Re: "Flagrant" breaches of your undertakings, say Carter-Ruck in their letter of 4 January in the case of McCanns v Bennett. Here's my reply sent to them today

by Guest 05.01.13 22:53

aiyoyo wrote:
tcat wrote:Tony, the Inspector isn't the one who's facing Carter Ruck in a British court. Does what he said, or what he might still say, have any relevance to British libel law?

You always seem to think people are fighting you, when often they are just pointing out where people are/might be going wrong.

Surely prime investigators official documents are good enough as supporting evidence.
Doesn't matter the whole lot of Portuguese and British detectives collectively are not on trial, their works and documentation of their works are important documents official enough to produce in Court to support a defense case. Again the value of those is down to the Court to decide, and not you tcat.

If you are wanting to help Tony, being constructive is better than destructive criticism. Sorry what's how you come across.

aiyoyo, pointing out statements that are defamatory isn't being constructive? Tony agreed some posts ago that he wrote something hastily on December 19th. I think I'll leave it at that.

You take Mr Grime's words "it is possible..." to mean "it is definite". Clearly that isn't what he meant. Tony knows this.

by Tombraider 05.01.13 22:54

Tony Bennett wrote:
Tombraider wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:"In this case (I'll be brief), we have:

* cadaver dogs who alerted to 11 locations where a body had been [I realise this is hotly disputed]..."

For the sake of clarity Tony, this must mean locations (places & items) which may have come into contact with a body or 'something' contaminated by a decomposing body.
OK, I was over-concise, your description is fuller - and the better for it

Just trying to help ; And don't forget what the expert Mark Harrison had to say about Eddie, I believe it was he who actually trained him winkwink

"The two English dogs were presented as an indispensable help to the investigation, after their abilities and the manner in which they are trained were explained in detail, as well as the fact that they both react to blood traces and cadaver odours, without a single episode of “false positives” in the investigations.

In his report, Mark Harrison listed cases of success that offered a guarantee of reliability. And he asserted that if the dogs came to signal Maddie’s death, then it would be a fact."

by Guest 05.01.13 22:59

Tony Bennett wrote:
tcat wrote:Tony, the Inspector isn't the one who's facing Carter Ruck in a British court. Does what he said, or what he might still say, have any relevance to British libel law?
I would suggest, yes, because all of the facts in this case, and even (as in this case) the conclusions, or opinions of an experienced and senior police officer, all go to the defence in libel law of 'fair comment'.

Let's be frank.

Martin Grime was called in by the British and Portuguese police because a reasonable hypothesis was: Madeleine died in Apartment 5A and the parents have covered this up.

He said, in terms, OK, I have one dog here that I've trained to detect the remains of human corpses.

And I've got another dog here who can detect human blood.

I'll bring them along and see what I can find.

I will refrain on this occasion from adding to those observations.

It's wise I think. winkwink

by Guest 05.01.13 23:00

Well, I do understand his [Grimes] cautiousness when at the time giving statements, which could bear great weight on a possible criminal case. But, do try and explain to me, how his dogs could have been wrong - and sometimes in combination - so many times ...

ETA "at the time" bolded for emphasis. In recent cases the dogs trained and handled by him have been accepted in evidence for murder cases.

by aiyoyo 05.01.13 23:06

tcat wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:
tcat wrote:Tony, the Inspector isn't the one who's facing Carter Ruck in a British court. Does what he said, or what he might still say, have any relevance to British libel law?

You always seem to think people are fighting you, when often they are just pointing out where people are/might be going wrong.

Surely prime investigators official documents are good enough as supporting evidence.
Doesn't matter the whole lot of Portuguese and British detectives collectively are not on trial, their works and documentation of their works are important documents official enough to produce in Court to support a defense case. Again the value of those is down to the Court to decide, and not you tcat.

If you are wanting to help Tony, being constructive is better than destructive criticism. Sorry what's how you come across.
aiyoyo, pointing out statements that are defamatory isn't being constructive? Tony agreed some posts ago that he wrote something hastily on December 19th. I think I'll leave it at that.

You take Mr Grime's words "it is possible..." to mean "it is definite". Clearly that isn't what he meant. Tony knows this.

Dont put words in my mouth - I thank you.
I take it to his "it is possible" to mean"it is my view".......... meaning "in his view" as I'd stated previously. It does not mean "it is definite" but "in his view"
What stood out for me are rather these few underscored words "was in fact" as in "the ERVD was in fact alerting to cadaverine contamination...

by aiyoyo 05.01.13 23:14

Tombraider wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
Tombraider wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:"In this case (I'll be brief), we have:

* cadaver dogs who alerted to 11 locations where a body had been [I realise this is hotly disputed]..."

