MYSTERY: Mike Gunnill, a book, a courier and a third party

by **Tony Bennett** 26.01.12 23:15

'Twas back on 4 February 2010 that member of this forum, photojournalist Mike Gunnill - a man with a weird fascination for publishing excessively large numbers of photographs of centre-of-child-sexual-abuse Haut de la Garenne on his website - exulted with wild delight at an achievement so great that the McCanns has heralded this as BREACH OF UNDERTAKING NO.1 in the case of McCanns -v- Bennett which will start to unfold in the Royal Courts of Justice some time just over two years later: 8 February 2012.

Breach of Undertaking No. 1 alleges that I sold a book to Mike Gunnill in breach of an undertaking not to sell or distribute the book I'd written: 'What Really Happened to Madeleine McCann: 60 Reasons which suggest she was not abducted".

The circumstances are I think reasonably well-known on here. Mike Gunnill, who lives near Maidstone, Kent, having already in the past written to me pretending to be Jason Peters and Peter Tarwin, this time fooled me by pretending to be yet another person, 'Michael Sangerte of Berkshire'. He asked for a copy of '60 Reasons'. I told him 'No'. He asked again. I told him 'No' and said he could read it on various websites. He said he'd already read '60 reasons', but needed the book 'for reasons of historical research, and was 'willing to pay a large price'. Believing Mr Sangerte to be genuine, I said I would see if I could get hold of a copy, and obtained one from a relative. He then sent me £5. I sent him the book he needed for his 'historical research'.

This is what happened next, Mike Gunnill's posting on this forum on 4 February 2010:

1) A courier this morning at 08.00 collected the envelope, 60 Reasons
book, 10 Reasons leaflet, a receipt signed by Anthony Bennett plus
emails between myself and Mr Bennett. The book was purchased by
contacting Mr Bennett directly via email. The money was posted to his
home address in Harlow. Cash was sent ( £5 ) as payment, because I
didn't want to send a cheque made payable to Mrs Bennett as requested
by Anthony Bennett at the same address.

2) Mr Bennett has admitted selling a copy of 60 Reasons to me. There
are two further examples but I only required proof of one sale.

3) I am grateful to this forum for allowing me to make public and open
contact with Mr Anthony Bennett.

4) The third party has asked me not make any further comment or
postings, which I have agreed to do. I have also agreed to make a
personal statement to the third party.

by mikegunnill
on Thu Feb 04, 2010 9:09 am
Search in: Madeleine Foundation issues
Topic: PCC Complaint Question
Replies: 126
Views: 1389

Now then, a couple of questions, one of which I'll put up on the forum as a poll question:

1. Who was the 'third party' who instructed Mike Gunnill to use deceit to get hold of a copy of '60 Reasons', and who then asked him not to make any further comment, nor to make any further postings about it, and to whom he agreed 'to make a personal statement'?

2. Which legal firm sent up a courier at 8.00 in the morning to Mike Gunnill's home to collect the precious book and deliver it to them?

by Guest 26.01.12 23:23

Ummm, that's a hard one Tony, can I ask the audience or phone a friend big grin

by jd 27.01.12 0:35

Berkshire....isn't this Reading? Seem to remember somebodies statement mentioning Reading quite a bit

by Angelique 27.01.12 0:45

Tony

Oh this is a hard quiz - I don't think!

The trouble is that under normal circumstances people we meet and/or exchange correspondence with have no hidden agenda. May be it's my suspicious mind but I have always been aware that I should be on my guard. I would wish that this had been so in your case.

by aiyoyo 27.01.12 4:32

Hey, wait a minute, I think I come across (for the first time) the Reading Police mentioned on the "What was Apt 5A used for".

Didnt CT, Pamela Fern's niece, say that a young man she believed was from Reading Police came to interview her and took a photofit from her of the "young blond man" she saw coming out of Apt 5B. This came out in conversation during her RI with the Leicestershire Police which neither the LP or PJ was aware of.

Surprise, surprise about another coincidence, this Reading connection.

Anyway to answer TB's question no. 1, as to the person who could have sent MG to entrap TB, it will be the same person connected to mccanns (needless to say) who sent the young man to get a photofit from CT, if CT is to be believed.

I am thinking perhaps it is possible for TB to raise this question in Court and then wouldn't it be down to the Court to communicate with GT to get answers from him as to who sent him to set TB up.

As for the urgent morning courier delivery, obviously whoever tasked GT to do the dirty job was eager to get their hands on the physical copies of the leaflets so that they have the evidence in hands, then it's target hit and mission accomplished.

It will have to lead back to the mccanns even if they are not direct controller of such operation.

by Guest 27.01.12 9:39

aiyoyo wrote:Hey, wait a minute, I think I come across (for the first time) the Reading Police mentioned on the "What was Apt 5A used for".

Didnt CT, Pamela Fern's niece, say that a young man she believed was from Reading Police came to interview her and took a photofit from her of the "young blond man" she saw coming out of Apt 5B. This came out in conversation during her RI with the Leicestershire Police which neither the LP or PJ was aware of.

Surprise, surprise about another coincidence, this Reading connection.

That's right aiyoyo. It was the first time I had studied that particular statement also and it's all thanks 100% to Praia, for encouraging everyone, to look as deep as they can, in that direction.

by jd 27.01.12 9:56

Rachael Oldfield also studied for her law degree at Reading University

http://equityfd.com/the_team/rachael_oldfield/

Slough is also in Berkshire and is right next to Reading, and both Reading & Slough are served by the M4 which goes direct to Swansea. Takes about 90 mins by car

by Guest 27.01.12 10:05

Stella wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:Hey, wait a minute, I think I come across (for the first time) the Reading Police mentioned on the "What was Apt 5A used for".

Didnt CT, Pamela Fern's niece, say that a young man she believed was from Reading Police came to interview her and took a photofit from her of the "young blond man" she saw coming out of Apt 5B. This came out in conversation during her RI with the Leicestershire Police which neither the LP or PJ was aware of.

Surprise, surprise about another coincidence, this Reading connection.

That's right aiyoyo. It was the first time I had studied that particular statement also and it's all thanks 100% to Praia, for encouraging everyone, to look as deep as they can, in that direction.

There is a thread here on the Carol Tranmer statement opened last November 2011

https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t3890-police-interview-carol-tramner-pamela-fenn-s-niece?highlight=Mrs+Fenn

by Daisy 27.01.12 10:29

candyfloss wrote:
Stella wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:Hey, wait a minute, I think I come across (for the first time) the Reading Police mentioned on the "What was Apt 5A used for".

Didnt CT, Pamela Fern's niece, say that a young man she believed was from Reading Police came to interview her and took a photofit from her of the "young blond man" she saw coming out of Apt 5B. This came out in conversation during her RI with the Leicestershire Police which neither the LP or PJ was aware of.

Surprise, surprise about another coincidence, this Reading connection.

That's right aiyoyo. It was the first time I had studied that particular statement also and it's all thanks 100% to Praia, for encouraging everyone, to look as deep as they can, in that direction.

There is a thread here on the Carol Tranmer statement opened last November 2011

https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t3890-police-interview-carol-tramner-pamela-fenn-s-niece?highlight=Mrs+Fenn

Thank you Candyfloss.

Quote Stella from that thread: "Don't worry Daisy, we've already been there and totally agree with you"

Yet I now stand acccused of trying to divert from the subject to stop people getting to the truth! MYSTERY: Mike Gunnill, a book, a courier and a third party 376422

MYSTERY: Mike Gunnill, a book, a courier and a third party 376422

by Guest 27.01.12 11:21

candyfloss wrote:There is a thread here on the Carol Tranmer statement opened last November 2011

That's right Candyfloss, I had forgotten all about that one. But did it lead to the Reading connection? Or did that come from the thread Praia started?

Since the statements have been released, I was aware of the situation with the two photo-fits, one available, one not. More importantly the mysterious blonde man allegedly seen leaving the rear gate of 5b. This is the problem. You can read a statement 6 or 7 times, but if you are looking for something specific, it is all to easy to blank out everything else.

