I stumbled across your page whilst doing a search of recent google blogs on Madeleine McCann. You must be aware that when a reply is posted on here it pushes it the top of the blog listing if viewing by most recent. Given that someone posted on the 5th of September this pushed it up the list. As my posting now will keep it to the top of most recently updated blogs; i expect you will now get more posts as a result of this.

No orchestration on my behalf.

Regards
Sharon

I think these comments are orchestrated and I must check to see if it’s happening elsewhere.

I suspect it is.

The case into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann has been archived pending further information coming to light. The PPO’s decision to archive the process is neither an admission of innocence or guilt of the McCanns; it is a lack of substantial admissible evidence.

Upon reading a reasonable amount of the 11,000 pages of the released files it becomes clear that all is not as the McCanns would like us to believe. There is no evidence to support the thesis of abduction, in contrast there is evidence to indicate the presence of a cadaver in apartment 5a, the Renault Scenic & several other items belonging to Kate McCann and one McCann child. There are clear contradictions in the statements given by the McCanns and their friends; in addition there has been clear indication of political intervention from the UK Government in the case of Madeleine McCann from day one.

My desire is not to persecute the McCanns but to discover and learn the fate of Madeleine McCann, my ultimate aim being to see justice for the child & to see the implementation of legislation making it a criminal offence to leave children under the age of 12 home alone. I am in full support of the Madeleine Foundation and echo many, if not all, of Tony Bennett’s beliefs.

Regards
Sharon Bradford

Thank you for the courtesy of allowing me a couple of contributions on your blog.

It is clear that we are miles apart on this issue and destined to remain so, I would think.

So our exchange will end here.

I wish you well

Tony Bennett, 7 Sept., 6pm

You are not a public prosecutor, you are not a member of Madeleine’s family and you are not the police. Therefore you are nobody and I will not help you to satisfy your morbid needs.

You said we were ‘trying to convict people outside a court of law’. I believe I am the only person yet to have attempted to bring the McCanns before a court of law. That was to answer child neglect charges in Leicestershire and Rutland Magistrates Court, last November.
Under the Children and Young Persons Act 1933.

The application for a summons failed because the Court was not persuaded that they had jurisdiction to hear the application. It did not fail for any other reason.

Tony Bennett, 7 Sep, 5pm

I note your comments. Have you seen the video clip yet of the cadaver dogs detecting human cadaverine - the scent of death - in two places in the McCanns’ apartment, on Kate McCann’s clothes, on Madeleine’s T-shirt, in the car they hired? These dogs have never been wrong on 200 occasions, or to put it technically, they have NEVER previously given a ‘false positive’. Would you be good enough to address this evidence, please?

Is it possible that members of The Madeleine Foundation, rather than being ’self-appointed vigilantes’, might just be concerned to achieve justice for Madeleine, the girl left alone by her parents, together with her 2-year-old brother and sister, for 6 nights in a row, whilst they went out a-wining and a-dining with their Doctor friends and wives?

And what evidence do you rely on for believing there was an abduction? Surely not Jane Tanner’s ever-changing stories of what the abductor looked like, aided and abetted by a ‘cognitive therapist’ who helped her remember, 6 months later, things she could not remember hours after she claimed to have seen him?

Let us have a proper debate about these evidential issues.

Tony Bennett, 7 Sep 2008, 5pm

You’re a self-appointed vigilante trying to convict people outside a court of law. You have no standing in this case.