Re: McCANNS v BENNETT Hearing before Mr Justice Tugendhat, today, 11 October 2012

by marxman 12.10.12 21:41

ShuBob wrote:Archer and Aitken both perjured themselves in court. Is it different if the Claimants don't bother turning up to court but hide behind their lawyers who have made sworn statements on their behalf?

I understand that the Mccanns may decide to 'stay

at home,' thereby, not being in a place to commit

purjury so allowing their lawyers to get on with it.

However, IMO, I think this judge will request that

these claimants must show the whites of their eyes,

especially when it transpires of their reluctance to

present themselves and assist the investigation in

the past.

by Woofer 12.10.12 23:33

Anyone would think that a commandment or a law had been issued by the Mcs - a commandment to the whole world that states "Thou shalt look for Madeleine" and that these naughty men, i.e. TB and GA, have caused people to break this commandment.

by jd 13.10.12 1:31

Tony, if I have understood this correctly (correct me if I am wrong) this despite the heaviness of it is actually really good news. What I refer to is "He added that if these issues were to be addressed in the proper forum, there would have to be “Full disclosure, witness statements, and expert evidence on the sniffer dogs…". There is no way the mccanns will want this, as this will bring serious doubt to their story in a public court. We know from the statements and the dogs, for example, how much serious damage this will do to them. If I am right with my interpretation of yesterday then I would be feeling very confident to be able to show all this evidence in court, though obviously CR will be trying every trick in the book to stop this happening

Sending couriers to your doorstep at the 11th hour with masses of documents only shows how dirty and unfair they are playing this. They are the ones who are playing this game, use it against them...Totally with no stone unturned

by jd 13.10.12 1:46

You can show so clearly from the statements why there is no problem "using gerry mccann own words"...Purporting a theory based on facts and in this case their own words, not yours, not mine, not anyones but the mcanns own words. They are the ones who said them, nobody else. Anyone can see this when they realise these statements

And the British dog handler who said if Eddie and Keela alerted to any cadaver or blood then to take this as Fact! If you can't purport a theory from their own words then what is the UK about? Certainly not a land of freedom of speech

by aiyoyo 13.10.12 8:19

puzzled wrote:
statsman wrote:It's just a thought, but it was actually the behavior of the McCanns that made me think Madeleine was dead and that was long before I'd ever read anything that Tony Bennett wrote. I'm also sure that many others can say the same.

I don't know if this can be used in Tony's defence but I am thinking if enough people sign their names to a statement like the one I've written above, it must be damaging to the McCann's libel suit.

Same here. I thought the McCanns were suspicious simply on the basis of their own behaviour, long before I ever came across this site,or heard of Tony Bennett.

In the meantime, my best wishes to Tony.

Their critics were disbelieving and discussing them way before TB came on the scene.
Remember Mirror Forum and 3As forum?
The people then are the same people now - people moved to new platform since the other two were closed down. New comers on the scene are very few, most of us have followed this since day one, nothing to do with TB's work.

I think it's fair to ask the Judge to credit people with intelligence if people offer to go as witness.
Otherwise, on the logic that people are easily influenced without discerning ability why did they not believe the mccanns despite their high profile campaign, spin, dealing and wheeling, spoken creature and all.

by aiyoyo 13.10.12 8:58

ShuBob wrote:Archer and Aitken both perjured themselves in court. Is it different if the Claimants don't bother turning up to court but hide behind their lawyers who have made sworn statements on their behalf?

Equally their lawyers can also perjure themselves if they are not careful.
The professional line should be clearly drawn, or risk getting sucked into it unnecessary. Look at Isabel Duarte!

Libel litigants in Portugal are not obliged by law to attend.
Not sure whether same applies in UK, or on case by case basis.
But, has anyone ever come across high-profile plaintiffs not showing up in Court, but leaving it entirely to their mighty lawyers?
Not only one, but a fleet of admirable-titled lawyers attended and will be attending on their behalf to convince the Court to send an old man to prison. Surely their contingent of lawyers is not lost to Court.

Lawyers charge a hugh fee for their attendance in Court. Already the mccanns had incurred an impressive legal bill, still escalating, and someone has to pay this bill at the end of the day. The possibility is very real they might end up paying this bill. No wonder they are peddling their *£/call phone-in*.

by **PeterMac** 13.10.12 9:04

Before we get carried away -
My understanding is that the instant case is about Breach of Undertakings, not strictly about the libel itself, and that therefore all the evidence people are suggesting is not pertinent to this.
(TB will correct this if it is wrong)

by ShuBob 13.10.12 11:18

My understanding from TB's recent postings is that becuase he has applied to relax the undertakings, the judge has said the initial libel claim made by the McCanns but was stayed following TB making the undertaking will now become active. In others words, the libel claim now takes precedence over the breach of undertaking claim. That's my understanding any road McCANNS v BENNETT Hearing before Mr Justice Tugendhat, today, 11 October 2012 - Page 4 1287980906

McCANNS v BENNETT Hearing before Mr Justice Tugendhat, today, 11 October 2012 - Page 4 1287980906

by Newintown 13.10.12 12:43

PeterMac wrote:
Nina wrote:
Newintown wrote:I've never even started to search for Madeleine and have no intention to look for her, so I wonder where that would leave K & G in their theory. I would gladly stand up incourt to say that Sr Amaral's book did not stop me from looking for Madeleine as I never started looking for her as I didn't believe a word their parents said about her "disappearance".

Good post.
I have searched for Madeleine and put up posters and donated my pension, then I woke up and started to stop ignoring what was staring me right in the face but I just didn't acknowledge.
But was it a result of what Mr Bennet had said, or did you have the intelligence to work it out for yourself ?

I made my own mind up at a very early stage by observing the parents and their behaviour. I thought I was the only one who did not believe them until I did a search of the internet and found the Australian site run by Mike Hitchen which I joined and was a part of for a long time. I also joined Joana Morais' site and only heard about Jill Havern's site last summer through Joana Morais, so I joined here too. That was when I heard of Tony Bennett and his leaflets, I don't think I'd ever heard of him before then. If his name was mentioned on one of the other sites, it didn't mean a lot to me.

Sorry Tony McCANNS v BENNETT Hearing before Mr Justice Tugendhat, today, 11 October 2012 - Page 4 110921

McCANNS v BENNETT Hearing before Mr Justice Tugendhat, today, 11 October 2012 - Page 4 110921

ETA: I forgot to add that I used to follow the 3A's as well, although I never participated, I wasn't knowledgeable enough about the case at that time. I just used to enjoy reading everyone's take on the McCanns. I've learnt a hell of a lot though on this site, it's mindboggling!

by DIBarlow 13.10.12 14:44

Newintown wrote:I've never even started to search for Madeleine and have no intention to look for her, so I wonder where that would leave K & G in their theory. I would gladly stand up incourt to say that Sr Amaral's book did not stop me from looking for Madeleine as I never started looking for her as I didn't believe a word their parents said about her "disappearance".

I felt unsure about this pair from the very first media broadcast to the world, pleading for everyone to help, followed very shortly by emerging news that they wanted to 'control information' via a 'pact of silence', compounded by the revelation (and it was a revelation for any 'abduction' case) that there was absolutely NO forensic evidence of an intruder.

Tony Bennet had no impact whatsoever on my decision that there was simply no point in searching or contributing to a search for poor Maddie.

I wonder how many witnesses Tony will be permitted to call to confirm that his books etc were of negligible impact upon the 'search'. ('Search' itself being a very questionable word to use for what the McCanns have been doing since 3 May 2007)

by Guest 13.10.12 17:42

DIBarlow wrote:[...]
I felt unsure about this pair from the very first media broadcast to the world, pleading for everyone to help[...])

***
I'm bringing my dear old [94 now, 89 in 2007] half-blind Maman on stage again: at the time she thought that the parents were too distraught to face the media and it was a family member or friend, who made the plea. We had a hard time to convince her ...

by aiyoyo 13.10.12 18:48

Incidentally has anyone read about Bianca Jones case recently?
A man was charged with her murder, based on cadaver testimony.
HdH had made an excellent video of it.
It's another case supporting dogs are impeccable, incredibly reliable, and never fail.

by Guest 13.10.12 18:51

There's a separate topic, Aiyoyo.

https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t4720-guilty-lane-guilty-of-murdering-his-daughter-bianca-jones-after-court-hears-cadaver-dog-evidence-from-martin-grime

by lavender 13.10.12 21:26

If it's any help, I can also say that Tony Bennett's actions did not influence my opinions about this case.

by Pershing36 13.10.12 21:28

Hopefully this is the start of the wheels coming off the McCanns suing wagon.

Best of luck to you Tony.

by littlepixie 13.10.12 22:27

I too can say that TB didnt influence my opinion regarding this case. I googled, found the Mirror forum where I found there were lots of people who shared my thoughts on the case. Then I was on the 3A for a long time before I'd even heard of TB.

I think once the Police Files were released people made up their own minds based on what was in them.

I think if a survey was done of the general public regarding this case, most would say they have never heard of Tony Bennett. (sorry Tony)

by Guest 13.10.12 22:34

Nina wrote:
Newintown wrote:I've never even started to search for Madeleine and have no intention to look for her, so I wonder where that would leave K & G in their theory. I would gladly stand up incourt to say that Sr Amaral's book did not stop me from looking for Madeleine as I never started looking for her as I didn't believe a word their parents said about her "disappearance".

Good post.
I have searched for Madeleine and put up posters and donated my pension, then I woke up and started to stop ignoring what was staring me right in the face but I just didn't acknowledge.

OK Guys, copy this.

Since the McCs and the british press made this case a so very public one, I have never stopped looking for Madeleine/Maddy/Maddie, any English looking/speaking/ child her age/outlook/colomboma (=marketing ploy)in GB, UK, EU and elsewhere;

by Guest 13.10.12 23:05

aiyoyo wrote:
puzzled wrote:
statsman wrote:It's just a thought, but it was actually the behavior of the McCanns that made me think Madeleine was dead and that was long before I'd ever read anything that Tony Bennett wrote. I'm also sure that many others can say the same.

I don't know if this can be used in Tony's defence but I am thinking if enough people sign their names to a statement like the one I've written above, it must be damaging to the McCann's libel suit.

Same here. I thought the McCanns were suspicious simply on the basis of their own behaviour, long before I ever came across this site,or heard of Tony Bennett.

In the meantime, my best wishes to Tony.

Their critics were disbelieving and discussing them way before TB came on the scene.
Remember Mirror Forum and 3As forum?
The people then are the same people now - people moved to new platform since the other two were closed down. New comers on the scene are very few, most of us have followed this since day one, nothing to do with TB's work.

I think it's fair to ask the Judge to credit people with intelligence if people offer to go as witness.
Otherwise, on the logic that people are easily influenced without discerning ability why did they not believe the mccanns despite their high profile campaign, spin, dealing and wheeling, spoken creature and all.

Quite.

Also, my direct connection to the Forum has been cut off today.
Apparently I'm now being linked tru via other channels, somewhere around the Universe.

Copy EVERYTHING

Portia

by Ciawoman 13.10.12 23:24

Could I have a link to help Tony out. I know my donation will be a drop in the ocean but want to feel I tried

by roy rovers 14.10.12 21:52

Judge T's glasses are at a very strange angle in the pic. Does this mean that he is a very strange person?

by Nina 14.10.12 22:13

roy rovers wrote:Judge T's glasses are at a very strange angle in the pic. Does this mean that he is a very strange person?

No he is raising his right eyebrow in a questioning manner laughat

by sonic72 15.10.12 11:25

Most people made up their own minds long before this situation. Why should Tony get all the crap when all he has done is express what the majority of people are thinking already?

Like a fool I donated to the fund very early on in their campaign, I feel like suing them for wasting my donation on something it was not initially given for.

Perhaps people who donated should all put a claim in, or sue them for not using the fund money for what it was intended for? Why aren't the police investigating them for fraudulent fund activity?

by **PeterMac** 15.10.12 11:44

sonic72 wrote:Why aren't the police investigating them for fraudulent fund activity?

How do you know they aren't ?
Grange has three Det Inspectors. Three teams.
If I were in charge, First group would be - investigate, supposing she is alive. TIE (sorry, "Trace Interview and Eliminate") all the leads on that. Bundle is on that table over there.
Second would be - investigate, supposing she is dead, Bundle of evidence and reports is on the other table.
Third team - investigate Friends, Family and Money. Very large bundle is in my office.

by aiyoyo 15.10.12 11:55

If I had given (No, I hadn't) I would write to them asking for a refund.
If they refused I would write to the Papers, attaching their published accounts, which indicates that only a small percentage went to their claimed search. At the same time I would ask how come their accounts were vague and without transparency, what were they hiding, did they use the Fund to sue their critics and how much was spent on legal costs.

I would also make it known I am pissed off by their deception, ie their claim is not true.
If nothing else, even if they don't react , public are made aware there are donors who changed their opinion about mccanns' innocence and want their money back especially since the money was used not fully for the search.

We all know a lone voice is often useless as it wont be taken seriously, but if enough people were to write in then the papers may deem it as feasible to print the story. It would be interesting to see how they are going to wriggle out of this one.

by statsman 15.10.12 13:06

How many people think the McCanns have taken on a law suit too far?

I think they believed they were inviolate when they started on this course.

After all, at that time there was:

Sir Jimmy Savile, one of Britain's greatest benefactors who touched so many children's lives (yes that actually was written at the time of his death).

The News of the World, a jewel in the great Murdoch empire, since it was the biggest selling English language newspaper in the world.

Lance Armstrong, winner of the Tour de France a record seven consecutive times.

Sir Norman Bettison, the chief constable of West Yorkshire, with an unblemished establishment reputation and no plans to retire because of his role in the Hillsborough disaster investigation.

What is interesting for me is that the fall of all these in this list did not come out of the blue. It was just that there seemed no appetite to expose them since they seemed to be so powerful.

As Bod Dylan sang, "The times they are a changing".

Log in for more topics