*NEW!* Judge Tugendhat will hear McCanns' CONTEMPT application 10.30am Wednesday 8 February

Jean wrote:May I say what an interesting read this now infamous little book was when I had one back in 2009. Until that time I hadn't a clue how much the media wasn't telling us and it gave me the incentive to delve deeper.

If ever I compile a list of the 10 most influential books I have read, this one will be a contender for the top spot.

Yes, indeed, I have several copies of this very interesting little book. They have been a revelation to a number of people. Of course I no longer lend them out .

ShuBob wrote:Keir may be a spin merchant but I doubt he would make this up. He has named the Met Commissioner as his source! For me, it all ties in with the recent Express story of the tapas 7 being re-interviewed and the rumour that a reconstruction is going to take place around April.

Well, maybe so, but it's hard to understand his ambiguous tweet.
One would assume reaching a conclusion to mean coming to an end, so how do the interview and reconstruction fit in that scenario? Question is: does it mean reaching a conclusion on papers review which will then dictate the direction of the investigative review, or reaching a conclusion as in end and closing of the review?

One would think you don't need 30-strong squad of murder team detectives plus 3 top murder cold case high officers to do a whitewash, so this " Met Commissioner may be reaching a conclusion in the new few months" is a remark left opened to interpretation.

But, I live in hope, nonetheless.

aiyoyo wrote:

ShuBob wrote:Keir may be a spin merchant but I doubt he would make this up. He has named the Met Commissioner as his source! For me, it all ties in with the recent Express story of the tapas 7 being re-interviewed and the rumour that a reconstruction is going to take place around April.

Well, maybe so, but it's hard to understand his ambiguous tweet.
One would assume reaching a conclusion to mean coming to an end, so how do the interview and reconstruction fit in that scenario? Question is: does it mean reaching a conclusion on papers review which will then dictate the direction of the investigative review, or reaching a conclusion as in end and closing of the review?

One would think you don't need 30-strong squad of murder team detectives plus 3 top murder cold case high officers to do a whitewash, so this " Met Commissioner may be reaching a conclusion in the new few months" is a remark left opened to interpretation.

But, I live in hope, nonetheless.

[i]
Hi Aiyoyo,
I think you are asking good questions there. What is being said online that SY reaching a conclusion in a few months i hope is true. Wether the team of scotland like it or not, they will have to reach a conclusion soon or later(the sooner the better), which must be accompanied with recommandation to follow.

in my view conclusions can be in two ways: Either they confirm the theory of abduction, even though they don't have a potential lead where about Madeleine now or they confirm this is a homicide case, which i think they can do without pointing finger to the mccanns; just to let a new homicide investigation to open, after recommendation have been followed up to the portuguese police which will have to look into new lines of homicide investigation, for both police can work on together.

I'm really leaning on that confirming the case homicide. I think many people including some SY people are feud up of the noises of the Mccanns but they can't complaint publically, and they want them to shut up. Their noises has been going on so long.
To declare the case homicide, it will be a big slap on the face of the mccanns, even if there could be still not enough evidence to charge them.

Stella wrote
Just a little reminder for all at the start of a lovely weekend, that this whole legal affair is all over one little booklet, obtained by the deceptive means of entrapment. All in the name of being

My opinion is: it may be only MG himself who plodded this to bring down TB. But, he cunningly involved CR to exact his revenge on TB, knowing very well he'd succeeded in entrapping TB to breach his undertaking and that would interest CR to know.
The "third party interest" he boasted about maybe of his instigation instead of the other way round.

Although it is suspected he was used by 'so and so', there is no proof of that.
Moreover, I dont think the suspected "so and so" would be so stupid to instigate a criminal act like that (entrapment is criminal I believe) or for that matter leave a trail of evidence leading to them. IMHO, perhaps it is probably safer for TB to err on the cautious side when posing questions to him as witness.

Bearing in mind that MG has an axe to grind with TB - I believe this is over his website debacle where he (MG) had a tussle then fall out with Steve Marsden (then site Admin of MF).
At most, my view is that MG will be proven a deceitful liar who'd purchased the 60-reason booklet using deceptive method with ill intention towards TB, but it wont point anywhere else, IMHO.

