Re: McCanns v Bennett: 153 alleged breaches reduced to 25

by aiyoyo 25.02.12 16:42

tigger wrote:aiyoyo , don't forget the diary; where is states she is sleeping well within a week of 3/5.

In the bewk is another snippet about how Kate can't believe she will never be able to laugh in public anymore.
the there is a video where they are smiling broadly just before they sit down for the interview and change to miserable in a split second.
Both for Tony and Amaral, we could collect these together in one topic?

Oh dear.........how fun for her and how funny for us!

by Ashwarya 25.02.12 18:57

That is dreadful news, Pershing, and I am so sorry. The law in this country is an absolute disgrace, with celebs (including McCanns) getting shedloads of money without even bothering to attend court, and being believed, and genuine hard-up victims of criminal behaviour getting virtually nothing and having to jump through every conceivable hoop to get peanuts. I sincerely hope you get something approaching what you need and deserve, and that you see the criminal driver banged up for a very long time. I won't be holding my breath though.

I have lawyers in my immediate family, and I would be truly ashamed if they were acting like the ones at Carter Ruck and ruining the lives of decent people in order to enrich even more their celebrity clients and also themselves.

by Liz Eagles 26.02.12 15:33

aiyoyo wrote:
tigger wrote:aiyoyo , don't forget the diary; where is states she is sleeping well within a week of 3/5.

In the bewk is another snippet about how Kate can't believe she will never be able to laugh in public anymore.
the there is a video where they are smiling broadly just before they sit down for the interview and change to miserable in a split second.
Both for Tony and Amaral, we could collect these together in one topic?

Oh dear.........how fun for her and how funny for us!

This is a snippet from Kate's diary taken from mccanfiles.com (with thanks)

http://mccannfiles.com/id166.html

MONDAY, MAY 14: I slept well last night after a not very good end of the day, frustration with the FLO (Portuguese police family liaison officer) asking me where would my little M be.

I got up at 06.50. I dealt with some trifles and got myself ready for the statement to the press at 08.00.

I tried to put on a slightly more presentable and "healthy" air. Gerry again gave a great performance.

Following on we answered about four questions. I almost responded to the first one asking how we were, but I didn't. I did answer a question on our possible return home. I replied that obviously I didn't even think about that. Anyway, it seemed to have gone well. After breakfast and our having left S and A, (twins Sean and Amelie, then aged two) we went to church to pray in silence. Very good, calming.

After getting back I decided to go running—for the first time since THE day (already 11 days ago). I knew that it was going to be physically difficult, but I also knew that I wasn't going to give up, because it was for Madeleine and also because the level of pain is far higher now.

No cameras or journalists, which was great. I went running towards the beach and then along it and again climbed that hill so steep —without stopping! (I carried a photo of M in my hand to keep me going.) On the last hill past the tennis courts my legs completely weak, but I managed to keep myself walking. I managed to reach the apartment then time to stop—to think—I felt really quite calm.

Now that is one hell of a constitution IMO.

by rainbow-fairy 26.02.12 16:49

I find it ever-so-telling how Kate says she feels she will never be able to laugh again - in public. If anything happened to either of my boys, my reaction would be the same - if you drop the two bolded words! 'In public' - those two words alone show Kate for the narcissist she is. Cares more about the public perception of her than anything else.
Of course, we can't say for certain how we'd react in that situation, but I'm damned sure I would never want to laugh again, anywhere. But the McCanns are different, aren't they? We know that. We have the 'true colours' video, and then there are the witness statements saying Kate was walking through PdL with a friend, 'laughing like a drain' within days of the 'abduction'. Gerry on the patio, laughing and playing the clown. And NOW, for her bewk its 'I'll never laugh in public' and for the compo writs she goes as far as 'steeped in a serious depression'. Er, yeh, ok...
As far as appearance in court, absolutely they should go. They'll be happy to take the £££'s should they win (and I'll be amazed if they do) so the least they can do is have the guts to stand in front of the man whose life they have set out to systematically destroy. They truly make me sick.

by russiandoll 26.02.12 17:05

tigger wrote:aiyoyo , don't forget the diary; where is states she is sleeping well within a week of 3/5.

In the bewk is another snippet about how Kate can't believe she will never be able to laugh in public anymore.
the there is a video where they are smiling broadly just before they sit down for the interview and change to miserable in a split second.
Both for Tony and Amaral, we could collect these together in one topic?

the video I think you refer to shows the opposite......perfectly serious and sad faced then when removing mics after it is over they share a joke. maybe just nerves, maybe a feeling of relief...or maybe a demonstration that what went before it was a facade.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVUnMtW9ciI

by Guest 26.02.12 17:18

rainbow-fairy wrote:I find it ever-so-telling how Kate says she feels she will never be able to laugh again - in public. If anything happened to either of my boys, my reaction would be the same - if you drop the two bolded words! 'In public' - those two words alone show Kate for the narcissist she is. Cares more about the public perception of her than anything else.
Of course, we can't say for certain how we'd react in that situation, but I'm damned sure I would never want to laugh again, anywhere. But the McCanns are different, aren't they? We know that. We have the 'true colours' video, and then there are the witness statements saying Kate was walking through PdL with a friend, 'laughing like a drain' within days of the 'abduction'. Gerry on the patio, laughing and playing the clown. And NOW, for her bewk its 'I'll never laugh in public' and for the compo writs she goes as far as 'steeped in a serious depression'. Er, yeh, ok...
As far as appearance in court, absolutely they should go. They'll be happy to take the £££'s should they win (and I'll be amazed if they do) so the least they can do is have the guts to stand in front of the man who's life they have set out to systematically destroy. They truly make me sick.

Somehow I wouldn't be surprised if they did NOT turn up in court in Lisbon (where they stand a fair chance of being arrested on the spot based on the results of the review shared between PJ and SY by now) The risk of them being arrested and then trotted out to a reconstruction is real. Why? Because by getting rid of the books belonging to GA, which they by rights should have (had) returned, they are in contempt of Court themselves, punishable by law, and liable for indemnifying dr Amaral.

Which means: they CANNOT and will not come to the Lisboa Courtroom

So: Kate will do another Lady Diana/Martin Bashir act; the media will lap it up; and Dr. Amaral will win in Court.
Kudos for our man!

PS: I do so love the shark!!

McCanns v Bennett: 153 alleged breaches reduced to 25 - Page 6 1135810427

McCanns v Bennett: 153 alleged breaches reduced to 25 - Page 6 1135810427

by Angelique 26.02.12 18:53

This has just been put up on MM site - hope this is ok? Mods please remove if not allowed.

http://mccannexposure.wordpress.com/

"Update on McCann & McCann v Bennett

25Feb

I can report that negotiations are currently in progress between Tony and Carter-Ruck to see if there is any way that the contempt of court matter can be settled without the need for a 2-day trial. In the meantime, and pending any agreement if there is to be one, Tony, on 22 February, made a cross-application within the contempt proceedings to be released from one of his undertakings. No date has yet been fixed for the trial. I will provide more information when available."

by **tigger** 26.02.12 19:10

Angelique wrote:This has just been put up on MM site - hope this is ok? Mods please remove if not allowed.

http://mccannexposure.wordpress.com/

"Update on McCann & McCann v Bennett

25Feb

I can report that negotiations are currently in progress between Tony and Carter-Ruck to see if there is any way that the contempt of court matter can be settled without the need for a 2-day trial. In the meantime, and pending any agreement if there is to be one, Tony, on 22 February, made a cross-application within the contempt proceedings to be released from one of his undertakings. No date has yet been fixed for the trial. I will provide more information when available."

Since CR have been on a retainer for all this time (2 + years?) and have made the most of it by citing 153 complaints (so much more reading for the staff) they're not going to lose out. 153 complaints in court would have made the trial last for weeks!
What do you call two hundred lawyers at the bottom of the sea?
Don't know.
A good start.

by Guest 26.02.12 19:17

Angelique wrote:This has just been put up on MM site - hope this is ok? Mods please remove if not allowed.

http://mccannexposure.wordpress.com/

"Update on McCann & McCann v Bennett

25Feb

I can report that negotiations are currently in progress between Tony and Carter-Ruck to see if there is any way that the contempt of court matter can be settled without the need for a 2-day trial. In the meantime, and pending any agreement if there is to be one, Tony, on 22 February, made a cross-application within the contempt proceedings to be released from one of his undertakings. No date has yet been fixed for the trial. I will provide more information when available."

If true, this can mean only two things:

1. Cruck are no longer getting paid;
2. Cruck's masters are caving in, aware of things to come.

It's well neigh inconceivable to have TB approaching Cruck begging for a reprieve.

Well well. Interesting times indeed.

by Guest 26.02.12 19:24

tigger wrote:
Angelique wrote:This has just been put up on MM site - hope this is ok? Mods please remove if not allowed.

http://mccannexposure.wordpress.com/

"Update on McCann & McCann v Bennett

25Feb

I can report that negotiations are currently in progress between Tony and Carter-Ruck to see if there is any way that the contempt of court matter can be settled without the need for a 2-day trial. In the meantime, and pending any agreement if there is to be one, Tony, on 22 February, made a cross-application within the contempt proceedings to be released from one of his undertakings. No date has yet been fixed for the trial. I will provide more information when available."

Since CR have been on a retainer for all this time (2 + years?) and have made the most of it by citing 153 complaints (so much more reading for the staff) they're not going to lose out. 153 complaints in court would have made the trial last for weeks!
What do you call two hundred lawyers at the bottom of the sea?
Don't know.
A good start.

If true, McC et company probably have taken the measure of Judge Deed-Tugendhat; and calculated the risks of proceeding against 153-25-10 'breaches' (windmills) to outweigh the damage of pacifying TB.

Remember, their Funds' means have been proven to be finite, shaky by a certified accountant; they will need every penny at their disposal to fully satisfy the indomitable Isobel Duarte.

by MushyPeas 26.02.12 19:42

Hi,

I used to work in Lincoln's Inn and very nice it was too. Beautiful (real) tudor buildings with black beams everywhere and newish oak staircases, quite wonderful, but probably haunted as well, as there were very cold corners that would not heat up even in summer.

Anyway, with my limited legal background, I am sure that the Contempt of Court case has gone beyond the point of no return. Once the pre-trial is sorted, it is up to a Judge to decide whether any of Tony's undertakings have been breached. Perhaps Tony would like to comment and put us all out of our misery.

Ta, Mushy

by uppatoffee 26.02.12 19:53

I am pretty certain that Tony will be the one who has asked for the out of court settlement. Despite what we believe about what happened to Madeleine, Tony is facing financial ruin. At the end of the day he needs to put himself and his family first.

Good luck Tony.

by aiyoyo 27.02.12 10:09

What betting the mccanns getting cold feet over this one.

What with the bad start where the Judge hinted they were wasting time with their 153 frivolous charges, then allowing MG to be called as witness, this does not bode well for the mccanns.

Does anyone think CR is dying to hear TB presents to the Judge Portugal Court's papers on Amaral's book injunction overturn, and much more about the non-evidence to the support their abduction theory, and AG's final words that the mccanns fail to clear them by their refusing to do the reconstruction etc etc.?

by Pershing36 27.02.12 10:51

uppatoffee wrote:I am pretty certain that Tony will be the one who has asked for the out of court settlement. Despite what we believe about what happened to Madeleine, Tony is facing financial ruin. At the end of the day he needs to put himself and his family first.

Good luck Tony.

I agree with this 100%. I know there is a matter of principle involved and Tony has certainly researched everything he has said. However this outfit against him seem to be after two things, first silence anybody who doesn't 100% drop to their knee's, worship them as a vision of medical and parent perfection and believe what they say without question.

Second fill the coffers of their fund which remains largely unaccounted for and solely for any purpose they see fit.

I think there should be a point were Tony just takes care of himself and family.

by aiyoyo 28.02.12 11:39

Pershing36 wrote:
uppatoffee wrote:I am pretty certain that Tony will be the one who has asked for the out of court settlement. Despite what we believe about what happened to Madeleine, Tony is facing financial ruin. At the end of the day he needs to put himself and his family first.

Good luck Tony.

I agree with this 100%. I know there is a matter of principle involved and Tony has certainly researched everything he has said. However this outfit against him seem to be after two things, first silence anybody who doesn't 100% drop to their knee's, worship them as a vision of medical and parent perfection and believe what they say without question.

Second fill the coffers of their fund which remains largely unaccounted for and solely for any purpose they see fit.

I think there should be a point were Tony just takes care of himself and family.

Without saying TB priority must be to protect himself and his family. However, there is something more important than that that needs to be put right once and for all in this whole farcical, and that is, for TB to get the Court to rescind the undertaking. Else simply caving in or settling out of court wont solve the root of the problem. The mccanns will use the general undertaking to sue him again. The undertaking must be narrowed down to specifics at the very least.

So IMO it must be the mccanns who sought the back down due to the implication for them of the MG debacle.
This did not start well for them and looks unlikely to end well for them. As it stood they have already initiated the back down by their withdrawal of their paramount allegation ie the sale of the book, which was the backbone to this bundle of allegations.

by Guest 28.02.12 20:50

aiyoyo wrote:
Pershing36 wrote:
uppatoffee wrote:I am pretty certain that Tony will be the one who has asked for the out of court settlement. Despite what we believe about what happened to Madeleine, Tony is facing financial ruin. At the end of the day he needs to put himself and his family first.

Good luck Tony.

I agree with this 100%. I know there is a matter of principle involved and Tony has certainly researched everything he has said. However this outfit against him seem to be after two things, first silence anybody who doesn't 100% drop to their knee's, worship them as a vision of medical and parent perfection and believe what they say without question.

Second fill the coffers of their fund which remains largely unaccounted for and solely for any purpose they see fit.

I think there should be a point were Tony just takes care of himself and family.

Without saying TB priority must be to protect himself and his family. However, there is something more important than that that needs to be put right once and for all in this whole farcical, and that is, for TB to get the Court to rescind the undertaking. Else simply caving in or settling out of court wont solve the root of the problem. The mccanns will use the general undertaking to sue him again. The undertaking must be narrowed down to specifics at the very least.

So IMO it must be the mccanns who sought the back down due to the implication for them of the MG debacle.
This did not start well for them and looks unlikely to end well for them. As it stood they have already initiated the back down by their withdrawal of their paramount allegation ie the sale of the book, which was the backbone to this bundle of allegations.

Yes!

by jmac 28.02.12 21:07

My father, now 93 and approaching 94 in May is a Dunkirk veteran. He tells me that as the soldiers disembarked there were people jeering them in Britain as if they were cowards. Not everyone of course.

What I am saying is there is a very good reason why in any battle there should be a retreat. In fact, not to retreat in some circumstances would be the height of ridiculous.

by Guest 28.02.12 22:02

jmac wrote:My father, now 93 and approaching 94 in May is a Dunkirk veteran. He tells me that as the soldiers disembarked there were people jeering them in Britain as if they were cowards. Not everyone of course.

What I am saying is there is a very good reason why in any battle there should be a retreat. In fact, not to retreat in some circumstances would be the height of ridiculous.

Please convey my sincere and full respects to your father.

He is quite right.

mr Antony Bennett and dr Amaral are staking their everything, dr Amaral even losing his wife, home, position in life and what not.

We, Forumeers are just hanging on for the ride.

There is no doubt in my mind however, that both the British and Poftuguese legal systems are up to scratch, and will sort out the mess left by a bunch of miscreants needing a little money on the back of a horrible accident/crime.

by Miraflores 28.02.12 22:42

What I am saying is there is a very good reason why in any battle there
should be a retreat. In fact, not to retreat in some circumstances
would be the height of ridiculous.

I am not sure who you expect to beat the retreat here. Do you think Tony should back down? It would be understandable if he did, but it would be a pity. Or are you saying that the McCanns have decided that a retreat is in order (which it might be, but would be something of a first for them)?

by jmac 28.02.12 22:57

You do not understand what `beating the retreat` means in these circumstances because you do not see the situation as the same as other forum members.

by jmac 28.02.12 23:00

A retreat can be a stategy to advance...

Quite honestly I do not understand why you to not understand ....

by listener 28.02.12 23:05

jmac wrote:You do not understand what `beating the retreat` means in these circumstances because you do not see the situation as the same as other forum members.

Que?

by jmac 28.02.12 23:19

Not speaking English does not help. ? ? ?

Instead of saying `Que` how about making a point that we all recognise and can address?

by listener 28.02.12 23:31

listener wrote:
jmac wrote:You do not understand what `beating the retreat` means in these circumstances because you do not see the situation as the same as other forum members.

Que?

"how about making a point that we all recognise and can address?"

OK - "You do not understand what `beating the retreat` means in these circumstances" - Why would the poster not understand that phrase?

"because you do not see the situation as the same as other forum members" -Why would you make that presumtion?