The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann

.

.............................................................................................................................................................................................................. Kate McCann's lawyer Carlos Pinto de Abreu: "If you were Portuguese, this would be enough to put you in prison.".....Gonçalo Amaral: “This litigation will carry a heavy price – but I have faith that the mystery will be resolved. Even if I “disappear” in the process - as Kate McCann has written that she wishes I would in her book - I have a daughter and lots of friends who will make sure justice is done”...Gonçalo Amaral: “Justice works in silence”.........Martin Grime: "Not all the alert signals have been investigated by the appropriate agencies in order to provide forensic comparations, in spite of indications to the contrary.".....British criminal profiler NPIA, Lee Rainbow: "Madeleine's father was the last one to see her alive. The family is a lead that should be followed. Contradictions in Gerald McCann's statements might lead us to suspect a homicide."...Martin Brunt, Crime Correspondent: "The crucial part of the evidence appears to be a complete match of Madeleine's DNA in the boot of the hire car"...Inspector Ricardo Paiva: "It was Scotland Yard who first thought it could be a murder case."......Inspector Steve Bentley, NSY: "You state that you have a first hand information from an insider from the McCann's private investigators. This information would obviously be of interest to the team and they would welcome details of this individual...".......Gonçalo Amaral: "I would be willing to fly to London to speak with officers doing the review to assist them."....Clarence Mitchell: "The McCanns' records were also probed, but there was no evidence of suspicious activity.".....George Galloway, MP: "The McCanns have either been the victims of a cataclysmic historic injustice, almost unprecedented, or they have been complicit in a scheme so duplicitous, so evil, so foul that Shakespeare himself could not have written it.".........Author David Bret: "the press have now been instructed NOT to publish any more pictures of the McCanns which do not portray them as looking sad or on the verge of tears. All of this will of course only go towards making matters much much worse for them if this case turns out as many of us suspect it will--we will see some of the most poisonous headlines in publishing history.".....Molly: "There is no evidence of a break-in yet the couple are still free to tell the world that there was one and they can do this unchallenged.".....Philomena McCann: "Gordon Brown set things in motion at the start."

.........................................................................................................................................................................................B Did Jim Gamble Sanitize Gerry McCann's CATS File 19309?   *   Barbara Nottage: "How did the alleged abductor snatch Madeleine in a time slot of no more than 3-4 Minutes?   *  Why did Kate McCann tell the Leveson Inquiry, under oath, that no bodily fluids were found in their hire car?   *  Why did Gerry McCann tell the Leveson Inquiry, under oath, that he strongly believes in freedom of speech and doesn't have a problem with anybody purporting a theory when he is instructing Carter-Ruck to take legal action to silence those who purport a theory based on the official Portuguese police files?   *  When referring to Robert Murat's arguido status why does Kate McCann state in her book that his 'formal status meant he would officially be treated as a suspect in the crime' but at the Leveson Inquiry the McCanns refer to their own arguido status, under oath, as merely meaning 'persons of interest'?     *    Why did Kate McCann take Maddie's Cuddle Cat toy to work and place it in contact with 6 dead bodies before taking it on holiday?  * Why don't the McCanns advertise on their website or Facebook page that they have a £2.6 million pound reward for the safe return of Maddie?   *   Why did the McCanns allow the investigation to be shelved then complain that no police force is looking for Maddie?  *  Why hasn't Dr David Payne or Dr Gerry McCann sued Dr Katherina Gaspar for suggesting in her statement to the police that they are paedophiles? * Why has Gerry McCann got a registration number of 19309 in the child abuse CATS system?   *   Why won't the McCanns write to the Portuguese Prosecutor to reopen the process when all it will cost them, according to Gonçalo Amaral, is the stamp on the letter?   *  Why did the McCanns lie about Maddie's coloboma for 4 years?    *    Why is the date 2006 seen on Maddie's Online Shop when she disappeared in 2007?    *    Why did Gerry McCann say, on the airport bus, that he wasn't in Portugal to enjoy himself?   *    Maddie's Fund was created just 7 full working days after she 'disappeared' - how did the McCanns know so early on that she wouldn't be found soon?   *   Why does the Leicester police website link to the McCanns Fraudulent Fund when they are still uncleared prime suspects in hiding their daughters dead body?   *  Why did Maddie's pink blanket and Gerry's blue tennis bag disappear after the PJ photographed them?   *   Why did the McCanns wash the curtains behind the sofa in the holiday apartment when they'd only been there for a week? * Why did the McCanns delete all their text messages and phone records the night Maddie disappeared?  *  Eddie barks to alert to cadaver and Keela freezes at the source of blood - what are the chances of two separate, highly-trained, independent working dogs both alerting to the exact same area, and both of them being wrong?   *  If the McCanns claim they never called their daughter Maddie why did they allow the name Maddie to be printed on the inflatable billboard that they had transported from Scotland to Praia da Luz that advertised the £1.5 million reward?   *  McCanns P.I. Kevin Halligen squandered £500,000 of the Fund money on high living and, although he's currently in prison for unrelated $2million fraud charges, why didn't the McCanns sue him?  *  If Kate McCann was "certain" Maddie had been "murdered" (page 296, para 3 of her Carter-Ruck approved book) surely that means the whole issue of fundraising has been a massive lie?    *   Why did Rachael Oldfield say in her Rogatory Interview: "If Madeleine had accidentally been bumped on the head" rather than "If Madeleine had accidentally bumped her head" before going on to say that there were plenty of people there who could have tried to revive a child?   *   Why did the McCanns keep dirty nappies and rotting meat in the boot of their hire car and does that mean that the dogs' alerts behind the sofa and in the wardrobe in their holiday apartment aswell as outside on the verandah and in the flower bed were also dirty nappies and rotting meat?.......Why did the McCanns pay £37,000 for the FindMadeleine.com website?   * How did a corrupt police officer like Antonio Giménez Raso, currently in prison for fraud, end up working as a lead investigator for the McCanns?........................................................   

