, photos from inside the alley. Photo A on the right was taken from what we have called the “blind spot” and photo B was from where we say that Smithman could start to see Peter Smith and his wife in the alley, assuming they walked in front of the group there as well.
There’s no question that the Smiths while in the alley were perfectly visible to Smithman.
Long before he crossed with them, Smithman could see the Smiths inside the alley.
9. The ambush
We can say with absolute certainty, even considering the “blind spot” inside the alley, which we should, that on the night of May 3 2007, Smithman was able to see Peter Smith and his wife as early as this inside the Smith alley:
This in turn proves what we wanted to show in this post: it shows that for Smithman to have crossed with Peter Smith in the ‘Smith 1’ location - we repeat that his wife was pregnant, feeling ill and walking slowly and uphill - he had to have waited. He had to have waited and ambushed them.
So he sought them out for what reason? Please just try to pick one, rather than fuck about for hours, wasting our time
Smithman saw the Smiths in the Smith alley. That gave him plenty of time to think and react.
We would speculate saying that he probably hid in the Unnamed Street but it could be somewhere else. Fact is that he had to have waited.
And only when Peter Smith and wife were inside the Rua da Escola Primária did he appear and walk down.
Add to this, that fact that Gemma O’Doherty’s article brought back to the surface of the Smiths questioning Smithman, then all becomes clear: not only did he ambush the family as he sought their engagement. No one with a dead or abducted child would do that.
Like your brain, for example.
10. The e-fits and their importance
We have little to add to what we have said about the reply Mr Bennett got to his FOI concerning the e-fits.
The reply he received: “These efits were received by the Operation Grange team in September 2008 as part of a dossier of material handed to the MPS by private investigators that had been working on the case. The MPS will not comment on whether identifications have or have not been made however the efits do not form part of any current appeal.”
To this, we said this:
“Textusa 1 Apr 2018, 12:37:00
Anonymous 1 Apr 2018, 11:18:00,
We are VERY encouraged by OG not using the e fits in an appeal.
Our view is that e-fits no longer used after Crimewatch as to do so would suggest there is still a man out there who is unidentified and asking public to name him - which would be akin to saying they don’t believe Gerry is the man Smiths saw. And putting innocent men in the frame.
And they are saying they are not searching for Maddie any longer.
We read this this way: no need to use the e-fits any longer, the information that they would help get, we already have, thank you.”
The fact that something is no longer being used, it doesn’t mean it’s useless.
Please, for the love of god just contribute one sentence which makes sense. Just one.Far from it. It can mean, as we think is the case, that whatever use they were to have they had, there can be no more information they can provide, and the information they provided will be put to use in the appropriate time.
For example, we started this heading with saying that we had little to add to what we already had said but we deem what we had said before as very important.
Saying something is not any more important to obtain information doesn’t mean the information they have already provided isn’t important. It is.
Out of bounds to whom? Or what?
11. Martin Smith and Insane
In our post “Very important concessions” we said that one of the outcomes of Gemma O’Doherty's article was that Martin Smith was now out-of-bounds.
Well, it wasn't out of my way, but regardless, I will always defend those innocent witnesses who are being savaged by fuckwits like you and Baldylocks
So it was interesting to watch how Insane felt the need to go out of his way, not once but 7 times it was last checked, to defend Martin Smith against the attacks that are being made against the man by a few members of the CMOMM forum.
The cesspit has never had any credibility
Unfortunately these few members are its core nucleus which weakens even further the credibility of this forum already debilitated with Gemma O’Doherty’s article and then completely shattered with that exercise of sending documentation to the Portuguese AG.
The arguments being advanced against the Smiths these few lack both logic and reason and seem to be made more in a desperate attempt to salvage some of the lost reputation than for anything else.
Besides illogical and unreasonable, they are lame and easily rebutted.
For example, anyone interested in the Maddie case can recognise Mr Amaral and state with absolute certainty that any other man is not him. That certainty doesn’t come from any personal relationship with him but simply because he’s now familiar to us. Implying that familiarity represents personal relationship is lame and easily rebutted.
We used Mr Amaral as an example but all of us have people we know who we have never or very seldom spoken to but are able to recognise if asked. Both Martin Smith and Robert Murat own properties in a small village in Portugal and there’s absolutely nothing strange about one saying that he had seen the other before and be able to recognise him if and when asked.
Oh go fuck yourself
Members in the forum have done a superb job in defending reason against these few members it must be said, so Insane’s job can hardly be qualified anywhere near outstanding or even good. He’s simply echoing the reasonable and logical arguments presented by the forum’s reasonable and logical members.
No, it has nothing to do with Gemma's article
But he has come to Martin Smith’s defense 7 times, as if to prove how right we were in saying that there’s a before and a after Gemma O’Doherty’s article when it comes to this man.
He has been warned many times. You are wasting your breath
About this ridiculous debate which has happened around Martin Smith in that forum, we would advise Mr Bennett and his close supporters to be careful with what is said.
Actually, for once that is a good point. Someone make a note of the date.
If the fact that the Smiths collaborated with the McCann’s detectives in producing the e-fits - as far as we know it was the detectives approaching the family and not the other way around - means that they worked for the McCanns, then the same reasoning must be applied to Mr Bennett and the agreement he signed with the McCanns be considered that he also works for the McCanns.
So that was basically the sole point in this endless diatribe - that 'Smithman' set off with the intention of being deliberately seen.
Just because a person was pressured by the McCanns, like Bennett and Smiths, does that mean the person is working for them? Of course not.
No question that the Smith sighting was pursued by Smithman. This rules out him being an abductor or Gerry carrying a lifeless Maddie.
And he did so by hiding in alley.
Why should he be bothered?
