Wednesday, 31 October 2018

The Further Adventures of Lizzie Liar

The absolute fucking state of this

WAS MADDIE DEFINITELY SEEN DURING THE WEEK? See list below. If anyone has one I have not included, please let me know.
Yes she was. Get a life, you mad midget 
There have been efforts to DISCREDIT my research on whether witnesses really DID see Madeleine or whether they were mistaken. I have NEVER claimed witnesses/nannies lied, mainly because I don't believe they did. Here is a SUMMARY of what I have put together over the LAST 8 YEARS!
It's not really possible to discredit your research, because it never warranted any credit in the first place. Of course you believe they lied - you are just too dishonest to say it.

No-one gives a shit about what you have ''put together''. It's all absolute bullshit.
Discrepancies started Tuesday morning which seemed, to me, to be an effort to cover up something. Had something happened to Maddie by Tuesday morning?
No they didn't, and no it hadn't. 
Back in 2010 I decided to study and scrutinise all the statements of those that claimed to have seen her, and if I came across one that was sufficient to believe she was definitely seen on that day, I hoped to be able to identify WHICH day something happened.
The only problem is, dear, YOU decided what the standard of proof was, using some demented arbitrary system of your own devising. None of the police agree with you, but of course they are not bonkers or deranged from years of breathing in paint fumes. 
Fatima the cleaner's daughter was the ONLY statement I saw where Maddie was identified with no questions in my mind.
No-one gives a shit about your ''mind'', halfwit. 
Sunday lunchtime around 1.15pm. She specifically identified Maddie outside her apartment and met with them as she was going upstairs to join her mother cleaning in the apartment next to David Paynes (where the McCanns were heading for lunch)
I found NO other statements, TO THIS DAY, that I can feel comfortable and sure that the child they saw was Maddie.
No-one cares, Lizzie. If you want to be dishonest enough to dismiss numerous statements from people who knew her, then fill your varnish-splattered boots, sweetcheeks 
Knowing that one of the Tapas children was identified by Miguel Matias as being Maddie when we KNOW she wasn't at the Paraiso according to the CCTV is EXACTLY what may have happened to other witnesses.
Bull fucking shit. He didn't know her. The other witnesses did. 
Some of the were not specific enough to allow for me to claim they definitely saw Maddie.
Nobody is interested in your claim, dear, just theirs 
I will post the individual statements in the following 30 or so, messages. Please let me know if you are not in agreement and consider any one of the statements as being a DEFINITE sighting.
I am not in agreement, neither are any of my readers. I have not had a single message in support of you, despite the bleating of your army of pantwetters 
I do not claim Maddie WASN'T seen... I have only attempted to see if there was a day in the week that she WAS seen.
Oh for fucks's sake - at least own it - you are desperate to try to convince people she wasn't seen - so desperate that you dismiss out of hand the accounts of people who knew her, the paper records and the photographic record, you old fraud 
1) - Catriona Baker
2) - Emma Wilding -
3) - Charlotte Pennington
4) - Jacqueline Williams
5) - Lynne Fretter
6) - Lyndsay Johnson
7) - Kirstie Maryan
8) - Sarah williams
9) - Amy Tierney
10) - Leanne Wagstaff
11) - Stacey Portz
12) - Susan Owen
13) - Shinead Vine
14) - Cecilia Dias Firmino -
15) - Georgina Jackson -
16) - Jeronimo Salcedes - Tapas Barman
17) - Maria M A Jose - Tapas Cook
18) - Paula Cristina da Costa Vieira -
19) -FΓ‘tima MarΓ­a Serafim da Silva Espada(5A Cleaner's daughter) -
20) - Luisa Ana de Noronha de Azevedo Coutinho ( Receptionist)
21) - Elisa Dias Romao -
22) -Daniel Stuk
23) - Sandra Maria Dos Santos Lourenco Murtinheira cleaner
24) - Alice Stanley - Took children sailing May 3rd - No Formal statement
25) -Chris Unsworth - Took children sailing May 3rd - No Formal statement
26) - Jeremy (Jes/Jez) Wilkins
27) - Stephen Carpenter
28) - Bridget O'Donnell
29) - Miguel Matias, manager of the beach-side ParaΓ­so restaurant - Was mistaken and saw one of the other tapas children dancing with her daddy proven by the CCTV footage.

It's quite sneaky, what you do, isn't it? You include accounts that were quickly ruled out by the police, as if you made some startling discovery.

