COURT DATE NOW CONFIRMED: Tues 5th and Weds 6th February 2013

sonic72 wrote:

neeley111 wrote:
Mr. Bennett ,
What do you mean "I don't think there as never been a case like this" ? Your part in this case is quite trivial in the scheme of things. It probably won't even make the red tops.
Do you get it yet Mr. Bennett ?
No one on here cares about you and what you are going through at all. Your posts are mostly ignored.
You have persecuted the McCann's for years and now you will reap what you have sowed.
Amen to that.x.

Pam Gurney (and many other internet alias') aka Kate McCann, your tactics are futile, don't make your situation any worse than it already is! You're just digging a bigger hole each time you comment, and believe me, your hole is too big now.

Inspectorfrost wrote:

Pam Gurney on the internet is not kate mccann, its virtually and totatally IMPOSSIBLE

Tony Bennett wrote:

david_uk wrote:Tony - Is it possible to transfer your savings to someone else that you trust? or this not legal?

This is always possible, and not illegal in itself, BUT should the worst happen and any costs and damages awards against me force me into bankruptcy, the Bankruptcy Court could look at any such transactions and have the power to set them aside and recover any such monies transferred.

So it would be nice to win!

sonic72 wrote:

Inspectorfrost wrote:

Pam Gurney on the internet is not kate mccann, its virtually and totatally IMPOSSIBLE

How do you know it's not her? You have no way of knowing! She is definitely firmly rooted in their camp and has a personal vendetta against TB, so it does not take a brain surgeon to decipher that at the very least she is working on their behalf.

womandotcom wrote:/quote]
I would be grateful if you did not attempt to speak for everyone on this forum...you certainly don't speak for me/ I support Tony fully and I believe him to be a brave, decent and honest man who has had the guts to stand and be counted for the sake of a little girl whom he did not, and will never, know personally. I wish I were as brave. Good luck Tony and may the best man win x

Tombraider wrote:

Tony Bennett wrote:

Monty Heck wrote:I'm having difficulty understanding the legalities here so wonder if I have this right?

Stepping in for a moment just to answer you, 'Monty Heck', though it seems to me that you have a very good grasp of matters already. So here goes with a point-by-point reply

• Someone takes a libel action against another in a civil court, but before any evidence of the alleged libel is put before the court, the person accused agrees to sign an undertaking that he will not do certain things. This agreement is effective for the rest of the accused's natural life.
  

More or less. The undertaking was given without time limit, which I understand is relativley unusual. It means the undertakings continue in force until the defendant [pursuer] successfully challenges the undertakings or the claimant deems that they are no longer necessary

• The pursuers then request a stay of proceedings rather than dropping the case altogether and this is granted by the court
  

Absolutely correct

• the accused is later accused of breaching the undertaking/s and is taken to court by the pursuer with a view to his being punished for breach of the undertaking/s which may mean a prison term
  

That's also 100% correct

• the accused wishes to defend this on the basis that the undertaking/s were unfair or unfairly applied and a preliminary hearing is heard by a judge
  

That's more or less it, I have suggested to the court that the undertakings were 'unreasonable in the circumstances', or words to that effect

• the judge points out that there may be no basis for the libel claim as it has never been before a court, therefore there may be no grounds for the alleged breach of undertaking but allows the case to proceed
  

I think that's substantially what the case on 5 and 6 February will be about

I know nothing of English law

I can tell that by the use of the Scottish legal term 'pursuer'

but can someone actually be sentenced to imprisonment for breaching an undertaking given in a case where the facts as claimed by the pursuer have not been heard in court, far less proven? Further, the pursuers can resist removal of the stay on the original libel case brought by them and which they had put in place, and that this will therefore stand ad infinitum unless they decide to proceed further?

The way you put the question, the whole situation seems grossly unfair, and utterly bizarre, but I guess I'll have to wait and see how the judge analyses all this in just under 4 weeks' time

It would appear that there is an element of deception involved with this case, by that I mean in obtaining the item which resulted in the breach of the undertaking?

aiyoyo wrote:

Tombraider wrote:

Tony Bennett wrote:

Monty Heck wrote:I'm having difficulty understanding the legalities here so wonder if I have this right?

Stepping in for a moment just to answer you, 'Monty Heck', though it seems to me that you have a very good grasp of matters already. So here goes with a point-by-point reply

• Someone takes a libel action against another in a civil court, but before any evidence of the alleged libel is put before the court, the person accused agrees to sign an undertaking that he will not do certain things. This agreement is effective for the rest of the accused's natural life.
  

More or less. The undertaking was given without time limit, which I understand is relativley unusual. It means the undertakings continue in force until the defendant [pursuer] successfully challenges the undertakings or the claimant deems that they are no longer necessary

• The pursuers then request a stay of proceedings rather than dropping the case altogether and this is granted by the court
  

Absolutely correct

• the accused is later accused of breaching the undertaking/s and is taken to court by the pursuer with a view to his being punished for breach of the undertaking/s which may mean a prison term
  

That's also 100% correct

• the accused wishes to defend this on the basis that the undertaking/s were unfair or unfairly applied and a preliminary hearing is heard by a judge
  

That's more or less it, I have suggested to the court that the undertakings were 'unreasonable in the circumstances', or words to that effect

• the judge points out that there may be no basis for the libel claim as it has never been before a court, therefore there may be no grounds for the alleged breach of undertaking but allows the case to proceed
  

I think that's substantially what the case on 5 and 6 February will be about

I know nothing of English law

I can tell that by the use of the Scottish legal term 'pursuer'

but can someone actually be sentenced to imprisonment for breaching an undertaking given in a case where the facts as claimed by the pursuer have not been heard in court, far less proven? Further, the pursuers can resist removal of the stay on the original libel case brought by them and which they had put in place, and that this will therefore stand ad infinitum unless they decide to proceed further?

The way you put the question, the whole situation seems grossly unfair, and utterly bizarre, but I guess I'll have to wait and see how the judge analyses all this in just under 4 weeks' time

It would appear that there is an element of deception involved with this case, by that I mean in obtaining the item which resulted in the breach of the undertaking?

It would appear that there is deception involved in everything to do with the Mccanns case.
Even an ex-inspector commented their "they asked the authorities" to reopen the case appears to be a deception.
The abduction story is a deception in the first place hence so is the Fund for the Search. There is deception from start to finish...well not quite finish...
Oops....they are fury that people doubt them.... but Oops again.... they cant stop my free thought.

Jean wrote:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1028169/McCanns-asked-missing-Madeleine-ward-court.html

Definitely the McCanns' decision, according to this article.

Hello Ayoyo,

Thinking along the same lines you do: are we quite sure Maddy was made a ward of Court on the McCs request?

Or could the authorities have stepped in making the arrangements, the McCs spinning that decision in order to make themselves look better?

aiyoyo wrote:

Tombraider wrote:

Tony Bennett wrote:

Monty Heck wrote:I'm having difficulty understanding the legalities here so wonder if I have this right?

Stepping in for a moment just to answer you, 'Monty Heck', though it seems to me that you have a very good grasp of matters already. So here goes with a point-by-point reply

• Someone takes a libel action against another in a civil court, but before any evidence of the alleged libel is put before the court, the person accused agrees to sign an undertaking that he will not do certain things. This agreement is effective for the rest of the accused's natural life.
  

More or less. The undertaking was given without time limit, which I understand is relativley unusual. It means the undertakings continue in force until the defendant [pursuer] successfully challenges the undertakings or the claimant deems that they are no longer necessary

• The pursuers then request a stay of proceedings rather than dropping the case altogether and this is granted by the court
  

Absolutely correct

• the accused is later accused of breaching the undertaking/s and is taken to court by the pursuer with a view to his being punished for breach of the undertaking/s which may mean a prison term
  

That's also 100% correct

• the accused wishes to defend this on the basis that the undertaking/s were unfair or unfairly applied and a preliminary hearing is heard by a judge
  

That's more or less it, I have suggested to the court that the undertakings were 'unreasonable in the circumstances', or words to that effect

• the judge points out that there may be no basis for the libel claim as it has never been before a court, therefore there may be no grounds for the alleged breach of undertaking but allows the case to proceed
  

I think that's substantially what the case on 5 and 6 February will be about

I know nothing of English law

I can tell that by the use of the Scottish legal term 'pursuer'

but can someone actually be sentenced to imprisonment for breaching an undertaking given in a case where the facts as claimed by the pursuer have not been heard in court, far less proven? Further, the pursuers can resist removal of the stay on the original libel case brought by them and which they had put in place, and that this will therefore stand ad infinitum unless they decide to proceed further?

The way you put the question, the whole situation seems grossly unfair, and utterly bizarre, but I guess I'll have to wait and see how the judge analyses all this in just under 4 weeks' time

It would appear that there is an element of deception involved with this case, by that I mean in obtaining the item which resulted in the breach of the undertaking?

It would appear that there is deception involved in everything to do with the Mccanns case.
Even an ex-inspector commented their "they asked the authorities" to reopen the case appears to be a deception.
The abduction story is a deception in the first place hence so is the Fund for the Search. There is deception from start to finish...well not quite finish...
Oops....they are fury that people doubt them.... but Oops again.... they cant stop my free thought.

sonic72 wrote:

Inspectorfrost wrote:

Pam Gurney on the internet is not kate mccann, its virtually and totatally IMPOSSIBLE

How do you know it's not her? You have no way of knowing! She is definitely firmly rooted in their camp and has a personal vendetta against TB, so it does not take a brain surgeon to decipher that at the very least she is working on their behalf.

Inspectorfrost wrote:
Back on topic, how does carter ruck say that these undertakings are set for life, whatever happens? Does that mean that in the hypothetical situation the mccanns were tried and found guilty in a court, of being involved, would Mr Benenett still have to stay shtum?? Seems bizarre if true

PeterMac wrote:

Inspectorfrost wrote:
Back on topic, how does carter ruck say that these undertakings are set for life, whatever happens? Does that mean that in the hypothetical situation the mccanns were tried and found guilty in a court, of being involved, would Mr Benenett still have to stay shtum?? Seems bizarre if true

From what you have written, I can deduce that you are not an English Lawyer ! !

aiyoyo wrote:Far as I know, it was the Mccanns' idea to make Maddie 'Ward of Court' so that they could lay their hands on info which otherwise was refused to them by LP. If there was a court order then the Police would have to oblige or so they thought. Which they were not wrong except unfortunately for them, not everything they sought under Mrs Justice Hogg's name was given to them. Some materials deemed sensitive were held back by the Police; and no surprise the Mccanns were furious (as usual ) over it.

Effectively they were handed back leads that came through their hot-line (that the Police were within their right to retain). Quite why they wanted those info that they had to use Court's power to obtain is anyone's guess. It couldn't have been just curiosity that made them resort to that drastic measure to lay their hands on those info; as they couldn't possibly do anything with the info; not as if they were leading their own investigation officially neither was their PIs parallel investigation legal under Portuguese law.

The 'Ward of Court' is not per se (not the in real sense we know it) but a transistory one. One where Justice Hogg was being used by the Mccanns for their own agenda. Control over Maddie's welfare was not relegated to Court and Justice Hogg was not empowered to take over control of her welfare. For obvious reasons..the Mccanns were not stupid to relegate that as otherwise they could not have controlled and spin the investigation to suit their agenda.

The length they went to to get their hands on investigation materials is not compatible (in fact in stark contrast) with their non-action to engage the investigators not to shelve the case. If anything they expressed relief when the process was shelved as along with that their arguido status was also shelved. Yes, shelved not lifted as they would have people believed. May have been stated as lifted by the press but it can be re-instated when the process re-open, so effectively, shelved and not lifted. As in the case shelved but not closed.

Jean wrote:Jozi, the man you're thinking of is Philip Edmonds and his aunt is the Labour MP Margaret Hodge.

I'd certainly like to see the independent evidence he supposedly has of Madeleine on holiday.

jozi wrote:aiyoyo wrote

Because it was such an unusual step to obtain info from Police during ongoing investigations that people questioned the rationale behind Justice Hogg approval of it. Under the circumstances it is understandable that most people would like to know: Was Mrs. Hogg leaned on, and by who? Was she persuaded or did social connections influence her decision?
-----------------------------

It was unusual and I don't think they got all the info that they asked for either (maybe wrong here ).To have your child made a ward of court is a very drastic step to take and what would have happened if Maddie had turned up or still turns up ? Does anybody know what happens in such cases,I have no clue but feel that to take the step of having their findable missing daughter made a WOC they knew that Maddie was not going to be found !!!

I am sure Justice Hogg is related to the Guy ( sorry don't know his name ) who flew out in the early morning that Maddie disappeared,he claimed to have a photo of his children playing with Maddie but I don't think it materialized ???

The Blacksmith Bureau

Friday, 11 January 2013
Please Question Us! Part Two

pigs

Tapas 7 seen volunteering to return to Portugal



Who Dunnit?

As usual the Bureau takes the conservative non-dramatic view of events, believing that, given these circumstances, Rebelo didn't have to be a clean-up man tasked with killing the investigation. It didn't need one. Whatever the speculation about cover-ups etc. the evidence above clearly suggests that the actual killers were the Tapas Nine, acting alone except for their lawyers.

It only needed Rebelo's PJ to make the understandable, if slightly dodgy, claim in their report that the rogatory interviews "revealed nothing new" (they hadn't even been translated, let alone analysed in depth) rather than "they don't get us any nearer a charge and it's time to give up", and for Rebelo and Menezes to agree that further timescale extensions were not on, for the investigation to end.

Unfortunately Menezes made a poor fist of his role. Naturally the "missing paragraph" required to explain a shelving despite a key area remaining unexplored couldn't have been written as frankly as we've given it above: that's not the way the world goes round and would likely have cost him and his colleague their jobs. His task, and challenge, though, was to justify the shelving while maintaining the integrity of the PJ and its investigation on the one hand, and avoiding leaving a black cloud of suspicion over two of the arguidos and their friends on the other. The latter would have caused uproar – claims of a smear job by the terrifying UK press and loud demands to lay hands on the McCanns by a dissatisfied Portuguese public, demands that, as we've seen, couldn't be met.

A Clever Plan

Menezes attempted to square this circle by minimizing the significance of the Nine' s behaviour and evidence while stressing how exhaustive the inquiry had been. The PJ report section on the needs of the reconstruction couldn't be omitted from the archiving summary since the PJ wouldn't permit it so Menezes attempted to counter its explosive implications by smothering them with love. Hence the embarrassing purple-prosed final paragraphs in which his rhetoric took wing with references to European literature, the art of the who-dunnit and the analytical power of the average man. All it lacked was a swooning reference to the "fragrance" of Kate McCann, such as a dribbling English judge had once made about a Mrs Archer during her well-known, and crooked, husband's libel case.

So intent was Menezes on being "fair" to the two arguidos that he skimmed, misread or minimised the evidence against them. Thus his summary used the collusive and in places untruthful first batch (May 4) of statements by the group, not the later ones in which they had been forced to change their stories under questioning; and he got them wrong too, the dolt, referring to Russell O'Brien leaving the Tapas restaurant with Mathew at 9 PM, for example. Russell? A mistake like that in an official prosecutors' report!* And with all the smothering the smoke was still escaping, as in his famous reference to the McCanns being "victims". What were they terrible victims of, Menny, a miscarriage of justice? Why, they were victims, he said, of their wilful refusal to co-operate with the investigation, thus losing the chance to "demonstrate their innocence", poor lambs. Such victimhood.

So that was the archiving summary, their "exoneration".There's no need to waste any more words on this lamentable work. We repeat we can't see that Menezes, Rebelo or Monteiro had any choice but to wind up the affair as best they could, given the forensics, time-scale and their impotence in the face of the Nine.

Winners or Dreadful Losers?

But what about the Nine who had thus got away with refusing to co-operate, what did they achieve for themselves? The only defence any of them have regarding the fact of their killing off the police search for the child is that they believed that the Portuguese police were out to get them, but once you force your way through the self-pity it isn't much of one, is it? As so many people have said, your own safety is normally put to one side, or not even considered, when there is a chance, however small, of helping to save your child. As for most of the other seven, just what risks terrified them so much that they wouldn't return? Portugal isn't Iran or Putin's Russia and they were never at risk of lengthy custody. Yet they opted for cowardice, by their own account of events, or something worse if their accounts are untrue, abandoning a four year old child to her fate. Brrr! Chilly.

The McCanns: failed to demonstrate their innocence, according to the official summary report. The Seven: failed to assist for "unknown reasons" according to the official summary report. It seems incredible that nine adults should be content to have their reputations sullied for the rest of their lives by these official conclusions. That is the legacy of condemnation and suspicion they are going to leave their children.

It follows, naturally, that a new investigational review offers all of them their only chance of removing this blemish.It can't happen passively, as it were –simply waiting while a review/investigation which doesn't include the close examination of their stories is concluded. Even if the child's body is discovered that won't lift the cloud over them since, after many years, the circumstances in which she died may be no more conclusive than the circumstances of her disappearance. Only their willing assistance can give them all the chance to demonstrate their innocence.

That is why Kate and Gerry McCann should have been pleading with the Yard for the last eighteen months for the opportunity to answer any questions at all, no holds barred. And so should their cowardly friends.