McCann Exposure Carter Rucked and now for a second time!

http://mccannexposure.wordpress.com/2011/06/03/mccann-exposure-is-carter-rucked/

Aw, poor kangdang!

So the McCann's are still wasting Madeleine's Fund money then.

It's good news when someone has the courage to stand up to bullies.

Just seen this on twitter So Kate is putting the proceeds of her kiddie's porn book to good use then

Is that why she wrote this crap so she could carry on paying Carter Ruck?

Brian Kennedy this time and I don't think he'll be using the Madeleine Fund as he's got plenty of his own money.

Very, very good response by the McCann Exposure chappie/chappess. A powerful reply, but money has clout. We'll see. Where the MF website BTW?

McCann Exposure

Fantastic response by McCann Exposure.

Not the best response really was it. You point out that there was no libel, my libelling the person you said you was not libelling.
It will just add more evidence if it went as far as court. You have to be careful

Just briefly checked in from here in Loreley, near Koblenz, Germany - back Tuesday (7th).

Yes, good response from mccannexposure, I think Brian Kennedy has more than a bit of a nerve crying 'libel' and 'harassment' given that Mark Hollingsworth's article in August 2009 clearly accused him of interfering with witnesses to the extent that they would not talk to the Portuguese police.

And if Edward Smethurst seriously thinks that taking a photo of his house is 'harassment' then he'd better check with Google Earth to see what pics they've taken.

As for his involving Greater Manchester Police, I can't see them travelling 20 miles or more down to Harlow to make an arrest for, er, taking a photo.

By the way, I can get the Madeleine Foundation website from here in Germany, I see the numbers signing the petition for a full public inquiry into Madeleine McCann's disappearance has risen to 752, thanks as always to all those who have signed.

sharonl was right, our webiste was down due to routine server maintenance and enhancement.

Martin_Jones wrote:Not the best response really was it. You point out that there was no libel, my libelling the person you said you was not libelling.
It will just add more evidence if it went as far as court. You have to be careful

Can somebody explain this posting to me please?
TIA.

Whilst posting a rebuff of the letter which was sent by the law firm, it appears to libel Mr Kennedy again, whilst stating that they have not libelled him. You need to read it slowly as quickly it seems fine, but you know what Lawyers are like

You mean saying BK did try to influence and intimidate witnesses in an active investigation is libel?

lj wrote:You mean saying BK did try to influence and intimidate witnesses in an active investigation is libel?

It is if Carter-Ruck say so !

DocMartin wrote:Brian Kennedy this time and I don't think he'll be using the Madeleine Fund as he's got plenty of his own money.

Hardline marxist said this yesterday:

"I now have to contend with further demands issued by CR on behalf of their clients, Gerald and Kate McCann and Jon Corner."

So it does rather seem that the McCann's are using the Madeleine Fund to pay Carter Ruck.

It seems mccannexposure has been Carter Rucked for a second time.....................

http://mccannexposure.wordpress.com/2011/06/04/mccann-exposure-is-carter-rucked-for-a-second-time/

McCann Exposure MUST stand up to the bullying and if necessary we must raise a fighting fund so that he can see them in court.

So now Jon Corner is getting twitchy is he?

“So beautiful, astonishingly bright, and I’d have to say very charismatic. She would shine out of a crowd,” family friend Jon Corner says of the child. “So—God forgive me—maybe that’s part of the problem. That special quality. Some bastard picked up on that.”

I personally think that description of a 3 year old girl by an adult male is creepy and inappropriate, much like the comments about her by David Payne who is suspected of paedophilia as told to the police in a statement by Dr K Gaspar.

And apparently Kate does now think some 'bastard picked up on that' and that Madeleine really is with a paedophile who is (according to Kate) tearing apart her "pefect genitals".

Very perceptive of Jon Corner to consider this so early on.

Mike Gunnill

No doubt you will be here snooping again for Carter Ruck?

It was you who got McCann exposure Carter Rucked wasn't it?