You are such a fraud, Lizzie. It's an absolute insult to the memory of that poor child 

Lizzie Liar

Lizzy Hideho Taylor According to all those witness statements noone specifically or definitely saw her after Sunday. We dont know what day something happened, hence the point of my research to see if she WAS seen for sure

That, my dear, is a blatant, outright lie. No ifs or buts about it.

A bare-faced, cynical lie that you have been trotting out for years.  


I'm dying


Tuesday, 30 October 2018

It's all in the language........

So, when you buy a book, what are you looking for?

Well, I would suggest that when you buy a book that promises to be "Genuinely frightening, forensically detailed" you are expecting to read something which lives up to those claims. However, we must remember that the quote on the cover comes from none other than Judy Finnigan.

Now, I quite like Judy - she likes a pint and rocks a sports bra - but I don't think she's the best critic in the world. 

Still, it also gets this rave review

"'Delves beneath the hysterical headlines to tell the real story of this heart-breaking mystery' Choice Magazine

For those of you who haven't had the pleasure, Choice magazine is a small circulation magazine specifically for the Over 50s, packed to the rafters with articles about how to find a lost pension and ways to stave off type 2 diabetes

Let's just say it isn't the Washington Post, and leave it at that

Still, like me you are probably hoping for something original and certainly some new information.

So tonight I want to show you some choice quotes from "Looking for Madeleine"

What do you notice?

‘There she was, perfect,’ Kate McCann would recall of Madeleine’s birth

(Summers, Anthony. Looking For Madeleine (Kindle Locations 87-88). Headline. Kindle Edition. )

Kate would recall her big blue-green eyes as seemingly ever open – one of them, the right eye, bearing a rare blemish in the iris. The mark, known as a coloboma, would one day receive worldwide publicity.

(Summers, Anthony. Looking For Madeleine (Kindle Locations 98-100). Headline. Kindle Edition. )
‘You forget,’ Kate was to reflect, ‘how precious life is – until something awful happens …’

(Summers, Anthony. Looking For Madeleine (Kindle Locations 114-115). Headline. Kindle Edition.) 
Kate McCann was initially hesitant about the trip. She has explained this by saying she had concerns about what it would cost, and all the trouble and organisation involved in getting three small children to Portugal and back for just a few days.

(Summers, Anthony. Looking For Madeleine (Kindle Locations 124-126). Headline. Kindle Edition. )

‘It was all a bit weird,’ Rachael Oldfield was to reflect, ‘almost like the holiday should never have happened in the first place.’

(Summers, Anthony. Looking For Madeleine (Kindle Locations 129-130). Headline. Kindle Edition.) 

Spotted it yet?

There is virtually nothing in this book which is original. They actually spoke to very few of the protagonists, except for a carefully curated selection of the McCanns Besties, like Jim Gamble and Brian Kennedy

Most of the ''quotes'' are simply paraphrased from other books, statements or newspaper articles, written in such a way as to make it appear to the casual observer that the authors have actually had some form of contact with these people.

They haven't.

It is the written equivalent of a sleight of hand; a less than skillful deception, essentially.

This might not be the worst book written about the case, but it is certainly the laziest



Monday, 29 October 2018

Summers and Swan - setting the scene.

Evening all,

Okay, at long last, this is the first article about the Summers and Swan book, Looking for Madeleine, published in 2014.

On the face of it, this should have been an interesting, even fascinating book, but it fell far short, especially as the authors had won a number of awards and were well-respected in their field.

Today, we'll be setting the scene. 

Award-winning authors Anthony Summers and Robbyn Swan have produced the first independent, objective account of the case.

(Summers, Anthony. Looking For Madeleine (Kindle Locations 17-18). Headline. Kindle Edition)
This claim is made in the opening pages of the book, and should bode well. I have no doubt the account was relatively independent, but was it objective?

 Within the next page, the following claim emerges:

Speculation that the McCanns played a role in their daughter’s fate, the authors demonstrate, is unfounded.

(Summers, Anthony. Looking For Madeleine (Kindle Locations 21-22). Headline. Kindle Edition.)

Now, as you can imagine, I will be taking issue with that in a big way. The authors may not personally believe the speculation, but I am of the opinion that they cannot possibly declare it 'unfounded', not least because the McCanns remain uncleared former arguidos.

