Brenda Ryan's interpretation of Gerry McCann saying: "I don't object to people purporting theories"

by **Jill Havern** 13.12.11 7:46

The Madeleine Foundation has placed a copy of the draft High Court order, that the McCanns want against Tony, on their website: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

It clearly shows that they want Tony to be committed to prison. The judge can even specify which prison!

NOTES:

Dr Gerald McCann said on oath to the Leveson enquiry last month:

I would like to emphasise that I strongly believe in freedom of speech, but where you have people who are repeatedly carrying out inaccuracies and have been shown to do so, then they should be held to account. That is the issue. I don’t have a problem with somebody purporting a theory, writing fiction, suggestions, but clearly we’ve got to a stage where substandard reporting and sources, unnamed, made-up, non-verifiable, are a daily occurrence.

Brenda Ryan interpreted this as follows:

If you can’t understand what he is saying, then you really do have a problem because I and many other people can understand it.

What Gerry McCann is saying, he has no problems, with people writing about the case, even to the point of creating a theory, PROVIDED, that theory is based on FACTS and NOT supposition, assumptions and innuendos which are NOT based on FACTS. And the problem lies with unnamed, made-up and non-verifiable facts that are printed on a daily basis which then grown arms and legs and get classed as facts by people.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

by Me 13.12.11 8:51

Get 'em Gonçalo wrote:The Madeleine Foundation has placed a copy of the draft High Court order, that the McCanns want against Tony, on their website: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

It clearly shows that they want Tony to be committed to prison. The judge can even specify which prison!

NOTES:

Dr Gerald McCann said on oath to the Leveson enquiry last month:

I would like to emphasise that I strongly believe in freedom of speech, but where you have people who are repeatedly carrying out inaccuracies and have been shown to do so, then they should be held to account. That is the issue. I don’t have a problem with somebody purporting a theory, writing fiction, suggestions, but clearly we’ve got to a stage where substandard reporting and sources, unnamed, made-up, non-verifiable, are a daily occurrence.

Brenda Ryan interpreted this as follows:

If you can’t understand what he is saying, then you really do have a problem because I and many other people can understand it.

What Gerry McCann is saying, he has no problems, with people writing about the case, even to the point of creating a theory, PROVIDED, that theory is based on FACTS and NOT supposition, assumptions and innuendos which are NOT based on FACTS. And the problem lies with unnamed, made-up and non-verifiable facts that are printed on a daily basis which then grown arms and legs and get classed as facts by people.

In relation to Brenda's take on it, she's wrong becuase she doesn't understand what the word "theory" means.

Definition of theory (in this instance):

a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact. Synonyms: idea, notion hypothesis, postulate.

That definition of the word clearly states theory is a proposed explanation in contrast to well established facts.

So in Gerry's own words we should be able to discuss these proposed explanations whose status is still conjectual and he has no problem with it.

So why is he suing Amaral et al for doing just that?

Now in relation to what Gerry himself said here's somehting i agree with:

I would like to emphasise that I strongly believe in freedom of speech, but where you have people who are repeatedly carrying out inaccuracies and have been shown to do so, then they should be held to account.

Inaccuracies? What like the statements and the book? You're absolutely right Gerry, you and Kate should be held to account for them.

by **Jill Havern** 13.12.11 8:54

Me wrote:Now in relartion to what Gerry himself said here's somehting i agree with:

I would like to emphasise that I strongly believe in freedom of speech, but where you have people who are repeatedly carrying out inaccuracies and have been shown to do so, then they should be held to account.

Inaccuracies? What like the statements and the book? You're absolutely right Gerry, you and Kate should be held to account for them.

by Guest 13.12.11 8:57

Couldn't agree more Me. I don't think that the McCanns would know what a fact is if it jumped out at them.

by Me 13.12.11 9:29

Clearly Gerry’s actions and previous words show that he is actually not prepared to allow anyone to discuss theories because that is precisely what he has sued Amaral for.

Gerry’s legal strategy has been designed to prevent anyone from espousing a theory even if it has a basis in circumstantial evidence.

So why did he say that? He used the word “theory” because it would be deemed more acceptable in that environment than if he actually told the enquiry what his true position was.

That truth is that Gerry wants people discussing facts which can only be determined once the case is solved. Gerry knows full well that no one is able to do so, given the incomplete nature of the investigation at this stage. Lest we forget it’s incomplete because of their refusal to cooperate.

So in essence he’s saying that no one can discuss any theory or hypothesis unless it is supported by irrefutable facts even though he knows, it is impossible to produce irrefutable facts, principally because of his team’s refusal to co-operate in the investigation and the facts of the case being incomplete as a result.

In other words you can only discuss facts, but there aren’t any because they refused to help uncover them, therefore you can’t talk about anything, well apart from the version which supports the Team, which like other hypotheses doesn’t have any firm facts to support it, but they will allow that theory to be discussed as it gets them off the hook.

Not really the same as saying you don't mind theories being discussed is it?

by nomendelta 13.12.11 10:44

Gerry doesn't have problems with theories that are based on FACT. Interesting.

How about he sues Clarence Mitchell for the recent Indian sighting. Remember the one where Clarence was making all kinds of claims about a DNA test but the Indian Police chiefs had no knowledge of whatsoever? Didn't that distress the McCanns? Someone working for them gave the press incorrect information leading, presumably since he is one of their trusted people, to false hope that their darling daughter had been found? Surely that's as damaging if not more than, say, Pat Brown's book?

by **Tony Bennett** 13.12.11 12:11

Me wrote:Clearly Gerry’s actions and previous words show that he is actually not prepared to allow anyone to discuss theories because that is precisely what he has sued Amaral for.

Gerry’s legal strategy has been designed to prevent anyone from espousing a theory even if it has a basis in circumstantial evidence.

So why did he say that? He used the word “theory” because it would be deemed more acceptable in that environment than if he actually told the enquiry what his true position was.

That truth is that Gerry wants people discussing facts which can only be determined once the case is solved. Gerry knows full well that no one is able to do so, given the incomplete nature of the investigation at this stage. Lest we forget it’s incomplete because of their refusal to cooperate.

So in essence he’s saying that no one can discuss any theory or hypothesis unless it is supported by irrefutable facts even though he knows, it is impossible to produce irrefutable facts

REPLY: I am breaking my self-imposed silence on the McCann case to make one very specific point in answer to 'Me'. There are indeed a great many irrefutable facts in this case. One cannot e.g. refute the video of Martin Grimes' dogs, because we can all see what happened on a video of their presence in Praia da Luz. The interpretation of the dogs' reactions is another matter. Similarly, if A says: 'B knocked on my front door, I was only in a towel, I sent him away in 30 seconds', while B says: 'I strolled in through the unlocked patio door, sat down and stayed several minutes', it is an irrefutable fact that these two witnesses contradict each other's accounts in a number of signifcant respects. Now, Dr Gerald McCann has stated on oath to the Leveson enquiry that he has no objection to facts. He has also stated on oath to the same enquiry that he has no objection to 'people purporting theories based on facts'. Circumstantial facts are still facts; take Matthew Oldfield's changing statements about the events of 3 May as another example. It's also an irrefutable fact that the McCanns' leading investigator in 2007, Antonio Gimenez Riaz, is now in jail having been convicted of stealing, together with drug-dealers, £25 million of cocaine in 2004 whilst he was a top cop in the Catalonian Police Department in Barcelona. It's another irrefutable fact that the McCanns' leading investigator in 2008 was Kevin Halligen, who has now been in prison for over 2 years and is currently awaiting trial on a $2 million fraud charge.

Theories based on irrefutable facts are exactly what the committal to prison trial on 8 February and the libel trial of Amaral on 9 and 10 February are all about. How far are people allowed to go in 'purporting theories' based on irrefutable facts?

, principally because of his team’s refusal to co-operate in the investigation and the facts of the case being incomplete as a result.

In other words you can only discuss facts, but there aren’t any because they refused to help uncover them, therefore you can’t talk about anything, well apart from the version which supports the Team, which like other hypotheses doesn’t have any firm facts to support it, but they will allow that theory to be discussed as it gets them off the hook.

