All 70 comments published on the 'Harlow Star' website (70 comments were published, not 45 as stated earlier)

First, the positive comments. In a moment, I'll add all the negative ones.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

IN FAVOUR

Howard WATCH THE PORTUGUESE DOCUMENTARY ON YOUTUBE

This is a very important case. It really should be covered by the national press and well done to Harlow Star for running this story. I have taken the time to read the Portuguese Police reports. I would very much like for the Portuguese Documentary on what happened to be shown back to back with the BBC Panorama documentary so people in UK can form their own opinion into what happened.

Helen Williamson GONCALO AMARAL’S BOOK BACK ON SALE

Mr Bennett has only repeated what is in the Official Files. Dr Goncalo Amaral's Book 'Truth of the Lie' was allowed back on sale as 3 top Judges deemed it followed Official Files content.

Helen Williamson again (2^nd) THOUSANDS AGREE WITH TONY

Why should Anthony Bennett not be allowed to have an opinion which, after all, is the same as mine and many, many thousands of those who have read the Official Files?

Helen Williamson again (3^rd) THE MCCANNS REFUSED TO ATTEND A RECONSTRUCTION

If the McCann's and holiday group had co operated with re construction etc, there wouldn't be so many unanswered questions. A child is involved, those questions need answering.

Helen Williamson again (4^th) MCCANN SUPPORTERS HAVE LIBELLED TONY

I have read the most terrible libellous comments and vile personal abuse directed at Anthony Bennett over the 5 years or so. Why are so many so concerned about what he says to drop to that level? Read the Official Files and you will see, what he says is as it is. I read and came to my own conclusion and that is what people do. No one deserves the abuse he has had for expressing an opinion, no one should go to jail either for it.

The Zillionth Sue A PAT ON THE BACK FOR THE HARLOW STAR

Thank you Harlow Star for printing this article. The media rarely prints anything which does not accord with what the McCanns and their "spokesman" would like them to read. Anybody is free to read those of the police files which are in the public domain on the internet, and make up their own minds. Mr Bennett has only stated what many other people who have taken the trouble to look at the facts of the case have concluded. There was, for example, no evidence that an abduction had taken place. And to those who have commented before me on this thread and mentioned money - where has all the money donated to the McCanns to "find Madeleine" gone, exactly?

Jane INVESTIGATE THE MCCANNS’ FUND

I believe there is something wrong with the Maddie case that needs to be looked into..And the so called Fund needs to be investigated too...So well said Mr Bennett

TW CADAVER DOGS ARE RELIABLE

It is hard to overlook the UK cadaver and blood dogs that were brought in to the investigation early on, and indicated a death in the holiday apartment. Gerry McCann says cadaver dogs are unreliable, but this is not true, especially with the dog that was used, who also worked for FBI and had NEVER, EVER, been wrong. There has been no death previously reported ever having occurred in this apartment. So if Madeleine didn't die there, who did? This case should be investigated as a murder investigation. Incidentally, the conclusion reached by the investigators who worked the case, both Portuguese and UK police, came to conclusion that Madeleine died and the McCanns were informed. There are released official Portuguese Files in which all this information can be found. The case was shelved pending further information, not closed, and nobody was ever charged, or ever cleared

TW again (2^nd) IS THE ABDUCTION A FACT?

What chance is there of ever getting this case reopened when the McCanns threaten anybody who dares to say there was no abduction, and the McCanns have been allowed to preach this as a FACT for years now. The McCanns only want the case reopened if the investigators would agree to look away from the apartment, and the findings of those dogs.

Luz CONGRATULATIONS TO THE HARLOW STAR

Congratulations Harlow Star - I’d given up hope to read a factual account about this case by the British Press. I’m Portuguese, Algarvian, and although I wasn’t present at the scene on 2007, May the 3rd, I had several family members directly involved in the searches for many days. What Mr. Bennett did was to reveal the conclusions of the police investigation conducted in Portugal, which the British Press never cared, or wasn’t allowed, to divulge. I hope that Mr. Bennett receives a fair treatment by the courts since his motivation is noble: TO CARE FOR THE CHILDREN WELFARE, and Madeleine in particular about this case.

Luz again A PORTUGUESE FORENSIC PSYCHOLOGIST WRITES

Nellie, I guess you are an expert in Portuguese law and language, right? I'm a forensic psy professor and I believe I can read English even if I make mistakes when wrtting it, and I can guarantee you that the files that are available in the internet are the original ones, and their translation can't be understood only by illiterate persons

Luz again (3^rd) TRUTH OVERCOMES LIES

I hope this journal doesn't give in to the obvious attempt to shut up comments. I believe we live in a free Europe where non-Stalinist or non-Hitlerian measures are needed. Mr. Bennett will face the Courts and I believe that his TRUTH will overcome the lies that have been thrown over him.

Luz again (4th) I HAVE THE ORIGINAL PORTUGUESE CD

It's ridiculous how people discredit documents they can't even read in the original - I have the original Portuguese CD obtained in Portimão for those that still discredit the translations. I concur with Tony: Mr. Bennett is only guilty of trying to divulge what the PJ and the Public Ministry reported in a very public way in Portugal, but which the British media avoided (I still wonder why?!). His papers, postings and small books were only parcels of the documents emitted by the Portuguese authorities to the public, why should he be condemned to make available to the British what Portuguese and so many other Europeans knew?

Nina ‘I READ THE RELEASED FILES’

At last a paper willing to use the name McCann without all the sychophantish pronouns. I contributed my pension to the fund, fool that I was, as I was taken in by all the media hype. Then I read the released files and started to research just what was available on the Internet about this case. I had not heard of Tony Bennett when I changed my opinion of the McCanns, but I now support his stance as it is based on the released police files. One day all the files will be released for the public to read

Rose TONY BENNETT’S VERSION OF EVENTS IS MORE BELIEVABLE

I believe Tony Bennett's version of events over the McCanns. He never stopped me searching for Madeleine - I never started as in my personal opinion she was not abducted.

Marina Johnson JAIL - JUST FOR QUERYING THE ABDUCTION?

For the last 5 years I've read a lot about this case and it's a disgrace that this man is facing jail because he's queried the abduction. Thought we lived in a democracy and could judge the allegations for ourselves.

alicia A GOOD ARTICLE

Good article. But as far as I know, Mr. Bennett never breached 3 undertakings, but was accused of breaching 3. I thing that must be an error in the article. When that’s said, with all I know from the case, many high profile police investigators are of the n the opinion that the parents never told the police [the truth]. So I find it odd the Mr. Bennett isn’t allowed to mean whatever he wants as well, when all he says is actually repeating what’s [in the police files]

REPLY: There was an error in the article. The Harlow Star has agreed to a correction to their online edition, so that it’s clear that I’ve only been accused of breaking three of the 16 undertakings I gave

William CHANGING THE ARGUMENT

It seems the McCann couple have changed their initial argument that Mr Bennett's comments compromised the search for their daughter i.e. if she were dead (as clearly the Portuguese Police believe and the search dogs support)to one of harassment. Probably because harrassment is easier to argue in court. The McCann couple and their legal agents are more slippery than a nest of vipers. Urrrgh!!!

Jean THERE’S MORE TO THIS STORY

Thank you for publishing this. The public needs to be made aware that there is more to this story than is generally published.

Spoony BURDEN OF PROOF

Haven't the Mccanns got to prove he's lying before taking him for libel?

REPLY: My defence is one of honest comment (see Spiller v Joseph, 2010, UK Supreme Court). The test is: “Was there a reasonable factual basis for the defendant’s comments?

Susannah AN OBJECTIVE, UNSENSATIONAL, FACTUAL REPORT

Hats off to you. This is the most objective report to date in the UK dealing with the McCanns. Objective, unsensational and factual. How can anyone want someone in jail for investigating what happened to their child?

Terry SUPPORT - BECASUSE I’VE READ THE FILES

having read the official PJ files I am right behind Mr Bennett

Terry again (2^nd) WHAT EVUDENCE IS THERE FOR THE ABDUCTION?

