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

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

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

Letter 25 Jan 2013 to Carter-Ruck and the Court about THAT proposed settlement with Dr Amaral: is this now an 'Abuse of Process'? - Page 8 Mm11

Letter 25 Jan 2013 to Carter-Ruck and the Court about THAT proposed settlement with Dr Amaral: is this now an 'Abuse of Process'? - Page 8 Regist10

Letter 25 Jan 2013 to Carter-Ruck and the Court about THAT proposed settlement with Dr Amaral: is this now an 'Abuse of Process'?

Page 8 of 17 Previous  1 ... 5 ... 7, 8, 9 ... 12 ... 17  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Letter 25 Jan 2013 to Carter-Ruck and the Court about THAT proposed settlement with Dr Amaral: is this now an 'Abuse of Process'? - Page 8 Empty Re: Letter 25 Jan 2013 to Carter-Ruck and the Court about THAT proposed settlement with Dr Amaral: is this now an 'Abuse of Process'?

Post by PeterMac on 27.01.13 17:23

@aiyoyo wrote:
If a recon does take place I am sure in addition to the few main players, Police would have an actor playing the part of abductor.
Else, like you pointed out the recon would be useless as the whole point of it is to prove there was no abduction.
But the police would have to write the screenplay and instruct the actor.
And so far no one has been able to do that.
The poor actor would just stand there in front of locked and shuttered windows and a locked front door, and say "What am I supposed to do?"
That is why Gerry HAS to play that part, to demonstrate that it is at least possible.
PeterMac
PeterMac
Investigator

Posts : 12011
Activity : 14832
Likes received : 1893
Join date : 2010-12-06

http://whatreallyhappenedtomadeleinemccann.blogspot.co.uk/

Back to top Go down

Letter 25 Jan 2013 to Carter-Ruck and the Court about THAT proposed settlement with Dr Amaral: is this now an 'Abuse of Process'? - Page 8 Empty Re: Letter 25 Jan 2013 to Carter-Ruck and the Court about THAT proposed settlement with Dr Amaral: is this now an 'Abuse of Process'?

Post by Monty Heck on 27.01.13 17:33

Letter 25 Jan 2013 to Carter-Ruck and the Court about THAT proposed settlement with Dr Amaral: is this now an 'Abuse of Process'? - Page 8 Empty Me Today at 5:01 pm





Monty Heck wrote:"I hear what you are saying, but what if they are given no choice?"

Do you think the PJ would still offer a reconstruction? Maybe I have this wrong, but wasn't this part of the opportunity given to the group to demonstrate the innocence of the parents? They could (and seem to already) have tested the timeline against all the relevant statements so seems that the reconstruction was to give the T9 the chance to alter or retract anything which might have been revealed while participating in the reconstruction as being impossible to tally with their version of events. Having already refused the offer, would there be any purpose in giving them a second crack at something which would be of benefit only to the T9, rather than assisting the investigation? Sure many will disagree but willing to stand corrected.
I would propose the idea of a reocnstruction is to act out the statements that they gave. I think precisely the opposite, a reconstruction would expose and visualise the lies in the statements which would focus the T9's minds when the inevitable questioning then followed as to why their statements didn't stack up against the recon.

I disagree about a recon being only being of use with 3 or 4 of the main players. I think they all need to take part as the shared checking routine they all gave in their statements are a fundamental element of the child's disappearance.

It all needs playing out and exposing, then get them in one by one and see who the police can get to crack first.


Thanks Me. Appreciate a reconstruction would expose and visualise discrepancies in statements but was thinking that since it must be already known to the PJ where/what the discrepancies are, a recon would be more valuable to the T9 than the PJ as it would give them an opportunity to demonstrate how such and such an action which may have seemed unlikely to fit, actually did. Surely most of that could be dealth with during interview if were simply a case of testing statements? Just think it's one of the ways in which the law in Portugal bends over backwards in giving those under suspicion an extra chance to demonstrate their innocence, if they want to that is.
avatar
Monty Heck

Posts : 470
Activity : 472
Likes received : 2
Join date : 2012-09-09

Back to top Go down

Letter 25 Jan 2013 to Carter-Ruck and the Court about THAT proposed settlement with Dr Amaral: is this now an 'Abuse of Process'? - Page 8 Empty In just one incident, contradictions about where, what exactly happened, how long it lasted etc.

Post by Tony Bennett on 27.01.13 17:34

CARRY ON DOCTORS

The reconstruction of the respective statements made by Dr Kate McCann and Dr David Payne about an alleged visit by Dr Payne to Apartment G5A at around 6.30pm on Thursday 3 May 2007 should be particularly interesting.