.....................................................................................................................................Martin Brunt: "There are 30 Met officers - the equivalent of a murder squad - working on the review and I'm told that a senior officer is having to give regular spending updates to the Home Office which is funding an operation that will cost several million and last many months."....Gonçalo Amaral: "The English can always present the conclusions to which they themselves arrived in 2007. Because they know, they have the evidence of what happened - they don't need to investigate anything. All this is now a mere 'show off'.....Manuel Catriano: "This story did not begin in the Ocean Club, but in London where the 'official truth' was conspired and established: an English girl was kidnapped in the Algarve."....Gonçalo Amaral: "Dr Katherina Gaspar witnesses a scene with David Payne and Gerry McCann which flabbergasts her and makes her fear for the safety of her daughter and the other children"....Gonçalo Amaral: " I have understood their game. The McCanns knew that I was going to catch them. So the game is always the same. We want to catch them, they want to escape, and that's it. Sometimes the bandits win, sometimes the policemen do."....Gonçalo Amaral: "Under the old Penal Process, how do I ask Kate: "Are you lying when you say you didn't touch the window? As a matter of fact, it was you who opened the window. We have material evidence of that. A question like this forces the constitution of arguido...".....Tony Bennett: "The Madeleine Foundation has now sent a 32-page letter and a bundle of supporting evidence to the Scotland Yard 'Maddie Case' Review Team".............Gonçalo Amaral: "The little girl died in the apartment. Everything is in the book, which is faithful to the investigation until September: it reflects the understanding of the Portuguese and the English police and of the Public Ministry. For all of us until then the concealment of the cadaver, the simulation of abduction and the exposure or abandonment were proved."...Gonçalo Amaral: "For the McCanns to ask for the process to be reopened, all it would take is a letter to the prosecutor...it costs them nothing, just the stamp on the letter."...Gonçalo Amaral: "The investigation will be concluded, it will be reopened and it will be taken to an end; and justice will be made, that is all that we want."...Gonçalo Amaral: "There are hundreds of indications, clues regarding a certain event; and it is that event that some people do not accept and want to conceal."...Kate Healy was not immediately made an arguida, but merely interviewed voluntarily as a witness. Only after her interview was she made an arguida, that is, after she was confronted with concrete facts that might lead to her incrimination."...Gonçalo Amaral: "If the McCanns admit that their daughter is dead, they can no longer collect money from the Maddie fund, and that's a lot of money, over one million pounds. That's why they say that the girl was abducted."...Kate McCann: "This pair (Carter Ruck lawyers) continue to do a vast amount of work for us, without payment, most of it quietly behind the scenes."...Gonçalo Amaral: "Nowadays I have no doubts left, the archival for various reasons, was mainly due to political pressures made by the English - I have no doubts about that."...Gonçalo Amaral: "I remind you that they demanded the archiving of the process, in 2008, when they were arguidos, merely to defend their image. They are not interested in the reopening of the process or of the investigation"...Gonçalo Amaral: "It's too big and too serious a burden to be concealed by so many people for their entire lives."...Gonçalo Amaral: "Let's remember it is totally logical to find Madeleine's DNA in the home, but absolutely not in a car rented more than twenty days after her disappearance."...Tony Bennett: "The question is: exactly what is it about Madeleine's disappearance that caused such a massive level of government activity, including MI5 and secret service type groups like Control Risks Group, to become involved, and so quickly and in such large numbers? Was it to help find a missing child? Or to locate an abductor?...Martin Grime: "My professional opinion as regards to the EVRD's alert indications is that it is suggestive that this is 'cadaver scent' contaminant."...Gonçalo Amaral: "If the body had been buried there would have been mummification. The fact that there were fluids points to refrigeration."...Dr Vernon Coleman: "Would you hire the McCanns as babysitters?"...Gonçalo Amaral: "there were gestures and words indicating the existence of a child molester within that group of people"...Jose Barra da Costa, PJ: "There are people who guarantee that this is a couple who practice 'swinging' - i.e. sexual relationships between couples and then changing partners, and that this practice would allow in this type of..."...Justine McGuiness: "We were a bit naughty because we did have messages coming out of the police station which we weren't supposed to..."...C443 J.N. HUGHES: Background Information- Gerald McCANN - A search of the local section of the child abuse shows a registration number 19309 in the CATS system....Dr Katherina Gaspar: "I remember Dave telling Gerry something like “she”, referring to Madeleine, “would do this”.. While he mentioned the word 'this', David was doing the action of sucking one of his fingers, pushing it in and out of his mouth, while with his other hand he was doing a circle around his nipple. I remember being shocked by that."...Sofia Leal: “My husband and I have never abandoned our daughters, or allowed paedophiles in our circle of friends. I am shocked that a couple who affirm to be religious is seeking out to destroy our family”...Gerry McCann: "There's no evidence that Madeleine is dead and there's no evidence to implicate us in her death"...

