CRISTOBELL/HUTTON'S LATEST HATE-FILLED RAMBLINGS PART 2

Cristobell Author retweeted
N.M ‏@AdirenM 2h2 hours ago
N.M retweeted Philip Prince
And rightly so!
I crave for the day the media turn on them - it will be filthy.
#McCann

Almost one year ago this week, Team McCann pulled off one of their dirtiest and meanest stunts yet in a bid to stamp out their online critics once and for all.  They had flattened the UK and Portuguese newspapers with a series of libel actions and threats, but the little people online just wouldn't go away - they wouldn't surrender to the might of the McCann propaganda machine.   (more drivel at link)  

Almost one year ago today, a middle aged woman died as a result of the actions taken by a group of concerned citizens online. (Full load of crap at link)

BRAVO SONIA! THE UNTOLD STORY OF MADELEINE MCCANN

And for the critics, some of us have been trying to get the truth about Madeleine McCann's disappearance into the public domain for the past 8 years and now we have something tangible out there, some are going out of their way to find nonsensical things to whinge about!

Err, the message for those who missed is:  Sonia is confronting this cover up of Madeleine's disappearance head on - not pussfyfooting behind closed doors or playing Cluedo in a forum for 8 years.  She is asking the questions that matter, the ones we have all been discussing for 8 years, directly to the people who can answer them!  

Sandra7 October 2015 at 01:13

'caste' out of society? Jeez! Where did you get your mythical degree in English? Mail order from the USA? As for suggesting in that statement that not believing McCann earns social pariah status, drop the drama that's nearly as bad as 'Bennett put a hit out on me'.

Got to address this. You really expect us to swallow Poulton has been engaged on an intensive 8 year research project!? Sure, interviewing you & Birch. Some serious research there . I don't know when this intrepid self called journalist finds time time to sleep. Righting social injustice, exposing David Icke (yawn), busily admining her troll patrol and still finds time for, I'll have say it again, it's so funny, '8 years intensive research'. Now that really does deserve one of your much loved Lols

Whiterose » Mon Oct 05, 2015 6:01 pm

Truthiness2 wrote:

Cristobell Author ‏@RosalindaHu 4m4 minutes ago
@spacesheepy @mc_hotspot @AdirenM So true, a proud, honourable man, unlike #mccanns with their begging buckets

Proud and honourable? Taking money from single mothers, pensioners and people on benefits to support your lifestyle and pay your bills is honourable?

The money given to the McCanns is spent on finding their child. Gerry McCann is working.

Why does that woman want people to believe Madeleine is dead?

What begging buckets? Oh does she mean the fund which is going to help find Madeleine? No, you idiot, that isn't a begging bucket, what Amaral has is a begging bucket money to go into his own pockets.

Cristobell Author ‏@RosalindaHu
@wicatty009 Madeleine can't be found alive Wicatty, and it is wicked to pretend that she can! #McCann

Cristobell Author ‏@RosalindaHu 3h3 hours ago
@martin_liz @mhoran96 @Honeyblade1S Kate would be better off shackled to a bloodthirsty rattlesnake. #justsaying #mccann

Cristobell Author ‏@RosalindaHu 3h3 hours ago
@martin_liz @mhoran96 @Honeyblade1S and Gerry would be better off being shackled to an angry mastiff bitch. #falloutspectacular #mccann

A roundup and reminder of Mutton's blatant lying
Last night:

Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton12 October 2015 at 23:21
23:12 I have never said those words. Why would I? I have never attacked the 'McCanns' and in 8 years no-one has ever found any evidence that I have, because it doesn't exist - do you not think the Sun would have checked through my timeline?

Strange how on this occasion you choose to believe the Sun!

However, two days or so ago:



And a few months ago in the Sun:

"I was attacking the McCanns "
Proof positiive of her compulsive lying.  

sal » Wed Oct 14, 2015 1:09 pm
Huttons blog

UPDATE; 14/10/15
In response to interfering with the investigation and timing of Sonia's documentary.

When Sonia began her documentary, this case had been going on for 7 years and looked likely to be going on for another 7 more. Questions needed to be asked, it started the ball rolling.

As an experienced and professional journalist, she understands the difference between investigating a story that is of public interest, and interfering with the due legal process. Sonia, unlike a few of the loons who have attached themselves to this case, has a bit of common sense! And, like the rest of us, wants justice for the child and for Brenda Leyland, who is still, disrespectfully, being referred to as a troll.

Unfortunately, the most prolific commentators on this case have no understanding of how the media world, or indeed, the real world, works. They judge the media by their own 'high' principles and standards, that is 'don't talk to her, she is no better than she ought to be'. This of course shuts them into a cloistered little society with limited membership, lets face it, most of us wouldn't be good enough, lol.

But back to the media. The powers that be, whether they like it or not, are kept in check by public opinion. We live in a democracy, if the public don't like you, you are going nowhere. These How to Win Friends and Influence People wars are now being fought on social media. Twitter and Facebook are the Cullodens and the Waterloos of the 21st Century, you live or die by your 140 character missiles.

In the past, bad news, and negative publicity could be hidden by a sensational story that might drop in out of the blue, or one that could be manufactured out of something that has been lying around for 6 months. But this is not a lesson in media, lol, the role of the investigative journalist is to tackle injustice on the public's behalf If it were not for the fact that the public DEMAND to be informed, then the powers that be would be able to get away with pretty much anything. The first thing on any wannabe tyrant or despot's checklist, is censor the press. Brave journalists like Sonia Poulton should be applauded, anyone remember Watergate?

In the case of missing Madeleine McCann, the public were asking why no-one had been prosecuted, and why the authorities could not see what they could. The public had also witnessed so many clumsy and transparent attempts to shut them up, resulting in the death of an innocent woman, that serious questions were being asked, and the MSM were not listening! And it wasn't just a few cranks in a seedy internet forum who were questioning the abduction story, it was thousands, thousands of ordinary people like Brenda Leyland. People who were not members of weird cults.