This of course is the last claimed sighting before the last person who says he saw Madeleine McCann alive: Dr Gerald McCann, her father. For any police investigation (as I am sure PeterMac, monkey_mind and Bob Southgate would unanimoulsy agree), whether or the last-but-one 'sighting' was absolutely true - or fabricated - is of major significance.

To summarise:

Dr. Kate McCann: I was taking a shower (presumably while the kids were playing elsewhere), I heard a knock at the front door, I slipped a towel on to see who it was, it was Dr David Payne, he was asking if I was all right and could come down to the tennis courts, I didn't let him in, the conversation lasted no longer than 30 seconds, I said 'No', and then he went away...

Dr. David Payne: I went to see if Kate was all right (or at least I think that's why I went up there, I really can't remember), I just strolled through the open door, sat down, all the children were already dressed for bed at 6.30, all in white pyjamas, do you know, they all looked like angels, and I just sat and thought to myself what a truy remarkable and wonderful mother Kate was, anyway, after several minutes, you know, I left and went down to the tennis courts...

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

Is a reconstruction really necessary for that event?

It's surely as plain as a pikestaff that at least one, if not both, are lying about this alleged event

____________________

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
Tony Bennett
Researcher

Posts : 16166
Activity : 23820
Likes received : 3583
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 73
Location : Shropshire

Back to top Go down

Letter 25 Jan 2013 to Carter-Ruck and the Court about THAT proposed settlement with Dr Amaral: is this now an 'Abuse of Process'? - Page 8 Empty Re: Letter 25 Jan 2013 to Carter-Ruck and the Court about THAT proposed settlement with Dr Amaral: is this now an 'Abuse of Process'?

Post by aiyoyo on 27.01.13 17:46

@PeterMac wrote:
@aiyoyo wrote:
If a recon does take place I am sure in addition to the few main players, Police would have an actor playing the part of abductor.
Else, like you pointed out the recon would be useless as the whole point of it is to prove there was no abduction.
But the police would have to write the screenplay and instruct the actor.
And so far no one has been able to do that.
The poor actor would just stand there in front of locked and shuttered windows and a locked front door, and say "What am I supposed to do?"
That is why Gerry HAS to play that part, to demonstrate that it is at least possible.

HA HA HA!

But ....but...but ...surely a member of Police can play the part of the abductor.

The hiding in the apt, strolling away with the child, and all the rest are already in the scripts provided by the GM and JT.

The entry point, sedation, select a child, exit point, walking in front of JT etc, again using their timeline, can be reconstructed by police-acting-as-abductor and later edited into the main players finished recon to demonstrate abduction is impossible to have happened.
aiyoyo
aiyoyo

Posts : 9610
Activity : 10084
Likes received : 326
Join date : 2009-11-28

Back to top Go down

Letter 25 Jan 2013 to Carter-Ruck and the Court about THAT proposed settlement with Dr Amaral: is this now an 'Abuse of Process'? - Page 8 Empty Re: Letter 25 Jan 2013 to Carter-Ruck and the Court about THAT proposed settlement with Dr Amaral: is this now an 'Abuse of Process'?

Post by Me on 27.01.13 18:05

@PeterMac wrote:
@aiyoyo wrote:
If a recon does take place I am sure in addition to the few main players, Police would have an actor playing the part of abductor.
Else, like you pointed out the recon would be useless as the whole point of it is to prove there was no abduction.
But the police would have to write the screenplay and instruct the actor.
And so far no one has been able to do that.
The poor actor would just stand there in front of locked and shuttered windows and a locked front door, and say "What am I supposed to do?"
That is why Gerry HAS to play that part, to demonstrate that it is at least possible.

And for me that's the point.

Get them all there to attempt to reconstruct their statements and when they fail, immediately afterwards, drag them in for questioning about the legitimacy of their statements.

It's not so much proving to the police that the timelines simply don't work, it's about focusing the T7's minds and bottoms about the magnitude of the dung heap they are trapped in.

No words will have been put in their mouths, no twisting or coercion, simply let them fall into the traps they themselves have set and see how they react once they know their statements have just been proven worthless.

Then the questioning can begin on the basis of:

"look YOU'VE just proved what you said in your statements is demonstrably impossible to carry out for real. Fancy having a little rethink about what actually happened?"

____________________
What is certain is that since the start of the investigation there were  incongruent and even contradictory situations concerning the witness statements; the telephone records of calls that were made and received on mobile phones that belonged to the couple and to the group of friends that were on holidays with them; the movements of people right after the disappearance of the little girl was noticed, concerning the state in which the bedroom from where the child disappeared from was found (closed window? open window? partially open window?) etc., and the mystery would only become even thicker due to the clues that were left by the already mentioned sniffer dogs. - The Words of a JUDGE in relation to the McCanns
avatar
Me

Posts : 683
Activity : 698
Likes received : 3
Join date : 2011-05-22

Back to top Go down

Letter 25 Jan 2013 to Carter-Ruck and the Court about THAT proposed settlement with Dr Amaral: is this now an 'Abuse of Process'? - Page 8 Empty Re: Letter 25 Jan 2013 to Carter-Ruck and the Court about THAT proposed settlement with Dr Amaral: is this now an 'Abuse of Process'?

Post by ShuBob on 27.01.13 18:55

IMO, there'll be no need for a reconstruction if one or more tapas members admits during questioning that some details contained in their initial statements are wrong. Kate has already admitted as much in her book.
avatar
ShuBob

Posts : 1896
Activity : 1983
Likes received : 67
Join date : 2012-02-07

Back to top Go down

Letter 25 Jan 2013 to Carter-Ruck and the Court about THAT proposed settlement with Dr Amaral: is this now an 'Abuse of Process'? - Page 8 Empty No rush

Post by Tony Bennett on 27.01.13 20:48

@Me wrote:I know you are loathe to do so but read BS's recent posts about the case and read the arguments there as to why the case had no legs.
I realise, Me, that you are a very great admirer of the works of 'Blacksmith'. You have said so on many occasions.

He does from time to time make a valid point or two. But forgive me, he described my book-the-name-of-which-dare not-be-mentioned-on-pain-of-imprisonment as 'unadulterated trash'.

Despite that ringing and unmitigated condemnation, many people wrote and told us in The Madeleine Foundation how much the book had opened their eyes about what might have happened to Madeleine.

So forgive me if I don't rush over to his site

____________________

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
Tony Bennett
Researcher

Posts : 16166
Activity : 23820
Likes received : 3583
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 73
Location : Shropshire

Back to top Go down

Letter 25 Jan 2013 to Carter-Ruck and the Court about THAT proposed settlement with Dr Amaral: is this now an 'Abuse of Process'? - Page 8 Empty Re: Letter 25 Jan 2013 to Carter-Ruck and the Court about THAT proposed settlement with Dr Amaral: is this now an 'Abuse of Process'?

Post by Observer on 27.01.13 20:54

@Tony Bennett wrote:
@Me wrote:I know you are loathe to do so but read BS's recent posts about the case and read the arguments there as to why the case had no legs.
I realise, Me, that you are a very great admirer of the works of 'Blacksmith'. You have said so on many occasions.

He does from time to time make a valid point or two. But forgive me, he described my book-the-name-of-which-dare not-be-mentioned-on-pain-of-imprisonment as 'unadulterated trash'.

Despite that ringing and unmitigated condemnation, many people wrote and told us in The Madeleine Foundation how much the book had opened their eyes about what might have happened to Madeleine.

So forgive me if I don't rush over to his site
As much as I disagree with TB at times, if it was not for brave souls like him no one would ever have heard of BS.
avatar
Observer

Posts : 68
Activity : 76
Likes received : 0
Join date : 2012-12-10

Back to top Go down

Letter 25 Jan 2013 to Carter-Ruck and the Court about THAT proposed settlement with Dr Amaral: is this now an 'Abuse of Process'? - Page 8 Empty Re: Letter 25 Jan 2013 to Carter-Ruck and the Court about THAT proposed settlement with Dr Amaral: is this now an 'Abuse of Process'?

Post by Me on 27.01.13 22:00

@Tony Bennett wrote:
@Me wrote:I know you are loathe to do so but read BS's recent posts about the case and read the arguments there as to why the case had no legs.
I realise, Me, that you are a very great admirer of the works of 'Blacksmith'. You have said so on many occasions.

He does from time to time make a valid point or two. But forgive me, he described my book-the-name-of-which-dare not-be-mentioned-on-pain-of-imprisonment as 'unadulterated trash'.

Despite that ringing and unmitigated condemnation, many people wrote and told us in The Madeleine Foundation how much the book had opened their eyes about what might have happened to Madeleine.

So forgive me if I don't rush over to his site

Tony, your vitriol and hurt are evident through your post, so i can understand your reluctance but i would urge you to read the posts regarding the libel trial in particular.

It may help you in your own case.

Let's set the record straight between you and me shall we?

I have stated that Blacksmith's pieces regarding the trial and his legal analysis of the libel case(s) in Portugal are unmatched on the net. I stand by that.

I do not agree with everything posted and some of his blog posts are not to my liking.

I have no idea what has gone on between you and him, i have no idea if what he has said about you is true or not, frankly it's none of my business and to be honest i don't really care.

I wasn't on the 3A's forum so i have no idea if those allegations he made against you are true or not.

I take people as i find them and I do happen to believe that for all the good work you have clearly done, you have made some serious mistakes along the way, some of your actions however well meant, have been misguided and you have opened yourself up to the problems you currently face.

That being said i am a great believer in free speech and like most on here your plight and the way you have been treated is disgraceful.

That doesn't change the fact though that you signed those undertakings and irrespective of the duress you were under when signing them and notwithstanding the fact that those same allegations have been made unhindered and which have been vindicated elsewhere, the problem you face is that the undertakings spefically prevented you from you repeating them and from what i can see you have continued to do so.

The issue is not whether what you have said is libellous or not it's a matter of contempt as to whether you have broken those undertakings.

I will always state on here and in life in general what i believe is right irrespective of whether that makes uncomfortable listening. You might not like to hear it but it is how i feel about your situation from what i can see.

I do wish you well and the best of luck but i just feel, and from what i can see, that you need every piece of ammunition you can get your hands on, however unpalatable the source of it may be to you.

____________________
What is certain is that since the start of the investigation there were  incongruent and even contradictory situations concerning the witness statements; the telephone records of calls that were made and received on mobile phones that belonged to the couple and to the group of friends that were on holidays with them; the movements of people right after the disappearance of the little girl was noticed, concerning the state in which the bedroom from where the child disappeared from was found (closed window? open window? partially open window?) etc., and the mystery would only become even thicker due to the clues that were left by the already mentioned sniffer dogs. - The Words of a JUDGE in relation to the McCanns
avatar
Me

Posts : 683
Activity : 698
Likes received : 3
Join date : 2011-05-22

Back to top Go down

Letter 25 Jan 2013 to Carter-Ruck and the Court about THAT proposed settlement with Dr Amaral: is this now an 'Abuse of Process'? - Page 8 Empty Helpful

Post by Tony Bennett on 27.01.13 22:12

@Me wrote:I do wish you well and the best of luck but I just feel, and from what I can see, that you need every piece of ammunition you can get your hands on, however unpalatable the source of it may be to you.
What sort of ammunition do I need from a bloke who describes my book, that the McCanns have banned everyone from reading, as 'unadulterated trash'?

Nor have I any time for the stuff that poured out of Blacksmith's dirty mind when he wrote about my attendance at the DCMS Select Committee back in March 2009 when Dr Gerald McCann, Clarence Mitchell and Adam Tudor were giving evidence about how beastly the press were to the McCanns.

By the way, I am not in the least 'hurt' by Blacksmith's comments about me (and some of them are worse than the above), they just mean that I have no time for him.

And frankly I defy anyone to see any 'vitriol' in my previous post.

Your advice is noted, Me, but fortunately I have quite a team giving me excellent help me here with practical preparations for the trial, which is what I really need

____________________

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
Tony Bennett
Researcher

Posts : 16166
Activity : 23820
Likes received : 3583
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 73
Location : Shropshire

Back to top Go down

Letter 25 Jan 2013 to Carter-Ruck and the Court about THAT proposed settlement with Dr Amaral: is this now an 'Abuse of Process'? - Page 8 Empty Re: Letter 25 Jan 2013 to Carter-Ruck and the Court about THAT proposed settlement with Dr Amaral: is this now an 'Abuse of Process'?

Post by Nina on 27.01.13 22:18

Snipped from TB's post..........

....... but fortunately I have quite a team giving me excellent help me here with practical preparations for the trial, which is what I really need.

Tony that is such good news. All the very best.

____________________
Not one more cent from me.
Nina
Nina

Posts : 2861
Activity : 3217
Likes received : 344
Join date : 2011-06-16
Age : 77

Back to top Go down

Letter 25 Jan 2013 to Carter-Ruck and the Court about THAT proposed settlement with Dr Amaral: is this now an 'Abuse of Process'? - Page 8 Empty Re: Letter 25 Jan 2013 to Carter-Ruck and the Court about THAT proposed settlement with Dr Amaral: is this now an 'Abuse of Process'?

