Monday, December 17, 2007

The McCann Abduction: Sixteen Reasons For Doubt

Updated to twenty one. 29/12/07

The following "Sixteen Reasons" were posted on an internet forum board by Tony Bennett.

Bennett (bio) the compiler of this list is a UK solicitor (lawyer) and plans to update and increase the number of "reasons" as and when they are catalogued.

Update: Tony Bennett is also a creationist

There is little doubt that these first sixteen shall be added to quite considerably, to mention but one more glaring example which will no doubt be added in due course.

I shall, when the list is updated, be posting the results.

I shall refrain from posting accompanying graphics with this post.

On a personal note I will just say that I find the behaviour of the parents, from start to finish, a complete obscenity.


Here are 16 reasons why the McCanns may be guilty of something more than ’serial neglect’. Remember this Forum is not a court of law.

The McCanns have made a very public claim about what happened to their daughter Madeleine.

In a free society, we are fully free to question what they say, so long as we do not break the libel rules:


1. Because the statistics on alleged ’stranger’ abductions from a person’s home show that a member of the ‘abducted’ child’s family is usually the perpetrator, and the child is usually dead. Something like 99% of all claimed ‘abductions’ from a house turn out to be intra-family murder. There have been two high profile cases just in the last few weeks - ‘Baby Grace’ found battered and decomposing in a plastic box on sand dunes near Galveston, and the ‘dead baby in the attic’. Both were claimed abductions - hoaxes

2. The McCanns didn’t answer the PJ’s questions – those are the not actions of innocent parents, who would bend over backwards to assist the police in every way they could

3. The McCanns expressing anxiety about their ’phone calls and e-mails being intercepted. What innocent parent would worry about that?

4. Their refusal to supply their mobile phone bills to the PJ

5. Their ignoring the clearest possible PJ advice not to highlight Madeleine’s eye defect - the coloboma (iris defect) - if Madeleine were still alive, it would have put Madeleine at much greater risk of death. Their conduct suggests they knew she was already dead. They deliberately ignored the advice not to make Madeleine so recognisable that the abductors (if she was abducted) would kill her. All the posters emphasising the coloboma, and then the announcement of all the sightings and claims of being right on the kidnappers’ trail…all made Madeleine more at risk

6. The sheer impossibility of the abduction – so many questions, e.g. why did the abductor wait for 35 minutes after the McCanns sauntered down to the Tapas bar, was he hiding behind the door as Gerry McCann checked the children (that’s what he claims), did he really walk in through patio doors, then climb out through the window and shutters with Madeleine? And so on

7. Jane Tanner’s changed story of what the abductor looked like. Initially ‘his head was egg-shaped, he had some short hair, and was carrying a bundle, maybe a blanket’, then, a full 3 weeks later - to make sure that the PJ issued a description - ‘I definitely saw him carrying a girl in pink pyjamas’. Then after *six* months we get an artist’s impression of the abductor and are now told: ‘Head not egg-shaped, hair long, sleek, black and shiny, abductor not white but ’swarthy and Mediterranean’ etc.

8. The parents’ immediate and insistent cry of abduction - excluding all other possibilities

9. Gerry McCann proceeding, after 3 weeks, to issue a description of the abductor based *solely* on Jane Tanner’s dubious sighting - against PJ advice and only after Gordon Brown ’phoned PJ

10. The ‘Pact of Silence’ or ‘Circle’ of the ‘Tapas 9′ - the notorious agreement between them all to keep silent about the events of that night

11. Changes of story. Example – Day 1: “Shutters jemmied open, windows open, patio doors locked, abductor must have forced his way in”. Days 2 and
3: PJ and Mark Warners say: “No way shutters and window were forced from outside”. Several days later, McCanns: “Oh, we left the patio doors open, so abductor must have walked in through the patio doors and then climbed out of the window and opened the shutters and climbed out of the window with Madeleine”

12. Hiring dubious Britsh private investigation agency and dubious Spanish ‘detective agency’ Metodo 3 at cost of several hundred thousand pounds - no obvious benefit or results

13. Rushing to hire U.K.’s top extradition lawyer – Michael Caplan Q.C. (who represented General Pinochet) - the moment they became formal suspects

14. Publicly agreeing to take a lie detector test and then refusing

15. The extraordinary excuses offered by the McCanns in response to the forensic findings of blood, DNA, cadaverine (smell of death) etc., including these six examples:
(a) I took Cuddle Cat to work - that’s why the smell of death is on Cuddle Cat
(b) I dealt with 6 corpses in the last fortnight at work, that’s why the smell of death is on my clothes
(c) we’ll get on to lawyers in Ireland/America who say these cadaver dogs’ evidence is useless
(d) the DNA was the children’s dirty nappies in the boot
(e) the DNA was rotting meat that Gerry was taking to the dump
(f) the blood in the flat (found underneath the tiles in the children’s bedroom) might have been from Madeleine grazing her leg when she boarded the plane, or maybe a nosebleed.

