Isabel Hudson's Affidavit

Stella wrote:

Xavier wrote:Fair enough Stella. Would need to look at the reference in the book to be able to make a more informed view, but in any event, whatever we say, it will be down to the Judge on the day.

From the book:

"In spite of some of the terrible discoveries I was making as I learned more of the stories and statistics relating to missing and exploited children, it wasn’t all bad news. Gradually, my outlook was growing more positive and I was beginning to get past my early certainty that Madeleine must have been taken by a paedophile and murdered. I was coming to realize that didn’t have to be the answer. Meeting Ernie Allen and the people at NCMEC played a big part in helping me along this road".

So, she had an "early certainty that Madeleine must have been taken by a paedophile and murdered" yet all the photos we see of her she looked like she didn't have a care in the world.

Xavier wrote:...but you may just find that I do actually know what I am talking about.

Oh really! So you are saying you are a lawyer yah?

Or should it be ex or discredited, else how else would you have time for......? - am I right in saying that?

Are you also saying you are an authority on this case involving mccanns and TB and that you know every detail about all the documents involved to justify your one-sided judgement?

'Singing from the same hymn sheet' - YOU? As if you are capable of it even if you really really try!
With no disrespect, but you make my skin crawl with that hypocritical statement . It's OK if you don't agree with TB or people supporting him , just don't pretend you support him then on the same breath say ......BUT....! You are so transparent!

For argument sake, if it is 'being realistic' you are concerned about, you would have clearly seen that mccanns' action of gagging people is anything but that, and the method they used to gag people is even far remote from realistic.

So I believe 'realistic' is farthest from your mind where people's behaviour or the law is concerned, only when it applies to TB - am I right?
In a nutshell, it isn't realistic per se that your are concerned about -it's just a convenient baton you use to hide your true allegiance.
Bear in mind realistic applies to both sides; and the mccanns are not above the law - even an idiot knows you don't need to have knowledge of law to know that.

Unless the mccanns have idiot proof way of gagging people, their bullying ways - using other people's money to gag or sue disbelievers of their abduction tale are always going to be seen in bad lights regardlessly.

There are quite a few gagging litigations pending involving the mccanns either as plaintiff or defendant, and at the end of the day it's the Judges' ruling that matters,and not any body's one-sided pretendy legal view.

Me wrote:What is more difficult for her to answer is why if she was certain earlier that Maddie had been murdered, did she react the way she did when confronted with the dog evidence?

Her reactions, in explaining that dont tally with a mother whose "early certainty that Madeleine must have been taken by a paedophile and murdered"

The trip to NCMEC was in July 2007, I think. The dogs alerts came weeks later, the first week in August.

The difference in reactions stems from what was alerted to. If it had just been the apartment, she would have welcomed the information. But as it included their hire car, not collected until 3 weeks after Madeleine goes missing, she has no choice but to dismiss the whole thing.

I think CR have got a big problem on their hands and this is going to be a much bigger fight that they had envisaged. I think they thought TB would back off.

Stella wrote:

Me wrote:What is more difficult for her to answer is why if she was certain earlier that Maddie had been murdered, did she react the way she did when confronted with the dog evidence?

Her reactions, in explaining that dont tally with a mother whose "early certainty that Madeleine must have been taken by a paedophile and murdered"

The trip to NCMEC was in July 2007, I think. The dogs alerts came weeks later, the first week in August.

The difference in reactions stems from what was alerted to. If it had just been the apartment, she would have welcomed the information. But as it included their hire car, not collected until 3 weeks after Madeleine goes missing, she has no choice but to dismiss the whole thing.

I think CR have got a big problem on their hands and this is going to be a much bigger fight that they had envisaged. I think they thought TB would back off.

So how very convenient. She has a trip weeks before the dogs findings which convince her the child is still alive. I still have difficulty believing her reactions based on her claims that she was certain only a few weeks previously that Maddie was dead.

The dogs reactions should have reinforced the doubts and that should have manifested itself in her reactions when presented with their findings.

Yet it did not. I wonder why.

Me wrote:

Stella wrote:

Me wrote:What is more difficult for her to answer is why if she was certain earlier that Maddie had been murdered, did she react the way she did when confronted with the dog evidence?

Her reactions, in explaining that dont tally with a mother whose "early certainty that Madeleine must have been taken by a paedophile and murdered"

The trip to NCMEC was in July 2007, I think. The dogs alerts came weeks later, the first week in August.

The difference in reactions stems from what was alerted to. If it had just been the apartment, she would have welcomed the information. But as it included their hire car, not collected until 3 weeks after Madeleine goes missing, she has no choice but to dismiss the whole thing.

I think CR have got a big problem on their hands and this is going to be a much bigger fight that they had envisaged. I think they thought TB would back off.

So how very convenient. She has a trip weeks before the dogs findings which convince her the child is still alive. I still have difficulty believing her reactions based on her claims that she was certain only a few weeks previously that Maddie was dead.

The dogs reactions should have reinforced the doubts and that should have manifested itself in her reactions when presented with their findings.

Yet it did not. I wonder why.

Regarding the dogs' findings, Kate should have also wondered how the abductor, in his small window of opportunity, had the time to kill Madeleine and clean up after himself.

I guess she went into shock when her nice little sleeveless white blouse and those very practical black and white cheque trousers, also got flagged up.

Looking at what she was wearing during the day afterwards, I would hazard a guess, they were her evening clothes.

Stella wrote:I guess she went into shock when her nice little sleeveless white blouse and those very practical black and white cheque trousers, also got flagged up.

Yep, this looks like shock alright

Stella wrote:

Me wrote:What is more difficult for her to answer is why if she was certain earlier that Maddie had been murdered, did she react the way she did when confronted with the dog evidence?

Her reactions, in explaining that dont tally with a mother whose "early certainty that Madeleine must have been taken by a paedophile and murdered"

The trip to NCMEC was in July 2007, I think. The dogs alerts came weeks later, the first week in August.

The difference in reactions stems from what was alerted to. If it had just been the apartment, she would have welcomed the information. But as it included their hire car, not collected until 3 weeks after Madeleine goes missing, she has no choice but to dismiss the whole thing.

I think CR have got a big problem on their hands and this is going to be a much bigger fight that they had envisaged. I think they thought TB would back off.

Me and Xavier are right that the hearing is about breach of undertaking which TB has to defend.

It seems TB interpretation of his undertaking differs from mccanns, in that the mccanns made it out to be a general and sweeping one so effectively TB is allowed no voice at all whatsoever pertaining to the mccanns as nearly everything can be attributed directly or indirectly to him where it suited the mccanns when the undertaking is an all emcompassing one; and not just that he's forbidden to use certain terms where the mccanns involvement was concerned.

TB's left himself wide open with such a general undertaking, so perhaps there may be a illegality in that general perception on maccanns' part, in that there's a legal contention that the undertaking could not have been a 'general all encompassing one' otherwise that amounts to effectively an absolute gagging of TB in entirety, hence breaching his human right to freedom of speech.

CR's fight on hand whether bigger than they expected or not has nothing to do with proving Mccanns claim or Police thesis to be accurate. Of course if there exists documentations and Court's ruling (vis-a-vis Amaral's trial) which validated that Police thesis is a valid part of the fact being process of the investigation and Police and should be taken collectively as evidence pertaining to Maddie's disappearance, which would then mean the mccanns do not have automatic right to insist people cannot have an alternate view or that TB only cannot air his view, then TB can add this Court's ruling as well as cite other relevant documents for use as part of his defence.

His defense of the breach of undertaking is a very grey area which is touch and go depending what CR's alleged breach of and depending on the interpretation of the undertaking, or whether it is technically wrong to have issued him a general gagging order.

Stella wrote:

Get 'em Gonçalo wrote:

How can CR defend point 12 & 13, when Kate herself, in her own book, page 296, para 3 of her Carter-Ruck approved book

thinks Madeleine is dead.

I'm really confused about point 12. How can they possibily stop people (given the circumstances) voicing the opinion that Madeleine is dead?

"because if the public are led to believe that Madeleine is dead, they
are unlikely to report any potential sightings or other leads to the
authorities"

More like - if the public are led to believe that Madeleine is dead, the fund is dead!

If you compare the following case with that of Madeleine you will understand when I say no one I know takes the McCann case at face value; no one I know believes the official story.

Whenever I hear them say: "There's no evidence she's dead - it's damaging the search (fund) to say so". I'm reminded of a young boy (Andrew Gosden) who went missing from the area I used to live in. He disappeared just a few months after Madeleine (Sept 2007). Andrew was an exceptionally bright 14 yr old; I'd imagine the odds on him still being alive over Madeleine at the tender age of 4 yrs, would be massively higher? I think it's also important to point out - Andrew apparently left home of his own accord, no claims of a bogeyman snatching him. He was last sighted at a train station in London. There is no evidence that he his dead, However, this is what the experts from the police say, what the parents and family have been told and what the media has printed:

Missing youth Andrew Gosden feared dead







Anguish: Andrew Gosden would have celebrated his 18th birthday tomorrow.








Published on Saturday 9 July 2011 07:32





AN EXPERT has warned the
family of missing Doncaster teenager Andrew Gosden he is probably dead -
and that they may never find his body.


His parents, who would have been
celebrating their son’s 18th birthday tomorrow, say they have been told
the police are looking at scaling down the long-running investigation
into his disappearance.
Andrew’s family will lay flowers at their
local church St James, Hexthorpe, tomorrow to mark the date, and are
urging the public to continue looking at missing people websites.
But dad Kevin said a forensic psychologist’s report from the police had suggested the family’s worst fears may be correct.
Andrew has not been since September 2007, when he left the family home on Littlemoor Lane, Balby.
They
thought he was heading for McAuley School as usual, but instead he was
caught on closed circuit television cameras leaving Kings Cross railway
station in London later the same day.
A sonar search of the River Thames earlier this year found no trace of a body.
Dad Kevin said the family had asked for a forensic psychologist’s report shortly after Andrew first went missing.
He said: “There is an outside possibility that he is still alive, but now we are thinking he is probably not.
“The forensic psychology report by the police came to the same conclusion.
“We suggested it in October 2007, and it finally arrived a few weeks ago.
“We
wanted to know things like if a boy like Andrew, quite intellectual and
self contained, was feeling suicidal, how well would they be able to
conceal it, and what the odds were that if he had gone to London that he
would have encountered someone predatory.
“A few weeks ago we got the report pretty much confirming what we feared, that he is probably dead.
“It was what we felt, but it was still pretty tough seeing it in black and white from someone outside the situation.
“As a result, the police are saying they are going to scale down the investigation, but the case will not be closed.
“None of the possible sightings has ever come to anything.
“We’re
still in limbo because there is no body. The forensic report said that,
given that we don’t know what his destination was, it may be we never
turn up a body if he is dead.
“His mum Glenys has said the day he
walked out it was like someone stuck a knife in us. Every time you move
it hurts, and it is painful all the time.
“If his body was found,
or if he rang to say he was alright, it would be like the knife being
pulled out, and we could start to heal.”
Kevin said the charity
Missing People had been helpful to the family while Andrew has been
missing and urged people to visit its website and consider supporting
the cause, from donating money to spending a few minutes looking at the
faces of the missing.
Log on to www.missingpeople.org.uk to check.
http://www.thestar.co.uk/news/local/missing_youth_andrew_gosden_feared_dead_1_3562629

Daisy wrote:
I'm really confused about point 12. How can they possibily stop people (given the circumstances) voicing the opinion that Madeleine is dead?

That's the point - they can't!

So targeting TB only is rather curious.
Just because he uses his true identity; being the most vocal campaigner for Maddie's voice, and considering his historical records of fighting for justice for true victims let down by the system (sidelined by her parents to be more precise in this case), he's sitting duck for them.

aiyoyo wrote:

Daisy wrote:
I'm really confused about point 12. How can they possibily stop people (given the circumstances) voicing the opinion that Madeleine is dead?

That's the point - they can't!

So targeting TB only is rather curious.
Just because he uses his true identity; being the most vocal campaigner for Maddie's voice, and considering his historical records of fighting for justice for true victims let down by the system (sidelined by her parents to be more precise in this case), he's sitting duck for them.

They can when they have the person saying them under an undertaking not to say these things.

happychick wrote:

Me wrote:

Stella wrote:

Me wrote:What is more difficult for her to answer is why if she was certain earlier that Maddie had been murdered, did she react the way she did when confronted with the dog evidence?

Her reactions, in explaining that dont tally with a mother whose "early certainty that Madeleine must have been taken by a paedophile and murdered"

The trip to NCMEC was in July 2007, I think. The dogs alerts came weeks later, the first week in August.

The difference in reactions stems from what was alerted to. If it had just been the apartment, she would have welcomed the information. But as it included their hire car, not collected until 3 weeks after Madeleine goes missing, she has no choice but to dismiss the whole thing.

I think CR have got a big problem on their hands and this is going to be a much bigger fight that they had envisaged. I think they thought TB would back off.

So how very convenient. She has a trip weeks before the dogs findings which convince her the child is still alive. I still have difficulty believing her reactions based on her claims that she was certain only a few weeks previously that Maddie was dead.

The dogs reactions should have reinforced the doubts and that should have manifested itself in her reactions when presented with their findings.

Yet it did not. I wonder why.

Regarding the dogs' findings, Kate should have also wondered how the abductor, in his small window of opportunity, had the time to kill Madeleine and clean up after himself.

Precisely because she cant explain how a stranger could have killed Maddie in that tiny timeframe and still managed to clean up forensics as well as taken Maddie away for disposal, that her only reaction to the dog is so abnormal to say the least, Their findings didn't suit her plan so she has had to suddenly u-turn on her few weeks earlier certainty that Maddie was dead.

Me wrote:

aiyoyo wrote:

Daisy wrote:
I'm really confused about point 12. How can they possibily stop people (given the circumstances) voicing the opinion that Madeleine is dead?

That's the point - they can't!

So targeting TB only is rather curious.
Just because he uses his true identity; being the most vocal campaigner for Maddie's voice, and considering his historical records of fighting for justice for true victims let down by the system (sidelined by her parents to be more precise in this case), he's sitting duck for them.

They can when they have the person saying them under an undertaking not to say these things.

That is my view as well - so at least we agree on some things.

On that point I am curious. TB says that he has been advised by a solicitor that in his opinion the terms of the original undertaking were too "sweeping". I would be interested to know what he feels TB should have done at that time. It seems to me that he was rather boxed into a corner and having to choose between defending a libel action and giving an undertaking.

aiyoyo wrote:

Xavier wrote:...but you may just find that I do actually know what I am talking about.

Oh really! So you are saying you are a lawyer yah?

Or should it be ex or discredited, else how else would you have time for......? - am I right in saying that?

Are you also saying you are an authority on this case involving mccanns and TB and that you know every detail about all the documents involved to justify your one-sided judgement?

'Singing from the same hymn sheet' - YOU? As if you are capable of it even if you really really try!
With no disrespect, but you make my skin crawl with that hypocritical statement . It's OK if you don't agree with TB or people supporting him , just don't pretend you support him then on the same breath say ......BUT....! You are so transparent!

For argument sake, if it is 'being realistic' you are concerned about, you would have clearly seen that mccanns' action of gagging people is anything but that, and the method they used to gag people is even far remote from realistic.

So I believe 'realistic' is farthest from your mind where people's behaviour or the law is concerned, only when it applies to TB - am I right?
In a nutshell, it isn't realistic per se that your are concerned about -it's just a convenient baton you use to hide your true allegiance.
Bear in mind realistic applies to both sides; and the mccanns are not above the law - even an idiot knows you don't need to have knowledge of law to know that.

Unless the mccanns have idiot proof way of gagging people, their bullying ways - using other people's money to gag or sue disbelievers of their abduction tale are always going to be seen in bad lights regardlessly.

There are quite a few gagging litigations pending involving the mccanns either as plaintiff or defendant, and at the end of the day it's the Judges' ruling that matters,and not any body's one-sided pretendy legal view.

Not sure this is terribly constructive. But having got that off your chest perhaps you would care to debate like an adult?

Xavier wrote:

Me wrote:

aiyoyo wrote:

Daisy wrote:
I'm really confused about point 12. How can they possibily stop people (given the circumstances) voicing the opinion that Madeleine is dead?

That's the point - they can't!

So targeting TB only is rather curious.
Just because he uses his true identity; being the most vocal campaigner for Maddie's voice, and considering his historical records of fighting for justice for true victims let down by the system (sidelined by her parents to be more precise in this case), he's sitting duck for them.

They can when they have the person saying them under an undertaking not to say these things.

That is my view as well - so at least we agree on some things.

On that point I am curious. TB says that he has been advised by a solicitor that in his opinion the terms of the original undertaking were too "sweeping". I would be interested to know what he feels TB should have done at that time. It seems to me that he was rather boxed into a corner and having to choose between defending a libel action and giving an undertaking.

Xavier I imagine that Tony has better things to do than explain his legal case and decisions with us, particularly as he has already said he is not posting on there for the time being. Personally I am happy for him to follow his own decisions and wish him luck.

Gillyspot wrote:

Xavier wrote:

Me wrote:

aiyoyo wrote:

Daisy wrote:
I'm really confused about point 12. How can they possibily stop people (given the circumstances) voicing the opinion that Madeleine is dead?

That's the point - they can't!

So targeting TB only is rather curious.
Just because he uses his true identity; being the most vocal campaigner for Maddie's voice, and considering his historical records of fighting for justice for true victims let down by the system (sidelined by her parents to be more precise in this case), he's sitting duck for them.

They can when they have the person saying them under an undertaking not to say these things.

That is my view as well - so at least we agree on some things.

On that point I am curious. TB says that he has been advised by a solicitor that in his opinion the terms of the original undertaking were too "sweeping". I would be interested to know what he feels TB should have done at that time. It seems to me that he was rather boxed into a corner and having to choose between defending a libel action and giving an undertaking.

Xavier I imagine that Tony has better things to do than explain his legal case and decisions with us, particularly as he has already said he is not posting on there for the time being. Personally I am happy for him to follow his own decisions and wish him luck.

Of course. That is a given. Just pondering.

Xavier wrote:

aiyoyo wrote:

Xavier wrote:...but you may just find that I do actually know what I am talking about.

Oh really! So you are saying you are a lawyer yah?

Or should it be ex or discredited, else how else would you have time for......? - am I right in saying that?

Are you also saying you are an authority on this case involving mccanns and TB and that you know every detail about all the documents involved to justify your one-sided judgement?

'Singing from the same hymn sheet' - YOU? As if you are capable of it even if you really really try!
With no disrespect, but you make my skin crawl with that hypocritical statement . It's OK if you don't agree with TB or people supporting him , just don't pretend you support him then on the same breath say ......BUT....! You are so transparent!

For argument sake, if it is 'being realistic' you are concerned about, you would have clearly seen that mccanns' action of gagging people is anything but that, and the method they used to gag people is even far remote from realistic.

So I believe 'realistic' is farthest from your mind where people's behaviour or the law is concerned, only when it applies to TB - am I right?
In a nutshell, it isn't realistic per se that your are concerned about -it's just a convenient baton you use to hide your true allegiance.
Bear in mind realistic applies to both sides; and the mccanns are not above the law - even an idiot knows you don't need to have knowledge of law to know that.

Unless the mccanns have idiot proof way of gagging people, their bullying ways - using other people's money to gag or sue disbelievers of their abduction tale are always going to be seen in bad lights regardlessly.

There are quite a few gagging litigations pending involving the mccanns either as plaintiff or defendant, and at the end of the day it's the Judges' ruling that matters,and not any body's one-sided pretendy legal view.

Not sure this is terribly constructive. But having got that off your chest perhaps you would care to debate like an adult?

Yeah, avoiding answering the questions by such sarcasm is very adult ya?

Oh I do apologise - you were asking questions! I thought you were just having a rant.

OK - you want me to answer your questions: No, no, most, no, no

Happy now?

Xavier wrote:Oh I do apologise - you were asking questions! I thought you were just having a rant.

OK - you want me to answer your questions: No, no, most, no, no

Happy now?

Very adult ya? Who's preaching? So predictable ! Was that an alien tail running past my window?

Sounds familiar to the infamous liar: "she was taken,I know what happened, I was there" and no no NO..we won't answer questions. It was an ABDUCTION. And, they retort to screaming that MANTRA down people's throat ever since because no's one is buying.

Oh dear, What on earth is wrong now? I answered your "questions" accurately and succinctly and now you seem to be off on another one.

Aiyoyo

Please can you refrain from baiting Xavier. You may not agree with them but the constant bickering is not helping. I have been impressed with Xavier's contributions, clearly this poster has a legal background and it would be a shame to lose either you or them, when you both can add much to the various discussions.

May i respectfully suggest a truce is called so we all can benefit from what you both have to say.

Thanks in advance.

I agree, Me, thank you.

This thread is rapidly turning into a battleground and does nothing for the cause.

I have just read the affadvit again and what keeps cropping up is the phrase "from a well-wisher". Now why would it be so important to keep mentioning this? It is totally irrelevant where their supporting evidence came from, right? or would it be frowned upon if CR have purposely been paid to target TB from day one and as such, they need to over emphasize the initial concerns came from an outside source?

I tend to agree with Xavier's and Me's take on this. What they are saying may not be palatable to those who desire nothing more than for the McCanns to be locked up and the key thrown away, but they are realistic of our justice system.

A court case concerning whether Tony Bennett has breached a promise to the courts will be just that. I am pretty sure that as this is civil litigation the onus will be on Tony proving that he did not breach the court undertaking and not the other way around. He promised not to sell any more leaflets and he did so to whatshisface. How would he prove that he didn't when no doubt whatshisface is happy to prove otherwise. Call it entrapment, call it something done while confused, call it whatever you like but I would think the court will call it a breach of the undertaking that Tony Bennett made.

Having said that - It is a crying shame that people with access to money can control what others can say. Good luck Tony Bennett.

Me wrote:Aiyoyo

Please can you refrain from baiting Xavier. You may not agree with them but the constant bickering is not helping. I have been impressed with Xavier's contributions, clearly this poster has a legal background and it would be a shame to lose either you or them, when you both can add much to the various discussions.

May i respectfully suggest a truce is called so we all can benefit from what you both have to say.

Thanks in advance.

Thanks from me too Me! I was thinking of posting a similar plea but you have worded it so much better than I could have.