Coming soon.......

Apologies for my prolonged break, normal service will be resumed soon. In the meantime, here's something to be going on with .............

http://randommomentsofutterstupidity.blogspot.co.uk/

A couple of frauds

Let's make this really really simple for you, arsehead


Why is a brief sighting by a cleaner who did not know Madeleine, deemed reliable, yet the testimony of several nannies, all of whom knew Madeleine, and who spent all day with her, which is also reinforced by documented evidence in the form of the registers, deemed unreliable?

Because, dear, it looks very much as if you simply cherry pick from the evidence to discount any which blow your half-witted, shit-for-brains, fantasy theory out of the water.

Which is why you, and El Trampo, are enormous, steaming great frauds

One day I'll lie away.........

Well, she's back again, with a real corker

IMPORTANT

No, you're not 

First I would like to thank everyone for contributing to this thread.

I did this research a few years ago and it has been sat waiting to be 'recognised'.  Thanks to Jill and Tony for hosting the discussion.  

Recognised? Great artists wait to be recognised. You have done fuck all, my dear, except a huge disservice  to the truth

I compiled many threads on the subject as well as summary's to help assist, but it's not a subject that can be addressed simply.

Or in other words, you obfuscated with as much bollocks as possible 

What I feel everyone should know is that the discrepancy questions and the 'Who saw Maddie' research is not a theory in itself.

It is basically the 'canvas' of the week for everyone to base their own theory on.

Sadly it's a canvas covered in shite 

After realising the discrepancies starting Tuesday, I felt that looking at witness statements to see if there was any PROOF that she was seen during the week would help to support that possibility or not.  I had NO IDEA what I would find.  I don't look for details to fit a theory, I look to see if details support what is 'known'.

There are no discrepancies starting on Tuesday 

I was quite shocked to see that Fatima's statement was the ONLY statement that was 'relative' proof that Maddie was seen, but was on Sunday which allowed for something to have happened before the discrepancies started TUESDAY.

Complete bollocks. You cannot just keep saying this and expect people not to question it. You and Baldy do make me laugh - you accept as true a sighting by a cleaner who crossed ways with the family briefly, and why not, as there is nothing to suggest otherwise, but you reject the versions of child care workers who spent every day with Madeleine on a pretext that they might have been ''confused''

Please know that if Fatima's statement had been about WEDNESDAY, THIS THREAD WOULD NOT EXIST.  I would be relatively satisfied that Maddie WAS seen during the week, and would then look for reasons why the discrepancies started on Tuesday (and why there appeared an effort to cover something up)

Relatively satisfied. Christ, the world according to a Canadian fence painter 

However, Sunday supported the discrepancies starting Tuesday because of maybe trying to cover something up.

What?! Again in a human language, please.

I have seen NOTHING to change my mind since I did the research in 2010 (or sooner)

So you're still wrong 

Please keep in mind this isn't about trying to prove Maddie WASN'T seen during the week...It's about trying to find proof that she WAS seen.

There is ample proof that she was seen, from independent witnesses who knew her well, all of which you have arbitrarily dismissed. 

Proof she WAS seen would be the basic 'canvas' for  nothing having happened to her until that day...

So nothing happened to her until that Thursday, as there is proof she was seen.

No PROOF she was seen, tells us that anyone suggesting somehing happened earlier in the week is supported.

No, there is ample proof she was seen 

It also stands true for the alternative beliefs of anyone that believes something didn't happen until Thursday. 

Its NOT a theory, it is the basis for whether anyone's theory stands up.

Bullshit. And meaningless bullshit at that 

As mentioned, if Fatima had claimed she saw her Wednesday for example and the details weather times etc fitted, then THAT would be sufficient for me to claim there was proof she was seen Wednesday and I would look for alternative explanations as to why the discrepancies started Tuesday morning.

But the fact that three independent witnesses saw her on Thursday - people who saw her every day - you dismiss out of hand. 

We don't have PROOF of some of the evidence, but by EXCLUSION we know it could be possible.

That's not how evidence works 

No evidence to EXCLUDE something happening to Maddie before Tuesday

No, there is plenty of evidence that she was alive and present on Thursday 

No evidence to EXCLUDE Maddie's blood being in the car.

Her blood was not found in the car 

No evidence to EXCLUDE the parents from being complicit in their daughter's disappearance

That was a genuine finding by someone else, not you. They have no specific witness evidence which alibis them, so the statement is true. Claiming that no-one saw Madeleine on Thursday is not true, as there is evidence to the contrary  

Try and understand this, you dozy, duplicitous cow.
There are at least three completely independent people who all knew Madeleine by sight or better, who can all testify to her being alive and present on Thursday. What is more, their evidence corroborates. You cannot, therefore, simply dismiss it as ''they might have been mistaken'' when they clearly weren't. Most ludicrous of all is the suggestion that a girl who had looked after both children all week would be unable to tell the difference between Madeleine and her friend.

All your claims are fraudulent nonsense, and you are frankly an embarrassment. 

"If I only had a brain"

Well, the Halfwit is back, adding two and two together and coming up with the square root of fuck all.

Take this, for example

@HiDeHo wrote:I have been posting one, by one the witnesses that CLAIM they saw Madeleine and posting on a new message each time for anyone that disputes to quote and add their comments.

I think you can see that so far, witnesses that many people have believed saw Madeleine are being shown to have probably been incorrect.

Does anyone disagree with the witnesses I have posted so far?

FATIMA
CATRIONA
MARIA (tapas cook)
JERONIMO (Waiter)
CECILIA (Millenium hostess for breakfast)

Are they bollocks shown to be incorrect.

Fatima the cleaner saw her - you don't dispute that because it fits your idiot theory

Catriona did too, not that you would know because - yet again, and despite me pointing this out last time  - you misquote the files and attribute quotes to the wrong statement

Maria saw her

Jeronimo never claimed to

Cecilia - it was quite clear that she confused the McCanns with one of the other families and she has never been regarded as a witness to the events that week.

You also left out Charlotte, who testified that she read to her that day

Your entire theory is that all these people were mistaken, that they could have confused Madeleine with another child - which just goes to show how fucking clueless you are with respect to anyone who works with kids; one thing they learn to do very quickly is remember the kids names.

So for your idiot theory to be correct, all the paperwork would have to have been falsified, all these witnesses would have to be mistaken or lying, and that is without even touching on the fact that we know there are photographs taken that day showing Madeleine in the background

Stop talking out of your arse, you bloody fraud. Actually, I don't think you are primarily a fraud. Essentially you are a liar, but a pathetically stupid one.

It takes two to tango

Bennett, in his 475th post about fucking Smithman, turns his attention to Amaral

Clearly, Bennett, who at the time Madeleine disappeared was either hiding under a bush taking photographs of some unsuspecting greengrocer using kilos instead of pounds, or defacing a roadsign, knows better than Amaral what happened on 3rd May 2007

I really can't be arsed going through the entire thing, but let's just have a look at this bold statement

A. How does he explain the massive contradictions about the alleged 'high tea' at 5.30pm on 3rd May?

What ''massive contradictions'' would those be, I hear you ask.

Well, they are the ones that exist in HideHalfwit's shriveled mind

Because she says the high tea  happened but Madeleine wasn't at it.

Baldy says it never happened at all.

So here's Catriona Baker

 On Thursday the 3rd May 2007, I remember Gerry having accompanied Madeleine to the club between 9h15 and 9h20 in the morning. I do not remember who came to pick her up for lunch that day, but she returned in the afternoon for a dive/swim. We performed activities with other children. On that day we went sailing and I remember meeting friends of Madeleine’s relatives on the beach, David and Jane. Around 14h45 Madeleine returned to the Minis Club above the reception but I do not remember who accompanied her. That afternoon we went swimming. Kate picked Madeleine up at the Tapas Bar area and according to what I remember she was wearing sporting clothes and I assumed that she had been practising athletics. It was around 15h35/18h00. I think that Gerry was playing tennis. 

On the 3rd May, 2007, Kate and Gerry did not display any unusual behaviour – they were friendly and in a good mood.

Charlotte Pennington

 • Witness states that on two different days, Sunday, 29th of April 2007, and on Thursday, 03rd of May 2007, she had direct contact with Madeleine McCann, telling her stories and speaking with her. 

Maria Jose, Cook

 Upon questioning, she states that the last time she saw Madeleine was at approximately 16.30 on 3rd May 2007 when she was having dinner with the other children in their part of the restaurant, as she did each day of that week.

So that's three separate witnesses who all saw her on the 3rd

Where are the ''massive contradictions'', Baldy?

How do you arrive at ''No evidence she was alive after  Sunday'' Halfwit?

The truth is, they don't exist. Three people independently testify to seeing Madeleine on the 3rd May, two of them at tea in the Tapas.

Get a fucking life the pair of you

And Halfwit - take some adult literacy classes.

Because these claims - 

Catriona EARLY Statement:
Catriona only states the twins were at high tea:

I also remember that Kate was present for High Tea accompanied by the twins between 5H and 5H30 in the afternoon. 

