NEWSFLASH !!!!!!!!!!!!!NEWSFLASH!!!!!!!!!! QUESTION FOR TONY BENNETT

by Guest 02.12.09 23:27

Simple question, why are the McCanns (and Murat) no longer ARGUIDOS?

by littlepixie 03.12.09 1:12

Hope you dont mind me answering murat fan but could it be that there was not the evidence there to charge them.

by **Tony Bennett** 03.12.09 2:26

murat_fan wrote:Simple question, why are the McCanns (and Murat) no longer ARGUIDOS?

Because Goncalo Amaral was taken off the case at the behest of the British government.

Next?

by Guest 03.12.09 6:18

Tony Bennett wrote:
murat_fan wrote:Simple question, why are the McCanns (and Murat) no longer ARGUIDOS?
Because Goncalo Amaral was taken off the case at the behest of the British government.

Next?

Rubbish - another Bennett lie. They are no longer arguidos because the Portuguese prosecutor found that THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE with which to charge any of them.

by Avery 03.12.09 6:39

I would hope you would be intelligent enough to see logic of your reply. Not enough evidence does not equal no evidence. The files were full of evidence all of which was open to interpretation.

I did find the police summation to be very interesting. They could find no evidence of any wrong doing at all even though a child was missing. No evidence of an abduction or anything amiss. Nothing worth any further investigation, it is as if she never existed.

by Cross 03.12.09 7:40

Avery wrote:I would hope you would be intelligent enough to see logic of your reply. Not enough evidence does not equal no evidence. The files were full of evidence all of which was open to interpretation.

I did find the police summation to be very interesting. They could find no evidence of any wrong doing at all even though a child was missing. No evidence of an abduction or anything amiss. Nothing worth any further investigation, it is as if she never existed.

Doesn't that speak more of the abilities of the investigating police force then it does of the McCann's?

by Guest 03.12.09 8:11

The prosecutor said NO evidence. He did not say not enough evidence. Why do so many armchair sleuths consider themselves to be better judges of these things than the prosecutor?

by Guest 03.12.09 9:09

littlepixie wrote:Hope you dont mind me answering murat fan but could it be that there was not the evidence there to charge them.

Gosh, but there was plenty to charge Mr Amoral with pretending he didn't know Joana's mother had been tortured by his cronies. Found guilty as well wasn't he?

by Guest 03.12.09 11:02

Tony Bennett wrote:
murat_fan wrote:Simple question, why are the McCanns (and Murat) no longer ARGUIDOS?
Because Goncalo Amaral was taken off the case at the behest of the British government.

Next?

Because The Portuguese Attorney General decided that there was no evidence and no case to answer.

I do wish you would get it right for once. Is that too much to ask?

by **Tony Bennett** 03.12.09 11:06

Sabot wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
murat_fan wrote:Simple question, why are the McCanns (and Murat) no longer ARGUIDOS?
Because Goncalo Amaral was taken off the case at the behest of the British government.

Next?

Because The Portuguese Attorney General decided that there was no evidence and no case to answer.

I do wish you would get it right for once. Is that too much to ask?

Have you apologised yet for falsely suggesting on another forum that I forged the e-mail which Ambersuz sent to one of her Mods/Admin in which she spoke of the efforts of herself and Brenda Ryan to continue speaking to Clarence Mitchell? If so, I missed your apology.

by Guest 03.12.09 11:22

Tony Bennett wrote:
Sabot wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
murat_fan wrote:Simple question, why are the McCanns (and Murat) no longer ARGUIDOS?
Because Goncalo Amaral was taken off the case at the behest of the British government.

Next?

Because The Portuguese Attorney General decided that there was no evidence and no case to answer.

I do wish you would get it right for once. Is that too much to ask?
Have you apologised yet for falsely suggesting on another forum that I forged the e-mail which Ambersuz sent to one of her Mods/Admin in which she spoke of the efforts of herself and Brenda Ryan to continue speaking to Clarence Mitchell? If so, I missed your apology.

Have YOU apologised yet for what you've said about the McCanns? Or for still making mischief with posts like this one?

Eddie discovering the scent of death on two of Dr Kate McCann' clothes is suggestive of her being in contact with a dead Madeleine at some point, although the
McCanns would say that these dogs are useless and they rely very much
of course on Martin Grime saying that corroborative evidence is needed

by Guest 03.12.09 11:25

Sabot wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
murat_fan wrote:Simple question, why are the McCanns (and Murat) no longer ARGUIDOS?
Because Goncalo Amaral was taken off the case the behest of the British government.

Next?

Because The Portuguese Attorney General decided that there was no evidence and no case to answer.

I do wish you would get it right for once. Is that too much to ask?

Mr Bennett doesn't have a good history of getting things right, sadly. Still more people are beginning to get that now and to see that these long interminable posts of self penned positive emails and wrathful quotes from the bible are simple distractions from the fact that he has been caught out. Again.

by Guest 03.12.09 12:41

Tony Bennett wrote:
Sabot wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
murat_fan wrote:Simple question, why are the McCanns (and Murat) no longer ARGUIDOS?
Because Goncalo Amaral was taken off the case at the behest of the British government.

Next?

Because The Portuguese Attorney General decided that there was no evidence and no case to answer.

I do wish you would get it right for once. Is that too much to ask?
Have you apologised yet for falsely suggesting on another forum that I forged the e-mail which Ambersuz sent to one of her Mods/Admin in which she spoke of the efforts of herself and Brenda Ryan to continue speaking to Clarence Mitchell? If so, I missed your apology.

Nothing wrong with suggesting, you do it all of the time. When you aren't actually accusing.

Are you going to apologise to The McCanns?

by **Tony Bennett** 03.12.09 13:58

Sabot wrote:Are you going to apologise to The McCanns?

None of the many Carter-Ruck letters sent to me on and after 27 August 2009 asked me to apologise for anything

by Guest 03.12.09 14:00

I presume sabot was asking in the sense of moral decency rather than being told to, by adulthood most people know that apologies are a pretty important way of helping the victims deal with what happened to them when someone is caught doing wrong.

You were caught doing wrong, spreading lies, misinformation and libelling a family already going through hell.

I would have thought an apology would be the absolute least you could do in the circumstances.

by Guest 03.12.09 14:08

Tony Bennett wrote:
Sabot wrote:Are you going to apologise to The McCanns?
None of the many Carter-Ruck letters sent to me on and after 27 August 2009 asked me to apologise for anything

So that's okay then?

Why are you asking me to apologise? You don't half have some double standards, mate.

by Old Nick 03.12.09 17:17

Mr Bennett has done NOTHING wrong.

by Guest 03.12.09 17:25

Old Nick wrote:Mr Bennett has done NOTHING wrong.

So that is why The McCanns have a writ waiting for him to spread more Libel?

by Old Nick 03.12.09 17:29

Sabot wrote:
Old Nick wrote:Mr Bennett has done NOTHING wrong.

So that is why The McCanns have a writ waiting for him to spread more Libel?

I should have said Mr Bennett has done NOTHING wrong - in my eyes.

by Guest 03.12.09 17:32

old Nick is fast becoming one of my favourite posters lol!

by Guest 03.12.09 17:36

Old Nick wrote:
Sabot wrote:
Old Nick wrote:Mr Bennett has done NOTHING wrong.

So that is why The McCanns have a writ waiting for him to spread more Libel?

I should have said Mr Bennett has done NOTHING wrong - in my eyes.

You are, of course, entitled to your opinion. But The High Court doesn't appear to agree with you.

by Guest 03.12.09 18:48

Tony Bennett wrote:
murat_fan wrote:Simple question, why are the McCanns (and Murat) no longer ARGUIDOS?
Because Goncalo Amaral was taken off the case at the behest of the British government.

Next?

What a tosser you are Bennett. They were all released because of NO EVIDENCE AGAINST THEM. No evidence from the little doggies, no evidence from the FSS, no evidence about blood.

Admit it Bennett you have tried to get yourself in the limelight and have failed.