A letter from Carter-Ruck

I have received a further letter from Carter-Ruck and am considering its contents.

Do you want to talk about it?

Funny Tony how certain posters on other sites know about these letters before you receive them. Why are certain law firms confiding in them?

Irish Eyes wrote:Do you want to talk about it?

Yes.

I put this up as a test message to see how long it took bonnybraes to start gloating about it on JATYK - you know, the forum that feeds like a leech on news from other forums. And the one that's about two months out of date about Helene Davies Green being suspended - she's been back at work nearly two months since a short suspension and with nothing adverse on her disciplinary record after an investigation found her to be an utterly exemplary employee.

But then, to put it very kindly, JATYK does have one of the poorest records on the internet where accuracy is concerned.

Almost as bad as PFA, which gloatingly posted news about Helene's suspension, only to have the one and only dcb2 realise he'd blundered, causing him to withdraw his post stuttering about 'waiting for the information about Helene to be confirmed'.

Ha! Got it from that 'reliable source' muratfan, did you, dcb2?

I was slightly out in my predictions about bonnybraes.

She posted the news up at 10.34pm, a full 27 minutes after my post.

Slow for her!

She must be getting old as well as cantankerous.

So why was she suspended in the first place?

Draco wrote:So why was she suspended in the first place?

Because a supporter of the McCanns contacted the hospital, sending in a copy of the Sun article, the one referring to her as a 'vile sicko'. The member of the public claimed her involvement in distributing leaflets in Leicestershire on 12 Augsut 2009 brought the hospital into disrepute - and hospital managers decided under normal disciplinary procedures that she should be suspended on full pay pending an investigation, which I think lasted about 3-4 weeks before she was back at work.

I should add for the written record that Helene is no longer a member of The Madeleine Foundation.

littlepixie wrote:Funny Tony how certain posters on other sites know about these letters before you receive them. Why are certain law firms confiding in them?

I do not think C-R are confiding in anyone directly. I believe info may be filtering down from the McCann camp, or info exchanged between Tony and others is being gathered in an illegal manner. Perhaps Tony might consider future communications with others via throw away phones.

kangdang wrote:

littlepixie wrote:Funny Tony how certain posters on other sites know about these letters before you receive them. Why are certain law firms confiding in them?

I do not think C-R are confiding in anyone directly. I believe info may be filtering down from the McCann camp, or info exchanged between Tony and others is being gathered in an illegal manner. Perhaps Tony might consider future communications with others via throw away phones.

On this occasion, without giving away too much, an e-mail was sent by Carter-Ruck to my e-mail address on 3rd August, on which day I spent most of it walking the Cardiganshire coast north of Newquay (not the Cornwall one) and finishing up eating a fish-and-chip supper on the quayside at Aberaeron followed by a carton of Joe's ice cream (chocolate flavour). Aberaeron has never been quite the same since they closed the aerial runway which took you from one side of the harbour to the other. Go further back in time and it was one of Britain's largest shipbuilding centres.

Anyway, it was not until opening my post on Tuesday 10th August, having arrived back home late on Monday 9th, that I discovered a hard copy of the Carter-Ruck e-mail in my post. That was the first I knew about it. I don't have a laptop and I don't visit the internet or check my e-mails on principle while on holiday.

What did cause me a degree of consternation was to find out that 'muratfan' had been gloating over the net on 4 August that I had been sent another Carter-Ruck letter. Not only that, but his posting was surprisingly close to the actual contents of the letter.

Are Carter-Ruck in touch with 'muratfan'?

Not according to Carter-Ruck's letter of 3 August, because in it they say, and I quote verbatim: "Neither we nor our clients have any knowledge of a Mr Ian West or of anyone with the internet username 'muratfan', and we have not leaked our letter [of 15 July] to him or to anyone else..."

There you go.

The word of Carter-Ruck.

But their grammar is shocking.

Look at that sentence above.

Two 'ors' instead of two 'nors'.

What can one say.

+++++++++++++

On the subject of 'throw-away 'phones', I actually have considered that in another context, nothing to do with Madeleine McCann.

The advice I have received - via a genuine undercover police officer who works on high security issues - is that 'throw-away 'phones' only work to their proper extent if both parties have them AND if they only use those 'phones between themselves and never answer the 'phone to any other number nor use them to 'phone anyone else.

This is because the technology is so sophisticated these days that if you have a 'throw-away' 'phone and use that 'phone to contact any other person whose 'phone CAN be tracked by the police/security services (and they have a huge database, in conjunction with landline and mobile telephone companies who are obliged to hand over their data if the police want them), then your cover is blown and you can be traced by satellite technology etc.

Not surprisingly, drug-dealers use bilateral 'throw-away' 'phones between themselves - and of course often throw away their 'throw-aways'.

Tony Bennett wrote:

Draco wrote:So why was she suspended in the first place?

Because a supporter of the McCanns contacted the hospital, sending in a copy of the Sun article, the one referring to her as a 'vile sicko'. The member of the public claimed her involvement in distributing leaflets in Leicestershire on 12 Augsut 2009 brought the hospital into disrepute - and hospital managers decided under normal disciplinary procedures that she should be suspended on full pay pending an investigation, which I think lasted about 3-4 weeks before she was back at work.

I should add for the written record that Helene is no longer a member of The Madeleine Foundation.

Why is she no longer a member?

Tony Bennett wrote:

Draco wrote:So why was she suspended in the first place?

Because a supporter of the McCanns contacted the hospital, sending in a copy of the Sun article, the one referring to her as a 'vile sicko'. The member of the public claimed her involvement in distributing leaflets in Leicestershire on 12 Augsut 2009 brought the hospital into disrepute - and hospital managers decided under normal disciplinary procedures that she should be suspended on full pay pending an investigation, which I think lasted about 3-4 weeks before she was back at work.

I should add for the written record that Helene is no longer a member of The Madeleine Foundation.

Thank you Tony.

Rainbow wrote:

Tony Bennett wrote:

Draco wrote:So why was she suspended in the first place?

Because a supporter of the McCanns contacted the hospital, sending in a copy of the Sun article, the one referring to her as a 'vile sicko'...I should add for the written record that Helene is no longer a member of The Madeleine Foundation.

Why is she no longer a member?

I wouldn't normally answer such a question, but in short Helene having done what she could to inform the public as best as she could about facts concerning Madeleine's disappearance - that the entire British press seem unwilling to discuss - discovered to her cost that such activity could bring Britain's best-selling newspaper to describe her to millions of readers as a 'vile sicko', bringing with it the added consequence of a brief suspension from her employment, which she loves and is wholeheartedly committed to.

She felt that supporters of the McCanns would continue to find ways of harassing her if she remained a member of MF.

That's very sad.

So much for British tolerance of a person's belief systems.

Both Helene and Grenville have devoted their lives to campaigning for what they believe in, yet elements of this shocking and sordid case are deliberately trying to prevent them from openly helping us to find out what really happened to Madeleine.

WHY ARE THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE SPENDING MONTHS STEALING THEIR WAY ACROSS CONTINENTS TO QUEUE UP FOR WEEKS IN FRANCE FOR A CHANCE TO CLAMBER UNDER A LORRY TO BE BROUGHT TO THIS GOD-FORSAKEN PLACE?

Afghanistan and Brazil are beginning to look a lot less corrupt than the UK.

Tony Bennett wrote:

kangdang wrote:

littlepixie wrote:Funny Tony how certain posters on other sites know about these letters before you receive them. Why are certain law firms confiding in them?

I do not think C-R are confiding in anyone directly. I believe info may be filtering down from the McCann camp, or info exchanged between Tony and others is being gathered in an illegal manner. Perhaps Tony might consider future communications with others via throw away phones.

On this occasion, without giving away too much, an e-mail was sent by Carter-Ruck to my e-mail address on 3rd August, on which day I spent most of it walking the Cardiganshire coast north of Newquay (not the Cornwall one) and finishing up eating a fish-and-chip supper on the quayside at Aberaeron followed by a carton of Joe's ice cream (chocolate flavour). Aberaeron has never been quite the same since they closed the aerial runway which took you from one side of the harbour to the other. Go further back in time and it was one of Britain's largest shipbuilding centres.

Anyway, it was not until opening my post on Tuesday 10th August, having arrived back home late on Monday 9th, that I discovered a hard copy of the Carter-Ruck e-mail in my post. That was the first I knew about it. I don't have a laptop and I don't visit the internet or check my e-mails on principle while on holiday.

What did cause me a degree of consternation was to find out that 'muratfan' had been gloating over the net on 4 August that I had been sent another Carter-Ruck letter. Not only that, but his posting was surprisingly close to the actual contents of the letter.

Are Carter-Ruck in touch with 'muratfan'?

Not according to Carter-Ruck's letter of 3 August, because in it they say, and I quote verbatim: "Neither we nor our clients have any knowledge of a Mr Ian West or of anyone with the internet username 'muratfan', and we have not leaked our letter [of 15 July] to him or to anyone else..."

There you go.

The word of Carter-Ruck.

But their grammar is shocking.

Look at that sentence above.

Two 'ors' instead of two 'nors'.

What can one say.

+++++++++++++

On the subject of 'throw-away 'phones', I actually have considered that in another context, nothing to do with Madeleine McCann.

The advice I have received - via a genuine undercover police officer who works on high security issues - is that 'throw-away 'phones' only work to their proper extent if both parties have them AND if they only use those 'phones between themselves and never answer the 'phone to any other number nor use them to 'phone anyone else.

This is because the technology is so sophisticated these days that if you have a 'throw-away' 'phone and use that 'phone to contact any other person whose 'phone CAN be tracked by the police/security services (and they have a huge database, in conjunction with landline and mobile telephone companies who are obliged to hand over their data if the police want them), then your cover is blown and you can be traced by satellite technology etc.

Not surprisingly, drug-dealers use bilateral 'throw-away' 'phones between themselves - and of course often throw away their 'throw-aways'.

I am sure you are aware of the issue amongst several MF supporters where 'packets' have gone missing in 'space' so to speak for several hours (sometimes as long as a day) before reaching their intended final destination. There has also been grave concerns over wire tapping, this problem appears to be ongoing Tony. If throw away phones are not a viable option then encryption should be considered as an alternative. Phil Zimmerman’s PGP (Pretty Good Privacy) is available for free, and extremely difficult and time consuming to crack without key.

Tony Bennett wrote:

Draco wrote:So why was she suspended in the first place?

Because a supporter of the McCanns contacted the hospital, sending in a copy of the Sun article, the one referring to her as a 'vile sicko'. The member of the public claimed her involvement in distributing leaflets in Leicestershire on 12 Augsut 2009 brought the hospital into disrepute - and hospital managers decided under normal disciplinary procedures that she should be suspended on full pay pending an investigation, which I think lasted about 3-4 weeks before she was back at work.

I should add for the written record that Helene is no longer a member of The Madeleine Foundation.

How weird this world has become. Suspended for merely distributing leaflets!

Yet a couple of doctors declared as "official suspects" in the disappearance of their daughter, a much more serious criminal offence, are not suspended during the police investigations.

That should be highlighted to NHS or the hospice in question.

littlepixie wrote:Funny Tony how certain posters on other sites know about these letters before you receive them. Why are certain law firms confiding in them?

I doubt it's the law firms that did it.
More like people closely related to mccanns. Whoever posted that just proved that she is either mccanns/team maccanns or closely associated to mccanns. That leak from muratfan proved as well that team mccanns people are forum members and that they monitor forum. For all people know maybe Muratfan is Kate Mccann herself. One cannot rule that out.

TB should ask CR to ask mccanns whether their client post on forum or whether they know friends who did. Its not rocket science to work out its either them or their friends leaking the info onto forum. Because it if didnt come my TB side, the only conclusion is the leak came from Mccanns' side.

Draw CR attention to the fact the info was leaked onto the forum from the mccanns side. The Confidentiality issue should apply to both parties concerned.

Besides, AFAIK, a law exists to protect members right, entitlement, and to have privilege to all letters communications, be it sent or received, within the private association/club. MF being similar type of entity, with members, should come under the same category. No info should be prohibited to members.

If TB,acting as Secretary of MF, was only carrying out his official duty, when he was threatened by mccanns via their lawyers, then members are fully entitled to know becaue every communication sent or received, inclusive of legal letters within MF should be privileged to all members and not TB alone. Otherwise how does the law expect an entity such as MF to be able function without being subjected to constant harrasement from the mccanns and their iks.

MF being a campaign group for Children welfare, if its members (including TB who is also member) choose to draw attention to a wider audience the threats they constantly received from mccanns via their lawyers that preventing them from carrying out their duties as set out in their constitution, then why is it not within their rights to do so? That's the whole point of a campaign!

aiyoyo, your last couple of posts are brilliant

that the press are complicit in this p*sses me off no end, but Carter Ruck are just using classic bully boy tactics and need to be told where to get off

Tony Bennett wrote:

Draco wrote:So why was she suspended in the first place?

Because a supporter of the McCanns contacted the hospital, sending in a copy of the Sun article, the one referring to her as a 'vile sicko'. The member of the public claimed her involvement in distributing leaflets in Leicestershire on 12 Augsut 2009 brought the hospital into disrepute - and hospital managers decided under normal disciplinary procedures that she should be suspended on full pay pending an investigation, which I think lasted about 3-4 weeks before she was back at work.

I should add for the written record that Helene is no longer a member of The Madeleine Foundation.

So the NHS will suspend someone because of a newspaper article that referred to Helene as a "vile sicko" but they won't suspend other NHS employees who are referred to as 'arguidos in the alleged death and concealment of their own daughter' - or potential child molesters as witnessed by two other NHS doctors - in an official police investigation?

Delivering leaflets brings a hospital into disrepute and a missing child, presumed dead at the hands of her own parents, doesn't?

------

Oops, I posted this before I read aiyoyo's post.

aiyoyo wrote:TB should ask CR to ask mccanns whether their client post on forum or whether they know friends who did. Its not rocket science to work out its either them or their friends leaking the info onto forum. Because it if didnt come my TB side, the only conclusion is the leak came from Mccanns' side.

But you can't leak something that is sitting unopened on someone's doormat.

jkh wrote:

aiyoyo wrote:TB should ask CR to ask mccanns whether their client post on forum or whether they know friends who did. Its not rocket science to work out its either them or their friends leaking the info onto forum. Because it if didnt come my TB side, the only conclusion is the leak came from Mccanns' side.

But you can't leak something that is sitting unopened on someone's doormat.

That just proves the leak didn't come from MF's side.

So, it so blatantly obvious who is the guilty party

Dimwit muratfan just dropped them (mccanns) into that shit, when she (Muratfan) leaked it onto forum as soon as the letter was hot off its press.

If necessary, TB should point out to CR, leak came from muratfan sourced without a shadow of doubt from mccanns, unless there is a mole in CR's office. That being the case, CR should ask their client to keep their gob shut; and at it, they should also ask their client who muratfan is. Their client can deny knowing muratfan as much as they want but the evidence is so obvious......so the point is made ....so that CR is clear their client is playing games.

Muratfan is making things up as he goes along...not helpful to the mccanns for their lackey to be seen to be chronic liar. It reflects on the mccanns and shows them up.

Tony Bennett wrote:

Rainbow wrote:

Tony Bennett wrote:

Draco wrote:So why was she suspended in the first place?

Because a supporter of the McCanns contacted the hospital, sending in a copy of the Sun article, the one referring to her as a 'vile sicko'...I should add for the written record that Helene is no longer a member of The Madeleine Foundation.

Why is she no longer a member?

I wouldn't normally answer such a question, but in short Helene having done what she could to inform the public as best as she could about facts concerning Madeleine's disappearance - that the entire British press seem unwilling to discuss - discovered to her cost that such activity could bring Britain's best-selling newspaper to describe her to millions of readers as a 'vile sicko', bringing with it the added consequence of a brief suspension from her employment, which she loves and is wholeheartedly committed to.

She felt that supporters of the McCanns would continue to find ways of harassing her if she remained a member of MF.

Ah, okay. So why are her name and her husbands name still listed on the MF site as contacts?

@ Draco

Your morbid fascination with Tony Bennett and his friends and supporters would be considered dangerous in some countries, and one has seen many people such as yourself locked up, for nothing more than the sort of bizarre voyeuristic behaviour you are now displaying. This bantering may cause much amusement amongst your friends, but one is genuinely concerned that you choose to loiter here when there is a big world at your fingertips, waiting to be discovered from your armchair.

If I could make a suggestion to those who have the time to pick through the MF contact lists and MF papers, perhaps that energy and enthusiasm could be put to you picking through the statements of KM and GM and their mates, if you do that you will come across numerous discrepancies, perhaps you could list these down, perhaps you could pick through the Gaspar statements while you are at it, and spend some of your time viewing the video of the dogs.

That would surely be a good way to spend your time and energy and of course you would like to find out as we all do what happened to Madeleine, I fail to see how picking through MF stuff or spending time on what Tony may or may not be doing, is actually going to help solve the case. Many cases have been solved by a member of the public noticing something seemingly small which may have been overlooked, the answer lies in looking at the behaviour of these people, who if they had done a reconstruction would have all been bumping into each other and tripping over each other, surely that is a positive and constructive way to spend your time I would have thought.

If MF and Tony were not around how does that solve the case? How does that find out what happened to Madeleine? It doesnt, so anyone who genuinely wants to find out what happened to an innocent little girl would surely be putting all that energy, time and enthusiasm into questionning those who neglected her and those who appear to have covered up what happened. MF and Tony did not neglect her or coverup for what had happened so by pursuing them it doesnt help in any way find out what happened to Madeleine which means that anyone looking in will be questionning the motives as to why some people are really on these forums.imo

One has the impression your excellent post may fall on deaf ears, Cherry.

One is concerned that Team McCann are not giving us 'sighting' stories in the past few weekends newspapers.

The libel trial will have to set about proving that Amaral was running a flawed investigation that missed valuable leads and that Amaral's book has effectively prevented people looking for Madeleine.

One is aware that Kate McCann is allegedly going through the investigation with a fine toothcomb to see if Amaral and his team have missed anything, but one cannot help wondering if there will be yet more pleas for the withheld police documents to see if there were any errant paedophiles and passersby they can allude to.

Can you scan and publish nasty letters you receive? You can always use Infran View or the like to obscure your address and other details.

Remember, apart from priviledged documents, you must never repeat a libel.

I think you should shut-up while you still have something left to defend. These people - Free Masons - have a limitless capacity for evil. You could find your neighbours told you are a paedophile, and when bricks come through your windows the Police are "very, very busy;" have your glasses smashed from behind, the shattered glass rubbed into your right eye socket, and still the British National Police cannot do anything. Then you get followed, access to health and legal services blocked, and toxins sliped into your food.

And if you complain, you've got a grudge and you're paranoid. Maybe a bent Masonic Social Worker will get a Bench Warrant for your detention in a psychiatric hospital, served with no notice with piss taking police and two doctors. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think you can name a bent Masonic doctor.