Who's who?!

I notice it's a little quieter than usual on here in the last few days, coinciding with a sudden explosion of posts on the British Democracy forum. Hmmmm! OK, I admit I am posting on there, but since bent tit is aware of my usual log names and writing style, I have chosen a completely new identity, and heavily disguised writing style. So, who else is on there?! You don't have to tell your log in name on there if you wish to remain incogneto, I'm just wondering how many of us are on there, giving the swine a taste of his own medicine.

I'm there too. At first I thought about disguising my name for the same reasons as you Vee. Also if Drachensachen suspects we are on there you can guess what will happen.

I'm Deuce. Most of you know that is my other shorter log in name.

ModNrodder wrote:I'm there too. At first I thought about disguising my name for the same reasons as you Vee. Also if Drachensachen suspects we are on there you can guess what will happen.

I'm Deuce. Most of you know that is my other shorter log in name.

Me too Mod and Vee

I guess there are several from Truth M'luds site (Home of the broken, the beaten and the banned..) and Profencanti as well. However, I cant confirm this

Not many from 3A's methinks. Probably because they cant be protected by a mod who has a finger over a ban button.

I'm there too, but I've only made the odd appearance so far!

Mr. B seems to have gone very quiet, lol.

yes i'm on there too giving mr bennett a taste of his own medicine

I Just went for a little look see, and dear oh dear but Bennett is made to look a fool. Especially by Gestalt. Gestalt essentially said the same as I said in another thread that multiple DNA profiles combined within the single samples mean that there is absolutely no proof that the DNA was from Madeleine, and that the same results would come from any of the family, and guess what, all had been in the car. He also got him over untruths about DNA profiling markers, as Bennet is confusing different types of markers. Gestalt made him look a fool.

Bennett has forgotton (or perhaps never knew due to his lack of research) that the Portuguese National Lab (not its real name but you get the idea) also tested the forensics and came to the same conclusion as the FSS, completely independently. (Maria confirmed this on another thread). So any claims of an FSS cover up are just ridiculous (as if the claim wasnt ridiculous enough anyway), and I would have thought libellous. As I understand the libel law in Britain, to libel a govt dept is a criminal offence, if the libel is serious enough. Surely as a former lawyer he should be aware of that.

But the best bit is Bennett saying that the possible things the dogs could have reacted to is just daft. Actually daft, is called publishing a booklet which is badly researched and full of lies and untruths. Looking at the dogs, he fails to grasp how the dogs work and is ignoring experts (including Grimes himself) who have stated that dogs will indicate for things other than cadaverine, such as dried blood. He stupidly assumes that any blood must have been from Madeleine (jeez that is why forensics have to prove whose blood it is because last time I looked we all have blood), rather than from any one of the number of people known to be in the apartment or the car. He talks about blood under the tiles in the apartment when photos show there were no tiles. He says the window was shut, when it was open, etc etc etc.

If all of the posts refuting Bennetts claims dont make him think that he is wrong, then it is clear that he is not publishing this book for the good of Madeleine. It is funny but the posts rebutting Bennett were very very well written and factual. Whereas Bennett uses YouTube clips made by nobodies to support his claims. Very interesting reading.

Forgot to say,

KEEP IT UP GUYS, DOING GREAT.

Mod

I see that your arch nemesis has dragged itself out of the sewer and is on the British Democracy site. Not to debate the actions of TB, but to harrass you.

Please let me give you some advice.

Do not engage this psycopath.

Simply do not answer anything at all from it,no matter how nasty or personal it is. And what will #### it off the most, is to actively engage other members of the forum without any reference to the dragon.

As for the rest of us, I would suggest that we ignore it as well, except to write very short, sharp responses to when it makes personal attacks on Mod (Deuce). I wouldnt bother debating about Bennett, because Dragon's bum is incapable of making logical arguments. A bit like that foolish Battydunce who thinks that the cadaver dogs were given the scent of Madeleine, so any indications they made were only because they had found Madeleine. Dunce is the appropriate description.

I wasnt going to register on that site, but if Dragon's bad breath does attack, I may join. I have enjoyed the read so far. Some extremely good, well thought out arguments on there. And they have TB and Amoral pegged for what they are.

Cheers

Morning Dianeh,

Good advice and I should know better. The board could go downhill from here.

I already responded to it I'm afraid, but if it keeps off topic I will ignore it. I did pretty well in the end ignoring Drachen on VM. But by then there was nobody else to talk to as Drachen tends to switch the lights off on any board it posts on and I don't like being in dark places.

Not entirely convinced yet that this is Drachen. But if it keeps posting I will know.

