New Blacksmith piece

by Littlefish 02.09.12 10:22

Wanted to post a link to the latest piece by Blacksmith:

http://blacksmithbureau.blogspot.co.uk/

by **Tony Bennett** 02.09.12 10:44

Littlefish wrote:Wanted to post a link to the latest piece by Blacksmith:

http://blacksmithbureau.blogspot.co.uk/

This passage of Blacksmirth's piece is inaccurate:

On the second occasion the couple once again did well until their evidence was tested. On the basis of their unproven assertions that Amaral was damaging their human rights a Portuguese judge granted an interim injunction of extraordinary severity which, as we know, brought Amaral to the brink of penury, banned him from even discussing the case and removed the financial means necessary for him to assemble his own defence.

An interim injunction means “we will accept your claims on the temporary assumption you are telling the truth even though you have not yet established it. The truth of it will be examined in court." At the end of 2009 the case finally came to court so that the pair could establish it. When it concluded in the court of appeal in mid-2010 the parents lost and were refused further appeals.

In fact, the appeal of Dr Amaral against the Lisbon Court was heard in October 2010. That is when the ban on his book, first imposed by the Lisbon High Court in September 2009, was lifted.

And, contrary to the assertion by Blacksmith that the McCanns were refused further appeals, on the contrary, they DID appeal to the Portuguese Supreme Court. The case was heard there in March 2011 and, once again, the McCanns LOST. The McCanns were ordered to pay the costs of BOTH hearings

by Woofer 02.09.12 10:48

Blacksmith draws a parallel with the latest Russian oligarch battle in our court, where the judge relies heavily on the reliability of the witnesses. Just hope the Portuguese judges do the same. If they do, Amaral will surely get justice.

by Guest 02.09.12 10:55

Thanks for posting this... it has given me some encouragement for the forthcoming trials.

I love the last sentence:

Don't give way to cynical pessimism. The McCanns haven't even been dragged into the witness box so far and yet they have a 100% loss rate in their court cases already. Now let's see what the next round brings.

by **PeterMac** 02.09.12 11:04

Stewie wrote:Thanks for posting this... it has given me some encouragement for the forthcoming trials.
I love the last sentence:
Don't give way to cynical pessimism. The McCanns haven't even been dragged into the witness box so far and yet they have a 100% loss rate in their court cases already. Now let's see what the next round brings.

I think this is crucial
The McCanns have managed to negotiate out of court settlements, through the bullying financial power of Carter-Ruck, and also to pursue these two cases without ever having to appear in court themselves to give evidence and so submit to cross examination.
Even the case against TB is being conducted apparently through an affidavit sworn by a solicitor, who cannot have any personal knowledge of the facts. Hearsay, in fact.
Someone, one day must get a judge to adjourn a trial so that they can be brought into the witness box to explain exactly how the
• Search has been affected
• They have been personally affected in the way they have said
and so on.

by **Tony Bennett** 02.09.12 11:37

PeterMac wrote:
Stewie wrote:Thanks for posting this... it has given me some encouragement for the forthcoming trials.
I love the last sentence:
Don't give way to cynical pessimism. The McCanns haven't even been dragged into the witness box so far and yet they have a 100% loss rate in their court cases already. Now let's see what the next round brings.
I think this is crucial
The McCanns have managed to negotiate out of court settlements, through the bullying financial power of Carter-Ruck, and also to pursue these two cases without ever having to appear in court themselves to give evidence and so submit to cross examination. Even the case against TB is being conducted apparently through an affidavit sworn by a solicitor, who cannot have any personal knowledge of the facts. Hearsay, in fact.
Someone, one day must get a judge to adjourn a trial so that they can be brought into the witness box to explain exactly how the
• Search has been affected
• They have been personally affected in the way they have said
and so on.

You may recall that at the Case Management hearing before Mr Justice Tugendhat on 8 February, I made an application - for the reasons stated above - that the McCanns be required to be witnesses in their own cause and to make a witness statement, so that their evidence could be tested and cross-examined. I explained that only Ms Isabel Hudson had made a statement in support of the application to commit me to prison.

Mr Justice Tugendhat refused my application, and no doubt correctly.

In dismissing it, he said: "It is up to the Claimants what evidence they bring to court".

He was inviting me, in effect, to make a submission to the Court along these lines:

'The Claimants have not been willing to make any statements themselves, and have not been willing to have their statements tested in court. They have relied on their solicitor to speak for them. Her evidence is therefore indirect evidence, hearsay in fact. The court should take this into account in making its decision'.

by Smokeandmirrors 02.09.12 12:14

Tony Bennett wrote:
PeterMac wrote:
Stewie wrote:Thanks for posting this... it has given me some encouragement for the forthcoming trials.
I love the last sentence:
Don't give way to cynical pessimism. The McCanns haven't even been dragged into the witness box so far and yet they have a 100% loss rate in their court cases already. Now let's see what the next round brings.
I think this is crucial
The McCanns have managed to negotiate out of court settlements, through the bullying financial power of Carter-Ruck, and also to pursue these two cases without ever having to appear in court themselves to give evidence and so submit to cross examination. Even the case against TB is being conducted apparently through an affidavit sworn by a solicitor, who cannot have any personal knowledge of the facts. Hearsay, in fact.
Someone, one day must get a judge to adjourn a trial so that they can be brought into the witness box to explain exactly how the
• Search has been affected
• They have been personally affected in the way they have said
and so on.
You may recall that at the Case Management hearing before Mr Justice Tugendhat on 8 February, I made an application - for the reasons stated above - that the McCanns be required to be witnesses in their own cause and to make a witness statement, so that their evidence could be tested and cross-examined. I explained that only Ms Isabel Hudson had made a statement in support of the application to commit me to prison.

Mr Justice Tugendhat refused my application, and no doubt correctly.

In dismissing it, he said: "It is up to the Claimants what evidence they bring to court".

He was inviting me, in effect, to make a submission to the Court along these lines:

'The Claimants have not been willing to make any statements themselves, and have not been willing to have their statements tested in court. They have relied on their solicitor to speak for them. Her evidence is therefore indirect evidence, hearsay in fact. The court should take this into account in making its decision'.

So in effect, in not bringing evidence to court, they can present NO evidence, only a second hand account via some paid mouthpiece?

I'm beginning to think that this will never reach court Tony. I can't see how a case where the claimants refuse to give evidence can ever get off the ground, or how any judge would consider presiding over such a matter. They've had the Amaral trial "on ice" for years, why? They didn't appear in Portugal for court appearances. Deep down I feel they are not going to proceed with either case. I think they know how awful it will look on them if they do this without bothering to go to court and speak for themselves, given how much they have spoken in public over the years. I don't think they would risk facing you or Amaral in court because they will be asked things they don't want to answer. I imagine they expected you and Goncalo to go grovelling to them before now to make an out of court settlement.

by **PeterMac** 02.09.12 12:24

You must be allowed therefore to question the maker of the affidavit, and thereby to expose her lack of knowledge. It cannot be the case in English law that her "evidence" can go unchallenged. Can it?
It should not be difficult to phrase one or two killer questions, or simply to ask for further and better particulars of something she has averred.

by Guest 02.09.12 12:33

Tony Bennett wrote:
PeterMac wrote:
Stewie wrote:Thanks for posting this... it has given me some encouragement for the forthcoming trials.
I love the last sentence:
Don't give way to cynical pessimism. The McCanns haven't even been dragged into the witness box so far and yet they have a 100% loss rate in their court cases already. Now let's see what the next round brings.
I think this is crucial
The McCanns have managed to negotiate out of court settlements, through the bullying financial power of Carter-Ruck, and also to pursue these two cases without ever having to appear in court themselves to give evidence and so submit to cross examination. Even the case against TB is being conducted apparently through an affidavit sworn by a solicitor, who cannot have any personal knowledge of the facts. Hearsay, in fact.
Someone, one day must get a judge to adjourn a trial so that they can be brought into the witness box to explain exactly how the
• Search has been affected
• They have been personally affected in the way they have said
and so on.
You may recall that at the Case Management hearing before Mr Justice Tugendhat on 8 February, I made an application - for the reasons stated above - that the McCanns be required to be witnesses in their own cause and to make a witness statement, so that their evidence could be tested and cross-examined. I explained that only Ms Isabel Hudson had made a statement in support of the application to commit me to prison.

Mr Justice Tugendhat refused my application, and no doubt correctly.

In dismissing it, he said: "It is up to the Claimants what evidence they bring to court".

He was inviting me, in effect, to make a submission to the Court along these lines:

'The Claimants have not been willing to make any statements themselves, and have not been willing to have their statements tested in court. They have relied on their solicitor to speak for them. Her evidence is therefore indirect evidence, hearsay in fact. The court should take this into account in making its decision'.

Judge Deed, indeed

by **Tony Bennett** 02.09.12 12:41

PeterMac wrote:You must be allowed therefore to question the maker of the affidavit, and thereby to expose her lack of knowledge. It cannot be the case in English law that her "evidence" can go unchallenged. Can it?
It should not be difficult to phrase one or two killer questions, or simply to ask for further and better particulars of something she has averred.

Indeed, PeterMac, Isabel Hudson now having made a total of 5 sworn statements in these proceedings, I am fully entitled to question everything she has said in those 5 statements, or indeed probe areas she has omitted, and I have already begun what will be a very long series of questions for her (if I cannot get legal representation, that is).

It is not yet clear which way round things well go.

If the court decides to begin with the McCanns' application to commit me to prison, then Isabel Hudson will go first and I shall of course be allowed to cross-examine her.

If on the other hand (as is very possible) my application for 3 of the 11 undertakings I gave to be revoked or varied is heard first, then I shall begin proceedings with my application, and the barrister who has been instructed by Adam Tudor and Isabel Hudson (probably Jacob Dean again) will cross-examine me.

by Smokeandmirrors 02.09.12 12:49

Also, does anyone know if the money from Kates book ever make it into the fund accounts? I know it hadn't at one point, but has this status changed? They've travelled the world selling their book on the basis that it will fund the search. In bringing cases to court, it is letting the world know what the publics money is being spent on, and it isn't a search, yet they claim it is damaging the search for Tony and Goncalo to publish something which is not towing the party line. No. Bringing this to a court will expose them. After denigrating the press at the Levison inquiry, where Gerry says he is a fan of freedom of speech EXCEPT when it concerns the circulation of inaccuracies. The Media would have an absolute field day, highlighting the inaccuracies of the McFund, book income, search expenditure etc. They know this. Is Tony's £125/150k costs a fair exchange for £1m+ from Kates novel, which would be forced to be declared into the fund? I think not. Likewise, claiming 1.2m Euros from Amaral, when they have only invested a paltry 13% or thereabouts of the fund on the search (which is a fact that WILL be exposed in any courtroom) added to the as yet undeclared £1m+ from the book, goodness knows what fees they got from interviews....

The more you think about it, the more it would seem they cannot possibly risk either case going to court. It will be exposed that they have made a fortune for an alleged search, yet not publicly followed up ONE SINGLE SIGHTING.

This pair are finished IMO.

by AskTheDogsSandra 02.09.12 12:55

Smokeandmirrors wrote:Also, does anyone know if the money from Kates book ever make it into the fund accounts? I know it hadn't at one point, but has this status changed? They've travelled the world selling their book on the basis that it will fund the search.

Why would the Mc's want to spend their own money searching for their daughter when the deliberately misinformed public (which has included children and pensioners who donated their pocket money and pensions) regularly give them money ?

by **tigger** 02.09.12 13:58

This caught my eye:
.....their status as the parents of the missing child meant nothing and the force was not going to provide evidence that might assist potential defendants which, the officer stated, the parents most certainly remained.

by mank 04.09.12 11:05

This is very encouraging New Blacksmith piece 847771

http://blacksmithbureau.blogspot.co.uk/

by aiyoyo 04.09.12 13:31

This is a most bizzare case against TB based just on hearsay of IH.
Can she be questioned as to who instructed her (CR or mccanns via CR, as in is this an entrapment); her given objective, and why?
For example who she was asked to target or monitor specifically, and why?
If specifically only TB, what was the reason given to her to justify that, when there are plenty fora, blogs, and books discussing the mccanns, disbelieving them and questioning their story?

Why pick out only TB to intimidate?

Ask, if anything shouldn't it be the Portuguese PP they should be suing for releasing the process files into public arena wherein it was stated the mccanns should be looked at when dogs marked 13 items sourced only to the mccanns, and they failed to prove their innocence when they refused to co-operate etc...

Those salient points in the PP reports highlighted by SharonL in another thread as good for Amaral to use as defence are also good for TB to raise in his defence.

by **PeterMac** 04.09.12 13:56

aiyoyo wrote:
Why pick out only TB to intimidate?

Because Tony is one of the very few people with the 'cojones' to give his full name, address, and telephone number, who also lives within the jurisdiction.

by pauline 04.09.12 14:33

Smokeandmirrors wrote: (edited)Also, does anyone know if the money from Kates book ever make it into the fund accounts? I know it hadn't at one point, but has this status changed? They've travelled the world selling their book on the basis that it will fund the search.

the big advance royalties cheque (exact amount unclear) received late 2010 apparently never made it into accounts year to march 2011 lodged in Company House. These have been closely examined by McCann sceptics. The accounts for March 2012, I confidently predict, will be filed at the latest legal moment which is 31 Dec 2012. It will be interesting to see if this money has turned up, but it may not be clear as the McCanns supply the minimum legal info in the accounts they lodge in Company House