The book opens with the following declaration:
The authors wish to make clear at the outset that, after more than two years studying this controversial case, they have seen not a shred of evidence to indicate that Gerry and Kate McCann, any member of their holiday group, or Robert Murat, were at any stage – in May 2007 or subsequently – guilty of malfeasance of any kind in connection with Madeleine McCann’s disappearance or the repercussions that followed. Allegations or innuendos about their role ....
made or published by others, when referenced in the text of this book, are published only in the interests of reporting the history of the case – and to demonstrate the very point that such allegations are based on no factual evidence or are simply egregious. This book has been researched and written independently of Gerry and Kate McCann.

(Summers, Anthony. Looking For Madeleine (Kindle Locations 72-75). Headline. Kindle Edition)
This statement is rather interesting, given that is equates their declaration that they have seen no evidence to indicate guilt with a declaration where they claim to have demonstrated that any speculation to the contrary is unfounded.

Now - those two statements do not mean the same thing. They may not have seen evidence of guilt, but neither have they seen exculpatory evidence. Crucially, they most certainly have not seen all the evidence. In fact, they have seen exactly what we have seen and written a book that any of us could have written with the exception of a very small amount of new information, which I will highlight as we go.

Sunday, 28 October 2018


Evening folks,

I thought it was time to fetch this over from next door, in light of the recent shenannigans on CMOMM

Evening folks.

I thought it was time to give this a fresh airing, in light of the cobblers on the CMOMM

Bonkers Bennett's tweet

You cannot be serious?

That satellite image clearly shows the PdL area basking under a clear blue sky. Zoom in, you blind wanker 

Friday, 26 October 2018

What a load of bullshit

Evening all

If you open a window and point your ears to the far, far west, you might hear a very faint, very distant bleating

For the hard of hearing, or the little of caring, I have fetched it here for you. You're welcome

It would be irresponsible of me to ignore efforts to discredit research that is IMPORTANT to the Maddie Case.
It is not important to the Maddie case, it is complete bullshit 
It's quite shocking to see accusations of 'research' being referred to as an opinion. It is based on the POLICE FILES!
It IS opinion. You might have put the files through your patented "discrepancy filter" but that does not mean what comes out the other end is anything other than opinion. Demented, sad, lonely opinion 
Although my Research and Reference Aimoo Forums are not available right now due to Aimoo moving locations, here are SOME screenshots to show EXACTLY what research is...
No-one cares, Lizzie. And that's not research, dear. That's an illness. You can probably get tablets for it, I'll do some research for you....... 
I took ALL the statements and compiled them into timelines covering different topics and created timetables to highlight, by each hour, what all the T9 claimed to be doing at any particular time.
Fabulous. What a credit to Canada you are 
I compiled a Staff Rota so it can be seen their hours, and also easy to see if their statements (about seeing Maddie eg) correspond with their working times.
I'm sure they're really grateful 
I compiled all the police statements and out them together to give a timeline of what each of them said throughout the night and at what time.
Was the Samaritans engaged? 

I compile tennis timetables, a timetable of everyones statements after the 10pm alert, Phone pings,
Calendars so its easy to see what happened every day with photos, media articles, Kates Diary , Gerrys blog and PJ information files. Phone ping locations to see where they visited on what day Interesting to see when its all compiled together...
There is far too much to list, but I felt it important to assure members that when I claim i did RESEARCH.... it CANNOT be discredited as its all file based.
It makes no difference. You did not research, you daft old bat. You made lists. And then came to a load of fuckwitted, erroneous conclusions which completely ignore the FACT that there is prima facie evidence that Madeleine was alive and well on the 3rd May 
All of us, seeing the research available, are free to come to their own conclusions
Yes. My conclusion is that you are utterly wrong and would benefit from therapy 

This is just the groundwork for members to access different topics in the files easily.
Once I have links to the Aimoo forums I will post so you can click on any link of interest.
For now if anyone would like to see any of the topics in the screenshots I will be happy to provide them
Why - so that they can also reach idiotic conclusions?

Try to understand before one of us dies.

You are wrong

You display well-observed and recorded characteristics of a conspiraloon, ignoring 95% of the evidence in favour of 5% discrepancies which you then obsess over and literally get your jollies from

Step away from the screen, Lizzie. You have created a ''brand'' out of your shit videos and funereal graphics.

Go get some help, loony. 

Oh - and read this. If you don't recognise yourself, you are not looking hard enough.

With thanks to Donna Ferentes, and the folks at Urban75

10 characteristics of conspiracy theorists
A useful guide by Donna Ferentes

1. Arrogance. They are always fact-seekers, questioners, people who are trying to discover the truth: sceptics are always "sheep", patsies for Messrs Bush and Blair etc. 

