Carter-Ruck's letter to T Bennett, 15 Jul 2010

by **Tony Bennett** 21.07.10 10:04

https://docs.google.com/fileview?id=1nQK9m7OPsHYTpPPmWvjSW6RuFsHd0nGumLMbGytFfBCCiuMnh6y8crzI4Cbg&hl=en

by kangdang 21.07.10 10:17

Tony,

Are there, or could there be, any implications for you in making this letter public?

by **Tony Bennett** 21.07.10 10:42

kangdang wrote:Tony,

Are there, or could there be, any implications for you in making this letter public?

Yes, here are some of them:

1. The letter from Carter-Ruck is no longer hidden. No-one needs to speculate about its contents, it's all open and transparent.

2. Anyone who reads the letter will be able to glean the following:
(a) that Carter-Ruck rely even on postings on this forum to justify possible legal proceedings for an alleged breach of undertakings
(b) the anxiety caused by people reading a factual leaflet about Goncalo Amaral
(c) the idea in the McCann camp that it is somehow wrong to let people know about the 48 questions Dr Kate McCann refused to answer when this is (i) a public document and (ii) the same list of questions has been openly available on the net for two years, even on the BBC website.

3. Everyone can see for themselves how Carter-Ruck interpret the libel laws of this country.

To clarify the issue of publishing correspondence marked: 'Strictly Private and Confidential', I sent out this letter today accompanying the Carter-Ruck letter (below):

Dear all,

I have decided to publish the attached letter from Carter-Ruck, sent to my computer at 6.10pm last Thursday (15 July).

Please note that the letter was sent to me only, and not to The Madeleine Foundation.

Insofar as there are references in Carter-Ruck's letter to our website, I'd like to reassure our members that responsibility for its contents lies only with those of us who maintain our website - no-one else.

The letter is marked 'STRICTLY PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL'. Those words must be respectd in correspondence, for example, concerning official or trade secrets, adopted children and many other matters concerning minors, and other matters where confidentiality must be respected. It does not apply to legal letters about libel, and particularly so in this unique case where the McCanns have ensured that the whole world knows of their campaign to find Madeleine. This letter may therefore be published.

A reply to Cartrer-Ruck is in preparation and I shall disclose that as well.

In order to scotch unfounded rumours, further legal proceedings against me or The Madeleine Foundation have not been taken by Carter-Ruck, nor, as you can see, are they specifically threatened in their letter.

However, it remains the case that any letter from Carter-Ruck must be taken very seriously and I shall continue to endeavour to abide by my undertakings of 25 November 2009 given to the court as well as to the McCanns, whilst at the same time retaining the right to publish information relating to Madeleine's disappearance and to comment on that information.

Finally, I'd like to thank those of you who have ensured that the 48 questions asked by Dr Kate McCann are circulating the internet in one form or another, despite YouTube's decision to withdraw our video on Friday.

Sincerely,

Tony Bennett

by ufercoffy 21.07.10 11:06

Tony Bennett wrote:
kangdang wrote:Tony,

Are there, or could there be, any implications for you in making this letter public?
Yes, here are some of them:

1. The letter from Carter-Ruck is no longer hidden. No-one needs to speculate about its contents, it's all open and transparent.

2. Anyone who reads the letter will be able to glean the following:
(a) that Carter-Ruck rely even on postings on this forum to justify possible legal proceedings for an alleged breach of undertakings
(b) the anxiety caused by people reading a factual leaflet about Goncalo Amaral
(c) the idea in the McCann camp that it is somehow wrong to let people know about the 48 questions Dr Kate McCann refused to answer when this is (i) a public document and (ii) the same list of questions has been openly available on the net for two years, even on the BBC website.

3. Everyone can see for themselves how Carter-Ruck interpret the libel laws of this country.

Carter-Ruck's letter to T Bennett, 15 Jul 2010 145161

Carter-Ruck's letter to T Bennett, 15 Jul 2010 977352

Hi Adam and Stephen at Carter Ruck, bessie mates with muratfan: ex cop turned cyberstalker extraordinaire Carter-Ruck's letter to T Bennett, 15 Jul 2010 Icon_rolleyes

by ufercoffy 21.07.10 11:14

Is it true wot muratfan says about you getting an Injunction from Carter Ruck TB?

http://brenryanandco.blogspot.com/2010/07/little-bit-of-letter-bennett-received.html

Seems Carter Ruck are keeping him well informed as he says there's more to come.

by **Tony Bennett** 21.07.10 11:21

ufercoffy wrote:Is it true wot muratfan says about you getting an Injunction from Carter Ruck TB?

http://brenryanandco.blogspot.com/2010/07/little-bit-of-letter-bennett-received.html

Seems Carter Ruck are keeping him well informed as he says there's more to come.

It's totally untrue what he says about an injunction. 'muratfan' has become almost as unbelievable as D Butler has become in recent months, and that's saying something.

We had planned to leaflet in Bath, but staying in Bristol all day was the better option.

I know Clarence Mitchell lives in Bath but I don't know his address and we never intended to go anywhere near his house.

Nice letters are coming in this morning, here's one:

Good on you Tony! You are being a big thorn in their side but I hope you will stay safe whilst maintaining this brave campaign. Keep up the good work.

Here's another (I hope it's not libellous to publish these?):

Dear Mr Bennett,

The sooner these libel laws are changed the better. What is it that they need to keep everyone silenced?

In all seriousness are Carter Ruck and the McCanns trying to make out that the Police Files are in fact libellous? How on earth can that be if I am reading the letter right.

Oh how I wish someone would take this pair on, when they have to hide behind libel lawyers as they do, how can they expect every man in the street to believe them to be totally innocent.

Oh how I long for some evidence to come to light. It has always been about Kate and Gerry, never about that little girl they let down so badly. Now if that is libel fine, I am personally sick to death of them.

Keep up the fight for justice for little Maddie.

Regards

by **Tony Bennett** 21.07.10 11:59

Here's an excellent point made by 'The Famous Grouse' in another place:

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

IMHO this has been written by a "minion" and not a senior partner.

Would a senior legal partner really write -

"...that you will not otherwise breach the terms of the undertaking you gave,
whether by suggesting that Goncalo Amaral's widely-publicised (and entirely
baseless) suspicions about our clients are correct, or in any other way
whatsoever".

...when a senior detective obviously did have some basis for his theory? In fact that statement could be construed as libellous in itself, towards Dr Amaral. It implies that he just made the whole thing up. That's quite a serious error on the part of CR and not one that the likes of Adam Tudor should be making.
__________________________________________________

The Famous Grouse

by The Shelfstacker 21.07.10 12:25

They did not say the 48 Questions video was libellous. I'd be interested to know on what basis they managed to persuade YouTube to take it down.

by Kololi 21.07.10 12:57

Tony Bennett wrote:

"and I shall continue to endeavour to abide by my undertakings of 25 November 2010,"

Shouldn't that date read 2009?

REPLY from TB: You are right, I've changed the date to 2009

by kangdang 21.07.10 14:00

Tony Bennett wrote:
kangdang wrote:Tony,

Are there, or could there be, any implications for you in making this letter public?
Yes, here are some of them:

1. The letter from Carter-Ruck is no longer hidden. No-one needs to speculate about its contents, it's all open and transparent.

2. Anyone who reads the letter will be able to glean the following:
(a) that Carter-Ruck rely even on postings on this forum to justify possible legal proceedings for an alleged breach of undertakings
(b) the anxiety caused by people reading a factual leaflet about Goncalo Amaral
(c) the idea in the McCann camp that it is somehow wrong to let people know about the 48 questions Dr Kate McCann refused to answer when this is (i) a public document and (ii) the same list of questions has been openly available on the net for two years, even on the BBC website.

3. Everyone can see for themselves how Carter-Ruck interpret the libel laws of this country.

To clarify the issue of publishing correspondence marked: 'Strictly Private and Confidential', I sent out this letter today accompanying the Carter-Ruck letter (below):

Dear all,

I have decided to publish the attached letter from Carter-Ruck, sent to my computer at 6.10pm last Thursday (15 July).

Please note that the letter was sent to me only, and not to The Madeleine Foundation.

Insofar as there are references in Carter-Ruck's letter to our website, I'd like to reassure our members that responsibility for its contents lies only with those of us who maintain our website - no-one else.

The letter is marked 'STRICTLY PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL'. Those words must be respectd in correspondence, for example, concerning official or trade secrets, adopted children and many other matters concerning minors, and other matters where confidentiality must be respected. It does not apply to legal letters about libel, and particularly so in this unique case where the McCanns have ensured that the whole world knows of their campaign to find Madeleine. This letter may therefore be published.

A reply to Cartrer-Ruck is in preparation and I shall disclose that as well.

In order to scotch unfounded rumours, further legal proceedings against me or The Madeleine Foundation have not been taken by Carter-Ruck, nor, as you can see, are they specifically threatened in their letter.

However, it remains the case that any letter from Carter-Ruck must be taken very seriously and I shall continue to endeavour to abide by my undertakings of 25 November 2009, given to the court as well as to the McCanns, whilst at the same time retaining the right to publish information relating to Madeleine's disappearance and to comment on that information.

Finally, I'd like to thank those of you who have ensured that the 48 questions asked by Dr Kate McCann are circulating the internet in one form or another, despite YouTube's decision to withdraw our video on Friday.

Sincerely,

Tony Bennett

Many thanks Tony.

by kangdang 21.07.10 14:01

Kololi wrote:Tony Bennett wrote:

"and I shall continue to endeavour to abide by my undertakings of 25 November 2010,"

Shouldn't that date read 2009?