Just need to say that I cannot beleive just how stupid some of those posting on the British Democracy forum are. I had forgotten how silly the anti's are because I dont go and read anythign that they write anymore.

There is so much wrong, but the 2 biggies are the dogs and the DNA. They just cant let it go. The most amazing thing is if the dogs proved anything, or the DNA was a match, then it would have been all over red rover.

Seriously, stating that there were 15/19 matches proves Madeleine is dead is just ridiculous. They dont understand the basic concept that this match was done to a contaminated sample which contained 3 different DNA profiles. But still, they think it is a match. Dear God, if it were a match, where are the other 4 markers, and why did half the FSS also match. They seem to be lacking the most common sense.

That Wellard and his insistence that there was no contamination for the dogs to find, at least he is thinking about it. Although none of us can follow his logic, or his insistence there can be no contamination when even Grimes cannot dismiss it. But hey, I forgot that there is a gigantic govt conspiracy to ensure the mcCanns are allowed to get away with killing their daughter, and that there idiots sitting at there computer screens are going to find better evidence than the PJ. Although the investigation was poorly handled at the beginning, there were very competent people on it at the end, so if there was somethign there to get the Mccanns they would have found it. The real shame is that in his haste to get the McCanns, Gonc most likely lost the evidence that would point to the real culprit.

Sorry, how do I get this British Democracy forum? I found something but it was just about british politics, which I obviously will not engage. Thanks.

http://www.democracyforum.co.uk/talk-about-anything/44100-tony-bennett-mccanns.html

I just noticed that the thread about Bennett was first posted by a moderator. That speaks volumes for that forum so it is no surprise that the antis will get a run for their money. Can't help but being surprised that the they even bother to post there though, surely the type of justice they are after is diametrically opposed to any democratic values I have ever heard of. However, the thread is supposed to be about Bennett, but now seems to have been slightly derailed and, as Dianeh says, is mainly a general discussion about dogs and DNA instead of discrediting the points in the TB pamphlet (which many were doing very successfully), but maybe this is the actual purpose behind the sudden influx of rabid 3A members....

Hi Mobira, the frustrating thing is that Bennett in true political style wont answer questions directly most of the time. he just asks more questions instead.

I think he is trying to get people to PM him for answers. Then he tells them that he wont answer unless they provide him with personal details. Threatening and intimidating?

Drachen always derails, other so called anti's are in disrupt mode and to be honest I would not consider them anti's. Just WUMS causing fights and ultimatley derailing any debate.

Dianeh, you got good recognition from Gestalt, I saw that. Nice!!

Hi Mod

Yes, I was surprised at Gestalt. I didnt think he was on there as he hadnt made any posts. But that post about the 15/19 markers was the last straw for me, I had to but in, and of course except for Gestalt I was ignored. But if Gestalt (who I assume to be a moderate anti???) and us, are come to the same conclusion over the FSS report, then we are most likely right. But it seems that most anti's dont understand the concept of the match, or statistics, which is very scary if you are going to use statistics in the way that Bennett is using them.

I did post another one telling Bennett that unless he goes back to the source (being the original people) then his pamphlet is without merit, and he answered by stating that I am wrong and he is stating the truth. And this is even after it has been pointed out, very successfully, that some of his points are indeed wrong and that he has cherry picked articles from Youtube and the press to prove his points. He doesnt understand the basis of journalism, and that is go back to the source to prove it is correct. He and others are still quoting old paper reports that came out of Portugal that are completely opposite to what appears in the final report. AND they dont see anything wrong with that. There are even people quoting the 100% DNA match as though it were true, they are truly morons.

I also want to say, that Bennett is only on there to feed his ego. He appears to be incapable of providing arguments to support his ridiculous allegations (except he says that he is not making allegations but stating categorically that a dead Madeleine was in the apartment would definitely rate as an allegation in my book), with second hand, spurious sources, and not a single direct source. Even where he uses the PJ's files, he is often taking it out of context. Now he is not stupid, so it can only be surmised he does this on purpose, or perhaps we overestimate him, and he is just plain stupid, in that he thinks that his assertions will not be noticed or challenged. He is only on the forum for the attention it gives him. He will not answer any questions, mostly because he is unable to. He answers questions with other questions, which is the method of a conspiracy theorists, which inevitably means that he has no answers.

At this moment I'm playing catch-up. I was on page 338 this morning, before I went to work, then when I came home, Daughter had the computer, then dinner, then we had a DVD on hire to watch, so I didn't get on till nearly 9.00pm. Still only up to page 359, and rapidly loosing the will to live! All it is is tail chasing and insults. Any truly worthwhile posts just get lost in the flotsam and jetsam. Beginning to wonder if it is worth keeping up with it at all.