The big difference between the start of that thread in November 2011 and the recent one, is that this time round we had someone constantly urging everyone to look at very 'specific inconsistencies' in 'direct relation' to other individuals, that has previously been missed. It certainly made me sit up and take notice for the first time.

Why didn't Daisy do the same thing with her thread? Why did she claim to know that particular statement inside and out and state something along the lines of, 'there's nothing more in there to find'?

Why do we now have the issue of who started what first? Does it matter as long as we get to the truth?

At the end of the day, if Daisy's thread had any weight to it, it also would have got 11,000 hits. The reason the other one did, was down to direction, determination and the very fact that a few did not like the subject being discussed once again. That is one sure way to ignite a lot of interest.

by Guest 27.01.12 11:26

Daisy wrote:Quote Stella from that thread: "Don't worry Daisy, we've already been there and totally agree with you"

Yet I now stand acccused of trying to divert from the subject to stop people getting to the truth!

I'm not interested in mind games. If you have a point to make, do so by pm.

by **Tony Bennett** 27.01.12 11:51

aiyoyo wrote:Hey, wait a minute, I think I come across (for the first time) the Reading Police mentioned on the "What was Apt 5A used for".

Didnt CT, Pamela Fern's niece, say that a young man she believed was from Reading Police came to interview her and took a photofit from her of the "young blond man" she saw coming out of Apt 5B. This came out in conversation during her RI with the Leicestershire Police which neither the LP or PJ was aware of.

Surprise, surprise about another coincidence, this Reading connection.

I am afraid we have rather gone off topic with this diversion to Reading.

Haut-de-la-Garenne-obsessive Mike Gunnill pretended to be 'Michael Sangerte from Berkshire'. He might just as well have said he was 'Michael Sangerte from Westmorland', 'Michael Sangerte from Huntingdonshire', or 'Michael Sangerte from Clackmannanshire'. No conclusions should be drawn from where this serial liar says one of his false identities comes from.

The real issues on this thread are:

1) Who instructed him to deceive me into supplying a book?

2) Who sent a courier down to Mike Gunnill at 8.00am before he even had time to begin his 'full English' breakfast?

3) Was Mike Gunnill rewarded for his efforts? (if so, how much)

4) Who paid for a courier to run an envelope and a book all the way from east Kent down to what we may reasonably assume to be Carter-Ruck's offices in London?

by jd 27.01.12 12:05

Sorry Tony, this has gone off topic. I know what you mean about he could have said anywhere, but sometimes people say things that are on their minds if you understand what I mean, and maybe Berkshire was on his mind for some other reason whilst on the subject of Maddie and you

All the answers to your questions in my opinion have the initials CR written all over them. I don't think there was any other lawyers representing them at the time, not to my knowledge anyway

by Guest 27.01.12 12:05

Tony Bennett wrote:The real issues on this thread are:

1) Who instructed him to deceive me into supplying a book?

The same people trying to bring a legal case against you, I would have thought. Who else has motive?

2) Who sent a courier down to Mike Gunnill at 8.00am before he even had time to begin his 'full English' breakfast?

Someone who needed it urgently.

3) Was Mike Gunnill rewarded for his efforts? (if so, how much)

No one does that sort of thing for nothing, there is always an incentive IMO.

4) Who paid for a courier to run an envelope and a book all the way from east Kent down to what we may reasonably assume to be Carter-Ruck's offices in London?

Maidstone is actually West Kent and it must be the same people who have been protecting the truth from coming out and I'm sure it goes way higher than 2 NHS Doctors.

by Guest 27.01.12 12:15

If you can prove that Mccanns or their laywers are behind it, would that make it some form of encouragement to commit a crime, and could that be used in your defense? Could you call this journalist as a witness, or doesn't it work that way in this kind of procedures?

by Guest 27.01.12 12:19

Entrapment.

by Guest 27.01.12 12:25

I am Dutch, so I looked up the English equivalent of uitlokking, which is entrapment, but it says it must be done by a police officer e.g. I don't think it means a private laywer. So it is the old English enticement, wand that has been changed since 2008 in encouraging or assisting in a crime.

by **Tony Bennett** 27.01.12 12:52

Juulcy wrote:If you can prove that McC anns or their laywers are behind it, would that make it some form of encouragement to commit a crime, and could that be used in your defense? Could you call this journalist as a witness, or doesn't it work that way in this kind of procedures?

Well, at least no-one is saying it is a crime, but there really isn't any doubt that the McCanns and Carter-Ruck put Gunnilll up to this, and that they ACTIVELY WANTED me to break the undertaking l gave not to sell nor distribute '60 Reasons'.

by Guest 27.01.12 13:22

Sorry, I certainly don't mean you committed a crime big grin

I meant it as an analogue..

by Kololi 27.01.12 13:50

This is one aspect of this mystery that I seem to be alone in my thoughts on this forum with so I stand by for the fall out that may come as a result of what I am about to type.

"Well, at least no-one is saying it is a crime, but there really isn't any doubt that the McCanns and Carter-Ruck put Gunnilll up to this, and that they ACTIVELY WANTED me to break the undertaking l gave not to sell nor distribute '60 Reasons'."

They may have "actively wanted" you to break your undertaking but it was you who made the choice to break it.

It would be like committing murder and saying you were forced to do so because somebody else wanted you to do it. It wouldn't hold water in the slightest.

He may have been a sneaky little toad but your actions came about because of the choice that you made to sell the leaflet to him and I feel sure that any Judge would see it that way and not allow it as a valid excuse against your breaking your earlier committment to the court. He didn't force you to sell it and it is unfortunate that you didn't see that you were being conned or tricked but the bottom line is you promised not to sell another leaflet and then got caught selling one.

Why didn't you just tell him to sod off and refuse to sell the leaflet?

MYSTERY: Mike Gunnill, a book, a courier and a third party 444319

MYSTERY: Mike Gunnill, a book, a courier and a third party 444319

I come in peace.......

by rainbow-fairy 27.01.12 13:52

Tony, you have my absolute support as always. The actions of this lot truly sicken me to the stomach. Telling the public 'nothing is more important to us than finding our daughter' whilst playing silly beggars with a man who has only ever tried to produce justice for said daughter. Do they really think that Madeleine is going to leap out of Tony's briefcase??? Money money money is all they care about.
I'm just interested to know, Tony, whilst the egregious Mr Gunnill was in the process of 'entrapping' you, did you ever have even an inkling that there was skulduggery going on? Or did you in all innocence fall for it hook line and sinker?
Please don't think I'm trying to make you appear daft, I know how sneaky these people can be. Just curious if it ever crossed your mind, even fleetingly?

by beejay 27.01.12 14:31

I'm not a solicitor but one would have thought that the Court would take into consideration the circumstances in which the undertaking was breached.

In this case, the motive of Mr Gunnill in seeking the leaflet should be explored - if he was paid for the job to entrap Tony by hounding him with requests and obfuscating his true motives (financial gain) then Tony's actions could be construed as an honourable mistake and not a deliberate breach.

If it should also transpire that C-R or an intermediary paid Gunnill for these services then again, it shows bad faith.

As Tony had to obtain the leaflet from a relative also indicates that he was not actively engaged in its distribution and the nominal £5 charge shows it was not for financial reward.

Frankly, if that is No 1 on their charge list one would hope that Tony may find some sympathy with the Court.

Good luck fella

by Shibboleth 28.01.12 22:31

Mike Gunnill lied about why he wanted this little book, he lied about his name.

Why would any court now accept the word of a proven liar?

by rainbow-fairy 28.01.12 22:55

Shibboleth wrote:Mike Gunnill lied about why he wanted this little book, he lied about his name.

Why would any court now accept the word of a proven liar?

I pray that will be so, Shibboleth. These people really need stopping, and soon.

by Guest 29.01.12 9:38

Apparently he has been on the Missing Madeleine site as well (not very recently though) pretending to be friendly while in fact trying to find out the real identities of other members. Sadly, when stones are unturned, all manner of nasty creatures slither out into the light of day!