For the sake of clarity Tony, this must mean locations (places & items) which may have come into contact with a body or 'something' contaminated by a decomposing body.
OK, I was over-concise, your description is fuller - and the better for it

Just trying to help ; And don't forget what the expert Mark Harrison had to say about Eddie, I believe it was he who actually trained him

"The two English dogs were presented as an indispensable help to the investigation, after their abilities and the manner in which they are trained were explained in detail, as well as the fact that they both react to blood traces and cadaver odours, without a single episode of “false positives” in the investigations.

In his report, Mark Harrison listed cases of success that offered a guarantee of reliability. And he asserted that if the dogs came to signal Maddie’s death, then it would be a fact."

Now, that is very useful for use as exhibit to support defense. Good one.

by Guest 05.01.13 23:16

Châtelaine wrote:Well, I do understand his [Grimes] cautiousness when at the time giving statements, which could bear great weight on a possible criminal case. But, do try and explain to me, how his dogs could have been wrong - and sometimes in combination - so many times ...

ETA "at the time" bolded for emphasis. In recent cases the dogs trained and handled by him have been accepted in evidence for murder cases.

Nobody is saying the alerts in PdL were wrong, but you simply can't take them - and the subsequent forensic evidence - as conclusive. In none of the cases Candyfloss listed (or others I could list) was dog evidence the only evidence heard in those courts.

I think all we can say is what Carlos Anjos said himself (Panorama, November 2007):

"What did come to Portugal were not conclusive results but rather served to be indicative. Also the results from some of the tests were still missing and these are once again not conclusive results but rather indicative. To be able to say with certainty that Maddy was there, or that this DNA was Maddy's the test results would have to be 99% positive. If they are not 99% certain, they can be viewed as indicative but not conclusive, and if it is not conclusive the police or the courts should not make any statements at the moment because they could be wrong."

How can we armchair detectives possibly say more than he said?

by Tombraider 05.01.13 23:19

aiyoyo wrote:
Tombraider wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
Tombraider wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:"In this case (I'll be brief), we have:

* cadaver dogs who alerted to 11 locations where a body had been [I realise this is hotly disputed]..."

For the sake of clarity Tony, this must mean locations (places & items) which may have come into contact with a body or 'something' contaminated by a decomposing body.
OK, I was over-concise, your description is fuller - and the better for it

Just trying to help ; And don't forget what the expert Mark Harrison had to say about Eddie, I believe it was he who actually trained him

"The two English dogs were presented as an indispensable help to the investigation, after their abilities and the manner in which they are trained were explained in detail, as well as the fact that they both react to blood traces and cadaver odours, without a single episode of “false positives” in the investigations.

In his report, Mark Harrison listed cases of success that offered a guarantee of reliability. And he asserted that if the dogs came to signal Maddie’s death, then it would be a fact."

Now, that is very useful for use as exhibit to support defense. Good one.

I think so too aiyoyo given who he is ( Mark Harrison I mean).

Experts have also stated that trained dogs can detect the scent during the fresh stage of decomposition - and at a distance Shocked

.......... so much for a body having to be around for an hour or so.

by Guest 05.01.13 23:26

aiyoyo wrote:
tcat wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:
tcat wrote:Tony, the Inspector isn't the one who's facing Carter Ruck in a British court. Does what he said, or what he might still say, have any relevance to British libel law?

You always seem to think people are fighting you, when often they are just pointing out where people are/might be going wrong.

Surely prime investigators official documents are good enough as supporting evidence.
Doesn't matter the whole lot of Portuguese and British detectives collectively are not on trial, their works and documentation of their works are important documents official enough to produce in Court to support a defense case. Again the value of those is down to the Court to decide, and not you tcat.

If you are wanting to help Tony, being constructive is better than destructive criticism. Sorry what's how you come across.
aiyoyo, pointing out statements that are defamatory isn't being constructive? Tony agreed some posts ago that he wrote something hastily on December 19th. I think I'll leave it at that.

You take Mr Grime's words "it is possible..." to mean "it is definite". Clearly that isn't what he meant. Tony knows this.

Dont put words in my mouth - I thank you.
I take it to his "it is possible" to mean"it is my view".......... meaning "in his view" as I'd stated previously. It does not mean "it is definite" but "in his view"
What stood out for me are rather these few underscored words "was in fact" as in "the ERVD was in fact alerting to cadaverine contamination...

