Re: WHEN Bennet is cleared of all accusations.

by Guest 27.11.09 16:49

sym wrote:Let me turnm thae same to you, what do you base their innocence on? Not them being doctors or the fact they havent been charged?.

No evidence to suggest they murdered Madeleine. Nothing to do with them being doctors either. But can you remember how everyone said Karen Matthewws was a great woman for showing grief and how upset she was at losing a child, compared to Kate? Who is in prison?
So come up with any credible evidence and we shall have a discussion against it.

by Ruby 27.11.09 16:51

It's not baldness, just growing a bit taller than your hair... :lol:

by **Tony Bennett** 27.11.09 16:52

murat_fan wrote:...since you have a past history for avoiding questions I will get this in early. WERE YOU IN ROTHLEY WHEN THE LEAFLETS WERE DROPPED...PLEASE BE CAREFUL OF YOUR REPLIES AS I HAVE SEEN THINGS YOU HAVEN'T

In point of fact, I have answered thousands of questions and am widely known for giving patient answers to all manner of questions, no matter how outrageous. My own supporters say I spend too much time answering them. Tell you what, name ONE question that I have ever avoided. Go on, with such a 'past history' as you claim, you must have literally dozens of examples at your fingertips, Ian.

Anyway, it matters not what you say you have seen, I repeat the full answers I've given in other places to the same or similar questions:

I was in Mountsorrel throughout the leaflet drop in Rothley which was carried out by Debbie Butler, Grenville Green and Helene Davies-Green.

by Guest 27.11.09 16:52

Ruby wrote:It's not baldness, just growing a bit taller than your hair... :lol:

:lol: :lol: :lol:

by **Tony Bennett** 27.11.09 16:54

murat_fan wrote:Oh Dear Bennett wrong once again. Try to get the name right and do not believe those that have claimed to have outed me. They have been close before but not close enough...

Ooooh! Just how close did they get Ian?

by Guest 27.11.09 16:54

Since Mr Bennett is in a answering mood

I will ask another to him...Mr Bennett, you said that all the allegations in your book and leaflets would stand up in court. Why did you not contest it in court?

by Mike 27.11.09 16:56

by Guest 27.11.09 16:56

Tony Bennett wrote:
murat_fan wrote:...since you have a past history for avoiding questions I will get this in early. WERE YOU IN ROTHLEY WHEN THE LEAFLETS WERE DROPPED...PLEASE BE CAREFUL OF YOUR REPLIES AS I HAVE SEEN THINGS YOU HAVEN'T

In point of fact, I have answered thousands of questions and am widely known for giving patient answers to all manner of questions, no matter how outrageous. My own supporters say I spend too much time answering them. Tell you what, name ONE question that I have ever avoided. Go on, with such a 'past history' as you claim, you must have literally dozens of examples at your fingertips, Ian.

Anyway, it matters not what you say you have seen, I repeat the full answers I've given in other places to the same or similar questions:

I was in Mountsorrel throughout the leaflet drop in Rothley which was carried out by Debbie Butler, Grenville Green and Helene Davies-Green.

Firstly you are beginning to look daft by getting my name mixed up with someone else. I told you not to listen to them.
Secondly when the leaflet drop was done YOU SAID YOU WAS WITH YOUR MOTHER ON THE SOUTH COAST. HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN THAT AWAY MR BENNETT

by Guest 27.11.09 17:03

Tony Bennett wrote:
murat_fan wrote:Oh Dear Bennett wrong once again. Try to get the name right and do not believe those that have claimed to have outed me. They have been close before but not close enough...

Ooooh! Just how close did they get Ian?

Closer than you Tony. You should try with the right name and go from there. Go on try the right name and do not believe everything that is bandied about about IP's.

by Guest 27.11.09 17:13

Ruby wrote:It's not baldness, just growing a bit taller than your hair... :lol:

Solar panel for a sex machine!

by Mike 27.11.09 17:17

sym, :D you do have aa way with words

by Guest 27.11.09 17:19

So I am told Chris..but they will keep reading my blog. :D

by heresthetruth 27.11.09 17:29

A poster says its nothing to do with anyone how much Tony has in savings

deborah Today at 17:23

Estelle wrote:
Because, as Photon suggested, he probably cannot touch it and it is a private matter.

.
I dont care

That says it all she doesnt care, she will say and do exactly as she pleases, I am not a MF supporter or agree with Mr Bennet but even I can see the woman is serously deranged

by **Tony Bennett** 27.11.09 17:30

murat_fan wrote:Secondly when the leaflet drop was done YOU SAID YOU WAS WITH YOUR MOTHER ON THE SOUTH COAST. HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN THAT AWAY MR BENNETT

The Leicestershire leaflet drop was on Wednesday 12 August 2009, and of course I wasn't on the south coast that day as well.

In fact, I never said I was with my mother on the south coast that day.

Now make a fool of yourself Ian by admitting that you can't, er, lay your hands on any, er, actual evidence that I ever said I was with my mother that day LOL

by Guest 27.11.09 17:33

by heresthetruth 27.11.09 17:37

JATYK

Well well well.
Finally, a glimpse of what is going on in what I will loosely describe as Debs' "mind".
As just about the last even semi-rational person left on MM, Estelle,of all people, has been trying to reason with Debs about her motivation for causing so much uproar. This is the big, grown up reply from Debs:

Re: The Tony Bennett Activities discussion.....
deborah Today

Estelle wrote:
Because, as Photon suggested, he probably cannot touch it and it is a private matter..

