Could Maddie be in the garden of Casa Liliana?

Exactly, I concur with Shubob -- getting the UK Press interested would go a longer way one would have thought, so why didn't SB think of that? Or could be it he knows he will be seen as living in another planet when he made claim he can not substantiate.

Anyway what is it that he wants to say to TB that cannot be said on this Board.
TB is known for his extreme politeness and not known to refuse to reasonably reply.
I agree with Shubob, it's better not to read email or pm from undesirable character to avoid the pitfall of couldn't resist to reply only to be dragged into something unnecessarily. Besides who knows what SB would do with TB's reply?

I dont trust SB as far as I can spit.

I agree wholeheartedly that Tony should not enter into private contact with SB. I am sure is he is well aware of the danger of doing so.

IMO it is just another ruse to try to involve him in corresponding to enable another action or undermine him in some way.

Totally agree with the last 3 post,tony keep well away from SB,he has come on this forum with a lot of talk,but all he has is that Madeleine MIGHT be buried there and nothing else.ie no hard proof .

It is very hard to see how anyone could take Mr Birch seriously after the bizarre way he has behaved since he first joined.

Sometimes he is polite though not forthcoming with information, at others he is abusive and at others he posts comments which are just plain stupid.

Time will tell if anything comes of his investigations.

I have said before that it is telling that the McCanns haven't taken any interest in the story. Most people would explore any possible lead, no matter how unlikely. Winnie Johnson would have jumped at the chance of finding where her son was buried.

Perhaps the McCanns know definitely that the report cannot be true?

Quite agree Jean. Mr Birch does appear to have a number of different personas and opinions on what happened. Instead of getting answers we just seem to be told he's pleading the 5th or given links to spurious articles purporting "facts" about events which Mr Birch seems to know remarkably little about given the volume of research he claims to have done.

To the Forum

For those of you that are not familiar with being involved in High court trials, it will be difficult for you to understand what the individual is going through. It's a case of, if you have not actually been involved in a high court matters, either as the plaintiff or as the defendant, you will not have experienced the tremendous negative energy that surrounds litigation. It is destructive to body mind and soul.

I personally am an experienced litigator, having been involved in 4 high court matters against my partners for 4 years. During those four years, you eat sleep and dream pleadings. You relive each and every moment and action that you took in the past over and over and over, as you prepare for trial. The hours are irregular, with you sometimes having to leave chambers after trial preparation when the sun is coming up. You don't eat properly, and sleep is not a peaceful experience.It's like a living nightmare that won't end.

You always under pressure. You see the judicial system has certain rules, that require you to respond to the other sides pleadings by certain dates in writing. These pleadings and the ongoing responses to the pleadings occur under massive pressure. Each word in the pleadings needs to be checked and analysed to see what implication it has on the matter. In actual fact, the entire trial is run outside the court, with pleadings being finally bound and presented as a bundle to the judge.Then each side argues what's in the bundle, and the judge makes a decision. And you hope that he makes the right decision !!! His only human, god forbid he had a fight with his wife the night before your matter starts. I am not even going to breach the topic of postponements for a number of reasons, normally smack bang in the middle of your trial, when you getting the upper hand on your opponent. An example, the judge is suddenly called to another matter. So you come back 3 months later and pick up the pieces. You have to get your legal team to prepare again each time before you walk into court, more waisted costs. And you hope you get the same judge...........

The costs are enormous, not only are you paying your attorney or advocate on an hourly rate, but you also pay them an attendance fee, for appearing in court. Then there's the cost of printing coping and binding. These can literally run into thousands of pounds. Coping documents at attorney rates is enormous. Don't forget the other sides attorney's are also coping at attorney rates, which you will pay if you lose the case.

Coupled with this, is the fact that everything needs be copied and bound 4 times. One copy for the judge, one copy for the other side, one copy for your attorney, one copy for you, and if there are expert witnesses, then a copy for them. It's expensive , very expensive.

What makes it even more expensive, is your inability to work on anything else except the trial. So your legal practice or property company, and the income that you would normally generate ceases. You now begin to draw on your savings. In South Africa, I tell people, if you do not have R6 million rand spare in your bank account, don't litigate. That's about 500 000 pounds.

You see like Mr Bennett, I walked into the court with high morals and believing I was doing the right thing, but quickly learned that 90% of the time, the side with the most money wins.

Well why is that? Well just when you think you winning the case, the other side either dumps more paper/ pleadings on you, or brings side actions against you.Eventually you cannot cope.Without money and assistance, you collapse under the load.You cannot meet the time restrictions to deliver the pleadings and counter arguments.

I am not familiar with the entire merit of Mr Tony Benetts case, but I can assure you, his at a disadvantage to the Mc Cann's.They will out gun him in both money and evidence. Why, because all they need to prove, is that he bad mouthed them, and that's easy, they discover one phamplet he distributed, and the judge makes a ruling in their favour. Mr Benett on the other hand has a much harder case to prove against them. He one has to prove that they are guilty. Not an easy task, even for a seasoned litigator like myself. Mr Bennett will probably be referring to certain precident cases, to argue for freedom of speech etc etc. But unfortunately it's an uphill battle.

Like I said, I am not in a position to analyse the merits of the case, but my gut feeling tells me it's going to be very very tough for Mr Benett.

I really really hope he wins his matter. The reality is the system wins, not the plaintiff or defendant. The system was designed to look after the judges attorneys barristers, clerk of the courts, and legal secretary's etc etc. We that litigate are outsiders. When you like me become a seasoned litigator, you,ll learn that quickly. You go from standing for ideals and virtues, to becoming bankrupt and hating yourself from getting involved in the mess. It's reality. I have many friends who have lost their wives and family as a result of litigation.

And don't forget, if you lose, you pay all the other sides costs, that my friends, normally runs into millions.

The fact that Mr Benett is an attorney does not mean his at an advantage. In actual fact, although his represented people litigating, he might not be experienced at litigating himself. There's a difference. A person like myself, who is not an attorney, might have significantly more litigation experience than Mr Bennett. Secondly representing yourself, is also not always a good thing. You lack the abilty to be objective in the matter. You always need fresh eyes to look at your case, and look at all the angles. That costs money, serious money.

Why I am telling you this, well the next time you ask me a question and I do not answer it, you,ll understand why. I am not going through what Tony Bennet is going through in a million years. Been there, done that, have the "T" shirt. It cost me 4 years of my life and a lot more.

No I,ll fight this battle strategically, and when the time is right, then I,ll go in for the kill. So please give me the benefit of the doubt, and don't make assumptions at this present moment because I don't come out guns blazing. When the Boers fought the English, they wore camouflage clothing and waited for the English to be in range. They had secretly put markers on the battle field, so the knew at what range the English were from them. Their rifles sights were set according to the distance the English were from them, shown by the markers on the ground. They did not go guns blazing from the top of the hill when they saw the English on the horizon, but waited patiently from the hill tops for the English to come into range. And that's what I am doing.

Tony I sincerely wish you well with your matter. The nightmare does come to an end, and you do grow as a person.

Regards

Stephen Birch

You mean the way you gave Dr Amaral the benefit of the doubt, even insinuating his wife left him due to planting of DNA evidence?

Cue [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

[quote Stephen Birch]

No I,ll fight this battle strategically, and when the time is right, then I,ll go in for the kill.

Why, because all they need to prove, is that he bad mouthed them, [end quote]



I'm just wondering, could that be around Jan/Feb time by any chance, when a certain trial is going to happen. Just asking. You seem to know a lot about Tonys case, perhaps you could do a bit of research on the person you have bad mouthed, instead of reading blogs.

candyfloss,you are fined two credits for the verbal morality statute.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Stephen Birch wrote:candyfloss,you are fined two credits for the verbal morality statute.

[url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rVQGT01Kzg

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Sorry, one is getting cynical in one's old age, after reading forums for 5 years[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] is this guy for real???????????????????? [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

A cop planted DNA, an attorney dropped off pamplets - guess they might share a cell.

You left with me to save the day.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Heaven help us!

i dont mind saving the day, if you promise to leave lol [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Like all the others before him, Maddie's demise is a joke to SB. I only feel sorry those who gave him the benefit of doubt (assuming anyone genuinely did).

I'm beginning to feel bad about laughing at SB's posts in the same way as I would for laughing at a seriously deluded contestant on a talent show.

Lighten up Shubob, you cannot be serious 24/7 . Skruffycat this is how I handle things son....lol

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

You got to know hahaha

SB it's time for you to be banned now.

Stephen I can understand you not wanting to answer certain questions for fear of being sued. But you really did brn your bridges on this forum when you slandered Goncalo Amaral. Why do that? Is it because he doesn't have the money to fight you in Court, Even if it's what YOU believe what feel free to express it in an open forum, yet take the 5th amendment when it suits you.

You may have spent two years of your life investigating this case, but some on this forums investigating and debating the case for a lot longer and have had foresnic debates on nearly every aspect of this case.

Bouncing your ideas of fellow forum members, really does help. Your posts are all one sided, you state what you feel are facts, all you have to say is IMHO and maybe interact with members.

If you could actually read this forum you may understand why a lot of people doubt your theory.

I only joined this year and still have an awful lot to research. When I read about this case the hardest thing for me to believe was someone moving a body around IMO thought will not rule your theory out.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]Mr Birch. You certainly can't say you weren't warned.

Must admit it will be quiet without you though.

He certainly had enough chances. Doh, and look just when he had learnt to post links, Yeah[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

If he comes back asking for another chance, he'll need to get all his alter-egos to promise to behave too!