We know he meant "it is possible" because he says alerts need to be confirmed by corroborating evidence. It isn't an exact science, and Mr Grime would be the first to agree with that I'm sure.

by Tombraider 05.01.13 23:27

tcat wrote:
Châtelaine wrote:Well, I do understand his [Grimes] cautiousness when at the time giving statements, which could bear great weight on a possible criminal case. But, do try and explain to me, how his dogs could have been wrong - and sometimes in combination - so many times ...

ETA "at the time" bolded for emphasis. In recent cases the dogs trained and handled by him have been accepted in evidence for murder cases.
Nobody is saying the alerts in PdL were wrong, but you simply can't take them - and the subsequent forensic evidence - as conclusive. In none of the cases Candyfloss listed (or others I could list) was dog evidence the only evidence heard in those courts.

I think all we can say is what Carlos Anjos said himself (Panorama, November 2007):

"What did come to Portugal were not conclusive results but rather served to be indicative. Also the results from some of the tests were still missing and these are once again not conclusive results but rather indicative. To be able to say with certainty that Maddy was there, or that this DNA was Maddy's the test results would have to be 99% positive. If they are not 99% certain, they can be viewed as indicative but not conclusive, and if it is not conclusive the police or the courts should not make any statements at the moment because they could be wrong."

How can we armchair detectives possibly say more than he said?

The forensic report does not state the results proved ' inconclusive' either. What it state's is that they could not determine whether or not the evidence came from her or not ,which is not or should I say can be interpreted as not being an ' exclusion ' .

by Guest 05.01.13 23:41

Tombraider wrote:
tcat wrote:
Châtelaine wrote:Well, I do understand his [Grimes] cautiousness when at the time giving statements, which could bear great weight on a possible criminal case. But, do try and explain to me, how his dogs could have been wrong - and sometimes in combination - so many times ...

ETA "at the time" bolded for emphasis. In recent cases the dogs trained and handled by him have been accepted in evidence for murder cases.
Nobody is saying the alerts in PdL were wrong, but you simply can't take them - and the subsequent forensic evidence - as conclusive. In none of the cases Candyfloss listed (or others I could list) was dog evidence the only evidence heard in those courts.

I think all we can say is what Carlos Anjos said himself (Panorama, November 2007):

"What did come to Portugal were not conclusive results but rather served to be indicative. Also the results from some of the tests were still missing and these are once again not conclusive results but rather indicative. To be able to say with certainty that Maddy was there, or that this DNA was Maddy's the test results would have to be 99% positive. If they are not 99% certain, they can be viewed as indicative but not conclusive, and if it is not conclusive the police or the courts should not make any statements at the moment because they could be wrong."

How can we armchair detectives possibly say more than he said?

The forensic report does not state the results proved ' inconclusive' either. What it state's is that they could not determine whether or not the evidence came from her or not ,which is not or should I say can be interpreted as not being an ' exclusion ' .

I'll take your word for it, Tombraider. I expect DNA experts could spend weeks arguing over it (and some). I'm definitely no expert on it nah

by Tombraider 05.01.13 23:46

tcat wrote:
Tombraider wrote:
tcat wrote:
Châtelaine wrote:Well, I do understand his [Grimes] cautiousness when at the time giving statements, which could bear great weight on a possible criminal case. But, do try and explain to me, how his dogs could have been wrong - and sometimes in combination - so many times ...

ETA "at the time" bolded for emphasis. In recent cases the dogs trained and handled by him have been accepted in evidence for murder cases.
Nobody is saying the alerts in PdL were wrong, but you simply can't take them - and the subsequent forensic evidence - as conclusive. In none of the cases Candyfloss listed (or others I could list) was dog evidence the only evidence heard in those courts.

I think all we can say is what Carlos Anjos said himself (Panorama, November 2007):

"What did come to Portugal were not conclusive results but rather served to be indicative. Also the results from some of the tests were still missing and these are once again not conclusive results but rather indicative. To be able to say with certainty that Maddy was there, or that this DNA was Maddy's the test results would have to be 99% positive. If they are not 99% certain, they can be viewed as indicative but not conclusive, and if it is not conclusive the police or the courts should not make any statements at the moment because they could be wrong."

How can we armchair detectives possibly say more than he said?

