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 19:35

tcat wrote: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.

Okay, it's a fact then that Mr Grime's stated that it was his belief that the dog possibly alerted to cadaver containment.

Well I think anyone accusing him of making that assertion wouldn't stand a chance of success in court unless they have proof he made it.

by Smokeandmirrors 05.01.13 19:41

“…your conduct has caused and continues to cause our clients very considerable distress and upset”.

This line bothers me. It bothers me because it contradicts what the McCanns have inferred in past interviews - that the supposed "tiny minority" of people who don't go along with their version are to be pitied. If that was true, you don't wish to ruin and imprison someone you pity, do you?

It also bothers me because they are only going to be caused significant distress and upset if a) they read this stuff / choose to look at it, and b) it is the response they choose to have towards it.

They have the choice to completely ignore it, they choose not to. A statement of alleged distress is just that. There is no proof that anything Tony writes engenders any feelings other than "fury" and a desire for revenge.

It is NOT harming the search for Madeleine because they themselves have dismissed the PI's, there are continued reported sightings and they also continue to get media coverage as and when they choose to seek publicity. They have the benefit of a SY review, AND they could get the case reopened in Portugal if they agree to a reconstruction. They chose not to, they chose therefore to have the formal investigation closed down by their actions.

It is absolutely ridiculous for them to be doing this, as more people will get very suspicious of their motives, and will be quite shocked that they aren't using their resources more constructively. We all know that if this case gets media attention, it will annoy lots of people and significantly boost numbers on forums such as this.

by aiyoyo 05.01.13 20:13

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. 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.

Good valid point SmokeandMirrors.
Hundred of thousands of negative posts have been written about the Mccanns all over internet, even on comments to Press Articles, so why single out, stalk, and target TB only?
Maybe team Mccann has a question or two to answer as to how they came across TB's post in the Oz Forum. Who's been stalking TB?
Cant simply put it down to 'well wishers' without substantiating it? How did the well wishers know the Mccanns were particularly interested specifically in TB's every post? More importantly, why were the well wishers stalking TB?

To the poster who suggested that TB should include his latest reply as part of Court's exhibits - I fully agree.
Maybe TB can also consider selecting only a few exhibits of this type full of strong and concise points that counter the other party's claims as main exhibits, rather than append it at the end, to render an impact on the Court quickly without the Court having to be subjected to ten thousand miles of papers from both sides covering same points.

To me, CR 6000-page (and still mounting) documents is at par with toilet rolls if they all come down to only one or two contentious issues but they had divided up into sub points, sub-sub points and what not just to mount up their legal fees.
Not forgetting it is also just a dirty tactic to bog down TB, knowing full well he has to cope alone without the same privilege as the Mccanns (using other people's money?) to arm themselves with a team of top-of-the-range lawyers plus their paralegal and assistance to handle it for them.

If CR is saying that their Fees is not paid out of the Fund, then in view of the inequality of arms, perhaps it is a valid question to raise in Court as to whether the Mccanns are funding the legal costs out of their own pockets? If not, then who is funding their legal costs, and more importantly why?

Pertaining to the Mccanns, who pays the legal costs is a valid point of contention because they amassed Millions of Pound from the Public donation and book serialisations etc claiming it was for purpose of the Search. It is a question of knowing whether they had misrepresented to the Public about their use of the Fund.

by Smokeandmirrors 05.01.13 20:29

If I were Tony right now, I would be almost tempted to place a random McCann related comment on the comments section of some cooking or quilting forum and see how long until a terse email from CR crashed into my inbox! How far will CR go to get their man? What would happen if literally dozens of people started using the name Tony Bennett for posting on the McCanns? How would they know which one was real? Or what if Tony adopted a pseudonym, so he could say what he liked with impunity?

by aiyoyo 05.01.13 20:42

If Mr Martin Grime clearly reported that his view was that "it is possible that the EVRD was in fact [alerting to cadaver scent contamination."then TB was merely pointing out a fact - a fact that that was in Martim Grime's report.
Anyone else, apart from tcat, who sees anything wrong with that? I dont!

tcat, what is wrong with TB reporting a fact that it is a fact that was in Martin Grime's report?
Far as I can see he was merely point out a fact (as opposed to making up it up as a fact) ie the fact that Martin Grime claimed that "it is possible (in his view) that the EVRD (dogs) was in fact alerting to cadaver" (when they marked 11 items sourced only to the Mccanns).

Nothing wrong with TB pointing out Martin Grime's report. Surely, in a court case the value of Martin Grime's report is something for the Court to decide.

tcat, I dont understand where you are coming from when you criticise TB over that?
Maybe you can explain yourself clearer. Your other criticism of TB that is only surfacing now, and not before (maybe I hadn't noticed before if you had) is equally perplexing if I may say so.

by Guest 05.01.13 20:49

Smokeandmirrors wrote:If I were Tony right now, I would be almost tempted to place a random McCann related comment on the comments section of some cooking or quilting forum and see how long until a terse email from CR crashed into my inbox! How far will CR go to get their man? What would happen if literally dozens of people started using the name Tony Bennett for posting on the McCanns? How would they know which one was real? Or what if Tony adopted a pseudonym, so he could say what he liked with impunity?

***
Is that why you call yourself "smoke and mirrors" "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 - Page 2 110921

"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 - Page 2 110921

by aiyoyo 05.01.13 20:59

Smokeandmirrors wrote:If I were Tony right now, I would be almost tempted to place a random McCann related comment on the comments section of some cooking or quilting forum and see how long until a terse email from CR crashed into my inbox! How far will CR go to get their man? What would happen if literally dozens of people started using the name Tony Bennett for posting on the McCanns? How would they know which one was real? Or what if Tony adopted a pseudonym, so he could say what he liked with impunity?

Very good argument points to bring to Court's attention.
The question of why they single out TB has to be addressed? Was it because the Mccanns fear his campaign for the Truth?

by Guest 05.01.13 21:06

IIRC they didn't take action re "The Truth of the Lie" until there were rumours the book would be translated into English and published.
If I understand correctly, they haven't / wouldn't charge anyone else, if their opinions weren't available to the English-speaking community, read: British.
Both Dr. Amaral and Tony Bennett fall into these categories.
IMO, of course.

by Smokeandmirrors 05.01.13 21:12

Châtelaine wrote:
Smokeandmirrors wrote:If I were Tony right now, I would be almost tempted to place a random McCann related comment on the comments section of some cooking or quilting forum and see how long until a terse email from CR crashed into my inbox! How far will CR go to get their man? What would happen if literally dozens of people started using the name Tony Bennett for posting on the McCanns? How would they know which one was real? Or what if Tony adopted a pseudonym, so he could say what he liked with impunity?
***
Is that why you call yourself "smoke and mirrors"

Yes!!

I chose that user name because that is what I thought the McCanns tactics to be from day one!! Obfuscation all the way.

Aiyoyo, that's a conundrum. Why Tony above all others? Before that odd woman from 3A's went all pro-Mc I don't recall her being hounded through the courts. Or Pat Brown. She wrote a cease and desist and AFAIK no more was said. Perhaps CR and the Mc's should be sent a cease and desist to stop their harassment??

by Ribisl 05.01.13 21:26

aiyoyo wrote:
Smokeandmirrors wrote:If I were Tony right now, I would be almost tempted to place a random McCann related comment on the comments section of some cooking or quilting forum and see how long until a terse email from CR crashed into my inbox! How far will CR go to get their man? What would happen if literally dozens of people started using the name Tony Bennett for posting on the McCanns? How would they know which one was real? Or what if Tony adopted a pseudonym, so he could say what he liked with impunity?

Very good argument points to bring to Court's attention.
The question of why they single out TB has to be addressed? Was it because the Mccanns fear his campaign for the Truth?

