The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™
Hi,

A very warm welcome to The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™ forum.

Please log in, or register to view all the forums, then settle in and start chatting with us!

Enjoy your day,

Jill Havern
Forum owner

Tony accepts Jayelles' challenge - but she ducks it

Page 2 of 3 Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: Tony accepts Jayelles' challenge - but she ducks it

Post by ufercoffy on 08.04.11 14:32

I don't think every thread on that site is about this site. Sometimes they slag off members of the MM forum too sarcastic

Welcome, by the way thumbsup

____________________
Whose cadaver scent and bodily fluid was found in the McCann's apartment and hire car if not Madeleine's?  Shocked

ufercoffy

Posts : 1641
Reputation : 4
Join date : 2010-01-04

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Tony Bennett accepts Jayelles' challenge

Post by Guest on 08.04.11 17:22

Jayelles, if you're still out there, I'm actually grateful to you for making me realise how rude and arrogant I've been in the past towards people with whom I disagreed. I would ask you now to try to understand how I feel when I and others raise perfectly natural questions about the many puzzling aspects of this case and receive in return, not a sensible explanation to solve the matter, but a torrent of abuse, some of it extremely unpleasant. This sort of behaviour (and of course you are very far from being alone) only makes me wonder what the McCanns and their supporters are trying to hide. Perhaps you can now give me your opinion on just one thing that readily springs to my mind. Why did the McCanns take a stock of photos and home videos of Madeleine aged about two on holiday with them? These were then distributed when she was reported missing and, when eventually two photos (why so few?) supposedly taken while on holiday were released, they don't appear to be of the same child. I'll be delighted to correspond with you in a civilised adult manner.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Tony accepts Jayelles' challenge - but she ducks it

Post by Vanya on 08.04.11 17:39

Jean wrote:Why did the McCanns take a stock of photos and home videos of Madeleine aged about two on holiday with them?

OMG! Is this right? I thought Gerry had to go back to the UK to retrieve some photo's of Madeleine?

Vanya

Posts : 10
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2011-03-25

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Tony accepts Jayelles' challenge - but she ducks it

Post by Guest on 08.04.11 17:42

@Vanya wrote:
Jean wrote:Why did the McCanns take a stock of photos and home videos of Madeleine aged about two on holiday with them?

OMG! Is this right? I thought Gerry had to go back to the UK to retrieve some photo's of Madeleine?


I have never read this before, Jean, would it be possible for you to link where this has come from, as I must have missed it.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Tony accepts Jayelles' challenge - but she ducks it

Post by Roland Butter on 08.04.11 18:31

wow

Roland Butter

Posts : 9
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2011-03-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Tony Bennett accepts Jayelles' challenge

Post by Guest on 08.04.11 21:19

I believed that, because the old photos were made available immediately to the media, they had been supplied by the McCanns who for whatever reason had them with them. I remember seeing a home video of Madeleine on the BBC news on 4th May 2007. I fully accept that I was wrong to make any assumption as to who supplied the material. Administrators: please delete my earlier message if you think fit. Vanya: I understand that Gerry's trip back home was to collect some personal items of Madeleine's for DNA purposes - that of course raises the intriguing question, why was there nothing in the apartment that could be used?

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Jayelles backs off again

Post by Tony Bennett on 09.04.11 3:39

I have discovered that Jayelles has posted this up in another place (PFA2) - SEE BELOW.

I'll reproduce her post with my replies in red interleaved.

Before doing so, here's a quick resume of Jayelles' pronouncements:

1. "I would love to go head to head with Bennett"

and then (a few days later)

2. "I want to challenge him on his "Reasons".

Now it seems she might want a debate on the Madeleine McCann Reasearch Group's '50 FACTS' leaflet, but she might not.

So here's my latest reply to Jayelles:

Dear Jayelles,

You began by saying: "I would love to go head to head with Bennett".

But you then changed that by ducking a head to head challenge and saying you just wanted 'keyboard to keyboard'.

And I said OK.

Then you said: "I want to challenge him on his "Reasons" (keyboard to keyboard).

Again I said 'Yes'.

Now you think you want to debate the '50 FACTS' leaflet, not the '60 Reasons'.

Once again I say: 'Yes, OK'.

When are you going to contact me, agree the subject and the terms of our debate, and begin our debate? It's nearly two weeks now since you issued your challenge.

Sincerely, and looking forward to hearing from you,

Tony Bennett



JAYELLES' LATEST PRONOUNCEMENT

Apparently, there has been some confusion about my challenge to the HG (honourable goon).

REPLY: First sentence of Jayelles' post, and there's the abuse again. She simply can't help it, can she?

Over the past few days, there has been a growing concern expressed about the legality of my discussing Bennett's "Reasons" with him. These concerns became clear to me yesterday when it emerged that some people thought I was preparing to discuss Bennett's "60 Reasons" with him.

REPLY: Er, Jayelles, you actually wrote, quote: "I want to challenge him on his 'Reasons'."

This is not the case, not least of all because both his “60 Reasons” and “10 Reasons” are the subject of a High Court order (see (i) below) and Bennett has undertaken NOT to repeat the allegations he made in them. As a staunch supporter of the search for Madeleine McCann, there is no way I would contemplate stirring these murky waters.

In fact, the list I was angling to nail Bennett about was the Madeleine Foundation’s “50 facts about the Maddie case that the British media are not telling you” crapola...

REPLY: Oops! More abuse!

...which was a precursor to the “163 Questions...” crapola which Tony Bennett sent to The Sun and Transworld. The “50 facts...” crapola appeared around the same time as another heap of manure entitled “60 Reasons why the McCanns should never have published that photo”.

REPLY: Look, Jayelles, you keep moving the goalposts, which I full expected. So your real purpose was 'to nail Bennett about the 50 facts', was it? I ACCEPT YOUR NEW TERMS. Let us debate each one of the 50 facts, from No. 1 to No. 50, I have no problem with that, and let us start the debate ASAP, starting with your response to Fact 1. (By the way, the leaflet is not actually a Madeleine Foundation production, but is by the Madeleine McCann Research Group.

Bennett has a habit of touting his foundation’s various lists of attacks against the McCanns as “facts” or “reasons”. Understandably, one loses track. I know I have referred to the aforementioned “facts” as “non-facts”, “reasons” and even “lies” and that the only thing I have remained consistent with is putting it in quotes as an indication of my derision.

Now, I have no idea whether Tony Bennett also thought I was referring to the banned “60 Reasons” but I would hope that a former solicitor, especially one who has given an undertaking to a High Court, would at least have questioned this. To the best of my knowledge he has not and so perhaps he has indeed realised that I was referring to the “50 Facts...”, especially as I have referred to my “rebuttal in progress” of these “facts” many, many times over the past few months. Also, in my opening post here on the “Jayelles vs Goon Bennett” thread, I specifically referred to “fact” #44:-

However, I am not interested in discussing any point which is a non-starter on account of Bennett getting his facts arse about face (i.e. that only 13% of the search fund was actually used to search for Madeleine).

viewtopic.php?f=30&t=7651

Finally, I have actually never seen the “60 Reasons” leaflet. My attendance on the forums tends to be erratic and I was mainly absent during the “60 Reasons” debacle. In essence, it appeared and got a High Court order slapped on it before I ever saw it. I have however commented on his “10 Reasons” here:-

http://justice4mccannfam.5forum.biz/t18 ... airy-tales

Now I don’t know whether this changes anything. Perhaps the HG won’t want to discuss his foundation’s “50 facts...”? After all, they are just a heap of crapola!

REPLY: As they say on 'Just a Minute': Repetition

References

From the Madeleine Foundation website:-

(i) Our Secretary Tony Bennett has given an undertaking to the High Court not to sell or distribute ‘60 Reasons’, to deliver up all hard copies of the book in his possession or control, and similarly not to distribute further copies of a summary of that book in a 4-page leaflet: ‘10 Reasons’ - and to deliver up all remaining hard copies of that leaflet. The remaining hard copies of both publications were delivered by hand to Carter-Ruck’s office on Saturday 31 October 2009.

He also undertook to ‘to use his best endeavours’ to delete or otherwise prevent access to any previous defamatory allegations of his concerning the McCanns published on four websites mentioned in a letter from Carter-Ruck. This he also did, as the record shows.

He further undertook not to repeat allegations that the McCanns are guilty of, or are to be suspected of, causing the death of their daughter Madeleine McCann, and/or of disposing of her body, and/or lying about what happened and/or seeking to cover up what they had done.

This undertaking was not given by The Madeleine Foundation as an organisation. However, we are mindful of the terms of that undertaking, and therefore we shall not be selling or distributing either the ‘60 Reasons’ book or the ‘10 Reasons leaflet’
.

Tony Bennett
Researcher/Moderator

Posts : 13959
Reputation : 2141
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 69
Location : Harlow, Essex

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Tony accepts Jayelles' challenge - but she ducks it

Post by ScenicBoots on 10.04.11 2:53

False information was posted here by ScenicBoots who is in fact Ian West of Norwich, also known as 'muratfan' and by many other aliases.

His post has been deleted.

And he has been banned.

Again.

And again.

And again.

P.S. He does most of his nastiest work at 2am to 3am.

Admin.

ScenicBoots

Posts : 6
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2011-04-05

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Tony accepts Jayelles' challenge - but she ducks it

Post by ScenicBoots on 10.04.11 3:27

Err still here Bennett. Try to have a debate if you want Bennett, but you run and hide all the time don't you.

I have said i will provide the forum along with a Moderator of your choice to oversee things,yet you are scared of that idea...WHY ?

ScenicBoots

Posts : 6
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2011-04-05

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Tony accepts Jayelles' challenge - but she ducks it

Post by Tony Bennett on 10.04.11 3:30

@ScenicBoots wrote:Err still here Bennett. Try to have a debate if you want Bennett, but you run and hide all the time don't you.

I have said i will provide the forum along with a Moderator of your choice to oversee things,yet you are scared of that idea...WHY ?
I am still waiting for Jayelles to approach me direct.

P.S. 'ScenicBoots' is Ian West of Norwich = muratfan.

Tony Bennett
Researcher/Moderator

Posts : 13959
Reputation : 2141
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 69
Location : Harlow, Essex

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Tony accepts Jayelles' challenge - but she ducks it

Post by MrMuratFan on 10.04.11 3:49

@Tony Bennett wrote:
@ScenicBoots wrote:Err still here Bennett. Try to have a debate if you want Bennett, but you run and hide all the time don't you.

I have said i will provide the forum along with a Moderator of your choice to oversee things,yet you are scared of that idea...WHY ?
I am still waiting for Jayelles to approach me direct.

P.S. 'ScenicBoots' is Ian West of Norwich = muratfan.

Have a look at my Facebook page and add me as a friend Bennett, then we could share photos.

Rest of muratfan = Ian West's post deleted - Admin.

MrMuratFan

Posts : 8
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2011-04-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Tony accepts Jayelles' challenge - but she ducks it

Post by MrMuratFan on 10.04.11 4:00

@ScenicBoots wrote:False information was posted here by ScenicBoots who is in fact Ian West of Norwich, also known as 'muratfan' and by many other aliases.

His post has been deleted.

And he has been banned.

Again.

And again.

And again.

P.S. He does most of his nastiest work at 2am to 3am.

Admin.

Just so you know this was the hideous post I posted

Deleted again - and banned again - Admin.

MrMuratFan

Posts : 8
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2011-04-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Jayelles gives up

Post by Tony Bennett on 16.04.11 23:24

The so-called challenge from Jayelles: latest.

Tonight one of the most fervent of McCann-believers has posted an article in another place which includes these passages:

QUOTE
How many more years do we have to watch [Bennett] hound an innocent grief stricken family, under the guise of righteousness? He has verbally abused and accused the family of a crime no justice system has convicted them of, the death of their child. He glorifies in their pain and aching sorrow; he torments them with their own daughter’s name. All the time pretending he, is a justice seeker when at the same time he is showing contempt for the laws of his country. He boasts of his achievements but forgets his failures, which are many.
When he is finished with this family, as he has done so in the past, he will move onto another and; the vicious circle will begin again with the same ego-stroking followers cheering him on. When will the law step in and stop this man’s activities? Will they wait until one of his followers actually causes bodily harm, to the family? Already there have been threats to fire bomb their home, must the law wait until the deed is completed?



UNQUOTE
In the same place, Jayelles has found time to read this article and to proclaim it to be 'excellent'.


But she has been unable to respond to my acceptance of her challenge to a debate on the '50 FACTS' leaflet.

There were claims made on the pro-McCann side that I would be 'too cowardly' to be prepared to debate openly with Jayelles.

The true coward in all this, however, has now been revealed.

Tony Bennett
Researcher/Moderator

Posts : 13959
Reputation : 2141
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 69
Location : Harlow, Essex

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Tony accepts Jayelles' challenge - but she ducks it

Post by ThePlebian on 17.04.11 23:32

TBH Mr B I wouldn't have entertained any sort of contact with 'Jayelles' whether in person or keyboard to keyboard. To say they are obsessive is an understatement.

I first ran across Jayelles many moons ago on an american forum dedicated to the grisly murder of JonBenet Ramsey. Having never come across the kind of all-consuming interest I witnessed in this individual I read open-mouthed as they explained, without a hint of embarrassment, how they had made a model of the same size and weight as JonBenet in order, if I remember correctly, to test whether some kind of underwear which was claimed to be the childs did indeed belong to her. To say that I was shocked that an adult would take such an bizarre interest in what is a rather macabre subject is rather an understatement. In fact their seemingly obsessive behaviour is the reason why the name stuck in my mind, although admittedly it only came to the fore again after hearing our 'Jayelles ' also had an interest in the Ramsey case.

My advice to you Mr B would be to consider carefully whether you really want to have your name forever linked to a person of 'Jayelles' character, even if it is only in cyberspace.

Regards
ThePlebian

ThePlebian

Posts : 5
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2010-11-25

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Jayelles: moving the goalposts twice, then backing out of the challenge. Yes, a coward

Post by Tony Bennett on 18.04.11 20:23

ThePlebian, thank you.

I am reasonably content for the 'link' with Jayelles to be one of opposition, then.

What you say does indeed suggest a disturbing obsession.

Be that as it may, just to summarise what has happened so far:

1. Jayelles says 'I would love to go head to head with Bennett'

2. I accept, and suggest a head-to-head debate

3. Jayelles so NO but then says she would like to debate 60 Reasons keyboard to keyboard

4. Once again I accept

5. Jayelles moves the goalposts again and says 'No, I want to debate '50 Facts' not '60 Reasons'

6. One more time I accept

7. Jayelles does not reply

8. I call her a coward for running away from the debate

9. Tonight she replies: "He calls me a coward for not debating one to one with him."

10. My reply: Too right.

Tony Bennett
Researcher/Moderator

Posts : 13959
Reputation : 2141
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 69
Location : Harlow, Essex

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Jayelles' latest - and reply:

Post by Tony Bennett on 19.04.11 20:29

Jayelles said this on 17 April (just reported to me from PFA2):

He calls me a coward for not debating one to one with him. Will he have the balls to answer the following? (4 questions follow)

REPLY by TB: Sadly you do not have the balls even to sustain your own challenge.

You wanted a head-to-head debate.

I agreed.

You ducked out and said ‘only keyboard to keyboard'.

I agreed again.

Then you said you wanted to debate ‘60 Reasons’.

I agreed, and said, ‘let’s debate them point by point’.

You then changed your mind again and said: ‘No, I want to debate ‘50 Facts’ not ‘60 Reasons’.

I agreed once again and said: ‘OK, let’s debate 50 Facts, one by one'.

You have failed to respond to that for 2 weeks, but, absurdly, you think you can now demand me to answer four questions of your choice.

That is not the way things are done, Jayelles.

If you say you challenge someone to a head-to-head debate, you have lost if you then back out.

If you say, no, let’s debate by keyboard instead, and then duck out of that again, you have lost twice.

I have just one question for you.

Will you, or will you not, debate the truthfulness of ’50 Facts’, one by one?

Or will you not?

Tony Bennett
Researcher/Moderator

Posts : 13959
Reputation : 2141
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 69
Location : Harlow, Essex

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Jayelles: 'I won't debate' - OFFICIAL!

Post by Tony Bennett on 20.04.11 14:21

From the horse's mouth - posted on JATYK by Jayelles yesterday:

bnnnybraes wrote: "Don't hold your breath for getting any sense out of Benentt, Jayelles - he seems to be set in end-stage, full-blown, self-destruct mode".

Jayelles replied: "Which is one reason why I am not going to waste my time 'debating' his 50 lies 'Facts' with him".

There's only one word to decsribe Jayelles' public climbdown and rapid escape down a rabbit-hole to avoid debate.

Well, OK, two actually:


UTTER HUMILIATION

Tony Bennett
Researcher/Moderator

Posts : 13959
Reputation : 2141
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 69
Location : Harlow, Essex

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Tony accepts Jayelles' challenge - but she ducks it

Post by garfy on 20.04.11 14:51

game set and match ......well done tony done with dignity intact ...more than can be said for them ....

garfy

Posts : 149
Reputation : 30
Join date : 2010-07-08
Location : humberside

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Tony accepts Jayelles' challenge - but she ducks it

Post by PeterMac on 20.04.11 22:56

Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes

____________________


PeterMac
Researcher

Posts : 10170
Reputation : 143
Join date : 2010-12-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Final word to Jayelles, who doesn't have the balls to engage in debate over the contents of the '50 FACTS' leaflet

Post by Tony Bennett on 24.04.11 14:19

The very last word to Jayelles.

Jayelles wrote: "He calls me a coward for not debating one to one with him. Will he have the balls to answer the following?" (then there follow four questions)

REPLY FROM TB: Jayelles, that is effrontery of the most brazen kind, after you have successively:

(a) issued a challenge (head to head) and then ducked it (you wanted keyboard to keyboard)

(b) issued another challenge (debate 60 Reasons one by one), then ducked that one, and

(c) issued yet another revised challenge (debate 50 FACTS one by one), then ducked that as well, loudly proclaiming: 'I won't debate with him'.

You issue challenge after challenge and then back down, but you then demand of me whether I 'have the balls' to answer your own four questions. You clearly do not have the balls to proceed even with your very own challenges.

So why should I answer your questions?

There is no reason for me to do so.

But I will. Do not expect me to answer any more though, until you have the balls to debate the factual accuracy of '50 FACTS' with me, as you said you would.

Here's your four questions, reproduced, with my answers. I’ve always answered reasonable questions and given truthful answers, so here are my answers.

I have just one question for you in return. Will you, or will you not, debate the truthfulness of ’50 Facts’, one by one, or will you not?

Four questions for Tony Bennett:-

Jayelles 1. On a scale of 1-5 with 1 being wild speculation and 5 being only proven facts, how would you rate the standard of source accuracy which you deem necessary before accusing anyone of a heinous crime such as causing the death of a child or covering up the death of a child.


REPLY BY TB: Either accusation is serious. You would need to rely on proven facts in order to make, let alone sustain, such an accusation. Speaking of proven facts in the case of the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, the ’50 Facts’ gives a more than adequate basis for questioning the McCanns’ account of events. These facts and many others might lead one to think about a possible cover-up of Madeleine’s death. I would not like to say whether these and other facts go far enough to prove that. The facts are IMO less persuasive when it comes to an allegation that the parents caused Madeleine’s death. However, you are dead right about one thing: causing the death of a child or covering it up are indeed heinous crimes. And that word ‘heinous’ would also apply to anyone else who knowingly withheld knowledge of someone causing the death of a child or covering it up, be they a close friend of the family or the former Director of Tony Blair’s Media Monitoring Unit.

Jayelles 2. On December 16th, 2007 at 12:28 pm, you posted the following on the Anorak site:-

Quote: Can Bridget O’Donnell and ‘Jes’ Wilkins be regarded as ‘witnesses of truth’? If Ms O’Donnell has printed half-truths, or not told all the truth, in effect can we place 100% reliance on anything the two of them say?


So di you stand by your statement that the reliability of anyone who tells half-truths or who does not tell the whole truth should be questionable?

REPLY BY TB: I am mightily impressed with your database of remarks I made on a forum over three years ago. Very good. My answer to your question is ‘Yes’.

Jayelles 3. As you seem happy to back it and have your name associated with it, do you personally vouch for the accuracy of the Madeleine Research Group’s 50 facts leaflet which you intend to circulate in the near future?

REPLY BY TB: Yes, I am satisfied that those 50 facts in that leaflet are all true. We would be able to prove that if you had the balls to debate '50 FACTS' with me as you said you would.