Sonia took a huge leap, when she began making her documentary, she has been asking the questions we have all been asking for the last 8 years, and she has been asking the right people! What she has done has been beyond courageous, as many of us have discovered asking the wrong questions can seriously affect your life and career! This case has attracted some of the most malevolent creatures in our midst, people dedicated to destroying the lives and careers of others for the sheer pleasure of it.

Is she in league with Murdoch? Good heavens, presumably whilst not having drinks with James Bond, she is cavorting on the back of a horse with Rupert? Sonia took a huge risk when she began her documentary, but she has survived, not only has she survived, but she remains as popular as ever and is welcomed on television as a commentator. She has blown open the myth that the McCanns are untouchable and she has footage that will become all the more valuable when the walls go up - which they will.

If a documentary, or indeed any factual program is to be successful, it has to be current and bang up to date. And in this fast moving 'breaking news' age, it has to be fluid and adaptable right up until the moment of broadcast - the timing is crucial. Unfortunately, some have been in conspiracy mode for so long, that they can't see beyond their tin foil hats.

We are all on tenterhooks at the moment, something appears to be happening - Operation Grange have a deadline. Sonia has all the footage, and all the interviews and is ready to go!

Re: Mark Souster and the complete mystery of the DM's and the now deleted twitter account
Post Cristobell Today at 12:33 pm

The point I was making was intended to provoke discussion Admin, this is after all a discussion forum and the reason we are here. Trying to compose posts that won't offend or antagonise anyone is laborious, kills debate stone dead, and not to mention, it is extremely vexing to have them deleted regardless!

In my experience, most people prefer honest debates and very few require smelling salts!

This forum has the potential for lively, interesting debates that should be attracting new members in droves. Without new blood and new ideas, a forum can become stagnant, with the same topics being discussed over and over again, by the same people. As it is, I can say things without being challenged, others can say things without being challenged, and we are all being left dissatisfied.

I know that I have my unbound blog where I can say anything I like, and I do, lol, but I also like to interact with others. I haven't 'made my mind up', it is a position I very rarely find myself in. I am always open to other opinions and other points of view, I don't assume I am right, as if, lol, I value the perspectives of others because it enables me to see the bigger picture.

I should also add, I have no problem whatsoever if people disagree with me, I don't take it personally, heaven forbid we were all the same, and if they can persuade me over to their point of view, that's fine too. I have no problem admitting when I am wrong, I often am.

I have taken the precaution of copying this post over to my blog in case it is deleted, but I would urge Admin to consider what I have said, and perhaps allow members to voice their own opinions on this. If most prefer that the discussion on this forum should remain 'tame', that's fine, I am happy to go with the majority.

Response from Admin:
Re: Mark Souster and the complete mystery of the DM's and the now deleted twitter account
Post candyfloss Today at 12:49 pm

One thing having discussion Cristobell and I am all for that, and another goading and causing more problems for this forum..........
you attacked the other place, now whilst we all have our opinions on what goes on over there, and have at one time or another been attacked ourselves, this is not the thread or place to discuss it. It is fuelling the war, which is totally against what we are here for, we want good discussion on what happened to Madeleine, not goading or causing argument with other places. By all means talk about the posts and Mark Souster and Soustergate, but please do not get personal and attack anyone, we are better than that. You have deleted many comments on your blog and have said so, I run this place and also delete what I think is detrimental to the forum. It only serves to cause more aggravation, we do not want that. As you said you have a voice on your blog to say exactly what you want, and anyone here can read that if they wish too.

To the pessimists out there who believe this case will never be solved, and that Sonia's documentary will never be aired, I think a few rudimentary facts need to be acknowledged.  The harbingers of doom, seem to have little, or no knowledge whatsoever, of the way in which the media industry and life in general, works.  With their tin foil hats clamped firmly down over their ears, they have analysed the limited information they have, and decided the world ends in 7 days.  more at link

Anonymous21 October 2015 at 16:05
Tony Bennett reminds me of Jimmy Saville.He controls and manipulates people close to him.When they leave he tries to bully,threaten and intimidate them.Straight out of the Jimmy Saville Manual.

Broho wrote:You mean who owns a gob as bad as RH.  

In response to a post on previous blog:

I am afraid you are deluding yourself if you think the McCanns haven't harmed their remaining children 10:54. With all the lying that goes on, can you imagine how dysfunctional their home must be? Apart from terrifying the poor little mites with a story about a monster stealing Madeleine from her bed, the parents have dedicated the last 8+ years to 'getting her back'. They are growing up in the shadow of their 'lost' big sister. From their perspective, it may be that they see their parents and family as caring more about Madeleine than them. When they are adults looking back, that is undoubtedly what they will see.

The parents proudly boast that Madeleine is 'everywhere' within their home, her bedroom has become a shrine filled with a growing stack of presents that can never be opened, they talk about Madeleine every day, they celebrate her birthday with cake. Whilst our jaws drop at the macabre and tragic 'time stood still world' of Charles Dickens' Miss Haversham, in the twilight world of McCann, it is to be applauded.

I feel desperately sorry for those kids. Their names have been used shamelessly by their parents to tug on the heart (and purse) strings of their gullible donors. They always mention them by name in their TV interviews. Offered the chance of having their civil proceedings in Lisbon held in camera, the McCanns chose maximum publicity. The kids were then subjected to lurid UK tabloid headlines shrieking that crazy 'hater' people were trying to kidnap them and that their parents were in constant danger of being attacked. Things no 9 year old should have to read on newspaper billboards on their way to school. That the parents themselves are the authors of these headlines is just plain wicked.

