Re: Isabel Hudson's Affidavit

by Me 07.12.11 8:52

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.

by **Jill Havern** 07.12.11 8:56

I agree, Me, thank you.

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

by Guest 07.12.11 9:00

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?

by Kololi 07.12.11 9:13

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.

by Guest 07.12.11 9:16

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.

by Liz Eagles 07.12.11 9:18

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.

I agree too. The spirit and purpose of this website is above bickering. It just gives those that knock it more ammunition - hence I posted on the old post 'do the McCanns deserve to be hated' today.

by The Rooster 07.12.11 12:27

I for one am very interested in the posts that Xavier makes. Thank you.

by Me 07.12.11 14:09

Having read the letter sent by CR back in August and the original undertaking contained within it the problem Tony’s got is not in reference to making claims that they caused Maddie’s death, but in suggesting they were involved in covering it up and in telling untruths.

Now I’m assuming that that particular clause CR quote is accurate as to the precise wording of the undertaking, if it is then Tony’s in trouble.

It strikes me that Tony was caught between a rock and a hard place at the time electing to sign this draconian undertaking rather than risk a full libel trial and losing with all the perils that would have entailed.

Seems like he chose the least bad option, which was perfectly understandable given the situation at the time, but that now has come back to haunt him.

Whilst it’s fairly easy to not directly accuse the parents of causing her death, it’s less straightforward to not accuse the parents of covering up the death and their lying.

Because after all, that is what Tony’s work centres on, and what we spend most of our time talking about on here. It should not be libellous to be able to suggest theories and question the statements provided.

Where you can’t do it is when you have signed a court undertaking specifically forbidding you from doing so.

What I’m not sure of is if by producing evidence from the files and trying to use Amaral’s victory as a precedent, TB can somehow circumnavigate that part of the undertaking on public interest or freedom of expression grounds.

From what i have seen (and I’ve not seen all the evidence CR cite) Tony has not directly accused the McCann’s of killing the child, but clearly he has inferred /stated that they have either covered up the death or lied. We all know they have done the latter but saying it when you’ve sworn to a court you won’t is a recipe for disaster.

As Xavier has so far pointed out Judges will not take kindly to having undertakings breached without good reason and a judge is likely to say “well why didn’t you apply to have the order amended or removed before you posted these allegations”.

It’s not about the reasons why TB did it more that he’s not followed the correct protocols.

Certainly I feel there’s a salient lesson for all vocal opponents of the McCann’s. Stick to the facts, stick to the already validated theories but cast no direct accusations against them and don’t get put in a position where you have to sign something which restricts your ability to ask honest and important questions that need answers.

by Guest 07.12.11 14:44

Me wrote:Certainly I feel there’s a salient lesson for all vocal opponents of the McCann’s. Stick to the facts, stick to the already validated theories but cast no direct accusations against them and don’t get put in a position where you have to sign something which restricts your ability to ask honest and important questions that need answers.

An excellent point from Me, and a timely reminder, please think before you post, as I mentioned on another thread earlier.

by Guest 02.09.12 13:33

aiyoyo wrote:So Isobel Hudson spent countless of hours FOC scrutinising and analysing this forum in order that her boss can issue writ and make tons of money out of their biggest account, and she even renders herself witness to this crime by supplying an affidavit sworn on oath blind supporting mccanns' abduction tale, when even Police cannot find any evidence to support abduction - INTERESTING?

TB'S lawyer should take note of her false statement hence perjury.

It's become pretty obvious why CR were so compliant in getting TB's case postponed time and again, isn't it?

They must have been praying on their bare knees hoping for a miracle to happen, i.a. the Met being sufficiently hoodwinked/corrupt/stupid to admit to the possibility of an abduction.

No luck, so far. On the contrary, Bernard Hogan Howe now appearing to implore David Cameron to end the charade.

Isabel Hudson's Affidavit - Page 4 1387363171

Isabel Hudson's Affidavit - Page 4 1387363171

by Smokeandmirrors 02.09.12 14:24

Re-read about a third of the affidavit so far, and the first few pages contain several easily contested inaccuracies. These can easily be shown to be so if linked and backed up by statements that exist within the public domain, from both British police statements and those from the archiving process. If mere lay people can find these on the net, there is no excuse for them to be in a sworn affidavit.

If this is the best CR can do, bringing this to the attention of the court and the media will trash their reputation.