Re: MR JUSTICE TUGENDHAT'S JUDGMENT IN MCCANNS v BENNETT issued 10.10 on 24.10.12

by chrissie 24.10.12 15:56

Martin Brunt has tweeted:

martinbrunt
‏@skymartinbrunt

#McCann In
High Court Madeleine's parents claim lawyer Tony Bennett has breached
agreement to stop "death cover-up" allegations.

by david_uk 24.10.12 16:26

This is all bloody daft!!. I don't know of a single person who knows about the details of the McCann case files, beyond what they read in the papers, let alone who Tony Bennett is (no offense Tony).

by Guest 24.10.12 16:31

david_uk wrote:This is all bloody daft!!. I don't know of a single person who knows about the details of the McCann case files, beyond what they read in the papers, let alone who Tony Bennett is (no offense Tony).

Maybe they'll start looking for more information on the internet and stumble across this forum.

newbies

by **PeterMac** 24.10.12 16:36

Good of the paper to print the allegations though, just so that everyone can consider them.

by jamaljr 24.10.12 16:44

And good of Martin Brunt to tweet this info smilie

by aiyoyo 24.10.12 16:48

Not surprised that now their case threatens to turn out to be a full blown libel where they have to be specified about their claims, that they revert to using media control strategy to spin the truth.

by jamaljr 24.10.12 17:48

True but it is a very high risk game they have started playing smilie

by **Tony Bennett** 24.10.12 18:05

jamaljr wrote:True but it is a very high risk game they have started playing...

Not only 'high risk', but also 'high cost'.

The case against me so far has cost the McCanns over £150,000.

Add on the costs of bringing a libel claim against Goncalo Amaral, then getting an injunction against him, then winning an appeal against that injunction, then losing in the Court of Appeal and having to pay Amaral's costs, then losing in the Supreme Court and having to pay Amaral's costs again, plus a 4-day libel trial against him in January, say another £300,000 minimum.

Not far short of £500,000, may be much more.

Now who is paying for all this?

Not the McCanns, who must bring up two children and pay a mortgage on just Dr Gerald McCann's salary and Child Benefit.

Not 'Madeleine's Fund', because the McCanns, Clarence Mitchell and Carter-Ruck have all gone on the record to say that no money from 'Madeleine's Fund' is being used to pay libel lawyers.

So who?

A mystery benefactor, perhaps, who is so committed to suppressing dissent re Madeleine that he's got the odd half million quid to spare?

Or could all these libel actions be being funded by some other more mysterious source?

I hope we'll find out, because according to the McCanns, they have always wanted to be 'as transparent as possible' about their search for Madeleine

by Smokeandmirrors 24.10.12 18:50

Maybe someone, some nice benefactor, thinks £half m is small fry compared to a possible alternative outcome, nudge nudge wink wink!

by Guest 24.10.12 18:51

Tony Bennett wrote: Now who is paying for all this?

Not the McCanns, who must bring up two children and pay a mortgage on just Dr Gerald McCann's salary and Child Benefit.

Not 'Madeleine's Fund', because the McCanns, Clarence Mitchell and Carter-Ruck have all gone on the record to say that no money from 'Madeleine's Fund' is being used to pay libel lawyers.

So who?

I doubt it's the twins' communion money - but no doubt we'll know more in the new year when those accounts are filed once more. If there's anything that needs doing please let us know.

by **sharonl** 24.10.12 19:03

Half a million spent so far on just two of you

What about the thousands of other McCann sceptics?

The other Portuguese officers who worked alongside Goncalo Amaral and defended his theory in a Portuguese court in January 2010

The Telegraph and Jondi Paulo for reporting those facts

The criminal profilers who have spoken out against the McCanns

The early news reports

Martin Brunt and his his "100% DNA match to Madeleine" report

Those who are posting on social networking sites

The many bloggers who have written about the facts about the case

The many Facebook groups and users

You-tube users

A number of books that have been written

Other social networkers who have not written facts about the case but have been abusive towards the McCanns

Frankie Boyle - suggesting that Madeleine is in heaven

This list is endless, are they going to sue the world? And if so, at what cost?

by Guest 24.10.12 19:23

sharonl wrote:

This list is endless, are they going to sue the world? And if so, at what cost?

truth will come. Just watch "Tour de drug" , how they all lied for years, truth comes out eventually.. And like Armstrong, even when he is caught he still continues to lie and denie that he druged himself to become the best biker....

"sue the world" :) im sure they would like that party

by aiyoyo 24.10.12 19:53

Just imagine the legal costs to them when they lose the case after being dragged through a full libel trial? And the ramifications!
Don't forget the ramifications will be a lot bigger and more damaging than damage in legal costs.

I will say it again, I have confidence in Judge Tugendhat.

There can be only one source who supplied Leicestershire Paper with the story and I suspect they are preparing for ill wind to come their direction in the not too distant future. They have to play the mind game first and get people's psychology synched to theirs in preparation for more spin.

by Guest 24.10.12 21:38

sharonl wrote:Half a million spent so far on just two of you

What about the thousands of other McCann sceptics?

The other Portuguese officers who worked alongside Goncalo Amaral and defended his theory in a Portuguese court in January 2010

The Telegraph and Jondi Paulo for reporting those facts

The criminal profilers who have spoken out against the McCanns

The early news reports

Martin Brunt and his his "100% DNA match to Madeleine" report

Those who are posting on social networking sites

The many bloggers who have written about the facts about the case

The many Facebook groups and users

You-tube users

A number of books that have been written

Other social networkers who have not written facts about the case but have been abusive towards the McCanns

Frankie Boyle - suggesting that Madeleine is in heaven

This list is endless, are they going to sue the world? And if so, at what cost?

Not forgetting the newest member to that list a certain person who has been in the papers claiming Madeleine is dead and buried in a garden only meteres from apartment 5a! Let us not forget the accusations made about about certain peoples involvement, and I don't just mean Mr Amaral. Are they going to sue him.

In fact they went on TV and said that they were suing Mr Amaral because he said Madeleine was dead and it was stopping people look for her, yet when the interviewer mentioned SB a couple of weeks ago, she shrugged and said "Who" (or similar) Isn't SB saying the same thing, and stopping people look for Madeleine.

by Guest 24.10.12 22:17

[quote Tony]

Not the McCanns, who must bring up two children and pay a mortgage on just Dr Gerald McCann's salary and Child Benefit.

Not 'Madeleine's Fund', because the McCanns, Clarence Mitchell and Carter-Ruck have all gone on the record to say that no money from 'Madeleine's Fund' is being used to pay libel lawyers. [end quote]

Tony, look at ths video from 5.44 secs.................

[youtube][/youtube]

by Woofer 24.10.12 23:21

Tony Bennett wrote:
david_uk wrote:
Woofer wrote:Tony - I do worry that your case is discussed in detail in the public domain giving an indication of how you intend to approach the case etc. ... I just hope you are keeping some of your strategies private ... or doesn`t it make any difference? They`ve hardly given you fair warning of their moves in the past. If you broadcast your moves in advance it gives them plenty of time to counter them.
I have previously said the same, I was shot down by other forums members for some reason. I trust Tony knows what he is doing and at the end of the day it is his choice.
Thank you both for your comments.

It is almost impossible to keep strategies and legal arguments secret; the Court requires you to set out your case and your evidence - and last-minute 'surprises' are not only frowned on but may be ruled out of court.

But believe me, I don't disclose every shot in my locker in these forums.

Phew ....... that`s a relief MR JUSTICE TUGENDHAT'S JUDGMENT IN MCCANNS v BENNETT issued 10.10 on 24.10.12 - Page 2 110921

by Zozo 24.10.12 23:33

david_uk wrote:
Woofer wrote:Tony - I do worry that your case is discussed in detail in the public domain giving an indication of how you intend to approach the case etc. ... I just hope you are keeping some of your strategies private ... or doesn`t it make any difference? They`ve hardly given you fair warning of their moves in the past. If you broadcast your moves in advance it gives them plenty of time to counter them.

I have previously said the same, I was shot down by other forums members for some reason. I trust Tony knows what he is doing and at the end of the day it is his choice.

Totally agree with both of you.
Even though TB is saying that he doesn't reveal everything in his locker, but CR also are not stupid....

by Angelique 25.10.12 0:08

Tony

Late as usual arriving but I am glad that at least it seems from your explanation that not all is lost!

Just one point insofar as which Judge will be presiding at the committal? Is it not to be Judge Tugendhat?

"29. For these reasons there will be an order, the terms of which I invite the parties to agree. The substance of the order will be that the Claimants’ committal application be listed as soon as is practical, and that the Defendant’s application be adjourned to be considered by the judge hearing the committal application as that judge may decide. The Defendant’s application will be treated as an application to lift the stay of the action, and, if the stay is lifted, to vary the undertakings pending trial or other disposal of the action."

by **Tony Bennett** 25.10.12 0:26

Angelique wrote:Tony

Late as usual arriving but I am glad that at least it seems from your explanation that not all is lost!

Just one point insofar as which Judge will be presiding at the committal? Is it not to be Judge Tugendhat?

"29. For these reasons there will be an order, the terms of which I invite the parties to agree. The substance of the order will be that the Claimants’ committal application be listed as soon as is practical, and that the Defendant’s application be adjourned to be considered by the judge hearing the committal application as that judge may decide. The Defendant’s application will be treated as an application to lift the stay of the action, and, if the stay is lifted, to vary the undertakings pending trial or other disposal of the action."

I believe it may be a different judge, but I have no way of knowing until about 2pm on the day before the actual hearing.

by justme3 25.10.12 0:58

Removed because it has already been posted, Sorry!

by **Tony Bennett** 25.10.12 1:26

FROM THIS MORNING'S DAILY MIRROR

The parents of Madeleine McCann yesterday won their latest court battle with a retired lawyer they say is waging a harassment campaign against them.

Gerry and Kate McCann want the High Court to jail Tony Bennett, 65, who has accused them of causing their daughter’s death, disposing of her body and covering up what they had done.

Mr Justice Tugendhat said the couple’s case against Mr Bennett should be heard “as soon as practicable”.

In 2009, Mr Bennett, of Harlow, Essex, promised to stop making allegations against the McCanns.

They claim he has breached that formal undertaking more than 150 times and are now seeking his imprisonment, or other punishment, for alleged contempt of court.

Mr Bennett wants the court to “vary” the undertakings so he can publish his “credible evidence” Madeleine died in their holiday home in May 2007.

_________________________________________

justme, I have re-posted this news item from the Daily Mirror, simply because the words I've highlighted in blue are untrue.

I have never said that the McCanns caused the death of Madeleine.

So there will be an immediate complaint by me to the Mirror, and if they don't publish a correction straightaway, there'll be a complaint to the Press Complaints Commission.

by aiyoyo 25.10.12 2:02

Some journalists continue to be so downright ignorant if not downright stupid if they cannot at least get simple facts right.

The retraction and apology should be in a front page so that the public can clearly see it and not be obscured in little columns hidden in the back pages.

It is also not technically correct to state the mccanns have won their latest court battle...when the battle hasn't event started. The ruling was just a judgement setting out the procedures to ensue in the orderly manner of things.

by Angelique 25.10.12 9:34

Tony

Many thanks for taking the time to reply.

by garfy 25.10.12 9:38

just typical of the media ...to hell with every one else ...as long as the mccs are happy

thought this a bit encouraging though..

Mr Bennett wants the court to “vary” the undertakings so he can publish his “credible evidence” Madeleine died in their holiday home in May 2007.

interesting video candyfloss thank you

by Guest 25.10.12 10:14

Dear All,

I suppose the true significance in the Tugendhat decision lies in the fact that the McCs must now proceed at once, without the benefit of knowing the outcome of the SY review.

That single fact is the reason they okayed the delays.

Anyone agrees with this?

Riveting decision by the way. Best of the best in good English legal tradition.

MR JUSTICE TUGENDHAT'S JUDGMENT IN MCCANNS v BENNETT issued 10.10 on 24.10.12