16. Leaving the twins at the crèche within days of Madeleine disappearing - and spending as much time as possible visiting the Pope, the White House etc. and campaigning - no parents whose child had truly been ‘abducted by a stranger’ would let those twins out of their sight, they would cling to the precious two they had left.

Tony Bennett also reflects on the "Find Madeleine" fund, again in my opinion something that was set up with obscene haste.

1. New purpose of Fund to help the McCanns ‘family’ with their expenses was stated only *after* people had donated hundreds of thousands of pounds to ‘find Madeleine’

2. Fund used to pay over £4,000 mortgage payments on 5 The Crescent, Rothley

3. Continued refusals to say how much has been donated so far

4. Refusal to say what has been spent on private investigators and Metodo 3

5. Contradictory information on how much is being spent on Metodo 3

6. Refusal to explain exactly what they (private investigators and Metodo 3) are being paid for

7. Refusal to account to the public for how the funds have been spent to date

8. Refusal to say how much has been spent on expenses and payments to Trustees and members of the McCann family

9. Appealing for more money without giving any account of how much they have got and how much has been spent and on what

10. Continued secrecy = shadiness about the operation of the Fund


The McCanns, both doctors, refused urine tests for their 2-year-old twins, though later admitting that they ‘could have been drugged by the abductor. They then waited 5 months before going to an agency to carry out ‘independent’ tests. The results of those tests have never been publicly disclosed and it is not known what drugs the agency test for


The McCanns stipulating that for all interviews, the press had to present all questions to them at least two 2 hours in advance of the interview, and that they would only answer these questions and no others


The McCanns explaining away the fact that the twins didn’t wake up - amidst all the shouting when the alarm was raised about Madeleine - by hinting that they must have been drugged by the abductor. They came up with this theory when being filmed by close family friend Jon Corner in August - after leaks from the Portuguese police suggesting that the children had been sedated


According to a number of reports which have never been contradicted ,whilst hundreds of people, including staff of Mark Warners and many local people, searched the area around the Ocean Club apartments for hours after Madeleine went missing, not one of the McCanns’ friends, known as the ‘Tapas 9’, bothered to do so. They all went to bed. That is as clear an indication as you could get that they knew it would be pointless searching for Madeleine. It is entirely consistent with them knowing that Madeleine was already dead


According to many reports, and confirmed in an article by David Smith in ‘The Times’ in late December 2007, the McCanns did not bother to talk to Jane Tanner for two whole days about what she claimed to have seen at 9.15pm that night - namely a person walking off with a child looking like Madeleine. This is despite the McCanns’ absolute insistence that an abduction had taken place. According to David Smith’s article - which included an exclusive and extended interview with Gerry McCann - he and Jane Tanner did not speak to each other because they were ‘too busy’. If there really had been an abduction, the McCanns and Jane Tanner would have spoken to each other about what she saw without a moment’s delay


Anonymous said...

I would question Tony Bennett so called solicitor agenda. Question why he is not Mr Lubbock's solicitor anymore. Before mounting these Private Prosecutions against the McCann's he needs to get his own act together. TWAT comes to mind. Suckers BEWARE.

Himself said...

A twat he may well be and undoubtedly he has an agenda but the reasons remain the same.

Anonymous said...

Solicitor? you need a practising certificate if you say you are a solicitor contact the Law Society or Solicitors Regulation Authority.
Its very easy to check on Rogue Solicitors.

Himself said...

You appear to miss the point of the article whether intentionally or otherwise.

It's academic what Tony Bennett is, it matters little to the gist of article or to me if he be a shyster, disbarred or defrocked for that matter.

Attacking Tony Bennett doesn't change the content of the 16 reasons.

The sixteen reasons constitute the article, every one valid in my opinion.

Perhaps you might like to address those.

And yes Suckers BEWARE, I could not agree more.

Himself said...

Having just read that which is pasted below, I feel I have to agree with you.
Tony Bennett is a complete TWAT in capitals.

The sixteen points however still apply.

“So Darwin was wrong?”

Tony Bennett
REPLY: Yes. As an increasing number of secular writers like Michael Behe now recognise. He failed to realise that in talking about ‘natural selction’, you can only **select from what is already there in that creature’s, or plant’s gene pool**.