Post by Observer on 27.01.13 22:36

A warning for TB, many years ago I was accused of a crime I did not commit, knowing I never committed the said crime I went about my day to day business defying the orders of the magistrate.
I spent ten days in Chelmsford remand unit before my not guilty verdict.
avatar
Observer

Posts : 68
Activity : 76
Likes received : 0
Join date : 2012-12-10

Back to top Go down

Letter 25 Jan 2013 to Carter-Ruck and the Court about THAT proposed settlement with Dr Amaral: is this now an 'Abuse of Process'? - Page 8 Empty Re: Letter 25 Jan 2013 to Carter-Ruck and the Court about THAT proposed settlement with Dr Amaral: is this now an 'Abuse of Process'?

Post by Tony Bennett on 27.01.13 22:42

@Observer wrote:A warning for TB, many years ago I was accused of a crime I did not commit, knowing I never committed the said crime I went about my day to day business defying the orders of the magistrate.
I spent ten days in Chelmsford remand unit before my not guilty verdict.
Ten days would be perfect! Free food, a 10-day complete rest from the mobile, e-mails and posting on CMOMM and, as I haven't got a TV, a chance to watch 'The Big Match' on Saturday night and maybe the odd wildlife programme, and maybe a chance to show up some of the lags at snooker. And half-an-hour or so walking fast round the exercise yard would be more exercise than I normally get in a single day

____________________

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
Tony Bennett
Researcher

Posts : 16166
Activity : 23820
Likes received : 3583
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 73
Location : Shropshire

Back to top Go down

Letter 25 Jan 2013 to Carter-Ruck and the Court about THAT proposed settlement with Dr Amaral: is this now an 'Abuse of Process'? - Page 8 Empty Re: Letter 25 Jan 2013 to Carter-Ruck and the Court about THAT proposed settlement with Dr Amaral: is this now an 'Abuse of Process'?

Post by Guest on 27.01.13 22:53

@Tony Bennett wrote:
@Me wrote:I do wish you well and the best of luck but I just feel, and from what I can see, that you need every piece of ammunition you can get your hands on, however unpalatable the source of it may be to you.
What sort of ammunition do I need from a bloke who describes my book, that the McCanns have banned everyone from reading, as 'unadulterated trash'?

Nor have I any time for the stuff that poured out of Blacksmith's dirty mind when he wrote about my attendance at the DCMS Select Committee back in March 2009 when Dr Gerald McCann, Clarence Mitchell and Adam Tudor were giving evidence about how beastly the press were to the McCanns.

By the way, I am not in the least 'hurt' by Blacksmith's comments about me (and some of them are worse than the above), they just mean that I have no time for him.

And frankly I defy anyone to see any 'vitriol' in my previous post.

Your advice is noted, Me, but fortunately I have quite a team giving me excellent help me here with practical preparations for the trial, which is what I really need
Tony, he only wrote what he did after your thread here criticised him, and after a person here, persons on the other main MM case forum, and persons on twitter childishly tried to smear him by saying he tolerated paedophiles. Can you not see why he would be angry reading all that?

The very same people who are today praising BS were before Christmas smearing him. No wonder he lashed out.

The thread in which you had a go at him first is still here by the way.
Anonymous
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Letter 25 Jan 2013 to Carter-Ruck and the Court about THAT proposed settlement with Dr Amaral: is this now an 'Abuse of Process'? - Page 8 Empty Re: Letter 25 Jan 2013 to Carter-Ruck and the Court about THAT proposed settlement with Dr Amaral: is this now an 'Abuse of Process'?

Post by Observer on 27.01.13 22:53

@Tony Bennett wrote:
@Observer wrote:A warning for TB, many years ago I was accused of a crime I did not commit, knowing I never committed the said crime I went about my day to day business defying the orders of the magistrate.
I spent ten days in Chelmsford remand unit before my not guilty verdict.
Ten days would be perfect! Free food, a 10-day complete rest from the mobile, e-mails and posting on CMOMM and, as I haven't got a TV, a chance to watch 'The Big Match' on Saturday night and maybe the odd wildlife programme, and maybe a chance to show up some of the lags at snooker. And half-an-hour or so walking fast round the exercise yard would be more exercise than I normally get in a single day
Well if you think ten days would be perfect thats fine by me, guilty or not never go against a court order.
avatar
Observer

Posts : 68
Activity : 76
Likes received : 0
Join date : 2012-12-10

Back to top Go down

Letter 25 Jan 2013 to Carter-Ruck and the Court about THAT proposed settlement with Dr Amaral: is this now an 'Abuse of Process'? - Page 8 Empty Re: Letter 25 Jan 2013 to Carter-Ruck and the Court about THAT proposed settlement with Dr Amaral: is this now an 'Abuse of Process'?