Regardless of that, MG has plenty to answer in Court as to why he entrapped TB for the mccanns?
Question has to be asked what was in it for him?
If his action is about getting even with TB, why couldn't he settle his personal feud with TB one to one? Why ride onto the mccanns to get even with TB? All these questions need to be clarified.

Article in today's DM

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2099628/Fury-moves-hold-court-cases-secret-sweep-away-centuries-fair-trial-protections.html

I did have a wtf moment when I read it.

aiyoyo wrote:

Stella wrote
Just a little reminder for all at the start of a lovely weekend, that this whole legal affair is all over one little booklet, obtained by the deceptive means of entrapment. All in the name of being

My opinion is: it may be only MG himself who plodded this to bring down TB. But, he cunningly involved CR to exact his revenge on TB, knowing very well he'd succeeded in entrapping TB to breach his undertaking and that would interest CR to know.
The "third party interest" he boasted about maybe of his instigation instead of the other way round.

Although it is suspected he was used by 'so and so', there is no proof of that.
Moreover, I dont think the suspected "so and so" would be so stupid to instigate a criminal act like that (entrapment is criminal I believe) or for that matter leave a trail of evidence leading to them. IMHO, perhaps it is probably safer for TB to err on the cautious side when posing questions to him as witness.

Bearing in mind that MG has an axe to grind with TB - I believe this is over his website debacle where he (MG) had a tussle then fall out with Steve Marsden (then site Admin of MF).
At most, my view is that MG will be proven a deceitful liar who'd purchased the 60-reason booklet using deceptive method with ill intention towards TB, but it wont point anywhere else, IMHO.

Regardless of that, MG has plenty to answer in Court as to why he entrapped TB for the mccanns?
Question has to be asked what was in it for him?
If his action is about getting even with TB, why couldn't he settle his personal feud with TB one to one? Why ride onto the mccanns to get even with TB? All these questions need to be clarified.

I agree aiyoyo. So who was MG working for? He will just have to tell us all in court in April.

Judge Tugendhat involved in this case - a win for free speech..........



RPC wins Rothschild libel case for Daily Mail

10 February 2012 | By Katy Dowell


http://www.thelawyer.com/rpc-wins-rothschild-libel-case-for-daily-mail/1011333.article

[snipped from article]

In his judgment Tugendhat accepted that the newspaper had published words that were defamatory of Rothschild but said the main issue was whether the meaning of the words published were true.

http://www.thelawyer.com/rpc-wins-rothschild-libel-case-for-daily-mail/1011333.article

Stella wrote:

aiyoyo wrote:

Stella wrote
Just a little reminder for all at the start of a lovely weekend, that this whole legal affair is all over one little booklet, obtained by the deceptive means of entrapment. All in the name of being

My opinion is: it may be only MG himself who plodded this to bring down TB. But, he cunningly involved CR to exact his revenge on TB, knowing very well he'd succeeded in entrapping TB to breach his undertaking and that would interest CR to know.
The "third party interest" he boasted about maybe of his instigation instead of the other way round.

Although it is suspected he was used by 'so and so', there is no proof of that.
Moreover, I dont think the suspected "so and so" would be so stupid to instigate a criminal act like that (entrapment is criminal I believe) or for that matter leave a trail of evidence leading to them. IMHO, perhaps it is probably safer for TB to err on the cautious side when posing questions to him as witness.

Bearing in mind that MG has an axe to grind with TB - I believe this is over his website debacle where he (MG) had a tussle then fall out with Steve Marsden (then site Admin of MF).
At most, my view is that MG will be proven a deceitful liar who'd purchased the 60-reason booklet using deceptive method with ill intention towards TB, but it wont point anywhere else, IMHO.

Regardless of that, MG has plenty to answer in Court as to why he entrapped TB for the mccanns?
Question has to be asked what was in it for him?
If his action is about getting even with TB, why couldn't he settle his personal feud with TB one to one? Why ride onto the mccanns to get even with TB? All these questions need to be clarified.

I agree aiyoyo. So who was MG working for? He will just have to tell us all in court in April.

I am afraid you might have missed my point altogether.
I was saying I dont think he was working for anyone, except himself.
IMO, it was him who approached CR about the booklet he'd obtained by deceit, and in turn CR was only too glad to inform mccanns because it means more money to be made for them. Of course I could be wrong.

I reason that if he was hired by who we suspect, then surely they would have required him to be discreet to not leave a trail of evidence leading to their door. As it stood, MG was being too obvious about it when he boasted he'd passed the booklet to CR . Now, why would he drop his hirer in if he was paid by them?

So, he boasted about a third party involvement - question is: who involved who, as in who instigated the involvement.
Did they involve him to suit their purpose, or did he involve them to suit his agenda? And, we know he's an agenda against TB.

Irrespective whether a third party instigated him or he did it of his own initiative, he will have to answer in Court why he'd set TB up.

aiyoyo wrote:

Stella wrote
Just a little reminder for all at the start of a lovely weekend, that this whole legal affair is all over one little booklet, obtained by the deceptive means of entrapment. All in the name of being

My opinion is: it may be only MG himself who plodded this to bring down TB. But, he cunningly involved CR to exact his revenge on TB, knowing very well he'd succeeded in entrapping TB to breach his undertaking and that would interest CR to know.
The "third party interest" he boasted about maybe of his instigation instead of the other way round.

Although it is suspected he was used by 'so and so', there is no proof of that.
Moreover, I dont think the suspected "so and so" would be so stupid to instigate a criminal act like that (entrapment is criminal I believe) or for that matter leave a trail of evidence leading to them. IMHO, perhaps it is probably safer for TB to err on the cautious side when posing questions to him as witness.

Bearing in mind that MG has an axe to grind with TB - I believe this is over his website debacle where he (MG) had a tussle then fall out with Steve Marsden (then site Admin of MF).
At most, my view is that MG will be proven a deceitful liar who'd purchased the 60-reason booklet using deceptive method with ill intention towards TB, but it wont point anywhere else, IMHO.

Regardless of that, MG has plenty to answer in Court as to why he entrapped TB for the mccanns?
Question has to be asked what was in it for him?
If his action is about getting even with TB, why couldn't he settle his personal feud with TB one to one? Why ride onto the mccanns to get even with TB? All these questions need to be clarified.

Be that as it may, the judge may want to know why the McCanns' lawyers are using evidence they know came by means of entrapment to prosecute TB. Apart from the fact they watch this forum, I believe TB has raised the point with them how he came to sell the booklet. Even in criminal cases, judges have been known to throw out cases on the basis that evidence had been obtained illegally. So my point is, it may not matter if this person was acting alone or if he had been put up to it.

Thank you for answering my questions Mr Bennett. From what I'm reading it doesn't look good for you.
Applying for a change of the undertaking won't have any effect on this court case I'm afraid.

I can't deny that I'm curious to know what breaches CR is going to put on the list. Probably the ones that are easiest to prove and most difficult to defend.

May I ask HFS if you are from a legal background?

It seems Judge Tugendhat threw out the libel claim of Nat Rothschild against the Daily Mail. I am assuming there is only one Judge with that name?

I think this bodes well. I also think the fact that Judge T told Carter Ruck to cut back the ludicrous number of alleged breaches from 153 to 10, is a good sign too.

MG said 2 things to TB

1 that his name was something else
2 that he wanted the book for academic research.
Both were lies.
Good start.
"You are a self confessed liar and a cheat, and on your own admission commit acts of deception. Can you give the court some assurance that the answers you are going to give today are true ? And if so, how, precisely ?"

Peter Mac,

Thank you for answering HFS's comments for me. Yours is always a sound voice of reason, but in this case, I'm not sure that its the sort of thing that HFS was wanting to hear.

If MG was working on his own - what's with the limo that arrived at TB's house to collect the booklet? Did I dream about that or did TB actually tell us? If the limo actually existed - did MG go to the trouble of hiring a limo at his own expense, or did it belong to a third party? Did TB get the registration number I wonder?

T4two wrote:If MG was working on his own - what's with the limo that arrived at TB's house to collect the booklet? Did I dream about that or did TB actually tell us? If the limo actually existed - did MG go to the trouble of hiring a limo at his own expense, or did it belong to a third party? Did TB get the registration number I wonder?

I think the limousine was delivering the 5 lever arch files not collecting the booklet.

I don't think that particular event had anything to do with Mike Gunnill.

happychick wrote:

T4two wrote:If MG was working on his own - what's with the limo that arrived at TB's house to collect the booklet? Did I dream about that or did TB actually tell us? If the limo actually existed - did MG go to the trouble of hiring a limo at his own expense, or did it belong to a third party? Did TB get the registration number I wonder?

I think the limousine was delivering the 5 lever arch files not collecting the booklet.

I don't think that particular event had anything to do with Mike Gunnill.

Yes, that's correct happychick.

It was a courier that arrived at MG's house to collect the booklet and other evidence...........

Tony Bennett wrote:'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?

candyfloss wrote:

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

Oh Joy ! There we have it. The Third Party was involved right from the start.
Not A third party, or someone subsequently interested, or who became involved at a later date, or "to whom I later transferred the document..."
No.
THE THIRD PARTY
It would be ludicrous and libellous to the Third Party to interpret that as anything other than the normal meaning of the words. The THIRD party was involved as the THIRD party before, during, and after the entire episode.
Will MG have the 'cojones' to tell all in the witness box, under oath, when the third party might well be represented in the court, wigged and gowned, or grovelling in the desk behind.
I wish I could be there !!

PeterMac wrote:

candyfloss wrote:

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

Oh Joy ! There we have it. The Third Party was involved right from the start.
Not A third party, or someone subsequently interested, or who became involved at a later date, or "to whom I later transferred the document..."
No.
THE THIRD PARTY
It would be ludicrous and libellous to the Third Party to interpret that as anything other than the normal meaning of the words. The THIRD party was involved as the THIRD party before, during, and after the entire episode.
Will MG have the 'cojones' to tell all in the witness box, under oath, when the third party might well be represented in the court, wigged and gowned, or grovelling in the desk behind.
I wish I could be there !!

Me too!

That lowlife will say whatever he thinks is most beneficial to him, but will he have the intelligence to understand he is a pawn in the big game!

What a dummy

ShuBob wrote:

aiyoyo wrote:

Stella wrote
Just a little reminder for all at the start of a lovely weekend, that this whole legal affair is all over one little booklet, obtained by the deceptive means of entrapment. All in the name of being

My opinion is: it may be only MG himself who plodded this to bring down TB. But, he cunningly involved CR to exact his revenge on TB, knowing very well he'd succeeded in entrapping TB to breach his undertaking and that would interest CR to know.
The "third party interest" he boasted about maybe of his instigation instead of the other way round.

Although it is suspected he was used by 'so and so', there is no proof of that.
Moreover, I dont think the suspected "so and so" would be so stupid to instigate a criminal act like that (entrapment is criminal I believe) or for that matter leave a trail of evidence leading to them. IMHO, perhaps it is probably safer for TB to err on the cautious side when posing questions to him as witness.

Bearing in mind that MG has an axe to grind with TB - I believe this is over his website debacle where he (MG) had a tussle then fall out with Steve Marsden (then site Admin of MF).
At most, my view is that MG will be proven a deceitful liar who'd purchased the 60-reason booklet using deceptive method with ill intention towards TB, but it wont point anywhere else, IMHO.

Regardless of that, MG has plenty to answer in Court as to why he entrapped TB for the mccanns?
Question has to be asked what was in it for him?
If his action is about getting even with TB, why couldn't he settle his personal feud with TB one to one? Why ride onto the mccanns to get even with TB? All these questions need to be clarified.

Be that as it may, the judge may want to know why the McCanns' lawyers are using evidence they know came by means of entrapment to prosecute TB. Apart from the fact they watch this forum, I believe TB has raised the point with them how he came to sell the booklet. Even in criminal cases, judges have been known to throw out cases on the basis that evidence had been obtained illegally. So my point is, it may not matter if this person was acting alone or if he had been put up to it.