About the state of things, we would only like to repeat here what we said about Operation Grange continuing to be funded:
“Textusa 27 Mar 2018, 18:35:00
So that we let our readers know where we stand on this Operation Grange funding.
We expected this funding. As we will expect the next funding in September.
But its publicity was a surprise. We sincerely thought that this time there wouldn’t be news about it. Above the surface things have been quiet (no major news, on newspapers or TV shows, about how Grange was useless) and with things progressing below surface very nicely towards truth (voices have been silenced, other voices have stepped up on their aggressiveness and some reputation cards have been played – as if it’s “now-or-never” time – and these reputations have taken serious blows) we thought Grange would simply continue on its right path.”
The Met has said that they no longer need to appeal to the public about the e-fits and the government has made it clear that it doesn’t mind going against the inflamed mob and will continue funding Operation Grange as long as it thinks it should.
Colin Sutton has come out - he says he hasn’t but has done very little to protest against seeing his name being abused and that tells he’s complacent with the use - protesting against this funding AFTER it was granted.
Sutton’s name was used apparently without his knowledge or authorisation and he does nothing about it. Interesting.
So what is your point? He didn't say he was offered it and turned it down, so this is a completely poisonous exchange
Sutton has the ability to protest when he shouldn’t, by doing so after funding granted is crying over spilt milk as it won’t make the government change its mind about what has been decided and to not protest when he should, when he sees his name being used, supposedly without his authorisation. Amazing.
Can any of the Sutton supporters quote for us where he has said that he refused to head Operation Grange? The nearest he came to saying something similar was to say that he was advised by a friend not to accept in case it was offered. Completely different. Such invitation was never made, or at least Sutton has never said that it was and one does need to be invited for something to refuse doing it.
You've got both feet planted in it
A lie told a thousand times is easily taken for the truth by the ignorant. It’s up to each one to decide on which side of ignorance one wishes to stand.
Evolving? You wouldn't know evolution if it dropped a dinosaur on your head
Sutton’s voice was simply one that has found the imperative need to be heard at this particular time, and that makes one think that things are evolving quite nicely.
Please also note that this time Sutton no longer appeals for Operation Grange to question the McCanns, nor that it should start all over. This time he just says that it’s a waste of money, so close it.
Cobblers. Police numbers are being cut across the country yet they find ludicrous sums to fund this farce
Will the officers allocated to Grange stop receiving wages when Grange finally closes? We don’t think so. So, where is the money being wasted on? It’s not. Saying so is simply to stoke up the emotions of the, again, ignorant.
If anyone knows what the fuck she is wittering on about, please leave a message in the comments, because I truly no longer care
We would say that Sade Anslow has summarised best what are the real intents of those seeking with such determination that Operation Grange gets closed because it’s destined to get nowhere, when she summed up Blacksmith’s post the following way:
“Sade Anslow * Blacksmith’s exasperation is this - why, after all these years. are people agreeing with the MSM, or think that the MSM is agreeing with us? They have lied, ridiculed and criminally conspired to hinder the investigation from the beginning. Whilst until now the slurs on Grange have been more subliminal, largely overshadowed by “support” for the “search for Maddie”, it appears now that someone is feeling the clock ticking, no room for niceties now. just get it shut down asap.
It's surely obvious - whatever they say, think the exact opposite. The most important part of this post is also beautifully simple - who could possibly want Grange to end? Who, with no care for the money spent or the time taken, could be so desperately afraid of it reaching a conclusion?”
Then after Sutton came the ‘McCanns by Kandhola’ who came out of in defense of Operation Grange and slamming Sutton.
Can the reader think of any better way of giving undue credibility to Sutton than by having the pariah couple speak publicly against him? Maybe only by adding Kerry Needham and “Paul from Wallsend, Tyneside” to the bonfire lit below Grange’s feet to vilify it.
Oh, Kandhola did just that? So transparent.
Nope, I haven't a clue.Add to this that the internet minions are absolutely clueless about what is going on and seeing some of them on seeing their hard-built reputation as antis being irreparably cracked, threatening to leave before they are exposed, one cannot but smile.
Lastly, after Nigel Nessling AKA Vee8 having been sentenced in November last year in an Ipswich court, we now had Karen Rosemary Ormiston, AKA Gwen James" sentenced in a Cardiff court to six months immediate imprisonment and subjected to a lifetime restraining order by the District Judge for the offences of harassment and malicious communications to which she pleaded guilty.
The shields protecting the protectors of the hoax are slowly coming off.
Do you seriously think the criminal activities of those two people have any relevance here? They were not 'protectors' of anything, just a couple of sad wankers.
Maria, you need to get a grip. As far as I can make out, you have written this entire post without making a single point. Your premise seems to be that 'Smithman' lay in wait and 'ambushed' the Smiths but that is beyond ridiculous. Now just behave yourself, woman.
Just adding this, which I have spotted.
Okay. For about the ten billionth time, I do not have a twitter presence. I am none of the people you have claimed I am, nor have I ever interacted with any of them unless they posted here anonymously, in which case I wouldn't even know.
Secondly, I did not call Gemma O'Doherty a liar, although I do believe she has mistakenly taken the description of an ''interaction'' from another source, possibly one of the papers against whom Mr Smith took legal action for wrongly attributing comments to him
Is what a coincidence?
I think you had better provide two sources here - one for your claim that he was ''heavily pressured to be silent'' and secondly that he contradicted himself in 2018. Both of those claims are nonsense.
Yes, those are his words. What's your problem?
I am not calling either a liar. I believe Gemma is quoting an old article which was incorrect.
I say you are talking out of your arse. You can't even produce evidence of the Mail comments or Sky News comments. If the Sky comment was pulled it suggests that it was because the claim was false
Now stop hassling tweeters on the pretext that they are me, you looning weirdo