2. Relentlessness. They will always go on and on about a conspiracy no matter how little evidence they have to go on or how much of what they have is simply discredited. (Moreover, as per 1. above, even if you listen to them ninety-eight times, the ninety-ninth time, when you say "no thanks", you'll be called a "sheep" again.) Additionally, they have no capacity for precis whatsoever. They go on and on at enormous length. 

3. Inability to answer questions. For people who loudly advertise their determination to the principle of questioning everything, they're pretty poor at answering direct questions from sceptics about the claims that they make. 

4. Fondness for certain stock phrases. These include Cicero's "cui bono?" (of which it can be said that Cicero understood the importance of having evidence to back it up) and Conan Doyle's "once we have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however unlikely, must be the truth". What these phrases have in common is that they are attempts to absolve themselves from any responsibility to produce positive, hard evidence themselves: you simply "eliminate the impossible" (i.e. say the official account can't stand scrutiny) which means that the wild allegation of your choice, based on "cui bono?" (which is always the government) is therefore the truth. 

5. Inability to employ or understand Occam's Razor. Aided by the principle in 4. above, conspiracy theorists never notice that the small inconsistencies in the accounts which they reject are dwarfed by the enormous, gaping holes in logic, likelihood and evidence in any alternative account. 

6. Inability to tell good evidence from bad. Conspiracy theorists have no place for peer-review, for scientific knowledge, for the respectability of sources. The fact that a claim has been made by anybody, anywhere, is enough for them to reproduce it and demand that the questions it raises be answered, as if intellectual enquiry were a matter of responding to every rumour. While they do this, of course, they will claim to have "open minds" and abuse the sceptics for apparently lacking same. 

7. Inability to withdraw. It's a rare day indeed when a conspiracy theorist admits that a claim they have made has turned out to be without foundation, whether it be the overall claim itself or any of the evidence produced to support it. Moreover they have a liking (see 3. above) for the technique of avoiding discussion of their claims by "swamping" - piling on a whole lot more material rather than respond to the objections sceptics make to the previous lot. 

8. Leaping to conclusions. Conspiracy theorists are very keen indeed to declare the "official" account totally discredited without having remotely enough cause so to do. Of course this enables them to wheel on the Conan Doyle quote as in 4. above. Small inconsistencies in the account of an event, small unanswered questions, small problems in timing of differences in procedure from previous events of the same kind are all more than adequate to declare the "official" account clearly and definitively discredited. It goes without saying that it is not necessary to prove that these inconsistencies are either relevant, or that they even definitely exist. 

9. Using previous conspiracies as evidence to support their claims.This argument invokes scandals like the Birmingham Six, the Bologna station bombings, the Zinoviev letter and so on in order to try and demonstrate that their conspiracy theory should be accorded some weight (because it's “happened before”.) They do not pause to reflect that the conspiracies they are touting are almost always far more unlikely and complicated than the real-life conspiracies with which they make comparison, or that the fact that something might potentially happen does not, in and of itself, make it anything other than extremely unlikely. 

10. It's always a conspiracy. And it is, isn't it? No sooner has the body been discovered, the bomb gone off, than the same people are producing the same old stuff, demanding that there are questions which need to be answered, at the same unbearable length. Because the most important thing about these people is that they are people entirely lacking in discrimination. They cannot tell a good theory from a bad one, they cannot tell good evidence from bad evidence and they cannot tell a good source from a bad one. And for that reason, they always come up with the same answer when they ask the same question. 

A person who always says the same thing, and says it over and over again is, of course, commonly considered to be, if not a monomaniac, then at very least, a bore. 

Just as a footnote, look at this:

Thursday Midday Comparison of Statements - Particularly interesting as it can be seen that Gerry, Kate and Fiona, all disagree on who picked up Madeleine and the twins at lunchtime on the day she disappeared!!

Catriona claims to not remember... WHY? Was Madeleine REALLY there?

This was accompanied by a fucking list of extracts from the statements.

The stupid bitch can't even read her own "research", it would appear.

Kate and fiona agree, and the creche register confirms this.

And "Catriona claims not to remember" CLEARLY implies that she was not being truthful. This is the problem, Lizzie. You can't even be honest with yourself, let alone anyone else

And the point you STILL DON'T GET is that it does not make any bloody difference because plenty of people saw her, a written record agrees with the witness accounts and it does not outweigh the prima facie evidence - do you not understand that? Then you have no business describing yourself as a researcher, you plank.

Wednesday, 24 October 2018


Evening all

I am just going to post these here without adding any commentary, other than to say that the very idea of being told by this motley crew that you need to ''back things up with evidence'' is beyond hilarious


Administrator Warning
Please respect other forum members and the skilled research that they have carried out over many years.  Your posts are not backed up with any credible evidence and only appear to serve the purpose of discrediting the research of other members which are backed up with evidence.  Please make sure that you can provide valid evidence to back up such posts and not just opinion.

I suggest that you watch the documentaries by Richard Hall, read the e-book by Petermac, review the evidence presented on this forum which indicates Madeleines earlier death and the research & videos of HiDeHo, before making any further comment on this subject.

Thank you

There is no intention to silence any member from posting on any topic, but the researchers here have done a vast amount of work on this topic and have all reached the same conclusion. This has also been discussed on the forum many times.  Phoebe, like all other members is entitled to her opinion and she is entitled to express that opinion.  She has been permitted to do this and her posts are still available.  However, much of what Phoebe has to say on this topic has already been dealt with on the forum and we are just going over old ground, this is getting us no closer to finding out what happened to Madeleine and it appears that Phoebes' posts are meant only to discredit the research of other members.  Also whilst Phoebe may have posted evidence from the official files, she does not recognise that some of this evidence may have been engineered by the McCann private detectives or that it may be false evidence produced after the witnesses had met with the McCann benefactor, Brian Kennedy.

Now either Phoebe is a little naive and not quite up to scratch with her research or she is deliberately trying to discredit the work of other members who have all reached the same conclusion after years of excellent research.

Phoebe is quite free to post on any topic that she wants too but we just request that does further research in this area before  making further comment.

Monday, 22 October 2018

Woe is me

I have no doubt Ben will address this spitefest. Here is my take on it 

A DISCOVERY THAT MAY MEAN WE CAN FINALLY MOVE ON...FOR MADDIE? Please read and understand what this has all been about. It's about the quality of research that's the issue and efforts to SUPPRESS it, and NOTHING to with personal feelings, opinions or attacks.
For Maddie? You are such a hypocrite. The only thing this is about, for you, is your own profile and following 
Its been approximately 2 years and I have seen abuse thrown between different members that has disrupted our groups and forums, to the point that its been the main focus, almost every day.
So what - you want everyone to believe you? Not going to happen. 
Ben seems to have found a need to discredit ANY research that focuses on the possibility that something may have happened to Maddie earlier in the week and particularly, discrediting part of my findings that I couldnt find a witness statement that I was comfortable with, which gave relative proof that they actually saw Maddie. I was looking for ONE that would give me an indication of which day 'something happened' and she was no longer around the Ocean Club.
I can't speak for Ben, but from my standpoint I do not give a rat's bumhole what you are ''comfortable'' with. Nor do I give the tiniest turd what constitutes "relative proof" in your book - a completely meaningless and apparently self-administered, arbitrary measure. 
Like most people, I was shocked to discover that the ONLY one that gave any credence to having actually seen Maddie was Fatima, the cleaner's daughter, Sunday lunchtime.
And this, Lizzie, is the problem. This is what you have been saying for years. You have not been disseminating research, you have been creating an urban myth. You have created a myth that Madeleine was not seen after Sunday; you and the assortment of personality disorders that inhabit the cesspit 
Putting that together with my discovery that the discrepancies started happening Tuesday morning, I came to the conclusion (based on my knowledge and research in the files), that by Tuesday morning they were trying to cover something up.
Utter garbage. Seriously, this is beyond a joke. You can say, parrot fashion, "based on my research" as many times as you like, it will not change the fact that your 'research' is complete cobblers.

One of your idiot sidekicks made a comment on Twitter earlier. 
'So the proof that Maddie was alive on May 3rd is:1. The evidence of Catriona Baker (FB friend of Corner's daughter, never mentioned tennis session, changed testimony after visiting K&G etc)
Now - can you tell me what possible relevance her Facebook friends are to her accounts of what she witnessed? The inference is quite clear - that there is some reason to be suspicious of her because she may have an extremely loose, and as far as I know, unproven, link to the McCanns? I'm pretty disgusted that someone went rifling through the poor girl's contacts in the first place, but to suggest that it means she lied - which despite your floundering, is the clear inference - is appalling.

As for changes in her testimony, there were no material changes that render her less reliable as a witness to Madeleine's presence at the Kid's club.

