Re: WHEN Bennet is cleared of all accusations.

by Guest 28.11.09 16:21

Blacksmith, whilst i admire your courage you still do not understand what on earth is going on. You have not read the DVD files fuller, or you will understand what was said.
There was never a full sweep of the Apartment to search for clues or fingerprints. The Scenes Of Crime officer turned up 2 days later to search for fingerprints. Also as was pointed out there is still an unidentifiable finger print on the window (splitting hairs if it is the window or the shutters). The shutters are not security measures they are decorations, they do not serve as protection.
Also has anyone thought of this idea. Kate looked through the window to see if Madeleine was nearby? Or would nobody think of doing that, i know i would if my kid went missing. But hey all the Anti's seem to be perfect parents, or so they say.

by Guest 28.11.09 16:21

sym wrote:Is Brenda muratfan??

No way

by Guest 28.11.09 16:26

murat_fan wrote:Blacksmith, whilst i admire your courage you still do not understand what on earth is going on. You have not read the DVD files fuller, or you will understand what was said.
There was never a full sweep of the Apartment to search for clues or fingerprints. The Scenes Of Crime officer turned up 2 days later to search for fingerprints. Also as was pointed out there is still an unidentifiable finger print on the window (splitting hairs if it is the window or the shutters). The shutters are not security measures they are decorations, they do not serve as protection. Also has anyone thought of this idea. Kate looked through the window to see if Madeleine was nearby? Or would nobody think of doing that, i know i would if my kid went missing. But hey all the Anti's seem to be perfect parents, or so they say.

Would you like to come over here and tell all the Spaniards that use these security shutters that they are wasting their time as they are purely 'decorations'.
They'll laugh you out of their country! lol!

by Guest 28.11.09 16:28

SYM The Cracked Mirror - which I did not come here to plug - is on [url=http://madeleinemccannaffair.blogspot.com/url]. It runs chronologically from oldest post onwards.

by Guest 28.11.09 16:28

Mumbles wrote:
murat_fan wrote:Blacksmith, whilst i admire your courage you still do not understand what on earth is going on. You have not read the DVD files fuller, or you will understand what was said.
There was never a full sweep of the Apartment to search for clues or fingerprints. The Scenes Of Crime officer turned up 2 days later to search for fingerprints. Also as was pointed out there is still an unidentifiable finger print on the window (splitting hairs if it is the window or the shutters). The shutters are not security measures they are decorations, they do not serve as protection. Also has anyone thought of this idea. Kate looked through the window to see if Madeleine was nearby? Or would nobody think of doing that, i know i would if my kid went missing. But hey all the Anti's seem to be perfect parents, or so they say.

Would you like to come over here and tell all the Spaniards that use these security shutters that they are wasting their time as they are purely 'decorations'.
They'll laugh you out of their country!

Spaniards are not exactly the cleverest of nations

by Guest 28.11.09 16:31

...they will not accept the evidence. And they haven't.

Muratfan I'm not going to bore people arguing with you. If you wish to retain any credibility at all go back and check the facts for yourself.

by Guest 28.11.09 16:32

murat_fan wrote:
Mumbles wrote:
murat_fan wrote:Blacksmith, whilst i admire your courage you still do not understand what on earth is going on. You have not read the DVD files fuller, or you will understand what was said.
There was never a full sweep of the Apartment to search for clues or fingerprints. The Scenes Of Crime officer turned up 2 days later to search for fingerprints. Also as was pointed out there is still an unidentifiable finger print on the window (splitting hairs if it is the window or the shutters). The shutters are not security measures they are decorations, they do not serve as protection. Also has anyone thought of this idea. Kate looked through the window to see if Madeleine was nearby? Or would nobody think of doing that, i know i would if my kid went missing. But hey all the Anti's seem to be perfect parents, or so they say.

Would you like to come over here and tell all the Spaniards that use these security shutters that they are wasting their time as they are purely 'decorations'.
They'll laugh you out of their country!

Spaniards are not exactly the cleverest of nations

Resorting to insults isn't clever either.

by scampi 28.11.09 16:32

heresthetruth wrote:Smithy havent you come to defend Brenda

I think you and me have a lot in common. lol!

by Guest 28.11.09 16:45

smith wrote:SYM The Cracked Mirror - which I did not come here to plug - is on [url=http://madeleinemccannaffair.blogspot.com/url]. It runs chronologically from oldest post onwards.

Had just been over reading the lst two...performance of a lifetime and the crucial day...brilliant must have been reading it whilke you were posting this..wil spend a few hours reading back when I am up and about in the early hours...I dont sleep much.
Got an opinion of what happened smithie and who was involved??

by Guest 28.11.09 16:47

I am in danger of boring people now and all this is starting to go off thread.

But I have to add this. Muratfan is - as he/she would be proud to admit - a fierce defender of the McCanns and someone who dishes out insults on blogs and in the witch's JATYK cauldron. She is an arch-pro.

I invite any reader here who is interested in the subject "are the pros reliable in their claims?" to study the postings she has made on this sub-thread, firstly accusing Tony Bennett of being a liar; then triumphantly claiming that the evidence showed he had lied about the fingerprints; then when the truth was pointed out by a neutral she accused the poster who did so of being a secret supporter of Tony Bennett's; then when the evidence was spelled out to her in simple Ladybird Book terms denying it; finally making a claim so grotesquely innacurate - Iberian shutters of the internally webbing operated metal concertina type are "decorative" - that it feels cruel to repeat it.

So you have an answer to the question "are the pros reliable in their claims" from the horse's, so to speak, mouth.

I'm saying no more on the subject of the windows.

by heresthetruth 28.11.09 16:52

Did you get bored on Brens new forum Smithy, and you do know shes not here to protect should Snoop come along

by Guest 28.11.09 16:53

heresthetruth wrote:
"Smithy havent you come to defend Brenda?"

No. I came here because I am a fan of SYM's and Jill Havern's and to help kick-start this forum with posts.I tried to do the same on the new 3As but I failed.

by Guest 28.11.09 16:54

smith wrote:I am in danger of boring people now and all this is starting to go off thread.

But I have to add this. Muratfan is - as he/she would be proud to admit - a fierce defender of the McCanns and someone who dishes out insults on blogs and in the witch's JATYK cauldron. She is an arch-pro.

I invite any reader here who is interested in the subject "are the pros reliable in their claims?" to study the postings she has made on this sub-thread, firstly accusing Tony Bennett of being a liar; then triumphantly claiming that the evidence showed he had lied about the fingerprints; then when the truth was pointed out by a neutral she accused the poster who did so of being a secret supporter of Tony Bennett's; then when the evidence was spelled out to her in simple Ladybird Book terms denying it; finally making a claim so grotesquely innacurate - Iberian shutters of the internally webbing operated metal concertina type are "decorative" - that it feels cruel to repeat it.

So you have an answer to the question "are the pros reliable in their claims" from the horse's, so to speak, mouth.

I'm saying no more on the subject of the windows.

I know exactly what you mean and agree...Brass necked and all. I think I like you smithie after reading that..Are you a psychologist or something like that?

by Guest 28.11.09 16:56

smith wrote:heresthetruth wrote:
"Smithy havent you come to defend Brenda?"

No. I came here because I am a fan of SYM's and Jill Havern's and to help kick-start this forum with posts.I tried to do the same on the new 3As but I failed.

LOl I know you may be sincere about Jill but surely you are takin the p*ss...your way out of my league as a blogger, I just say whats on my mind. I always have to tone it down ofn forums so I say what I really think there..nice bit of bullsh*tting though, flattery gets you everywhere. lol!

by Guest 28.11.09 17:05

And as far as Brenda - who I am proud to have supported when I tried to save the 3As with her - is concerned, could I ask you a question?

Why is it that supporters of the McCanns want to live on a diet of hating and insulting others rather than dealing with questions of fact, of which there are plenty? I don't answer for Brenda or anyone else, and nor do I deny that there are both haters and fools who are antis. But the spleen, the hatred, the disgusting insults directed at Amaral, Brenda, Bennett and the rest - which you would now like to trigger off here by bringing up Brenda, you silly little gossip - is frankly just f*****g weird and says so much more about the attackers than about the people they heap dirt all over.

Of course without the spleen and the bile one might have to discuss the facts, mightn't one? The facts of the Madeleine McCann case, remember? Not the Amaral case, not the Brenda case, not the Duarte Levy case. But bitching is such fun, isn't it?

by Guest 28.11.09 17:06

smith wrote:I am in danger of boring people now and all this is starting to go off thread.

But I have to add this. Muratfan is - as he/she would be proud to admit - a fierce defender of the McCanns and someone who dishes out insults on blogs and in the witch's JATYK cauldron. She is an arch-pro.

I invite any reader here who is interested in the subject "are the pros reliable in their claims?" to study the postings she has made on this sub-thread, firstly accusing Tony Bennett of being a liar; then triumphantly claiming that the evidence showed he had lied about the fingerprints; then when the truth was pointed out by a neutral she accused the poster who did so of being a secret supporter of Tony Bennett's; then when the evidence was spelled out to her in simple Ladybird Book terms denying it; finally making a claim so grotesquely innacurate - Iberian shutters of the internally webbing operated metal concertina type are "decorative" - that it feels cruel to repeat it.

So you have an answer to the question "are the pros reliable in their claims" from the horse's, so to speak, mouth.

I'm saying no more on the subject of the windows.

Actually Blacksmith if you knew me you will know that i am not a defender of the McCanns. they were wrong to leave the kids alone and now they have to face the fact they have lost their daughter.
I am against all the bullying, the threats, the lies that are bandied about. There are sick people determind to make money frm Madeleine McCann, like Stevo and Brenda

by Guest 28.11.09 17:08

Just been asked to ask about the 500,000 beinmg raged about on some pro's sites, anyone know what they are on about? I have the feeling the person who asked me via my blog is a pro who wants to bring it to the antis attention and have chosen to do it in a round about way...well egt me to do it..so anyone? smithie? kow what she or he is on about?

by Guest 28.11.09 17:12

you silly little gossip - is frankly just f*****g weird and says so much more about the attackers than about the people they heap dirt all over.
Loving this from smithie..lol

by Guest 28.11.09 17:13

The £500,000 was the limit the McCanns sued for damages against Bennett.

by heresthetruth 28.11.09 17:15

Smithy, have you looked round this forum, have you seen the many posts that slate Bren Ambersuz and Debs, I bet you wonder why, its because the Three Witches are the cause of all this trouble, all Bennets supporters are banned from MM, and this is their right to reply forum, not for you to spout your theorys and bore us all to death.
Now go and report to your mistress Bren that no one here likes her, they all think she is at the bottom of this mess, and the sooner she takes the advice of the police and turns off her PC permanantly the better.

or do you see opportunity knocking for you

by Guest 28.11.09 17:18

Thanks for the explanation muratfan
hope the person who commented upon my blog is reading the answer..I have to say Like I know BB is up her own arse and poisonous she is very funny, and more often than not she is right. I dont find smithie boring, made me a laugh a fw times and looked at his or her blog and intend to read the lot later.

by Guest 28.11.09 17:22

"Are you a psychologist or something like that?"

I'm just an old **** smoker like you.

Have to go for a while but before I go, and connected with that other thread about not fighting, can I mention the poster sans-souci? I disagree with him/her about everything, s/he is a total pro and I can't stand her posts, her attitude, the fact that she is a monster pro claiming to be neutral, anything.

But sans-souci, over on the Maddie Case Files, where I won't go because I was censored, donated to Amaral's defence fund even though she can't stand the man, saying however much she disliked him she wanted fairness in the case and for amaral to have the funds to defend himself. I applaud her and wish there was more of that about instead of the s**t pouring that people love so much.

Good luck with the forum everyone.

by heresthetruth 28.11.09 17:25

Oy Smithy this isnt Brens forum where you can whinge and get people thrown off, like Snoop, so if Sans Souci posts on here its tough isnt it,

by Guest 28.11.09 17:28

smith wrote:"Are you a psychologist or something like that?"

I'm just an old **** smoker like you.

Have to go for a while but before I go, and connected with that other thread about not fighting, can I mention the poster sans-souci? I disagree with him/her about everything, s/he is a total pro and I can't stand her posts, her attitude, the fact that she is a monster pro claiming to be neutral, anything.

But sans-souci, over on the Maddie Case Files, where I won't go because I was censored, donated to Amaral's defence fund even though she can't stand the man, saying however much she disliked him she wanted fairness in the case and for amaral to have the funds to defend himself. I applaud her and wish there was more of that about instead of the s**t pouring that people love so much.

Good luck with the forum everyone.

I hope you come back...apart from a fellow smoker I have liked reading your stuff.