....................................................Why do the McCanns tell blatant lies and change their stories then threaten to sue those who question them?  *  Why did Gerry McCann say in his original statement that he used the front door with a key, then changed it in his second statement to the patio door which was unlocked?   *  Why did the McCanns transport rotting meat and dirty nappies to the tip in their car when there were bins nearby?  *  Why did the dogs only signal at the McCanns apartment, clothes and car?     *   Why didn't Kate have the twins checked if she thought they'd been sedated by the abductor?   *   Why did the McCanns tell the media the PJ had offered them a deal when the PJ can't offer deals?  *   Why were old photographs of Maddie released first when Kate had the latest photo on her camara?   *     Why was the Fund named after a police manual? * Why did Kate say the window had been jemmied when it hadn't?   * Why were the only fingerprints on the window found to be Kates? * Why did the McCanns make excuses for the cadaver scent and bodily fluids found in their hire car? *  Just what was Robert Murat's role in the Madeleine McCann disappearance? * John McCann gave up his job to be a director of the Fund - how did he know Maddie wouldn't be found that day? * Why did Clarence Mitchell give up a well paid job and pension to take up a PR job that might only last a few days? * Just how many false names are the McCanns allowing on their petition? *  Who torched Sergei Malinka's car? * Who killed Goncalo Amaral's dog? * Why did our government try to make the McCanns Fund into a charity? * What did Maddie's disappearance have to do with The Chancellor, Gordon Brown? * Why did the McCanns claim to be devout catholics when Kate's mother said they weren't? * Why did the McCanns allow the sabotage of the crime scene? * Why did the McCanns refuse to co-operate with the investigation? * Why did Kate refuse to answer 48 questions that may have helped find Maddie? * Why did the McCanns refuse to take part in an official police reconstruction but then made a tv documentary? *  Will other children, like Shannon Matthews, be at risk of copycat faked abductions?   *
.......................................Gerry McCann: "Find the body and prove we killed her"....David Payne: "We have a pact. This is our matter only. It is nobody else's business"...David Payne: “We know they didn’t do it. One of our party saw Madeleine being abducted. We were waiting for something to happen but didn't in our worst nightmare think it would be this."...Clarence Mitchell: "There is a wholly innocent explanation for any material the police may or may not have found"...Clarence Mitchell: "Kate and Gerry are not responsible for Madeleine`s death"...Clarence Mitchell: "What goes on the internet has not been sanctioned by Kate and Gerry."...Chief Inspector Olegario Sousa: "There is one piece of stand alone evidence."...Michael Wright: "I noted some disagreeable smells on a number of occasions which I judged to have come from the twins’ nappies. I have no knowledge of anything spilling from any article nor of any cleaning of the car after such a hypothetical spill."...Eileen McCann: "If someone lifted her out of bed Madeleine would have screamed the place down. That girl could throw a tantrum if she wanted to"...Clarence Mitchell: “Anybody who has given money to help find Madeleine need have no fear that their money is being spent on lawyers fees or anything like that.”...Clarence Mitchell: "Just put money into an envelope and send it to Kate and Gerry McCann, Rothley, it'll get there"........Kate McCann: "Rome is preparing itself for our visit."...Susan Healy: "Kate said last night 'If I weighed another two stone, had a bigger bosom and looked more maternal, people would be more sympathetic."...Kate McCann: "Be brave, sweetheart."...Martin Brunt: "We all thought they were a chavvy family from some estate in Essex who weren't looking after their children properly but the fact that these were two middle-aged, middle-income or, even high-income professionals, doctors, it did rather take on a different hue."