Is it libellous to say that Madeleine's disappearance is a 'mystery'?

Jean wrote:All together now - let's have a rousing chorus of the old Toyah song "It's a mystery".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R1c1ed72arI

to everyone at Carter-Ruck.

I love it...let's put Toyah's delightful (and I mean that) lisp onto it and call it a 'Myth-story'. If someone says I'm gay does that mean I'm homosexual or happy? They really IMO are clutching at straws here.

If I'm a happy homosexual does that mean I'm a gay gay?

I'm adding (again). Splitting hairs on the meaning of a word is poor show. If a civil court judge can give that any credence then my beloved country is well and truly stuffed along with lawyers who could bill a client and argue the toss about it.

Surely this means that Clarence is going to get Carter-Rucked then? He's said more or less the same thing as TB hasn't he?

Hold on folks - it looks like the wheels are starting to come loose from the McCann juggernaut!

Kololi wrote:Letter from Isabel Hudson of Carter-Ruck, 5 February 2010:

“The statement on your website ‘The fact is that the disappearance of Madeleine McCann remains a mystery’ constitutes a further actionable libel. Readers of your website will have understood this statement to mean that there are indeed grounds to suspect our clients of having caused the death of their daughter and having conspired to cover this up”.

Is that all she said? Did she qualify her statement with any other comments?

If she didn't then I am shocked that your statement constitutes a libel. As virtually everyone else has already stated, the child remains missing and as there is no absoloute concrete proof of how she went missing it is a bit of a mystery. Puzzling.

mys·ter·y
1    [mis-tuh-ree, -tree] Show IPA
noun, plural -ter·ies.
1.
anything that is kept secret or remains unexplained or unknown: the mysteries of nature.
2.
any affair, thing, or person that presents features or qualities so obscure as to arouse curiosity or speculation: The masked guest is an absolute mystery to everyone.
3.
a novel, short story, play, or film whose plot involves a crime or other event that remains puzzlingly unsettled until the very end: a mystery by Agatha Christie.
4.
obscure, puzzling, or mysterious quality or character: the mystery of Mona Lisa's smile.
5.
any truth that is unknowable except by divine revelation.

a mystery is in fact what this case is. Why has a lawyer acting in the McCann's interests" purported" a theory that we might as a readership not have come up with minus her input? All the readers hold as an opinion I would presume is that the case is a mystery we would like to look into with the aim of discovering something....fancy this person stating a theory that can be construed as libellous....indeed, and it is she who suggests the libellous scenario !

Hello all,

I specifically registered on this forum today after much resistance because of this topic.
To say Maddie's disappearance is a mystery is libelous? This is preposterous . This is nothing but bullying and I hope these bullies get their comeuppance sooner rather than later. So because they have money they can do as they please? They will get what's coming to them. Of that I have little doubt!

littlepixie wrote:It is a complete mystery to me what happened to Madeleine McCann and to everyone else on the earth. Until she is found it will REMAIN a mystery. The only people it wouldn't be a mystery to are the ones who know where she is and who put her there.

Eta EXACTLY PeterMac

By that reasoning it would mean that CR knew where she is and who put her there, hence it is not a "mystery' to them.

Otherwise, CR does not know the definition of "mystery" just like gerry does not know the definition of "purport" - they are two peas in a pod.

Any unsolved crime or thing unknown is a mystery, even a two-year will tell you that.

How else can anyone term the unsolved and mysterious circumstances surrounding missing Madeleine.
And, for that matter, CR should highlight to their notorious clients that their own spin servant, CM, originates the word "mystery" and he's oft-quoted by the newspapers. So if that is libellous, why aren't they suing their own mouthpiece or the papers that quoted him?

ShuBob wrote:Hello all,

I specifically registered on this forum today after much resistance because of this topic.
To say Maddie's disappearance is a mystery is libelous? This is preposterous . This is nothing but bullying and I hope these bullies get their comeuppance sooner rather than later. So because they have money they can do as they please? They will get what's coming to them. Of that I have little doubt!

Good to see you here. I echo that.
Me, too, I believe they will get their comeuppance SOON if the speculation of interview of the Tapas 7 and reconstruction to be carried out by the Yard are to be believed.

It's not so much money alone that enables them to do as they please since without the help of unscrupulous lawyers willing to take on their cause even if they have all the gold in the world it would be useless.

The mccanns are prostituting their moral values for money while the lawyers helping them are prostituting their souls also for money.
At the end of the day is about $.

How can the suing of people and seizure of their assets or bankrupting them or even committing them to HM prison makes a difference to their search for Maddie which should have been priority. Who gives a shit what the ignorance have to say, but not the mccanns - they are bothered by what others have to say.

It beggars belief CR's willingness to encourage the mccanns' insanity.
Isabel Hudson should read up the definition of "mystery" as universally known, and not just by mccanns' dictionary.
To suggest that it is libellous to say Madeleine's disappearance is mystery is complete madness, I cant believe a law firm such as CR could reduce themselves to that for sake of money. They didn't have to stoop to their clients' level, not as if the mccanns are pointing a gun at their temple.

ShuBob wrote:Hello all,

I specifically registered on this forum today after much resistance because of this topic.
To say Maddie's disappearance is a mystery is libelous? This is preposterous . This is nothing but bullying and I hope these bullies get their comeuppance sooner rather than later. So because they have money they can do as they please? They will get what's coming to them. Of that I have little doubt!

Welcome ShuBob. I think I know you from another place. I hope you enjoy and find it informative here

Donal McIntyre's article Feb 5th 2012...............

[snipped]

The Madeleine McCann mystery is a case where everyone has an often heated opinion

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id232.html

Stating that something IS, can be discussed. Telling what your opinion is something different.
"To me the McBehaviour is a total mystery"
"I feel repulsion, seeing the couple"
Who can Carter-Ruck me for this?

Why don't the cowards at CR who sent 5 barristers/solicitors to bully Tony Bennett, do the same to the BBC, who also stated"
'The Mystery of Madeleine McCann' - BBC Panorama - broadcast on 19 November 2007?

and to every single media outlet, including Clarence Mitchell, who have all stated, at one time or another, that the disppearance of MBM is a mystery, because that is what it is. A mystery.

Good point, Maebee.
Nice one.

And that is, Maebee, why this mystery point is a very weak point. No judge can take this seriously!

ShuBob

It's a mystery to me too why they should think the word mystery is libellous.
Have to trash all the dictionaries and start again!

candyfloss wrote:Donal McIntyre's article Feb 5th 2012...............

[snipped]

The Madeleine McCann mystery is a case where everyone has an often heated opinion

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id232.html

Oh dear, could it be because the use of the word "mystery' would suggest that the mccanns were indeed implicated in their daughter's disappearance, according to Isabel Hudson at CR?

The alternative is that the disappearance of Madeleine McCann is not a mystery. This says to me, at least, that the parents know what happened exactly. Is this the impression that Isabelle Hudson wishes for us all to have?

Shibboleth wrote:The alternative is that the disappearance of Madeleine McCann is not a mystery. This says to me, at least, that the parents know what happened exactly. Is this the impression that Isabelle Hudson wishes for us all to have?

It would suggest it is not a mystery to Isabel Hudson, meaning she was (likely) allowed in the know. Does that make her an accomplice?
Isabel Hudson sworn on affidavit this and that against TB, she's better prayed her clients aren't lying to her. Either that, or that they are not going to be exposed.

Will mccanns become Carter Ruck's nemesis? Will they suffer the mccanns' curse? Will the mccanns drag them into the mud and cause a downfall in their reputation? Time will tell.

Just as Clarence Mitchell, CR's name is now also synonymous with the mccanns.
In fact, the mccanns' notorious reputation has surpassed them two, so much so that when CM and CR are mentioned in the Press or Media their names are invariably linked to the mccanns case. As if the mccanns made them notable; and as if their past achievements and credits pale in comparison to their representation of the mccanns case. Isn't it ironic, all their past records dwarf by high profile mccanns.
Time will tell whether they will be grateful or woeful they represented the mccanns.

Article written September 24th 2007

The Madeleine McCann Mystery

http://www.people.com/people/archive/article/0,,20060436,00.html


ETA - In Press Archives thread.

BBC Panorama: 'The Mystery of Madeleine McCann'

'The Mystery of Madeleine McCann' - BBC Panorama, was broadcast on 19 November 2007.

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id48.html



The BBC started it, Tony just took their lead.

I thought it was Gerry himself who said the libellous word!

Until this case has been solved, it will remain a mystery. Same with any other unsolved case. It goes without saying. I'm really failing to understand how that one phrase, on its own, can be considered libellous.
I haven't read past the first page of this topic, nor many of the other threads on this forum, [relatively new here]so forgive me if I question something already discussed;
It was my understanding that libel is a civil matter, not criminal. Successful litigation would result in financial compensation to the plaintiff. There would be little or no point in suing a person who does not have considerable/sufficient assets to pay any damages due. I of course know nothing about Tony Bennett's financial affairs, so cannot pass comment on whether it would be worth the expense of bringing a libel case to court in the first instance.
Forgive my ignorance, but I didn't realise that libel was punishable by imprisonment? What am I missing or getting very wrong here?

Isn't there a multi-million pound review going on precisely because there is a mystery to be solved?

mexx wrote:Isn't there a multi-million pound review going on precisely because there is a mystery to be solved?

Hail Mary!
God forbids, when the mccanns hear that!

Just hearing the "M" word mentioned drives them crazy - they can't stand the "M" word.
Incidentally "M" also stands for Madeleine, and we know how they got rid of what they couldn't stand, don't we?

I also think of morality, something that seems to be completely lacking with all of Team McCann. Whatever happened to basic human decency?

Jean on Wed Feb 29, 2012 8:54 am



I also think of morality, something that seems to be completely lacking with all of Team McCann. Whatever happened to basic human decency?
__________
Evening Jean,
I think what you are missing here is the fact that morality and politics do not mix.
Five years down the line and I have yet to get the message across that Gerry McCann was on the phone to an old Uni buddy who just so happened to be New Labours (the Government of the days) behind the scene policy maker, long before he felt the need to contact the cops.
Way I see it Murduch has been the unofficial leader of the UK past 15 years. Blair, Brown, Cameron they are all puppets ----- very rich ones, if not rich before they are rich now. None of this trio are fit for purpose due to the fact that none of them had a natural ability to lead, and apart from Cameron the clown the other two were Scots. How did we end up with T Blair and G Brown 2 scots running westminster?
Just take a look back over the past 15 years ...............Blair, Brown, Mandelson, then take a good look at who was in control in the banking sector over that period. You will find that the Scots win hands down. Why are we putting up with this blatant corruption that we are now suffering the effect of?
You got it, we are the dumbest nation on earth, we are now akin to the corruption that goes on in darkest Africa that has resulted in millions of deaths and great wealth and influence for the few. Difference beween US and darkest Africa is that WE have had an education we have had it good for a long time, and
WE should not be putting up with CRAP.
We in the west who have had it good owe it to the rest of this little planet who our masters have used and abused, to speak out and demand that our politicians are fit for purpose and that the justice system is overhauled to ensure that it too is fit of purpose. It is my belief that the justice system is tweeked to serve the one percenters who enjoy great privilege and amass great wealth at our expense.
It is a given that if there is a loophole there will be something to fill it.
MY POINT IS THIS: IF THE SYSTEM WAS FIT FOR PURPOSE, WE WOULD NOT NEED FORUMS SUCH AS THIS.

P.S. thank you Jill for being the giving person that you are, it is people like you who care enough that make a world.