Tony has been singled out because of his zealous and persistent campaign to uncover the truth which he has carried out publicly under his own name. In a way, he is carrying the can for all of us who have expressed doubts and pointed out contradictions about this case on forums such as this one. So he deserves our wholehearted support.

I do wonder sometimes though if Mccanns are fully in control of these legal proceedings and whether C-R are in fact dictating all the moves thus impudently milking one of their showcase clients.

by Guest 05.01.13 21:32

Ribisl wrote:[...]

I do wonder sometimes though if Mccanns are fully in control of these legal proceedings and whether C-R are in fact dictating all the moves thus impudently milking one of their showcase clients.

***
Once a trial has been closed, they're going to be paid either way - by the one who loses ...

by Guest 05.01.13 21:44

aiyoyo wrote:If Mr Martin Grime clearly reported that his view was that "it is possible that the EVRD was in fact [alerting to cadaver scent contamination."then TB was merely pointing out a fact - a fact that that was in Martim Grime's report.
Anyone else, apart from tcat, who sees anything wrong with that? I dont!

tcat, what is wrong with TB reporting a fact that it is a fact that was in Martin Grime's report?
Far as I can see he was merely point out a fact (as opposed to making up it up as a fact) ie the fact that Martin Grime claimed that "it is possible (in his view) that the EVRD (dogs) was in fact alerting to cadaver" (when they marked 11 items sourced only to the Mccanns).

Nothing wrong with TB pointing out Martin Grime's report. Surely, in a court case the value of Martin Grime's report is something for the Court to decide.

tcat, I dont understand where you are coming from when you criticise TB over that?
Maybe you can explain yourself clearer. Your other criticism of TB that is only surfacing now, and not before (maybe I hadn't noticed before if you had) is equally perplexing if I may say so.

Nothing at all wrong with anyone quoting Mr Grime's words, I agree. But Mr Grime says "it is my view that it is possible that the EVRD is alerting to cadaver scent contamination" and he goes on to say that alerts must be confirmed by corroborating [forensic] evidence in any case. i.e. Mr Grime did not state the alerts of his dog proved the presence of a cadaver in that apartment.

Tony wrote "two British cadaver dogs detected cadaver odour...". He didn't write they possibly detected it, as Mr Grime himself indicated. He wrote they definitely detected it. Maybe it wasn't Tony's intention to be so adamant, but that's what he wrote.

Gerry McCann said, outside the court in Lisbon: "No-one can be allowed to say that our daughter can't be found without very good evidence." There's no mystery about what his lawyers won't allow to be said in print. They won't allow anyone to state Madeleine is dead.

Tony (perhaps unintentionally, perhaps carelessly) wrote the dogs definitely detected a cadaver. It's no surprise that's going to be jumped on by Carter Ruck.

by **Tony Bennett** 05.01.13 21:49

tcat wrote:Tony (perhaps unintentionally, perhaps carelessly) wrote the dogs definitely detected a cadaver. It's no surprise that's going to be jumped on by Carter Ruck.

It may be better 'tcat' if you quoted what I said in full, which was:

"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]..."

by aiyoyo 05.01.13 21:51

Smokeandmirrors wrote:
Châtelaine wrote:
Smokeandmirrors wrote:If I were Tony right now, I would be almost tempted to place a random McCann related comment on the comments section of some cooking or quilting forum and see how long until a terse email from CR crashed into my inbox! How far will CR go to get their man? What would happen if literally dozens of people started using the name Tony Bennett for posting on the McCanns? How would they know which one was real? Or what if Tony adopted a pseudonym, so he could say what he liked with impunity?
***
Is that why you call yourself "smoke and mirrors"

Yes!!

I chose that user name because that is what I thought the McCanns tactics to be from day one!! Obfuscation all the way.

Aiyoyo, that's a conundrum. Why Tony above all others? Before that odd woman from 3A's went all pro-Mc I don't recall her being hounded through the courts. Or Pat Brown. She wrote a cease and desist and AFAIK no more was said. Perhaps CR and the Mc's should be sent a cease and desist to stop their harassment??