And that is what your ''research'' consists of, Lizzie. Ludicrous nit picking, utter irrelevance, arbitrary assessment as to the credence of the information. 
I believe that is very possible that something happened to Maddie between Sunday lunchtime and Tuesday morning. A thought shared by many who have come to that conclusion from different research.
I don't care if you have convinced the Band of the Coldstream Guards, it's still bollocks 
For two years I have seen this possibility trashed by Ben (and many of his admin and followers) creating needless adversity. We ALL have the prerogative to choose what we believe and why, but last week it became obvious to me that (after two years of abuse from him, both personally and in public...which I never responded to, to avoid escalation and disruption) he appeared to have an 'agenda' and that after achieving the 'ownership' of two of the largest Maddie groups, it looked likely he was moderating those groups to ONLY go with ridiculing and discrediting the 11 years research as explained above.
I'll leave that for Ben to address, although it does appear that everyone has the prerogative to believe what they like, so long as it's what you tell them. You really don't like it when people point out that you are talking out of your arse. 
I treated him with respect and, regardless, never made any of my issues with him public and continued to welcome him and his very informative and well written Maddie posts onto HDH. This can be seen by a quick 'search' of HDH entering 'Ben Thompson'. I chose NOT to jeopardise members knowledge because of personal grievances.
If one searches for any of MY research posts in 'Justice' (I was removed a long time ago) of videos and graphics etc you will find VERY FEW and most going back to 2015. WHY? Surely some of my (300) videos that have been viewed by 11.5 MILLION should have been of some interest to members. Apparently not.
You won't find any of them on any of my blogs, because they are bullshit. If there is a dog turd lying in the road, it doesn't transform into a necklace just because lots of people look at it. Your videos and graphics are tiresome shitty soundbites - like someone fed the files through a blender, strained it, then accidentally threw out the good stuff. If you wanted to show people the files, show them the files, not your fast-food version. 
After Ben chose to have a 'gloves off' approach last week I decided that something needed to be done to allow ALL groups members to at least have the opportunity to view research from MANY of us. CMoMM has been trashed by him (and others) for years but although one doesnt have to agree with ALL theories, it has an UNBELIEVABLE archive of information and research. Where is their alternative research?
The emphasis being on UNBELIEVABLE, which most of it is. 
I don't like to bring disruption to HDH but in this case it was not about personal attacks... it was to find a way to STOP research being discredited in a MAJOR way.
You can't unring that bell, petal. It discredits itself. It's like a self-cleaning oven in that respect, except that in your case the crud sticks. 
How would I deal with it? I didn't know, but I DID know I wasn't going to give up until we had some kind of peace back in groups and forums.
Oh behave. 
I seemed to recall that this was not an issue previously and wondered why the sudden change of heart? Like many others it went through my head, could he have 'pro' tendencies. I don't believe so... (also, for the record, NT refers to me as Lizzie... Ben calls me Lizzy so I doubt they are the same person)
No shit, Sherlock 
I think its more about power. I saw it before where Kate Holt (Cass) was posting relatively normally and suddenly became a 'pro' overnight with almost an obsession to discredit me.
After a little 'research'  I proved myself right and discovered that back in 2014 he was addressing the issues of something happening earlier and that the witnesses may have been mistaken!
And has clearly changed his mind 
The posts can be viewed individually on the first 5 comments following the OP on this thread or the graphic can be read full size by clicking on 'Download' top left of the 'black' screen..
Also confirmed, thanks to Canine Truth on Twitter that he had blogs to reflect the same but they have been REMOVED from his Laid Bare blog
SO... now his 'agenda' has been exposed and now we can see what he has been doing to disrupt to such a level, I'm not sure what his next step will be and that of his admin 'followers' who didn't realise he had been conning them. Hopefully they will reflect on it and continue to believe their own thoughts, whatever they may be.
What is it you think you have ''exposed'', you spiteful oik? 
I honestly believe that now it has been exposed, that we can ALL have different theories and be respected regardless of what they are, that we can move on to get back to our Maddie groups and forums to do what we do best.
Are you suggesting that no-one is permitted to change their mind? Is this a cult, Lizzie? Because it sure sounds like one 
I see no need for any abuse towards him. It will achieve nothing.
If he admits to whats been happening, fair enough...I would encourage everyone to allow him this mistake as he really DOES have some great input into Maddie case and it wont be long before hes back doing what he does best and everything can, maybe, be forgotten.
Its more about letting it go and moving on, than attacking.
If he does NOT choose that route... then I have no idea what will happen next...
Always remember... forgiving is what we give ourselves.

As I say, this is for Ben to address. Frankly, I think you need to get over yourself. Just get over the fact that you may have been able to drag many in with a gnarly forefinger, but many more are far too clever to be taken in by your act