***LATEST NEWS AND UPDATES FROM THE TRIAL HERE*** See page 40 for news of the date and time of the judgment

ShuBob wrote:

Later, Clarence Mitchell, the McCann family spokesman, said: “Kate and Gerry McCann brought these committal proceedings very much as a last resort.

“Mr Bennett has pursued an incessant campaign against them, repeatedly making false accusations against them, and ignoring the fact that the Portuguese authorities confirmed there was simply no evidence to implicate them in the disappearance of their daughter Madeleine.”

He added: “Kate and Gerry McCann are pleased with the Court’s decision today and hope that it finally marks an end to Mr Bennett’s campaign against them. The McCanns continue to focus their efforts on the ongoing search for their daughter Madeleine.”

Read more: Liverpool Echo http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/liverpool-news/local-news/2013/02/21/suspended-sentence-for-solicitor-who-published-claims-kate-and-gerry-mccann-caused-madeleine-s-death-100252-32854785/#ixzz2LXtglZVO

nobodythereeither wrote:

ShuBob wrote:

Later, Clarence Mitchell, the McCann family spokesman, said: “Kate and Gerry McCann brought these committal proceedings very much as a last resort.

“Mr Bennett has pursued an incessant campaign against them, repeatedly making false accusations against them, and ignoring the fact that the Portuguese authorities confirmed there was simply no evidence to implicate them in the disappearance of their daughter Madeleine.”

He added: “Kate and Gerry McCann are pleased with the Court’s decision today and hope that it finally marks an end to Mr Bennett’s campaign against them. The McCanns continue to focus their efforts on the ongoing search for their daughter Madeleine.”

Read more: Liverpool Echo http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/liverpool-news/local-news/2013/02/21/suspended-sentence-for-solicitor-who-published-claims-kate-and-gerry-mccann-caused-madeleine-s-death-100252-32854785/#ixzz2LXtglZVO

"Simply no evidence to implicate them in the disappearance ....."

When is this farce going to stop?

What definition of "evidence" is he using?

stillsloppingout wrote:

sardinehater wrote:

Mirage wrote:Once we get some understanding of the costs involved I would like to think we can all assist Tony in whatever measure we are able.

Today the letter of the law has been observed, but its spirit dealt a heavy blow.

Truth is light. And the light of Truth will find its way through profound darkness.

It is an immutable fact that no man can gainsay.

If it amounts to tens or even hundreds of thousands of pounds in costs, I don't imagine that forum members will be able to cover all that.

A fiver here and there maybe, but tens of thousands of pounds or more? Seriously?

The finances of the forum members should not be called into question in a patronising manner .
sardinehater sounds like Clarence M to me . I bet all those £5 sent to Rothley were accounted for !!!!!.

ShuBob wrote:Ah well, it looks like Clarence Mitchell wasn't the only one to be smoked out of his hole today

nobodythereeither wrote:

ShuBob wrote:

Later, Clarence Mitchell, the McCann family spokesman, said: “Kate and Gerry McCann brought these committal proceedings very much as a last resort.

“Mr Bennett has pursued an incessant campaign against them, repeatedly making false accusations against them, and ignoring the fact that the Portuguese authorities confirmed there was simply no evidence to implicate them in the disappearance of their daughter Madeleine.”

He added: “Kate and Gerry McCann are pleased with the Court’s decision today and hope that it finally marks an end to Mr Bennett’s campaign against them. The McCanns continue to focus their efforts on the ongoing search for their daughter Madeleine.”

Read more: Liverpool Echo http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/liverpool-news/local-news/2013/02/21/suspended-sentence-for-solicitor-who-published-claims-kate-and-gerry-mccann-caused-madeleine-s-death-100252-32854785/#ixzz2LXtglZVO

"Simply no evidence to implicate them in the disappearance ....."

When is this farce going to stop?

What definition of "evidence" is he using?

sh2 wrote:

nobodythereeither wrote:

ShuBob wrote:

Later, Clarence Mitchell, the McCann family spokesman, said: “Kate and Gerry McCann brought these committal proceedings very much as a last resort.

“Mr Bennett has pursued an incessant campaign against them, repeatedly making false accusations against them, and ignoring the fact that the Portuguese authorities confirmed there was simply no evidence to implicate them in the disappearance of their daughter Madeleine.”

He added: “Kate and Gerry McCann are pleased with the Court’s decision today and hope that it finally marks an end to Mr Bennett’s campaign against them. The McCanns continue to focus their efforts on the ongoing search for their daughter Madeleine.”

Read more: Liverpool Echo http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/liverpool-news/local-news/2013/02/21/suspended-sentence-for-solicitor-who-published-claims-kate-and-gerry-mccann-caused-madeleine-s-death-100252-32854785/#ixzz2LXtglZVO

"Simply no evidence to implicate them in the disappearance ....."

When is this farce going to stop?

What definition of "evidence" is he using?

I expect that CM is using the same definition as the AG of Portugal who used that very phrase in the final report into the case back in 2008. It was quoted directly by the Judge today in his report of the judgement about the contempt.

Jenns wrote:It is said that it is possible to use the witness statements of the Tapas party and others in order to recreate a virtual reconstruction ; thus highlighting any discrepancies or "abductor opportunity" more accurately than relying on the memories of those concerned after such a long time.

What would be gained by having them actually there?

Châtelaine wrote:

Jenns wrote:It is said that it is possible to use the witness statements of the Tapas party and others in order to recreate a virtual reconstruction ; thus highlighting any discrepancies or "abductor opportunity" more accurately than relying on the memories of those concerned after such a long time.

What would be gained by having them actually there?

***
Use your imagination. They themselves bumping into eachother like in a Benny Hill comedy ...
There would have to be "some" explaining" ;-)

Miraflores wrote:From the BBC 'Finding Bennett guilty of contempt of court, the judge said: "I am sure
that he intended to allege that the claimants are to be suspected of
causing the death of their daughter, and did in fact dispose of her
body, lie about what happened and covered up what they had done."'

So the judge is allowed to put words into Tony's mouth, and these are now being broadcast all round the internet? Wasn't he going a bit too far?

There are those who will say agree with the judge. Others just say that they don't know what happened, but there is something dodgy about the McCann's behaviour which brings the abduction into question. BTW in reports 'abduction' now seems to have been quietly forgotten in favour of 'disappearance', which no-one can argue with.

Inspectorfrost wrote:Extremely hollow victory

I thought the judge was fair as he could be within the restraints albeit on the harsh side too much IMO

Now, where does this all leave the MCCANNS? In a bigger hole IMO

If the MCCANNS and CR and all their rabid supporters are happy to ask for 300k costs to be paid by Tony, I sincerely wish none of them ever get a good nights sleep again

Your fathers and grandfathers who fought for freedom are writhing in their graves as we speak, shameful despicable people

The Mccanns have never been cleared

It is a cold case

That means the perpetrators are unknown

The PP also stated there was no evidence for any type of crime including abduction

The PP stated there was no evidence against the three arguidos, with provisos though, which leaves them very much in the lurch in most right thinking peoples minds as possible perpetrators when you take into account the circumstantial evidence and the obscene shenanigans following the disappearance by both them and their employees

Honest comment and opinion will not be smothered

It is not a crime to be suspicious or not believe anyones version of events

It is not a crime to have an opinion......some would love that to be the law, shame on them and so glad it never will be

ETA I would be shocked if the judge awards those costs I dont believe he will

I hope Tony has his head high tonight and enjoying a good drink, I THINK what he has achieved is lost to many