Can anyone please show me any evidence of an abduction

Julie Hill IN AGREEMENT

After reading the Police Files on this case, I agree with Mr Bennett.

Peter Mac YOU CAN’T IGNORE THE DOGS

Bennett is not the only person in the world who believes that the whole truth has not been told. The parents seem to have changed their story as time has gone on, about the shutters, and the curtains for example. The sad fact remains that there is no evidence to support their theory of abduction, and a lot of evidence which points to something else. The dogs cannot be ignored.

Gillyspot UNBIASED

Thank you Harlow Star for publishing an unbiased article regarding Tony Bennett & the McCann couple. If they don't have anything to hide why have they sued 24+ individuals & media companies?

James WE MUST HAVE FREEDOM OF SPEECH

Good to see you cover this important case which has received little coverage. If we don't have freedom of speech, what is left? Many people now have doubts about whether madeleine was abducted having looked at the Portuguese police files which can be read online at www.mccannfiles.com

Black cat READ TAVARES DE ALMEIDA’S REPORT

Mr. Bennett has simply repeated what was concluded by the joint Portuguese and BRITISH police investigation. And the same goes for Inspector Gonçalo Amaral who is being sued by the McCanns for the same reason. If you take the trouble to read the PJ (Portuguese investigative police) final report by Inspector Tavares de Almeida you will see for yourself this is true. Both these men have not come up with a wild, far-fetched malignant idea, it's the investigation's conclusion. If they are suing these men they will have to sue the Portuguese and the Leicestershire police forces too, and the Portuguese state! It's widely available online, just google for it!

Paul Rees GOOD LUCK!

Good luck Mr Bennett. Those of us who have read the police files are right behind you.

Paul Rees again (2^nd) SHHHH

The national media is very quiet on this, non?

Tony MR BENNETT IS GUILTY

Mr Bennett is guilty of nothing more than repeating the findings of the Portuguese and English police that worked on the case. It's all in the files if people care to read them.

Ken VOLTAIRE

I may not agree with what you say, but I will fight to the death to defend your right to say it

Ken again FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND THOUGHT IS VERY IMPORTANT

Pete, I don't really think this is a discussion forum, but...Personally I don't care what lies are told about me. In fact many have been told over the years. I think free speech and freedom of thought are more important than hurt feelings or damaged reputations. If the damage is caused by lies that is easily rectified by publishing the TRUTH!

MCR THE PORTUGUESE INVESTIGARION WAS OBSTRUCTED

In Portugal the Portuguese believe in the official version of the Portuguese Justice. The investigation was obstructed and the crime scene was contaminated on purpose by friends and family, along with all the people they let to enter. Anyone who has a different opinion of the couple is haunted.

Rosalind Salter DEMOCRACY IS AT RISK

Pete, do not put words into my mouth, thank you very much. I am not concerned with Mr Bennett's views - only what I have deduced myself. This case, for those who think it an amusing pastime, should start looking at the wider implications for future democracy. Or perhaps Eastenders is their bag.

Rosalind ACCOUNTS WERE CHANGED

Changing accounts by the McCanns and their holiday friends hardly inspire trust. The official Police files only add to the feeling of disquiet. Well done to the Harlow Star for covering a story of national importance.

Rosalind again (2^nd) TRANSLATIONS UNNECESSARY

There was no need to translate answers to 48 questions because none were given. No need to translate the Leicester police rogatory interviews either.

Rosalind again (3^rd) A STRANGE ABDUCTION

Stranger abduction? I've never seen a stranger, stranger abduction.

OK, now all the negative comments that the Harlow Star published - with some replies:

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

AGAINST

Alice BENNETT DID THIS FOR FINANCIAL GAIN

Whatever happened to Madeleine doesn't matter in this case, the thing that annoys me is that all he was doing is trying to make as much money as he can out of her disappearance, which is wrong. He published his theories in a book for his own financial gain, he doesn't care about what happened to Madeleine, just about lining his own pockets. Disgusting.

REPLY: Even most of the strongest McCann-supporters admit that both books I’ve written on the subject, each priced at £3.00, were produced at cost - and that far from making a profit on them, my publishing of analyses of what happened to Madeleine McCann has meant financial loss, not gain. The current Madeleine Foundation Committee will confirm that

Alfie FREEDOM OF SPEECH IS A CONDITIONAL RIGHT

Tony Bennett conveniently forgets - "Freedom of speech is not an absolute right, but a conditional right." Mr Justice Tugendhat

REPLY: I fully agree. Mr Justice Tugendhat is correct.

Una Winchester ONLY THOSE DIRECTLY INVOLVED KNOW WHAT REALLY HAPPENED

I really feel strongly about this case, because it illustrates the differences between free speech and the freedom to abuse, defame, harm and inflict suffering on our fellow human beings in a PUBLIC manner. If Tony Bennett and others want to believe certain theories about this case, then fine. From that perspective, yes, we should all be free to think and believe whatever we wish! However, as only those who were involved directly directly trulry KNOW what happened in this case, then what right does anyone have to vilify Kate and Gerry Mccann? I am 100% sure that they are innocent of any wrong doing. I think this is plainly obvious from watching any of their interviews. Other people differ and see all kinds of things I don't see, and frankly, I think such people are either a bit unhinged, or just very nasty. Nevertheless, "If" I did suspect the McCanns, I hope that I would still have enough integrity, compassion and intelligence to realise that I 'could' be wrong. And hopefully, this alone, would prevent me from entering what can only be described as the one of the most vile and inhumane treatments of a grieving family, ever to be witnessed! How can Tony Bennett sleep at night, knowing that he 'could' be wrong? And if he thinks he could NOT be wrong, then that is argument enough in itself to have him silenced! However you look at this, it should NOT be permitted and it has NOTHING to do with 'freedom' of opinion!

REPLY: So how come the Portuguese Appeal and Supreme Courts both unbanned Dr Goncalo Amaral’s book, despite the best lawyers that the McCanns could throw at them, stating that Amaral’s book should be unbanned because it was an interference with his right of free speech under Article 10, European Convention on Human Rights? (These two courts ordered the McCanns to pay Dr Amaral’s costs. I’m not sure if they’ve done so yet)

Alibongo SYSTEMATIC, MALICIOUS, STALKING

This man has led a systematic and malicious campaign of libel and harrassment and stalking against this family. Its little wonder they have said enough is enough and are now taking action. They have been more than magnaminous in their dealings with him as he well knows. And now its time for him to face the music. Judge Tugendhat has already told Tony Bennett that freedom of speach is not an absolute right but a conditional one that comes with certain responsibility. And those are not to libel or slander!!

REPLY: The McCanns made an official complaint to Leicestershire Police in August 2009 that I was ‘harassing’ them. I was never contacted by the police.

Ann WHAT HAPPENED TO THE MONEY?

Blackcat, The PJ concluded the McCanns had not committed any crime, and that they did not even know if Madeleine was alive or dead. The British police have stated it was an abduction by a stranger. And if peopel want funds investigated, what about the one Bennett set up when he took part in the formation of a group called the madeleine foundation. This "foundation" asks for money, yet I can find no record of it as a company or charity. So what happened to the money he tried to collect in the name of a missing child?

REPLY: No, The Madeleine Foundation is neither a private company (like the McCanns’ Fund), nor a charity. It is a membership organisation, where members made decisions. Or to give it a more legalistic title, it is an ‘unincorporated association’. Annual accounts are approved by the members. Monies raised have been used to publish leaflets and books, run campaigns, and £1,200 was donated by The Madeleine Foundation to the support fund for Dr Goncalo Amaral.

Ann again (2^nd) A HATE CAMPAIGN

Actually the PJ concluded that there was no evidence that Murat and the McCanns had committed a crime, and that they did not know whether Madeleine was alive or not. Scotland Yard have stated Madeleine was abducted by a stranger. Bennett has not repeated the PJs conclusions, nor the material in the PJ files. For instance he claims the files state Madeleine's DNA was found in the hire car, which it was not. If Bennett has only told the truth then why does he not want to go to court for libel. All he has to do to get a not guilty verdict is show he is telling the truth. If he cannot demonstrate he is telling the truth about the case, then why is he continuing to claim he is speaking the truth and continuing what amounts to a hate campaign? I fail to see what is so oppressive about laws that mean people cannot tell lies about other people?

REPLY: Ann has got this completely wrong when she says ‘why does he not want to go to court for libel?’ The reverse is true. I am currently applying to the libel court to ‘lift the stay’ on the libel proceedings that was imposed in 2009. I would like a libel trial so that the court can hear ALL the facts and can decide if my comments have been within the defence of ‘honest comment’. It is the McCanns who are now ‘vigorously’ opposing the setting in motion of a libel trial. I have nothing to fear from a discussion of the facts.

Ann again (4^th) ONLY A FEW ‘FANS’

Oh and by the way, Bennett has now taken to twitter telling his few fans to keep commenting in support of him.

Ann again (5^th) VILE CLAIMS

John, the forum that supports him and is vile about missing girls - anyone remember the monty python sketch about April Jones or the vile claims about Sarah Payne that I will not repeat here.

REPLY: I think you are referring to a different forum form the one I post on

Ann again (6^th) THE PJ FILES DO NOT SUPPORT BENNETT

tony, no he has not repeated the findings of the police. the police found there was no evidence against the McCanns, and they did not know what had happened to Madeleine. The British police have stated it was a stranger abduction. All repeating his claim to just be repeating what the police have concluded is doing is proving Carter Ruck right and providing evidence of the damage he has done. Bennett's claims are not supported by the PJ files at all.

Ann again (7^th) NOW MUCH DID BENNETT SPEND TRANSLATING THE FILES?

Luz, I have read the originals too, and what you are claiming is untrue. There is not one bit of evidence in them against the McCanns, and the final report clearly states the McCanns are not believed to have committed any crime. Bennett's claims do not have any basis in facts found in the PJ files. Terry, I think you will find that Scotland Yard do not reveal their evidence during an investigation just because people on the internet demand it. There is no evidence against the McCanns, both the PJ and Scotland yard have stated this. So to support hate campaigns against them and making false claims is just sick. Bennett is the one making the claims and claiming they are true, so he is going to get his day in court where he will have to prove his claims are true. I also wonder how much Bennett spent translating the documents correctly, I suspect not a penny, and that he just read them on the internet rather than bothering to actual ensure he had the correct versions.

Graham Perry POTENTIAL PROOF

Mr T. Bennett is a fool. I have potential proof that suggests Madeleine is alive. Mr Bennett is relying to heavily on what the X-Detactive is saying-no real credability, thank you.

REPLY: ‘Potential' proo’? I hope you’ve told Scotland Yard?

June THE MCCANNS ARE TRYNG TO GET THE CASE RE-OPENED

TW, Well the McCanns have asked for the case to be reopened. It was their campaign to get a review that has led to the Scotland yard and PJ review. The McCanns are the ones who have tried to get the case reopened, not their haters.

Pam Gurney BENNETT ‘TOLD LIES’ TO ‘HIS’ FORUM

I have read with utter contempt some of these comments. I recognise a good few names as Mr Bennetts online friends. He is asking for help by tweeting for it and asking on the forums where these people hang onto this man's every word. Justice Tugendhat tried pointing out to Mr Bennett that Freedom of Speech is very different to libel and slander. As an ex solicitor Mr Bennett should be well versed with the legal talk from this emminent judge and interpret his words truthfully, but he went back to his forum mates here and told them lies. His vendetta against the McCann family has been one that has sickened sensible people. What these forum friends here who are backing him should consider is how they would have felt if they had been in the Mccanns shoes and Mr Bennett had done this to them. They would soon be after him for libel I am sure. As for what is written in the Official PJ Files...those words you hounders read are NOT the official words and the sooner you all learn that this is the case the better off you will be. I have never known the like of this case before and never wish to see it again, but if Tony Bennett isn't stopped from his activist life then who will be his next target?

Pam Gurney again (2^nd) THE TRUE POLICE FILES HAVEN’T BEEN PUBLISHED YET

Nina, I suggest you await the true police files being published then and not rely on misinterpreted PJFiles printed by anti McCanns. Portuguese is a notoriously difficult language t translate but these files are misleading and swathes are apparently missing. So you and the others are not getting the true picture at all. As for people donating their pensions...well all I can say is how silly were you to do so? I do not believe he Mccanns would want people to break themselves by doing so either. People donated out of the kindness of their hearts and the desire to help this couple find their little girl. No arms were being twisted to do so. But then you sour souls would not understand a word of what I am saying. It is obvious everyday that you are against this couple and will continue to hound them til Kingdom come.

Pam Gurney again (3^rd) SUCCINCT

Well said Pete. You have put into words so succinctly what most people with half an iota of sense and sensibility and humanity would like to say.

Pam Gurney again (4^th) BLAME

Here here John...Bennett has only himself to blame for the trouble he is in.

Pam Gurney again (5^th) BENNETT HAS LIED

Ken...but Bennett has not told the TRUTH and he is unlikely to concede and say he has lied either.

Pam Gurney again (6^th) FACEBOOK AND TWITTER MUST STOP PEOPLE LIBELLING EACH OTHER

Well Pauli, until facebook and twitter start to take more responsibility and stop people like Bennett libelling, there will be people who both carry out misdeeds and those who wish to balance the arguments or give an alternative viewpoint. . In tis instance Mr Bennett has done much harm to the Mccanns and others before and since.

Pauli MISUSE OF THE INTERNET

This whole case has become an example of how the Internet can be MISused. There are sets of forums on each side- pro and anti McCann which both claim the high ground. They all thrive on half truths, misunderstandings, conspiracy theories and inadequate understanding of processes, forensics and science. The only important facts are: 1/ Madeleine is not where she should be. 2/ No legal authority has found enough evidence to charge anyone with anything (whether neglect or something worth) 3/ Competing groups of Internet Nutters Conspiracy Theorists, Trolls, Busy-bodies and people with no interest in real life, are in a stupid battle on the Internet which causes plenty of heat but no light to fall on the matter. Why don't you all go home, stop turning a sad event into something for your personal amusement and leave it to the COMPETENT authorities to act on the matter. I am sick of the lot of you.

Pete BENNETT HAS TOLD REPEATED LIES

Ken, so if someone spread lies that implicated you in a child's death you would be OK with that even if they were basing their claims on a pack of lies? Freedom of speech is not freedom to lie about people, to spread lies, to stalk people etc. I suspect the mnatra of his supporters would be better described as "they will fight to the death for their right to say it about other people". Bennett has not just stated opinion, he has told and repeated lies about the case, many of which his supporters are now repeating here. he does not have the right to tell lies about the case, or about others. Now the man is telling his supporters to bombard this story with supportive comments and in doing so has shot himself in the foot by proving that his lies are being repeated and used against the McCanns. If Bennett is telling the truth then he has gone out of his way to not have to demonstrate it. All he had to do was stand in court and show his evidence, but he chose instead to agree not to repeat many of his claims. Why if the evidence supports him does he not demonstrate this in court? It would not cost him a penny, he could just stand there and how the judge his evidence which he has repeatedly claim exists in the PJ files.

REPLY: Pete, you wrote: “All he had to do was stand in court and show his evidence”. True, I didn’t, 3 years ago, because I was intimidated by the overwhelming power of legal arms against me. Now that the McCanns are trying to jail me, however, I have asked for the libel trial to be reinstated so that I can present the facts and discuss them. It is the McCanns who are now actively opposing this going to a libel trial. In the light of your comments, will you now please contact Carter-Rick (020 7353 5005) and let them know that in your opinion there should now be a libel trial to test the evidence?

Pete again (2^nd) NO EVIDENCE AGAINST THE PARENTS

Rosalind, So you agree with Bennett that the British police are inept, and part of the cover-up? Because they have said it was a stranger abduction, and the PJ have stated there was not a single piece of evidence against the parents.