You've even mentioned on your profile that your job/hobbie is 'bugalugs' which you know is the person who hosts that site. You are on a mission are you not to get people carter rucked for the child neglecting duo.

What a hero you are Mike Gunnill.

Ufercoffy, it's a wonder how some people - and not just the McCanns' remarkable achievement within a few days of losing Madeleine - manage to sleep at night, isn't it?

Wasn't it Mike Gunnill who also set up Mr Bennett for Carter Ruck using false names?

Marian wrote:Ufercoffy, it's a wonder how some people - and not just the McCanns' remarkable achievement within a few days of losing Madeleine - manage to sleep at night, isn't it?

I couldn't agree more.
How on earth do they sleep at night?.....any of them!

Kate said they were sleeping well whilst still in Praia da Luz

Yes I read somewhere (can't think of exactly where at the moment) that the McCanns were sleeping well again within a week.

I remember when my young dog went missing. I trawled the streets every day and put posters up on trees and in shops. I didn't sleep hardly a wink and I looked like I'd been dragged through a hedge backwards by Day 4 when I got him back safe and sound.

Obviously I was being a drama queen compared to Kate who was able to apply make up and earrings, go jogging and sleep well.

Anyone would think Kate had lost a dog - and not a very much liked one at that.

AskTheDogsSandra wrote:Wasn't it Mike Gunnill who also set up Mr Bennett for Carter Ruck using false names?

I believe it was Gunnill who Mr Bennett sent a copy of the banned leaflet to, yes. Mr Bennett should have known better really even if he knew that it was a set up or a trap as he should not have played into their hands.
Mr Bennett should have known btter really as he was a respected Solicitor i read.

Sorry M Jones but I can't make any excuses for the likes of Mike Gunnill and his ilk, they make my flesh crawl.

AskTheDogsSandra wrote:Wasn't it Mike Gunnill who also set up Mr Bennett for Carter Ruck using false names?

Exactly right.

He wrote e-mails to me under the false name of 'Michael Sangerte, Berkshire', imploring me to send him a '60 Reasons' book. When I refused, he whined that he couldn't get one anywhere, was doing 'historical research' and would 'be prepared to pay a very high price' for a copy.

I obtained one for him, charged him £5 including postage - and as soon as he got it he leaked this to his good mates 'murarfan', 'bonnybraes' and fellow McCann-believers, boasting that he'd taken it in to Carter-Ruck the very same day he'd received it, and claiming under yet another of his false ID's that he was 'on a mission'.

I think I published the full correspondence on another thread on this site, some months ago.

For some strange reason Mike Gunnill's professional website featured wall-to-wall pics of him at Haut de la Garenne, the children's care home on Jersey where so many children suffered appalling acts of abuse for decades.

His other names include Jason Peters and Peter Tarwin.

The man is very very devious.

Mike Gunnill - another "fine upstanding citizen" who is part of the weird and not very wonderful world of the McCanns.

candyfloss wrote:It seems mccannexposure has been Carter Rucked for a second time...

http://mccannexposure.wordpress.com/2011/06/04/mccann-exposure-is-carter-rucked-for-a-second-time/

MCCANN-EXPOSURE's reply in full - with added comments in red:

QUOTE

Re: Carter Ruck’s correspondence to WordPress.com dated 3rd June 2011, regarding Gerald and Kate McCann – Defamation, Harassment and Copyright complaint.

As outlined in our previous correspondence, Carter Ruck does not have authority to ascertain whether Gerald and Kate McCann were complicit in their daughter’s disappearance or possible death. McCann Exposure contends that there appears to be little evidential support for the abduction thesis.

Or 'assumption' or 'hypothesis' to use the words used by Clarence Mitchell himself in an interview with Radio Humberside on 6 January 2011

This is a view shared by many others, including members of the official investigation team. The foundation of the abduction thesis appears to rely heavily on the reported sighting of the McCann couple’s friend, Jane Tanner. A sighting that has significantly developed in detail in the mind of the witness as time has passed by; quite a remarkable phenomenon per se. Quite possibly the only verifiable facts in the case is that Madeleine McCann is missing and that her parents choose to leave her largely unattended with her younger siblings for five consecutive evenings in May 2007. The latter of which is an action that can result in criminal proceedings of parental neglect in the USA, UK and similar proceedings in Portugal. Further, that the circumstances under which Madeleine disappeared and what subsequently happened remain a complete mystery (a term recently used by the McCann couple’s spokesperson, Clarence Mitchell).