Re: Rosalind Hutton, s.e.x and the Dalai Lama

Postby tigerloaf » Mon Nov 02, 2015 10:13 pm
Hutton's online abuse about the parents of a missing little girl. (words in red from Hutton, those in black, my commentary)

"Can you imagine how dysfunctional their home must be?"
Hardly as dysfunctional as your home - eh? Didn't your mother boot you out? Didn't your mother give up on you and dump you in a children's home? How bloody dysfunctional is that?

"the parents have dedicated the last 8+ years to 'getting her back'"
Hardly unusual - hasn't Kerry Needham spent far longer doing exactly the same in relation to Ben? What would you do? Just give up and say, "Sod it, I can't be bothered any more."?

Of the twins. "It may be that they see their parents and family as caring more about Madeleine than them."
Then again it may not. You actually don't have a clue do you? Perhaps the siblings of Madeleine also want their sister back and believe that it is human and normal to want that? But a self-confessed online abuser and self-confessed drug-addled troll can hardly understand normal human compassion can you? Truth is you are just guessing and have no dammed idea what those children feel or believe.

Of Gerry specifically. "However, even Henry VIII with a chopping block and a team of executioners couldn't force people to say nice things about him."
Just because you feel hatred to the man who whilst working as a NHS doctor caring for thousands of patients, and who also will not be deterred by self-confessed online abusers such as yourself does not mean that normal people (those without the mental illness you profess to suffer, those without drug addiction problems which you have repeatedly told us about) feel hate to the man. I think both Gerry McCann and his wife have done amazingly well in trying to keep people looking for their missing daughter and deserve praise for the way that they have also helped other missing children. Perhaps if you opened your eyes you would see the vast majority of people don't post hate and nastiness in the way you tell us you enjoy.

"And, speaking for myself, even if you put me on rack and make me 2ft taller, I will still not believe Gerry and Kate are telling the truth."
Who gives a damm what a trollop who parades herself in the papers as a "bitch" thinks? You really are full of self-importance when no importance is due to you aren't you? You could not even talk coherently about the case when given the chance on pretendy television. That's how much you matter in the grand scheme of things. Why waste energy making you two feet taller when that would just dilute unimportance further and anyway you squeal all day on the Internet without anyone forcing you?

"I'm afraid I cannot imagine a more dysfunctional environment for kids to grow up in than that Rothley household."
And you, booted out as a child, without a clue what a functional home is think you know best? How funny is that?

"And I am someone who spent 5 years of my childhood being emotionally and physically abused in a convent"
Technically, there has never been any proof of this claim of yours. Neither the courts nor the other residents in the home have backed you up in these rather fantastic claims have they? Just because you wrote a book (Were you smoking pot at the time?) does not prove the claims to be true.

"What astounds me and chips away at my faith in human nature still further, is the abandonment of those kids by all the other adults around them, the grandparents, aunts and uncles especially. Not one of them has the guts or decency, to tell Gerry and Kate to 'stop the lunacy'."
And just who told your saintly mother to stop the lunacy when she dumped you in a kids home? Granny? Grandad? Aunts, uncles? How bloody rude of them to let you be dumped with the Christian nuns?

"When someone suffers a bereavement at some point, someone, usually a close family member or friend, will have that 'time to move on' talk with them. Most of us are lucky enough to have that 'someone', or we ourselves reach that stage in our time and in our ways. In the old days, we also had Marjory Proops. We have to move on, or we would be incapacitated forever more."
Did you suffer a pseudo-bereavement when your family life died. We can all see that nobody really took you to one side to talk you through it. Every word you write proves that you have never moved on and that it still rankles with you and is very likely the crux of your online abusive persona.

'"We are never giving up' should send a chill down the spines of everyone who has responsibility towards those children. Someone needs to tell Gerry and Kate that what they are doing is very wrong. It is not healthy for themselves and it is off the scale freaky for their kids."
What is "off the scale freaky" is that there are old women who from pure hatred post such evil blogs without any real understanding, empathy, knowledge or indeed signs of intelligent observation. People like, you Rosalinda/Linda/Rosalind Hutton simply do not know how the McCanns are actually dealing with family life, how their friends and relatives are supporting them, how the medical profession is supporting them, how their contacts with real experts and real police unlike the amateurs such as yourself are ensuring stability and mental health for the whole family. It is a great shame that you don't have anything to focus on in your own world or you would not be so enamoured of your evil role as an online "bitch" whose only emotion appears to be hate. The fact that you declare that you will never give up hating and posting abuse is utterly sick and depraved.

Hutton

A self-confessed bitch.
A self-confessed troll who enjoys the buzz of being abusive online.
A self-confessed drug addict.
A person who has confessed to having mental illness.
A person who has no career.
A person who has so few friends and family around her that she spends her entire life glued to the computer being abusive to others.
A person whose own child has decried her behaviour.
A person whose own mother gave her the boot from the family home as a child.
A person who has lied about being a journalist.
A person who has lied about being qualified in a number of specialities.
A person who wrote a book, the content of which has been denied by just about every other person who knew the childrens' home including those who might have been abused as Hutton claims she was.
A person who failed to prove her allegations of abuse in court.
A person who tried to piggyback her book of self-pitying turgid prose on the fate of a missing little child.
A person who has shown herself to be as lady-like as the average sow in the pigsty.
A person who enjoys her role as a disgusting troll who thinks her role in life is to denigrate those who want to hope that a child may be alive..
A person who rocked and nodded without providing a single original idea when interviewed on pretendy television in front of an audience of dozens.
A person whose mother gave up on her.
A person whose only online friends seem to be fellow trolls.
A loner without a wide circle of friends and family for emotional and other support.
A person whose online circle includes others of a similar hateful view on the world.