Yes, because that odd woman at 3As does not have the same impact as a credible lawyer who is known for the type of his works he takes on for genuine victims forsaken one way or another, and with some success as well.

As for Pat Brown they daren't pursue her all the way to Court in USA - they would be suicidal if they do that.
Of course, an OAP retired lawyer without the means to hire the best to defense is sitting duck for them. Hence the inequality of arms issue is a hugh point of contention. Without other people's money, would the Mccanns sue?

Anyhow, if they spend the same amount of time searching for Mccanns as they spend stalking TB every post they might be more believable.

o/t
They claimed their media blitz is to engage the public in their search. Yet, when given the chances they didn't bother to engage the crowded football stadium?
What better way to engage a large section of the public than simply to wear a "find Madeleine" T-shirt when they attend matches? Their appearance at football matches unfailingly made it to the Press, so what better way to get publicity for their search campaign than that without MONEY as objective for a change? The only time they wore anything with "Maddie" on it is when they run to raise fund for their pte ltd company -- so called "Fund".

Why weren't they more proactive about their search is surely a pertinent question, instead of blaming other people for hindering the search?

by Smokeandmirrors 05.01.13 21:57

Agreed. Publicity seeking and interviews with armchair luvvies is one thing, actually physically searching is another. As an aside, I was always rather surprised how "bold" American radio show hosts and newsreaders are in their opinions of the Mc's on the clips I've seen and heard. Really rather robust, certainly compared to the reporting this side of the pond.

by Guest 05.01.13 21:57

Tony Bennett wrote:
tcat wrote:Tony (perhaps unintentionally, perhaps carelessly) wrote the dogs definitely detected a cadaver. It's no surprise that's going to be jumped on by Carter Ruck.
It may be better 'tcat' if you quoted what I said in full, which was:

"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]..."

I'm going from your post on the first page of this thread, the two paragraphs you put in bold, Tony.

by Guest 05.01.13 22:01

You forget that was way back in 2007 tcat, since then there have been a few cases where the dogs alerted with no forensic evidence, IIRC nearly all circumstantial. In the Prout case I don't think there was any forensic evidence, when they convicted him, there was no body, he only confessed after he was jailed in in prison. There was a programme about it where the cadaver dogs alerted in his house. Here are two articles about Prout and Gilroy.

Kate Prout murder: Police find human remains in the woods

Despite no body, nor significant forensic evidence being found, he was convicted on the strength of a mass of circumstantial evidence including Mrs Prout's diary detailing violent rows and a battle over the farm. But the trial judge said Prout must have killed her.

http://www.thisisgloucestershire.co.uk/Kate-Prout-murder-Police-human-remains-woods/story-13941766-detail/story.html

Cadaver dogs used in Suzanne Pilley murder probe

The Suzanne Pilley murder trial in Edinburgh has heard how police used dogs which had been specially trained to find evidence of dead bodies.

The cadaver dogs searched the offices where she worked with David Gilroy, who denies her murder.

The springer spaniels identified three areas of interest in the office's basement garage, and two areas in Mr Gilroy's car boot.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-17142957

David Gilroy guilty of murdering missing bookkeeper Suzanne Pilley

He was convicted despite there being no body, no murder weapon, no direct witnesses and no forensic evidence.

http://metro.co.uk/2012/03/15/david-gilroy-guilty-of-murdering-missing-bookkeeper-suzanne-pilley-352524/

by **Tony Bennett** 05.01.13 22:03

tcat wrote:Tony (perhaps unintentionally, perhaps carelessly) wrote the dogs definitely detected a cadaver. It's no surprise that's going to be jumped on by Carter Ruck.

I perhaps should have added in my previous post that whilst I might have been careless in my comment on this forum on 19 November (the quote you refer to), I wonder if you would also say that Inspector Tavares de Almeida was 'careless' when he wrote what he did in his interim report of 10 September 2007 - a report which encapsulated the hard work of over 100 detectives over 4 months in what I think was the biggest-ever crimianl investigation in Portugal's history.

I've highlighted certain passages in blue for obvious reasons:

The McCanns suggest someone to the police who might be able to find Madeleine’s corpse:

Despite everything, until a certain time in the investigation, the family fed and sustained the theory of an abduction. However, on a date on which we cannot be precise, it was suggested by the McCanns themselves that a person should be consulted who might be able to, eventually, indicate the probable location of Madeleine’s corpse.

This suggestion was inexplicable to members of the investigation team. Why were the family themselves raising the hypothesis that little Maddie was dead? Nevertheless, for the purposes of the media, they continued (and continue to this day) to declare their hope of finding their daughter alive.

Our decision to bring in the cadaver dogs:

So, whilst still keeping open several lines of investigation, it was decided to advance the investigation in a new direction by arranging a new inspection of the place where Madeleine had disappeared. We decided to use a technique that is commonly used in the United Kingdom and it consists of the use of the sense of smell of highly trained dogs.

A human has 5 million cells to assist the sense of smell while a dog has 200 million. We need to highlight that this kind of inspection is frequent in the U.K. and the dogs’ success rate is 100%. One of the dogs is trained to detect [human] cadaver odour and the other to identify traces of human blood.

We now need to emphasise that when the cadaver dog alerts to the cadaver odour, this does not signify that the body is in that place, but it does signify that the body has been there at some time in the past.

As can be read in our files of this investigation, the dogs inspected the following locations and items, with the results described below. All the inspections were recorded in sound and image and were directed by our British colleagues who accompanied the dogs. Among the great number of items and locations that were inspected, the dogs marked the following locations and items:

Apartment 5A, Ocean Club resort, the McCanns’ apartment from where the child disappeared: The cadaver dog alerted to the scent of a corpse in the master bedroom, in a corner, by the wardrobe; in living room, behind the sofa, and by the side window, while the bloodhound alerted to blood in the living room behind the sofa, and by the side window (in exactly the same spot that had been signalled by the cadaver dog).

Front garden of Apartment 5A: The cadaver dog alerted to the scent of a corpse on one of the flower beds (the dog handler however commented on the ‘lightness’ of the odour in this location).

Apartments where the rest of the group were staying: Nothing detected by either dog.

McCanns’ present residence in Praia da Luz at that time [July 2009]: Nothing was detected by either dog.

Elsewhere in the Praia da Luz village: Nothing was detected by either dog

The McCann family’s clothes and belongings: The cadaver dog alerted to the scent of a corpse on two pieces of clothing belonging to Dr Kate McCann, one piece of clothing belonging to Madeleine (a red T-shirt) and on Madeleine’s soft toy [Cuddle Cat]. The cadaver odour was detected when the toy was still inside the McCanns’ residence in July 2007; the scent was later confirmed outside the house as well.

The vehicle that was used by the McCann family: The cadaver dog alerted to the scent of a corpse on the car key and on the inside of the car boot, while the bloodhound also marked the car key and the inside of the car boot.

The car that was used by a family friend who was staying in the same resort, on some of the same days: Nothing was detected by either dog.

All the cars that were used by arguido Robert Murat and the people who are close to him: Nothing was detected by either dog.

In a total of 10 cars examined [in an underground car park) the cadaver dog and the blood dog marked only the car of the McCann family, first rented on 27 May). The locations and items that were marked and signalled by the blood dog are being subject to forensic examinations, part of which are already concluded.

No less relevant is the refinement of the results that point towards Madeleine’s DNA as being present in Apartment 5A, behind the sofa, a spot that was marked by both the cadaver and the blood dog. In every place marked by the blood dog, the laboratory confirmed that this DNA was present.

He also had this to say on the McCanns' constantly changing their story. Was he wrong?

The McCanns evolved their story to adapt to the police questions:

The media attention that has been given to the case and the search for information by the said media has led to an evolution in Madeleine’s parents’ statements. All the information that has been made public has contributed to the McCanns rebuilding and adapting their story to fit the eventual police questions. They have attempted to explain the forensic evidence that we have collected and are collecting.

by Guest 05.01.13 22:10

Tony, the Inspector isn't the one who's facing Carter Ruck in a British court. Does what he said, or what he might still say, have any relevance to British libel law?

You always seem to think people are fighting you, when often they are just pointing out where people are/might be going wrong.

by Guest 05.01.13 22:14

I'm fairly confident in saying the Inspector isn't an expert in the science of decomposition. Mr Grime is. I would base your writing on what the experts say.

by aiyoyo 05.01.13 22:20

Tony Bennett wrote:
tcat wrote:Tony (perhaps unintentionally, perhaps carelessly) wrote the dogs definitely detected a cadaver. It's no surprise that's going to be jumped on by Carter Ruck.
It may be better 'tcat' if you quoted what I said in full, which was:

"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]..."

Again, nothing wrong with that IMO.
If cadaver dogs speciality is detecting cadaver then the spots they marked must therefore mean a body had been....what else could it be?

With due respect, I think tcat is trying to obfuscate for reasons known only to her by putting her own interpretation to Mr' Grime's report.
The fact remains Martin Grime did say: it is possible (meaning in his view) the EVRD was in fact alerting to cadaver scent contamination..

What the Court will make of it is anyone's guess, but it seems tcat thinks she knows best. I suspect even CR cannot come to that conclusion so what is tact driving at and for whose purpose is anyone's guess?
We shall have to wait and see wont we?

by Tombraider 05.01.13 22:28

Tony Bennett wrote:
tcat wrote:Tony (perhaps unintentionally, perhaps carelessly) wrote the dogs definitely detected a cadaver. It's no surprise that's going to be jumped on by Carter Ruck.
It may be better 'tcat' if you quoted what I said in full, which was:

"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]..."

For the sake of clarity Tony, this must mean locations ( places & items) which may have come into contact with a body or 'something' contaminated by a decomposing body.

I understand that some people think the dogs alerts a contentious subject, as are the forensic results. However what should be taken into consideration is the canine team’s reliability and capability, the type and amount of training that the team had experienced before and after certification and this teams confirmed operational outcomes/ successes. This information may be invaluable in court proceedings.

by **Tony Bennett** 05.01.13 22:42

Tombraider wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:"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]..."

For the sake of clarity Tony, this must mean locations (places & items) which may have come into contact with a body or 'something' contaminated by a decomposing body.

OK, I was over-concise, your description is fuller - and the better for it

by aiyoyo 05.01.13 22:44

tcat wrote:Tony, the Inspector isn't the one who's facing Carter Ruck in a British court. Does what he said, or what he might still say, have any relevance to British libel law?

You always seem to think people are fighting you, when often they are just pointing out where people are/might be going wrong.

Surely prime investigators official documents are good enough as supporting evidence.
Doesn't matter the whole lot of Portuguese and British detectives collectively are not on trial, their works and documentation of their works are important documents official enough to produce in Court to support a defense case. Again the value of those is down to the Court to decide, and not you tcat.

If you are wanting to help Tony, being constructive is better than destructive criticism. Sorry what's how you come across.

by **Tony Bennett** 05.01.13 22:49

tcat wrote:Tony, the Inspector isn't the one who's facing Carter Ruck in a British court. Does what he said, or what he might still say, have any relevance to British libel law?

I would suggest, yes, because all of the facts in this case, and even (as in this case) the conclusions, or opinions of an experienced and senior police officer, all go to the defence in libel law of 'fair comment'.

Let's be frank.

Martin Grime was called in by the British and Portuguese police because a reasonable hypothesis was: Madeleine died in Apartment 5A and the parents have covered this up.

He said, in terms, OK, I have one dog here that I've trained to detect the remains of human corpses.

And I've got another dog here who can detect human blood.

I'll bring them along and see what I can find.

I will refrain on this occasion from adding to those observations.

"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