No creature can develop new DNA; it is simply not possible to add on new genetic information. Each creature derives its DNA from its parents’ gene pools.

Not one credible example has ever been found in the fossil record of how one species changed into another (if there is , please tell me!).

Darwin also could not account for how non-life became life, and nor has anyone else since been able to do so.

Darwin was also a racist who said appalling things about people like the Tierra del Fuegans (’savages’) and even the Irish. His ideas on the so-called ’struggle for existence’ were adpated by Hitler who made great use of them when he wrote his infamous book: ‘My Struggle’ - Mein Kampf

Himself said...

More from Tony Bennett.
What on earth am I doing hosting an article on my blog that derived from such a complete tosser?

Same old creationist bullshit,the "Cambrian" gaps in the "Fossil Record" and of course it wouldn't be complete without "The Eye"

What a fucking wanker.

himself says : “Tony Bennett - I do hope your knowledge of law exceeds that of your knowledge of evolutionary biology”.

REPLY: We didn’t evolve. Biology, genetics and information theory all combine to demonstrate that there is no way that any creature can acquire new genetic information. Variety is caused by the fact that the original gene pool had variety built in from the outstet. ‘Evolutionary biology’ is a contradiction in terms.

Furthermore, the fossil record does not reveal evolution. Look at the trilobites, right down in the lowest strata in the geological column, the so-called Cambrian ‘era’. How did they get those 300 hexagonal interlocking lenses for eyes, which were also capable of seeing in the dark several miles down on the ocean floor? And can you give me the names of any of the antecedents of this highly complex creature?

Anonymous said...

We agree on something then.
Point that I am trying to make is someone that is very quick to judge others & act so pias & lies about his status as a solicitor, may not be the right person to go to court & start an action in a Court of Law. I notice he is not so keen to make an appeal himself.
People in Glass Houses comes to mind. Your describtion of this man is spot on timeless.

Anonymous said...

The 16 reasons are interesting and noted. Reason 1 is however untrue.99% of child abductions do NOT involve a family member as has been stated."Statistics" quite obviously are not to be linked to a child abduction case. Here we deal in facts and evidence. Should I remind you that one is innocent until proven guilty. A solicitor of all people should know that. I should read the other 15 reasons but I am already in doubt.
Apologising for the earlier error regarding the abduction date (3/5/07).Must be correct :-)in all and every respect.

Anonymous said...

Sorry my mate- point 2 is not correct either. One has the right to remain silent. If you choose to remain silent it in no way proves guilt.Is this guy a solicitor?

Anonymous said...

Tony Bennett is not a solicitor.

Anonymous said...


Agreed Ted, that man, unrepentant etc.

Intelligent creep.


Himself said...

This " the enemy of my enemy is my friend" can go a step too far.

I don't know if you read the whole article through, but an awful excuse for a human being.

Anonymous said...
The "play the paedo card" is also my opinion.

As for the rest of it
Asperger, what’s in a name.

the enemy of my enemy is my friend

Idealism, alas, does not protect one from ignorance, dogmatism, and foolishness. - Sidney Hook

Anonymous said...

from "Me"

I made my feelings clear about Libel in the Uk on Jill’s site which did cause consternation with Tony. I don’t want to add too much at this stage given Tony’s impending case (but I hope to provide further information when the case is over) other than it's a sad state of affairs when the US Congress has to pass legislation to protect its citizens from the UK’s libel laws.

In relation to the very large big guns aimed at him right now, it’s my belief that they are terrified of a full libel trial which will allow all the information that Tony has amassed over the years to come out in (presumably) an open court.

I would assume they are throwing all this at him to try and ensure that the undertakings are kept in place and to avoid a full libel trial at all costs.

So I don’t think it’s so much about attacking Tony per se its more about protecting the status quo and ensuring the absence of information in the wider public arena continues.

Close to the truth IMO

Himself said...

"Me" seems to be one of the saner people over there.

And yes, I wouldn't disagree with you.

Anonymous said...


Yes, oh the irony


Himself said...

Mornin' Chuck.

I love it, I love it, I love it.

She will be getting an unfollow today, I don't follow the gullible.

But maybe after a tweet? LOL

Anonymous said...
yes, odd that

Himself said...


Good morning m'darlin'

Anonymous said...

@28 May 2013 15:46

2nd tweet (to Muttfan) deleted

Himself said...

Yes, it had been whooshed when I came to use it.

Still, job done and unfollowed.

"I agree with your right to free speech." (As long as it doesn't conflict with my opinion)

There's a lot of it about.

Anonymous said...