And this person deigns to criticise the McCanns

Gerry and Kate McCann

Both university educated.
Both with very useful careers
Both with large supportive families.
Both having been brought up in loving families.
Neither having had a mother who booted them out of their childhood home.
Both with wide ranging groups of friends.
Neither addicted to online abuse,
Neither addicted to mind-bending drugs.
Neither having mental illness.
Both of whom are able to conduct themselves with dignity and offer intelligent comment when interviewed on TV in front of millions of people.
Both of whom have constantly and properly fought for their missing daughter and said that they would never give up.
Both of whom have a wide circle of emotional and physical support from friends and professionals.

I'll give you one guess as to whether I would prefer the McCanns to bring up their children rather than the self-confessed pot-smoking, self-confessed mentally ill, self-confessed online abuser and troll or anyone nominated by someone who is as blind as Hutton is to the reality of her own personality and abilities.

(ps that is the personality she has herself described and demonstrated in her awful online prose not one I have dreamed up just to abuse her. My comments are wholly based on her description of her own behaviour and the content of her writing.).

Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton3 November 2015 at 00:06
Just a few words in response to the psycho tigerloaf's latest dreary rant, you are covering up the death of a child, what does that make you?  

catkins » Tue Nov 03, 2015 10:32 am
You deserve a medal for reading and dissecting her garbage Tiger........

The root of her problems goes right back to when she was dumped handed over to Care. She has a massive chip on her shoulder regarding this fact.

I have noticed with the two people I know who were adopted...there's a little part of that (Hurt) chip wedged firmly on their shoulders. Whatever the parents reasons were.....It must hurt to be passed over to Care......

I have to add though....they keep it private and would NEVER dream of taking out their feelings about it on someone else in pain.

scoobydoo » Wed Nov 04, 2015 3:52 am

Let's keep it simple for her... Parents don't stop looking for their children. Anyone who has ever been loved or loved would know that. Decades can pass but they keep looking, and siblings look too. They don't walk away because it's a chore etc.

There is no evidence of death, all Hutton can come up with is a dog barking. A dog that did not find a single trace of Madeleine, a dog that had to be dragged back repeatedly before it barked, a dog that is trained to bark at any human material regardless of whether it came from a living person, that its handler said the bark could not be relied on it's own, that had only found one body on it's own etc.

Hutton also neglects to mention that for madeleines body to have been in these locations and the mccanns to be involved requires a complicated, planned conspiracy involving a huge number of disperate people.

The hypocrisy is astounding though. How long has she been obsessing about Madeleine, the child of strangers? How many years had passed between her alleged abuse and her launching a court case and book? Did her actions have the goal of saving a child?

tigerloaf » Tue Nov 03, 2015 11:39 pm

A few more gems from the person who proudly calls herself a bitch and a troll, who proudly defended her right to announce just how much she enjoys the buzz of being an online abuser, who lied about being a journalist and declares herself an authoress on the basis of having one book published in small numbers.

"I wouldn't be surprised if some of those antagonists are angry family members shamed by the truth. Not one of them has the guts to point out the lunacy of what Maddie's parents are doing, they are taking the easy path to protect themselves. You can kind of see why Gerry and Kate are as they are."
The problem with this response is that it defies human nature. Rosalind/Linda/Cristobel/Rosalinda Hutton (Why do you have so many silly versions of your name?), you seem to believe that continuing the search for your missing daughter/sister/grand daughter / niece / cousin for eight or more years is abnormal. Somebody should help you to understand that it is not abnormal at all. It is human instinct. It is family. It is real love. Why, I wonder, can you not see this reality? Why do you think that searching for your missing loved one is perverse in some way? Is that more insight into your nature, the nature of the woman who takes actual pride in being trashed in a national newspaper as an online bitch"?

"In Tigerloaf's rebuttal (lol) of my above blog, all his responses are insults towards myself and my parents. He has not addressed any of the points I raised. His only justification for the parents continuing the search was reference to Kerry Needham. They seem to have a bee in their bonnet about Kerry these days."
How bloody dense must you be? You told us about your parents booting you out. You told us about your drug habit? You told us about your mental illness. You told us you enjoyed being an online abusive bitch. I have simply repeated (in slightly different wording perhaps, but nonetheless retaining absolutely the facts and the truth of your own words) what you told us. And why did I do this? Because these facts that you have told us are the very basis of your inhumane and twisted points in your disgustingly evil blog. People who have not suffered the fate of being booted out of the home, whose minds are not warped by drugs and whose mental stability is not in question do not hold the beliefs that you, the self-confessed trolling bitch holds. Does you simply not understand that your own description of yourself in these terms defines you for all those who read your blog and other writing/write-ups? Do you, the so-called authoress not realise that the words you write describing yourself are what the public know of you? I have no bee in my bonnet about anything. I have mentioned Kerry Needham in one post in about a thousand. I bet, you Hutton have mentioned her far more frequently. I used the example of Kerry Needham because she has tried to do the same as the McCanns for far longer, because unlike you Hutton, Kerry Needham actually knows and understands the anguish of a missing child and that a caring, loving parent never, never, never gives up. You Hutton, suggest you believe that it would be right just to say "Sod, it! We've done enough now. Let's forget the kid and get on!." No civilised human being believes that is right. However Hutton you appear to. Incidentally my entire previous post was a critique of what you wrote as is this one. I am addressing the issues as you raise them. Your self-obsession is preventing you from seeing that and apparently making this all about yourself whereas within each section I am looking at the veracity and validity of your comments including their direct relationship to the McCann case. I am supporting the McCann standpoint in relation to the matters you raise because I believe it is the natural, normal, loving and caring standpoint but a self-confessed online bitch would find that hard to comprehend I suppose.

