Re: WHEN Bennet is cleared of all accusations.

by Guest 27.11.09 22:55

[quote="sym"] Bennet strikes a full house again.. :cheers: [/quote

Nope, that wasn't the cop.

The one Muratfan is on about was not identified - it couldn't be - it was 'insufficient'.

Best not to crow before you get all the facts in. :)

by Guest 27.11.09 22:58

He is doing the better job here hate to tell you..and there are a few of you..

by Guest 27.11.09 23:00

Sym, can you understand what you are being told?

Bennett was WRONG.

He is just WRONG. There is an unidentified print on the outside of that window, and it was sat there quoted in his own post and he never even noticed.

Sheesh, you worship that guy so much it's sickening.

by Guest 27.11.09 23:03

trunky wrote:Sym, can you understand what you are being told?

Bennett was WRONG.

He is just WRONG. There is an unidentified print on the outside of that window, and it was sat there quoted in his own post and he never even noticed.

Sheesh, you worship that guy so much it's sickening.

I assure you I dont worship him or anyone...not even the husband. Yes unidentified,could be Gerrys, Kates or anyone who helped with the hoax.

by scrafen 27.11.09 23:09

on the children bedroom window were
- KMs fingerprints (inside)
- one unidentified fingerprint (outside), as its quality wasnt sufficient

=> this does neither prove nor rule out an abductor,
=> nor does it prove or rule out a tapas involvement

but definitely, tony bennetts statement is misleading and wrong, when he says:

ONLY DR KATE MCCANN'S FINGERPRINTS WERE ON THAT WINDOW.

by Guest 27.11.09 23:10

Tony Bennett wrote:

I inform you that according to report nº 140/07 there is a single finger print with sufficient value for identification.

As you seemed to have missed this bit of information Bennett...explain it please. UNIDENTIFIED FINGERPRINT

by Guest 27.11.09 23:10

scrafen wrote:on the children bedroom window were
- KMs fingerprints
- one unidentified fingerprint, as its quality wasnt sufficient

=> this does neither prove nor rule out an abductor,
=> nor does it prove or rule out a tapas involvement

but definitely, tony bennetts statement is misleading and wrong, when he says:
ONLY DR KATE MCCANN'S FINGERPRINTS WERE ON THAT WINDOW.

It could have been hers..it was not a good enough print to discount!!

by Guest 27.11.09 23:11

It could be anyone's for god's sake woman, it could even be an abductor!!

Shock horror - now there's a bloody astounding thought, eh?

You see how easy it is to demolish all this crap about 'no forensice trace of an abductor ever found' (best said in a sing-song voice used for endless repetition for best effect)

And Bennett was WRONG wasn't he?

by Guest 27.11.09 23:12

trunky wrote:It could be anyone's for god's sake woman, it could even be an abductor!!

Shock horror - now there's a bloody astounding thought, eh?

You see how easy it is to demolish all this crap about 'no forensice trace of an abductor ever found' (best said in a sing-song voice used for endless repetition for best effect)

And Bennett was WRONG wasn't he?

And equally could have been hers..

by Guest 27.11.09 23:12

Jesus H Christ I have seen some stupid backtracking in my time but this one takes the Garibaldis it really does......

he calls someone a liar because he didnt read his own flaimin' quote roll

by Guest 27.11.09 23:14

trunky wrote:Jesus H Christ I have seen some stupid backtracking in my time but this one takes the Garibaldis it really does......

he calls someone a liar because he didnt read his own flaimin' quote

you wanna watch your blood pressure.

by scrafen 27.11.09 23:15

why jesus "h" christ ?

by Guest 27.11.09 23:18

The tone of his last two posts made me ask about The BP

by Guest 27.11.09 23:23

In this letter To Kirwins he writes :
We were thus under no obligation to you as we had given you no instructions to act for us; Debbie and I took the view however that as you has rendered assistance and spent time on the matter we would voluntarily offer £500 to you towards your time, which is a big chunk out of the current balance of the Madeleine Foundation.

And here it is, the joint statement, dated September 17th:
We should just like to add this. Any fees incurred for legal advice will be met personally by ourselves and the funds in The Madeleine Foundation’s bank account will not be used.

by Guest 27.11.09 23:24

Talking of accusations, and back on topic, PFA2 have dragged something out on Tony. Here is the link

http://www.pfa2.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=4363&p=156506#p156506

First post on page 2.

Tony, they are having a field day with this, any comment?

Edited to add I see murat_fan has already posted.

by Guest 27.11.09 23:25

sym wrote:
trunky wrote:Jesus H Christ I have seen some stupid backtracking in my time but this one takes the Garibaldis it really does......

he calls someone a liar because he didnt read his own flaimin' quote
you wanna watch your blood pressure.

you dont have the answer for it do you sym - your hero has just been shown to not have an even elementary grasp of the case forensics and you don't care - you made your mind up - it doesnt matter whether he bothered to get his bookie right before he published it and plastered it around.

That's why he ended up having to give in to Carter Ruck. Not because they are Evil Meanies, but because he didn't do his research - and wouldn't listen to those who offered him advice about it, either. This is one example of the sort of thing he does - there are literally dozens in everything he has ever written about the McCanns.

by scrafen 27.11.09 23:25

trunky already asked it here https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/have-your-say-f1/debbie-butler-s-false-allegations-against-the-madeleine-foundation-t3-75.htm

by Guest 27.11.09 23:27

yeah, I'm not holding my breath on the answer tho' scrafen. Could be a while coming and I dont want to pass out just yet :D

by Guest 27.11.09 23:28

trunky wrote:
sym wrote:
trunky wrote:Jesus H Christ I have seen some stupid backtracking in my time but this one takes the Garibaldis it really does......

he calls someone a liar because he didnt read his own flaimin' quote
you wanna watch your blood pressure.

you dont have the answer for it do you sym - your hero has just been shown to not have an even elementary grasp of the case forensics and you don't care - you made your mind up - it doesnt matter whether he bothered to get his bookie right before he published it and plastered it around.

That's why he ended up having to give in to Carter Ruck. Not because they are Evil Meanies, but because he didn't do his research - and wouldn't listen to those who offered him advice about it, either. This is one example of the sort of thing he does - there are literally dozens in everything he has ever written about the McCanns.

I am saying he looks better than his accusers..and then I am saying could be anyones finger prints..besides I love to fight the under dogs corner...easy to join in on an attack,it dont take much.

by Guest 27.11.09 23:29

scrafen wrote:trunky already asked it here https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/have-your-say-f1/debbie-butler-s-false-allegations-against-the-madeleine-foundation-t3-75.htm

Which post we looking for ..The blunt is kicking in.

by scrafen 27.11.09 23:31

https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/have-your-say-f1/debbie-butler-s-false-allegations-against-the-madeleine-foundation-t3-75.htm#709

by Guest 27.11.09 23:32

scrafen wrote:https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/have-your-say-f1/debbie-butler-s-false-allegations-against-the-madeleine-foundation-t3-75.htm#709

Ok I am up to speed...TONY....over to you??

by Jolie 27.11.09 23:36

murat_fan wrote:In this letter To Kirwins he writes :
We were thus under no obligation to you as we had given you no instructions to act for us; Debbie and I took the view however that as you has rendered assistance and spent time on the matter we would voluntarily offer £500 to you towards your time, which is a big chunk out of the current balance of the Madeleine Foundation.

And here it is, the joint statement, dated September 17th:
We should just like to add this. Any fees incurred for legal advice will be met personally by ourselves and the funds in The Madeleine Foundation’s bank account will not be used.

From the September 17, 2009, joint statement from Debbie Butler and Tony Bennett, as posted on the Madeleine Foundation (available through cached page)

We should just like to add this. Any fees incurred for legal advice will be met personally by ourselves and the funds in The Madeleine Foundation’s bank account will not be used.

Here's the link to the cached page where this is posted:

http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:aIfJFZvcViQJ:madeleinefoundation.org/main/2009/09/carter-ruck-send-letters-to-the-madeleine-foundation/+Madeleine+Foundation+Carter-Ruck&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=use

However, I haven't yet found a statement from Tony Bennett that says the 500 GBP paid to Kirwans was paid from the Foundation funds. My understanding is that it was paid from their own money.

Murat Fan, do you have a link to evidence that shows the 500 pounds was paid from the Foundation monies?

by Guest 27.11.09 23:41

Jolie wrote:

Murat Fan, do you have a link to evidence that shows the 500 pounds was paid from the Foundation monies?

Err try this from Bennett's own mouth

"In this letter To Kirwins he writes :
We were thus under no obligation to you as we had given you no instructions to act for us; Debbie and I took the view however that as you has rendered assistance and spent time on the matter we would voluntarily offer £500 to you towards your time, which is a big chunk out of the current balance of the Madeleine Foundation."