...Carlos Anjos: "If that situation had been of an abduction, it would have been terrible for the child. Because if that child were to be sold, or something else... She was as good as... it was her death sentence. That situation, that day, advertising that photo, was simply the death sentence of that child."...Gerry McCann: "The iris is Madeleine’s only true distinctive feature. Certainly we thought it was possible that this could potentially hurt her or her abductor might do something to her eye.… But in terms of marketing, it was a good ploy.”...Clarence Mitchell: "If she's dead then she's dead, but not by their hand"...Kate McCann: "My struggle to control 'very difficult' Madeleine"...Question 41 to Kate McCann: "Is it true that in England you even considered handing over Madeleine’s custody to a relative?"...Maddie McCann: "Why didn't you come when we were crying last night?"...Kate McCann: "...that means that, you know, she must have fallen back asleep very quickly, errm... and then she moved on… you know, she moved on."...Kate McCann: "I don't want to dwell on it too much."...Kate McCann:"When lunchtime came, Gerry and I were in the middle of another meeting when we discovered there was no one around to collect Sean and Amelie. We had to interrupt proceedings and go to the Toddler Club ourselves"...Maria Bandeirinha: “Kate passed by my door, laughing her head off, with a friend, days after her daughter disappeared. What mother has a child in an unknown location and feels like laughing?"...Kate McCann: "Well, it was our holiday too"....Kate McCann: "It's funny, we were having such a good time. We were with our friends and their kids. I think cos there was a group of us, you're just into each other, d'you know what I mean"...Gerry McCann: "If Madeleine had hurt herself inside the apartment – why would that be our fault?"...Kate McCann: "It was so dark...it was dark, erm I've never had such a long night it was dark and you're just praying for the light you know to come up to get out there..."...Rachael Oldfield: "I didn’t really like going up there by myself, it was, like going through that car park was quite dark and there was never anyone around, it was a bit, you know made me feel a bit uneasy”...Kate McCann: "I know that what happened is not due to the fact of us leaving the children asleep. I know it happened under other circumstances."...Kate McCann: "I can't stop thinking about Madeleine, about her fear of pain"...Kate McCann: "Whoever Madeleine's with she'll be giving them her tuppence worth."...Kate McCann's diary: "Gerry put on another great performance"...Daily Express reporter: "She and husband Gerry burst into laughter as they promoted her book about their lost daughter Madeleine."....Gerry McCann: "Ask the dogs, Sandra."...Gerry McCann: "It wasn't as bad as the night we found her..."...Gerry McCann: "Nothing of value was taken the night Madeleine disappeared"....Gerry McCann to Ed Smart: "Ed, I would not be surprised if they, you know, don't plant evidence in the car, you know, to have them think that there's DNA in this car that I rented after the fact is just outrageous, and what could they possibly have?"....Dave Edgar: "Maddie is in a secret lair in a lawless village in PDL"...Donal MacIntyre: Maddie's abductor cleaned the apartment, after a rehearsal, leaving no DNA...Gerry McCann: "My plan was to stay quiet and not answer."...John McCann: "It's not bad for a bunch of amateurs"...Moita Flores: "I have no doubts that the child died. Who knows, one day a fishing net will pick up a bag with a child's bones in it."...PJ Case Files: "Between 15h00 on August 4th 2007 and 06h30 on August 5th 2007, the following samples were recovered in the living room of apartment 5A at the OCEAN CLUB where a murder probably took place.".....Gonçalo Amaral: "The priests also know very well what happened that night.”...Gonçalo Amaral: "I receive a phone call from Sofia, who insists on my going home: our Shitzu dog is dead. She found it that morning, lifeless on the ground, with a head injury."...Dr Paulo Sargento: "Gonçalo Amaral is the visible target the McCanns want to take down"....Portuguese AG, Fernando Pinto Monteiro: "One way or another the McCanns were responsible for their child's death."...Gonçalo Amaral: “There are things that I haven’t said yet”...Gonçalo Amaral: "I am not shutting up"...........

MYSTERY: Mike Gunnill, a book, a courier and a third party

The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann :: Welcome :: McCann Case: latest news

Page 3 of 5 • Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Who was the mysterious 'third party' who asked Mike Gunnill to get a copy of '60 Reasons' using deceit?

72% 72% 
[ 21 ]
27% 27% 
[ 8 ]
 
Total Votes : 29

Re: MYSTERY: Mike Gunnill, a book, a courier and a third party

Post  rainbow-fairy on Fri Jan 27, 2012 1:52 pm

Tony, you have my absolute support as always. The actions of this lot truly sicken me to the stomach. Telling the public 'nothing is more important to us than finding our daughter' whilst playing silly beggars with a man who has only ever tried to produce justice for said daughter. Do they really think that Madeleine is going to leap out of Tony's briefcase??? Money money money is all they care about.
I'm just interested to know, Tony, whilst the egregious Mr Gunnill was in the process of 'entrapping' you, did you ever have even an inkling that there was skulduggery going on? Or did you in all innocence fall for it hook line and sinker?
Please don't think I'm trying to make you appear daft, I know how sneaky these people can be. Just curious if it ever crossed your mind, even fleetingly?

rainbow-fairy

Posts: 808
Join date: 2011-05-26
Age: 37
Location: going round in circles

Back to top Go down

Re: MYSTERY: Mike Gunnill, a book, a courier and a third party

Post  beejay on Fri Jan 27, 2012 2:31 pm

I'm not a solicitor but one would have thought that the Court would take into consideration the circumstances in which the undertaking was breached.

In this case, the motive of Mr Gunnill in seeking the leaflet should be explored - if he was paid for the job to entrap Tony by hounding him with requests and obfuscating his true motives (financial gain) then Tony's actions could be construed as an honourable mistake and not a deliberate breach.

If it should also transpire that C-R or an intermediary paid Gunnill for these services then again, it shows bad faith.

As Tony had to obtain the leaflet from a relative also indicates that he was not actively engaged in its distribution and the nominal £5 charge shows it was not for financial reward.

Frankly, if that is No 1 on their charge list one would hope that Tony may find some sympathy with the Court.

Good luck fella

beejay

Posts: 29
Join date: 2011-05-12
Location: Liverpool

Back to top Go down

Re: MYSTERY: Mike Gunnill, a book, a courier and a third party

Post  Shibboleth on Sat Jan 28, 2012 10:31 pm

Mike Gunnill lied about why he wanted this little book, he lied about his name.

Why would any court now accept the word of a proven liar?

Shibboleth

Posts: 431
Join date: 2010-10-16
Location: Jaffa - Tel Aviv

Back to top Go down

Re: MYSTERY: Mike Gunnill, a book, a courier and a third party

Post  rainbow-fairy on Sat Jan 28, 2012 10:55 pm

Shibboleth wrote:Mike Gunnill lied about why he wanted this little book, he lied about his name.

Why would any court now accept the word of a proven liar?

I pray that will be so, Shibboleth. These people really need stopping, and soon.

rainbow-fairy

Posts: 808
Join date: 2011-05-26
Age: 37
Location: going round in circles

Back to top Go down

Re: MYSTERY: Mike Gunnill, a book, a courier and a third party

Post  Jean on Sun Jan 29, 2012 9:38 am

Apparently he has been on the Missing Madeleine site as well (not very recently though) pretending to be friendly while in fact trying to find out the real identities of other members. Sadly, when stones are unturned, all manner of nasty creatures slither out into the light of day!

Jean

Posts: 495
Join date: 2011-03-27
Location: Far from the madding crowd

Back to top Go down

Re: MYSTERY: Mike Gunnill, a book, a courier and a third party

Post  Kololi on Mon Jan 30, 2012 11:25 am

If I recall rightly, Mr Bennett had actually supplied a lady called Sym, or something similar, after taking the undertaking, with a load of leaflets for her to distribute on his behalf. It was common knowledge on this forum as they ended up having a bit of a falling out over it I believe.

Whilst the way Mr Gunnill obtained the leaflet may have been a bit sneaky, it cannot be blamed on him. If you accept a court undertaking not to do something again and then go and do it you are likely to find yourself answerable.

What does surprise me is that the leaflet thing happened yonks ago and it is only more recently the McCanns have decided to take Mr Bennett back to court. It does make me wonder if they actually were prepared to overlook that but with the other stuff that they feel is libellous they are now thinking enough is enough.

Please don't get me wrong. I do not like gagging orders, super injunctions and very little of the time our courts have to waste sorting out some civil law nonsenses. It seems to be a playground that only the very rich can enjoy and it makes our country a laughing stock. Be that as it may we are stuck with this legal system for the moment and if it is found that Mr Bennett did breach his undertaking he has to face the consequences.

As for Mr Gunnill having lied. If you promise a court not to do something and then go and do it again, isn't that a little like telling porkies too?

Kololi

Posts: 543
Join date: 2010-01-10

Back to top Go down

Re: MYSTERY: Mike Gunnill, a book, a courier and a third party

Post  Jean on Mon Jan 30, 2012 1:20 pm

Apologies if I have misunderstood your post Kololi but are you saying that Mike Gunnill obtained the booklet not directly from Tony Bennett but indirectly from a woman with a name like Sym?

I have no idea who that might be and it certainly does not tally with Tony's account or even that of Mike Gunnill.

Jean

Posts: 495
Join date: 2011-03-27
Location: Far from the madding crowd

Back to top Go down

Re: MYSTERY: Mike Gunnill, a book, a courier and a third party

Post  TheHare on Mon Jan 30, 2012 1:23 pm

Kololi wrote:Please don't get me wrong. I do not like gagging orders, super injunctions and very little of the time our courts have to waste sorting out some civil law nonsenses. It seems to be a playground that only the very rich can enjoy and it makes our country a laughing stock. Be that as it may we are stuck with this legal system for the moment and if it is found that Mr Bennett did breach his undertaking he has to face the consequences.


Lets assume for a moment, that Mr Bennett is completely wrong. Lets assume that the McCann's are completely innocent of all involvement. Lets assume that their failure to cooperate with the police invetigation is simply down to the type of people they are. Lets assume that their friends are shallow selfish individuals with no wish to participate in an investigation to help find a missing child. Lets assume that the hiring of a bunch of incompetant, and in some cases criminal private investigators was down to bad luck. Lets assume that the McCann's just dont come across as honest or truthful people. Lets assume that hiring PR representation, and extradition lawyers was just a mistake. Lets assume that they where just unlucky in 1001 other aspects. Lets ignore direct contradictory statements, and lets assume there are rational explanations that we are unaware of.

At a push, I might actually accept all of the above.

Along comes Mr Bennett, who has probably been a royal pain in the rear. Mr Bennet has a reputation for attatching himself to similar cases, he has a reputation for tenacity, and he's attracting a reputation for actually being RIGHT !

However, lets assume he's 100% wrong.

It would seam to me that you could silence Mr Bennet simply by TELLING THE TRUTH. A clear unambigous recollection of events to set the record stright would go a long way to clear things up. However we have 1001 press releases by their clown Clarence Mitchell, we have the channel 4 mockumentary, we have a handfull of media inteviews with the McCann's and close family members, and we have the bewk. The often contradictory statements between those sources is what fuels the speculation. I'll give you an example, on 2 occasions the clown Mitchell has publically claimed that campaigns to generate potential leads has led to significant developments. On one one occassion it would not have have been possible to recieve leads via the website, as neither the email address given actually existed, and furthermore, the data capture forms on the site where non functional. Miraculously, the clown Mitchell claimed leads where being recieved. The same claim was made regarding the US hotlines set up by Halligan. We now know from Halligan, the company hosting the hotines, and even the bleedin McCann's themselves that noone was screening their calls. Another perfect example of Mitchell lying.

The easiest way of silencing critics is to tell the truth, the problem is, that version of the truth boxes you into a corner.

The alternative is to use significant amounts of publically donated monies, that was given to search for a missing child, to engage the UK's most expensive libel lawyers, in a fight, against a retired man, who posts his opinions on a tiny unknown forum out in cyberspace, and heads up an organisation with a handful of members. He's not running a national TV campaign. He's not chained himself to the railings of 10 downing street, he's not on TV day in day out and what little media attention he has recieved has tended to be biased, unfair, critical, and generally protray him in a poor light.

We have newspapers who printed the most outragous stories about the McCann's. There are probably anti McCann websites who attract significantly more traffic than Mr Bennets website, Sky and the BBC released numerous stories to audiences of 10's of millions, and yet, these organisations are not being targetted.

Lets go one stage futher, lets assume that Mr Bennet know that the McCann's are innoccent, but he's engaged in a campaign, not out of genuine belief that there's an injustice, but simply out of spite, or bordom, or because he's a genuinely evil man. Even if that the case, why is it acceptable that the McCann's can employ profesional PR agent to lie and spin their verion of events via the national media (and without a shadow of a doubt direct lies have been told by the McCann family, Mitchell, McVey, McGuiness etc), and yet Mr Bennett isnt permitted to do similar in a far smaller way. I didint agree with the leafletting at Rothley, and I dont 100% agree with some of the stuff in 10/60 reasons etc, but broadly, he's absolutely right.

The McCann's actions are disproportiate. Who in there position, would employ legal council (at god knows what hourly rate) to trawl through posts at a variety of obscure forums, with limited readership, in the hope of finding something they could sue for ? That response is disproportianate. The cloak and dagger antics of Mike Gunhill are imature playground tactics, and frankly, beyond belief.

I have a specific interest in this case, and I proactively seek out information, its a sad, but probably true that most people forgot about the case years ago, exactly who is supposed to be reading Mr Bennet comments ?. To suggest that a few post, read by relatively few people, and which are so borderline in their content that it requires the intervention of a high court judge to decide if they are libelous or not, is hampering the search is absolutely ludicrous.

I'd be pretty annoyed if I found myself on the end of one of Mr Bennets camapigns (particularly if guilty), but the McCann's response in this case is totally disproportianate. Sending lawyers in a stretch limo for christs sake to deliver papers. Its intimidation, and its going to back fire.

Since day one, practically everything they've tried to do shows them in a poor light. If we where to ever see anything approaching a transperant set of accounts it wouldnt surprise me in the slightest to discover more has been spent on the fiasco of trying to silence Mr Bennet than on activities targetted towards seraching for their lost child.

When a newspaper prints a potentally libellous article its because they've taken a commercial decision to do so. Back in the day a McCann headline could increase circulation by a million copies, so the odd half million in compensation is a reasonable price to pay. Mr Bennet isnt engaged in this campaign for commercial reasons. He's involved because he believes there's a miscarriage of justice.

He might be wrong, and if he is, I many others will be wrong too, but fear of being wrong shouldnt stop anyone from expressing an opinion. Clearly there's a right and wrong way of going about about it, but lets not forget, Mr Bennett can only use whatever tools he has available to broadcast his mesage. Unfortunately, at this point in time he doesnt have 2.5 million in publically donated fund to hire PR representation, nor has he been invited to share a settee with the likes of Oprah Winfey or Piers Morgan (although I suspect that day may arrive)

Posting a few leaflets, setting up a small website, and writing to a few MP's isnt harrasment, its expressing an opinion in a forthright manner. Lets not forget, he's not jumped to any conclusions that where not previously reached by the investigationg poice force. Retaining Carter Ruck to deal with such a problem is beyond disproportinate, and it reveals to me even more about the people involved in this disgraceful affair.

TheHare

Posts: 20
Join date: 2011-12-10

Back to top Go down

Re: MYSTERY: Mike Gunnill, a book, a courier and a third party

Post  Stella on Mon Jan 30, 2012 1:33 pm

TheHare, I could not agree more.

Stella
Researcher

Posts: 4643
Join date: 2010-08-22

Back to top Go down

Re: MYSTERY: Mike Gunnill, a book, a courier and a third party

Post  candyfloss on Mon Jan 30, 2012 1:42 pm

TheHare wrote:
Kololi wrote:Please don't get me wrong. I do not like gagging orders, super injunctions and very little of the time our courts have to waste sorting out some civil law nonsenses. It seems to be a playground that only the very rich can enjoy and it makes our country a laughing stock. Be that as it may we are stuck with this legal system for the moment and if it is found that Mr Bennett did breach his undertaking he has to face the consequences.


Lets assume for a moment, that Mr Bennett is completely wrong. Lets assume that the McCann's are completely innocent of all involvement. Lets assume that their failure to cooperate with the police invetigation is simply down to the type of people they are. Lets assume that their friends are shallow selfish individuals with no wish to participate in an investigation to help find a missing child. Lets assume that the hiring of a bunch of incompetant, and in some cases criminal private investigators was down to bad luck. Lets assume that the McCann's just dont come across as honest or truthful people. Lets assume that hiring PR representation, and extradition lawyers was just a mistake. Lets assume that they where just unlucky in 1001 other aspects. Lets ignore direct contradictory statements, and lets assume there are rational explanations that we are unaware of.


At a push, I might actually accept all of the above.

Along comes Mr Bennett, who has probably been a royal pain in the rear. Mr Bennet has a reputation for attatching himself to similar cases, he has a reputation for tenacity, and he's attracting a reputation for actually being RIGHT !

However, lets assume he's 100% wrong.

It would seam to me that you could silence Mr Bennet simply by TELLING THE TRUTH. A clear unambigous recollection of events to set the record stright would go a long way to clear things up. However we have 1001 press releases by their clown Clarence Mitchell, we have the channel 4 mockumentary, we have a handfull of media inteviews with the McCann's and close family members, and we have the bewk. The often contradictory statements between those sources is what fuels the speculation. I'll give you an example, on 2 occasions the clown Mitchell has publically claimed that campaigns to generate potential leads has led to significant developments. On one one occassion it would not have have been possible to recieve leads via the website, as neither the email address given actually existed, and furthermore, the data capture forms on the site where non functional. Miraculously, the clown Mitchell claimed leads where being recieved. The same claim was made regarding the US hotlines set up by Halligan. We now know from Halligan, the company hosting the hotines, and even the bleedin McCann's themselves that noone was screening their calls. Another perfect example of Mitchell lying.