"Whilst I have nothing but respect and compassion for Kerry, I don't agree with what she is doing either. Her talents could be put to so much better use helping kids who are in danger now. She would make an excellent spokeswoman for a worthy charity."
Yeah, Kerry, don't you think you've milked this enough? Give up on that kid of yours and just help others. Surely by now you could manage to forget him? Best idea yet, from Hutton. Kerry Needham should place just a bit less emphasis on her own missing family member and become a spokesperson for a worthwhile charity. Funny that! Kate McCann gets slated for doing precisely what you are suggesting of Kerry. You really are a bit confused Rosalind/Linda/Rosalind aren't you? Not surprising really with all those multiple personalities. By the way, do you really believe after the tens of thousands of hateful words you have posted online, the proud boast you made of enjoying the buzz of online abuse that you have compassion in you at all? I don't and I know others who find it incredibly hard to believe too.

"Sadly, when a family is hit by tragedy there is a temptation to become trapped in a time warp and draw other people in with you. Kate and Gerry are trapped in that time warp. Reliving again and again, the night Madeleine disappeared. It's almost the first question every interviewer asks."
You flaming hypocrite! Who is trapped in a time warp here? The McCanns who have a goal, a genuine aim in life, in finding their missing child or the proud online troll who for nigh on fifty years has been trapped in the mind of the child who thought she was being abused by being booted out of her home by her parents and who never shuts up about it and whose only visible goals are the continuation of her whinges about her claimed abuse and her buzz from her online abuse activities?

"In what universe is it a good thing to relive the same nightmare every day for the rest of your life Tigerloaf? Oh, and pass it on to your kids. And what kind of sick fucks would encourage you to?"
Again, I repeat you are a flaming hypocrite, Hutton. You really are! Day after day, fifty years after the event you whinge and whine about your emotional scarring at the hands of the nuns and priests (none of which has ever been proved by anyone). Did you jump on a bandwagon to release your demons I wonder when abuse was the talk of town and you took an opportunity to write your book, in the way you jumped on the McCann bandwagon to publicise your book and attempt to profit from that? You just don't understand the difference between the nature of the McCann's ongoing situation where there is a missing child who could still be found and your emotional trauma when your parents put you in a home fifty years ago and which is no longer an ongoing issue except in your head? More importantly you have no bloody idea about the way the McCanns are bringing up their children. You have heard a few comments in interviews about their always remembering the missing child, about them keeping her special, about them never giving up hope on their family member but you have no idea how special they make the twins feel, how important the twins' development is and the celebration of events in their lives. You simply presume to think that every waking moment is devoted to Madeleine and Madeleine alone. You are missing the point that the McCanns are only on TV discussing Madeleine once in a blue moon and of course they focus entirely on her then. Your warped view of their lives as a family are simply rancid imaginations which show how your mind works and have no bearing on the reality of McCann family life. The real question which civilised people would ask is what kind of parent would not want the brother and sister of a missing child to remember her as their loving sister which she clearly was when at home and could even be in the future if ever found?

"Probably the kind of snivelling coward who hides behind a troll name to hurl abuse at strangers on the net. Not so much a tiger as a chicken."
More rampant hypocrisy from yourself. Remember the names I have called you are entirely derived from your own descriptions of yourself or from valid reasoning such as when I call you a hypocrite and the evidence is in your own words or when I explain that human love makes your comments about the way the McCanns behave completly normal rather than perverse as you describe it. Your sentence immediately above is ill thought through. You had a motive when you joined the McCann conversation for using your own name. It is not the norm in online debate to do so. Indeed it is only normally done so for self-publicity which we all recognise was your motive. The non-stop promotion of your book when you joined the debate (long. long after the actual disappearance of Madeleine) was quite sickening in its intensity. Much the same could be said of Bennett when he joined long before you did. (Oh I have heard incidentally, that you claim to have been involved almost immediately back in 2007. If that is the case where are the posts with your name attached? Why does nobody recall you? ) I am not a self-publicist. I care about the content of what is posted not the personality. Your criticism of me does not relate to my posting. You are simply acting like an infant with your name-calling. I am not hurling abuse. I am going to the heart of the content of your posts and showing what a hateful pile of manure they really are.

"Just a few words in response to the psycho tigerloaf's latest dreary rant, you are covering up the death of a child, what does that make you?"
Once again you act like a playground child using big words but making a fool of yourself by doing so. There is no indication of psychopathy in my posts to you. Do you even know what the word means? Do you not realise that the psychopathic behaviour is from you; your amorality in proclaiming your getting a buzz from online abuse of others, your rather inhumane, unloving take on the way people show their love for each other by not giving up on them, your evil proclamation that a missing child is dead when there is not a single piece of evidence to prove that and so on and so on.

"Tigerloaf is covering up his name and identity, he is a cowardly troll."
Actually, I am not as you describe. I am using an online name as tens of millions of others do in normal online interaction on forums. You are the exception. You are the publicity-seeking woman who had a book to sell and latched onto the McCann case to try to raise a profile. You failed and now squeal that those who engage in the normal process are not as you think they should be. There is nothing cowardly in doing what everybody else is doing. There is, however something rather nasty in doing as you did and (failed to succeed in doing well), that is piggybacking the story of a missing child for profit. Oh, and the reason you failed in your nasty aim? Very simple, your innate nastiness came to the fore and you got addicted to the buzz of abusing others. Never an attractive or helpful trait when trying to get money from people. But a trait that you seem to be proud of. More fool you.

AND HERE WE COME TO THE CRUX OF THE MATTER.