He used that term in a Channel 4 interview in March 2010.

Carter Ruck’s allegation that Mr. Anthony Bennett is “jointly responsible” for McCann Exposure is both unfounded and untrue. McCann Exposure suspects that this untruth likely emanated from agents of certain forums dedicated to seeking out and passing on information of possible defamatory comments made by Mr. Bennett to Carter Ruck. It is not McCann Exposure’s intention to imply that these agents receive monetary gain for their actions. To be clear, at no time has Mr. Bennett published articles at McCann Exposure, nor does he have access to the administration panel of McCann Exposure. He has submitted several comments on various articles; an action that any person visiting the blog can make should they so wish. McCann Exposure is not affiliated to Mr. Bennett or The Madeleine Foundation, or any of its individual members.

All of that is 100% correct.

Nonetheless, information of Carter Ruck’s planned complaints and intended actions of others relating to Mr. Bennett are appreciated.

Uh oh.

In respect of the article that Carter Ruck cite as constituting defamation and harassment, McCann Exposure argues that the UK media first reported that The Madeleine Foundation was possibly planning a leaflet distribution around the time of Mrs. McCann’s book release. Sadly, the UK media is decidedly selective and biased in what is published at any given time. Whilst McCann Exposure has empathy for any parent that suffers the loss of a child, regardless of the circumstances in which the loss occurs, it is imperative that the fundamental human right in the practice of freedom of thought and expression and equality in access to information in order to formulate informed opinion is acknowledged. McCann Exposure, therefore, argues that they have the right to hold, freely express and publish opinion that covers all aspects of the case. Including those that question the claim that Madeleine McCann was abducted under circumstances posited by the McCann couple and others; notably the McCann couple’s private investigators.

More of less stating the law on freedom of speech as guaranteed by Articles 8 to 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

As stated in our previous correspondence to Carter Ruck, dated the 3rd June, McCann Exposure’s chief objective is to provide a chronological archive of articles on what is arguably the most controversial and unprecedented child disappearance case of contemporary times. Thus, the vast majority of the articles published serve to document in full the twists and turns in the McCann case. McCann Exposure publishes and allows discussion on all aspects of the case. Publication covers a wide range of material, including that which frames the McCann’s in a positive light. It is a fact, however, that there are many commentators and researchers that vigorously challenge the abduction thesis. In light of this and McCann Exposure‘s objectives, Carter Ruck is hereby informed that McCann Exposure is not prepared to remove any articles published merely because the McCann couple and others do not wish for all aspects of the case to be considered.

How can the McCanns, Carter-Ruck or the Courts for that matter stop people from publishing, say, a list of all the obvious contradictions in the accounts of the McCanns and the 'Tapas 9'. Or showing a video of Eddie and Keela in action? Or publishing a full copy of Tavares de Almeida's damning police report of 10 September 2007?

In respect to copyright infringement, McCann Exposure has reviewed the McCann couple and Jon Corner’s concerns and can confirm the following:

Photographs of Madeleine to which the McCann couple holds copyright have been removed.

The photograph of Madeleine contained in the article “Terence Backer, the Independent gives his view on the McCann’s choice of photo“, has been removed and replaced with a link to an external hosting site.

A video containing material to which Jon Corner holds copyright has been removed.

Is this the 'viral video' that one-time CEOP Director Jim Gamble promoted and which a million-plus people have already seen via the internet? Yet Corner claims 'copyright' on it and won't allow it on the 'McCann-Exposure' blog?

In addition to Carter Ruck’s complaint, a further article on McCann Exposure contained said video; this too has been removed and replaced with an external link to the hosting site Youtube.

Yours Sincerely
McCann Exposure