The forensic report does not state the results proved ' inconclusive' either. What it state's is that they could not determine whether or not the evidence came from her or not ,which is not or should I say can be interpreted as not being an ' exclusion ' .
I'll take your word for it, Tombraider. I expect DNA experts could spend weeks arguing over it (and some). I'm definitely no expert on it

Agreed, but we can't argue with the report and nowhere in it are the words inconclusive or excluded used.

by aiyoyo 05.01.13 23:48

tcat wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:
tcat wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:
tcat wrote:Tony, the Inspector isn't the one who's facing Carter Ruck in a British court. Does what he said, or what he might still say, have any relevance to British libel law?

You always seem to think people are fighting you, when often they are just pointing out where people are/might be going wrong.

Surely prime investigators official documents are good enough as supporting evidence.
Doesn't matter the whole lot of Portuguese and British detectives collectively are not on trial, their works and documentation of their works are important documents official enough to produce in Court to support a defense case. Again the value of those is down to the Court to decide, and not you tcat.

If you are wanting to help Tony, being constructive is better than destructive criticism. Sorry what's how you come across.
aiyoyo, pointing out statements that are defamatory isn't being constructive? Tony agreed some posts ago that he wrote something hastily on December 19th. I think I'll leave it at that.

You take Mr Grime's words "it is possible..." to mean "it is definite". Clearly that isn't what he meant. Tony knows this.

Dont put words in my mouth - I thank you.
I take it to his "it is possible" to mean"it is my view".......... meaning "in his view" as I'd stated previously. It does not mean "it is definite" but "in his view"
What stood out for me are rather these few underscored words "was in fact" as in "the ERVD was in fact alerting to cadaverine contamination...
We know he meant "it is possible" because he says alerts need to be confirmed by corroborating evidence. It isn't an exact science, and Mr Grime would be the first to agree with that I'm sure.

Speak for yourself. Your "we" is misrepresented I should think.
I take it you chose (again ) to ignore his words " was in fact alerting to cadaverine.....".
I think Mr Grime would strongly disagree with you. I am sure he trusts his dogs and has full confidence in them.

Of course any wise expert would say that one set of evidence is better off corroborated with another set to make it a stronger case, but that does not mean that that one set of evidence alone is not strong enough. It has its strength surely and that's where the dogs excellent track records is remarkable significance, and when taken with other strong circumstantial evidence (as in no evidence of an abductor) it is good enough to go to trial with successful results (as proven by history), so it is good enough to go to Court for a libel defense case. I should most definitely think so.

by Woofer 06.01.13 0:02

I`m sure tcat was only trying to be helpful to Tony - well that`s how it came across to me.

by aiyoyo 06.01.13 3:13

Well, woofer, you are entitled to your opinion. Leave me to mine.
I can smell perfectly OK. I am saying something coming out of the closet stinks, and there is no need for corroborating evidence, that alone suffice for me.

by Widows Son 06.01.13 4:02

Tony does not seem to understand his own Undertakings, where he promised the
High Court he would not state or in any way imply the obvious, i.e.
that Kate and Bro. Gerry McCann are responsible disappearance of
Madeleine.

When Carter-Ruck say Tony's defence seems to be misconceived, I am inclined
to agree, although it does suggest that Tony was vulnerable when he gave
his Undertakings (as most would be in such circumstances), and that
Courts really ought not to "rubber stamp" Undertakings simply because an
unrepresented party offers them.

One is supposed to put a time limit on one's Undertakings, normally no more
than one year, after which time the same laws would apply to Tony as
everyone else, but English Courts never seem to point this out to any
party offering an Undertaking of greater duration (unlimited in Tony's
case).

by Widows Son 06.01.13 5:06

There is a defence to contempt proceedings along the lines of the Defendant proving, on the balance of probabilities, that his actions were reasonable in the circumstance, which, prima facia, would seem relevant to Tony, but he needs expert assistance against a Claimant, Kate and Bro. Gerry Mc€ann, with unlimited resources, at least some of it from the state.

by **PeterMac** 06.01.13 9:05

Jean wrote:I am now withdrawing the Christmas greetings I sent to Carter-Ruck!

What a pathetic shower.

Unfortunately there is no emoticon with two fingers in the air to express my feelings so I'll have this one instead.

You could use this one . . .
[img] "Flagrant" breaches of your undertakings, say Carter-Ruck in their letter of 4 January in the case of McCanns v Bennett. Here's my reply sent to them today - Page 3 Animated-finger

"Flagrant" breaches of your undertakings, say Carter-Ruck in their letter of 4 January in the case of McCanns v Bennett. Here's my reply sent to them today - Page 3 Animated-finger

[/img]

by Guest 06.01.13 9:16

admin wrote:

Is this what you were looking for Jean?

Thank you PeterMac - I think the message to Carter-Ruck is now very clear.

by Liz Eagles 06.01.13 9:20

PeterMac wrote:
Jean wrote:I am now withdrawing the Christmas greetings I sent to Carter-Ruck!

What a pathetic shower.

Unfortunately there is no emoticon with two fingers in the air to express my feelings so I'll have this one instead.
You could use this one . . .
[img][/img]

Is that the energy saving version PeterMac?

by statsman 06.01.13 9:57

Logically, what Tony says in his reply is correct; there are no factual inaccuracies of any note in his statements.

What I believe the McCanns have been implying is, in effect, that it is not believable that Madeleine wasn't abducted and so any so called 'evidence' pointing the other way must be inaccurate.

'Unbelievable' and so therefore 'inaccurate' isn't a logically sound assumption but it is generally true and so, they ~~purport~~ propound, it is also true in their case.

Two examples in history come to my mind - Galileo, and the Crusade against the Cathars.

Regarding Galileo and his argument that the earth goes round the sun, everyone now knows he was right. Even though it didn't happen in his lifetime, I'm sure he knew that he would be vindicated when he wrote "In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual" .

Not so for the Cathars, however; very few people have heard of them because they were exterminated by the authority of the Church.
Their 'crime' was believing that living a good life was what was important, not strict adherence to the scriptures as dictated by the Church.
Beliefs such as this were heresy and so the Inquisition was created. Everyone knows how through the centuries they kept heresy at bay by striking fear into all who strayed from the teachings of the Church.

In time, I believe, evidence such as the detection of cadaver odour by dogs such as Eddie will be so convincing that it will no longer be able to be doubted. In the meantime, however, no heresy will be allowed any place in the official line that there is 'absolutely no evidence that Madeleine has been seriously harmed'.

It is up to us whether we want to keep Galileo's memory alive or to be struck dumb by the Inquisition.

by **tigger** 06.01.13 10:23

@statsman
So after your elegant post which I wholly endorse, shall we make our motto: Eppur se muove?
(Which is what Galileo is said to have muttered as he left the court where he recanted his theory. No doubt you know this.)

by Nina 06.01.13 10:28

Sometimes I feel really out of my depth, but do so enjoy to read these well informed posts, and who knows may be able to slip the knowledge into a conversation at some time and have the other person/s go thinking

by Liz Eagles 06.01.13 12:00

Nina wrote:Sometimes I feel really out of my depth, but do so enjoy to read these well informed posts, and who knows may be able to slip the knowledge into a conversation at some time and have the other person/s go

There's no place for intellectual debate in a libel court case Nina. Might is right. Might being rich/powerful/well-connected. How the McCanns can afford Carter Ruck beats the hell out of me. For all the wonderfully intellectual posts from people who are not facing the McWrath it still boils down to 'play ball with us or we'll stick the bat up your bum'. Those people can dress it up anyway they like and stick a cherry on the top of it. It still comes down to 'how can the McCann's afford these lawyers?' 'who is paying?' 'why are the UK taxpayers paying for a 'review' if the McCanns can afford high-profile lawyers to sue people?

and the big question is...

why do the McCanns care what Tony Bennett says and then set their lawyers on him? Are they coming after everyone who disagrees with them?

by **PeterMac** 06.01.13 13:33

aquila wrote:
and the big question is...
why do the McCanns care what Tony Bennett says and then set their lawyers on him? Are they coming after everyone who disagrees with them?

That for me is also a big question. I think it is also rhetorical in that the answer is very clear.
If TB were simply wrong they would leave him alone, just ignore him, and hope that he would go away.
Just as we do for the most part to the McCann supporter sites with their spitting hatred. We simply do not visit them. Or we ignore, ridicule, or refute what they have to say

But something that TB has said or written clearly makes them so frightened that they have to go on the attack.
There will never be a libel trial per se. That would be far too dangerous. TM and C-R and everyone knows that only too well.
What they have to do is keep it a couple of steps away from a full trial and concentrate on procedural issues. It is a tactic which C-R have employed many times in the past. They are then able to say that they have "Won", when in fact the core issue has never been aired in open court.

"Flagrant" breaches of your undertakings, say Carter-Ruck in their letter of 4 January in the case of McCanns v Bennett. Here's my reply sent to them today