Post by Observer on 27.01.13 23:00

@Observer wrote:
@Tony Bennett wrote:
@Observer wrote:A warning for TB, many years ago I was accused of a crime I did not commit, knowing I never committed the said crime I went about my day to day business defying the orders of the magistrate.
I spent ten days in Chelmsford remand unit before my not guilty verdict.
Ten days would be perfect! Free food, a 10-day complete rest from the mobile, e-mails and posting on CMOMM and, as I haven't got a TV, a chance to watch 'The Big Match' on Saturday night and maybe the odd wildlife programme, and maybe a chance to show up some of the lags at snooker. And half-an-hour or so walking fast round the exercise yard would be more exercise than I normally get in a single day
Well if you think ten days would be perfect thats fine by me, guilty or not never go against a court order.
Oh! and one other point Tony, ten days with a cold turkey junky is not much fun.
avatar
Observer

Posts : 68
Activity : 76
Likes received : 0
Join date : 2012-12-10

Back to top Go down

Letter 25 Jan 2013 to Carter-Ruck and the Court about THAT proposed settlement with Dr Amaral: is this now an 'Abuse of Process'? - Page 8 Empty Re: Letter 25 Jan 2013 to Carter-Ruck and the Court about THAT proposed settlement with Dr Amaral: is this now an 'Abuse of Process'?

Post by saltnpepper on 27.01.13 23:19

Ten days would be perfect! Free food, a 10-day complete rest from the
mobile, e-mails and posting on CMOMM and, as I haven't got a TV, a
chance to watch 'The Big Match' on Saturday night and maybe the odd
wildlife programme, and maybe a chance to show up some of the lags at
snooker. And half-an-hour or so walking fast round the exercise yard
would be more exercise than I normally get in a single day
Letter 25 Jan 2013 to Carter-Ruck and the Court about THAT proposed settlement with Dr Amaral: is this now an 'Abuse of Process'? - Page 8 110921

Does sound good...& nice to see the good old british bulldog spirit
saltnpepper
saltnpepper

Posts : 154
Activity : 154
Likes received : 0
Join date : 2012-04-30
Location : wales

Back to top Go down

Letter 25 Jan 2013 to Carter-Ruck and the Court about THAT proposed settlement with Dr Amaral: is this now an 'Abuse of Process'? - Page 8 Empty Re: Letter 25 Jan 2013 to Carter-Ruck and the Court about THAT proposed settlement with Dr Amaral: is this now an 'Abuse of Process'?

Post by Tony Bennett on 27.01.13 23:46

tcat wrote:The thread in which you had a go at him first is still here by the way.
'Had a go at him first'? Have a look at the Blacksmith archives and his abusive comments about me go back four years to 2009. Why, I don't know to this day. Nor do I really know what his agenda is, to me it's far from clear.

I just thought it was interesting, maybe quite revealing, that three months ago Blacksmith was sticking up for the wholly innocent, warm, cuddly, friendly wonderful human being Lord McAlpine, whom he obvioulsy knows personally from his comments, yet he was at the same pouring scorn on genuine folk on the various Madeleine McCann forums who were, quite rightly, getting very exercised with big-name paedophiles getting away with their crimes.

I've no issue with people adoring Blacksmith, everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

Each to his own

____________________

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
Tony Bennett
Researcher

Posts : 16166
Activity : 23820
Likes received : 3583
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 73
Location : Shropshire

Back to top Go down

Letter 25 Jan 2013 to Carter-Ruck and the Court about THAT proposed settlement with Dr Amaral: is this now an 'Abuse of Process'? - Page 8 Empty Re: Letter 25 Jan 2013 to Carter-Ruck and the Court about THAT proposed settlement with Dr Amaral: is this now an 'Abuse of Process'?

Post by Guest on 28.01.13 0:44

@Tony Bennett wrote:
tcat wrote:The thread in which you had a go at him first is still here by the way.
'Had a go at him first'? Have a look at the Blacksmith archives and his abusive comments about me go back four years to 2009. Why, I don't know to this day. Nor do I really know what his agenda is, to me it's far from clear.

I just thought it was interesting, maybe quite revealing, that three months ago Blacksmith was sticking up for the wholly innocent, warm, cuddly, friendly wonderful human being Lord McAlpine, whom he obvioulsy knows personally from his comments, yet he was at the same pouring scorn on genuine folk on the various Madeleine McCann forums who were, quite rightly, getting very exercised with big-name paedophiles getting away with their crimes.

