A serious blunder by Carter-Ruck's expensive legal team

by **Tony Bennett** 21.07.10 21:15

'zodiac' on the MM Forum has now thoroughly endorsed 'The Famous Grouse's criticism of Carter-Ruck, here's the post:

ORIGINAL POST BY THE FAMOUS GROUSE

The Famous Grouse wrote:But 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.

UNQUOTE

zodiac's post tonight...

QUOTE

The Famous Grouse,

The above stuck out like a sore thumb when I read it and I thought exactly the same as you have written. Hope Dr GA has a copy of the above letter - IMO, in my role as an ill-informed bystander, that is a serious blunder and now very public. Not what I would expect from an expensive legal team!

UNQUOTE

by littlepixie 21.07.10 22:20

A wise person I know who doesnt go on forums saw the CR letter - they know a bit about Amaral and the MF - this is part of what they said regarding the blanket threat that CR made to anyone "linked" to the MF.

"its an opinion and everyone is entitled to one, and they are entitled to discuss that opinion with their friends and people they know. What are they saying - that noone at all can express an opinion about it !! 'should they or anyone linked to them' - who exactly does that cover in the eyes of the law ? so can I not be of the opinion that the truth has yet to be found because i know you, and you know someone who knows bennet ?? thats ridiculous !! you can find links between everyone if you try hard enough"

I too hope Mr Amaral has a copy of that letter as well.

by maebee 21.07.10 22:36

Just noticed this page on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=51623363012
A lot more daring than anything TB has said. There must be hundreds of similar sites/pages out there, saying far worse but they haven't been Crucked. Strange eh? Tony is a right thorn in TM's side. They know he will never give up on the search for the truth of what really happened to Madeleine McCann.

by Kololi 21.07.10 22:42

You have taken legal advice on this matter haven't you Mr Bennett?

It is all very well people patting you on the back but it isn't their home and livelihood at stake and I am guessing that Carter Ruck know what they are talking about.

I am not trying to provoke - I just see that letter as being something serious that needs to be taken seriously.

by **Tony Bennett** 21.07.10 22:45

I see that 'AnnaEsse' has now joined in the criticism of Carter-Ruck's claim that Dr Goncalo Amaral's theories are 'baseless', though her criticism is milder than some:

QUOTE

Some aspects of the Carter-Ruck communication lead me to believe that they might be just following their clients instructions to the letter, which might be why parts like that quoted appear to be legally questionable. Gonçalo Amaral's "widely-publicised suspicions," are, of course, not simply his personal opinions but the conclusions reached by teams of English and Portuguese police officers. Police officers are allowed to suspect people and investigate them: it's their job.

I can imagine Kate and Gerry McCann thinking they've got a pet bulldog in the shape of Carter-Ruck, telling the hired help what they want to say and expecting Carter-Ruck to bark. The wording about Amaral's suspicions could have been written by Gerry McCann, it's such a blunder, but could come from Gerry McCann's arrogant attitude. It's definitely not what I'd expect from a legal team that's supposed to be top notch.

UNQUOTE

by Dunne 21.07.10 22:47

I would agree with Koloi. This is very serious indeed and I note it has been taken to various other forums for dissection.

by Kololi 21.07.10 22:54

Seriously, you were a solicitor. I have only studied law to a diploma level so am not as knowledgeable as you should be but even I know from my limited learning that sometimes the law isn't based on what seems like common sense or a moral right and wrong.

Just because something seems morally unjust it doesn't mean that it is legally unjust as well I expect you know. Us armchair lawyers probably do not possess a full understanding of how libel law works and will likely view it a tadge more emotionally than we should. In your shoes I would not be getting excited that Carter Ruck might have made an error of some kind just because a few posters say they have.

I am probably in for a hand slapping or getting my name on your next naughty list but who cares as I am quite genuinely hoping that you have taken advice on this.

Kololi, SEE THE NEXT POST BELOW - T.B.

by **Tony Bennett** 21.07.10 23:04

Kololi wrote:You have taken legal advice on this matter haven't you Mr Bennett?

It is all very well people patting you on the back but it isn't their home and livelihood at stake and I am guessing that Carter Ruck know what they are talking about.

I am not trying to provoke - I just see that letter as being something serious that needs to be taken seriously.