I dont care
--------------
There it is, all the attention-seeking, all the pathetic envy distilled into three little words -

"I don't care"

Says it all, she's a waste of space.

by Guest 27.11.09 17:44

I honestly think that Deborah has got a screw loose, she has lost the plot big style, how embarrassing for a grown women to act this way tut tut what must her family think of her..

by baconbutty 27.11.09 17:45

She has all the attributes of a petulant thirteen year old with severe hormone problems.

by **Tony Bennett** 27.11.09 17:47

murat_fan wrote:Since Mr Bennett is in a answering mood.

I will ask another to him...Mr Bennett, you said that all the allegations in your book and leaflets would stand up in court. Why did you not contest it in court?

Because the lawyers advised that libel law was so complex and especially so uncertain, and so biased in favour of the complainant as is proved by the latest court cases and clamour for reform, that both Debbie and I could 'face financial ruin' if even one sentence in the book could not be strictly proved.

One example was given to us by the lawyers - this sentence which appears under Reason 15 and on page 27 of '60 Reasons':

Put simply, Dr Gerry McCann’s words are not those of someone who genuinely believes that his daughter has been abducted, and that there still remains a reasonable prospect of finding her. They are much more likely to be the words of someone who knows perfectly well that their daughter will not be found.

The lawyers also advised that it was legitimate to ask questions about the evidence for Madeleine having been abducted and further advised that in discussing any issue related to Madeleine's disappearance, we would minimise the risks ofa possible libel action by including the McCanns' 'take' on any issue (that is, where they have made comments; often they haven't e.g. as to why Dr Kate McCann was so certain on entering the apartment that there had been an abduction).

Now here's a question for you, murat_fan, to see if you too are in answering mode:

When did the abductor remove Madeleine, how did he do so without leaving any forensic evidence, without being seen except by Jane Tanner (cough), without making a sound that could be heard, without apparently waking Madeleine or the other two children, without lighting since it was dark at the time. Also, why did he enter by the unlocked patio door and then leave by climbing out of a window 3ft (90cm) above the floor and only about 2ft (60cm) square.

While you're about it, please explain why the McCanns were so insistent in the early hours of 4 May (a) that the shutters had been jemmied open by the abductor and (b) that their family MUST believe that Madeleine had been abducted.

Thank you in advance Ian.

by Guest 27.11.09 17:52

Tony Bennett wrote:
murat_fan wrote:Secondly when the leaflet drop was done YOU SAID YOU WAS WITH YOUR MOTHER ON THE SOUTH COAST. HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN THAT AWAY MR BENNETT

The Leicestershire leaflet drop was on Wednesday 12 August 2009, and of course I wasn't on the south coast that day as well.

In fact, I never said I was with my mother on the south coast that day.

Now make a fool of yourself Ian by admitting that you can't, er, lay your hands on any, er, actual evidence that I ever said I was with my mother that day LOL

You are a liar Bennett and you know it. There are loads of people who remember you saying that only THREE people were involved with the leaflets that day, you claimed you were with your mother (again). Stop the lying please and get my name right.

by Guest 27.11.09 17:54

He asked you about the shutters muratfan.,..he asked you how the kidnapper took Madeleine. which chuckle brother are you? Not the one done for noncing I presume?

by scrafen 27.11.09 17:56

Tony Bennett wrote:The Leicestershire leaflet drop was on Wednesday 12 August 2009, and of course I wasn't on the south coast that day as well.

dont want to distract from the discussion, just a short question aside:

if you have been there, tony, why did you not speak to the press, why did you not go together with debbie to the bbc interview, etc...you were the author...

why did you "hide" that day before people and the media ?

...usually you rather seem to seek the limelight...

by Guest 27.11.09 18:01

Perhaps his solar panel was charging due to a lack of sunshine??

by Mike 27.11.09 18:04

if mr bennett is cleared of all charges will he get an apology of thoes who doubted him.or will you all hide back under your stones

by Guest 27.11.09 18:04

Tony Bennett wrote:

Now here's a question for you, murat_fan, to see if you too are in answering mode:

When did the abductor remove Madeleine, how did he do so without leaving any forensic evidence, without being seen except by Jane Tanner (cough), without making a sound that could be heard, without apparently waking Madeleine or the other two children, without lighting since it was dark at the time. Also, why did he enter by the unlocked patio door and then leave by climbing out of a window 3ft (90cm) above the floor and only about 2ft (60cm) square.

While you're about it, please explain why the McCanns were so insistent in the early hours of 4 May (a) that the shutters had been jemmied open by the abductor and (b) that their family MUST believe that Madeleine had been abducted.

Thank you in advance Ian.

I do not know, neither do you or the police investigating know when Madeleine was removed. You are under the impression that there was only ONE abductor when there could have been more than one. Nobody knows if Madeleine was passed through the shutter,and as for the kids not waking, how many times a=have you as a child slept through the roughest loudest thunderstorm. How many times have you seen kids fall asleep at a very loud disco?
Are you sure the McCanns stated the windows were jemmied open? I believe that report came from the Portugese press from leaks from the PJ, and as we lknow they are not great are they.
As for the evidence, there were unidentified prints on the window, prints that are still unaccounted for.