Tony is crap with dates...lol, But pretty sound at everything else.

by aiyoyo 21.07.10 15:23

It's batantly obvious the mccanns and their lackies spend more time monitoring forum/blog than looking for Madeleine.

Imagine maybe even Carter Ruck is reading Mccanns-related forum !

Christ of a bike - what are those people afraid of?

Targeting only MF could mean they fear MF. They can run but can't hide forever.

by kangdang 21.07.10 15:53

It's batantly obvious the mccanns and their lackies spend more time monitoring forum/blog than looking for Madeleine.

Imagine maybe even Carter Ruck is reading Mccanns-related forum !

It is shameful...I blush for them.

by pennylane 21.07.10 16:06

The problem is TM have spent a vast fortune attempting to put their own positive spin on some very incriminating information contained within the DVD files. Unfortunately for them, we have seen that information, and have listened intently to their mantra since May 2007, so much so that we simply cannot be spun by their high-priced PR machine.

It's doing their head in (imo)! Carter-Ruck's letter to T Bennett, 15 Jul 2010 263813

Carter-Ruck's letter to T Bennett, 15 Jul 2010 263813

by baconbutty 21.07.10 16:22

Lawyers squatting on blogs and forums hour upon hour, day upon day, reeks of paranoia.
It adds profusely to the already negative perceptions of the lawyers' clients and is therefore another variation of the Streisand Effect.
Will they ever learn?

by aiyoyo 21.07.10 17:20

For me, his is the post-of-the day at MM.

Dimsie wrote:
"Same old attempts to shut people up - funny how frightened they seem to be of the wider public getting to know certain details of the case. The 48 questions have been on the BBC website since 6 August 2008 so can be read by anybody, and as for writing to Teresa May to remind her of the PJ's opinions about Madeleine's disappearance that's something anyone can do if they wish. I would consider any attempt to limit other people's correspondence with the Home Secretary as nothing short of harassment.

And yes, when are they going to help Dave Edgar search those lawless villages where he is convinced Madeleine is being held? Just to remind people what DE said in his Belfast Telegraph interview -

“This rural, sprawling terrain makes it extremely difficult to search. You could quite easily keep a child there for years and no-one else would know. ... All we can do is try and keep public awareness high – and try and reach as much of that mountainous region outside the resort as we can.”

So how is combing the Internet looking for people to threaten with legal action any help in searching that mountainous region? Wouldn't they be better combing the area specified by Dave E instead? Very puzzling ... or not, it all depends on what they're really looking for, I suppose. They certainly won't find Madeleine hidden on a web page, that's for sure."

by aiyoyo 21.07.10 17:50

Tony Bennett wrote:
ufercoffy wrote:Is it true wot muratfan says about you getting an Injunction from Carter Ruck TB?

http://brenryanandco.blogspot.com/2010/07/little-bit-of-letter-bennett-received.html

Seems Carter Ruck are keeping him well informed as he says there's more to come.
It's totally untrue what he says about an injunction. 'muratfan' has become almost as unbelievable as D Butler has become in recent months, and that's saying something.

We had planned to leaflet in Bath, but staying in Bristol all day was the better option.

I know Clarence Mitchell lives in Bath but I don't know his address and we never intended to go anywhere near his house.

Nice letters are coming in this morning, here's one:

Good on you Tony! You are being a big thorn in their side but I hope you will stay safe whilst maintaining this brave campaign. Keep up the good work.

Here's another (I hope it's not libellous to publish these?):

Dear Mr Bennett,

The sooner these libel laws are changed the better. What is it that they need to keep everyone silenced?

In all seriousness are Carter Ruck and the McCanns trying to make out that the Police Files are in fact libellous? How on earth can that be if I am reading the letter right.

Oh how I wish someone would take this pair on, when they have to hide behind libel lawyers as they do, how can they expect every man in the street to believe them to be totally innocent.

Oh how I long for some evidence to come to light. It has always been about Kate and Gerry, never about that little girl they let down so badly. Now if that is libel fine, I am personally sick to death of them.

Keep up the fight for justice for little Maddie.

Regards

The thing is Muratfan is notorious for stirring. Perhaps the better way to handle someone like him is to ask him to provide evidence of his assertions than to respond to his bait in anyway.

by Rainbow 21.07.10 18:27

baconbutty wrote:Lawyers squatting on blogs and forums hour upon hour, day upon day, reeks of paranoia.
It adds profusely to the already negative perceptions of the lawyers' clients and is therefore another variation of the Streisand Effect.
Will they ever learn?

I doubt they do it themselves.I think people on the forums notify CR of what is said.

by **Tony Bennett** 21.07.10 18:30

Today, 'Majic', formerly of this forum, sent an utterly ridiculous e-mail to 'Bren', also formerly of this forum, telling her she must take down our '48 Questions' video as it was 'in direct breach of a court order'.

This must rank of one of the daftest and most inaccurate comments ever made by him. Here's the answer, which I've posted on 'Raptors':

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Majic, No-one is in any breach of any court order for transmitting any version of 'The 48 Questions that Dr Kate McCann refused to answer'.

Some points:

1. There was no court order, only an undertaking given by me

2. The court undertaking applies to me only, to no-one else. Should Carter-Ruck, on behalf of the McCanns, have any issue with an alleged libel by any other person, they would have to first write to that person advising them of the alleged libel, then put them on notice of possible libel proceedings, before taking any legal action

3. The procedure notes on libel proceedings clearly state that no action can be brought in the High Court unless someone is first warned about the possibility of a libel writ being served. If the person then removes the alleged libel, libel proceedings are very unlikely

4. It is frankly ridiculous to suggest that publishing or reading out the 48 questions that Dr Kate McCann refused to answer is 'libellous', and on a careful reading of the Carter-Ruck letter, they do NOT say it is libellous

5. The BBC has the '48 Questions' on its website, in its 2008 archive, but very easily accessible. Patently the BBC never committed libel by posting these up in 2008 and nor does it do so now by keeping that page in its live archive.

by Guest 21.07.10 19:06

Tony wrote:

4. It is frankly ridiculous to suggest that publishing or reading out the 48 questions that Dr Kate McCann refused to answer is 'libellous', and on a careful reading of the Carter-Ruck letter, they do NOT say it is libellous

Absolutely right. How can it be libellous? They are questions the police asked, NOT statements or allegations. They are available all over the internet, and were published in a leading newspaper. The questions weren't even answered so where is the libel? We are going down a very slippery slope in this country with freedom of speech and expression, and the sooner this new government bring in the new libel laws the better.

Have you heard from You Tube as to what their reasons are for taking down this video Tony. I would be interested to hear their response.

by **Tony Bennett** 21.07.10 19:22

candyfloss wrote:Tony wrote:

4. It is frankly ridiculous to suggest that publishing or reading out the 48 questions that Dr Kate McCann refused to answer is 'libellous', and on a careful reading of the Carter-Ruck letter, they do NOT say it is libellous

Absolutely right. How can it be libellous? They are questions the police asked, NOT statements or allegations. They are available all over the internet, and were published in a leading newspaper. The questions weren't even answered so where is the libel? We are going down a very slippery slope in this country with freedom of speech and expression, and the sooner this new government bring in the new libel laws the better.

Have you heard from You Tube as to what their reasons are for taking down this video Tony. I would be interested to hear their response.

YouTube have not communicated with me.

However, this is now becoming a developing story.

Someone else reacted to YouTube's banning of our '48 Questions' video by uploading first one, then another video to YouTube with just the questions typed up on the screen against a background of music (which sounded like Chopin).

Now I am informed by the creator of those two videos that YouTube have banned both of these claiming that they are 'defamatory'.

So what we have here is the mighty and world-wide power of Google/YouTube being used to suppress one of the pivotal aspects of the case concerning the disappearance of Madeleine McCann - Dr Kate McCann's refusal to answer 48 questions about her missing daughter.

Moreover, as has rightly been pointed out by 'candyfloss' above, these are questions - not even statements, libellous or otherwise.

I am told by my informant that he has tried a third time to upload a video but this time has used a different title without the words '48 Questions' in it. I went to the link a few minutes ago and this one is holding - but I think all it needs is for one McCann-believer somewhere to notify YouTube and that will soon be a goner as well.

Truly extraordinary.

The power of the internet?

Not if what you say isn't to the liking of YouTube, evidently.

by Judge Mental 21.07.10 19:33

Who takes any notice of anything Majic has to say? The man seems barely able to construct a sentence, never mind him having the capacity to interpret complicated and unchartered areas of law.

by ufercoffy 21.07.10 19:37

Tony Bennett wrote:Truly extraordinary.

The power of the internet?

Not if what you say isn't to the liking of YouTube, evidently.

You mean "Not if what you say isn't to the liking of the McCanns" who seem to have the power to do anything they like to whoever they like.

by Guest 21.07.10 19:38

Sorry, made a right mess of last post.

Surely a question by definition cannot be libellous? If this video was uploaded and was for the blind a poorly sighted , who cannot see properly to read, they would be breaking the law by not allowing that section of the population to hear it.

by Judge Mental 21.07.10 20:05

candyfloss wrote:Sorry, made a right mess of last post.

Surely a question by definition cannot be libellous? If this video was uploaded and was for the blind a poorly sighted , who cannot see properly to read, they would be breaking the law by not allowing that section of the population to hear it.

This video has already been welcomed by several blind and poor-sighted people, and indeed they are chomping at the bit to see more of the same.