Re: LATEST on the 3 libel actions - alleged contempt of court x 1, and alleged libels x 2

by Guest 14.11.11 15:16

There was a Playboy article LATEST on the 3 libel actions - alleged contempt of court x 1, and alleged libels x 2 - Page 4 742129

on her and I did take a look. LATEST on the 3 libel actions - alleged contempt of court x 1, and alleged libels x 2 - Page 4 181154

perhaps they are not their real names.

by Shibboleth 14.11.11 15:26

LATEST on the 3 libel actions - alleged contempt of court x 1, and alleged libels x 2 - Page 4 Main201102171534153672082_sammie-pennington-305

LATEST on the 3 libel actions - alleged contempt of court x 1, and alleged libels x 2 - Page 4 Charlotte_pennington

Is there a *family resemblance* here, I do not know.

by Nina 14.11.11 15:35

Shibboleth wrote:

Is there a *family resemblance* here, I do not know.

Hi Shibboleth, you have been very brave to venture LATEST on the 3 libel actions - alleged contempt of court x 1, and alleged libels x 2 - Page 4 160807

and I would say yes there is from my memories of the nanny Pennington.

by Shibboleth 14.11.11 15:38

Those were the most tasteful pictures I could find. There is a saying, I hope I get this right, one has to *take a hit for the team*? yes

by Guest 14.11.11 15:40

I don't know about a family resemblance, but Charlotte Pennington has been shown how to pose in a certain way. LATEST on the 3 libel actions - alleged contempt of court x 1, and alleged libels x 2 - Page 4 82678

LATEST on the 3 libel actions - alleged contempt of court x 1, and alleged libels x 2 - Page 4 82678

by Guest 14.11.11 15:41

Shibboleth wrote:Those were the most tasteful pictures I could find. There is a saying, I hope I get this right, one has to *take a hit for the team*?

LATEST on the 3 libel actions - alleged contempt of court x 1, and alleged libels x 2 - Page 4 759815

by Invinoveritas 14.11.11 15:53

just found this article which will dispel rumours, I hope LATEST on the 3 libel actions - alleged contempt of court x 1, and alleged libels x 2 - Page 4 302873

LATEST on the 3 libel actions - alleged contempt of court x 1, and alleged libels x 2 - Page 4 302873

http://truthformadeleine.com/2008/05/charlotte-pennington-at-nanny-agencycom/

some of the comments are quite nasty

by **Tony Bennett** 14.11.11 16:11

Nina wrote:Hi Shibboleth, you have been very brave to venture...

Well, fortune favours the brave, I guess, so thank you Shibboleth.

Direct quote from Charlotte Pennington:

I had caught the acting bug and had drama coursing* through my veins

* She actually wrote 'cursing' which I have corrected - T.B.

by Shibboleth 14.11.11 16:11

Invinoveritas wrote:just found this article which will dispel rumours, I hope

http://truthformadeleine.com/2008/05/charlotte-pennington-at-nanny-agencycom/

some of the comments are quite nasty

I am not surprised, the girl is an air-head. Who would wish to employ an ex-fairy.

by **Tony Bennett** 14.11.11 16:32

Charlotte Pennington witness statement, May 2007

The witness states that she participated in the searches, together with her colleague, Amy, searching various areas of the Ocean Club establishment. She also states that she searched the patio area of the residence where Madeleine stayed with her parents and siblings, and during which, she encountered many individuals inside the apartment but was not able to tell if they were complex employees or friends of the couple. She did not enter the residence in question;

Charlotte Pennington as quoted in the Daily Mail, 25 September 2007

Miss Pennington, however, one of the first people to set foot in the couple's apartment after the disappearance, says she heard the mother use both phrases.

by happychick 14.11.11 16:45

Tony Bennett wrote:She did not enter the residence in question;

one of the first people to set foot in the couple's apartment after the disappearance, says she heard the mother use both phrases.

Crikey Tony, it's unusual for such a contradiction to be made in this case isn't it? titter

by Invinoveritas 14.11.11 17:00

LATEST on the 3 libel actions - alleged contempt of court x 1, and alleged libels x 2 - Page 4 NannyDM2409_228x431

Charlotte Pennington, How not to Photoshop! LATEST on the 3 libel actions - alleged contempt of court x 1, and alleged libels x 2 - Page 4 847771

by Daisy 14.11.11 17:17

Charlotte Pennington aka Wighton. "like butter wouldn't melt"

http://www.myspace.com/4416278/photos/34267681#{%22ImageId%22%3A34267681}

by **Tony Bennett** 14.11.11 18:07

happychick wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:She did not enter the residence in question;

one of the first people to set foot in the couple's apartment after the disappearance, says she heard the mother use both phrases.

Crikey Tony, it's unusual for such a contradiction to be made in this case isn't it?

I've just had to change the proposed title of my new book from: "The Disappearance of Madeleine McCann: 501 contradictions" to "The Disappearance of Madeleine McCann: 502 contradictions"

by Invinoveritas 14.11.11 18:14

jeez Tony,

let's not get cynical LATEST on the 3 libel actions - alleged contempt of court x 1, and alleged libels x 2 - Page 4 3934901622

by Nina 14.11.11 18:22

Tony Bennett wrote:
happychick wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:She did not enter the residence in question;

one of the first people to set foot in the couple's apartment after the disappearance, says she heard the mother use both phrases.

Crikey Tony, it's unusual for such a contradiction to be made in this case isn't it?
I've just had to change the proposed title of my new book from: "The Disappearance of Madeleine McCann: 501 contradictions" to "The Disappearance of Madeleine McCann: 502 contradictions"

Tony I think you would be safe to call it The Disappearance of Madeleine McCann 502 contradictions and still counting LATEST on the 3 libel actions - alleged contempt of court x 1, and alleged libels x 2 - Page 4 82678

by aiyoyo 16.11.11 19:06

Tony Bennett wrote:
happychick wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:She did not enter the residence in question;

one of the first people to set foot in the couple's apartment after the disappearance, says she heard the mother use both phrases.

Crikey Tony, it's unusual for such a contradiction to be made in this case isn't it?
I've just had to change the proposed title of my new book from: "The Disappearance of Madeleine McCann: 501 contradictions" to "The Disappearance of Madeleine McCann: 502 contradictions"

So if you keep coming across new contradiction/s will you have to keep changing the title?

by jd 16.11.11 23:59

Mr Smethurst is giving us all evidence that is Gold in his continuing pursuit of Tony in the courts. When the day comes the whole world have it all in the public domain....He likes to think he is clever but I am stunned how nieve he is that he is giving himself away. Oh well its his lost in the end...and what a big loss it is going to be. Even Kennedy has wised up, but then this is why Smethurst is only a sidekick

by jd 17.11.11 0:00

aiyoyo wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
happychick wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:She did not enter the residence in question;

one of the first people to set foot in the couple's apartment after the disappearance, says she heard the mother use both phrases.

Crikey Tony, it's unusual for such a contradiction to be made in this case isn't it?
I've just had to change the proposed title of my new book from: "The Disappearance of Madeleine McCann: 501 contradictions" to "The Disappearance of Madeleine McCann: 502 contradictions"

So if you keep coming across new contradiction/s will you have to keep changing the title?

Wasn't the incredible Charlotte Pennington the first to arrive at the apartment that night?

by **Tony Bennett** 03.12.11 21:37

THE MADELEINE FOUNDATION and 3 LIBEL ACTIONS

Statement by Tony Bennett, Secretary, 9pm, 3 December 2011

BRIAN KENNEDY

Brian Kennedy’s concerns that I had libelled him have now been settled on terms acceptable to both parties. No court order or undertaking is involved and I did not pay any of Mr Kennedy’s costs.

EDWARD SMETHURST

In Thursday’s post (1 December), I received a costs estimate (as per High Court procedures) of the likely costs incurred by Edward Smethurst if he pursues his libel claim against me, assuming I continue to defend his claim. I would be liable to pay all those costs if I lose (i.e. if the court holds that any one of my statements about him on Jill's forum libelled him).

In their letter, Carter-Ruck say that Smethurst's costs to date are £28,390 and that his future costs, assuming a three-day libel trial, will be £143,086.50, making the total £171,476.50.

This is based, as set out in a 10-page document, on much of the legal work being done by a Senior Partner at Carter-Ruck who charges £562.50 an hour for his time (inclusive of VAT).

Faced with such huge costs, I clearly must think carefully about my options in advance of a Case Management and Costs Management hearing in the High Court next Wednesday.

MCCANNS

Application for committtal to prison

At 6.20pm the same day (Thursday), a process server employed by Carter-Ruck came up to Chippingfield in a ‘Godfather’-style limousine, driven by another person, and handed me a large and heavy cardboard box, measuring 16" x 14" x 12" (40cm x 35cm x 30cm for those who do metric), containing 5 huge ring binders of statements on behalf of the McCanns, and accompanying evidence. These contained over 3,000 pages in total, mostly photocopies of my articles on the Madeleine Foundation website and several dozen postings on Jill Havern’s site. The cardboard box was of exceptional quality, while these were no ordinary lever arch files. They were beautifully finished in the attractive Oxford blue livery of Carter-Ruck, complete with their logo and full contact details.

There was also a summons to attend the Royal Courts of Justice to be committed to prison for contempt of court (alternative remedies being a suspended prison sentence, a fine, or seizure of assets, or any combination of these). The case has been listed for a hearing before a judge on Wednesday 8 February. The summons alleges a wholesale breach of one of the four undertakings I gave to the High Court on 25 November 2009, namely not to libel the McCanns.

I intend to defend the McCanns’ application. Arguably, as I have already been advised by one local lawyer, the undertaking I gave in 2009 was too ‘sweeping’ and should either be modified or even withdrawn, given that it amounts virtually to an undertaking to say nothing about the case ever again. The lawyer also suggested it was given under oppressive circumstances, a matter I have already raised under Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights with the European Commission on Human Rights, which is currently looking into my claim that the way British laws allows wealthy libel litigants to get their way over defendants who cannot hope to match their financial and legal resources amounts to a breach of human rights. The government has promised to rectify this manifestly unjust situation as a result of a successful campaign by the Libel Reform Campaign.

Included amongst the papers is an 84-paragraph, 27-page affidavit sworn by Senior Partner at Carter-Ruck, Isabel Hudson. I can reproduce parts of that affidavit, but not those parts that include extracts of my disputed articles and postings. We’ll therefore display a redacted version of it on our website.

In Paragraph 58 of her affidavit, Ms Hudson states that a letter sent by myself to Carter-Ruck on 8 June 2011 prompted the McCanns to say “enough is enough”. The McCanns and Carter-Ruck then began what Ms Hudson says in Paragraph 65 was “a painstaking and time-consuming process” of analysing as many postings of mine as they could find on Jillhavern’s forum, to see how many might be construed as libellous. They think that around 50-60 of my 3,700 posts on the forum might breach my undertaking, while the other 3,640-3,650 apparently do not. That explains why, as the forum-owner will confirm, Carter-Ruck have spent literally hundreds of hours on this forum in the past few months, searching for potentially libellous comments, in order to bolster their application to commit me to prison. The forum-owner’s logs record the precise time and length of each visit by Carter-Ruck.

There is a reference to all of this in Dr Kate McCann’s book: ‘madeleine’. She wrote (pp. 289-290):

“Adam Tudor and his colleague Isabel Hudson continue to do a vast amount of work for us, without payment, most of it quietly, behind the scenes”.

To have spent hundreds of hours on Jill Havern’s forum for the past few months ‘painstakingly and time-consumingly’searching, and searching, for possible libels, without any payment whatsoever, would indeed be regarded by many people as an act of very great generosity.

I cannot conclude this statement without giving an honourable mention to Mr Mike Gunnill of Kent, a past member of Jill Havern’s forum, and, for all I know, a present one, under one of his many personas, aliases, and ‘socks’. Mike Gunnill, it may be recalled, was the photojournalist who took the photograph of Debbie Butler (near whom he lives), used by the Sunday Express alongside their front-page headline: ‘The McCanns’ Stalker’ on 16 August 2009. His website at the time was remarkable for including over 100 photos he took at the gruesome ‘House of Horror’, Haut de la Garenne children’s home in Jersey, scene of decades of child abuse and possibly even child murders by depraved paedophiles. Some on this forum may recall how Gunnill e-mailed me in January 2010 under one of his many pseudonyms, ‘Michael Sangerte’, claiming he lived in ‘Berkshire’, asking to buy a copy of ‘60 Reasons’ (other names used by Gunnill in previous correspondence with me (before I knew his real identity) were Jason Peters and Peter Tarwin).

I refused. He then wrote me a further begging letter stating that he really wanted an original copy of ‘60 Reasons’ because of his ‘historical research’, adding that he was ‘willing to pay a high price’ for a copy. I then offered to obtain a copy belonging to a close relative and asked him to send £5 including postage, which he did. He asked me to send the book to Michael Sangerte - not in Berkshire, but at an address in Kent. Subsequent enquiries showed that this was Mike Gunnill’s home near Maidstone, Kent. The very day after the book was sent to him, he bragged on a McCann-believer forum that he had obtained a copy of ‘60 Reasons’ and had already sent it to Carter-Ruck, who were apparently ‘delighted’ to receive it. He later openly stated on that same forum that he was being employed ‘on a mission’.

This, however, is how this incident is reported in Isabel Hudson’s affidavit, paragraph 37:

“We continued to monitor the situation, and in early February 2010 we received evidence (again from a well-wisher) which suggested that the Defendant had sold at least one further copy of the ‘60 Reasons’ booklet (one of the publications specifically complained about in the libel claim form which had been issued for the purpose of obtaining undertakings to the court)…I exhibit a copy of the e-mail thread between this well-wisher and the defendant (which should be read from top to bottom) at page 26 of Exhibit IJH5”.

+++++++++++

To deal with these two separate court actions will require a great deal of time and attention. For that reason, and for other reasons, I have decided not to contribute any further postings to the publicly-viewable part this forum until at least these two sets of court proceedings are concluded. Depending on the outcome of those two court cases, I will then consider my position in relation to whether or not to rejoin in any public discussions in the future (or even whether the court will allow me to). In the meantime, and subject as always to the consent of the forum-owner, I shall continue to remain a member of the forum and to contribute where I can to those parts of the forum which are not publicly-viewable.

This withdrawal, whether temporary or permanent, comes at a time when Jill Havern’s forum has remained the most visited Madeleine McCann discussion forum on the internet for the past four months, and its membership has grown to nearly 1,500 members. Very informative discussions are taking place on the forum, to which many contribute.

As Clarence Mitchell himself said nearly a year ago, even the McCanns admit that Madeleine’s abduction is but ‘an assumption’ or a ‘working hypothesis’. Moreover, despite over four years of searching, using private investigators that have cost the McCann Team millions of pounds, the McCann Team are still unable to give us one single usable piece of information about who is supposed to have abducted her, and, if she was abducted, where she was taken. Nor do we really know which of 18 suspects, ‘persons of interest’ and ‘people we wish to eliminate from our enquiries’ (two of whom are women) we are supposed to still be looking out for.

In those circumstances I wish all of you on here committed to discussing what happened to Madeleine every success in getting ever closer to the truth.

by uppatoffee 03.12.11 21:48

So much for Freedom of Speech Gerry.

by Guest 03.12.11 23:48

Tony, you have my sympathy and full support.

by Gillyspot 04.12.11 2:38

Tony we are all behind you and with you too.

Gerry & Kate if you are reading this. We will never give up until you show that you are innocent (if you can) by taking a lie detector test or a reconstruction or some other method. Trying to silence us is like trying to catch the wind in an egg cup.

by jd 04.12.11 3:25

This post has been removed by Tony Bennett at the request of Edward Smethurst.

by **Jill Havern** 04.12.11 8:33

Goncalo Amaral said he would be happy to fly to London to help NSY with their ~~whitewash~~ review, so I think you should invite him to give evidence at your trial. He seems quite interested in this case.

LATEST on the 3 libel actions - alleged contempt of court x 1, and alleged libels x 2