Not really the same as saying you don't mind theories being discussed is it?

by Me 13.12.11 13:55

I agree Tony, there are a great number of irrefutable facts within this case. My point centres on Gerry’s interpretation of which facts he deems acceptable to base theories on against the context of what he said at the enquiry.

The issue for him appears to be the unacceptability of the conclusions or “theories” drawn from these facts and the facts uncovered and recorded in the case files.

This is contrary to what he told the Leverson enquiry, where he stated he was happy for theories to be purported.

My post was designed to highlight the glaring contradiction in what he said there and what we have so far seen with yourself and Amaral.

I also wanted to uncover what I believe is his real position based on his actions so far. Namely instead of allowing theories to be put forward as he claimed at the enquiry, he actually makes it impossible for anyone to propose any theory suggesting parental involvement.

I believe he wants people to deal in irrefutable facts which prove only who was responsible for the disappearance of his daughter and nothing else. Clearly whilst there is circumstantial evidence in this case, there is nothing (at this stage) incriminating enough to meet the burden of proof that he seems to think any theory suggesting parental involvement would require (although whether a Judge would agree in an actual criminal trial is matter of opinion).

He is fully aware of this which is why his position, whilst stating under oath he is happy for theories to be put forward, is in fact precisely the opposite.

Because he is saying, in effect, he only wants people to put forward hypotheses based on irrefutable facts but the gathered evidence has not been able to conclusively uncover indisputable facts as to the disappearance of his child.

If you can’t do that (and the overwhelming evidence simply isn’t there at this stage I believe) then he is saying it is defamatory to say anything, even if there is a wealth of circumstantial evidence on which to base a parental involvement hypothesis.

The only exception, and glaring contradiction to this, is when people put forward or support his own abduction theory even though that too has not been proven by irrefutable evidence.

So you can’t put forward any theory without irrefutable facts to back it up apart from his theory of abduction which actually has no irrefutable facts to back it up.

Not only was my post meant to illustrate the contradictions in what he has said under oath against what his actions have so far shown, it is also about his bare faced hypocrisy as well.

by jd 13.12.11 14:25

This is all just getting ridiculous. It is the mccanns and their friends statements and stark inconsistencies we are all theorising from in a country that has core values of free speech. They said them, they created them......not us, not Tony, not Amaral, not Pat Brown. It is them that need to stop lying & misleading the public, it is them that keep changing their stories, it is them that say one thing in interviews and totally contradict themselves in their book. Who the hell are these NHS doctors to tell us we can't have opinions and theories based on what they say. They can dream on if they are ever so deluded in thinking they can stop us

They tell the world it was an abduction but this is only their 'theory'..... just like we have our theory and at least ours is supported by FACTS..Theirs is just hearsay that changes when something doesn't fit, there is no concrete proof to anything to support their theory. The fact is it is a missing persons not an abduction because there is no proof of an abduction

by Xavier 13.12.11 15:08

At the risk of attracting "friendly fire" - the fact remains that if you accuse an identifyable person of anything which may be defamatory (e.g accusing them of hiding or disposing of a body, or lying, or being involved in or covering up the death of their child) then you are undoubtedly exposing yourself to the risk of an action for defamation.

You may or may not have a legitimate defenses to that - that would be up to the court to decide if it went that far. But they would certainly be within their legal rights to attempt to stop you defaming them.

by nomendelta 13.12.11 16:04

Xavier wrote:At the risk of attracting "friendly fire" - the fact remains that if you accuse an identifyable person of anything which may be defamatory (e.g accusing them of hiding or disposing of a body, or lying, or being involved in or covering up the death of their child) then you are undoubtedly exposing yourself to the risk of an action for defamation.

You may or may not have a legitimate defenses to that - that would be up to the court to decide if it went that far. But they would certainly be within their legal rights to attempt to stop you defaming them.

The McCanns have, from day one, said this was an abduction. They have also made it clear that the window of opportunity for such an abduction was incredibly small - even at one point suggesting that the abductor hid behind a door whilst Gerry made a check.