ROGATORY statement 
Catriona does not specifically mention seeing Madeleine at high tea or specifically that they left at 5.30. Curiously she also says 'WENT' to get Madeleine as opposed to CAME)

'Kate went to get Madeleine from the Tapas Bar area and according to what I remember she was wearing sporting clothes and I assumed that she was practicing some form of athletics. 

........are based on a lack of comprehension. The first sentence is not from the early statement at all, but the rogatory statement, and needs to be read in context

 Either Kate or Gerry would accompany Madeleine every day in the morning and would return at lunch and tea time to take her back. I met Gerry more often as he would come to fetch Madeleine more often than Kate. I also remember that Kate was present for High Tea accompanied by the twins, between 5 and 5.30 in the afternoon. 

She isn't referring to the 3rd at all. She is describing their habitual behaviour over the week

As for the second sentence, this is what she actually said:

 On Thursday the 3rd May 2007, I remember Gerry having accompanied Madeleine to the club between 9h15 and 9h20 in the morning. I do not remember who came to pick her up for lunch that day, but she returned in the afternoon for a dive/swim. We performed activities with other children. On that day we went sailing and I remember meeting friends of Madeleine’s relatives on the beach, David and Jane. Around 14h45 Madeleine returned to the Minis Club above the reception but I do not remember who accompanied her. That afternoon we went swimming. Kate picked Madeleine up at the Tapas Bar area and according to what I remember she was wearing sporting clothes and I assumed that she had been practising athletics. It was around 15h35/18h00. I think that Gerry was playing tennis. 

Nothing about her saying Kate ''went'' to collect Madeleine at all.  

So there were no ''massive contradictions''
There were three separate witness accounts to Madeleine being alive and well that day
I am not even going to deal with whatever some journalist says Pennington said - that isn't evidence

It's about time you pair of frauds packed it in. I don't know which of you is worse

Hilarious

This mad old boot just keeps on giving.....

 Re: John Lowe tells us there was a MATCH to Maddie in the car & more about DNA & FORENSICS

  HiDeHo Today at 3:42 pm

I compiled this video before I was fully aware that Keela alerts ONLY to BLOOD.

Then why the fuck did you compile a video if you didn't know what you were talking about? 

Although FSS could not determine which body fluid, KEELA'S alert 'tells' us it WAS blood.

Bullshit. Keela alerts to blood. LCN-DNA analysis cannot confirm the source, ie, if from a bodily fluid, therefore it is not possible to tie the sample to the alert 

Also...and keeping in mind again this video was compiled three years ago, prior to my full understanding of the 37 markers.

Then why were you making videos about it ?!!!!

Frankly, three years ago all this information was available and you damn well should have made sure you understood it before commenting on it, you total and utter fraud 

The CORRECT statement is that 15 of Madeleine's 19 markers were found in a sample that contained 37 markers,

So why do you keep claiming otherwise? 

which is STILL valuable info and coincidental that 15 markers of her profile are found at all (in the same sequence?)

There is nothing 'coincidental' about it. It's called 'science' You wouldn't understand
''Sequence'' is nothing to do with it - why do you have this obsession with sequence? The analysis has nothing to do with the sequence of any region of DNA 

in the back of the car, but may change the coincidence rate to what is claimed in the video, though by how much I cannot be sure.

So you claimed a ''coincidence'' rate based on not having a clue what you were talking about? 

Kate's claim, however, is INCORRECT.  Blood WAS found in the rental car and I think we can all agree that blood is a body fluid!

No, there was no confirmation of the presence of blood. But you know this.  

Don't give up the day job, Halfwit. You suck at this. 

Shoot the messenger - an act of total hypocrisy

Before we go on let me state this for the record

I am not the poster referred to below, nor do I know them. I have never been a member of, nor posted in, the cesspit that is the Jill Havern forum

But this today was stunning

A number of members have suggested that Mike7777's posts are disrupting the work of the forum.  S/he has therefore been banned. If, however, any members feel that s/he has made a valuable contribution to this debate and should be reinstated, by all means contact a member of the Admin & Moderation Team - Mod

Mike777 had raised many of the points I have also raised. I never once saw them be anything other than polite and brief in doing so.

It's perfectly obviously that Halfwit and the Balding Menace are so incapable of dealing effectively with any intelligent challenge to their mantra, that their only solution is to ban the person concerned

So, as I did with Textusa, let me make this clear:

If the twats on JH ban you, send me what you want to say, and I will publish it here. 

Later, I will be covering Halfwit's response to this, which is nauseating in its hypocrisy