Vee

I am not keeping up becuase I dont have time, just checking the last page everynow and again. Took a pop at Drachen before, but probably wont be able to find the reply.

ALso asked Wellard to explain just why Sean's shirt was indicated by the dog in the carpark, and how if the items were contaminated when removed by the PJ from the new apartment, and it was never tested again, how can he say that there was no contamination from these items. Also, if Madeleine died in the apartment, and there was evidence on Cuddle Cat, why didnt the dog indicate the bed, or is he suggesting that Madeleine's body was in the wardrobe and then later on the McCanns put Cuddle Cat back on the bed (absolute tosh).

He overlooks the fact that not a single thing was indicated in the new apartment. So how unlikely is it that the police removed absolutely everything that would have had the scent of death on it, if indeed such a scent already existed. And I want the real explanation of how Sean's shirt got the scent of death on it.

I wont get much of a chance today to look at this forum. You are right, it has descended into chaos, which is what the anti's want. I dont mind having debates but really, just read the bit about Madeleine crying for over an hour the night before. First, there is no proof that it was Madeleine or her siblings and not the Wilkins sick baby, and also the Wilkins were up with their crying sick baby that night, at that time and yet they heard nothing, so this really leaves the idea that it wasnt Madeleine. Because for sure, if the Wilkins heard the children, then Jess would have went for the McCanns, as they were tennis buddies. Also, Kate was meant to be back in the apartment by that time, but the files dont indicate this, most likely because the PJ dismissed this supposed crying, for what could have been a variety of reasons. So why do the anti's go on about it, quoting Mrs Fenn (who denies she said that it was Madeleine crying, just a baby) and ingnoring the Wilkins. Take us for eg, we take in both and then see what similarities there are, looking for a connection. And in this case, we see the sick baby who was crying for hours, and at this time. I also dont dismiss Madeleine asking her parents why they werent there, but it didnt worry her too much because she didnt keep crying, if she had, then the Wilkins would have heard her, remember that they could hear Kate and Gerry talking in the apartment, so they would definitely hear the children crying, especially if for a protracted period. It is things like this that just make it a waste of time to debate with the anti's.

They accuse us of only looking at one side, but taking Mrs Fenn as an example, if I look at what she said and then later said, and what the Wilkins said, as well as what Kate said and then form my opinion, then I think I have taken a much better look at it than someone who only looks at what Mrs Fenn said as reported by the Portuguese press. Yet we are accused of closing our minds.

Too many examples, not enough time. The anti's will never give up on the McCanns. Even when Madeleine is found, they will say that the McCanns knew where she was all along and that it was a scam. Just wait.

Hi Dianeh, I think Gestalt is possibly the most objective person I have come across in these debates. He has the ability to question without prejudice all views. He certainly has done a lot of homework about the DNA and was respected on 3A's on the subject before they banned him recently. A great loss for realism on 3A's. Sillycat has also been banned simply for being a member of this site. She was 'outed' by Drachensachen.

I think we may be wrong about them being able to hear the children crying. There were on the fourth floor overlooking the tapas bar, which means that they werent near apartment 5A. So when they say they could hear the McCanns, they may have been referring to when they were in the Tapas bar.

But that doesnt dismiss that if Madeleine were indeed crying for an hour at a time when Kate was supposedly home, why didnt anyone else hear it, or was there no one in the nearby apartments. It would have been easy for the police to check what time Kate came home from the Tapas bar that night, to determine if what Mrs Fenn said was correct. yet, there is no mention of the time in the files, is there. I wonder why. My guess is that it was looked at and determined to be irrelevant, and my guess is that at that time of night, Kate and/or Gerry were back. And that would be easy to prove, just ask a couple of questions. And that is the night that they had the argument and Kate slept in the spare bed. Also, the PJ should have looked at how often the kids were checked that night, as they would have needed this to prove intent for any negligent charges. And most likely it doesnt gel with what Mrs Fenn is saying.

does anyone know who redsquare is on the arguido site? he introduced amaral i think to the arguido site.

Redsquare, he runs McCannfiles. http://www.mccannfiles.com/index.html

oh thanks mod. i thought it was stevo who ran mccannfiles. very confusing.

It may be that Stevo helps Redsquare with the website.

Stevo is the webmaster for Tony Bennett's Madeleine fund.

I can't keep up with the democracy forum anymore. Page after page after page of,..... well, nothing really. If you leave it even for a couple of hours there's now at least twenty pages of nothingness to try and catch up on. A day at work can lead to over thirty. I hope no one thinks I'm abandoning the fight, but it just does my head in reading the cr*p from jokinara, wellard, tossa, mjnwhatever and so on. Someone wake me up if anything worthwhile gets posted.