Right, let's have the quote before us so that we know exactly what we are talking about:

QUOTE FROM CARTER-RUCK 15.7.2010

No doubt you will show this letter to your fellow-members of the 'Madeleine Foundation'. Should they, or indeed anyone linked to them, disseminate serious falsehoods about our clients, we shall advise our clients to pursue those individuals directly for appropriate legal relief'.

UNQUOTE

Now let's analyse this a bit.

The letter from Carter-Ruck was headed: 'STRICTLY PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL'. But in the next breath, they say: 'Show it to all your members'. We agreed that all our members should see this letter, and that's what we've done.

Next, who is vulnerable if they 'disseminate serious falsehoods' about the McCanns? According to the Carter-Ruck e-mail, it's (a) members of The Madeleine Foundation and (b) those who are 'linked' to The Madeleine Foundation. Does that mean that anyone who is neither a member of MF nor 'linked' to us can 'disseminate serious falsehoods about the McCanns? Of course not! The very idea is risible.

Then...who is 'linked' to The Madeleine Foundation? Anyone on our circulation list? Anyone who ever posted on 3As? Anyone who ever posted on...Missing Madeleine, Maddie Case Files, this forum? Anyone who has ever sent us a message of support? Anyone who has ever bought one of our two booklets? The list is potentially endless.

No, 'kololi', what the McCanns, and Carter-Ruck, have done, is given themselves away. They have issued a warning not to 'disseminate serious falsehoods' about the McCanns.

But only to our members or to those supposedly 'linked to' MF.

Finally, of course, anyone who 'disseminates serious falsehoods' about another is always potentially liable to have 'legal remedies' pursued against them.

But if someone finds out that Dr David Payne's evidence about his visit to Apartment 5A on the night Madeleine was reported missing is wholly contradictory to that of Dr Kate McCann - and moreover goes on to suggest that that must mean that one or both of them is not telling the truth - is that classed as 'disseminating a serious falsehood'?

Or is it merely analysing a very pertinent contradiction in their respective witness statements?

by kangdang 21.07.10 23:08

by littlepixie 21.07.10 23:18

Quote...

Some aspects of the Carter-Ruck communication lead me to believe that they might be just following their clients instructions to the letter, which might be why parts like that quoted appear to be legally questionable.

Sometimes the client's personality shines through and you even begin to feel a tad sorry for the lawyer.

by kangdang 21.07.10 23:19

What when they are pocketing £600 per hour, I think not Littlepixie, I think not.

by **Tony Bennett** 21.07.10 23:24

kangdang wrote:What when they are pocketing £600 per hour, I think not littlepixie, I think not.

There are few better-paid lawyers in the U.K. than those who defend the reputations of the very wealthy.

And don't forget the 20% V.A.T.!

by Kololi 21.07.10 23:26

Hi

You said:

"But if someone finds out that Dr David Payne's evidence about his visit to Apartment 5A on the night Madeleine was reported missing is wholly contradictory to that of Dr Kate McCann - and moreover goes on to suggest that that must mean that one or both of them is not telling the truth - is that classed as 'disseminating a serious falsehood'?"

In this example you give I would say that you haven't found out though in a way that you can actually produce evidence that their statements are wholly contradictory. If you think you do have evidence then you should be handing it to the appropriate authorities for them to deal with as they see fit.

We can have our own thoughts and opinions but the bottom line is we are not the investigating force and nor are we judge, jury and executioner and with all the right motives in the world it isn't in our gift to prosecute because some translation from Portuguese to English makes us think fibs have been told.

I just wonder if you are not gaining some false sense of security because Anna whatsit or Tom Dick and Harry on another forum makes a comment that makes you feel a little better. Better to be sure by hearing that same reassuring comment from some lawyer who specialises in libel law maybe.

And the bottom line, in my opinion, is that these leaflets aren't really going to find Madeliene or solve the mystery of what happened to her. People might read them and wonder about her parents but that still doesn't find her does it. It just upsets everybody and it seems to me that each new leaflet just gets you in more trouble than you were in with the leaflet before.

by kangdang 21.07.10 23:29

Tony Bennett wrote:
kangdang wrote:What when they are pocketing £600 per hour, I think not littlepixie, I think not.
There are few better-paid lawyers in the U.K. than those who defend the reputations of the very wealthy.

And don't forget the 20% V.A.T.!

Shocking

by kangdang 21.07.10 23:41

Comment made by Cath PFA2
You know what really makes my blood boil?
CR isn't a cheap firm, the don't work for free.
Bennett is harming the search for Madeleine, breaking the terms of his undertaking to the Court. But apart from all that, he's forcing Madeleine's parents to spend money on lawyers, money they'd rather prefer to use on searching for their daughter.
TB's a despicable caricature of a man, he's a liar, and in my eyes he's the Anti-Christ. I hope he burns in hell. He deserves it.

Even the Pro's accept that CR don't come cheap. Now my question is, if Tony is such a non-runner, a nutter, a liar, a person who no-one takes seriously, the internet joke etc, as the Pro's repeatedly claim, why then do the McCanns feel the need to employ the costly services of CR to silence him?

by **Tony Bennett** 21.07.10 23:41

Kololi wrote:Hi - You said:

"But if someone finds out that Dr David Payne's evidence about his visit to Apartment 5A on the night Madeleine was reported missing is wholly contradictory to that of Dr Kate McCann - and moreover goes on to suggest that that must mean that one or both of them is not telling the truth - is that classed as 'disseminating a serious falsehood'?"

In this example you give I would say that you haven't found out though in a way that you can actually produce evidence that their statements are wholly contradictory.

REPLY: David Payne - visit lasted 30 minutes, I saw the children, 'little angels'
Dr Kate McCann - visit lasted 30 seconds

If you think you do have evidence then you should be handing it to the appropriate authorities for them to deal with as they see fit.

REPLY: No, I am making a comment on it, that's all. Which I think I have a right to do.

We can have our own thoughts and opinions but the bottom line is we are not the investigating force and nor are we judge, jury and executioner

REPLY: And neither am I. This forum, like other Madeleine forums, is to share our opinions. Otherwise we wouldn't be here.

and with all the right motives in the world it isn't in our gift to prosecute because some translation from Portuguese to English makes us think fibs have been told.

REPLY: Ah! So, Kololi, let's be very clear. You maintain that this contradiction is merely and only a translation error, yes?

I just wonder if you are not gaining some false sense of security because Anna whatsit or Tom Dick and Harry on another forum makes a comment that makes you feel a little better. Better to be sure by hearing that same reassuring comment from some lawyer who specialises in libel law maybe.

REPLY: True. But then I should think that the vast majority of people who have read Amaral's book (about half a million to date I believe) do not think his theory is, to quote Carter-Ruck, 'baseless'.

And the bottom line, in my opinion, is that these leaflets aren't really going to find Madeliene or solve the mystery of what happened to her.

REPLY: Were Metodo 3 ever going to find her? Oakley International and Kevin Halligen? Dave Edgar and his lawless hills of the Algarve and the Victoria Beckham-lookalike in downtown Barcelona? The leaflets were meant to counter the lies and smears about Mr Amaral in the British press and to raise awareness of his legal defence fund. I would not claim this campaign to be a roaring success, after all we have extremely limited resources - but both aims have been fulfilled albeit to a very limited degree.

People might read them and wonder about her parents but that still doesn't find her does it. It just upsets everybody...

REPLY: Everybody?

...and it seems to me that each new leaflet just gets you in more trouble than you were in with the leaflet before.

REPLY: That remains to be seen. You could be right.

by Judge Mental 22.07.10 1:25

kolioli wrote ................ 'And the bottom line, in my opinion, is that these leaflets aren't really going to find Madeliene or solve the mystery of what happened to her. People might read them and wonder about her parents but that still doesn't find her does it. It just upsets everybody and it seems to me that each new leaflet just gets you in more trouble than you were in with the leaflet before.'

@ kolioli

In your own opinion, what has the past three years of constant media attention ever achieved with regard to finding Madeleine or solving the mystery of what really happened to her?

May one suggest to you that these leaflets may have been designed and distributed in order to attempt to redress the balance of the deluge of misinformation fed to the public.

Why are you holding onto such utter disbelief and disregard of the joint Portuguese and British investigations, yet maintain such faith and implicit trust in a group of people who have admitted leaving their children alone for considerable lengths of time in a country that not only frowns upon this behaviour but has been known to prosecute for it?

by Judge Mental 22.07.10 2:09

kolioli wrote ................. 'I am probably in for a hand slapping or getting my name on your next naughty list but who cares as I am quite genuinely hoping that you have taken advice on this.'

Have no fear of being placed on Tony Bennett's 'next naughty list', because he is far above considering the compilation of such a thing. However, one would like to mention that you are on my list, and have been for some considerable time.

lol!

by aiyoyo 22.07.10 2:27

Judge Mental wrote: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.

He is practising selective understanding to suit his purse, otherwise his employer wouldnt pay!

by aiyoyo 22.07.10 2:31

Tony Bennett wrote:
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.

Not rocket science to figure out Youtube been leaned on!

But I thought youtube is USA based?
There are all sorts of libellousable stuff on youtube about all sort of celebrities and all sorts of nitty gritty and yet "48 innocent questions" is banned! Mind twisting or what.

Anyway the simple "48 questions" belongs to the PJ, the libellousness or otherwise of it should be the contention of the PJ, and NOT mccanns.

by aiyoyo 22.07.10 3:36

Tony Bennett wrote:I see that 'AnnaEsse' has now joined in the criticism of Carter-Ruck's claim that Dr Goncalo Amaral's theories are 'baseless', though her criticism is milder than some:

QUOTE

Some aspects of the Carter-Ruck communication lead me to believe that they might be just following their clients instructions to the letter, which might be why parts like that quoted appear to be legally questionable. Gonçalo Amaral's "widely-publicised suspicions," are, of course, not simply his personal opinions but the conclusions reached by teams of English and Portuguese police officers. Police officers are allowed to suspect people and investigate them: it's their job.

I can imagine Kate and Gerry McCann thinking they've got a pet bulldog in the shape of Carter-Ruck, telling the hired help what they want to say and expecting Carter-Ruck to bark. The wording about Amaral's suspicions could have been written by Gerry McCann, it's such a blunder, but could come from Gerry McCann's arrogant attitude. It's definitely not what I'd expect from a legal team that's supposed to be top notch.

UNQUOTE

I like the bit about "pet bulldog".....apparently it is a well very trained to take instructions bulldog.
Otherwise the bulldog should exercise a bit of its own brain......Oh I forget $$ has clouded it.

by aiyoyo 22.07.10 3:41

Kololi wrote:Seriously, you were a solicitor. I have only studied law to a diploma level so am not as knowledgeable as you should be but even I know from my limited learning that sometimes the law isn't based on what seems like common sense or a moral right and wrong.

Just because something seems morally unjust it doesn't mean that it is legally unjust as well I expect you know. Us armchair lawyers probably do not possess a full understanding of how libel law works and will likely view it a tadge more emotionally than we should. In your shoes I would not be getting excited that Carter Ruck might have made an error of some kind just because a few posters say they have.

I am probably in for a hand slapping or getting my name on your next naughty list but who cares as I am quite genuinely hoping that you have taken advice on this.

Kololi, SEE THE NEXT POST BELOW - T.B.

Yeah, I would like to see them take someone to court over the 48 questions issue!
Maybe youtube is not the right vessel to air it properly to enough audience.
Let's see the mccanns prompt that airing again. Because the BBC had done it before didnt they...maybe this time around the public will sit up and pay special attention.

Imagine the headlines:

All the furore over 48 questions UNANSWERED Kate Mccann!

by aiyoyo 22.07.10 5:17

Kololi wrote:Hi

You said:

"But if someone finds out that Dr David Payne's evidence about his visit to Apartment 5A on the night Madeleine was reported missing is wholly contradictory to that of Dr Kate McCann - and moreover goes on to suggest that that must mean that one or both of them is not telling the truth - is that classed as 'disseminating a serious falsehood'?"

In this example you give I would say that you haven't found out though in a way that you can actually produce evidence that their statements are wholly contradictory. If you think you do have evidence then you should be handing it to the appropriate authorities for them to deal with as they see fit.

We can have our own thoughts and opinions but the bottom line is we are not the investigating force and nor are we judge, jury and executioner and with all the right motives in the world it isn't in our gift to prosecute because some translation from Portuguese to English makes us think fibs have been told.

I just wonder if you are not gaining some false sense of security because Anna whatsit or Tom Dick and Harry on another forum makes a comment that makes you feel a little better. Better to be sure by hearing that same reassuring comment from some lawyer who specialises in libel law maybe.

And the bottom line, in my opinion, is that these leaflets aren't really going to find Madeliene or solve the mystery of what happened to her. People might read them and wonder about her parents but that still doesn't find her does it. It just upsets everybody and it seems to me that each new leaflet just gets you in more trouble than you were in with the leaflet before.

Kololi

The bottom line is we can have our own thoughts & opinions, and expressing them – its called freedom of expression. Not saying you’re definitely blind by certain objective, just saying my opinion is that there is a possibility you might well be. Just expressing my involuntary realising voluntary thoughts just like you do yours. Imo petting the mccanns’ back is on par with petting TB’s back.

Excuse me, we will be the judge and jury of our own thoughts, whether you like it or not. The execution bit seems to come mainly from mccanns and their lackies who seem very adept at applying the ‘Mccanns-law’ using allegedly taxpayers money to sue tom dick and harry who happens to have free thoughts.

What about the mccanns false sense of security by hiding behind their “pet bulldog” (adapted from another fellow poster) – do you have anything to say about that?

IMO, the leaflets serve to reach a wider audience that the mccanns were not being candid about their daughter’s fate.
The leaflets fundamentally serve to enlighten the public of the investigators version of the story. Granted reading that may not yield up Madeleine.
May I ask when you refer to “upset everybody” who would be upset with some leaflets seeking the truth. The public? Surely NOT. The mccanns? That’s hardly ‘everybody’!
So, why have you not asked of them and their lackies how searching on the internet, then issuing threatening letter or threatening to issue lawyer’s letter to all and sundry “ linked to MF” or otherwise, can help them find Madeleine?

I am not MF member, neither am I in any shape or form linked to it. I, like plenty others, are but users of forum and inevitably are kept aware of certain information and falsehood put out by the mccanns and their tapas friend to the PJ and public in general– is that not considered spreading falsehood about the disappearance of Madeleine. Then the mccanns, including their lawyer it is now apparent, had the audacity to disseminate the PJ process files to suit their agenda, claiming it “baseless” - would this be considered disseminating falsehood against a Police Force without regards or deference for a country’s rights of Jurisdiction vis-à-vis their rights to investigate and write up reports as they deemed fit.

by Kololi 22.07.10 8:18

Ok I will need to do this one by one as I am not very good at all with this technical stuff - please excuse me.

Judge Mental said:

"Have no fear of being placed on Tony Bennett's 'next naughty list', because he is far above considering the compilation of such a thing. However, one would like to mention that you are on my list, and have been for some considerable time."

Who do you think you are? The Lord High Executioner? - I've got a little list, I've got a little list.......

You are actually wrong. Mr Bennett was not far above considering the compilation of a little naughty list and did in fact do so. That naughty list was brought to the public arena on this forum for all to see including his reasons why he felt those of us on it should be there. I trust that those posters who are fair and were here at the time remember it too. Maybe even Mr Bennett would like to own his past actions.

I suppose the difference between you and Mr Bennett when it comes to your little lists then is that you keep yours quiet whereas he published his and gave us all a good giggle in doing so.

As for your list, well the words "shove" and "dark" spring to mind.

by **Tony Bennett** 22.07.10 8:24

Here is another post of interest from another place:

QUOTE

At the Select Committee hearing on press standards, press freedom and libel, one of the Members of Parliament asked Adam Tudor of Carter Ruck if the McCann suit against the Daily Express was taken on a no win no fee basis.

Adam looked decidedly flustered for a few seconds and replied that initially his firm was paid a retainer, then taken on a 'no win no fee' basis. Gerry butted in and said he was 'ready to sell his house' to finance the suit.

No way would CR take on a no win no fee case, thats more for small firms who take on accident cases.

I doubt too whether the McCann case would be taken on pro bono, when, as you say, millions was sloshing around in the Fund and the McCanns would rather spend the money on protecting themselves than employing top notch detectives with experience in searching for missing children.

Now the Fund is running dry and with the legal costs of suing Amaral I suspect Edgar and his partner are no longer employed. This is why the McCanns are reduced to advertising for Students to stick up posters and translate from German!

UNQUOTE

Footnote: I was there at that Select Committee meeting on 10 March 2009. I can certainly confirm that Adam Tudor was very uneasy as he struggled to answer how all these libel actions were being financed.

The Madeleine Foundation submission to this Select Committee - our 'Memorandum of Evidence' - may be viewed here by the way:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmcumeds/memo/press/ucps3802.htm