I've no issue with people adoring Blacksmith, everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

Each to his own
Your disputes with him over the years fundamentally result from the reason why you're in trouble legally but he isn't. He was right about the 60 Reasons booklet wasn't he. And your answer doesn't explain why you attacked him in November, just weeks after he'd given you his support in October. Strange decision.
Anonymous
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Letter 25 Jan 2013 to Carter-Ruck and the Court about THAT proposed settlement with Dr Amaral: is this now an 'Abuse of Process'? - Page 8 Empty Re: Letter 25 Jan 2013 to Carter-Ruck and the Court about THAT proposed settlement with Dr Amaral: is this now an 'Abuse of Process'?

Post by aiyoyo on 28.01.13 5:24

@Me

Tony, your vitriol and hurt are evident through your post, so i can
understand your reluctance but i would urge you to read the posts
regarding the libel trial in particular.

There was unfair criticism. I don't see vitriol any where in his posts.
Anyway, don't you think it is a tad rich to tell him what or where he should read?

I appreciate there are people who don't always agree with some of his style (me too), but can still appreciate his courage.
He's brave enough to stick his neck out there ,and hence does not deserve to be compared to someone not in a parallel position.
aiyoyo
aiyoyo

Posts : 9610
Activity : 10084
Likes received : 326
Join date : 2009-11-28

Back to top Go down

Letter 25 Jan 2013 to Carter-Ruck and the Court about THAT proposed settlement with Dr Amaral: is this now an 'Abuse of Process'? - Page 8 Empty Re: Letter 25 Jan 2013 to Carter-Ruck and the Court about THAT proposed settlement with Dr Amaral: is this now an 'Abuse of Process'?

Post by Guest on 28.01.13 8:46

Blacksmith needs to explain his apparently pro-paedophilia comments without being rude.

It would also be interesting to know how he is so sure of a certain lord's total innocence.

I don't think that's too much to ask.
Anonymous
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Letter 25 Jan 2013 to Carter-Ruck and the Court about THAT proposed settlement with Dr Amaral: is this now an 'Abuse of Process'? - Page 8 Empty Re: Letter 25 Jan 2013 to Carter-Ruck and the Court about THAT proposed settlement with Dr Amaral: is this now an 'Abuse of Process'?

Post by aiyoyo on 28.01.13 9:50

Oh yeah, forgotten that one. The way he was condemning about the Lord's accusers is as if he's matey with the Lord. Seems very personal anyway.
aiyoyo
aiyoyo

Posts : 9610
Activity : 10084
Likes received : 326
Join date : 2009-11-28

Back to top Go down

Letter 25 Jan 2013 to Carter-Ruck and the Court about THAT proposed settlement with Dr Amaral: is this now an 'Abuse of Process'? - Page 8 Empty Re: Letter 25 Jan 2013 to Carter-Ruck and the Court about THAT proposed settlement with Dr Amaral: is this now an 'Abuse of Process'?

Post by david_uk on 28.01.13 10:00

I have missed most of this thread ! busy weekend sledging with the kids, it’s a hard life!
For what its worth I believe too much is being read into the news of the McCann’s request for postponing. Like many of us I have been around since day one, and have been through similar highs and lows expecting something to break. Yes they may have been advised that the Amaral trial is very risky, however I do not believe they are going to be looking for a settlement on Amarals terms at all. I think that the postponing is simply a matter of not wanting to fight a battle on two fronts!. Perhaps they are merely faking a treaty to allow them to concentrate on the TB court date?.
As always I wince a little when I see TB release material I personally think should be kept under wraps, surely there is too little detail on the McCann’s strategy to comment how this would or would not relate to his court appearance?. The judge will surely concentrate on purely on whether he has broken his undertakings or not, regardless of any new developments on different fronts. While I admire TB and all the other active researchers and commentators I am surprised how many have come out so quickly in declaring this as particularly significant. If as most believe there has been some unknown force at play here, protecting the McCann’s interests, what makes everyone think the ‘force field is down’ this time? Their battle station may well still be armed and fully operational . Maybe I am being pessimistic! If so I have broken my New Years resolution! Oops

____________________
“Oh, what a tangled web we weave...when first we practice to deceive.”
Walter Scott, Marmion
david_uk
david_uk

Posts : 320
Activity : 342
Likes received : 0
Join date : 2012-01-20

Back to top Go down

Letter 25 Jan 2013 to Carter-Ruck and the Court about THAT proposed settlement with Dr Amaral: is this now an 'Abuse of Process'? - Page 8 Empty Re: Letter 25 Jan 2013 to Carter-Ruck and the Court about THAT proposed settlement with Dr Amaral: is this now an 'Abuse of Process'?