"As for evidence of death, the Sun video with the specialist dogs barking in Apartment 5A and the hire car and at Kate's clothes and cuddlecut was pretty definitive. Then of course there is the fact that Kate and Gerry have never shown any interest in any sighting."
Here you show just how bloody ignorant you truly are. You have been suckered hook line and sinker. The videos which are not in their original form are not even remotely definitive as you suggest. The police have the original unedited videos and have not ever considered them definitive. But more importantly they don't even stand as evidence. Did you not read the categorical statement from the dog handler that the alerts are not evidence? Did you miss that in your rush to pronounce a child dead? Clearly you did. Any number of issues arise regarding the dog videos, relating to the way the scene of potential crime was managed, (rented out to all and sundry before being examined, for example), relating to the way clothing was not properly handled, relating to the clearly visible posters in the McCann car which Grime says he did not know was the one used by the McCanns, relating to the way the toy was only alerted to after deliberate intervention by the handler etc. Those videos would be torn to shreds even if a court were to consider allowing them as evidence by a newbie solicitor never mind an experienced barrister and anyone looking at them with a clear perspective can realise that immediately. As for your second comment which you claim to be a fact relating to the McCanns showing no interest you are simply wrong on at least two occasions, and have no idea about the way they have actually reacted to them on others. You seem to think a few comments by them in interviews is the sum of their feelings. Think back Linda Hutton and remember just how little you got across when interviewed by the pretendy journalist on the pretendy TV show. Not everything actually comes out in an interview, most of what you seem to write about is mere surmising on your part not actual fact as you claim.

That is what sickens me most about what you post Rosalind Hutton. The fact that much of what you claim to be fact is nothing of the sort. The fact that you base your vicious commentary on such non-facts is pure evil. I truly pity anyone such as yourself who spends hour after hour after hour posting vicious lies for the buzz. What a sad and pathetic life!

Whiterose » Wed Nov 04, 2015 8:52 am
This woman bases her opinions on the her own life, listen you air brained mouthy moron, NORMAL people who have a child or adult who is missing, will never forget them they will always wonder where they are what they are doing what is happening in their life, are they dead? NORMAL people do not just carry on with their lives as if nothing has happened. Madeleine went missing from her bedroom, taken by who knows who, to who knows where, can you imagine for one minute of your muddled self observed life, what that can feel like for the parents?

You are talking as if Madeleine has died and that they have had a funeral for her, mourned, said good bye to her. They have done none of these things, they are in limbo, not knowing what has happened to their daughter.

To say why don't they just close the door on what happened to Madeleine is like saying in a very simple way, lets close the door on someone who may be calling for help outside of that door, would you just close your door on that someone?

Madeleine is their precious daughter, S*** and A*****'s sister, she is a Granddaughter, a cousin, a niece all of these people miss her and want her back, for you, just some blogger who has no idea what it feels like to have a missing child to say that all these people should tell the McCann's to stop looking for Madeleine is like a lunatic telling someone they must be mad.

Do you honestly think the McCann's have not had help from experts when dealing with the twins? Do you not think they have thought out and taken in what these experts have said to them when dealing with the twins? Unlike you the McCann's are intelligent and sane, and are no doubt bringing their children up to be loving level headed human beings.

Rosalinda, Cristobell Hutton4 November 2015 at 13:52
What a boring bast'ad you are tigerloaf. Even though I am the subject of your latest dreary diatribes I found myself nodding off. Are you related to Bennett? lol

You are absolutely right not to seek publicity for yourself, your 'work' is embarrassingly inept, you come across as a thug attempting to be a scholar, but you clearly lack any education because you have no understanding of the texts you read.

I cannot stress enough how important it is for kids, or anyone hoping to go further with their education, to comprehend the words they are reading. Sadly, even A-level students stray away from the set questions to give answers they have already prepared. Then they wonder why they fail.

Politicians do it all of the time of course, because they know they only have a limited time in which to get their message across and not answering questions is the name of the game.

Tigerloaf's message is, in case anyone missed it, lol, is that I am a low life trollop booted out by mother at the age of 9 because I was such a horrible kid and I have had a hatred for anyone who is 'nice' and successful ever since. He fails to understand that even if I were guilty of one or more of the above, it wouldn't make one iota of difference to the innocence or guilt of the McCanns.

Well I'm not going to bother replying because it is actually a reflection of tigerloaf's own warped view of the world that surrounds him, and it's a little bit sad. I don't know if he is aware of just how much he is revealing about himself.

I am not trying to inflict pain on a family. I am trying to stop that family from inflicting more pain on themselves. My interest in this case is the study of human behaviour and psychology, but first and foremost, I hate to see anyone suffer. No matter what they have done. I am offering sound advice, I understand the dilemma they are in, and as a poster said above, I believe they do want the best for the kids. And the best thing for the kids is the truth. Sadly, the parents believe they can contain the lie within the family, someone needs to tell them that they can't. It isn't cruel it is reality. Just as we have to tell screaming toddlers they can't play their drum in Sainsburys and cantankerous teenagers they can't dye their hair green, we have to say no to grown up kids too. It seems to me that the only child and the youngest sibling haven't heard that word too often in their lives.

It is impossible to observe a ship sinking without showing any concern for the passengers on board, even if some of them are currently enjoying Spanish canapes on a passing yacht. Methinks many remain who never have wanted to get on it in the first place, including a few who had no choice.

At some point there is going to be a mad scramble for the lifeboats, very few will actually want go down with the ship. The enthusiasm for the Madeleine Fund dropped dramatically after Kate and Gerry were made arguidos as did the updates from family and friends. Gerry and Kate alone have been the public face of The Madeleine Fund and the Madeleine awareness campaign, the Fund has no employees and the facebook page is run by the sinister nameless and faceless 'webmaster'. The McCanns are still using the paid services of Clarence Mitchell, where are all the keen family spokespeople who stepped up to the plate in 2007? Is a spokesman really a valid expense for a Fund that is supposedly for the search for a lost child?

I suspect that those who support the revival of the McCanns search for Madeleine have their own reasons for wanting the public to believe the child is alive, but the wellbeing of the parents and the twins are not among them. If they believed what they were doing was morally sound and defensible, they would do it in their own names. Let's face it, the parents could do with the support.

scoobydoo » Wed Nov 04, 2015 6:22 pm
Oh god, just looked at Sykes and saw Hutton's latest rant, sorry scholarly text, where she announces she won't reply to tiger whilst writing several paragraphs in reply! Apparently Hutton is just trying to help the McCanns by trying to get them to stop searching for a missing child and instead say they killed her because that is what Hutton says. Apparently Hutton knows better than the met, the Portuguese police, the Portuguese attorney general, missing people, the ncmec, actual psychologists and trauma experts, and people who have gone though losing a child such as John Walsh, Winnie Johnson, Kerry needham, Sharon Lee etc I wonder what makes her such an expert, and what makes her the person who knows best for other peoples children.

Postby tigerloaf » Wed Nov 04, 2015 9:31 pm
Over seven hundred words of a none-reply. Trying to pretend you don’t care Rosalind but your seven hundred and more words prove the reality is other than you claim.

"What a boring bast'ad you are tigerloaf. Even though I am the subject of your latest dreary diatribes I found myself nodding off. Are you related to Bennett? Lol"
This paragraph contains absolutely no rebuttal of my arguments relating to Hutton. It is merely personal abuse, something she has publicly said gives her a buzz. Yet again, more proof that she is nothing more than a nasty troll. And how ladylike this self-confessed bitch appears in public!

"You are absolutely right not to seek publicity for yourself, your 'work' is embarrassingly inept, you come across as a thug attempting to be a scholar, but you clearly lack any education because you have no understanding of the texts you read. "
Again just abuse, no indication as to why the forum post which for some bizarre reason Hutton refers to as “work” is inept. Just Hutton being abusive. For information, my ripping her sentences to shreds is not “work”. Unlike her I actually do work. I do a full-time job which pays taxes to help those who choose to idle their time behind computers all day in their attempts, it seems, to avoid real work. As for my lack of education. She is having a “laff”. I don’t pretend to be a scholar. My own formal education ended at the age of 24 many, many years ago, though since then I have attended many long and short courses leading to specific qualifications. It is clear she has no qualifications whatsoever in any of the fields she claims to have studied or have expertise in or she would have regaled us with them ad infinitum. Reading books is not the same as studying, but not having studied beyond the basics perhaps she never was taught that. As for these “texts” I do wonder precisely which “texts” she is suggesting I don’t understand. If she was actually serious she would highlight the “texts” in question and explain just how my understanding is flawed but she seems to think just being abusive by claiming I don’t understand something is proof that she is right about it. The concept of going as far as to actually demonstrate what you insinuate or claim is based in truth is quite beyond her. So I ask, what “texts” is she claiming I don’t understand? I would like her to show her reasoning as to what leads her to believe I don’t understand. I bet I understand far better than she does if push comes to shove.

"I cannot stress enough how important it is for kids, or anyone hoping to go further with their education, to comprehend the words they are reading. Sadly, even A-level students stray away from the set questions to give answers they have already prepared. Then they wonder why they fail. "
My responses to her earlier posts are precisely targeted at the content of her “work”( ). That she has the nerve to suggest I come with prepared answers when anyone with the most limited grasp of English can see how specifically I use her own “work” and words in the sentences I reply to, to show how her own description of herself as an online abuser and bitch is accurate, I find amusing. I would go so far as to say it clearly demonstrates that she has failed to comprehend what I wrote. There, its that easy. I show examples and demonstrate that her lack of comprehension is real. A shame she just posts abuse and doesn't show it to be based in truth.

"Politicians do it all of the time of course, because they know they only have a limited time in which to get their message across and not answering questions is the name of the game. "
A complete irrelevance. There were no questions posed to me to be avoided. Or did she miss that basic fact? Very true about politicians but utterly irrelevant in this scenario when I am simply drawing out the truth about her from her own words.

"Tigerloaf's message is, in case anyone missed it, lol, is that I am a low life trollop booted out by mother at the age of 9 because I was such a horrible kid and I have had a hatred for anyone who is 'nice' and successful ever since. He fails to understand that even if I were guilty of one or more of the above, it wouldn't make one iota of difference to the innocence or guilt of the McCanns. "
Hutton seems quite incapable of grasping that my purpose in writing what I did was nothing to do with the McCanns. It shows that she has completely and utterly failed to read properly what was written. Because she failed to understand I will set it out quite clearly. The purpose of my replying to Hutton was not to deal with the McCann case at all in that last post or the previous one. I think most people who commented clearly understood that. What I set out (and believe I achieved) was to demonstrate just how nasty and mis-informed was the claptrap she was spouting. I have done the same again here but also included a few comments more pertinent to the McCann case. For Hutton's information not everyone on the outside of the little online world she inhabits is obsessed with the McCanns. It is a great pity she cannot even inform herself properly when replying to a few sentences on a forum by reading and properly understanding them.


"Well I'm not going to bother replying because it is actually a reflection of tigerloaf's own warped view of the world that surrounds him, and it's a little bit sad. I don't know if he is aware of just how much he is revealing about himself."
Why has she posted such a pathetic lie in the middle of a seven-hundred word reply to me? Is she taking some kind of substance which is preventing her from grasping what she is doing from moment to moment? If, for explaining in simple terms to this nasty woman that loving, kind and normal humans don’t simply give up on a missing child and say “Sod it, that’s me done. Let’s get on with the rest of our lives and forget the kid!” she perceives me to have a warped view of the world then I truly pity her. For it is indeed her view of the world which is actually very badly warped. If by exhorting her to stop posting disgusting lies about the dog video being evidence that Madeleine McCann is dead I am revealing that I believe in truth, compassion and genuine justice based on the principles of law for missing children and the families who were left behind then I am actually proud to reveal that about myself. I simply don’t care that the self-confessed drug abuser, the self-confessed online abuser and bitch doesn’t like the truth I tell about her, about the dogs and her inability to understand the evidence. I know that I am doing the right thing and that I am behaving both with dignity and with the law on my side. In this instance the law of Portugal and the law of the UK. Why people like Hutton claim to know better than the real experts who have seen the real evidence and spoken at length to the people involved I have no idea. It is not a sane view of the world, especially when supported by the personal abuse which she is so enamoured of.

"I am not trying to inflict pain on a family. I am trying to stop that family from inflicting more pain on themselves. My interest in this case is the study of human behaviour and psychology, but first and foremost, I hate to see anyone suffer. No matter what they have done. I am offering sound advice, I understand the dilemma they are in, and as a poster said above, I believe they do want the best for the kids. And the best thing for the kids is the truth. Sadly, the parents believe they can contain the lie within the family, someone needs to tell them that they can't. It isn't cruel it is reality. Just as we have to tell screaming toddlers they can't play their drum in Sainsburys and cantankerous teenagers they can't dye their hair green, we have to say no to grown up kids too. It seems to me that the only child and the youngest sibling haven't heard that word too often in their lives."
The truth is that Hutton is an interfering old biddy without the slightest qualification to pronounce on any aspect of psychology, human behaviour or law. Her personal views on the matter based on the years of trying (and clearly failing) to come to terms with her seriously unsettled childhood are not expertise. They are simply opinions from a total amateur and the way she expresses them (as she herself admits) is frequently very abusive. Her advice may seem sound to her but it is not professional nor based on genuine love for the missing child and the parents who are suffering that loss. Her claim to understand “the dilemma they are in” is based on a crass, false premise which she is too cowardly to utter in this reply to me above (the seven-hundred word reply which she isn’t / wasn’t going to write). She believes that the McCanns have committed some crime, that they are hiding some dark secret. But she has absolutely no proof of that no matter how much her lack of understanding of the nature of evidence and law has convinced her otherwise. Reading a pot boiler by a disgraced ex-cop with a grudge is no way to get genuine knowledge about a missing person case. Relying on amateur translations of documents and news articles is not how the police work, nor is it the way any professional works in any field. However it is the way Hutton has worked.

"It is impossible to observe a ship sinking without showing any concern for the passengers on board, even if some of them are currently enjoying Spanish canapes on a passing yacht. Methinks many remain who never have wanted to get on it in the first place, including a few who had no choice."
Hutton can dream on in her drug-addled, mind-bending fantasies but there is no ship sinking as she imagines. Where in those two sentences directly above is the love or compassion she claims to feel? Nowhere. Those sentences sound like somebody salivating and drooling at the thought of others suffering. Incidentally the first sentence is gobbledygook in English. Maybe in pothead speak it makes some sense to have passengers on a sinking ship enjoying canapes on a passing yacht. In the real world it is gibberish.

"At some point there is going to be a mad scramble for the lifeboats, very few will actually want go down with the ship. The enthusiasm for the Madeleine Fund dropped dramatically after Kate and Gerry were made arguidos as did the updates from family and friends. Gerry and Kate alone have been the public face of The Madeleine Fund and the Madeleine awareness campaign, the Fund has no employees and the facebook page is run by the sinister nameless and faceless 'webmaster'. The McCanns are still using the paid services of Clarence Mitchell, where are all the keen family spokespeople who stepped up to the plate in 2007? Is a spokesman really a valid expense for a Fund that is supposedly for the search for a lost child?"
Can you sense the exhilaration in the Hutton mind? The words show a keen desire to see the family of a missing little girl perhaps miss some imaginary lifeboats (all illusions in the mind of this nasty self-confessed troll because there is no indication except in the fantasy world she portrays of any demise of anyone in the McCann sphere), With the nasty idea being painted of people suffering for supporting the parents of a missing child comes the nasty surmising and making of claims about them (of course with nothing to support her claims). I wonder could Hutton if asked actually prove her contention that Mitchell is still paid for his services or is this troll just making nasty remarks based on nothing but her very idle guesswork?

"I suspect that those who support the revival of the McCanns search for Madeleine have their own reasons for wanting the public to believe the child is alive, but the wellbeing of the parents and the twins are not among them. If they believed what they were doing was morally sound and defensible, they would do it in their own names. Let's face it, the parents could do with the support."
Revival? On what other planet has this utterly deluded and nasty self-confessed bitch been living for the past few years? I am a member of the public. I want to see her alive for my own reason, certainly. That is because it would be the best outcome of a long and sad saga. It isn’t the most likely outcome I know, but I believe fervently the possibility remains because unlike those who cannot understand the evidence, who refuse point blank to listen to the police and who are self-confessed nasty bitches, I have hope and feel compassion for the family concerned. I don’t need to self-publicise as Hutton does to feel compassion and concern. I never have needed to and never will. Hutton clearly has missed a great deal over the years and stayed in the bunker of aggressive hate and nastiness far too long or she would understand just how much support the McCanns actually have in the real world, the world of their friends, their family, their colleagues and those who understand both the law and the true nature of compassion and justice and wish to see a civilised law-abiding society where people do not get abused because trolls want to abuse. Self-confessed nasty online, or real-world abusers and trolls have no place in civilised society. But do enjoy your bitching, Hutton. It really suits you. Does your bitching bring real love, friendship and happiness? Is the buzz worth it I wonder? Somehow I doubt it but I have always set my sights on ambitions higher and, I believe, a little more fulfilling than an ephemeral buzz gained from being nasty to people online. No doubt your mother would be proud of you though!.