The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™
Welcome to 'The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann' forum 🌹

Please log in, or register to view all the forums as some of them are 'members only', then settle in and help us get to the truth about what really happened to Madeleine Beth McCann.

When you register please do NOT use your email address for a username because everyone will be able to see it!

A misunderstanding by t4two Mm11

A misunderstanding by t4two Regist10

A misunderstanding by t4two

View previous topic View next topic Go down

A misunderstanding by t4two Empty A misunderstanding by t4two

Post by Tony Bennett on 03.11.12 8:44

This posting by t4two has appeared in another place (MM):


Mr Justice Tugendhat underlined the vital importance of court orders and undertakings being obeyed and directed that the couple’s case against Mr Bennett should be heard "as soon as practicable".

The case is not about whether the McCanns are guilty of concealing a cadaver and simulating an abduction - it is about whether Mr Bennet has breached undertakings given to the court that he would desist from publicly making certain allegations in this respect. I fear that as far as the court is concerned, the question of whether Mr. Bennett's suspicions about the McCanns are well founded or whether the undertakings were given under duress will be of little interest and that it is actually more important from their point of view that they set an example here irrespective of the background as to why the court was allegedly not obeyed.


It seems pretty obvious that t4two has not read the Tugendhat judgment. If he had done, he would have realised that the committal trial (whether I have breached any of the undertakings given) will be followed by my application to 'lift the stay' i.e. an application to reinstate the libel proceedings against me which were adjourned, i.e. suspended, back in November 2009.

It remains of course to be seen as to whether I have a valid defence for any apparent breaches of any of the 16 undertakings given.

Maybe a member here who is also a member on MM could put him right?


Dr Martin Roberts: "The evidence is that these are the pjyamas Madeleine wore on holiday in Praia da Luz. They were photographed and the photo handed to a press agency, who released it on 8 May, as the search for Madeleine continued. The McCanns held up these same pyjamas at two press conferences on 5 & 7June 2007. How could Madeleine have been abducted?"

Amelie Mcann (aged 2): "Maddie's jammies!".  

Tony Bennett
Tony Bennett

Posts : 15564
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 71
Location : Shropshire

Back to top Go down

A misunderstanding by t4two Empty Re: A misunderstanding by t4two

Post by Guest on 03.11.12 9:33

t4two is also a member here, Tony.

Back to top Go down

A misunderstanding by t4two Empty Re: A misunderstanding by t4two

Post by uppatoffee on 03.11.12 9:36

Jean wrote:t4two is also a member here, Tony.

One of the mm members has posted it already anyway.

Posts : 626
Join date : 2011-09-14

Back to top Go down

A misunderstanding by t4two Empty Re: A misunderstanding by t4two

Post by T4two on 03.11.12 18:07

Hello Tony Bennett,

I actually did read the Tugendhaft judgement and the sentiment concerning the "vital importance of court orders and undertakings being obeyed" did rather jump out of the legalese. As I understood it, the case as to whether undertakings to the court have been obeyed or not is to be held first. Are you saying that there will be no judgement on this point because you have applied for the libel proceedings to be reinstated?

Posts : 166
Join date : 2012-01-22
Age : 71
Location : Germany

Back to top Go down

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum