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 Observer 06.01.13 13:57

Expect a "sighting" towards the end of January, for which the McCann's and CR will seek a postponement of proceedings.

by Ribisl 06.01.13 18:26

aquila wrote:It still comes down to 'how can the McCann's afford these lawyers?' 'who is paying?' 'why are the UK taxpayers paying for a 'review' if the McCanns can afford high-profile lawyers to sue people?

C-R are one of few high profile law firms that offer Conditional Fee Agreement, also known as no-win, no-fee. They publicly admit they have worked for the Mccanns on such basis but without specifying in which particular claims. At the same time, there are payments going out under general expenditure from the fund some of which one would assume must cover some of their basic legal costs.

by **Tony Bennett** 06.01.13 18:36

Ribisl wrote:
aquila wrote:It still comes down to 'how can the McCann's afford these lawyers?' 'who is paying?' 'why are the UK taxpayers paying for a 'review' if the McCanns can afford high-profile lawyers to sue people?

C-R are one of few high profile law firms that offer Conditional Fee Agreement, also known as no-win, no-fee. They publicly admit they have worked for the Mccanns on such basis but without specifying in which particular claims. At the same time, there are payments going out under general expenditure from the fund some of which one would assume must cover some of their basic legal costs.

Carter-Ruck have told me on the written record that not a penny of their legal costs, in writing threatening letters to me, and suing me for libel and contempt of court over the past 3 years and 5 months has come from the Find Madeleine Fund.

I also asked them, if the McCanns won, would Carter-Ruck claim any money from me at all, given that on pages 289-290 of Dr Kate McCann's book, 'madeleine', she wrote:

'Adam Tudor and his colleague Isabel Hudson continue to do a vast amount of work for us, without payment, most of it quietly, behind the scenes'.

I got a very brusque note back from Carter-Ruck to say that their generous and 'vast' free advice service to Drs Gerald & Kate McCann didn't apply to their efforts to silence me.

They did disclose that they were on a 'retainer' - but refused to say who.

So someone is paying their bills...

P.S. Also on page 290, Dr Kate McCann lamented all the websites and forums that disagreed with their claims of abduction, sighing that you could 'spend all your time' suing them, but added: "in the end it all comes down to picking your battles..."

by Liz Eagles 06.01.13 18:59

The battle has been picked so it seems but who benefits? Tony can't pay astronomical costs, he could possibly be sent to prison, his house and all other assets used to repay some of the costs. It's an odd battle to pick imo when there's little financial gain to come from 'no win, no fee'. Please don't tell me libel lawyers work altruistically. They work for money. I doubt this court case will even get more than a fleeting couple of sentences (if that) in the UK media so CR aren't even going to benefit from having their firm linked to perhaps a winning result attached to the most high profile child disappearance case.

Just my opinion.

by saltnpepper 06.01.13 19:15

aquila wrote:The battle has been picked so it seems but who benefits? Tony can't pay astronomical costs, he could possibly be sent to prison, his house and all other assets used to repay some of the costs. It's an odd battle to pick imo when there's little financial gain to come from 'no win, no fee'. Please don't tell me libel lawyers work altruistically. They work for money. I doubt this court case will even get more than a fleeting couple of sentences (if that) in the UK media so CR aren't even going to benefit from having their firm linked to perhaps a winning result attached to the most high profile child disappearance case.

Just my opinion.

They are sending a message to you,me or anyone else who voices(types)their opinion on this case that goes against their script

True or not,they see Tony as the leader of the opposition party & they want to cut off the head,then watch the body wriggle away

by Guest 06.01.13 22:23

Their behaviour only succeeds in alerting people to the oddities of this case. Though at present I feel that, were I able to, I would send all Carter-Ruck staff on a one-way trip to Mars, it is only down to them that I heard of Tony Bennett in the first place.

Back in 2009, I was still giving the McCanns the benefit of the doubt as I knew only what the mainstream media chose to tell us. Then, credit is due to the BBC for putting on their Ceefax service that Carter-Ruck was trying to close down the Madeleine Foundation.

Naturally I took a look there to see what was being said and, while I didn't agree with everything of course, it led me to other sites, including this one and the rest as they say is history.

I wonder how many other people have Carter-Ruck to thank for enlightening them as to what an absolute pile of stinking sea bass is the McCanns' story?

by roy rovers 06.01.13 22:31

I say well done to C-R for getting some fool to pay them loads of dosh to date. They don't make the law but they are doing a great job of exposing what an ass it is when it comes to libel law.

by Guest 06.01.13 22:40

Slightly OT and maybe better on another thread [Mods please move as you please]: I'm presently reading a very interesting book about forensic psychologists, forensic psychiatrists, forensic pathologists and you name it, working together on criminal & crime scene analysis. Fascinating. It's originally German language. Will try and find out if an English version exists.

I won't go into depth here and now, but just mention a phrase [one of the many] that hit me this afternoon.
Psychoanalysts maintain that basically all of us are a kind of narcisist. Meaning that most of us thrive to do good and better and thus better ourselves and achieve another level. But then there are dangerous narcisists, who cannot achieve their goal other than by destroying the ones left, right, in front and behind, crush them down and thus achieve a superior level. Interesting.

by whatsupdoc 06.01.13 22:44

An excellent reply by Tony. It covers many topics and would save a Court days of wading through thousands of other documents...but they will anyway. They will never get though it all in a couple of days.

It seems to me to be a mistake for lawyers to bring a libel trial for things that were printed when a person was quoting official police investigation findings.

I really can't see how Tony or Goncalo can lose...fingers crossed for them both. "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 4 636506

"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 4 636506

Note to Tony...last section 13...should be my ...publishing as the latter is a gerund....b4 the Judge reads it. "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 4 847771

by **PeterMac** 06.01.13 23:11

saltnpepper wrote:
True or not, they see Tony as the leader of the opposition party & they want to cut off the head, then watch the body wriggle away

Then understand this - McCanns, Carter-Ruck and any one else -
You are attempting to cut the head off a Hydra.
Cut off one head, and two grow. Each more terrifying than the one you thought you had killed.
Whether we are on the facts right or wrong, freedom of speech is indivisible.
And we shall pursue the quest for the truth, whatever that might turn out to be, to the bitter end.
To the end of establishing what happened to Madeleine Beth McCann on or about 3rd May 2007.

To C-R and TM and to all the rest - that is all we are trying to do. To find the facts.

by Guest 06.01.13 23:24

And that's exactly how it is.

by Observer 06.01.13 23:55

Châtelaine wrote:Slightly OT and maybe better on another thread [Mods please move as you please]: I'm presently reading a very interesting book about forensic psychologists, forensic psychiatrists, forensic pathologists and you name it, working together on criminal & crime scene analysis. Fascinating. It's originally German language. Will try and find out if an English version exists.

I won't go into depth here and now, but just mention a phrase [one of the many] that hit me this afternoon.
Psychoanalysts maintain that basically all of us are a kind of narcisist. Meaning that most of us thrive to do good and better and thus better ourselves and achieve another level. But then there are dangerous narcisists, who cannot achieve their goal other than by destroying the ones left, right, in front and behind, crush them down and thus achieve a superior level. Interesting.

Interesting to hear what you are reading at the moment, my guess is that it is fiction, however, may I suggest you read some works by Carl Gustav Jung, starting with his autobiography (and hopefully you will carry on from there)

by Guest 07.01.13 0:17

No, it's not fiction.
The definition quoted is from Otto Kernberg. The book is written by Thomas Müller.

by Observer 07.01.13 0:20

Châtelaine wrote:No, it's not fiction.
The definition quoted is from Otto Kernberg. The book is written by Thomas Müller.

I will check it out, thank you.

by Guest 07.01.13 0:28

sent by error. post deleted [I hope].
Best turn into the silken sheets now zzzzz

by monkey mind 07.01.13 1:06

Châtelaine wrote:Slightly OT and maybe better on another thread [Mods please move as you please]: I'm presently reading a very interesting book about forensic psychologists, forensic psychiatrists, forensic pathologists and you name it, working together on criminal & crime scene analysis. Fascinating. It's originally German language. Will try and find out if an English version exists.

I won't go into depth here and now, but just mention a phrase [one of the many] that hit me this afternoon.
Psychoanalysts maintain that basically all of us are a kind of narcisist. Meaning that most of us thrive to do good and better and thus better ourselves and achieve another level. But then there are dangerous narcisists, who cannot achieve their goal other than by destroying the ones left, right, in front and behind, crush them down and thus achieve a superior level. Interesting.

Soon there will be no need for detectives, the boffins will have taken over the asylum.

There’s a place for forensic science and its multiplicity of branches, and as with all things there are good, bad and varying degrees, but I wouldn’t swap that rare good detective for all the sacks of letters they may try to replace him with. The man with empathy and insight, who deals with the victims, questions the witnesses, examines the crime scene not with a brush or glass but with his mind, the man who can ‘be’ victim or perpetrator with equal ease, who investigates, eliminates and interviews the suspects. Well, a good one, he is all of those forensic scientists rolled into one, only he learned it on his feet, not from a book. To him it is a blend of first hand knowledge and instinct woven into the fabric of his being, not speculation to rule. He knows it to be so because he has seen it and smelt it not because he was told it. He's seen most kind of filth the human psyche can create and tasted the beauty too, he's open to be shocked but beyond surprise. He’s rare these days but I should hate to see him extinct.

by **Tony Bennett** 07.01.13 1:28

Observer wrote:...may I suggest you read some works by Carl Gustav Jung, starting with his autobiography (and hopefully you will carry on from there)

Er, before you or anyone gets started on reading any works by Carl Jung, it would probably be wisest to digest this very informative article about him...

http://www.forteantimes.com/features/articles/3847/the_occult_world_of_cg_jung.html

by Observer 07.01.13 4:02

Tony Bennett wrote:
Observer wrote:...may I suggest you read some works by Carl Gustav Jung, starting with his autobiography (and hopefully you will carry on from there)
Er, before you or anyone gets started on reading any works by Carl Jung, it would probably be wisest to digest this very informative article about him...

http://www.forteantimes.com/features/articles/3847/the_occult_world_of_cg_jung.html

Yet another example of the man before the ball by Tony Bennett.

by **tigger** 07.01.13 6:56

Châtelaine wrote:Slightly OT and maybe better on another thread [Mods please move as you please]: I'm presently reading a very interesting book about forensic psychologists, forensic psychiatrists, forensic pathologists and you name it, working together on criminal & crime scene analysis. Fascinating. It's originally German language. Will try and find out if an English version exists.

I won't go into depth here and now, but just mention a phrase [one of the many] that hit me this afternoon.
Psychoanalysts maintain that basically all of us are a kind of narcisist. Meaning that most of us thrive to do good and better and thus better ourselves and achieve another level. But then there are dangerous narcisists, who cannot achieve their goal other than by destroying the ones left, right, in front and behind, crush them down and thus achieve a superior level. Interesting.

I liked this definition of narcisism, but just one niggle - do you mean 'try to do well'? Doing good isn't exactly a definition of narcisists.
Can't find Muller or Mueller on Amazon.

Whilst I was fast asleep this feast of reason was going on - I'd like to add a quote I remember re medlars - the old recipe book said:
'They ripen by their own corruption' . A perfect description of some people rather than the fruit imo.

by aiyoyo 07.01.13 8:57

PeterMac wrote:
But something that TB has said or written clearly makes them so frightened that they have to go on the attack.

There will never be a libel trial per se. That would be far too dangerous. TM and C-R and everyone knows that only too well.
What they have to do is keep it a couple of steps away from a full trial and concentrate on procedural issues. It is a tactic which C-R have employed many times in the past. They are then able to say that they have "Won", when in fact the core issue has never been aired in open court.

That is the long and short of it.
It's not about Madeleine - win or lose they wont get back Maddie.
Neither will people in the street who disbelieved them change their view.
So why are they targeting TB? Because they fear TB persistence to get to the bottom of it!

I agree a libel trial per se is too dangerous for them.
They will concentrate and use procedural issues to wear TB down. Truck-load full of documents, some delivered at the 11th hours, change of trial date willy nilly (using excuses), chucking up costs all the while to frighten TB off.
Since CR made it clear Fund is not used, Mccanns cant possibly afford and won't pay out of their own pocket, so someone must be picking up Mccanns legal tabs.
The pertinent question is WHO might that be? What is in it for this individual (assuming it is the same individual who pledges undying support for them) to help the Mccanns take on Amaral, TB etc.
Who is driving the Mccanns false search campaign and why?
Operation Grange should start by pulling in this individual for serious questioning.
Only by working on the person who is holding this together will there be hope of dismantling the story; and for the cards to come tumbling down.

by **tigger** 07.01.13 9:31

Sorry if this is off topic, but I see some parallel description here which is far better than the earlier one I quoted.

From:
Henry VIII’s Last Victim: The Life and Times of Henry Howard, Earl of Surrey
By Jessie Childs St. Martin’s Press, 2007

Like the medlar fruit that he gorged upon at state banquets, Henry seemed only to ripen with his own corruption. As his physical health deteriorated, he evolved into the worst kind of tyrant: paranoid, vindictive, unpredictable and desperate to prove his ‘absolute power and independence of everyone.’
unquote

(Mods: do move if I'm messing up the topic)

by Guest 07.01.13 10:01

monkey mind wrote:
Châtelaine wrote:Slightly OT and maybe better on another thread [Mods please move as you please]: I'm presently reading a very interesting book about forensic psychologists, forensic psychiatrists, forensic pathologists and you name it, working together on criminal & crime scene analysis. Fascinating. It's originally German language. Will try and find out if an English version exists.

I won't go into depth here and now, but just mention a phrase [one of the many] that hit me this afternoon.
Psychoanalysts maintain that basically all of us are a kind of narcisist. Meaning that most of us thrive to do good and better and thus better ourselves and achieve another level. But then there are dangerous narcisists, who cannot achieve their goal other than by destroying the ones left, right, in front and behind, crush them down and thus achieve a superior level. Interesting.
Soon there will be no need for detectives, the boffins will have taken over the asylum.

There’s a place for forensic science and its multiplicity of branches, and as with all things there are good, bad and varying degrees, but I wouldn’t swap that rare good detective for all the sacks of letters they may try to replace him with. The man with empathy and insight, who deals with the victims, questions the witnesses, examines the crime scene not with a brush or glass but with his mind, the man who can ‘be’ victim or perpetrator with equal ease, who investigates, eliminates and interviews the suspects. Well, a good one, he is all of those forensic scientists rolled into one, only he learned it on his feet, not from a book. To him it is a blend of first hand knowledge and instinct woven into the fabric of his being, not speculation to rule. He knows it to be so because he has seen it and smelt it not because he was told it. He's seen most kind of filth the human psyche can create and tasted the beauty too, he's open to be shocked but beyond surprise. He’s rare these days but I should hate to see him extinct.

***
They don't replace the detectives, Monkey Mind, they help them. In a lot of cases, they're called in and work together. And they don't learn everything from books, but do a lot of field work. Building extensive databases with details of crimes e.g., organising seminars to exchange experiences & theories and interviewing convicted criminals to try and get to the "why" of the "how" ...

by Guest 07.01.13 10:06

tigger wrote: [...]

I liked this definition of narcisism, but just one niggle - do you mean 'try to do well'? Doing good isn't exactly a definition of narcisists.
Can't find Muller or Mueller on Amazon.

[...]

***
Yes, thanks for correcting me, Tigger. I meant "well" ...
I'll PM you re the German and Dutch version of the book.

by roy rovers 07.01.13 10:33

aiyoyo wrote:
PeterMac wrote:
But something that TB has said or written clearly makes them so frightened that they have to go on the attack.

There will never be a libel trial per se. That would be far too dangerous. TM and C-R and everyone knows that only too well.
What they have to do is keep it a couple of steps away from a full trial and concentrate on procedural issues. It is a tactic which C-R have employed many times in the past. They are then able to say that they have "Won", when in fact the core issue has never been aired in open court.

That is the long and short of it.
It's not about Madeleine - win or lose they wont get back Maddie.
Neither will people in the street who disbelieved them change their view.
So why are they targeting TB? Because they fear TB persistence to get to the bottom of it!

I agree a libel trial per se is too dangerous for them.
They will concentrate and use procedural issues to wear TB down. Truck-load full of documents, some delivered at the 11th hours, change of trial date willy nilly (using excuses), chucking up costs all the while to frighten TB off.
Since CR made it clear Fund is not used, Mccanns cant possibly afford and won't pay out of their own pocket, so someone must be picking up Mccanns legal tabs.
The pertinent question is WHO might that be? What is in it for this individual (assuming it is the same individual who pledges undying support for them) to help the Mccanns take on Amaral, TB etc.
Who is driving the Mccanns false search campaign and why?
Operation Grange should start by pulling in this individual for serious questioning.
Only by working on the person who is holding this together will there be hope of dismantling the story; and for the cards to come tumbling down.

I agree. TB should be ready for an offer to settle at the 'door of court' and know what his bottom line is. The MC's won't want to risk going through that door IMO.

by Guest 07.01.13 11:26

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2003/dec/23/pressandpublishing.comment

I expect this article from 2003 has been posted before but now seems timely for it to reappear.

"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