John DON’T RELY ON AMATEUR TRANSLATIONS

Bennett hasn't seen the Official files, only online and biased amateur translations. He has no-one to blame but himself for his problems. He was warned repeatedly that the amateur translations were wrong, and had omitted sections which favored the McCann family.

TB MARTIN GRIME’S DOGS AE RUBBISH

TW, What you have written is false. The dog has been wrong before, did not have a good track record, and alerts to dried blood and bodily fluids too (Bennett doe snot seem to mention this or the fact soemone admits to having bled in their a lot shortly before the abduction). And the PJ final report states there is no evidence that the parents did anything wrong, and that it is not possible to conclude if madeleine is alive or dead. Scotland yard have stated that they belive Madeleine was taken in a criminal act by a stranger. Of course Bennett is now bad mouthing Scotland yard claiming they are part of a cover up and inept.

REPLY: So how come Martin Grime is paid high fees by the F.B.I. to train police dog handlers in the U.S. and gives evidence on his cadaver dogs in several countries?

TB again IS THERE ANYTHING IN THE PJ FILES TO SUPPORT BENNETT?

Can any of Bennett's supports actually provide evidence to anything in the PJ files that concludes the McCanns are guilty of anything, or that supports Bennett's claims?

Nellie THE OFFICIAL FILES ARE NOT AVAILABLE: TRANSLARIONS OF THEM ON THE NET ARE MISLEADING

The Official Files are not available on The Internet. What is available is badly translated and misleading.

Kit ATTENTION-SEEKER

I cannot believe that the Harlow Star is giving this man any print space. He is an attention seeker nothing more. Look at his past.

REPLY: I suspect that Michael Barrymore, arrested on suspicion of murder in 2007 after my book on the Stuart Lubbock case, would grudgingly accept that my work on that case was more than attention-seeking.

Bill THE MCCANNS DID NOT REFUSE TO TAKE PART IN A RECONSTRUCTION

The very fact that Bennett's supporters are repeating falsehoods about the McCanns, and implying the McCanns must therefore be implicated does rather prove Carter-Ruck's point about the damage he has done. I wonder if they will use these comments as evidence against him. The latest falsehood that is repeated here - that the McCanns refused to take part in a reconstruction!

REPLY: Yes they did, and so did all of their ‘Tapas 7’friends. Look at the e-mails sent by them to Detective Superintendent Stuart Prior of Leicestershire Police in the spring of 2008. You can read them all on the net, along with their rambling reasons for refusing.

Hn ORGANISED TWITTER RESPONSES

Bennett has been telling his supporters to send in comments. These are not spontaneous, they have been organised on twitter and the forum which supports him.

Maxine Louis PROPAGANDA

Tony Bennett has spent the last 5+ years spreading inaccurate and malicious anti McCann propaganda on the net and, even worse, via leaflets shoved through letterboxes in the McCanns' own immediate neighbourhood.

REPLY: As a matter of record, I have never delivered a single leaflet in Rothley.

James BENNETT’S MISREPRESNTATIONS

http://bit.ly/rkB9xG][url=http://bit.ly/rkB9xG]http://bit.ly/rkB9xG]http://bit.ly/rkB9xG]http://bit.ly/rkB9xG[/url] The above site looks at Bennetts claims and has used primary sources to expose his claims as lies or misrepresentations. . I also note that some of the comments on here are from the same names as many on a pro-bennett site that regulary makes fun of missing girls. One poster on here wrote a monty python style sketch making fun of the April Jones abduction![/size]

REPLY: I don’t know a thing about the ‘Monty Python’ sketch, nor where any such thing was posted.

Phyl Saffer UTTER IDIOT

This man is a complete and utter idiot. On what does his base these allegations? Kate McCann has suffered enough - this man should get a life.

Mike READ BENNETT’S SONGS

The Harlow star really shoudl look at Bennetts past and the vile material he writes, not just about Madeleine, but other people. I am sure he woudl nto be online boasting about the story then if everyone in the country read the songs he has rewritten about Madeleine.

REPLY: The songs and some limericks, some of them satirical, are never disrespectful to Madeleine. Unfortunately, some aspects of this case lend themselves to satire.

This is getting sad and ridiculous now. It's ironic that the supporters of the McCanns are now largely doing what they're accusing Tony Bennett of - vindictively pursuing and harassing him whenever possible. The comments published above show just how entrenched BOTH sides of the fence have now gotten with repeated half truths and popular mainstay argument points from both sides (dogs, mistranslations, no evidence of a crime, Scotland Yard believe it's an abduction, refusal to attend reconstructions (without refreshing my memory and I stand to be corrected but I think the McCanns couldn't refuse as they were arguidos at the time and it was the friends that *seemed* to collude to refuse to attend thus rendering the reconstruction unfeasible), TB's "attention seeking" and making profit from the booklets... it goes on) just being endlessly regurgitated. This is all that twitter has become now with endless screeching from both sides in an attempt to recruit anyone without a declared allegiance.

I find it immensely frustrating to see either side engaging in simply regurgitating "facts" because it's the popular belief on whichever forum they inhabit and it's equally frustrating (even ridiculous) that people are unable to take a position whereby they comprehend that there is no way any reasonable person can declare with certainty what happened and who did or didn't do what. Anyone that declares themselves 100% convinced on either side of the Abduction/Cover up seesaw is a fool. People currently stating that the McCanns are without doubt complicit in the disappearance of their daughter are as dumb as those that claim that they are obviously not involved - there are simply too many unknown factors to be able to take up either stance with certitude.

That leaves us with doubt - however small - on either side of the argument and where there is doubt there can be debate. As long as that debate doesn't descend into outright accusation then it should be allowed. Tony Bennett is simply attempting to defend his right to question the McCann's version of the truth as there are many loose ends or questionable actions in the various files that have been released (and do stop with the "they're not the right files" bollocks, that just shows you up for the fools you are when you say that) even if just to do with simple discrepancies of timing with Kate McCann's book and the official creche record timings or quite why someone in such circumstances would delete messages and call records from their phone (or allow someone else to do so). Ignoring such factual discrepancies doesn't mean that the questions have been dealt with and that's why the questions persist. Kate McCann, for example, had an opportunity in her book, now free of Arguida status, to clarify once and for all just how she "instantly knew" that Madeleine had been abducted instead of having woken and wandered and yet she didn't.

On the other side of the fence, no - it's not confirmed that the dogs found Madeleine's DNA in the car, yes - the shutters CAN be opened from the outside, no - the dog findings are not incontrovertible - they can make mistakes and just because they've been right before (even if they have been right every time, which has not been proven) doesn't necessarily mean they are right this time, yes - it's feasible that a confused and panicking group of friends can make honest mistakes in timing that can look suspicious when subjected to analysis and so on.

I personally doubt the version of events put forward by the McCanns and their friends. I don't have to believe what they say any more than I have to believe all that Amaral says. I've read lots and lots about this case and have chosen to question the McCann's story. Doesn't mean I think they're child killers (although I do doubt their parenting skills - once again that's simply based on my own personal values and others are free to believe that what they did *was* "within the bounds of reasonable parenting) and it doesn't mean I'm free to call them liars at this point (even though, again, my personal opinion is that they haven't been entirely open and honest about what happened that night for whatever reason).

Finally I feel it's important that Tony Bennett gets the opportunity to explain why his were "fair comments" by referring to the official police files. I am at a loss to understand why the McCanns would not want to have a full libel trial in order that they may publicly demonstrate what they and their supporters claim to be misrepresentations and inaccuracies in what Tony Bennett is claiming. If, as the McCanns claim, Carter-Ruck are acting without payment, what have they got to lose? It is not in any way, shape or form damning evidence of their guilt/dishonesty/deception but it is yet another in the ever-growing list of minor things that make many people wonder why they are taking a certain course of action.

You deserve a medal for trying to reason with these people Tony as it would be more beneficial talking to a wall.

C.Edwards wrote:This is getting sad and ridiculous now. It's ironic that the supporters of the McCanns are now largely doing what they're accusing Tony Bennett of - vindictively pursuing and harassing him whenever possible. The comments published above show just how entrenched BOTH sides of the fence have now gotten with repeated half truths and popular mainstay argument points from both sides (dogs, mistranslations, no evidence of a crime, Scotland Yard believe it's an abduction, refusal to attend reconstructions (without refreshing my memory and I stand to be corrected but I think the McCanns couldn't refuse as they were arguidos at the time and it was the friends that *seemed* to collude to refuse to attend thus rendering the reconstruction unfeasible), TB's "attention seeking" and making profit from the booklets... it goes on) just being endlessly regurgitated. This is all that twitter has become now with endless screeching from both sides in an attempt to recruit anyone without a declared allegiance.

I find it immensely frustrating to see either side engaging in simply regurgitating "facts" because it's the popular belief on whichever forum they inhabit and it's equally frustrating (even ridiculous) that people are unable to take a position whereby they comprehend that there is no way any reasonable person can declare with certainty what happened and who did or didn't do what. Anyone that declares themselves 100% convinced on either side of the Abduction/Cover up seesaw is a fool. People currently stating that the McCanns are without doubt complicit in the disappearance of their daughter are as dumb as those that claim that they are obviously not involved - there are simply too many unknown factors to be able to take up either stance with certitude.

That leaves us with doubt - however small - on either side of the argument and where there is doubt there can be debate. As long as that debate doesn't descend into outright accusation then it should be allowed. Tony Bennett is simply attempting to defend his right to question the McCann's version of the truth as there are many loose ends or questionable actions in the various files that have been released (and do stop with the "they're not the right files" bollocks, that just shows you up for the fools you are when you say that) even if just to do with simple discrepancies of timing with Kate McCann's book and the official creche record timings or quite why someone in such circumstances would delete messages and call records from their phone (or allow someone else to do so). Ignoring such factual discrepancies doesn't mean that the questions have been dealt with and that's why the questions persist. Kate McCann, for example, had an opportunity in her book, now free of Arguida status, to clarify once and for all just how she "instantly knew" that Madeleine had been abducted instead of having woken and wandered and yet she didn't.

On the other side of the fence, no - it's not confirmed that the dogs found Madeleine's DNA in the car, yes - the shutters CAN be opened from the outside, no - the dog findings are not incontrovertible - they can make mistakes and just because they've been right before (even if they have been right every time, which has not been proven) doesn't necessarily mean they are right this time, yes - it's feasible that a confused and panicking group of friends can make honest mistakes in timing that can look suspicious when subjected to analysis and so on.

I personally doubt the version of events put forward by the McCanns and their friends. I don't have to believe what they say any more than I have to believe all that Amaral says. I've read lots and lots about this case and have chosen to question the McCann's story. Doesn't mean I think they're child killers (although I do doubt their parenting skills - once again that's simply based on my own personal values and others are free to believe that what they did *was* "within the bounds of reasonable parenting) and it doesn't mean I'm free to call them liars at this point (even though, again, my personal opinion is that they haven't been entirely open and honest about what happened that night for whatever reason).

Finally I feel it's important that Tony Bennett gets the opportunity to explain why his were "fair comments" by referring to the official police files. I am at a loss to understand why the McCanns would not want to have a full libel trial in order that they may publicly demonstrate what they and their supporters claim to be misrepresentations and inaccuracies in what Tony Bennett is claiming. If, as the McCanns claim, Carter-Ruck are acting without payment, what have they got to lose? It is not in any way, shape or form damning evidence of their guilt/dishonesty/deception but it is yet another in the ever-growing list of minor things that make many people wonder why they are taking a certain course of action.

Good points, well made!

Jean wrote:You deserve a medal for trying to reason with these people Tony as it would be more beneficial talking to a wall.

Both sides make the same comment- each side is talking only to itself. No light and much Heat is produced.

Looking from outside and without bias it is possible to see that both sets of sites are full of misconceptions and myths and both have their share of personal unpleasantness- there is nothing to choose between them.

Each side sees the other as the Dark Side and fails totally to communicate with the other.

Waste of perfectly good electrons. Fit only for amusement value.

PauliPevsner wrote:

Jean wrote:You deserve a medal for trying to reason with these people Tony as it would be more beneficial talking to a wall.

Both sides make the same comment- each side is talking only to itself. No light and much Heat is produced.

Looking from outside and without bias it is possible to see that both sets of sites are full of misconceptions and myths and both have their share of personal unpleasantness- there is nothing to choose between them.

Each side sees the other as the Dark Side and fails totally to communicate with the other.

Waste of perfectly good electrons. Fit only for amusement value.

Well, you certainly seem to be seeking, and in need of, 'amusement'. Are you offering the same advice to the 'other' Dark Side when you 'look in from the outside' over there? What point are you actually trying to make?

Fit only for amusement value eh? Well I suggest you go and amuse yourself elsewhere - perhaps the forum you came from. None of us here find the disappearance of a child amusing, we want the case solved and justice for Madeleine. You seem to know an awful lot about this case considering you say leave it to the police, you also seem to know an awful lot about the 'other' forums. No matter how hard you try to disrupt, this forum is getting bigger by the day, with hundreds reading here every day, not quite like that is it with the 'other' forums. Wonder why?

Of all god damn things people could say about a lost child. Amusing?

candyfloss wrote:Fit only for amusement value eh? Well I suggest you go and amuse yourself elsewhere - perhaps the forum you came from. None of us here find the disappearance of a child amusing, we want the case solved and justice for Madeleine. You seem to know an awful lot about this case considering you say leave it to the police, you also seem to know an awful lot about the 'other' forums. No matter how hard you try to disrupt, this forum is getting bigger by the day, with hundreds reading here every day, not quite like that is it with the 'other' forums. Wonder why?

I don't find the disappearance 'amusing', but an honest outside observer of these forums would see people engaging in getting amusement out of forum wars, my post's better than yours and other efforts to 'amuse' themselves.

We have an adequate police service in Portugal and in the UK. Posting on a forum for years is a sign of a wasted life as no internet forum has ever changed the real world. Hence posting here persistently is just diversion and amusement for people with nothing better to do. It is not big and it is not clever.

RS5 wrote:

PauliPevsner wrote:

Jean wrote:You deserve a medal for trying to reason with these people Tony as it would be more beneficial talking to a wall.

Both sides make the same comment- each side is talking only to itself. No light and much Heat is produced.

Looking from outside and without bias it is possible to see that both sets of sites are full of misconceptions and myths and both have their share of personal unpleasantness- there is nothing to choose between them.

Each side sees the other as the Dark Side and fails totally to communicate with the other.

Waste of perfectly good electrons. Fit only for amusement value.

Well, you certainly seem to be seeking, and in need of, 'amusement'. Are you offering the same advice to the 'other' Dark Side when you 'look in from the outside' over there? What point are you actually trying to make?

My most recent foray into the Pro sites got me banned for making exactly these points.

PauliPevsner wrote:

candyfloss wrote:Fit only for amusement value eh? Well I suggest you go and amuse yourself elsewhere - perhaps the forum you came from. None of us here find the disappearance of a child amusing, we want the case solved and justice for Madeleine. You seem to know an awful lot about this case considering you say leave it to the police, you also seem to know an awful lot about the 'other' forums. No matter how hard you try to disrupt, this forum is getting bigger by the day, with hundreds reading here every day, not quite like that is it with the 'other' forums. Wonder why?

I don't find the disappearance 'amusing', but an honest outside observer of these forums would see people engaging in getting amusement out of forum wars, my post's better than yours and other efforts to 'amuse' themselves.

We have an adequate police service in Portugal and in the UK. Posting on a forum for years is a sign of a wasted life as no internet forum has ever changed the real world. Hence posting here persistently is just diversion and amusement for people with nothing better to do. It is not big and it is not clever.

Then I suggest you stop reading here and posting here, after all you are wasting your time and your life!

Whoa... hold on to the attack dogs for a minute. You *could* interpret PauliPevsner's "amusement" comment (as I do) that the amusement comes from the performance of those on the forums, not the subject of the discussion itself which, pretty obviously, is no cause for amusement so some high horses need to be climbed off here.

This is another trait of forums on both sides. Post something that isn't canon for the location and you very quickly get suspected of being "one of them". There are those of us that would quite happily debate on both sides of the fence but sadly there are no forums where that can happen and you very quickly get jumped on for holding a contrary opinion. As appears to have happened to PauliPevsner here, to be honest.

edit: ah, looks like the discussion moved on whilst I was posting...

He or she might have a point, Candy, to be fair - if they mean Twitter in particular. There is an awful lot of repetitive and counterproductive messaging that goes on there.

But it's not Mr Bennett doing it, so if that's what Pauli means it's not fair to use it as a criticism of Tony, or this forum, I think.

PauliPevsner wrote:Posting on a forum for years is a sign of a wasted life as no internet forum has ever changed the real world. Hence posting here persistently is just diversion and amusement for people with nothing better to do. It is not big and it is not clever.

Hmm. I was standing up for you, but that's a sweeping generalisation that is bollocks. It's perfectly possible to have reasoned debate (even if others don't see it that way) without feeling that you're trying to change the "real world" as you put it. There are many elderly and housebound people that have nothing other than forums for company and debate, so I think you need a bit of a rethink there.

PauliPevsner wrote:

candyfloss wrote:Fit only for amusement value eh? Well I suggest you go and amuse yourself elsewhere - perhaps the forum you came from. None of us here find the disappearance of a child amusing, we want the case solved and justice for Madeleine. You seem to know an awful lot about this case considering you say leave it to the police, you also seem to know an awful lot about the 'other' forums. No matter how hard you try to disrupt, this forum is getting bigger by the day, with hundreds reading here every day, not quite like that is it with the 'other' forums. Wonder why?

I don't find the disappearance 'amusing', but an honest outside observer of these forums would see people engaging in getting amusement out of forum wars, my post's better than yours and other efforts to 'amuse' themselves.

We have an adequate police service in Portugal and in the UK. Posting on a forum for years is a sign of a wasted life as no internet forum has ever changed the real world. Hence posting here persistently is just diversion and amusement for people with nothing better to do. It is not big and it is not clever.

Adequate police services, but shockingly poor print and broadcast journalists. I think that's why a lot of people are here

candyfloss wrote:

PauliPevsner wrote:

candyfloss wrote:Fit only for amusement value eh? Well I suggest you go and amuse yourself elsewhere - perhaps the forum you came from. None of us here find the disappearance of a child amusing, we want the case solved and justice for Madeleine. You seem to know an awful lot about this case considering you say leave it to the police, you also seem to know an awful lot about the 'other' forums. No matter how hard you try to disrupt, this forum is getting bigger by the day, with hundreds reading here every day, not quite like that is it with the 'other' forums. Wonder why?

I don't find the disappearance 'amusing', but an honest outside observer of these forums would see people engaging in getting amusement out of forum wars, my post's better than yours and other efforts to 'amuse' themselves.

We have an adequate police service in Portugal and in the UK. Posting on a forum for years is a sign of a wasted life as no internet forum has ever changed the real world. Hence posting here persistently is just diversion and amusement for people with nothing better to do. It is not big and it is not clever.

Then I suggest you stop reading here and posting here, after all you are wasting your time and your life!

My post count 10.

Your post count 9297

Hmmm, don't think I had made 10 posts in the first hour of joining. For someone so not interested that's quite an achievment.

candyfloss wrote:Hmmm, don't think I had made 10 posts in the first hour of joining. For someone so not interested that's quite an achievment.

Well said. I must have posted around 10000 comments on this case over the last 5 and a half years. That would be less than 5 per day. Hardly wasting my life then. Posters on the Amazon forum are busier, and they still have the time to buy books and review them too...

Welcome RS5, oops thats another post.Over 2000 posts alone welcoming new members

candyfloss wrote:Welcome RS5, oops thats another post.Over 2000 posts alone welcoming new members

Thank you. Another post welcoming a new member. Yet another wasted moment in your life

The current attacks on Tony Bennett are interesting. I have the whole weekend to mull over them.

RS5 wrote:

candyfloss wrote:Welcome RS5, oops thats another post.Over 2000 posts alone welcoming new members

Thank you. Another post welcoming a new member. Yet another wasted moment in your life

The current attacks on Tony Bennett are interesting. I have the whole weekend to mull over them.

No welcome is ever wasted. If you take time to read the evidence & understand it in the McCann case then you we see what we are talking about.

IMO K & G are not "proven innocent" of anything not least neglect. Anyway Welcome to our forum. Madeleine needs the truth & nothing less. Just my thoughts though.

Actually I went on to state (on Harlow Star website) that they should do an exposay on the McCanns Ltd Co "fund" & where donated money was spent - bearing in mind family were entitled to "financial assistance" that seems to have been whooshed. Still part of my comments were approved - that is something.

They can't be proved to be innocent until it is known what happened to Madeleine. Until that happens I can't see how anyone involved that night can be said to be wholly innocent - especially of neglect.

aniandr wrote:Of all god damn things people could say about a lost child. Amusing?

Didn't Clarence Mitchell use that word when talking about a cast list for a film ?

I believe that Clarence was referring to the assembled media scrum when he said that "you" (meaning them) might find it amusing to think up a cast list but that there were no plans for a film.

PeterMac wrote:

aniandr wrote:Of all god damn things people could say about a lost child. Amusing?

Didn't Clarence Mitchell use that word when talking about a cast list for a film ?

Here's our collection of 'Issues of Concern' about Clarence Mitchell, published in our 6-page leaflet: "Clarence Mitchell: A MASTER MEDIA MANIPULATOR". Mitchell has publicly pronounced this leaflet 'libellous', but has never sued me on its contents, the only member of 'The McCann Team Big Five' who has not (so far) sued me. The quotes you're referring to are in blue at Item 15:



21 Issues of Concern

Here we examine 21 of the many issues that have caused people concern about Mitchell’s role in the Madeleine McCann case. At the end of our leaflet we explain how to obtain more information on the Madeleine McCann case, including our 60-page booklet: ‘What Really Happened to Madeleine McCann? - 60 Reasons which suggest she was not abducted’.

1. Allegedly being involved in tipping off the McCanns that the Portuguese police had been, or were going to, track their e-mails and ’phone calls

There were sell-sourced reports that the McCanns were tipped off that the Portuguese police were monitoring their e-mails and ’phone calls. There was naturally concern over how this information leaked to them. A former Portuguese police officer has admitted working for the Spanish private detective agency, Metodo 3. He in turn had an inside contact in the Portuguese police who supplied Metodo 3 with information about the investigation. Clarence Mitchell was asked in an interview by Simon Israel on Channel 4 how the McCanns were tipped off. He refused to answer.

2. Being forced to deny the McCanns’ initial claim of a break-in

On the evening that Madeleine was reported missing, the McCanns claimed in ’phone calls to their relatives that an abductor had broken into the children’s room by ‘jemmying open the shutters’. This claim was reported extensively in the media. But the managers of the Mark Warners resort where the McCanns were staying, and the police, soon discovered that the shutters had not been tampered with. This forced the McCanns to dramatically change their story - one of many changes of story - to say: ‘The abductor must have walked in through an unlocked patio door”. Asked about this discrepancy, Mitchell was forced to concede on the record: “There was no evidence of a break-in. I'm not going into the detail, but I can say that Kate and Gerry are firmly of the view that somebody got into the apartment and took Madeleine out the window as their means of escape. To do that they did not necessarily have to tamper with anything. They got out of the window fairly easily”. It is however most unlikley that an abductor could have ‘got out of the window easily,’ leaving no forensic trace. The window in question was just over 2ft square and was 3ft above the ground. It was dark at the time the McCanns say Madeleine disappeared. For an abductor to have taken Madeleine through such a window, in the dark, without being seen or heard by anoyne (except the McCanns’ friend Jane Tanner), and without leaving any forensic trace, is highly unlikely.

3. Smearing Robert Murat

A curious feature of the Madeleine case was the targeting of Robert Murat, a dual Portuguese-British citizen, as a suspect. A journalist who had previously worked closely with Clarence Mitchell, Lori Campbell, suspected Murat of involvement in Madeleine’s disappearance and reported him to the Police. It is very likely that this followed conversations between Mitchell and her. Three of the McCanns’ close friends, the so-called ‘Tapas 7’, also reported seeing Robert Murat close to the McCanns’ apartment the evening Madeleine went missing, a claim he denied. The McCann camp made a concerted attempt, for whatever reason, to smear Murat. Clarence Mitchell himself played a key role in this: He told one newspaper:

“An outcome similar to Holly and Jessica [Soham children murdered by Ian Huntley] is possible. I don't want to, and I can't, talk about Robert Murat, but some journalists who worked with me in Soham, and that were now in Portugal, saw resemblances between that case and Robert Murat. And I won't say more”. He was very lucky that Murat did not sue him for libel, since in 2008 Robert Murat collected a reported £600,000 in libel damages from news media and journalists whom he claimed had smeared and libelled him.

4. Being forced to retract his claim that ‘Madeleine is probably dead’

During early 2008, Clarence Mitchell was forced to concede that ‘Madeleine is probably dead’. This caused grave embarrassment for the McCanns, who were determined publicly to maintain that Madeleine was still alive. His statement could also have had serious implications for the Helping to Find Madeleine Fund, which could only continue to operate and keep asking for donations on the premise that Madeleine was still alive. Dr Gerald McCann was forced to publicly rebuke his PR chief by insisting on his blog two days later that they remained hopeful that Madeleine was still alive.

5. Failing to explain that the ‘Helping to Find Madeleine Fund’ was not a charity

Interviewed by James Whale, Mitchell repeatedly refused to correct Whale when he referred to the McCanns’ fund as a ‘charity’. In fact, the Helping to Find Madeleine Fund is registered as a ‘private trust’; its aims are not charitable and include making payments to the McCanns. It only has to make annual returns to Companies House. Beyond that, the Trust is not accountable to anyone.

6. Asking people to send money in envelopes to ‘Gerry and Kate, Rothley’

Asked on the same James Whale show how people could contribute to the fund, Mitchell said: “Just put money into an envelope and send to Kate and Gerry McCann, Rothley, it’ll get there”. That was unprofessional - monies should have been directed to the registered office for the Fund, namely London Solicitors Bates, Wells & Braithwaite. For example, monies sent in the post could be stolen en route or would not be properly accounted for.

7. Claiming that the Fund was ‘independently controlled’

Pressed about control of the ‘Helping to Find Madeleine Fund’, Clarence Mitchell claimed that the Fund was ‘independently controlled’. This is untrue. The Trust’s Directors consist mainly of members of the McCann family and their friends or acquaintances.

8. Retreating on whether or not the McCanns would take a lie detector test

The McCanns were anxious to convince the world that they were telling the truth about how Madeleine had suddenly gone missing. To bolster their claim, Clarence Mitchell announced: “Kate and Gerry McCann would have no issue with taking a lie detector test”. However, two months later, after a number of lie detector experts came forward to offer their services, he announced: "Of course they are not going to take any lie detector test”.

9. Making a film for TV about the McCanns’ distress ‘one year on’ whilst at the same time claiming the McCanns were not doing so

Clarence Mitchell told the media: “The McCanns don't want to do anything about 'woe is us a year on'. That is what the tabloids would like us to do, but we are not following their agenda, we are following our own agenda” (one of many references to ‘our agenda’). Weeks later, there was a two-hour long pre-recorded TV interview: ‘Madeleine McCann - One Year On’, clearly prepared long before his public statement, and certainly with his personal knowledge. And the programme was very much: “Woe is us a year on”.

10. Issuing a ‘Crimewatch’-style video clip with a description of an abductor

It has always been the McCanns who have given out descriptions of a possible abductor. The Portuguese police from early on doubted the truthfulness of claims by Jane Tanner, one of the McCanns’ ‘Tapas 7’ friends, that she had seen an abductor. In early 2008, Clarence Mitchell announced that the McCann team were looking for a moustachioed man seen in Praia da Luz around the time Madeleine went missing. He did this in a widely-shown video clip in which he acted like a Crimewatch presenter. At a meeting at the London School of Economics on 30 January 2008, this performance, plus his commanding stance and choice of words, prompted one member of the LSE audience to ask: “Are you the police?” There was much laughter.

11. Claiming that “…whatever the Portuguese police might find in their investigation, the McCanns will have an innocent explanation for it”

To this bizarre statement, Mitchell added the equally strange comment: “There are wholly innocent explanations for any material that the police may or may not have found”, prompting many to ask: “How could the McCanns and Clarence Mitchell know in advance what the police might find and know that there would be ‘an innocent explanation’ for everything?

12. Claiming it didn’t matter if Dr Kate McCann changed her clothes on 3 May

One of the key issues in the Madeleine McCann case is whether the McCanns and their ‘Tapas 7’ friends have been telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth about the events of 3 May 2007, the day Madeleine was reported missing. In late 2008, a French journalist, Duarte Levy, claimed to have seen photos taken that evening conclusively proving that Dr Kate McCann had left the table during the evening and changed her clothes. That would blow a hole in her claim that she was at the Tapas bar the whole evening. She would have had to explain why she changed her clothes. Mitchell’s official response to these claims was: “So what if she did leave the table and change her clothes?” He refused to elaborate.

13. Saying that ‘none of the Tapas group’ were wearing watches the night Madeleine went missing - and then being forced to retract that statement

Clarence Mitchell had come under pressure from journalists to explain why there were so many significant contradictions between the McCanns’ and the Tapas 7’s versions of events on 3 May 2007, when Madeleine ‘disappeared’. There were also many discrepancies in their timelines. Mitchell tried to explain, responding: “None of them were wearing watches or had mobile phones on them that night”.

Those journalists then confronted him with the sheer unlikelihood that all nine had neither watch nor mobile ’phone, pointed out that the McCanns and others had used their mobile ’phones that night, and produced pictures of the McCanns and their Tapas 7 friends taken in Praia da Luz that week which showed that they were always wearing watches.

Clarence Mitchell was forced into an embarrassing retreat, conceding: “Some of them were wearing watches and had mobile ’phones, some of them weren’t”. It is also now known from the McCanns’ statements to the police, which have been publicly released, that the McCanns both had mobile ’phones with them that evening. As their official spokesman, Mitchell must surely have been briefed on this before he made his statement.

14. Falsely claiming that the McCanns had been ‘utterly honest and utterly open’

On 11 April 2008, Clarence Mitchell made this bold claim: “Kate and Gerry have been utterly honest and utterly open with the police and all of their statements from the moment that Madeleine was taken”. He later said, referring to himself and the McCanns: ‘We have nothing to hide’. When addressing a largely student audience during what were called ‘The Coventry Conversations’, Mitchell said: “We are always willing to co-operate with the Portuguese police”. These were bold claims to make given that…

Dr Kate McCann was asked 48 questions by the Portuguese police when interviewed on 7 September 2007 and refused to answer any of them.

• The McCanns had refused point blank to take part in a reconstruction of the events of 3 May 2007, the night Madeleine McCann was reported missing.
  
• The McCanns’ statements contained numerous changes of story, contradictions with the accounts of others, evasions and apparent obfuscations.
  

15. Claiming it would be ‘hugely entertaining’ to devise a cast list for a proposed film about Madeleine going missing

On 7 January 2008 it was widely reported in the media that the McCanns and their advisers were in talks with media and film moguls IMG, who made the film ‘Touching the Void’, about a possible film about Madeleine’s disappearance. Clarence Mitchell was asked whether Gerry and Kate would play themselves in any film or if their roles would be played by celebrity actors. He said: “It may be hugely entertaining and a bit of fun to speculate on a cast list, but we are a million miles away from that sort of thing”. On another occasion, he said of Madeleine: “If she is dead, she is dead”. These and other comments made some wonder how much ‘feel’ or concern for Madeleine’s welfare and fate Mitchell really had.

16. Claiming it was a British cultural custom for parents to put children to bed early so they could enjoy the rest of the evening

Interviewed by Irish TV station RTE, Clarence Mitchell tried to explain why the McCanns left three young children under four on their own, several nights in a row, whilst on holiday, and dining out for the evening. He told his TV audience: “There is a cultural difference between Britain and Portugal. It is a British approach to get your children washed, bathed and in bed early in the evening, if you can, so you can have something of the evening to yourself. That’s the British way of doing things. It doesn't mean it's wrong. It doesn't mean it's right”. Many British parents objected strongly to Mitchell’s description of them..

17. Trying to deny that the McCanns had left the children alone every night

In an interview with Jon Gaunt of TalkSport, Clarence Mitchell was trying to explain why the McCanns had left their children alone ‘that night’ (i.e. the night of 3 May when Madeleine was reported missing). He was quickly corrected by Gaunt who reminded him: ‘But they left them alone every night’. Mitchell had no answer.

18. Blaming Romany gypsies for abducting Madeleine

Clarence Mitchell on one occasion pointed the finger of suspicion at Romany gypsies for having abducted Madeleine. It appeared he had no basis whatsoever for smearing this group of people. He has never apologised for making it.

19. Using an image of Mari Luz without her parents’ permission

Months after Madeleine went missing, another child, Mari Luz, went missing, though in very different circumstances. Sadly she has since been found dead. The McCanns printed posters of Madeleine together with Mari Luz - without gaining the parents’ prior permission. Her parents were very upset, and complained. Clarence Mitchell reacted by stating: “It’s a shame that they are complaining about us in a press release. How can they be angry with is for wanting to help when all we’re trying to do is find their own daughter?”

20. Being ‘encouraged’ that Madeleine ‘may have been abducted by paedophiles’

In early 2008, stories were put about by an unknown Portuguese lawyer, Marcos Alexandre Aragao Correia, that Madeleine McCann had been abducted by paedophiles, raped, murdered and her body dumped in a dammed lake. At the time, a new drawing of a possible abductor was released, and part of the Arade Dam was searched. A friend of the McCanns was quoted as saying: “We fear that a group of two or three paedophiles may have been fishing around the apartments, casing them with a view to taking children".

Mitchell then commented:

“Developments such as this give Mr and Mrs McCann renewed hope. That is exactly the sort of call we want. We think the image is of such a quality that anyone who knows him will be able to identify him. Kate and Gerry are quite buoyant at the moment - every time we do something like this and move things forward it gives them strength. We’re very encouraged by this - putting all this information out, these images out, is helping Gerry and Kate in one way; simply by doing it we have got some momentum and are pushing the agenda forward on our side of the equation”.

Many asked why Mitchell and the McCanns could use such words as ‘buoyant’ and ‘encouraged’ in relation to Madeleine’s having possibly been raped and murdered by paedophiles.

And his use of the word ‘agenda’, yet again, once more prompted the question: What was their ‘agenda’?

21. Explaining why the McCanns deliberately left their three children alone again the night after Madeleine and Sean had been crying the night before

On SKY News, Clarence Mitchell was interviewed, following a pre-recorded interview with the McCanns in which they admitted, for the first time, that two of their children had been crying on the night before Madeleine went missing. There was public outrage that the McCanns were told by their children that they had been crying the previous night whilst they were dining out, only to then leave them alone again the very next night. The SKY News presenter asked: “Why did Kate and Gerry choose to leave the children the same way the very next night?” Clarence Mitchell’s reply is instructive. Here it is in full:

“That is one interpretation. Let me put it in context. On the morning of May the 3^rd, the day Madeleine later went missing, she came out, and said to Gerry and Kate at breakfast, very briefly as an aside, in no way was she unhappy or crying and then, in no way was she reprimanding her parents as some reports papers have wrongly, er, said. She simply said: “Why didn’t you come see - come and see me and Sean when we were crying, last night?”, and Kate and Gerry were puzzled by that, because in their checks - they had been checking her every 25/30 minutes, the same as they did the next night, when she went missing - they had found nothing to suggest that she was in any way distressed or upset, they found her asleep each time.

“There was nothing wrong. Rachel Oldfield, one of their friends, was in the apartment next door, in the room adjacent to Madeleine’s bedroom. She too was there all evening and heard no crying through the walls. There was nothing to suggest this had happened. So it was a puzzle to Kate and Gerry when Madeleine mentioned it. They tried to question her about it, and she just walked off laughing, and, er, happy, she was [note the past tense] a child and she and, and so, so she dropped it. Now they of course had a serious discussion about what had possibly gone wrong and they decided to check her more thoroughly that next night, and that’s what they did. And in the context of ‘leak’ came from a Spanish journalist known to be very sympathetic to the McCanns].

“What happened later - her disappearance - they felt that that conversation, puzzling as it was, was very important to bring to the police’s attention. They wonder why, if she cried, why she cried. Was something, or someone already in that room to make her cry and they fledwhen she cried? Who knows? They can’t prove that, but they told the police in confidence - legally protected documentation has been in those files for 11 months - and whydoes it appear on the very day they were at the European Parliament? Somebody in the police doesn’t want Kate and Gerry to widen the agenda [that word again!], for whatever reason. It’s wrong. It’s illegal, and the Portuguese government needs to stop this…from happening in the future”

During this long reply, we see the master media manipulator at work.

He makes light of two children crying while their parents were not with them.

He justifies the McCanns’ decision to go out dining with their friends and leaving all three children alone again the very night after the children told them of their crying.

He claims, without evidence, that the police leaked the story about the McCanns’ children crying on their own the night before.

He claims the police have done something illegal.

Some might admire him as a master of his craft, and indeed one writer has already said that the McCanns’ public relations campaign will for years to come be ‘a textbook example of how to control the media and manipulate public opinion’.

But, we may ask, if this is true, whose interests has Clarence Mitchell been serving? Is he someone who is genuinely helping us get to the truth?

Or is it just possible that this person who once boasted that his job was ‘to control what comes out in the media’ is someone who does his best to stop us getting to the truth?


MORE INFORMATION

Coming soon: “The Madeleine McCann Case Files Volume 1”, published by the Madeleine Foundation, available from the Madeleine Foundation, price £3.00 including postage. This is a collection of eight of the most important documents about the disappearance of Madeleine McCann which the Portuguese Police have now released for the public to view, and will give readers valuable insights into what really happened to Madeleine McCann.

There’s also a wealth of information about the McCann case at other sites, we’d recommend in particular:


· www.mccannfiles.com

· www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk

· www.jillhavern.forumotion.net

· http://themaddiecasefiles.com/

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Published by The Madeleine Foundation, January 2010

Re the film: McCannfiles (for more google IMG Maddie on McC files)
The announcement on 08 January 2008 that the McCanns planned to sanction a film based on Madeleine's disappearance caused instant uproar and revulsion.

Such was the backlash that Gerry was forced to write a rare blog in a vain attempt to try and reverse the tide of public opinion. He now insisted that they were not considering a film but a documentary, along the lines of those already produced by the BBC, Channel 4 and Sky News. However, first reports of the project clearly indicate that it was a film or TV drama that was planned.

GMTV stated in its report on 08 January 2008 that the project had initially been discussed in mid-December. At that meeting, comprising Clarence Mitchell, a representative of the McCanns and an unidentified person from the film agency IMG, they apparently discussed the possibility of a film or TV drama based around Madeleine's disappearance.

We need to clarify here that IMG is the world's largest entertainment agency. It is not the world's largest documentary agency. They are in the business of producing entertainment and if the McCanns wanted a boots and braces documentary, as they now insist, then surely IMG was not the right agency for them and the project should have been dismissed out of hand.
unquote

Thank you Tony and Tigger for the clarification or should that be clarence-ification.

what do you get when you have a block of lard in one hand and CM with his magic PR wand in the other?

Ghee - Clarified butter.