"Flagrant" breaches of your undertakings, say Carter-Ruck in their letter of 4 January in the case of McCanns v Bennett. Here's my reply sent to them today
The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™ :: Legal Issues :: Carter-Ruck: McCanns v Bennett Contempt of Court
Page 1 of 6 • Share
Page 1 of 6 • 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 
"Flagrant" breaches of your undertakings, say Carter-Ruck in their letter of 4 January in the case of McCanns v Bennett. Here's my reply sent to them today
by Tony Bennett 05.01.13 14:51
From: Tony Bennett
Tel: Mobile (07835) 716537
e-mail: ajsbennett@btinternet.com
Saturday 5 January 2012
Carter-Ruck
Solicitors
6 St. Andrew Street
LONDON
EC4A 3AE
Ref: Adam Tudor/Isabel Martorell, formerly Hudson AT/IH/SVL//13837.5
Dear Sirs
re: Your clients Dr Gerald and Dr Kate McCann: McCanns v Bennett
I am in receipt of your e-mailed letter yesterday (4 January).
In that letter, you and your clients take exception to two internet postings of mine, one on the Jill Havern forum (‘Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann’) on 19 November 2012, and the other on the Australian ‘BigFooty’ discussion site on 19 December 2012.
You state in your letter that “These postings clearly breach the undertakings which you gave to the court on 25 November 2009 and which are the subject of the contempt application”.
You give details of extracts from those two postings which, you say, “…undoubtedly allege that there are, at the very least, grounds to suspect our clients of causing the alleged death of their daughter and/or of lying about what happened and/or of seeking to cover up what they had done”.
On page 2 of your letter, you describe these as “flagrant contempts of Court”.
You add on page 3 that: “You have treated your obligations to the Court (in the form of your undertakings to the Court) with the utmost derision…”
You proceed to add that: “…your conduct has caused and continues to cause our clients very considerable distress and upset”. I assume from that passage of your letter that your clients have read the two postings in question which you say have caused them ‘very considerable’ distress and upset.
In response, I will set out in full the two postings which you say have caused distress and upset to your clients, bolding the particular passages to which you and they object, and adding a number beside each significant statement, as I shall refer to them by number below:
The posting on Jill Havern’s forum on 19 November 2012
A question is asked by a relatively new member of the forum, which now has 2,084 members, as follows:
“So I have another two questions for people here. Do you think your discussions and posts amount to harassment of the McCanns?
Is discuss(ing) evidence that suggest(s) they could have some involvement in Madeleine's disappearance close to libellous by inference or innuendo?”
My reply:
“By any standards, this is a unique case - like no other. I hesitate to pronounce about libel law, but as the law stands, whilst you must not defame people by saying 'untrue' things about them, there is also the right to 'fair comment'. The 'fair comment' defence, however, means that you must have a reasonable basis for making the comments that you do.
"Also, to suggest that someone is lying to the extent of covering up a death is indeed a serious accusation requiring a great deal of factual back-up.
"In this case (I'll be brief), we have:
* cadaver dogs who alerted to 11 locations where a body had been [I realise this is hotly disputed] (*1)
* circumstantial evidence (arguably, in spades) (*2)
* an entire police team which pulled in the couple for questioning and made them both suspects (*3)
* the investigation co-ordinator laying out in a 200-page book his basis for suggesting that Madeleine died in G5A and there has been a cover-up (*4)
* despite the McCanns spending tens or hundreds [of thousands] of pounds, the Portuguese Appeal and Supreme Courts (Oct 10 and March 11) unbanned the co-ordinator's book and said that pending the final libel trial, it was OK for the book to be sold, read and discussed.
"In those circumsances, should we write or say nothing? Should we dare to ask questions?”
The posting on the Australian ‘BigFooty’ forum, 19 December 2013
This post explains my continuing interest in the mystery of Madeleine McCann’s disappearance, once described by your clients’ chief public relations officer, Clarence Mitchell, as ‘a complete mystery’. Once again, I shall bold the passages which you claim to be a ‘flagrant’ contempt of court:
“I am replying to an invitation from ‘grizzlym’ here to contribute to this discussion. I have signed up and registered in my own name, as has been my habit ever since I joined an internet forum.
“This is my interest in the case. I have researched it for 5 years. I wrote a 64-page booklet on the case (published Dec 2008) which sold steadily in the UK until the McCanns succeeded in banning it by a restraining order. I have since published a 108-page second book on the case which consists entirely of relevant material from the official police files. Titled: ‘The Madeleine McCann Case Files, Volume 1’, the McCanns want to ban that book as well, but at present I am still allowed to sell it.
“Currently I face prison for continuing to publish detailed research on the case and articulating my doubts, as a result of 'Contempt of Court' proceedings brought against me in the High Court by the McCanns. In the UK, these are classed as civil, not criminal, proceedings.
“I will just say three things about the case.
“First, an entire team of (Portuguese) detectives decided there were grounds for making the McCanns official suspects in the disappearance of their daughter Madeleine. (*5) Their reasons for doing so were summarised in an interim report dated 10 September 2007; (*6) that report is included in my latest book on the case. (*7)
"Second, the senior officer in the case, Dr Goncalo Amaral, wrote a book on the case, titled: 'The Truth About A Lie'. The McCanns have brought libel proceedings against him; the final hearing of this long-running action will be heard in Portugal in January. From September 2009 to October 2010, the lower Portuguese courts banned his book as 'libellous'. But the Portuguese Appeal and Supreme Courts overturned this ban, awarding costs against the McCanns. His book is freely on sale throughout Europe, having been translated into 9 European languages already. It has sold >500,000 copies.
“Third, two British cadaver dogs (springer spaniels), one trained to alert to blood and one trained to alert to the past presence of a human corpse, detected cadaver odour at 11 places associated with the McCanns: (*8) 4 places in their apartment, on 3 items of clothing belonging to them, at 3 places in their hired car and on a soft toy belonging to Madeleine. (*9) The dogs alerted to nowhere else in the village (Praia da Luz) where the family was staying. (*10) The McCanns have struggled to explain these findings. (*11) The dog handler, Martin Grime, is a recognised world expert on the handling of sniffer dogs (*12) and now works full-time for the FBI in the US (*13).
“Given my current legal situation, I had better not say any more right now, but I shall be pleased, if I can, to answer factual questions about the case.
"Finally, I have never suggested that the McCanns deliberately killed Madeleine”.
Your client’s statement about free speech on oath to the Leveson enquiry on press standards, November 2011
Your clients both gave evidence to the Leveson enquiry. They were made ‘core participants’ for the Leveson enquiry because Lord Leveson considered that they had been appallingly treated by the press. This gave them the benefit of being able to have free legal advice and representation at the taxpayer’s expense at the Leveson enquiry and I have no doubt that they took expert legal advice, possibly from yourselves, possibly from other lawyers.
Your clients were elevated within the enquiry to the position where Lord Leveson and even the Prime Minister of the country, David Cameron, felt able to say that Lord Leveson’s recommendations ‘must satisfy the Dowlers and the McCanns’. Your clients and their evidence were prominently featured by the media during the Leveson enquiry and they were much photographed and in evidence in the print and visual media on the day Lord Leveson announced his findings and recommendations and on the day after. All of this followed the Prime Minister bowing to pressure from the Chief Executive Officer of News International, Rebekah Brooks, for the government to set up a review into Madeleine’s disappearance by Scotland Yard without limit of time, and costing an estimated £2 million a year, at your clients’ express request. Asked by Lord Leveson if she had ‘threatened’ the Prime Minister into setting up this review, she said, in terms: “I would use the word ‘persuaded’, not ‘threatened’.”
With your clients thus at the very centre of concerns about the reporting of any aspect of the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, it was therefore of huge significance to hear what your client Dr Gerald McCann would state on oath to the Leveson enquiry on the subject.
The following is taken from the transcript of the Leveson enquiry on 23 November 2011, the evidence of Dr Gerald McCann, page 72 of that afternoon’s transcript. This evidence was given eight days before you served me with a box of documents seeking to commit me to prison for things that I had written about Madeleine’s disappearance:
Dr Gerald McCann in reply to Lord Leveson:
“Thank you, sir. I would like to emphasise that I strongly believe in freedom of speech, but where you have people who are repeatedly carrying out inaccuracies and have been shown to do so, then they should be held to account. That is the issue. I don't have a problem with somebody purporting a theory, writing fiction, suggestions, but clearly we've got to a stage where substandard reporting and sources, unnamed, made-up, non-verifiable, are a daily occurrence”.
In the above passage, said on oath by a person who was legally represented, Dr McCann made these seven points:
1. He is not only a believer in free speech, but ‘a strong’ believer in free speech
2. People shown to have been ‘repeatedly carrying out inaccuracies’ should be ‘held to account’ - that is the main issue for him
3. He has no problem with people ‘purporting’ [by which I think he meant ‘propounding’] theories
4. He has no problem with people ‘writing fiction’
5. He has no problem with people ‘writing [making] suggestions’
6. He objects to ‘substandard reporting’
7. He objects to people using ‘unnamed, made-up, non-verifiable’ sources.
It is clear from what your client said on oath that his key objection is to ‘inaccuracies’. He objects to what purports to be fact, but is derived from ‘unnamed, made-up, non-verifiable’ sources.
If you examine the correspondence between yourselves and me over the past three years I can never recollect one occasion on which you have pulled me up over an inaccurate statement. When I published my book, ‘60 Reasons’, on 7 December 2008, I wrote to your client, to Clarence Mitchell and to yourselves, offering to correct any statement I made which could be demonstrated to be factually incorrect. I have never been challenged by your clients on any factual statement that I have made.
Your client told the Leveson enquiry that he did not object to people propounding theories or making suggestions. Yet, contrary to his statements on oath to Lord Leveson, he seeks to have me imprisoned, fined or have my assets seized for publishing facts (which he has never challenged) and for articulating opinions based on those facts.
Quite aside from your client’s stated views on freedom of speech and being able to propound theories, it is a matter of law that the Parliament and courts of this country expressly allow ‘fair comment’ (or what is I think now called the defence of ‘honest comment’ after Spiller v Joseph) if a person’s honest opinion has a reasonable basis in fact.
Your objections to the two internet postings of 19 November and 19 December 2012
Against that background, I turn now to the passages above which you assert constitute a ‘flagrant breach’ of my Court undertakings.
I was careful in both internet postings to deal only in factual matters. I do not think I said anything inaccurate. So far as I can see, the two bolded passages to which your clients and you take exception are factual issues that are not in dispute. Let me refer to all 13 of them:
1. I say that the cadaver dogs brought to Praia da Luz alerted to 11 locations where there had been a body. I expressly add that this is hotly disputed (by your clients). I am not sure how there can be any objection to that statement
2. I refer to circumstantial evidence, viz. that your clients have not told the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth about what really happened to Madeleine. That such circumstantial evidence exists, e.g. in the form of contradictions and changes of story, surely cannot be denied. It is set out in detail for example in the interim report of Tavares de Almeida dated 10 September 2007 and of course in Dr Goncalo Amaral’s book on the case, ‘The Truth of the Lie’, which has been unbanned now for 2¼ years after your clients lost two appeals against its being unbanned
3. There is no dispute that your clients were pulled in for questioning and made suspects
4. You cannot dispute factually what I say about Dr Amaral’s book. His book states, does it not (as I wrote)“his basis for suggesting that Madeleine died in G5A and there has been a cover-up”?
5. Again, you cannot dispute that an entire team of detectives were responsible for making your clients suspects
6. My reference to Tavares de Almeida’s report of 10 September 2007 is accurate
7. I do include his report in my latest book on the case
8. I refer also to point (1) above. It cannot be denied that Martin Grime took two dogs to Praia da Luz, one of them Eddie, trained to alert to the odour emitted from human cadavers and the other, Keela, to blood. He says explicitly that: “The dogs are deployed as search assets to secure evidence and locate human remains or human blood”. The final report of the Attorney-General, dated July 2008, which your clients themselves exhibit in Exhibit ‘IJH10’ of Isabel Hudson, states expressly (page 4628, ‘IJH10’, page 19) that “The tracker dog ‘Eddie’ (detects cadaver odour) ‘marked’…” [there is then a list of 13 locations where the two dogs alerted to either cadaver odour or blood]. The underlining of ‘detects cadaver odour’ is in the original
9. These are the locations given, inter alia, by Martin Grime himself in his report, by Tavares de Almedia in his interim report, and by the Attorney-General in his final report
10. The fact that Martin Grime’s dogs did not alert to cadaver scent anywhere else in Praia da Luz is a matter of record in both Martin Grime’s reports and in the Portuguese police reports
11. My statement that “The McCanns have struggled to explain these findings” is a simple factual statement which surely cannot be disputed. These are all factual matters that are well evidenced and cannot now be disputed:
(a) the initial reaction of your clients, their extended family and their advisers was to accept the verdicts of the two dogs (i.e. that they had alerted to human cadaver odour and blood) and to search for possible explanations, such as Dr Kate McCann picking up cadaver scent from corpses on which she had been certifying the cause of death, the dogs getting ‘confused’ with the smell of dirty nappies or ‘rotting meat’, and Madeleine having a nosebleed etc.
(b) your clients then switched to doing everything possible to rubbish the dogs’ alerts as simply ‘wrong’
(c) as you will know, they invoked the case of Eugene Zapata in the U.S., where a judge had disallowed any evidence from a cadaver dog handler because of the reported unreliability of the dogs’ alerts. Your client even refers to the Zapata case again on page 268 of the hardback version of her book ‘madeleine’. This is surely a deliberate misrepresentation to the public, as both you and your clients are no doubt fully aware that Eugene Zapata, in making a full and frank confession to murdering his wife, stated that he had moved her body to the precise spots to which the dog had alerted
(d) your client Dr Gerald McCann, despite the rapidly increasing use of sniffer dogs and their obvious reliability in a whole range of fields including the detection of various explosives, drugs and even medical conditions, continues to assert, as he did in the interview he gave to Sandra Felgueiras on Portuguese TV on 5 November 2009, that: “I can tell you that we have also looked at evidence about cadaver dogs and they are incredibly unreliable”, and
(e) in her book, ‘madeleine’, pages 249 and 250, Dr Kate McCann resorts to what is in effect an attack on the professional integrity and competence of dog trainer Martin Grime. She tries to claim, in summary, that all the 11 separate alerts that Eddie made to the scent of a human corpse (or ‘cadaver scent contaminant’) were wrong, because the dog was not alerting to cadaver odour at all, but simply responding to what she says were ‘the conscious or unconscious signals of the handler’ (bottom of page 250.
Against those facts, I hardly think that the Court would disagree with my statement that “The McCanns have struggled to explain the dogs’ findings”.
12. The fact that Martin Grime’s dogs have been used in at least four countries and that he is used an expert adviser and trainer on sniffer dogs’ alerts by the F.B.I. is surely enough for my statement that he is ‘a recognised world expert’ to be accepted[/size]
13. It is my understanding that Martin Grime does now in effect work full-time for the F.B.I., albeit as I understand it through his own company. Is this disputed?
In summary, therefore, the statements I have made which you say have caused your clients a great deal of distress and upset are essentially factual statements not open to serious dispute. Neither the Court nor your clients can surely object to me, or indeed anyone else, publishing factual material relating to Madeleine’s disappearance.
Where it is possible to argue that any of the above 13 statements of mine stray from being merely factual material into comment or opinion, then your client is firmly on the record as stating that he is a strong believer in freedom of speech, only objects to ‘inaccuracies’, and upholds the right of people to ‘propound theories’.
There seems to be an irreconcilable conflict between the statements your client made on oath in response to Lord Leveson and his action just 8 days later seeking to commit me to prison for daring to offer my fact-based comments and opinions on the case.
In conclusion, in your letter you claim that I have alleged that your clients ‘caused the alleged death of their daughter”. Please note the following statement which I posted, as you know, on the BigFooty forum on 19 December: “Finally, I have never suggested that the McCanns deliberately killed Madeleine”. Please do not suggest to the Court or to anyone else that I have suggested that your clients caused Madeleine’s alleged death unless you have solid evidence with which to back up that claim.
Yours sincerely
Tony Bennett
Tel: Mobile (07835) 716537
e-mail: ajsbennett@btinternet.com
Saturday 5 January 2012
Carter-Ruck
Solicitors
6 St. Andrew Street
LONDON
EC4A 3AE
Ref: Adam Tudor/Isabel Martorell, formerly Hudson AT/IH/SVL//13837.5
Dear Sirs
re: Your clients Dr Gerald and Dr Kate McCann: McCanns v Bennett
I am in receipt of your e-mailed letter yesterday (4 January).
In that letter, you and your clients take exception to two internet postings of mine, one on the Jill Havern forum (‘Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann’) on 19 November 2012, and the other on the Australian ‘BigFooty’ discussion site on 19 December 2012.
You state in your letter that “These postings clearly breach the undertakings which you gave to the court on 25 November 2009 and which are the subject of the contempt application”.
You give details of extracts from those two postings which, you say, “…undoubtedly allege that there are, at the very least, grounds to suspect our clients of causing the alleged death of their daughter and/or of lying about what happened and/or of seeking to cover up what they had done”.
On page 2 of your letter, you describe these as “flagrant contempts of Court”.
You add on page 3 that: “You have treated your obligations to the Court (in the form of your undertakings to the Court) with the utmost derision…”
You proceed to add that: “…your conduct has caused and continues to cause our clients very considerable distress and upset”. I assume from that passage of your letter that your clients have read the two postings in question which you say have caused them ‘very considerable’ distress and upset.
In response, I will set out in full the two postings which you say have caused distress and upset to your clients, bolding the particular passages to which you and they object, and adding a number beside each significant statement, as I shall refer to them by number below:
The posting on Jill Havern’s forum on 19 November 2012
A question is asked by a relatively new member of the forum, which now has 2,084 members, as follows:
“So I have another two questions for people here. Do you think your discussions and posts amount to harassment of the McCanns?
Is discuss(ing) evidence that suggest(s) they could have some involvement in Madeleine's disappearance close to libellous by inference or innuendo?”
My reply:
“By any standards, this is a unique case - like no other. I hesitate to pronounce about libel law, but as the law stands, whilst you must not defame people by saying 'untrue' things about them, there is also the right to 'fair comment'. The 'fair comment' defence, however, means that you must have a reasonable basis for making the comments that you do.
"Also, to suggest that someone is lying to the extent of covering up a death is indeed a serious accusation requiring a great deal of factual back-up.
"In this case (I'll be brief), we have:
* cadaver dogs who alerted to 11 locations where a body had been [I realise this is hotly disputed] (*1)
* circumstantial evidence (arguably, in spades) (*2)
* an entire police team which pulled in the couple for questioning and made them both suspects (*3)
* the investigation co-ordinator laying out in a 200-page book his basis for suggesting that Madeleine died in G5A and there has been a cover-up (*4)
* despite the McCanns spending tens or hundreds [of thousands] of pounds, the Portuguese Appeal and Supreme Courts (Oct 10 and March 11) unbanned the co-ordinator's book and said that pending the final libel trial, it was OK for the book to be sold, read and discussed.
"In those circumsances, should we write or say nothing? Should we dare to ask questions?”
The posting on the Australian ‘BigFooty’ forum, 19 December 2013
This post explains my continuing interest in the mystery of Madeleine McCann’s disappearance, once described by your clients’ chief public relations officer, Clarence Mitchell, as ‘a complete mystery’. Once again, I shall bold the passages which you claim to be a ‘flagrant’ contempt of court:
“I am replying to an invitation from ‘grizzlym’ here to contribute to this discussion. I have signed up and registered in my own name, as has been my habit ever since I joined an internet forum.
“This is my interest in the case. I have researched it for 5 years. I wrote a 64-page booklet on the case (published Dec 2008) which sold steadily in the UK until the McCanns succeeded in banning it by a restraining order. I have since published a 108-page second book on the case which consists entirely of relevant material from the official police files. Titled: ‘The Madeleine McCann Case Files, Volume 1’, the McCanns want to ban that book as well, but at present I am still allowed to sell it.
“Currently I face prison for continuing to publish detailed research on the case and articulating my doubts, as a result of 'Contempt of Court' proceedings brought against me in the High Court by the McCanns. In the UK, these are classed as civil, not criminal, proceedings.
“I will just say three things about the case.
“First, an entire team of (Portuguese) detectives decided there were grounds for making the McCanns official suspects in the disappearance of their daughter Madeleine. (*5) Their reasons for doing so were summarised in an interim report dated 10 September 2007; (*6) that report is included in my latest book on the case. (*7)
"Second, the senior officer in the case, Dr Goncalo Amaral, wrote a book on the case, titled: 'The Truth About A Lie'. The McCanns have brought libel proceedings against him; the final hearing of this long-running action will be heard in Portugal in January. From September 2009 to October 2010, the lower Portuguese courts banned his book as 'libellous'. But the Portuguese Appeal and Supreme Courts overturned this ban, awarding costs against the McCanns. His book is freely on sale throughout Europe, having been translated into 9 European languages already. It has sold >500,000 copies.
“Third, two British cadaver dogs (springer spaniels), one trained to alert to blood and one trained to alert to the past presence of a human corpse, detected cadaver odour at 11 places associated with the McCanns: (*8) 4 places in their apartment, on 3 items of clothing belonging to them, at 3 places in their hired car and on a soft toy belonging to Madeleine. (*9) The dogs alerted to nowhere else in the village (Praia da Luz) where the family was staying. (*10) The McCanns have struggled to explain these findings. (*11) The dog handler, Martin Grime, is a recognised world expert on the handling of sniffer dogs (*12) and now works full-time for the FBI in the US (*13).
“Given my current legal situation, I had better not say any more right now, but I shall be pleased, if I can, to answer factual questions about the case.
"Finally, I have never suggested that the McCanns deliberately killed Madeleine”.
Your client’s statement about free speech on oath to the Leveson enquiry on press standards, November 2011
Your clients both gave evidence to the Leveson enquiry. They were made ‘core participants’ for the Leveson enquiry because Lord Leveson considered that they had been appallingly treated by the press. This gave them the benefit of being able to have free legal advice and representation at the taxpayer’s expense at the Leveson enquiry and I have no doubt that they took expert legal advice, possibly from yourselves, possibly from other lawyers.
Your clients were elevated within the enquiry to the position where Lord Leveson and even the Prime Minister of the country, David Cameron, felt able to say that Lord Leveson’s recommendations ‘must satisfy the Dowlers and the McCanns’. Your clients and their evidence were prominently featured by the media during the Leveson enquiry and they were much photographed and in evidence in the print and visual media on the day Lord Leveson announced his findings and recommendations and on the day after. All of this followed the Prime Minister bowing to pressure from the Chief Executive Officer of News International, Rebekah Brooks, for the government to set up a review into Madeleine’s disappearance by Scotland Yard without limit of time, and costing an estimated £2 million a year, at your clients’ express request. Asked by Lord Leveson if she had ‘threatened’ the Prime Minister into setting up this review, she said, in terms: “I would use the word ‘persuaded’, not ‘threatened’.”
With your clients thus at the very centre of concerns about the reporting of any aspect of the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, it was therefore of huge significance to hear what your client Dr Gerald McCann would state on oath to the Leveson enquiry on the subject.
The following is taken from the transcript of the Leveson enquiry on 23 November 2011, the evidence of Dr Gerald McCann, page 72 of that afternoon’s transcript. This evidence was given eight days before you served me with a box of documents seeking to commit me to prison for things that I had written about Madeleine’s disappearance:
Dr Gerald McCann in reply to Lord Leveson:
“Thank you, sir. I would like to emphasise that I strongly believe in freedom of speech, but where you have people who are repeatedly carrying out inaccuracies and have been shown to do so, then they should be held to account. That is the issue. I don't have a problem with somebody purporting a theory, writing fiction, suggestions, but clearly we've got to a stage where substandard reporting and sources, unnamed, made-up, non-verifiable, are a daily occurrence”.
In the above passage, said on oath by a person who was legally represented, Dr McCann made these seven points:
1. He is not only a believer in free speech, but ‘a strong’ believer in free speech
2. People shown to have been ‘repeatedly carrying out inaccuracies’ should be ‘held to account’ - that is the main issue for him
3. He has no problem with people ‘purporting’ [by which I think he meant ‘propounding’] theories
4. He has no problem with people ‘writing fiction’
5. He has no problem with people ‘writing [making] suggestions’
6. He objects to ‘substandard reporting’
7. He objects to people using ‘unnamed, made-up, non-verifiable’ sources.
It is clear from what your client said on oath that his key objection is to ‘inaccuracies’. He objects to what purports to be fact, but is derived from ‘unnamed, made-up, non-verifiable’ sources.
If you examine the correspondence between yourselves and me over the past three years I can never recollect one occasion on which you have pulled me up over an inaccurate statement. When I published my book, ‘60 Reasons’, on 7 December 2008, I wrote to your client, to Clarence Mitchell and to yourselves, offering to correct any statement I made which could be demonstrated to be factually incorrect. I have never been challenged by your clients on any factual statement that I have made.
Your client told the Leveson enquiry that he did not object to people propounding theories or making suggestions. Yet, contrary to his statements on oath to Lord Leveson, he seeks to have me imprisoned, fined or have my assets seized for publishing facts (which he has never challenged) and for articulating opinions based on those facts.
Quite aside from your client’s stated views on freedom of speech and being able to propound theories, it is a matter of law that the Parliament and courts of this country expressly allow ‘fair comment’ (or what is I think now called the defence of ‘honest comment’ after Spiller v Joseph) if a person’s honest opinion has a reasonable basis in fact.
Your objections to the two internet postings of 19 November and 19 December 2012
Against that background, I turn now to the passages above which you assert constitute a ‘flagrant breach’ of my Court undertakings.
I was careful in both internet postings to deal only in factual matters. I do not think I said anything inaccurate. So far as I can see, the two bolded passages to which your clients and you take exception are factual issues that are not in dispute. Let me refer to all 13 of them:
1. I say that the cadaver dogs brought to Praia da Luz alerted to 11 locations where there had been a body. I expressly add that this is hotly disputed (by your clients). I am not sure how there can be any objection to that statement
2. I refer to circumstantial evidence, viz. that your clients have not told the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth about what really happened to Madeleine. That such circumstantial evidence exists, e.g. in the form of contradictions and changes of story, surely cannot be denied. It is set out in detail for example in the interim report of Tavares de Almeida dated 10 September 2007 and of course in Dr Goncalo Amaral’s book on the case, ‘The Truth of the Lie’, which has been unbanned now for 2¼ years after your clients lost two appeals against its being unbanned
3. There is no dispute that your clients were pulled in for questioning and made suspects
4. You cannot dispute factually what I say about Dr Amaral’s book. His book states, does it not (as I wrote)“his basis for suggesting that Madeleine died in G5A and there has been a cover-up”?
5. Again, you cannot dispute that an entire team of detectives were responsible for making your clients suspects
6. My reference to Tavares de Almeida’s report of 10 September 2007 is accurate
7. I do include his report in my latest book on the case
8. I refer also to point (1) above. It cannot be denied that Martin Grime took two dogs to Praia da Luz, one of them Eddie, trained to alert to the odour emitted from human cadavers and the other, Keela, to blood. He says explicitly that: “The dogs are deployed as search assets to secure evidence and locate human remains or human blood”. The final report of the Attorney-General, dated July 2008, which your clients themselves exhibit in Exhibit ‘IJH10’ of Isabel Hudson, states expressly (page 4628, ‘IJH10’, page 19) that “The tracker dog ‘Eddie’ (detects cadaver odour) ‘marked’…” [there is then a list of 13 locations where the two dogs alerted to either cadaver odour or blood]. The underlining of ‘detects cadaver odour’ is in the original
9. These are the locations given, inter alia, by Martin Grime himself in his report, by Tavares de Almedia in his interim report, and by the Attorney-General in his final report
10. The fact that Martin Grime’s dogs did not alert to cadaver scent anywhere else in Praia da Luz is a matter of record in both Martin Grime’s reports and in the Portuguese police reports
11. My statement that “The McCanns have struggled to explain these findings” is a simple factual statement which surely cannot be disputed. These are all factual matters that are well evidenced and cannot now be disputed:
(a) the initial reaction of your clients, their extended family and their advisers was to accept the verdicts of the two dogs (i.e. that they had alerted to human cadaver odour and blood) and to search for possible explanations, such as Dr Kate McCann picking up cadaver scent from corpses on which she had been certifying the cause of death, the dogs getting ‘confused’ with the smell of dirty nappies or ‘rotting meat’, and Madeleine having a nosebleed etc.
(b) your clients then switched to doing everything possible to rubbish the dogs’ alerts as simply ‘wrong’
(c) as you will know, they invoked the case of Eugene Zapata in the U.S., where a judge had disallowed any evidence from a cadaver dog handler because of the reported unreliability of the dogs’ alerts. Your client even refers to the Zapata case again on page 268 of the hardback version of her book ‘madeleine’. This is surely a deliberate misrepresentation to the public, as both you and your clients are no doubt fully aware that Eugene Zapata, in making a full and frank confession to murdering his wife, stated that he had moved her body to the precise spots to which the dog had alerted
(d) your client Dr Gerald McCann, despite the rapidly increasing use of sniffer dogs and their obvious reliability in a whole range of fields including the detection of various explosives, drugs and even medical conditions, continues to assert, as he did in the interview he gave to Sandra Felgueiras on Portuguese TV on 5 November 2009, that: “I can tell you that we have also looked at evidence about cadaver dogs and they are incredibly unreliable”, and
(e) in her book, ‘madeleine’, pages 249 and 250, Dr Kate McCann resorts to what is in effect an attack on the professional integrity and competence of dog trainer Martin Grime. She tries to claim, in summary, that all the 11 separate alerts that Eddie made to the scent of a human corpse (or ‘cadaver scent contaminant’) were wrong, because the dog was not alerting to cadaver odour at all, but simply responding to what she says were ‘the conscious or unconscious signals of the handler’ (bottom of page 250.
Against those facts, I hardly think that the Court would disagree with my statement that “The McCanns have struggled to explain the dogs’ findings”.
12. The fact that Martin Grime’s dogs have been used in at least four countries and that he is used an expert adviser and trainer on sniffer dogs’ alerts by the F.B.I. is surely enough for my statement that he is ‘a recognised world expert’ to be accepted[/size]
13. It is my understanding that Martin Grime does now in effect work full-time for the F.B.I., albeit as I understand it through his own company. Is this disputed?
In summary, therefore, the statements I have made which you say have caused your clients a great deal of distress and upset are essentially factual statements not open to serious dispute. Neither the Court nor your clients can surely object to me, or indeed anyone else, publishing factual material relating to Madeleine’s disappearance.
Where it is possible to argue that any of the above 13 statements of mine stray from being merely factual material into comment or opinion, then your client is firmly on the record as stating that he is a strong believer in freedom of speech, only objects to ‘inaccuracies’, and upholds the right of people to ‘propound theories’.
There seems to be an irreconcilable conflict between the statements your client made on oath in response to Lord Leveson and his action just 8 days later seeking to commit me to prison for daring to offer my fact-based comments and opinions on the case.
In conclusion, in your letter you claim that I have alleged that your clients ‘caused the alleged death of their daughter”. Please note the following statement which I posted, as you know, on the BigFooty forum on 19 December: “Finally, I have never suggested that the McCanns deliberately killed Madeleine”. Please do not suggest to the Court or to anyone else that I have suggested that your clients caused Madeleine’s alleged death unless you have solid evidence with which to back up that claim.
Yours sincerely
Tony Bennett
____________________
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 McCann (aged 2): "Maddie's jammies!".
Tony Bennett- Researcher
- Posts : 16906
Activity : 24770
Likes received : 3749
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 76
Location : Shropshire
Re: "Flagrant" breaches of your undertakings, say Carter-Ruck in their letter of 4 January in the case of McCanns v Bennett. Here's my reply sent to them today
by listener 05.01.13 15:26
A well composed response to what I interpret as utter drivel !
listener- Posts : 643
Activity : 681
Likes received : 18
Join date : 2010-01-10
Re: "Flagrant" breaches of your undertakings, say Carter-Ruck in their letter of 4 January in the case of McCanns v Bennett. Here's my reply sent to them today
by hentie 05.01.13 15:35
Excellent!!!!
Reading through it shows you have a highly analytical brain and concentration re detail. I believe this is what concerned them and why they tried to deter you from further research and speaking out.
Well done Tony! If I were them or CR I would squirm and/or be very anxious.
Reading through it shows you have a highly analytical brain and concentration re detail. I believe this is what concerned them and why they tried to deter you from further research and speaking out.
Well done Tony! If I were them or CR I would squirm and/or be very anxious.
hentie- Madeleine Foundation
- Posts : 756
Activity : 1020
Likes received : 266
Join date : 2009-11-26
Re: "Flagrant" breaches of your undertakings, say Carter-Ruck in their letter of 4 January in the case of McCanns v Bennett. Here's my reply sent to them today
by Guest 05.01.13 15:56
I am now withdrawing the Christmas greetings I sent to Carter-Ruck!
What a pathetic shower.
Unfortunately there is no emoticon with two fingers in the air to express my feelings so I'll have this one instead.
What a pathetic shower.
Unfortunately there is no emoticon with two fingers in the air to express my feelings so I'll have this one instead.
Guest- Guest
Re: "Flagrant" breaches of your undertakings, say Carter-Ruck in their letter of 4 January in the case of McCanns v Bennett. Here's my reply sent to them today
by McCant 05.01.13 16:08
Tony, just print a copy of that off and hand it to the judge on the day of the trial. That should be more than enough and will save a lot of time.
McCant- Posts : 27
Activity : 27
Likes received : 0
Join date : 2013-01-02
Re: "Flagrant" breaches of your undertakings, say Carter-Ruck in their letter of 4 January in the case of McCanns v Bennett. Here's my reply sent to them today
by statsman 05.01.13 16:19
I doubt that CR receive letters like that very often. It will be interesting to see if their reply is the usual "outraged" waffle or if they can actually answer your points. It's beyond me to find a flaw in your arguments!
statsman- Posts : 118
Activity : 129
Likes received : 1
Join date : 2012-02-29
Re: "Flagrant" breaches of your undertakings, say Carter-Ruck in their letter of 4 January in the case of McCanns v Bennett. Here's my reply sent to them today
by McCant 05.01.13 16:27
But what’s the point of emailing one another? I thought that the purpose of the trial was to settle the argument; or is the trial not definite?
McCant- Posts : 27
Activity : 27
Likes received : 0
Join date : 2013-01-02
Re: "Flagrant" breaches of your undertakings, say Carter-Ruck in their letter of 4 January in the case of McCanns v Bennett. Here's my reply sent to them today
by Tony Bennett 05.01.13 16:27
Hmmm. I might well add it to my 'Defendant's Bundle'. The problem is, I'm already up to page 'D454', so it'll have to go at the back of the bundle and (it's 9 pages long) be added as 'D455 to D463'. (That's not as many pages as Carter-Ruck have sent me, I have about 6,000 pages of documents to contend with starting with Bundles A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I and J so far, plus Bundle 1 ('Inter-Partes Correspondence). I need a pick-up truck to take them all down to The Strand, they weigh about half a hundredweight (4 stone / 25kg) already. I don't know how I can do it, actually.McCant wrote:Tony, just print a copy of that off and hand it to the judge on the day of the trial. That should be more than enough and will save a lot of time.
Besides, the 'prosecution', as it were, gets the first go, probably Isabel Hudson the first witness, followed of course by a member of (and continuing visitor to) this forum, Mr Michael Gunnill of Kent, alias Peter Tarwin, alias Jason Peters, alias Michael Sangerte etc., the man best known for having displayed hundreds of photographs on his website of the Jersey children's home, Haut de la Garenne.
Good afternoon, by the way, Mike, if you're looking in! You're about to get your '15 minutes of fame' by telling the court exactly how you inviegled me into sending you a copy of '60 Reasons'
____________________
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 McCann (aged 2): "Maddie's jammies!".
Tony Bennett- Researcher
- Posts : 16906
Activity : 24770
Likes received : 3749
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 76
Location : Shropshire
Re: "Flagrant" breaches of your undertakings, say Carter-Ruck in their letter of 4 January in the case of McCanns v Bennett. Here's my reply sent to them today
by Guest 05.01.13 16:29
Imagine the time [= money] consuming search in pursuit of Tony to find a comment of him on an Australian Footy site ... I know it's easier for me than for him to see the "fun" of this pettifoggery. Looking for nails at low tide, we call it in Dutch ;-)
Guest- Guest
Re: "Flagrant" breaches of your undertakings, say Carter-Ruck in their letter of 4 January in the case of McCanns v Bennett. Here's my reply sent to them today
by Tony Bennett 05.01.13 16:41
They must all consider it well worth while. The forum-owner used to send me details of how many hours Carter-Ruck were logged in to this forum, it was often continuous, several hours, day after day, searching, forever searching...which is why so far the costs in the case on the McCann side are up to around £175,000, if not more. And they've probably spent double that on their libel action against Dr Goncalo Amaral - for what result so far? - his book banned for just 13 months, and two big costs awards against them in the Portuguese Appeal Court (October 2010) and Supreme Court (March 2011). So that's about half a million quid, for what result?Châtelaine wrote:Imagine the time [= money] consuming search in pursuit of Tony to find a comment of him on an Australian Footy site...
They could have spent that half million quid searching for Madeleine with their private detectives. But then, what with Antonio Giminez Raso being banged up on charges of corruption and theft for 4 years, and Kevin Halligen having been banged up for nearly as long, wanted on large-scale fraud charges, that wasn't a terribly good investment of time and money either
____________________
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 McCann (aged 2): "Maddie's jammies!".
Tony Bennett- Researcher
- Posts : 16906
Activity : 24770
Likes received : 3749
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 76
Location : Shropshire
Re: "Flagrant" breaches of your undertakings, say Carter-Ruck in their letter of 4 January in the case of McCanns v Bennett. Here's my reply sent to them today
by rainbow-fairy 05.01.13 16:56
Ha Jean - how I feel about the whole thing!!!
So repeating 'facts' is so distressing? I'll just bet....
May I respectfully suggest to Mr and Mrs McCann that if they spent more time searching and following up their 'leads', as opposed to surfing the net to see what those with one brain cell enough not to believe their nonsensical 'accounts of the truth' think of them, they would feel far less 'distressed'?
BTW excellent letter Tony. Just shows how absurd it really all is. :)
So repeating 'facts' is so distressing? I'll just bet....
May I respectfully suggest to Mr and Mrs McCann that if they spent more time searching and following up their 'leads', as opposed to surfing the net to see what those with one brain cell enough not to believe their nonsensical 'accounts of the truth' think of them, they would feel far less 'distressed'?
BTW excellent letter Tony. Just shows how absurd it really all is. :)
____________________
"Ask the dogs, Sandra" - Gerry McCann to Sandra Felgueiras
Truth is artless and innocent - like the eloquence of nature, it is clothed with simplicity and easy persuasion; always open to investigation and analysis, it seeks exposure because it fears not detection.
NORMAN MACDONALD, Maxims and Moral Reflections.
rainbow-fairy- Posts : 1971
Activity : 2140
Likes received : 16
Join date : 2011-05-26
Age : 49
Location : going round in circles
Re: "Flagrant" breaches of your undertakings, say Carter-Ruck in their letter of 4 January in the case of McCanns v Bennett. Here's my reply sent to them today
by tiny 05.01.13 17:05
A very good reply tony,i have got a feeling that the mccanns and cr are getting a little bit scared that this case is going the way it is,
im sure they thought you would have caved in before now leaving the mccanns go on their merry way.
im sure they thought you would have caved in before now leaving the mccanns go on their merry way.
tiny- Posts : 2274
Activity : 2311
Likes received : 4
Join date : 2010-02-03
Re: "Flagrant" breaches of your undertakings, say Carter-Ruck in their letter of 4 January in the case of McCanns v Bennett. Here's my reply sent to them today
by McCant 05.01.13 17:23
Permission to give an opinion is only granted to those that support a theory of an abductor entering the apartment, even though there is no evidence to support this theory. Anyone that has the gall to comment on any of the facts, which point towards other possible theories will be locked up – just remember that.
McCant- Posts : 27
Activity : 27
Likes received : 0
Join date : 2013-01-02
Re: "Flagrant" breaches of your undertakings, say Carter-Ruck in their letter of 4 January in the case of McCanns v Bennett. Here's my reply sent to them today
by Guest 05.01.13 17:47
Is this what you were looking for Jean?
Guest- Guest
Re: "Flagrant" breaches of your undertakings, say Carter-Ruck in their letter of 4 January in the case of McCanns v Bennett. Here's my reply sent to them today
by Guest 05.01.13 17:50
Yes, thank you very much.
I don't often resort to what might be called boorish behaviour but I hope I will be forgiven for my lapse this time!
I don't often resort to what might be called boorish behaviour but I hope I will be forgiven for my lapse this time!
Guest- Guest
Re: "Flagrant" breaches of your undertakings, say Carter-Ruck in their letter of 4 January in the case of McCanns v Bennett. Here's my reply sent to them today
by Tony Bennett 05.01.13 17:57
And there was I hoping to get away with a suspended sentence...McCant wrote:Permission to give an opinion is only granted to those that support a theory of an abductor entering the apartment, even though there is no evidence to support this theory. Anyone that has the gall to comment on any of the facts, which point towards other possible theories will be locked up – just remember that.
____________________
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 McCann (aged 2): "Maddie's jammies!".
Tony Bennett- Researcher
- Posts : 16906
Activity : 24770
Likes received : 3749
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 76
Location : Shropshire
Re: "Flagrant" breaches of your undertakings, say Carter-Ruck in their letter of 4 January in the case of McCanns v Bennett. Here's my reply sent to them today
by Smokeandmirrors 05.01.13 18:22
Well, this is getting more bizarre by the minute. It now seems that where once Tony was accused of stalking the Mc's, they are now stalking Tony all the way to an Oz footy forum. This is shaping up to being a case of vexatious litigation if ever I saw one. And as CR nor the Mc's have ever sought to explain how any of these alleged comments is incorrect (or their source, to whit, the Official PJ Report) or why they are perceived in such a way, they are in fact making unsubstantiated accusations of their own. Could not the tables be turned, and they be counter accused of harassment and defamation?
I would say that this could amount to harassment, and worthy of a complaint to the Law Society. There is no substance to this latest missive from CR, perhaps this latest exchange could be forwarded to, I don't know, maybe a dozen or so court correspondents from some of the Daily newspapers, maybe garner an independent opinion as to whether your two posts were in any way unfair, or whether indeed, it appears to other, independent and unbiased folks that CR are being a tad heavy-handed.
It's no news that solicitors expect a high percentage of people to capitulate merely upon receipt of a bit of their headed paper with a few lines of waffle printed on it. They are not used to being challenged.
I would say that this could amount to harassment, and worthy of a complaint to the Law Society. There is no substance to this latest missive from CR, perhaps this latest exchange could be forwarded to, I don't know, maybe a dozen or so court correspondents from some of the Daily newspapers, maybe garner an independent opinion as to whether your two posts were in any way unfair, or whether indeed, it appears to other, independent and unbiased folks that CR are being a tad heavy-handed.
It's no news that solicitors expect a high percentage of people to capitulate merely upon receipt of a bit of their headed paper with a few lines of waffle printed on it. They are not used to being challenged.
____________________
The truth will out.
Smokeandmirrors- Posts : 2458
Activity : 2685
Likes received : 25
Join date : 2011-07-31
Re: "Flagrant" breaches of your undertakings, say Carter-Ruck in their letter of 4 January in the case of McCanns v Bennett. Here's my reply sent to them today
by Guest 05.01.13 18:23
Tony, I can immediately spot two problems with the paragraphs you bolded, your problem is that you are too categorical in what you write.
It is not true to say "an entire team of (Portuguese) detectives", and it is not true to say "two British cadaver dogs (springer spaniels)...detected cadaver odour at 11 places associated with the McCanns" when the science is still the subject of debate amongst the experts the world over. Mr Grime himself was not that categorical about the alerts of his dogs.
I understand your passion, but you are just too categorical and what you write never includes other possible interpretations of evidence. That's the problem you'll face in the court.
You also wrote: "Finally, I have never suggested that the McCanns deliberately killed Madeleine” - that statement will not be enough for the court. It suggests you actually suspect an accidental death, possibly caused by their actions. It's not enough to say that was the conclusion of many Portuguese policemen. This is a British court you're appearing in.
As I say, I fully understand your passion, and I know you have been a lot more careful with what you write, but you are playing into their hands by not being careful enough. You still state things to be facts when they aren't.
It is not true to say "an entire team of (Portuguese) detectives", and it is not true to say "two British cadaver dogs (springer spaniels)...detected cadaver odour at 11 places associated with the McCanns" when the science is still the subject of debate amongst the experts the world over. Mr Grime himself was not that categorical about the alerts of his dogs.
I understand your passion, but you are just too categorical and what you write never includes other possible interpretations of evidence. That's the problem you'll face in the court.
You also wrote: "Finally, I have never suggested that the McCanns deliberately killed Madeleine” - that statement will not be enough for the court. It suggests you actually suspect an accidental death, possibly caused by their actions. It's not enough to say that was the conclusion of many Portuguese policemen. This is a British court you're appearing in.
As I say, I fully understand your passion, and I know you have been a lot more careful with what you write, but you are playing into their hands by not being careful enough. You still state things to be facts when they aren't.
Guest- Guest
Harming the search for Madeleine - just like Goncalo Amaral is doing
by Tony Bennett 05.01.13 18:31
Carter-Ruck have a number of what they call 'McCann-well-wishers' who constantly feed them with anything I write that they think is libellous, or breach of the undertakings. I call them 'spotters', myself...a bit like train spotters, accumulating engine numbers.Smokeandmirrors wrote:Well, this is getting more bizarre by the minute. It now seems that where once Tony was accused of stalking the Mc's, they are now stalking Tony all the way to an Oz footy forum...
They say in the pleadings to the court that every posting of mine that doubts their version of events 'harms the search for Madeleine'.
That's an easy thing to assert...
...but it's not that easy for me to disprove...
____________________
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 McCann (aged 2): "Maddie's jammies!".
Tony Bennett- Researcher
- Posts : 16906
Activity : 24770
Likes received : 3749
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 76
Location : Shropshire
two fingers in the air
by statsman 05.01.13 18:32
It's worth remembering the origin of the two fingered salute.
It's popularly believed to have come from the Battle of Agincourt when the French, with 10 nobles to every 1 English noble, boasted they would cut off every English archer's two fingers that they needed to fire their longbow. Against all the odds, the English won a complete victory and showed the defeated French that they still had their two fingers by making the now famous sign.
I hope you've saved the emoticon, Tony!
It's popularly believed to have come from the Battle of Agincourt when the French, with 10 nobles to every 1 English noble, boasted they would cut off every English archer's two fingers that they needed to fire their longbow. Against all the odds, the English won a complete victory and showed the defeated French that they still had their two fingers by making the now famous sign.
I hope you've saved the emoticon, Tony!
statsman- Posts : 118
Activity : 129
Likes received : 1
Join date : 2012-02-29
Re: "Flagrant" breaches of your undertakings, say Carter-Ruck in their letter of 4 January in the case of McCanns v Bennett. Here's my reply sent to them today
by Guest 05.01.13 18:43
What is it that is unique to Tony's postings that is "harming the search for Madeleine"?
Do not the rest of us here and elsewhere availing ourselves of our rights to free speech have a similar effect?
Do not the rest of us here and elsewhere availing ourselves of our rights to free speech have a similar effect?
Guest- Guest
Re: "Flagrant" breaches of your undertakings, say Carter-Ruck in their letter of 4 January in the case of McCanns v Bennett. Here's my reply sent to them today
by tiny 05.01.13 18:43
Tony Bennett wrote:Carter-Ruck have a number of what they call 'McCann-well-wishers' who constantly feed them with anything I write that they think is libellous, or breach of the undertakings. I call them 'spotters', myself...a bit like train spotters, accumulating engine numbers.Smokeandmirrors wrote:Well, this is getting more bizarre by the minute. It now seems that where once Tony was accused of stalking the Mc's, they are now stalking Tony all the way to an Oz footy forum...
They say in the pleadings to the court that every posting of mine that doubts their version of events 'harms the search for Madeleine'.
That's an easy thing to assert...
...but it's not that easy for me to disprove...
the bit i have put in red is a load of bull,why we had a sighting this week,and what about all the other sightings over the last 5 years,so people ARE still looking for Madeleine all exept the mccanns of course
tiny- Posts : 2274
Activity : 2311
Likes received : 4
Join date : 2010-02-03
Re: "Flagrant" breaches of your undertakings, say Carter-Ruck in their letter of 4 January in the case of McCanns v Bennett. Here's my reply sent to them today
by Smokeandmirrors 05.01.13 19:12
Jean wrote:What is it that is unique to Tony's postings that is "harming the search for Madeleine"?
My thoughts exactly. Why single out one individual amongst thousands? Are any of the Twitter users being hounded? Twitter has a far greater impact in terms of numbers of users.
Do not the rest of us here and elsewhere availing ourselves of our rights to free speech have a similar effect?
Apparently not. Far easier to pick one target.
____________________
The truth will out.
Smokeandmirrors- Posts : 2458
Activity : 2685
Likes received : 25
Join date : 2011-07-31
Re: "Flagrant" breaches of your undertakings, say Carter-Ruck in their letter of 4 January in the case of McCanns v Bennett. Here's my reply sent to them today
by Tombraider 05.01.13 19:13
tcat wrote:Tony, I can immediately spot two problems with the paragraphs you bolded, your problem is that you are too categorical in what you write.
It is not true to say "an entire team of (Portuguese) detectives", and it is not true to say "two British cadaver dogs (springer spaniels)...detected cadaver odour at 11 places associated with the McCanns" when the science is still the subject of debate amongst the experts the world over. Mr Grime himself was not that categorical about the alerts of his dogs.
I understand your passion, but you are just too categorical and what you write never includes other possible interpretations of evidence. That's the problem you'll face in the court.
You also wrote: "Finally, I have never suggested that the McCanns deliberately killed Madeleine” - that statement will not be enough for the court. It suggests you actually suspect an accidental death, possibly caused by their actions. It's not enough to say that was the conclusion of many Portuguese policemen. This is a British court you're appearing in.
As I say, I fully understand your passion, and I know you have been a lot more careful with what you write, but you are playing into their hands by not being careful enough. You still state things to be facts when they aren't.
"and it is not true to say "two British cadaver dogs (springer spaniels)...detected cadaver odour at 11 places associated with the McCanns" when the science is still the subject of debate amongst the experts the world over. Mr Grime himself was not that categorical about the alerts of his dogs"
The Police only ever deploy these types of dogs when it is believed a death occurred. The dogs alerted to a scent they were trained to detect, in the locations and on items ONLY associated to the McCann's. This is a fact. Mr Grime as you call him, clearly reported that his view was that it is possible that the EVRD was in fact alerting to cadaver scent contamination.
" I understand your passion, but you are just too categorical and what you write never includes other possible interpretations of evidence. That's the problem you'll face in the court."
[/i]
What other possible interpretations on evidence are you talking about ? If you mean the dogs again, there is no other interpretation, it appears they found what they were trained to find.
"This is a British court you're appearing in."
What difference does that make, Madeleine McCann went missing in Portugal and it is a Portuguese case not a British case, are you implying the conclusions of the Portuguese investigation doesn't matter?
Tombraider- Posts : 61
Activity : 61
Likes received : 0
Join date : 2012-12-24
Re: "Flagrant" breaches of your undertakings, say Carter-Ruck in their letter of 4 January in the case of McCanns v Bennett. Here's my reply sent to them today
by Guest 05.01.13 19:30
Yes, the alerts are facts. But you state Mr Grime said "it's possible that..." when Tony wrote it as though it was a fact. Clearly Mr Grime himself never stated it to be fact, and he would know wouldn't he? He's an expert. We aren't. That's why we have to be careful with what we write.
Of course I'm not implying the Portuguese police conclusions don't matter. Tony knows what I mean about his assertion he's never made the accusation Madeleine was "deliberately killed". It's not clear enough to impress the court.
Of course I'm not implying the Portuguese police conclusions don't matter. Tony knows what I mean about his assertion he's never made the accusation Madeleine was "deliberately killed". It's not clear enough to impress the court.
Guest- Guest
Page 1 of 6 • 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
Similar topics» Carter-Ruck's costs in the case of McCanns v Bennett exceed £120,000 already
» Carter-Ruck's letter to T Bennett, 15 Jul 2010
» McCanns v Bennett: 153 alleged breaches reduced to 25
» Another bogus and wicked press release by muratfan = Ian West
» Legal Services Commission's blunder re Legal Aid - The actual letter ++PLUS++ Carter-Ruck's 'To Whom it May Concern' Letter
» Carter-Ruck's letter to T Bennett, 15 Jul 2010
» McCanns v Bennett: 153 alleged breaches reduced to 25
» Another bogus and wicked press release by muratfan = Ian West
» Legal Services Commission's blunder re Legal Aid - The actual letter ++PLUS++ Carter-Ruck's 'To Whom it May Concern' Letter
The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™ :: Legal Issues :: Carter-Ruck: McCanns v Bennett Contempt of Court
Page 1 of 6
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
