DAVID BRET, HIDEHO AND OTHERS .... THE WORST HATER TROLLS


    HUTTON'S OFF AGAIN

    Share
    avatar
    Sykes

    Posts : 6832
    Join date : 2011-07-17

    HUTTON'S OFF AGAIN

    Post  Sykes on Wed May 14, 2014 7:19 am

    Re: MADDIE: COPS AT WAR - Daily Star 18/2/14
    Post Cristobell Today at 3:42 pm

    Cristobell wrote:

    Why Tony? For what reason?

    Lets look at historical cover ups.

    Dr. Kelly = reason: Government committed to war and Dr. Kelly's opinions threat to that.

    Hillsborough = reason: Bad decisions by high level Police and perseverance of the Families' pressure groups. [And big to Brian Reade and Andy Burnham]

    I just cannot imagine anything of such magnitude surrounding the disappearance of Madeleine. I appreciate it is difficult for you to answer given the absurd restrictions on your free speech (yes, it still outrages me!), but perhaps you can put forward something that will lead my thinking in the right direction?

    Bennett wrote:

    I fully agree with you that any cover-up must have a reason. That's clear and logical thinking and I agree with your assertion.

    For legal reasons I cannot put forward here on the forum what I think may lie behind this cover-up (if it is a cover-up), but be patient please for a day or two and I will send you a 'pm' rather than continue this particular discussion on the open forum.

    There is a thread on the forum called 'The people who rushed out to Praia da Luz' (or similar) and there I raise the question of why so many important people suddenly descended on PdL when it was perfectly possible, so far as we knew at that stage, for Madeleine to have been found alive and well any day.

    Most respectfully, I would invite you to consider - for each person who suddenly went out there - why was it necessary for them to go, why did they go, who sent them there, and who paid for them to go there? And finally, what did each of them achieve?

    Hutton:

    Ok, lets look at the people who flew (or drove) out there. The British Consul, Buck I believe, Justine McGuiness, sent by the Government, but not a government employee by the look of her CV on linkedin. Lawyers from the Family Law Association, Lawyers from other major law firms. Spiritual assistance in the form of priest(s), emotional assistance in the form of Alan Pike (travelling psychologist) and a huge assortment of relatives and friends.

    I suppose at the time Clarence Mitchell would have been considered a Big Gun, he was fairly high up in Labour's media department, but, and this cannot be stressed enough, he quite his job with the Government to work for the private Fund of Gerry and Kate McCann. The Government not only severed links with the McCanns (Buck quietly withdrew), but they severed links with the McCanns's spokesman!

    Justine McGuiness has moved on, no mention of her role in the McCann drama in her Linkedin CV. So too Esther McVie, her CV also omits her Directorship of the Madeleine Fund. She has succeeded in her career despite her association with the McCanns, not because of them. Of the Law firms, they have had a steady form of income since 2007, win or lose they are still wracking up the hours.

    If you are referring to the nephew of a former ex Labour Minister who was already out there, imo, he is a teeny weeny minor character, certainly not one who would warrant this scale of cover up. He is not a President, a PM, or a member of the Royal Family.

    Were the McCanns visited by members of the Secret Service? Unlikely imo, as good as the McCanns are at keeping secrets, anything that would suggest their government had 100% faith in their innocence would have been made into a feature film starring Nicole Kidman and broadcast on all the major networks. The McCanns simply cannot keep a secret if it shows them in a good light - they need everything they can get. For this reason I don't think they are in any loops. They smile at the cameras and tell the interviewers that they are being kept fully advised, but they did exactly the same in 2007. Kate's book confirms they were lying, what was going on behind the scenes was entirely different.

    But I digress, these visitors, or officials would have had to get through a barrage of journalists and photographers to visit the McCanns in the summer of 2007. Kate even opined in her book that one of the lawyers who flew out to see them was highly conspicuous due to his flamboyant attire. Men in black would have stood out like a sore thumb.

    I haven't ruled out the possibility that Gerry is some scheming Dr. Evil, with something BIG on an important person or a large organisation. The favours he has received are rather more than quid pro quo, and some might even think they were extracted forcibly rather than given freely with a benevolent smile. Especially when that called in favour comes back again and again at every anniversary. The problem for controlling/demanding people is that the hosts they feed off eventually get fed up with them. I think in the case of the McCanns, that happened quite some time ago.
    The ramb;ings of two disfunctional, sad wannabe celebrities.


    _________________
    Truth is the Daughter of Time
    avatar
    Sykes

    Posts : 6832
    Join date : 2011-07-17

    It gets worse. now he's banging on about the Bible

    Post  Sykes on Wed May 14, 2014 7:35 am

    Re: MADDIE: COPS AT WAR - Daily Star 18/2/14
    Post Tony Bennett Today at 3:43 pm

    Marconi:

    I expect a new statement made by Redwood, perhaps at the beginning of March..


    Bennett again:

    I fear this may go the same way as all your other predictions, like this one:

    (12 January 2014) I believe the reconstruction will happen very soon...Since the Met police got involved in the case, we never heard of any new sightings any more... As far as I know, there have been no new sightings since May 2011

    and then...

    (17 January 2014) I had the hope that the reconstruction would happen today or yesterday - May the 2nd 2007 was full moon and two days ago too. My hope was that the reconstruction would happen now, with approxmately the same moonlight.

    diatribe:

    Just be thankful for tender mercies that he didn't decide to adopt the username of Isaiah

    To which Bennett replies:

    Or consider Jeremiah:

    Jeremiah 14:14
    Then the LORD said to me, "The prophets are prophesying lies in my name. I have not sent them or appointed them or spoken to them. They are prophesying to you false visions...the delusions of their own minds.

    Jeremiah 23:16
    This is what the LORD Almighty says: "Do not listen to what the prophets are prophesying to you; they fill you with false hopes. They speak visions from their own minds, not from the mouth of the LORD.

    Jeremiah 29:8
    Yes, this is what the LORD Almighty, the God of Israel, says: "Do not let the prophets and diviners among you deceive you. Do not listen to the dreams you encourage them to havel


    _________________
    Truth is the Daughter of Time
    avatar
    Sykes

    Posts : 6832
    Join date : 2011-07-17

    Re: HUTTON'S OFF AGAIN

    Post  Sykes on Wed May 14, 2014 7:42 am

    Bennett has only gone delving into the business interests of Mr. Smith, spoken with two accountants (one must be the O'Dowd woman) and then he had the nerve to look into the people on the board. He then stated...
    Re: "Digging" with a helicopter (continued from 'digging at resort')
    Tony Bennett on Mon May 12, 2014 10:12 pm

    plebgate wrote:
    Tony you are entitled to your views based on police file info
    .

    Thank you - and let me make one point absoutely clear from the get-go in relation to my posting above based on very extensive research into the companies formed by Martin Smith and his family.

    I do not believe for one moment that Count Andreas Wilhelm von Faber-Castell was ever a business partner or shareholder in Martin Smith's Golf Net Limited.

    Nor do I think some of the other names claimed to be shareholders of that company are genuine, either.

    And that partly governs what I think about the veracity of the so-called 'Smith sightings'.

    Although I don't know if he was/is a business partner of Smith's, why could he not be? Just because Bennett doesn't have dealings with people in the upper echelons, doesn't mean that other people do not. Furthermore, when was Bennett ever a businessman for that matter?


    _________________
    Truth is the Daughter of Time

    Sponsored content

    Re: HUTTON'S OFF AGAIN

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Tue Nov 21, 2017 12:49 am