I do realize that it appears the mccanns lawyers were complicit in it, when they readily used evidence they know came by means of entrapment to prosecute TB.
My point is, it may be that they (CR) were involved right from the onset. However, the question as to whether it was them who despatched the courier on Mike Gunnill's behalf to collect the booklet from TB, or MG sent the courtier himself, no one knows the answer to that. I suspect one won't get a straight answer from MG irrespective. On top of which, since he's been known to be a liar, who is to know whether his given answer will be the verity.
Unless TB is able to enquire directly with the courier company as to who instructed them to collect from TB, then the truth might be forthcoming in an easier way which will leave no ambiguity. Actually, come to think about it, the airway bill should have indicated the orderer's name. Doesn't the courier company have to announce who sent them to collect? Just a thought anyway.

So the more pertinent point is, although we know MG himself affirmed a third party was implicit from the outset, what I was saying is without supporting evidence to show that it was a third party who instigated MG, it might be wiser for TB to avoid posing directly implicating questions, or risks the onslaught of wrath from the other side and witness. You can bet your bottom dollar even if MG was set up by a third party to act so, he isn't going to be stupid to admit it for obvious reasons.

In short, my point is: it might well be MG who involved the third party instead of the other way round. Thus, to suggest otherwise in Court ( ie: that he was put up by a third party [even if there was truth in it]) may be courting trouble knowing you wont ever extract the truth out of those lot of deceitful people. IMHO, it's always better to err on the cautious side to not to let them have a reason to turn around to cite slander. You can bet your bottom dollar they wont hesitate to jump on the chance.

You made good valid points that be it whether MG acted alone or in cohort with someone else, his illegal means of obtaining the booklet is evidence the Judge should be informed about. And, that the judge may also want to know why CR used this to prosecute TB despite knowing the evidence came by means of entrapment. More crucially the Judge will want to know why MG set TB up, for whom and what purpose?

Dare I say MG is in a spot of trouble, and he alone will bear the brunt of the law, if it comes to that.
It does not matter whether a revelation is to be had in Court (which I seriously doubt) as to whether he acted alone or in gang, at the end of the day, in my view, he will sink alone or be left to sink alone. For a start he's already proven himself to be a liar and deceitful.

Tony is Mr Justice Tugendhat taking the full case in April?

If so I hope I can give you some hope.

About Caroline Spellman's son

"The Spelmans went on to say Jonathan 'has made a voluntary statement to the RFU and is now subject to their disciplinary process which is still ongoing.
'Our son knows that taking a banned substance can never, ever, be right and he is deeply sorry for the mistakes he has made and is determined to learn from them.'
They are now facing a six-figure legal bill after initially trying to prevent the Daily Star Sunday from publishing the story.
The newspaper said it was 'delighted that common sense has prevailed and this story can now be reported.'
Jonathan was originally granted the order preventing the publication of the revelations in the newspaper by Mr Justice Lindblom at a private hearing last month.
The judge said the information, which was leaked to the newspaper, attracted a reasonable expectation of privacy and publication would not advance the public interest.
But, on February 24, Mr Justice Tugendhat concluded that it was 'not necessary or proportionate' to continue the injunction.
In his ruling, Mr Justice Tugendhat said his decision not to continue the injunction was not a 'licence' to the Express Newspapers group or anyone else to publish whatever they chose, or indeed anything at all.
The injunction remained in place until 4pm today to give the 17-year-old, who was suing through his mother and father Mark, an opportunity to ask the Court of Appeal for permission to challenge the judge's decision."

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2109403/Family-secret-Cabinet-minister-tried-hide-Rugby-playing-teenage-son-exposed-drugs-cheat.html#ixzz1o08AnSot

And with Giggsy

"The country’s most senior media judge Mr Justice Tugendhat has criticised Manchester United footballer Ryan Giggs, the woman he allegedly had an affair with Imogen Thomas and News Group Newspapers (NGN) for their conduct in their legal wrangling over a tabloid story about the alleged affair....

Rejecting Giggs’ bid for damages from NGN, publisher of The Sun, over the anonymised publication of a story about the alleged affair Tugendhat J said: “The way that this case has been conducted by the parties has done much to undermine the confidence in the administration of justice.”

http://www.thelawyer.com/tugendhat-j-slams-conduct-of-giggs-thomas-and-news-group/1011649.article