MCCANNS v BENNETT - The committal to prison trial will take place for 1 or 2 days, sometime in April or later

Jean wrote: Mike Gunnill! I'm sure we're all underwhelmed that you've joined us again.

Kololi wrote:

aiyoyo wrote:Whatever be the reason for mccanns postponement of their case against TB to coincide with the date of their case against Amaral, there is a good reason behind it. And I suspect it is not a coincidence but a manipulation on team mccanns' part to have it postponed to until their case against Amaral is heard.

IMPO, they are afraid of the verdict of their case against Amaral. A ruling against them will have a very significant impact on their litigations against TB. A verdict in Amaral's favour means TB can cite the ruling to his advantage.
No sane UK judge will disregard another court's ruling completely. even if it is the ruling of a foreign country jurisdictions because all jurisdictions are based on principles of justice and truth.

This Chinese New year (lunar calender) sees us into into the year of the black water dragon. This water dragon year will be a very auspicious and good year for Amaral, being born in year of the boar. This water dragon is very good for birth sign of rooster and boar.

Kate and gerry are both born in the year of the monkey. Although rat, monkey and dragon are allies hence compatible, the feng shui in this water dragon year still favours the boar more than monkey. So this year's feng shui is more in Amaral's favour than the mccanns.
The mccanns have to watch what they say this year and can expect to lose their money this year from what I read of feng shui so far.

If I have read it right, it is Mr Bennett who is likely to ask for the schedule to be altered so that he has time to prepare his defence. That reads to me as if he may ask for a longer time so it's not them asking - or have I missunderstood totally?

jay2001 wrote:Perhaps the Express would publicise the current situation with Tony because I'm sure people would question why. Real thugs and criminals need to be jailed not people who only question the tuth of the lie.

Nina wrote:

pauline wrote:I think it is very important that tony has legal representation but I understand it will be expensive.

So I suggest Tony puts up bank account details so that those of us who can make a donation to his costs do so. This is one positive thing we can all do; some may find £5 a struggle, others may be able to donate much more.

Please don't settle out of court. That is what they want.

Pauline I agree, just what level of people are they?

Mgunnill wrote:

Jean wrote: Mike Gunnill! I'm sure we're all underwhelmed that you've joined us again.

Tony Bennett wrote:

REPLY: Actually, I have made this very point in correspondence with Carter-Ruck. Clearly it would be a legal nonsense now if Goncalo Amaral's book and documentary can be freely sold, read and discussed in one country covered by the European Convention on Human Rights (both Portugal and the U.K. are), yet people in another country are not allowed to see and discuss what he has written.

Indeed, on this basis I can disclose that I asked the McCanns for the final trial of the action in my case to be postponed until after the final trial on the McCanns -v- Amaral and TVi and Guerra e Paz matter. This met with a dusty answer from Carter-Ruck, namely:

"The Portuguese libel proceedings agaisnt Mr Amaral have no bearing on this case. You appear to be labouring under the misapprehension that because both the U.K. and Portugal are signatories of the European Convention on Human Rights, this means thatt he courts of England and wales are bound by Portuguese judgments in which the Convention has been considered. This is simply incorrect. Portuguese Court decisions provide neither binding nor even persuasive authorty in the English courts..."

You do realise the above paragraph-reply by CR is only their intimidating and arrogant way (predictably expected).
It tantamount at most to CR's opinion only, and has no bearing whatsoever on how the English Court will decide on your case.

CR and the mccanns are the ones under the misapprehension that the English Court will not be influenced by European Convention on Human Rights. They, stating that the Courts of England and Wales are not bound by another country's judgements is so insulting to people's intelligence. It goes with saying no country is bound by another country's judgements as one country's jurisdictions are independent of another, however, it would be naive to say that they will not acknowledge or recognize that such judgements had taken place. Even if English Court is not bound by foreign judgements, the judgements can have an influence on how they deliberate on similar-type case put in front of them as the plaintiffs in question are the same. In other words, no one can say for sure (not even CR) whether or not the English Court is going to be influenced by Portugal judgements. There is no reason why the English Court shouldnt or wouldnt take that (Portugal's judgements) into consideration if they deem that the reasons behind the judgements were sound and somewhat applicable and having relevance to the case they are tasked to deliberate upon.

Otherwise, it's akin to CR saying if the mccanns were found guilty of criminal acts in Portugal, the English Court is not bound to recognize that. And, say for example, if the the mccanns were to be tried for Fund Fraud arising out of their crimes in Portugal, just because other judgements were passed by another European country, does it mean the English Court is not bound to recognize that or be influenced by it-- that is utter rubbish.

Although Amaral and yourself are separate entities, the nature of mccanns charges are the same.
If it is not libelous for another person (a non English) to disseminate the process files and posit theory, why should it be libelous for an English person, having equal right under the European Human 'Rights Convention, to do so? It does not make sense at all!

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Actually, that is rather a different point from the one I was making, namely that a U.K. court would be bound to consider a decision in the final trial of the McCanns' action against Amaral that his book was not libellous.

In fact, it was the decision of the Portuguese court in Lisbon to accede to the McCanns' request for an injunction on his book and on the documentary that was certainly a factor in the decision I had to take a few weeks later to concede to the McCanns' demands. I do believe that the lanscape chnaged after Amaral's October 2010 victory in the Portuguese Appeal Court, when the court lifted the ban on his book.

Miraflores wrote: I'd be interested to see if the UK press reports this. Assuming that it does get reported, however hard they spin it in the McCanns favour (which they will), there are bound to be people asking just why the McCanns are doing this and how it helps them find their daughter.

REPLY: This is actually explained by the McCanns in the Affidavit of Isabel Hudson in support of the contempt application. She explains: "On 8 June 2011 we received a lengthy letter from the Defendant, responding to our letter to the ISP of 'mccannexposure', which had apparently been passed to him...While the Claimants remained loath top dignify the Defendant's activities, the Defendant's response made clear that unless further action was taken against him, he was likely to libel the Claimants further and to continue to breach the undertakings he had given...the Claimants were especially concerned about the effect that this conduct may have on the ongoing search for their daughter" [Hudson Affidavit, paragraphs 56 and 57].

If the UK press grows ball and report it then it is glaringly obvious to the public the mccanns are playing games and suing people left right centre with public donated fund, which has absolutely nothing to do with the search for Maddie.
Which parents of missing child have the time of day to monitor forum when the search for their child should be priority?

It would become national jokes if it is made common public knowledge that CR actually tasked their employee to work quietly behind the scenes, monitoring fora and blogs for the mccanns, mostly without payment, (or so kate claimed in her bewk). That would beg the question what percentage CR expects to get paid on the "no win no fee" basis? And that would highlight the working methods of the most formidable libel law firm which must be a real eye opener to the public.


+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


Miraflores wrote: I imagine that the McCanns are hoping that Tony will throw in the towel and be an easy victory for them.

REPLY: It is really too late now to 'throw in the towel'. I am compelled by the High Court to account for my actions and will endeavour to give full and careful reasons for my actions and my publications both in my Witness Statement and in open court.

Kololi wrote: If I have read it right, it is Mr Bennett who is likely to ask for the schedule to be altered so that he has time to prepare his defence. That reads to me as if he may ask for a longer time so it's not them asking - or have I misunderstood totally?

REPLY: The McCanns were given a date of 8 February for the full trial, but asked to change that into a Case Management Hearing, citing as their reason: 'To give Mr Bennett more time to prepare his defence'. When they wrote to me last week proposing a date of 22 February for me to submit my evidence, I decided to ask for more time and have now done so.

What are they playing at I wonder? It's unlike them to take mercy on TB by giving him extra time to prepare. Anyway, what is this "case management hearing" all about? It's as if they are iffy about their contempt of court litigation now that the Yard are reviewing their case.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Pauline wrote: I think it is very important that tony has legal representation but I understand it will be expensive. So I suggest Tony puts up bank account details so that those of us who can make a donation to his costs do so. This is one positive thing we can all do; some may find £5 a struggle, others may be able to donate much more. Please don't settle out of court. That is what they want.

Jay 2001 wrote: Mrs M told Aled Jones that she could forgive the 'abductor', but she and the team have pursued TB and GA with ruthless zeal.

aiyoyo wrote: It is a breach against TB's right to freedom of free speech. Besides GM himself claimed he believes in free speech and people are free to purport theories.

Jay2001 wrote: Tony appealed for 'legal' type help and I hope that he gets it - there must be some brains out there who could help

Pershing36 wrote:There must be something that can be done, I don't know what but surely we can do something!!

Ollie wrote:Tony I do hope that you can and will have someone who will attend the hearing with you. There must be someone who can go over your statement, so I hope someone does come forward to help. More than anything I wish you success.

candyfloss wrote: and welcome to our two new members
T4two, and jay2001

Good to see you here

Tony Bennett wrote:

Ollie wrote:Tony I do hope that you can and will have someone who will attend the hearing with you. There must be someone who can go over your statement, so I hope someone does come forward to help. More than anything I wish you success.

Again, I thank all those who've stopped by to wish me well.

Apart from Committee members and trusted supporters who've already been helping me compile a defence document, I have had two new serious offers of help, so that's encouraging.

Not sure if I can say this, but I will anyway, surely if the abduction of Madeleine were proven, self-evident, if there was really no doubt at all about it, then anyone who disagreed would truly be regarded as lunatic and beyond the fringe and could safely be totally ignored? - instead of which we get these titanic struggles against Amaral and latterly myself, with massive resources and legal firepower being pulled in and libel letters being sent all over the place -and even all those prodigious efforts have hardly resulted in scepticism about the abduction claim lessening.

Of course you can say that - I cant see why not!
It's an opinion after all, nothing defamatory in that. Surely people are free to say they don't believe the mccanns falsehood abduction.
More than half this country are divided about the mccanns, and nothing defamatory in people expressing their opinion that they believe the mccanns are not telling the truth and employing spin tactics to cover up their lies.
And probably equally more than half the world who've read the mccanns story did not believe the mccanns at all. Does it mean they have to take a worldwide injunction to stop people voluntary thoughts.

Alright, they forbid people from repeating certain Police's statement ie that Maddie died in the apt, they were involved, and all the rest of it, which they consider as libelous, but until they come forward voluntarily to get themselves eliminated they are idiotic to think people with discerning ability are going to believe their yarn. Hiring the most expensive law firm to suppress disbelievers goes against normal behavior to prove their innocence. Innocence is portrayed by their actions and behavior, and so far those are anything but ...

To the poster who said Maddie's remains will never ever be found is likely right, judging by mccanns' confidence and penchant in taking out legal suits against every noticeable dissenter of their abduction tale.

Hopefully the Yard will manage to find new approach to further matter. History has proven cases can be successfully prosecuted even without a body as evidence, and I suspect that is the direction of the Police if they were to be prosecuted.

Their confidence over the non discovery of her remains is one thing, but prosecution hovering over their heads is another thing altogether - something beyond their control. All IMHO as usual.


I have really made an effort not to make any direct accusations against the McCanns over the past 2 years - even Dr Kate McCann half acknowledged this on page 312 of her book - yet in 50 postings on this forum I am accused of having transgressed a line, not it appears in the remaining 3,750 postings though.

For example, I did of course in my affidavit undertake, quote: "not to repeat allegations that the Claimants are guilty of, or are to be suspected of...lying about what happened..." Does that mean, for example, that neither I nor anyone else can discuss an obvious, flat contradiction between the witness statements of two of the material witnesses to an event?

Is it libellous, for example, to repeat the details of Inspector Tavares de Almedia's interim report of 10 September? - something we did a full two years ago now in 'The Madeleine McCann Case Files - Volume 1', yet by letter of 1 December 2011 has now become an alleged breach of undertaking?

The Court will have to make a ruling on each of the 149 alleged separate breaches of the undertaking. At that rate, even 2 days may be too short a time for all the evidence and submissions to be made.

What is a directions hearing?

A directions hearing is an informal court appearance. It will take place if you have not been able to resolve the dispute yourselves after the formal legal action has started. A directions hearing is held to look at the direction that the matter is heading in the courts and to discuss with the parties their options to resolve the matter. The purpose is to discover the position of each party and whether there is any possibility of settling any of the issues. If the matter cannot be settled, it may be set down for mediation or for a trial.

The court will post a notice to both parties with the date and time of the directions hearing once a defence has been filed with the court. The directions hearing will usually be held about three weeks after the defence has been filed.

aiyoyo wrote:BTW, I googled directions hearing and got this:

What is a directions hearing?

A directions hearing is an informal court appearance. It will take place if you have not been able to resolve the dispute yourselves after the formal legal action has started. A directions hearing is held to look at the direction that the matter is heading in the courts and to discuss with the parties their options to resolve the matter. The purpose is to discover the position of each party and whether there is any possibility of settling any of the issues. If the matter cannot be settled, it may be set down for mediation or for a trial.

The court will post a notice to both parties with the date and time of the directions hearing once a defence has been filed with the court. The directions hearing will usually be held about three weeks after the defence has been filed.

Directions hearing is same as pre-trial "case management" I should think.

I get the feeling the mccanns are keen to resolve their litigation against TB by mediation rather than going to full trial.
They want an independent legal mediator to act as intermediary to stop TB from his free speech rather than go to trial and argue their case. Going to trial would be expensive for them, and doubly so, if they were to lose to TB.
Apart from the adverse implications for them, losing means they have to foot TB's legal expenses as well if I am not wrong.
They'd never been to trial over their libel litigations as yet. Express paid out of court.

I think the mccanns are definitely wary of taking their litigation against TB all the way to trial because the ramifications and risks of compensation facing them would be enormous, if they are ever taken to Court and prosecuted over their daughter disappearance.

The last thing the mccanns would want is press interests during the trial. No reasons why the press cant be invited.
Also if TB's supporters were to hold a protest by marching outside Court against the mccanns' suppression of free speech it would bring them unwanted attention. Placards display would be useful " gerry believes in free speech he told the Leveson Inquiry "