Jayelles 4. In your educated opinion, do the following phrases have exactly the same meaning and therefore entirely interchangeable?


“The only assumption”
“Only an assumption”

REPLY BY TB: Well, let us have the whole quotation, so we both know exactly what we are talking about. This is a verbatim transcript of Clarence Mitchell’s remarks on Radio Humberside on 6 January 2011, I’ve highlighted the relevant remarks in italics:

QUOTE

The only assumption they can make is that somebody took her out of the apartment. That is the working hypothesis on which the private investigation is also based. That there is somebody, perhaps one, or just two or three people out there who know what happened and that there was an element of pre-meditation, pre-planning went into it. Possibly because of the location of the apartment; it was on a fairly remote corner of that particular resort. Errm... Children would have been coming and going over months/weeks beforehand and there... it... the private investigation believes there was a degree of pre-meditation and planning, errm... and the very fact that nothing has been found of Madeleine since, not a trace, tends to suggest that she has been taken somewhere else and has been... hopefully, is being looked after, or at least cared for, errr... with someone. Errr... That is... that is the working hypothesis.

UNQUOTE

Up until Clarence Mitchell, the McCanns’ chief mouthpiece, spoke these words – three times mentioning ‘assumption’ and ‘hypothesis’, the McCanns and their numerous advisers and spokesman had always insisted that Madeleine’s abduction was a FACT, though in March 2010 on Channel 4 Mitchell conceded that her disappearance was ‘a complete mystery’. Now this has all changed. Now it is no longer proclaimed by the McCanns’ mouthpiece to be a fact, but ONLY an assumption and ONLY a hypothesis. I trust I have made myself clear?

Tony Bennett
Researcher/Moderator

Posts : 13959
Reputation : 2141
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 69
Location : Harlow, Essex

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Muratfan

Post by misgrace on 24.04.11 18:25

Muratfan also writes on Martin Brunts log on sky.

misgrace

Posts : 9
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2011-04-24

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Jayelles rebuttal of the 50 facts..

Post by C.Edwards on 14.06.11 21:19

Apologies if this is already on here somewhere, can't see it? Jayelles has (finally) put up something in response. It does, however, seem incredibly flimsy as iot doesn't actually say anything other than "inaccurate/misleading - source police files" against most, which is as useful as a chocolate teapot!

http://madeleinemythsexposed.pbworks.com/w/page/39076140/Main-Page

edited to add: actually there's more there than I thought but you have to click on the blue text. doh. Reading it now...

C.Edwards

Posts : 144
Reputation : 9
Join date : 2011-05-13

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Tony accepts Jayelles' challenge - but she ducks it

Post by Guest on 14.06.11 21:28

@C.Edwards wrote:Apologies if this is already on here somewhere, can't see it? Jayelles has (finally) put up something in response. It does, however, seem incredibly flimsy as iot doesn't actually say anything other than "inaccurate/misleading - source police files" against most, which is as useful as a chocolate teapot!

http://madeleinemythsexposed.pbworks.com/w/page/39076140/Main-Page

edited to add: actually there's more there than I thought but you have to click on the blue text. doh. Reading it now...


Hi C.Edwards
I have merged your post with the existing thread on this subject.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Tony accepts Jayelles' challenge - but she ducks it

Post by Me on 14.06.11 22:07

Can we now expect a rebuttal of their er rebuttal from Tony?

Me

Posts : 683
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2011-05-22

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Tony accepts Jayelles' challenge - but she ducks it

Post by Tony Bennett on 14.06.11 22:34

@Me wrote:Can we now expect a rebuttal of their er rebuttal from Tony?
C. Edwards has said that Jayelles' response is, and I quote: "...incredibly flimsy as it doesn't actually say anything other than 'inaccurate/misleading' - source police files' against most, which is as useful as a chocolate teapot!"

Far be it from me to disagree.

A rebuttal to the rebuttal is not top of our priorities right now. There won't be another meeting of the Madeleine McCann Research Group for a while, anyway.

Tony Bennett
Researcher/Moderator

Posts : 13959
Reputation : 2141
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 69
Location : Harlow, Essex

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Page 2 of 3 Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum