COMMENTS ON THE TIGERLOAF/CHRISTOBELL DEBATE

Hutton revealed what she is really up to with a post on Havern's hellhole where she admits her aim is to 'expose' McCann supporters - she wants to know who we are and who we are related to.

Well she can go swivel if she seriously thinks that any of us for one moment would expose ourselves and our families to the sort of prurient exposure that others have been subjected to.

On the site owned by Pamalam there is a whole, creepy stalkerish section where she catalogues every person she can find who can even loosely be termed a friend of the McCanns. Them, their partners and even their children.

Collected like beetles, pinned to Pamalam's card, and distributed to weirdos across the interwebz.

Thanks but no thanks Hutton. If you can't debate with an anonymous person then you clearly cannot debate at all and it's just an excuse.

I don't think Cristobell would be abused, she,s not stupid as she know it will never happen,but it was worth a try to get at least one of the pro,s to tell us all why the mccanns are innocent in their eyes

R.V. Hutton Author ‏@RosalindaHu 3m
@Jayelles1 @RothleyPillow You have my terms. Via my blog, or live TPV or radio. Your friend is anonymous troll. #mccann

I take that means Hutton is willing to use her blog to post her evidence to prove her claims made on TPV. That seems fair enough. I look forward to seeing them. Maybe she could start with the alleged 24 libel cases. What could be more simple?

No, I think she means Tiger should post on her blog so she can get the IP address? Or edit/alter Tiger's posts?

Tigerloaf: Yes it is clear one of her aims was to "draw then out and expose them" and with the history of Bennett and others on Havern's site, stalking people that is not something any sensible person would expose him or herself to.

This business of identity is merely a very flimsy excuse. It has no bearing on the content of her claims, the content of my posts or anything else. She has shown herself up now by refusing even to read two very short posts and replying to them on her blog. The most obvious conclusion is that she can't because you would have expected her to be extremely keen to demonstrate to everyone her expert knowledge and complete grasp of the case.

Actually, it is the perfect case of her lying to everyone yet again.

Among her ramblings from the Poulton show this one stands out as a shining example of her inability to tell the truth.

I’m accused of making up this, and accused of making up that. Well, you know, which is all absolute rubbish. You know I could disprove what they say a hundred times over…

But eveybody can see that she lied. She can't do anything of the sort. Instead she retorted with a refusal to read the questions and a tirade of coarse language which identifies her as nothing better than a fishwife. That isn't a term of abuse by the way. It is simply an accepted term for so-called ladies who show their real lack of standards by using the kind of language she did. The real Rosalind / Rosalinda / RV / Linda / Cristobell Hutton was seen in those shameful outbursts.

She still has the chance to redeem her reputation as expert on the case as the questions still stand.

Can she answer them? It is looking ever less likely.

R.V. Hutton Author ‏@RosalindaHu
@Jayelles1 STMs is like Fritzle's bunker, dirty, seedy and skin crawlingly evil. #mccann

How did Tiger's perfectly reasonable questions here (for her to answer on HER blog) translate into this?

R.V. Hutton Author ‏@RosalindaHu 2h
@mikeywomble A troll by the name of Greenink, wants me in STMs so he can abuse me in front of his mates. Nowt to do with case. #mccann

R.V. Hutton Author ‏@RosalindaHu 2h
@mikeywomble I am not responding to greenink'sG abuse Michael, no-one would, that is not debating. #mccann

Rachel Granada wrote:Hutton has made a complete and utter fool of herself.

Don't want to disrpupt the debate thread with this comment, but wanted to pick up on Tiger's point about Hutton's tendency to exaggerate.

1. Earlier in the year, she accused me of writing "poison pen letters" to her publisher. This is a pretty serious accusation as it is a potential criminal act. Not only that, but she actually accused the lady in Glasgow who was wrongly identified as me of committing this heinous act.

I pushed her for proof of these "poison pen letters" and she did her usual ducking, diving, deflecting, disappearing.. Eventually she elaborated and admitted that what she was terming "poison pen letters" was me tagging Randomhouse in a reply I made to her on Twitter!

2. With regard to her claim that her jaw had been broken by a member of staff at the Children's home where she stayed, there is NO mention of any such injury in the book which she wrote after she lost her lawsuit against the home/Catholic Church. She does describe one beating which she received in the home after she sat in the Housefather's chair and told him to "F Off" when he asked her to move. She said she knew she would be beaten for this, but that she "didn't care". She claims she was then beaten about the face and body and that she was "stunned" (whether literally or metaphorically is unclear).

She describes a "kerfuffle" where one of the nuns got whacked in the jaw when she tried to pull Hutton's mother off another member of staff (whom Hutton claims she had by the throat). Hutton says she was "pleased" at the nun being whacked.

3. She certainly seems unable to differentiate between the McCanns and people who are vocal in their support for them (most of whom don't have any connection with the family whatsoever). She often attributes the actions of supporters to the McCanns themselves. On one occasion, she tweeted that the McCanns were trying to ban her book. I have no idea where this came from, but suppose it may have stemmed from someone tagging Randomhouse in a response to her. I'm not alone in doing this so it may or may not have been me.

She claims not to hate the McCanns, but her derogatory comments, snipes and snide remarks about them and their efforts to find their daughter tell a different story. You don't have to be told that someone hates you, to get a sense that they really don't like you! Hate is an emotion which is characterised by behaviour and attitude. Words are pretty meaningless under the circumstances - i.e. you can say I love you till your heart is content, but if you are mocking then, slagging them off, high-fiving people who are being cruel and making hateful comments and literally just attacking EVERYTHING the person says and does, then it's hard to imagine that what you feel is anything less than hatred.

R.V. Hutton Author ‏@RosalindaHu 2h
@Tiger_Loaf @Josephodriscoll @Jayelles1 @SoniaPoulton You have my replies, now go away. #mccann

Tigerloaf ‏@Tiger_Loaf 2h
@RosalindaHu Why should I go away? I am just showing you can't back up the claim you made on @SoniaPoulton show. #McCann I was right.