The easiest way of silencing critics is to tell the truth, the problem is, that version of the truth boxes you into a corner.

The alternative is to use significant amounts of publically donated monies, that was given to search for a missing child, to engage the UK's most expensive libel lawyers, in a fight, against a retired man, who posts his opinions on a tiny unknown forum out in cyberspace, and heads up an organisation with a handful of members. He's not running a national TV campaign. He's not chained himself to the railings of 10 downing street, he's not on TV day in day out and what little media attention he has recieved has tended to be biased, unfair, critical, and generally protray him in a poor light.

We have newspapers who printed the most outragous stories about the McCann's. There are probably anti McCann websites who attract significantly more traffic than Mr Bennets website, Sky and the BBC released numerous stories to audiences of 10's of millions, and yet, these organisations are not being targetted.

Lets go one stage futher, lets assume that Mr Bennet know that the McCann's are innoccent, but he's engaged in a campaign, not out of genuine belief that there's an injustice, but simply out of spite, or bordom, or because he's a genuinely evil man. Even if that the case, why is it acceptable that the McCann's can employ profesional PR agent to lie and spin their verion of events via the national media (and without a shadow of a doubt direct lies have been told by the McCann family, Mitchell, McVey, McGuiness etc), and yet Mr Bennett isnt permitted to do similar in a far smaller way. I didint agree with the leafletting at Rothley, and I dont 100% agree with some of the stuff in 10/60 reasons etc, but broadly, he's absolutely right.

The McCann's actions are disproportiate. Who in there position, would employ legal council (at god knows what hourly rate) to trawl through posts at a variety of obscure forums, with limited readership, in the hope of finding something they could sue for ? That response is disproportianate. The cloak and dagger antics of Mike Gunhill are imature playground tactics, and frankly, beyond belief.

I have a specific interest in this case, and I proactively seek out information, its a sad, but probably true that most people forgot about the case years ago, exactly who is supposed to be reading Mr Bennet comments ?. To suggest that a few post, read by relatively few people, and which are so borderline in their content that it requires the intervention of a high court judge to decide if they are libelous or not, is hampering the search is absolutely ludicrous.

I'd be pretty annoyed if I found myself on the end of one of Mr Bennets camapigns (particularly if guilty), but the McCann's response in this case is totally disproportianate. Sending lawyers in a stretch limo for christs sake to deliver papers. Its intimidation, and its going to back fire.

Since day one, practically everything they've tried to do shows them in a poor light. If we where to ever see anything approaching a transperant set of accounts it wouldnt surprise me in the slightest to discover more has been spent on the fiasco of trying to silence Mr Bennet than on activities targetted towards seraching for their lost child.

When a newspaper prints a potentally libellous article its because they've taken a commercial decision to do so. Back in the day a McCann headline could increase circulation by a million copies, so the odd half million in compensation is a reasonable price to pay. Mr Bennet isnt engaged in this campaign for commercial reasons. He's involved because he believes there's a miscarriage of justice.

He might be wrong, and if he is, I many others will be wrong too, but fear of being wrong shouldnt stop anyone from expressing an opinion. Clearly there's a right and wrong way of going about about it, but lets not forget, Mr Bennett can only use whatever tools he has available to broadcast his mesage. Unfortunately, at this point in time he doesnt have 2.5 million in publically donated fund to hire PR representation, nor has he been invited to share a settee with the likes of Oprah Winfey or Piers Morgan (although I suspect that day may arrive)

Posting a few leaflets, setting up a small website, and writing to a few MP's isnt harrasment, its expressing an opinion in a forthright manner. Lets not forget, he's not jumped to any conclusions that where not previously reached by the investigationg poice force. Retaining Carter Ruck to deal with such a problem is beyond disproportinate, and it reveals to me even more about the people involved in this disgraceful affair.



Excellent post TheHare clapping thumbsup I've quoted it again. Well written, and well said!



Last edited by candyfloss on Mon Jan 30, 2012 1:44 pm; edited 1 time in total

_______________________________________________

PR = Parental Responsibility



candyfloss
Super duper Moderator

Posts: 6331
Join date: 2009-11-27
Age: 59

Back to top Go down

Page 3 of 5 • Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann :: Welcome :: McCann Case: latest news

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum