16 Questions to Tony Bennett from 'What the Papers Never Say' - ANSWERED

by **Tony Bennett** 29.12.09 19:46

What the Papers Never Say’s 16 Questions answered

1. You cannot attack Nigel Nessling for simply quoting the facts, did you or did you not try to bring the McCanns to court even though you knew perfectly well you would be unsuccessful, no matter which court door you went knocking on?

A. Nigel Nessling wrote to others claiming as fact the following: I have been in a mental hospital, I was arrested over an incident in a public toilet, I am a memebr of the BNP and have extreme right-wing views. None of those things is even remotely true.

B. The McCanns had twice publicly admitted that they had left their children on their own six nights in a row, and that’s notwithstanding their claims about taking the children to the Millennium on Saturday and Sunday nights that week. Issues of child protection, under the Hague Convention 2002, must be dealt with, for obvious reasons, in the country where the parents live not where the alleged offence of child cruelty/neglect occurred. I had every reason to think that the case was correctly brought in Leicestershire and Rutland Magistrates Court, where the parents lived. The Court did not say that they did not have jurisdiction. All that they said was that they were not certain that they had jurisdiction. They had to be certain.

2. Did you or did you not go to the Big Brother House and try to serve a writ on Michael Barrymore who was appearing on the show at the time?

Yes. I had been in Epping Magistrates Court that morning trying to obtain a summons against Michael Barrymore in respect of several alleged drugs offences. The judge ordered me to serve notice of my application (not a writ) on Michael Barrymore personally as soon as possible. Unfortunately Endemol and Channel 4 would not allow me to serve the notice on him personally so I left the papers at Big Brother reception.

3. Are you or are you not still trying to bring an action against the Essex police about how they handled the Stuart Lubbock investigation?

No.

4. Are you or are you not trying to bring an action against the Essex police about Lee Balkwell?

No. What I did in December 2007 was file a dossier of 100-plus pages with the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) alleging over 100 instances of misconduct by 23 current or former officers from Essex Police. The IPCC in mid-2008 decided that these complaints were so serious that they would be investigated independently by the IPCC, their highest level of investigation into police misconduct (the same level as for the investigation into the killing of jean Charles de Menezes). In December 2008 they served 17 officers with Regulation 9 notices warning those officers they were being investigated for misconduct. On 29 June this year a top-level IPCC report found that the initial investigation into Lee Balkwell’s death was ‘seriously flawed’. They recommended to Essex Polcie that they allow an outside police force to investigate Lee Balkwell’s death. They refused, merely offering an independent ‘review’ (which is now under way).

5. Have you or have you not accused the Essex police of being corrupt and turning a blind eye to people smuggling drugs into the country?

I have accused, though not by name, several senior past or present Essex Police Officers of having corrupt relations with drug-dealers. I do have names in mind but not for publication here. The evidence includes transcripts of recordings of undercover Police Officers (good ones) talking to drug dealers who boasted about how corrupt Essex Police Officers assisted their illegal trade. These came into my possession a few months ago but only confirmed much of what I already knew. Try reading Graeme McLagan’s ‘Bent Coppers’ for an insight into the extent of corruption in some of Britain’s police forces.

6. Have you or have you not complained to the Essex police about Nigel Nessling on numerous occasions?

No. I did not complain about him until the moment I had proof from third parties that he was knowingly and maliciously sending false informatio about me to others by electronic mail.

7. Have you or have you not complained to the Essex police about Debbie Butler?

Yes. On 10 November I made a complaint of harsssment after she had deliberately and maliciously claimed I had defrauded The Madeleine Foundation and showed every sign of having embarked on a deliberate campaign of harassment against myself and other members and supporters of The Madeleine Foundation. I had been urged by others to take action earlier.

8. Have you or have you not complained to the Press Complaints Commission on at least 6 different occasions?

That could well be true, though one of those was on behalf of Terry Lubbock. I resolved that on Terry’s behalf by ‘The Sun’ agreeing to publish a letter from Terry. I drafted that letter and it was published in December 2006.

9. Have you or have you not just had your complaints about the Daily Star and the Daily Express refused?

Yes. A matter which I myself published on this very forum as soo nas I was aware of the news.

10. Did you or did you not preside over your old website the Madeleine Foundation, when it it defamed an innocent photographer?

Myself and Debbie Butler were in overall control of the The Madeleine Foundation. Steve Marsden was allowed a measure of freedom to publish articles in support of our stated aims. The Mike Gunnill article was not published with our consent and the moment I became aware of it, I think the next day, I successfully orderd Marsden to remove it.

11. Dd you or did you not help Debbie Butler write to the General Medical Council trying to have Gerry McCann and Kate Healy removed from the medical register as unfit to practice because they were depressed about their child's abduction?

Yes. Newpaper reports based on sources close to the McCanns said that they were both suffering from serious ailments which strongly suggested they may be unfit to practise. The letter began:

QUOTE

I write to bring to your attention a report about the above couple, both doctors, published in the Sunday People yesterday.

Dr Gerald McCann and Dr Kate McCann are the parents of Madeleine McCann, who was reported missing by her mother at around 10.00pm on Thursday 3 May 2007. The circumstances of her disappearance remain mysterious and as yet unsolved. They were made official suspects of involvement in their daughter’s disappearance in September 2007, a status that lasted until July 2008 when the Portuguese judicial authorities concluded that at that time there was insufficient evidence to charge them or anyone else with a crime against Madeleine.

Yesterday, the Sunday People published an article based on what they said was a 34-page libel writ served in Portugal against Goncalo Amaral. The McCanns and their advisers have already announced in the press that they intended to sue Mr Amaral for libel. Mr Amaral was the senior investigating officer in the case until he was removed from the investigation in controversial circumstances in October 2007. A month earlier, he was the man responsible for declaring the McCanns to be official suspects in their daughter’s disappearance.

The Sunday People says it has translated the libel writ from the Portuguese. The McCanns are claiming damages of £1 million from Mr Amaral. I wish to bring to your attention the medical and psychological condition of these two doctors, one of whom continues to practise, and both of whom we understand to be on the GMC Register.

The writ says of Dr Kate McCann that she is ‘deeply and seriously depressed”. The writ goes on to describe both of the McCanns as suffering from:

permanent anxiety,
insomnia,
lack of appetite,
irritability,
indefinable fear.

In the writ, according to the Sunday People, the McCanns further describe both of themselves as:

“totally destroyed”,
“irreparably damaged”, and
“totally destroyed from a moral, social, ethical, emotional and family point of view”.

The question that arises is whether either of these doctors is fit to practise or indeed to remain on the GMC Register, at least until these serious psychological problems, suggestive of mental illness, subside. We suggest that the appropriate committee of the GMC should consider (a) suspending them from the GMC until a psychiatrist deems that they have recovered from the above symptoms and (b) providing them with the expert psychiatric help and counselling that anyone exhibiting such severe symptoms should receive from the N.H.S. Presumably if the McCanns are exhibiting these symptoms there are reports available from their G.P. or a psychiatric specialist confirming those symptoms.

The other possibility of course, is that the McCanns are grossly exaggerating the extent of their depression…

UNQUOTE

12. Did or did you not try to get the McCanns in court on charges of child neglect?

Yes.

13. Did you or did you not complain to Social Services about the twins being left with their parents?

I think at one stage I e-mailed Leicestershire Social Services with my concerns. I think I suggested that they should institute an official Child Protection Plan under the Children Act. I heard later from a pro-McCann source that Social Services had insisted that there was always a person present with Kate McCann when Gerry McCann was away. So there may well be a Child Protection Plan in place.

14. Did you or did you not spearhead many complaints about metric road signs?

Yes, and hardly surprising since metric distance signs are illegal as per the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 (I exclude bridge height and road width signs which can be in both metric and Imperial). In 2006 our campaign to stop the British government proceeding with its plans to waste £1 billion of public money on a wholly unnecessary conversion of some 2 million road and footpath signs to metric was successful, when then Transport Secretary confirmed on ‘Any Questions’, in Milton Keynes, that the government had abandoned its plans. That’s why today on Britain’s road you still see ‘Leicester 12’ and ‘Give Way 150 yds’ etc. rather than metric measurements.

15. there is probably much that I have left out, but on the above, I honestly cannot understand how Baroness Scotland has come to this conclusion that you are not a vexatious person? (Perhaps she has had another of her lapses?)

She is lucky not to have a criminal record for knowingly employing an illegal immigrant. To save money. Someone who has applied for two summonses over a period of 40 years is scarcely a vexatious litigant.

16. Is that letter you have published verbatim? Or has it been subject to you snipping bits and adding bits?

The letters from D C I Trevor Roe and D C Chissel that I have quoted on this forum are verbatim, nothing added, removed or changed. As I have said. I do not have a scanner.

by Bea_Reasonable 29.12.09 19:50

Mr Bennett, I have one question. Honest and truly asked.

Why?

Why do you do this Lubbock, Mccann, what motivates you?

by littlepixie 29.12.09 23:14

Someone got away with torturing Stuart Lubbock to death in the most horrendous, humiliating, painful way. Some people wouldn't care about that as they didnt know him and his death didn't affect their life. "I'm alright Jack" is how they put it up north.

Other people care, whether they knew him or not.

by Guest 29.12.09 23:33

Tony can i butt in please

1. You cannot attack Nigel Nessling for simply quoting the facts, did you or did you not try to bring the McCanns to court even though you knew perfectly well you would be unsuccessful, no matter which court door you went knocking on?

A. Nigel Nessling wrote to others claiming as fact the following: I have been in a mental hospital, I was arrested over an incident in a public toilet, I am a memebr of the BNP and have extreme right-wing views. None of those things is even remotely true.

Not true Tony, it was first put on another blog, a blog you know where it first appeared.

5. Have you or have you not accused the Essex police of being corrupt and turning a blind eye to people smuggling drugs into the country?

I have accused, though not by name, several senior past or present Essex Police Officers of having corrupt relations with drug-dealers. I do have names in mind but not for publication here. The evidence includes transcripts of recordings of undercover Police Officers (good ones) talking to drug dealers who boasted about how corrupt Essex Police Officers assisted their illegal trade. These came into my possession a few months ago but only confirmed much of what I already knew. Try reading Graeme McLagan’s ‘Bent Coppers’ for an insight into the extent of corruption in some of Britain’s police forces.

I take it you are aware then that EVERY SINGLE ESSEX POLICE OFFICER PAST OR PRESENT CAN SUE YOU FOR DEFAMATION OF CHARACTER. Because you have not named names, it means suspicion falls on every member of the force, and every member can sue you.

by **Tony Bennett** 30.12.09 1:34

Bea_Reasonable wrote:Mr Bennett, I have one question. Honest and truly asked.

Why?

Why do you do this Lubbock, McCann, what motivates you?

Very simple, a lot of people can see it, I'm surprised you can't.

In the Lubbock, McCann and Balkwell cases (and others you don't know about), it's a simple case of believing that justice has not been done to the victims - Stuart Lubbock, Madeleine McCann and Lee Balkwell respectively - because the truth has been cunningly covered up.

I derived satisfaction by proving, as I did after a year's research, that Stuart Lubbock COULD NOT have been in Michael Barrymore's swimming pool that awful night. In fact, it was opened up only after Stuart had been killed, in order to promote the drowning claim. Funny how Essex Police didn't spot that, but then quite a few of the stars have police officers in their pocket.

Perhaps Pete Doherty also had friends in the right places so that he avoided any charges over the death of Mark Blanco.

by **Tony Bennett** 30.12.09 1:40

rockyrobin wrote:Tony can I butt in please

Nigel Nessling wrote to others claiming as fact the following: I have been in a mental hospital, I was arrested over an incident in a public toilet, I am a memebr of the BNP and have extreme right-wing views. None of those things is even remotely true.

Not true Tony, it was first put on another blog, a blog you know where it first appeared.

True, but if you'd read my post more carefully you'd have seen that I did not contact Essex Police for all the vile and false things he wrote about me on his blog but only after I had proof of his actively spreading these malicious falsehoods by electronic mail to third parties.

rockyrobin wrote:I take it you are aware then that EVERY SINGLE ESSEX POLICE OFFICER PAST OR PRESENT CAN SUE YOU FOR DEFAMATION OF CHARACTER. Because you have not named names, it means suspicion falls on every member of the force, and every member can sue you.

FOMCL! I can see it how. "99-year-old Joseph Bloggs, a former member of Essex Police Force, today brought libel proceedings against Tony Bennett in respect of a post he made on Jill Havern's 'Right of Reply' blog saying that some Essex Police Officers were corrupt. Rockyrobin told me that suspicion fell on me because I used to be an Essex Police Officer".

Keep 'em coming, rockyrobin, they're great entertainment value!

by Ruby 30.12.09 4:01

TB: 'Perhaps Pete Doherty also had friends in the right places so that he avoided any charges over the death of Mark Blanco.'

I saw that and immediately thought of you.

by Bea_Reasonable 30.12.09 10:34

Tony Bennett wrote:
Bea_Reasonable wrote:Mr Bennett, I have one question. Honest and truly asked.

Why?

Why do you do this Lubbock, McCann, what motivates you?
Very simple, a lot of people can see it, I'm surprised you can't.

I can't see it, no, you are right, I can't see why you behave as you do.

In the Lubbock, McCann and Balkwell cases (and others you don't know about), it's a simple case of believing that justice has not been done to the victims - Stuart Lubbock, Madeleine McCann and Lee Balkwell respectively - because the truth has been cunningly covered up.

Terry Lubbock wants nothing to do with you, does he? The Mcanns had to seek legal means to stop you. They were vindicated. You, incidentally, haven't stopped, have you? What justice have you acquired for these people?

I derived satisfaction by proving, as I did after a year's research, that Stuart Lubbock COULD NOT have been in Michael Barrymore's swimming pool that awful night. In fact, it was opened up only after Stuart had been killed, in order to promote the drowning claim. Funny how Essex Police didn't spot that, but then quite a few of the stars have police officers in their pocket.

I'd very much like to see an official acknowledgement of the above. Some official finding that backs this up, if one exists, surely there is a reason to charge Barrymore?
(The allegations agains an entire police force I won't touch. Suffice to say, I see no censure of an inspet proven corrupt and violent PT police officer from you)

Perhaps Pete Doherty also had friends in the right places so that he avoided any charges over the death of Mark Blanco.

Not even remotely interested in Pete Doherty.

by sunshine 30.12.09 14:20

So all these people,the McCanns,Barrymore et al are getting away with "murder" because they have friends in high places? Hmmmm.

by vaguely 30.12.09 14:34

that and combination of no evidence or lack of guilt I would imagine.

powerful combination that.

by Guest 30.12.09 15:00

Shame Bennett hasn't turned his eyes elsewhere. Say a certain Snr.Amaral, plenty of food there Tony. The case has been partly sorted for you as he has already been charged and sentenced (waiting appeal). Plenty more to come though. Should make delving into every inch of his background a tad easier for you.

by **Tony Bennett** 30.12.09 16:21

sunshine wrote:So all these people, the McCanns, Barrymore et al are getting away with "murder" because they have friends in high places? Hmmm.

Six arrested over private eye murder in 1987

Six men including a former police detective have been arrested over the axe murder of a private eye 21 years ago.

By Nick Allen
Published: 12:33AM BST 22 Apr 2008

[Daniel Morgan Photo: PA - Private investigator Daniel Morgan, 37, was found with an axe embedded in his head in a pub car park in Sydenham, south London].

The unsolved case has hung over Scotland Yard ever since amid suggestions that Mr Morgan was about to expose a drugs network involving corrupt police officers.

The pair were drinking together in the Golden Lion pub half an hour before the body of Mr Morgan, a father of two, was found outside the pub.

Also arrested was Sid Fillery, 61, a former detective sergeant at Scotland Yard, who was involved in the orginal investigation into the murder. Mr Fillery later went to work at Southern Investigations.

There have been five inquiries into Mr Morgan’s murder and the latest, code named Operation Abeleard, was conducted from a secret location outside Scotland Yard.

The arrests followed evidence from “super-grasses” at least one of whom is now under police protection.

Builder James Cook, 53, Glenn Vian, 49, and his brother and Garry Vian, 47, have also been arrested on suspicion of murder.

The sixth man, a serving police constable, was arrested on suspicion of misconduct in a public office. He is accused of leaking information.

His arrest was not connected to the murder but to recent events linked to the other five arrests.

At the request of Mr Morgan’s family officers involved in the latest investigation were required to declare that they were not Freemasons.

His brother Alastair Morgan said: “This is a major step forward after a long, frustrating battle to find out who killed Daniel. I am excited at the developments but there’s a long way to go and nobody has yet been charged. The last 21 years of our lives have been completely over-shadowed by my brother’s murder.”

Mr Morgan was killed by four blows from a Chinese-made axe. His £900 Rolex watch was missing but the £1,100 cash he was carrying was still in his pocket.

Scotland Yard Assistant Commissioner John Yates, who is in overall charge of the investigation, said: “Since that tragic event there have been numerous investigations into his death, none of which have been able to establish who was responsible.

“The current investigation has shown that there are still people out there who have highly pertinent evidence about this case.”

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

So this case was finally solved, after five previous failures, when the police removed all known Freemasons from having anything whatsoever to do with the re-investigation.

Hmmm.

by Guest 30.12.09 16:26

Mr.Bennett, the sad fact is that many more people would take you seriously and possibly back causes that you were right to be suspicious of, if it wasn't for your totally foul behaviour over the McCanns. A case with absolutely NO EVIDENCE that the parents were involved,nor ANY EVIDENCE that Madeleine was harmed in that apartment. FINALLY there is no EVIDENCE of who or what the dog alerted to in that apartment.

by Guest 30.12.09 16:36

PearlB wrote:Mr.Bennett, the sad fact is that many more people would take you seriously and possibly back causes that you were right to be suspicious of, if it wasn't for your totally foul behaviour over the McCanns. A case with absolutely NO EVIDENCE that the parents were involved,nor ANY EVIDENCE that Madeleine was harmed in that apartment. FINALLY there is no EVIDENCE of who or what the dog alerted to in that apartment.

If the dogs are so unreliable, then why on earth do Police forces across the world use them. They wouldn't would they? It doesn't make sense for the PJ to call them from England, and a huge cost, if they were unreliable. They are used all over the world, from solving murders, to sniffing out corpses in collapsed buildings in earthquakes. How anyone can dismiss these dogs is beyond belief.

by aiyoyo 30.12.09 16:43

Yet, no one prior to mccanns occupancy ever died in that apt! I bet people are going to say it was rotten meat or smelly nappies the dog marked. It's funny how the mccanns put take thse smelling things every where with them - in their car, two apts, near their key fob etc!

by MaryB 30.12.09 16:48

Well I'd like to know if the investigation conclusion was that all options were open as to what happened to Madeleine. That's how it appears to me.

by **Tony Bennett** 30.12.09 16:50

candyfloss wrote:If the dogs are so unreliable, then why on earth do Police forces across the world use them?

PREDICTION: You won't get one single coherent answer from the 4 dozen or so McCann-believers on this forum to what is undoubtedly a pivotal question in this whole mystery. It's the one question they always avoid, fudge, or divert away from answering.

by vaguely 30.12.09 17:17

[quote="Tony Bennett"]

candyfloss wrote:If the dogs are so unreliable, then why on earth do Police forces across the world use them?

Police forces across the world use them to recover missing people, find blood etc. The dogs are great, but their alerts aren't accepted as evidence in court. If you look you will find that Mr Grime (The expert on the dogs, second only to Mr Bennett) makes a very strong point of this. That the dogs are there to point the police towards areas of interest. It is then for forensic scientists to present evidence to the court.

ETA The dogs aren't unreliable. The dogs are perfectly capable of tracing and finding what they're trained to find. The finding of things isn't the issue. The issue is when they alert and there's nothing there to scientifically back up their findings. Their accuracy cannot then be proven either way on those occasions.

The courts don't accept the dog alerts as evidence of anything - and there is a reason for this. They are not infallible, and the courts do not yet accept them as accurate beyond all reasonable doubt. Mr Grime accepts this and I'm at a loss to understand why those less knowledgeable on the subject have so much trouble in doing the same.

by vaguely 30.12.09 17:18

MaryB wrote:Well I'd like to know if the investigation conclusion was that all options were open as to what happened to Madeleine. That's how it appears to me.

me too.

by Old Nick 30.12.09 17:19

[quote="vaguely"]

Tony Bennett wrote:
candyfloss wrote:If the dogs are so unreliable, then why on earth do Police forces across the world use them?

Police forces across the world use them to recover missing people, find blood etc. The dogs are great, but their alerts aren't accepted as evidence in court. If you look you will find that Mr Grime (The expert on the dogs, second only to Mr Bennett) makes a very strong point of this. That the dogs are there to point the police towards areas of interest. It is then for forensic scientists to present evidence to the court.

The courts don't accept the dog alerts as evidence of anything - and there is a reason for this. They are not infallible, and the courts do not yet accept them as accurate beyond all reasonable doubt. Mr Grime accepts this and I'm at a loss to understand why those less knowledgeable on the subject have so much trouble in doing the same.

Are you trying to make a fool of Mr Bennett and his powers of prediction?

by Stephanie 30.12.09 17:29

Tony Bennett wrote:
candyfloss wrote:If the dogs are so unreliable, then why on earth do Police forces across the world use them?
PREDICTION: You won't get one single coherent answer from the 4 dozen or so McCann-believers on this forum to what is undoubtedly a pivotal question in this whole mystery. It's the one question they always avoid, fudge, or divert away from answering.

Can you trust a cadaver dog if there's no cadaver?
The parents of Madeleine McCann, the 4-year-old British girl who went missing in Portugal in May, were officially named suspects on Sept. 7 by Portuguese police. The change came after developments in the case, including sniffer dogs detecting the "smell of death" on Madeleine's Cuddle Cat toy and her mother's clothes. They did not, however, find a body. Can you trust a cadaver dog if there's no cadaver?

Not really—especially if a lot of time has elapsed since the body was removed from the scene. Cadaver dogs can find the remains of people who have been dead for years or even decades. But it's much harder for the dogs if the bulk of the remains are gone. In that case, they can pick up the scent from small amounts of body tissue, like a blood stain or nail clippings, or even from materials that came into contact with the tissue. But in the absence of an actual body, the smell of death will dissipate. There's speculation that Madeleine died on the night her parents reported her disappearance—which would mean that she passed away four months ago. It's not clear if a detectable scent could linger on her mother's clothes for all that time.

Researchers are trying to determine how long the scent lingers when the body is no longer present, but there are no conclusive results yet—it may be two weeks, or it may be longer. One former Scotland Yard dog handler talking about the McCann case hypothesized that the scent wouldn't last more than a month.
The dogs couldn't necessarily prove anything even if Madeleine's body had been in recent contact with her mother's clothes. Since they didn't turn up any actual remains, investigators had to rely on the "smell of death" itself, an odor that stems from the decomposition process. Without a body, they can't be certain that the animals didn't make a mistake. Cadaver dogs do mess up from time to time: The McCanns have sought out attorneys who convinced a judge in Wisconsin that certain dogs were accurate just 22 percent to 38 percent of the time. (The prosecution claimed a success rate of 60 percent to 69 percent.)

Cadaver dogs learn to spot the "smell of death" and find its source during the training process, which involves exposing them to either actual human remains—blood, teeth, bones—or pseudoscent, an artificial substance that re-creates the death odor. (One chemical company markets several pseudoscent formulas for training cadaver dogs—recently dead, post-decomposition, and drowning victim.) The dogs also learn to differentiate human remains from animal remains.

A dog's utility depends on the skill of its handler. Identifying false signals is an important part of working with a cadaver dog, and results should be backed up with forensic testing. When a dog gives a signal, such as barking or sitting down, to indicate that it has smelled a corpse, a handler can only say something along the lines of, "My dog is giving an indication consistent with human blood." He can't say definitively that, yes, a body was present, without further confirmation—in the form of a blood stain, for example.

Source: http://www.slate.com/id/2174177/

Mr.bennett may I please point out to you that I (and I can only speak for myself here ) are not a McCann supporter. My mind is extremely open to ALL possibilities.
That's why I joined here, not to mock you or question your every word but to have every possible piece of information available to make up my own mind.
Challenge my posts by all means, but please refrain from mocking others. We have probably all followed the information on this case for a long while now,some more than others I hasten to add, but where we are ignorant or make mistakes on the evidence tell us by all means, no need to mock or assume "we are on the other side" I am 100% sure that you want to share your ideals amongst anyone who is willing to read or listen, and I will admit that there are points that need asking and questioning about that night, but just because someone contradicts your own beliefs or theories doesn't mean I am out to harrass you, it means I want you to delve deeper, show me what I am missing here.

You will never receive a rude or personal challenging response from me, if I take a while to question some of your theories,I will sit back and take in what you have written,analyse it then come back with a response.

Debate is healthy Mr.B,accusations and mocking others points of views,or even attempting to stifle others opinions is not.

Hopefully the balance of for and against the abduction theory will strive on this forum and maybe we can all learn something from each other.

Stephanie

by Autumn 30.12.09 17:39

I would like to point out that those of us who do not believe that Madeleine was abducted, strongly object to being branded 'McCann Haters'. Whilst I do not accept their version of events, that does not mean that I hate them and I think that goes for the vast majority of 'abduction dis-believers'.

by **Tony Bennett** 30.12.09 17:41

vaguely wrote:ETA The dogs aren't unreliable. The dogs are perfectly capable of tracing and finding what they're trained to find. The finding of things isn't the issue. The issue is when they alert and there's nothing there to scientifically back up their findings.

OR: 'The dogs are useless and unreliable':

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=296598&rss=yes

by Stephanie 30.12.09 17:48

Autumn wrote:I would like to point out that those of us who do not believe that Madeleine was abducted, strongly object to being branded 'McCann Haters'. Whilst I do not accept their version of events, that does not mean that I hate them and I think that goes for the vast majority of 'abduction dis-believers'.

I have never used the word "haters" Autumn. Maybe your post was not aimed at me but this animosity on this site needs to end, Others on this site in my opinion have differing views to my own that makes them to me someone with different views not "haters".

I would never label anyone, I sometimes challenge Mr.B but I dont hate him, he has done me no harm, I challenge him occasionaly as I want to learn what else he knows,he has probably spent more time on this case than anyone on this site,and you know the old saying "knowledge is power", not that I want power, I want to see all points of views on this case.
And Autumn I may be wrong but I have never seen the words "McCann haters" on Jills site,I will not comment on other sites as I did not want to join after looking at the content they allowed.

by Old Nick 30.12.09 17:49

Tony Bennett wrote:
vaguely wrote:ETA The dogs aren't unreliable. The dogs are perfectly capable of tracing and finding what they're trained to find. The finding of things isn't the issue. The issue is when they alert and there's nothing there to scientifically back up their findings.
OR: 'The dogs are useless and unreliable':

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=296598&rss=yes

I never thought I'd hear you dissing the dogs like this Tony!! Don't lose faith - cadaver dogs never lie.

by vaguely 30.12.09 17:50

Autumn wrote:I would like to point out that those of us who do not believe that Madeleine was abducted, strongly object to being branded 'McCann Haters'. Whilst I do not accept their version of events, that does not mean that I hate them and I think that goes for the vast majority of 'abduction dis-believers'.

I'm sure you do. Same as those who think there's a chance Madeleine is still alive hate being branded 'McCann believers' or 'Neglect supporters'.

Who's going to be big enough to stop it first?

by **Tony Bennett** 30.12.09 17:58

Stephanie wrote:Can you trust a cadaver dog if there's no cadaver?...Not really - especially if a lot of time has elapsed since the body was removed from the scene.

So why were they called in at all?

Cadaver dogs can find the remains of people who have been dead for years or even decades. But it's much harder for the dogs if the bulk of the remains are gone...in the absence of an actual body, the smell of death will dissipate. There's speculation that Madeleine died on the night her parents reported her disappearance - which would mean that she passed away four months ago. It's not clear if a detectable scent could linger on her mother's clothes for all that time.

Very contentious. In fact, the smell of human cadaverine lingers a long time in one spot even after the corpse is no longer there.

Researchers are trying to determine how long the scent lingers when the body is no longer present, but there are no conclusive results yet—it may be two weeks, or it may be longer. One former Scotland Yard dog handler talking about the McCann case hypothesized that the scent wouldn't last more than a month.

And who was that?

Cadaver dogs do mess up from time to time.

Not Eddie.

The McCanns have sought out attorneys who convinced a judge in Wisconsin that certain dogs were accurate just 22 percent to 38 percent of the time.

I wonder why they sought them out?

Mr. Bennett may I please point out to you that I (and I can only speak for myself here) am not a McCann supporter.

Noted.

My mind is extremely open to ALL possibilities. That's why I joined here, not to mock you or question your every word but to have every possible piece of information available to make up my own mind.

I hear what you say.

Challenge my posts by all means, but please refrain from mocking others...no need to mock or assume "we are on the other side". Debate is healthy Mr.B, accusations and mocking others points of views, or even attempting to stifle others opinions is not.

Have you spoken in such terms to any of the McCann-believers on here, who go in for rather a lot of mocking? And do your strictures about 'healthy debate' and 'stifling others opinions' apply to allowing the '60 Reasons' book to be distributed to those who would like to read it?

Hopefully the balance of for and against the abduction theory will strive on this forum and maybe we can all learn something from each other.

I'll go with that. But the McCann-believers on here don't welcome debate and prefer constant ad hominem attacks.

Stephanie

by **Tony Bennett** 30.12.09 18:03

vaguely wrote:I'm sure you do. Same as those who think there's a chance Madeleine is still alive hate being branded 'McCann believers' or 'Neglect supporters'. Who's going to be big enough to stop it first?

'Neglect supporters' is an unfair epithet, I agree.

But the term 'McCann-believer' is fully accurate. I use the term to refer to those - like yourself -who insist that the McCanns and the 'Tapas 9' are all telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth in persisting with their claim that Madeleine was abducted.

I bet there's not one statement by the McCanns or any of the 'Tapas 9' about what really happened to Madeleine McCann that you seriously question.

by Stephanie 30.12.09 18:06

Have you spoken in such terms to any of the McCann-believers on here, who go in for rather a lot of mocking? And do your strictures about 'healthy debate' and 'stifling others opinions' apply to allowing the '60 Reasons' book to be distributed to those who would like to read it?

I cannot comment on that Mr.B that was a court decision not mine.

Hopefully the balance of for and against the abduction theory will strive on this forum and maybe we can all learn something from each other.

I'll go with that. But the McCann-believers on here don't welcome debate and prefer constant ad hominem attacks.

Well I do welcome debate and reading through the majority of posts IMO they do also ,I agree personal insults about your private life or work practices have no place on here ,have already said in a previous post somewhere on here I dont join in the personal attack threads .So I am here to debate Madeleine McCann,so let's debate not throw insults at each other.

Stephanie

by Stephanie 30.12.09 18:10

Stephanie wrote:Have you spoken in such terms to any of the McCann-believers on here, who go in for rather a lot of mocking? And do your strictures about 'healthy debate' and 'stifling others opinions' apply to allowing the '60 Reasons' book to be distributed to those who would like to read it?

I cannot comment on that Mr.B that was a court decision not mine.

Hopefully the balance of for and against the abduction theory will strive on this forum and maybe we can all learn something from each other.

I'll go with that. But the McCann-believers on here don't welcome debate and prefer constant ad hominem attacks.

Well I do welcome debate and reading through the majority of posts IMO they do also ,I agree personal insults about your private life or work practices have no place on here ,have already said in a previous post somewhere on here I dont join in the personal attack threads .So I am here to debate Madeleine McCann,so let's debate not throw insults at each other.
Stephanie

[/quote][/quote]

In fact I am willing to go so far as to say thrash it out (in a friendly manner of course) lets get justice for Madeleine McCann,no amount of bickering,or backstabbing or personal insults is going to move this debate on !lets just find out what really happened in an atmosphere that challenges all our senses and perceptions.