It therefore follows that IF blood and death scent WERE found in the apartment that a) attempts had been made to clean up the apartment, b) someone died in that apartment and c) that the blood and death scent are linked given that they were found in many of the same places

Since there was no time for an outsider/abductor/boogeyman FROM THE MCCANNS OWN ACCOUNT it therefore follows that for the child to have died in that apartment (a distinct possibility giving the findings) either by deliberate or accidental act that THEY THEMSELVES must somehow have been involved in the death and cover-up. Their own statements leave no other option. There was not enough time for an outsider to kill her, clean up then run and hide. None of their own group was away long enough to be responsible - from their own accounts. So that leaves only one possibility IF they evidence shows that the child died in that apartment. They knew and lied and deliberately covered up.

Not saying what I believe one way or the other but the FACTS as presented by the McCanns don't allow for any other option.

by aiyoyo 13.12.11 17:04

Me wrote:I agree Tony, there are a great number of irrefutable facts within this case. My point centres on Gerry’s interpretation of which facts he deems acceptable to base theories on against the context of what he said at the enquiry.

Exactement - people have been purporting the same theory as the Police based on the irrefutable facts in the Police Process files that points toward Maddie sad fate and her parents involvement.

Just like the Police, people cannot purport to something that is NOT there - no basis to support it - as in there is no evidence whatsoever, let alone irrefutable facts, to support that an abduction took place, apart from the mccanns words, and their say so does not make it a gospel truth.

Effectively, people were not going against gerry's belief - that free speech to purport theory from facts is allowed as he told the LI.
One is left wondering why he sued TB and Amaral for purporting in a like minded way as the Police, when he didn't tackle the Police Officer who originates alternate theory to his in the interim report, neither did he sue the PP who states in his summation that the mccanns didn't clear themselves and Maddie is likely dead?

If he's saying purporting theory of their involvement from facts is disallowed since he deems those facts as false, then he should sue the investigators as well as authority responsible for releasing those irrefutable facts into the public domain shouldn't he? So why didn't he?
In a sense people are only exercising their free speech when they see logics in the Police's theory and agreeing with that - so what is gerry's problem with this sort of free speech in context to what he said at LI?

In the circumstance it wouldn't be wrong to conclude that the creepy little man gerry's performance speech at the LI was to impress the media in that situation and not that he believes in free speech per se.

Why is it I get the impression a 'wise owl' is trying to impress upon us that gerry's free speech perimeter is limited to people blind supporting his theory based solely on his words; and those who dare to purport anything else based on irrefutable facts as gathered and collected by Police will be deemed defamatory by poisonous little gerry who sees it as his might and within his might to sue people.

Says it all really isn't it - that gerry free speech is only as free as the rope he controls, and only as free as the posts his supporters churned out.

The issue for him appears to be the unacceptability of the conclusions or “theories” drawn from these facts and the facts uncovered and recorded in the case files.

This is contrary to what he told the Leverson enquiry, where he stated he was happy for theories to be purported.

My post was designed to highlight the glaring contradiction in what he said there and what we have so far seen with yourself and Amaral.

I also wanted to uncover what I believe is his real position based on his actions so far. Namely instead of allowing theories to be put forward as he claimed at the enquiry, he actually makes it impossible for anyone to propose any theory suggesting parental involvement.

I believe he wants people to deal in irrefutable facts which prove only who was responsible for the disappearance of his daughter and nothing else. Clearly whilst there is circumstantial evidence in this case, there is nothing (at this stage) incriminating enough to meet the burden of proof that he seems to think any theory suggesting parental involvement would require (although whether a Judge would agree in an actual criminal trial is matter of opinion).

He is fully aware of this which is why his position, whilst stating under oath he is happy for theories to be put forward, is in fact precisely the opposite.

Because he is saying, in effect, he only wants people to put forward hypotheses based on irrefutable facts but the gathered evidence has not been able to conclusively uncover indisputable facts as to the disappearance of his child.

If you can’t do that (and the overwhelming evidence simply isn’t there at this stage I believe) then he is saying it is defamatory to say anything, even if there is a wealth of circumstantial evidence on which to base a parental involvement hypothesis.

The only exception, and glaring contradiction to this, is when people put forward or support his own abduction theory even though that too has not been proven by irrefutable evidence.

So you can’t put forward any theory without irrefutable facts to back it up apart from his theory of abduction which actually has no irrefutable facts to back it up.

Not only was my post meant to illustrate the contradictions in what he has said under oath against what his actions have so far shown, it is also about his bare faced hypocrisy as well.

by jd 13.12.11 17:20

"If he's saying purporting theory of their involvement from facts is not allowed since he deems those facts as false, then he should sue the Police, and the authority responsible for releasing those irrefutable facts into the public domain. "

He should be suing himself, his wife and his Tapas friends too.....The majority of the facts comes from his mouth and his wife and friends in their changing and inconsistent statements & interviews and books

by Angelique 13.12.11 17:24

Is Gerry guilty of "double speak".

If what he is saying can never take place then he can't purport abduction either because he has no facts.

Unless this is another of those statements just manufactured to stun us into silence.

by aiyoyo 13.12.11 17:27

jd wrote:"If he's saying purporting theory of their involvement from facts is not allowed since he deems those facts as false, then he should sue the Police, and the authority responsible for releasing those irrefutable facts into the public domain. "

He should be suing himself, his wife and his Tapas friends too.....The majority of the facts comes from his mouth and his wife and friends in their changing and inconsistent statements & interviews and books

His brilliant own goal AGAIN. lol

by aiyoyo 13.12.11 17:34

Angelique wrote:Is Gerry guilty of "double speak".

If what he is saying can never take place then he can't purport abduction either because he has no facts.

Unless this is another of those statements just manufactured to stun us into silence.

It is one of those statements manufactured for spinning their tale.

He does not want people like us to base our theory on just any facts, but his facts which are proven lies.
So where does that leave his sworn statement at LI? Lie? obfuscation?

by Xavier 13.12.11 17:46

OK, think through what is being suggested here, which may help clarify thinking.

Is it being suggested that the McCanns do not have the legal right to require TB to stand by the terms of the undertaking he gave?

If so, why do you think they might not have the right?

By the way, the copy draft order is a pretty standard one, so it is not TB being singled out for special or unusual treatment. The court takes a pretty dim view of an undertaking being breached. It simply wants TB to comply with the terms of the order he signed, and will do what is necessary to enfoce it. They have a range of remedies available to them. A Prison term is one, suspended provided that he complies. Or a fine (or a series of fines). And leave to apply for the order to be lifted in due course.

by rainbow-fairy 13.12.11 19:01

I am a bit confused as to the phrase 'made up facts' - a contradiction in terms, surely???

by aiyoyo 14.12.11 3:32

rainbow-fairy wrote:I am a bit confused as to the phrase 'made up facts' - a contradiction in terms, surely???

I think that is a freudian slip on his part,

Fact is fact. Anything made up is fabricated and not fact.
He's infamous for making up 'facts' for the investigating team as demonstrated by their inconsistent and ever evolving statements in the process files and that are irrefutable facts.

This is what wikipedia states about arguido
[quote]Arguido (male, Portuguese pronunciation: [ɐɾˈɡwidu]) or arguida (female, [ɐɾˈɡwidɐ]), normally translated "named suspect" or "formal suspect",[1] is a status in Portuguese language legal systems, including the legal systems of Portugal and Mozambique.[2] It is given to a person whom the authorities suspect may have committed an offence.[/quote]

When asked about their arguidos status, kate replied while under oath that they were 'witnesses or persons of interest' (and does not mean suspects). As opposed to what she said in her bewk about Murat. In it she said Murat's arguido status means he was official suspect in a crime. So is this someone who's confused about the true definition of 'arguido' or just obfuscating matter to suit her agenda? aiyo, the answer is so OBVIOUS.

She also told LI no bodily fluids were found in the hired car ...err...what about FSS certification of 15 out of 19 markers - what did she think they used as sample to arrive at that conclusion?
Is she saying they worked on fish or meat's bodily fluids since they claimed ( through their source) those produces leaked in their car when the story about bodily fluids first broke in the news. Those were still bodily fluids nonetheless albeit of different species. By that statement, is she accusing FSS of being inept or is she lying under oath about another irrefutable fact - a fact I believed recorded in the investigative process files.

They are just a bellyful of lies - made up facts as gerry termed them - another brilliant own goal.

by Gillyspot 14.12.11 7:18

Xavier wrote:OK, think through what is being suggested here, which may help clarify thinking.

Is it being suggested that the McCanns do not have the legal right to require TB to stand by the terms of the undertaking he gave?

If so, why do you think they might not have the right?

By the way, the copy draft order is a pretty standard one, so it is not TB being singled out for special or unusual treatment. The court takes a pretty dim view of an undertaking being breached. It simply wants TB to comply with the terms of the order he signed, and will do what is necessary to enfoce it. They have a range of remedies available to them. A Prison term is one, suspended provided that he complies. Or a fine (or a series of fines). And leave to apply for the order to be lifted in due course.

Don't the McCanns have to PROVE (I know it is civil court) to the Judges that TB has NOT stood by his undertaking giving evidence and references which he can dispute if he can?

by **Tony Bennett** 14.12.11 8:50

Gillyspot wrote:Don't the McCanns have to PROVE (I know it is civil court) to the Judges that TB has NOT stood by his undertaking giving evidence and references which he can dispute if he can?

In civil cases, the usual rule is that matters have to be proved 'on the balance of probability' i.e. 'more likley than not', or to put it still another way, 'more than 50% likely'. That would apply e.g. to claims that an organisation (or a person) has been negligent, or broken a contract.

However, in contempt of court cases, the rule is that the court must be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant has breached the terms of an undertaking - in other words, there must be a criminal standard of proof (because a prison term is at stake).

Where the defendant is at a significant disadvantage in these types of poroceedings is this: whether or not a person has broken an undertaking and is therefore guilty of contempt of court is decided by a single judge, not a jury. Thus the defendant doesn't have the benefit of '12 men and women good and true' deciding his fate.

But there is another legal point which Xavier in his/her surprisingly biased advice on this thread has ignored (one hopes not deliberately).

That is the whole question of whether it was reasonable for the defendant to sign the undertaking that he did in the first place.

We have already seen in the judgments of the Portuguese Appeal Court and the Portuguese Supreme Court that they specifically considered the applicability of Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights in deciding that Dr Goncalo Amaral should be able to present his evidence and articulate his hypothesis to the wider public. It would be very strange, and contrary to the European Convention on Human Rights, if Person A in Portugal could say 'X and Y' while Person B in the U.K. could not say 'X and Y', given that both countries are covered by the same Convention.

The court on 8 February, or whenever the committal trial takes place (it might be on a later date), has the following options available to it:

1. To decide that there has been no breach of the undertaking

2. To decide that the undertaking was too sweeping, i.e. its terms were too widely drawn, or

3. To free the defendant from his undertaking.

One final point. The undertaking I gave was in four parts. The other three were:

* To stop selling and distributing '60 Reasons'

* To stop distributing the '10 Reasons' leaflet, and

* To terminate the website [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

All of these other three undertakings were strictly complied with, excepting the case of selling one copy of the book to forum member Mike Gunnill of Kent, pretending to Michael Sangerte of Berkshire, after initially telling him that we were no longer selling the book. Forum members here will recall that Gunnill/Sangerte pestered me for a copy, falsely claiming that he desperately needed it for historical reasons. The day after I obtained a copy for him and posted it to him, he surfaced on a McCann-believer forum boasting that he was 'on a mission' and had delivered the said booklet to Carter-Ruck. The McCanns have pleaded this event as the first of 149 breaches of the four undertakings I gave (these are set out, with photocopies of the alleged breaches, in three Lever Arch files running to a total of 993 pages). It remains to be seen whether the court will regard that as a breach and, if so, what penalty they deem appropriate.

I think to have committed 149 alleged breaches of a High Court undertaking may be some kind of record. I hope they don't give me a month inside for each alleged breach.

by **Jill Havern** 14.12.11 9:18

Tony Bennett wrote:I think to have committed 149 alleged breaches of a High Court undertaking may be some kind of record. I hope they don't give me a month inside for each alleged breach.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

This is what "Carter Ruck sponsored well-wisher" muratfan posted on his blog.

Nice people the McCanns have got snooping for them.

If you neglect your kids til one goes missing, presumed dead, that's fine and dandy because you will be treated like a celebrity... but if anyone discusses it then you might end up in prison... or hanged if muratfan had his way. The world has gone barking mad.

by Guest 14.12.11 9:28

Good old Murat Fan, full of love and goodwill in the festive season as indeed he is throughout the year!

While the McCanns can't be blamed for the scum of the earth being attracted to them, it speaks volumes that they make no effort to disassociate themselves from these people.

by Liz Eagles 14.12.11 9:30

Get 'em Gonçalo wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:I think to have committed 149 alleged breaches of a High Court undertaking may be some kind of record. I hope they don't give me a month inside for each alleged breach.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

This is what "Carter Ruck sponsored well-wisher" muratfan posted on his blog.

Nice people the McCanns have got snooping for them.

If you neglect your kids til one goes missing, presumed dead, that's fine and dandy because you will be treated like a celebrity... but if anyone discusses it then you might end up in prison... or hanged if muratfan had his way. The world has gone barking mad.

What motivates the McCanns to sue some and not others? What is the 'strategy' for 'cherry-picking'? Why is Amaral's case on Sky News and yet TB's isn't?...you really couldn't make this up.

by **Tony Bennett** 14.12.11 9:42

Just one further technical point: some have thought that the court will visit upon me a huge bill for the McCanns' legal costs. Certainly a lot of time and effort has been used to 'beef up' the case against me, spending hours a day on this forum and on the Madeleine Foundation website trawling for possible libels, compiling 993 pages of alleged breaches of an undertaking, sending the committal papers up with two people in a limo etc.

But it won't be possible for the court to make any costs order because Dr Kate McCann, in a book she described not only as 'truthful', but also, specifically, as 'very truthful', said that all the help Carter-Ruck was giving her was for free.

Here are her exact words, from page 289 of 'madeleine':

"Adam Tudor and his colleague Isabel Hudson continue do a vast amount of work for us, without payment..."

Brenda Ryan's interpretation of Gerry McCann saying: "I don't object to people purporting theories"

Brenda Ryan's interpretation of Gerry McCann saying: "I don't object to people purporting theories"

Re: Brenda Ryan's interpretation of Gerry McCann saying: "I don't object to people purporting theories"

Re: Brenda Ryan's interpretation of Gerry McCann saying: "I don't object to people purporting theories"

Re: Brenda Ryan's interpretation of Gerry McCann saying: "I don't object to people purporting theories"

Re: Brenda Ryan's interpretation of Gerry McCann saying: "I don't object to people purporting theories"

Re: Brenda Ryan's interpretation of Gerry McCann saying: "I don't object to people purporting theories"

A series of irrefutable facts

Re: Brenda Ryan's interpretation of Gerry McCann saying: "I don't object to people purporting theories"

Re: Brenda Ryan's interpretation of Gerry McCann saying: "I don't object to people purporting theories"

Re: Brenda Ryan's interpretation of Gerry McCann saying: "I don't object to people purporting theories"

Re: Brenda Ryan's interpretation of Gerry McCann saying: "I don't object to people purporting theories"

Re: Brenda Ryan's interpretation of Gerry McCann saying: "I don't object to people purporting theories"

Re: Brenda Ryan's interpretation of Gerry McCann saying: "I don't object to people purporting theories"

Re: Brenda Ryan's interpretation of Gerry McCann saying: "I don't object to people purporting theories"

Re: Brenda Ryan's interpretation of Gerry McCann saying: "I don't object to people purporting theories"

Re: Brenda Ryan's interpretation of Gerry McCann saying: "I don't object to people purporting theories"

Re: Brenda Ryan's interpretation of Gerry McCann saying: "I don't object to people purporting theories"

Re: Brenda Ryan's interpretation of Gerry McCann saying: "I don't object to people purporting theories"

Re: Brenda Ryan's interpretation of Gerry McCann saying: "I don't object to people purporting theories"

Re: Brenda Ryan's interpretation of Gerry McCann saying: "I don't object to people purporting theories"

149 alleged breaches of an undertaking

Re: Brenda Ryan's interpretation of Gerry McCann saying: "I don't object to people purporting theories"

Celebration time for trolls

Re: Brenda Ryan's interpretation of Gerry McCann saying: "I don't object to people purporting theories"

Free help

Log in for more topics