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 Trainer 29.01.13 23:19

There is not one journalist in this god-forsaken country that has the balls to report this case.........

There must be a "D" notice on the whole anti McCann press reporting

Just how long do these things last for? Is it forever? Or do they have to renewed?

Do they cost?

by bobbin 29.01.13 23:32

Trainer wrote:There is not one journalist in this god-forsaken country that has the balls to report this case.........

There must be a "D" notice on the whole anti McCann press reporting

Just how long do these things last for? Is it forever? Or do they have to renewed?

Do they cost?

It's beginning to whittle down to that, a 'D' notice.
This whole affair has to be 'suppressed' at all costs it would seem.
It was always too strange the Pink Plonker, giving up his high powered government post to go and become a threesome with two neglectful doctors.
The intransigence of Goncalo Amaral and Tony Bennett, their refusal to buckle under the force of the most feared legal might, is causing rats to be flushed out. I think a clearer picture is beginning to emerge.

by jd 29.01.13 23:33

In the UK the original D-Notice system was introduced in 1912 and run as a voluntary system by a joint committee headed by an Assistant Secretary of the War Office and a representative of the Press Association.In 1993, the notices were renamed DA-Notices.

Any D-Notices or DA-notices are advisory requests so are not legally enforceable and hence news editors can, in theory, choose not to abide by them. However, they are generally complied with by the media. In 1971, all existing D-Notices were cancelled and replaced by standing D-Notices that gave general guidance on what could be published and what could not, and what would require further advice from the secretary of the Defence, Press and Broadcasting Advisory Committee (DPBAC).

by Woofer 29.01.13 23:35

I believe D notices are only to do with national defence and security issues, but not entirely sure.

I think its more likely to be a super-injunction because they can apply certain conditions about what can and cannot be reported. i.e. `you can say this about us, but not that`.

Would be pleased if anyone has any corroboration on this.

by bobbin 29.01.13 23:39

jd wrote:In the UK the original D-Notice system was introduced in 1912 and run as a voluntary system by a joint committee headed by an Assistant Secretary of the War Office and a representative of the Press Association.In 1993, the notices were renamed DA-Notices.

Any D-Notices or DA-notices are advisory requests so are not legally enforceable and hence news editors can, in theory, choose not to abide by them. However, they are generally complied with by the media. In 1971, all existing D-Notices were cancelled and replaced by standing D-Notices that gave general guidance on what could be published and what could not, and what would require further advice from the secretary of the Defence, Press and Broadcasting Advisory Committee (DPBAC).

Thank you for that jd for your explanation.
That's interesting. A newspaper, if it wished then, if armed with enough information, or enough belief that something were in the public interest would be able to report.
So if this goes wide via twitter, and if Tony is imprisoned for such feeble reasons, then twitter will be immense, then a newspaper could consider it to be in the public interest.
I shall go to sleep now, a little less fearful of the D notice. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

by mt 29.01.13 23:44

I'm a fitst-time poster but a long-time reader. I had to join to wish Tony Bennett the very best of luck for 5th & 6th Feb.

Is anyone going who would be reporting from court on the forum/twitter/facebook? If so, please post a link so I can find it.

Good always prevails. Good luck Tony - my thoughts are with you.

by Guest 29.01.13 23:48

mt wrote:I'm a fitst-time poster but a long-time reader. I had to join to wish Tony Bennett the very best of luck for 5th & 6th Feb.

Is anyone going who would be reporting from court on the forum/twitter/facebook? If so, please post a link so I can find it.

Good always prevails. Good luck Tony - my thoughts are with you.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]mt. Just read here, any news will be on this forum, in Latest News thread.

by Cristobell 30.01.13 0:07

Tony Bennett wrote:
Cristobell wrote:Just read on twitter that Tony has asked CR for an adjournment. It comes from Muratfan, so grave doubts as to its authenticity, but I do hope not.

I know this is an agonising time Tony, but please stay strong. Truth will prevail.
Cristobell - seriously, and speaking as one who has met you - why does ANYONE believe muratfan = Ian West about ANYTHING?

I have been quietly beavering away today preparing my notes for the trial and for my cross-examination of Isabel Martorell and Mike Gunnill, which will probably take place on Tuesday.

Carter-Ruck are similarly beavering away. An hour-and-a-half ago a courier, da Silva by name, knocked at my door with another two bundles for the hearing: one, a fat bundle with about 250 pages of case law they are throwing at me at the last minute, and another one with their 'Skeleton Argument' of their legal submission to the Court.

My equivalent went in to the Court on Friday, in good time.

I am buying a new toothbrush on Wednesday, since, at a contempt of court hearing, they have officers of the High Court ready to 'take the contemnor down' to the High Court cells - and then on to the nearest available prison.

All for repeating what Tavares de Almeida said, what Dr Goncalo Amaral said, what Dr Ludke is saying, what Pat Brown is saying, for listing the 48 questions that Dr Kate McCann refused to answer in her book, for reproducing Martin Grime's full report and rogatory interview by Leicestershire Police, for 'selling' one book to Michael Sangerte = Peter Tarwin = Jason Peters = Michael Gunnill - and for sundry and similar 'crimes' worthy of punishment.

All the while D.C.I. Redwood and his team of near-pensioners at Scotland Yard eat up millions of pounds of taxpayers' money following up what they claim are '195 new leads'

Phew, glad to hear that. I should have taken the tweet by muratfan with a large dollop of salt.

The late delivery of bundles of documents sounds a bit desperate on their behalf. I remain confident that the end is in sight. Best wishes.

by bristow 30.01.13 0:20

I reckon Tony's trial is the reason the McCanns have backed out of Amarals trial.
They are more terrified of us, in the UK becoming aware of the truth, Tony is a bigger threat to them than Snr. Amaral so they are making Tony's trial their priority.
Bringing in the new Barrister from the Queens Counsel says it all, the Doctors are quaking in their shoes.

Tony, I wish you nothing but success next week, I don't think you will be imprisoned but if you are there will be a huge outcry which WILL make the British press sit up and wake up, and us mugs in the UK will be much more enlightened to the smoke and mirrors of this dreadful debacle built by the McCanns et al.
(IMO)

by Ange 30.01.13 0:31

So glad I had the sense to copy and paste this time, after losing two larger posts due to laptop freezing, again. Is it reasonable to hate a laptop?

I've been floored by the dreaded lurgy in the past few days, and only now properly catching up. I think I feel my blood gurgling with the pressure creeping up in relation to what's been said by a few posters I had respect for. I have zero tolerance for CR therefore not totally surprised they keep at Tony, probably 'till the 11th hour; normal underhanded service resumed, then.

D Notices are indeed issued to the press and broadcasting industry in relation to National Security. They're not issued to the likes of Twitter or FB though, as far as I'm aware. I stand to be corrected.

I had a look through FB to see if there were any pages (for the unitiated, a 'dedicated' site for whomever/whatever cause one wishes to take up) in Tony's name, for or against. I found nothing. Something that can be changed before, on or after 5th February. These 'pages' can garner huge interest and followers. I'd be interested on any/everyones' thoughts on this?

Tony, your strength of character amazes me, not to mention your level of astuteness. Although I was becoming increasingly annoyed reading through this thread, your sense of self amidst others' lack of, was encouraging and heartwarming. One of your posts in particular made me chuckle, but it wouldn't do for me to air it, as it most definitely shouldn't have! I can't remember the last time I felt so strongly for one so wronged. I'll say it again and again, I support you 100% Mr Tony Bennett.

by Ange 30.01.13 0:48

bristow wrote:I reckon Tony's trial is the reason the McCanns have backed out of Amarals trial.
They are more terrified of us, in the UK becoming aware of the truth, Tony is a bigger threat to them than Snr. Amaral so they are making Tony's trial their priority.
Bringing in the new Barrister from the Queens Counsel says it all, the Doctors are quaking in their shoes.

Tony, I wish you nothing but success next week, I don't think you will be imprisoned but if you are there will be a huge outcry which WILL make the British press sit up and wake up, and us mugs in the UK will be much more enlightened to the smoke and mirrors of this dreadful debacle built by the McCanns et al.
(IMO)

I agree with you re the Rucks bringing in the new Barrister, though I'm at a loss as to how a victory for Tony could possibly aid TM in their (delayed) action against Amaral as may well happen. And conversely, they're surely not going out on a limb on the surety of victory against Tony? Particularly now. Makes you wonder if there's something round the corner, so to speak.

by **Hobs** 30.01.13 0:52

Something worth noting.

Trolls.

When something sensitive comes up, sensitive to the subject the troll supports, the subject themselves who may be posting as an anonymous or under a pseudoname then attentions has to be paid.

This doesn't mean discussing or ackowledging their comments or getting into fisticuffs wth said trolls it means paying attention to two things.

One. The sensitive subject which has caught their attention.

When something sensitive breaks the first instinct of the subject is to deflect attention from it.

Look over here not over there, nothing to see and so on.

This we look at what the subjct has written about, see what could be sensitive to them an then probe further using various sources.

Second. the subject will be using the process of free editing, the brain thinks a microsecond before the mouth or in this case the fingers speak.

The subject therefore, using their own words, tells us what is sensitive to them and the information we are looking for. often this is because they think themselves smarter than us, they like to brag about their connections to the actual subjects of interest ie the perpetrators, they use big words which they often typo and use inapproprately as they don't know what it really means and if all else , resort to petty name calling and threats (OMG you are threatening me with caps locked etc)

In order to be deceptive properly one has to know some or all of the truth, this means avoiding the truth and using deflective language.

We look for ropped pronouns, changes in tense, temporal lacuna, changes in language which mean a change in reality, certains words that are red flagged due to their association for example with child abuse and so on.

Also like handwriting, everyone has their own typing style, words they use, slang, typos, emoticos, vbonics and so on.

In my job i have become fairly adept at spotting the name changers simply because of how they write.

Do not react or respond to troll posts read them, analyse them, ignore them.

usually a non response makes them annoyed and they then ry and provoke a reaction or response by shouting ( darn caps lock , i'm so overawed) or by revealing little nuggets that shouldn't have been let slip.

I warn trolls on Peter's blog when they are being particularly immature their statements will be analysed, critiqued, spelling corrected and then ignored.

I find often they don't come back, it is hard to be big and tough when you have been marked down for bad spelling and critiqued on grammar.

by Cristobell 30.01.13 0:58

Hobs wrote:Something worth noting.

Trolls.

When something sensitive comes up, sensitive to the subject the troll supports, the subject themselves who may be posting as an anonymous or under a pseudoname then attentions has to be paid.

This doesn't mean discussing or ackowledging their comments or getting into fisticuffs wth said trolls it means paying attention to two things.

One. The sensitive subject which has caught their attention.

When something sensitive breaks the first instinct of the subject is to deflect attention from it.

Look over here not over there, nothing to see and so on.

This we look at what the subjct has written about, see what could be sensitive to them an then probe further using various sources.

Second. the subject will be using the process of free editing, the brain thinks a microsecond before the mouth or in this case the fingers speak.

The subject therefore, using their own words, tells us what is sensitive to them and the information we are looking for. often this is because they think themselves smarter than us, they like to brag about their connections to the actual subjects of interest ie the perpetrators, they use big words which they often typo and use inapproprately as they don't know what it really means and if all else , resort to petty name calling and threats (OMG you are threatening me with caps locked etc)

In order to be deceptive properly one has to know some or all of the truth, this means avoiding the truth and using deflective language.

We look for ropped pronouns, changes in tense, temporal lacuna, changes in language which mean a change in reality, certains words that are red flagged due to their association for example with child abuse and so on.

Also like handwriting, everyone has their own typing style, words they use, slang, typos, emoticos, vbonics and so on.

In my job i have become fairly adept at spotting the name changers simply because of how they write.

Do not react or respond to troll posts read them, analyse them, ignore them.

usually a non response makes them annoyed and they then ry and provoke a reaction or response by shouting ( darn caps lock , i'm so overawed) or by revealing little nuggets that shouldn't have been let slip.

I warn trolls on Peter's blog when they are being particularly immature their statements will be analysed, critiqued, spelling corrected and then ignored.

I find often they don't come back, it is hard to be big and tough when you have been marked down for bad spelling and critiqued on grammar.

Fascinating stuff Hobs - usually read your contributions a couple of times. Quite a few deranged ones on twitter for sure!

by **Hobs** 30.01.13 1:52

The mccanns have three problems they cannot deny and are in fact very telling in regard to their knowledge of what happened to Madeleine Mccann

1)

Kate said: "It really isn't easy," coping. "Some days are better than others. ... There's days when you think, 'I can't do this anymore,' and you just want to press a button, and we're all gone, and it's all finished, and we're all together and gone. Wherever. But you can't, you know. Just occasionally you'll have a -- if you're having a really bad day, which we do. And you can't help but think that."
Kate right here tells us Madleine is dead and she knows it.
Look at this logically, the key word here is ALL
Apart from admitting to want to murder her remaining 2 children (which leads wo concerns about her mental health and the safety of the children if kate feels trapped) the only way this sentence makes sense if if Madeleine is dead.
A dead Madeleine means should kate decide to commit a murder-suicide which is what this boils down to then they would in fact ALL be togeather, they would all be dead.

Madeleine alive and kate believing so means should kate press said button and commit murder of the twins and suicide of herself then they will not ALL be together, Madeline is still alive and now an orphan.
Logically kate claiming the longer Madeleine is missing the more chance she is alive (which goes against all the statistics by the way, children of such a young age are usually dead within a couple of hours.
The only times when a missing child is likely to be alive andis not a victim of a parental abduction is prenatal or newborns who can be passed off as the abductor's (usually female) and can't tell anyone otherwise or children usually pubescent who are abducted and kept as sex slaves usually female sometimes male such as Elizabeth Smart, Jaycee Duggan and Shawn Horbeck) whohave been found after months or years and have often been out in public and not recognised and the victim too scared to speak out.
Children who can talk can identify their abductor, the fact they have been abducted and are a liability.

2)

'Breaking down in tears, distraught Kate said of the Portuguese police: "They want me to lie - I'm being framed.

"Police don't want a murder in Portugal and all the publicity about them not having paedophile laws here, so they're blaming us."
In the process of free editing the subject thinks the words a microsecond before they are spoken, in this case we can see what is in the forefront of kate's mind as she speaks.
Given the PJ were looking for a live child, the mccanns have been claiming for the get go madeleine is alive and suffering no serious harm why then would kate introduce a Murder.
Note also she uses the word murder rather than death.
Murder implies a non accidental death, a deliberate killing as opposed to an accidental death such as accidental overdose of pills or a fall.
Murder implies premeditation by person or persons unknown.
If madeleine died by accident and it can happen, why would they not report it? why would they not call an ambulance? they are all doctors instinct would be to treat or resuscitate her.
Innoent parents refuse to accept their child is dead even if the child is blue ad cold and obviously dead for hours.
Accidents can and do happen all the time on vacations, children fall in pools, off balconies etc, we see it in the news.
the obvious conclusion is why did the parents need to conceal an accidental death?
A dead Madeleine would be autopsied as a matter of course to seek cause of death.
Was it essential she not be autopsied?
Atipsoes would reveal any old injuries, signs of abuse both physical and sexual ( as doctors they could treat her themselves) it is also likely if she fell a tox report would also be done and would show any drugs ingested , and from the hair it could be seen how long she had been having drugs and what kind)
An accidental death would give them no reason to hide her body and thus prevent an autopsy.
A on accidental death gives them every reason to hide the body and prevent autopsy.

If it were fear of charges then depending on cause of death they may not face charges or can plea deal them down.
Fear of losing their licences, again they could face censure, a fine or require to undergo training and/or be supervised. it is not likely they would lose their licences.
if, howhowever, it was a non accidental death then they could face 10 years in a portuguese jail plus any fines etc, they could also face losing their licences.

This does not however explain why the rest of the group have taken part in the coverup.
Why would they conceal an accidental death?
They would not have been involved unless they did not try to resuscitate or call 911 inwhich case they may face minimal charges and perhaps censure from the GMC

the only explanation for their assistance in the coverup again points to a non acidental death (overdose perhaps) and their involvement in the actions leading to the death.
They, by not co-operating, have everything to lose and nothing to gain.
child neglect by leaving their children home alone would result in little if any time and a slapped wrist from the GMC so it must be something more serious that they couldn't co-operate.

3)

1. On May 3 2007, around 22:00, when you entered the apartment, what did you see? What did you do? Where did you look? What did you touch?

2. Did you search inside the bedroom wardrobe? (she replied that she wouldn’t answer)

3. (shown 2 photographs of her bedroom wardrobe) Can you describe its contents?

4. Why had the curtain behind the sofa in front of the side window (whose photo was shown to her) been tampered with? Did somebody go behind that sofa?

5. How long did your search of the apartment take after you detected your daughter Madeleine’s disappearance?

6. Why did you say from the start that Madeleine had been abducted?

7. Assuming Madeleine had been abducted, why did you leave the twins home alone to go to the ‘Tapas’ and raise the alarm? Because the supposed abductor could still be in the apartment.

8. Why didn’t you ask the twins, at that moment, what had happened to their sister or why didn’t you ask them later on?

9. When you raised the alarm at the ‘Tapas’ what exactly did you say and what were your exact words?

10. What happened after you raised the alarm in the ‘Tapas’?

11. Why did you go and warn your friends instead of shouting from the verandah?

12. Who contacted the authorities?

13. Who took place in the searches?

14. Did anyone outside of the group learn of Madeleine’s disappearance in those following minutes?

15. Did any neighbour offer you help after the disappearance?

16. What does 'we let her down' mean?

17. Did Jane tell you that night that she’d seen a man with a child?

18. How were the authorities contacted and which police force was alerted?

19. During the searches, with the police already there, where did you search for Maddie, how and in what way?

20. Why did the twins not wake up during that search or when they were taken upstairs?

21. Who did you phone after the occurrence?

22. Did you call Sky News?

23. Did you know the danger of calling the media, because it could influence the abductor?

24. Did you ask for a priest?

25. By what means did you divulge Madeleine’s features, by photographs or by any other means?

26. Is it true that during the searches you remained seated on Maddie’s bed without moving?

27. What was your behaviour that night?

28. Did you manage to sleep?

29. Before travelling to Portugal did you make any comment about a foreboding or a bad feeling?

30. What was Madeleine’s behaviour like?

31. Did Maddie suffer from any illness or take any medication?

32. What was Madeleine’s relationship like with her brother and sister?

33. What was Madeleine’s relationship like with her brother and sister, friends and school mates?

34. As for your professional life, in how many and which hospitals have you worked?

35. What is your medical specialty?

36. Have you ever done shift work in any emergency services or other services?

37. Did you work every day?

38. At a certain point you stopped working, why?

39. Are the twins difficult to get to sleep? Are they restless and does that cause you uneasiness?

40. Is it true that sometimes you despaired with your children’s behaviour and that left you feeling very uneasy?

41. Is it true that in England you even considered handing over Madeleine’s custody to a relative?

42. In England, did you medicate your children? What type of medication?

43. In the case files you were SHOWN CANINE forensic testing films, where you can see them marking due to detection of the scent of human corpse and blood traces, also human, and only human, as well as all the comments of the technician in charge of them. After watching and after the marking of the scent of corpse in your bedroom beside the wardrobe and behind the sofa, pushed up against the sofa wall, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?

44. When the sniffer dog also marked human blood behind the sofa, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?

45. When the sniffer dog marked the scent of corpse coming from the vehicle you hired a month after the disappearance, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?

46. When human blood was marked in the boot of the vehicle, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?

47. When confronted with the results of Maddie’s DNA, whose analysis was carried out in a British laboratory, collected from behind the sofa and the boot of the vehicle, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?

48. Did you have any responsibility or intervention in your daughter’s disappearance?

A QUESTION SHE DID ANSWER

Q. Are you aware that in not answering the questions you are jeopardising the investigation, which seeks to discover what happened to your daughter?

A. 'Yes, if that’s what the investigation thinks.'

How can the mccanns claim anyone is hindering the search for Madeleine when kate herself admits doing the exact same thing to the exact same thing?

Innocent parents of a missing child act a certain way, they co-operate fully, they take and pass a polygraph, they appel to their missing child loudly and personally, they will literally camp outside the station waiting or the slightest bit of news, demanding they work harder and bugging them everytime they think of something new that might help find their child.

They do not hire lawyers and spin doctors to protect their reputations, they don't care how they look, they don't eat or sleep, they are out searching along with everyone else.

It was claimed their is no book on how to act when your child goes missing.

Decades of cases show the expected behavior of innocent parents.

Guilty people however also act in an expected way.
They don't full cooperate with LE.
They hire lawyers and spin doctors to protect their reputations, they don't search instead they hide away seeking privacy. they have to be prompted to talk to their child, often using a script, they show little to no emotion, they refuse polygraphs citing excuses such as too emotional, sickness, medication etc. They sleep well looking refreshed, they look relaxed often having makeovers or taking time to dress smartly (color coordinating) funds are created quickly with donations being used to support the family rather than actual searching or buying supplies for said search and searchers. they often threaten to sue and do sue those who disagree with their version of events.
there is often subtle demeaning of the victim ( Madeleine was hyperactive and demanding , had a temper on her)
Excuses are made for anything incriminating or evidence found.

Put yourself in the same position and think how you would act and what you would say and then compare it to what you see from the guilty parents of a missing child.
Note when what you would do differs from what they did.

Guilty people will always reveal their guilt through their words and actions.

We have 3 big red flags that cannot be excused or ignored, In a court of law i would be bringing up each one of the above and asking for a logical explanation.

Any words o actions that are outside the expected behaviors are red flags

by jamaljr 30.01.13 3:06

Ange wrote: I had a look through FB to see if there were any pages (for the unitiated, a 'dedicated' site for whomever/whatever cause one wishes to take up) in Tony's name, for or against. I found nothing. Something that can be changed before, on or after 5th February. These 'pages' can garner huge interest and followers. I'd be interested on any/everyones' thoughts on this?

There is this one Ange - looks like it might need publicising.

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

by aiyoyo 30.01.13 4:23

marxman wrote:Tony, I wouldn't feel out gunned, or overawed by such

an inequality of arms. Big guns are too expensive, takes

too many to man, and very seldom hit their target.

You, be a Marxman, choose your shot, fire the truth,

and even if you miss first time, loads of time to reload

before the bigger gun reshapes it's position as its size

denotes its weakness. Tony, you can do it!

The more big gun they hired, the more ridiculous it would look for them. That they would need a whole battalion of expensive lawyers and counsel to intimidate an unrepresented man.
The bigger their scale of legal representation the more stark the contrast and that wont go unnoticed by the Judge.

One important point of note is that all this is done not from Mccanns own money, not from the fund (according to CR). It begs the question who finances Mccanns to such magnitude to sue TB. More pertinently what is in it for the person or persons who bankrolled the Mccanns? Any reasonable and discerning adult knows it is more normal for people who have mccanns interest at heart to advise them to ignore their critics (especially when they claimed there is no truth in their critics belief), when the priority concern should be spending the money on search for Madeleine, and not on suing disbeliever of their fairy tale.

Since a while back TB realised they have guns coming after him, so I believe quantity now is irrelevant - just a growing number but nonetheless just a number. When it gets to this ridiculous proportion, fear factor would be wasted energy so I believe TB is beyond fear now. Conversely Mccanns are terrified.

The mightier their representation the harder the fall when it comes to that in the end.

I believe there is no way any wise Judge would ignore the inequality of arms and not take that into consideration.
Just on that alone the case should have been thrown out as malicious vendetta against an old-age pensioner.

by **Tony Bennett** 30.01.13 5:23

This message has just come in overnight from a long-time supporter and follower of this forum in Canada:

I have been following the forum as usual Tony.

My strong wishes and prayers are that you will be using your toothbrush in the comfort of your home.

I would so like to be able to attend the proceedings. They will make legal history.

It is amazing that such big guns are being used against you.

As so many people have said - there has to be more to this than the tragic circumstances of a little child, at least for those who are providing those guns.

As I write this, my sweet six year old granddaughter is sitting playing across the room.

For us, it is all about the life and rights of Madeleine.

My thoughts are with you.

[Name withheld]

I know it's early in the morning, but I can't sleep well at the moment, so thought I would just check my e-mails etc.

by Smokeandmirrors 30.01.13 6:25

Tony Bennett wrote:NEWS UPDATE:

I have just finished reading the McCanns' lawyers' 'Skeleton Argument', which runs to 15 pages.

Up until now, I thought I was just up against:

Isabel Martorell, Partner of Carter-Ruck and her support staff, including an Assistant Solicitor

PLUS

Adam Tudor, Senior Partner of Carter-Ruck

PLUS

Jacob Dean, barister.

Apparently these already mighty legal resources are not considered strong enough to overwhelm me.

So, at the hearing on Tuesday 5 February, Jacob Dean will merely be the Junior barrister in the proceedings.

The McCanns have also appointed a Senior barrister to lead their case to impriosn me...

Adrienne Page, Queens Counsel

And yet the plaintiffs can't be bothered or are too afraid to appear in court themselves. Disgusting.

by Guest 30.01.13 6:26

Tony Bennett wrote:I know it's early in the morning, but I can't sleep well at the moment, so thought I would just check my e-mails etc.

I also have trouble sleeping because of all this, but as many others have said Tony this has become more than ludicrous now to the point of amusing. You have to think beyond fear now and just see the funny side of it. As the very wise aiyoyo has said, this inequality of arms won't go unnoticed by the Judge.

The McCanns don't want a full libel trial at any cost, no siree, and are doing everything in their power to reduce you to a quivering wreck. Don't let them do it to you Tony...this case will go down in history with you at the forefront.

It will be you who exposes this team of fraudsters in the UK.

high5

by Guest 30.01.13 6:28

Smokeandmirrors wrote:And yet the plaintiffs can't be bothered or are too afraid to appear in court themselves. Disgusting.

Yes, the McCanns are too cowardly to appear. Surely the lawyers, especially the senior barrister brought in at the 11th hour, can't be fully conversant with this case? There is 6 years of information to read. Tony, surely, has the upper hand here?

by Liz Eagles 30.01.13 6:30

I wonder how the McCanns slept last night. Probably well. They slept well in a foreign country days after their daughter went missing. Kate wrote it in her diary for all to see (afterwards the newspapers were sued and then paid for the rights to publish the diary and the content was used in her bewk).

by Smokeandmirrors 30.01.13 6:40

admin wrote:
Smokeandmirrors wrote:And yet the plaintiffs can't be bothered or are too afraid to appear in court themselves. Disgusting.

Yes, the McCanns are too cowardly to appear. Surely the lawyers, especially the senior barrister brought in at the 11th hour, can't be fully conversant with this case? There is 6 years of information to read. Tony, surely, has the upper hand here?

Problem is, they are not remotely interested in 6 yrs worth of information, they will be focussing exclusively on legal points of law and technicalities, will spend as long as possible listing as many alleged breaches as possible to deprive Tony of court time to say his bit. We have to be confident that the Judge will be fair and be familiar with CR bullying tactics and allow Tony a correct amount of airtime in the courtroom. Lets hope he has come up against these before in court and has "personal feelings" about 4 paid henchman sent in to clobber one, unrepresented man.

Let's hope the Judge is a good and fair man and rips apart the vipers nest.

by BrokenBritain 30.01.13 7:48

I would also like to extend my best wishes to Tony.

It hasn't gone unnoticed that there is no support from Portugal - not even from McCann sceptics. Unlike when there is a case going on in Portugal they get much support from people in the UK.

never mind

by Smokeandmirrors 30.01.13 7:55

BrokenBritain wrote:I would also like to extend my best wishes to Tony.

It hasn't gone unnoticed that there is no support from Portugal - not even from McCann sceptics. Unlike when there is a case going on in Portugal they get much support from people in the UK.

I think Portugal is fed up with being known as the stage where the most diabolical of deceptions was played out. The day David " I twiddle my nipples when talking about babies" Payne booked THAT holiday was one of Portugals darkest days IMO.

by onion 30.01.13 8:26

Can I just assumed that this is part of the McCanns tactic to use this lawsuit against Tony as part of their defending argument when they are 'prosecuted' IF they are ever charged with' whatever's happened in Portugal; in so to get a lower sentence or getting away with it? You see lawyers have a way to bring in all sorts of defending elements in court and putting them strategically in front of a judge before a 'bigger' case. That's how some criminals get away with their crime.

If we looked at all the court proceedings that the McCanns has made, it all seems like as if a sort of information gathering tactics in so to protect themselves 'when they're charged in court for something else and have a barrister making it look like 'victimization' on their part.
It somehow feels like some sort of red herring has been done here and there. I don't know just speculation.

Anyhow, its best to be calm and not emotional. A calm head can put things in perspective clearly. I pray for the good wind to you Mr Bennet.

by Smokeandmirrors 30.01.13 9:02

onion wrote:Can I just assumed that this is part of the McCanns tactic to use this lawsuit against Tony as part of their defending argument when they are 'prosecuted' IF they are ever charged with' whatever's happened in Portugal; in so to get a lower sentence or getting away with it? You see lawyers have a way to bring in all sorts of defending elements in court and putting them strategically in front of a judge before a 'bigger' case. That's how some criminals get away with their crime.

If we looked at all the court proceedings that the McCanns has made, it all seems like as if a sort of information gathering tactics in so to protect themselves 'when they're charged in court for something else and have a barrister making it look like 'victimization' on their part.
It somehow feels like some sort of red herring has been done here and there. I don't know just speculation.

Anyhow, its best to be calm and not emotional. A calm head can put things in perspective clearly. I pray for the good wind to you Mr Bennet.

That's a very interesting point. Knowing that the case has been analysed and dissected, what better way of knowing how to defend oneself if one already has the heads-up on Judges perceptions of lots of smaller points.

by tiny 30.01.13 9:16

This has made me beleive that the mccanns did have a hand in Madeleines death(eddie and keela+pj files) to bring in these people in to intimidate Tony, and you can bet your life that Tony will get more shit from them before the trial.stay strong Tony, any one can see that the mccanns have something to hide.

by aiyoyo 30.01.13 9:19

Yeap, you don't stop someone from sprouting nonsense that cannot get you into trouble, you stop them from exposing your lies that can get you in deep shit.

by russiandoll 30.01.13 10:18

Lord almighty. What an inequality of arms. They are for sure fearful of something. Or someone.

And not there in person? Wish I could say unbelievable but it isn't. If McCanns are not directing the battle, maybe they have been told to stay away.

Best wishes for good sense and justice prevailing over such a war of attrition.

what a nasty taste this leaves in the mouth.

btw it will be all over twitter because there are regular high profile tweeters who refer to this forum and journalists do follow this case with interest.

by aiyoyo 30.01.13 10:26

******** wrote this in another thread which I though it will be appropriate here.

deleted at posters request

I hope CR is taking note that it is his clients who are hindering the search.

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