Post by bobbin on 28.01.13 10:01

tcat wrote:
@Tony Bennett wrote:
tcat wrote:The thread in which you had a go at him first is still here by the way.
'Had a go at him first'? Have a look at the Blacksmith archives and his abusive comments about me go back four years to 2009. Why, I don't know to this day. Nor do I really know what his agenda is, to me it's far from clear.

I just thought it was interesting, maybe quite revealing, that three months ago Blacksmith was sticking up for the wholly innocent, warm, cuddly, friendly wonderful human being Lord McAlpine, whom he obvioulsy knows personally from his comments, yet he was at the same pouring scorn on genuine folk on the various Madeleine McCann forums who were, quite rightly, getting very exercised with big-name paedophiles getting away with their crimes.

I've no issue with people adoring Blacksmith, everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

Each to his own
Your disputes with him over the years fundamentally result from the reason why you're in trouble legally but he isn't. He was right about the 60 Reasons booklet wasn't he. And your answer doesn't explain why you attacked him in November, just weeks after he'd given you his support in October. Strange decision.

Just to support Tony in all this recent tony-bashing, I might ask the question 'who the *..k is Blacksmith?
Is he a long term plant, put in place to appear to support a true search for the truth about Madeleine's disappearance but when time gets fraught he steps in to muddy the waters a bit.
His work is, to say the least, inconsistent, and for that I have never given him any more than a glance of curiosity over his writings.
Tony Bennett has come out full and clear. His identity is known. He is taking on the mightiest of threats with a grit and courage that one rarely sees these days.
Who is Blacksmith? Who indeed? He could as much be a plant as anything else.
I give no credit to anyone who does not fight with equal arms.
Let Blacksmith declare himself if he is to be addressed in the same way as people seem to feel free to address Tony Bennett.

Tony, the nearer it gets to the risk of the 'McCann of worms' being opened up for all to see, the more nervous some fractions seem to be getting.
The mounting up of attack against you, at a time when you don't need extra to contend with, is a difficulty to deal with and yet it is a good sign.
Stirring up a hornet's nest and all that.
Stay calm and in control.
Don't let 'anger' or any other weakness creep in. You have come this far. There are many who support you.

Against the openly acknowledged (even self trumpeted reputation..just look at their website) and mighty force of Carter Ruck, you were tricked into selling your book by Mike Gunnell, you were forced under duress to accept terms of silencing which no others have been forced into, except for Amaral, for whom the law over-turned decisions and now roundly support him and his freedom to express his believed opinion.

Lord Justice Tugenhadt seems to be a fine judge (a rare thing these days) and although posters here crack on about the 'technical' points of the law, there are in response to that, arguments for 'mitigating circumstances'.
This is your strength, to which your supporters join their strength.
Don't let the dissenters cause you to flag before the finishing line.
May you look beyond it and keep going through the line knowing that true justice, and the strength of your true supporters, are your running companions. Letter 25 Jan 2013 to Carter-Ruck and the Court about THAT proposed settlement with Dr Amaral: is this now an 'Abuse of Process'? - Page 8 725573
avatar
bobbin

Posts : 2053
Activity : 2240
Likes received : 145
Join date : 2011-12-05

Back to top Go down

Letter 25 Jan 2013 to Carter-Ruck and the Court about THAT proposed settlement with Dr Amaral: is this now an 'Abuse of Process'? - Page 8 Empty Re: Letter 25 Jan 2013 to Carter-Ruck and the Court about THAT proposed settlement with Dr Amaral: is this now an 'Abuse of Process'?

Post by PeterMac on 28.01.13 10:16

@david_uk wrote:The judge will surely concentrate on purely on whether he has broken his undertakings or not, regardless of any new developments on different fronts. . . .
Indeed. That is his duty.
One can however be technically "guilty" of an offence, but receive an absolute discharge, even, in one case, after being found guilty of manslaughter.
In civil cases it is possible and normal for the case to be proven but then for "Contemptuous or derisory damages" to be awarded. This is usually confined to defamation actions, where the Plaintiff has suffered no loss.
I make no comparison with any current case.

http://www.irwinlaw.com/cold/term/624
wiki,
et al.
PeterMac
PeterMac
Investigator

Posts : 12011
Activity : 14832
Likes received : 1893
Join date : 2010-12-06

http://whatreallyhappenedtomadeleinemccann.blogspot.co.uk/

Back to top Go down

Page 8 of 17 Previous  1 ... 5 ... 7, 8, 9 ... 12 ... 17  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


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