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'?

by ShuBob 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.

by **Tony Bennett** 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

by Observer 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.

by Me 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.

by **Tony Bennett** 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

by **Nina** 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.

by Observer 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.

by **Tony Bennett** 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

by Guest 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.

by Observer 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.

by Observer 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.

by saltnpepper 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

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

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

by **Tony Bennett** 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

by Guest 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.

by aiyoyo 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.

by Guest 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.

by aiyoyo 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.

by david_uk 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

by bobbin 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. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

by **PeterMac** 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.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
wiki,
et al.

by david_uk 28.01.13 10:28

PeterMac wrote:
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.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
wiki,
et al.

Thank you PeterMac, do you think CR could use TB's recent letter against him?.

I just want to confirm after ready the first post after mine!, I am not Tony Bashing!. While I have notagreed with all the methods TB has used in the past, my comments are more concern than anything else.

by Guest 28.01.13 10:50

bobbin wrote: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.

Err, no.

bobbin wrote: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.

How can you say he's a 'plant' then, if you haven't even been reading what he's been writing? [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

I wasn't attacking Tony, I'm trying to help him. Problem is just as you don't see that, neither does he.

by russiandoll 28.01.13 10:53

I think we should all take a step back, a deep breath and hopefully decide not to become embroiled in the twitter and forum battle which is now starting to damage credibility on both sides imo.
Please can we avoid words I have seen the McCann fans use like cave, fold, show the white flag, surrender [ re GA] ?
We simlply do not KNOW what has happened and it is tempting to guess. I do not know the law, but I would think, especially in the type of case being pursued in Portugal, that there is an awful lot of discussion re- strategy, trying to second guess things, trying to reassess the situation in the light of new developments, as in a chess game anticipating the next likely move of your opponent and what in the case of that happening your next move should be.
Just because the first move for talks appears to have been made by the McCanns, does that necessarily mean that they have yielded to pressure because they have been persuaded by their lawyers that their case is weak ? It could just be a change in tactics, I have never known the couple to act other than in a way that would be to their advantage.
If the couple have been given a hint that the review is nearing conclusion and that the conclusion favours their allegations of abduction, knowing this is on the horizon but not yet official means a delay would put them in a strong position re GA. [I doubt that during the review the McCanns have been told of anything operational, while being updated...surely they have just been assigned a liaison officer?]
They might therefore have been given a hint of what the outcome is looking like. All the speculation over this development where we can write 50 pages of guesswork has taken us away from other topics where there might be facts we have overlooked.
I am sure it will be discussed for a long time, but I think we should try to keep away from the language that makes it look like a battle of egos about the McCanns and Amaral. What we know for sure is that SY has been to Portugal and this has coincided with the change in the Amaral case. Interesting times, let's hope that in both cases the direction is towards and not away from the truth.

by Guest 28.01.13 11:06

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

by Angelique 28.01.13 11:09

Agree on the Review decision affecting the outcome of the GA libel trial. Absolutely.

Yes I do believe they have a liaison officer.

I do think these are delaying tactics and hoping time is going to resolve certain issues.

This is most definitely politics - SY Review was and is still politics.

It is similar to chess - except they (TM Minders) are far more than six moves ahead!

There never was an issue of funding. IMO The Fund is and always has been petty cash.

by Me 28.01.13 12:04

bobbin wrote:Just to support Tony in all this recent tony-bashing, I might ask the question 'who the *..k is Blacksmith?

As far as i can see there hasn't been any "Tony bashing".

I can only speak for myself in saying that i have always tried to give Tony what i believe is the honest truth. The time he has spent working on this case is commendable BUT he has made mistakes which is why he is in the predicament he is.

I'm not going to tell him everything he has done is fine and dandy when clearly i don't think it is, and my honesty is there to try and help him rather than "bash him".

Which is why i wish he would remove certain parts of the letter from the first page of this very thread and why i think he should get an understanding from BS's post about the angles behind Amaral's libel defence in Portugal and see if any of those arguments can be used to help him now.

If he doesn't want to do that then that is his choice, it's only advice and Tony is obviously free to buld his defence how he likes.

by ShuBob 28.01.13 12:06

So the McCanns will be negotiating with at least FOUR different sets of lawyers- counsel for Amaral, TVI, Valentim de Carvalho and Guerra e Paz. One has to assume that these lawyers will be looking after the interests of their clients and so will have their own terms and not necessarily agree on a collective settlement. When I look at it from that angle, I'm more inclined to believe this out-of-court settlement is a delaying tactic by the McCanns. The to-ing and fro-ing with four separate sets of lawyers can go on for years. Unless the couple no longer care about being "sufficiently vindicated" and have decided to throw in the towel in every sense of the word, I can't see a settlement being agreed in six months [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

by ShuBob 28.01.13 12:13

Me wrote:
bobbin wrote:Just to support Tony in all this recent tony-bashing, I might ask the question 'who the *..k is Blacksmith?

As far as i can see there hasn't been any "Tony bashing".

I can only speak for myself in saying that i have always tried to give Tony what i believe is the honest truth. The time he has spent working on this case is commendable BUT he has made mistakes which is why he is in the predicament he is.

I'm not going to tell him everything he has done is fine and dandy when clearly i don't think it is, and my honesty is there to try and help him rather than "bash him".

Which is why i wish he would remove certain parts of the letter from the first page of this very thread and why i think he should get an understanding from BS's post about the angles behind Amaral's libel defence in Portugal and see if any of those arguments can be used to help him now.

If he doesn't want to do that then that is his choice, it's only advice and Tony is obviously free to buld his defence how he likes.

IIRC, when the court gave it's verdict in the Amaral v MAC libel case. we discussed the implication of the ruling on this forum much the same as Blacksmith has done. For that reason, it's not necessary for TB to use Blacksmith's reasoning as I believe he already knows them. If my recollection is correct, "Dr Martin Roberts" also wrote about the issue on McCannfiles.

by Woofer 28.01.13 12:19

Thinking - what would be the benefits of delaying the libel case?

1) Wrong-footing GA and his lawyers just when they`re geared up to go

2) Costing GA more money

3) Keeping GA`s assets frozen even longer

4) Waiting for developments/progress in Hacked-Off campaign that may stifle the press

5) Wanting the outcome of TB`s case known first.

6) Waiting to see what Pat and GA`s book says.

There are others, but my brain is still fuzzy !

by Me 28.01.13 12:45

tcat wrote:I wasn't attacking Tony, I'm trying to help him. Problem is just as you don't see that, neither does he.

That's my sentiments entirely.

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