Re: Carter-Rucks's costs: £288,503 for fighting McCanns v Bennett

by **Tony Bennett** 01.02.13 15:17

aquila wrote:
Suing people is normal now to the McCanns. How many times have they done it?

12.But those are only the ones we know about

by monkey mind 01.02.13 15:21

Get 'em Gonçalo wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:[
You are likely right. I can't see CR doing it FOC.
Who is guaranteeing this is left to be seen.
I suspect we will never learn the name of the anonymous benefactor but can deduce who it would be as only one person has publicly pledged financial support for the Mccanns.

He also said the battle has just commenced.

When was that said out of interest?

by **Jill Havern** 01.02.13 15:37

monkey mind wrote:
Get 'em Gonçalo wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:[
You are likely right. I can't see CR doing it FOC.
Who is guaranteeing this is left to be seen.
I suspect we will never learn the name of the anonymous benefactor but can deduce who it would be as only one person has publicly pledged financial support for the Mccanns.

He also said the battle has just commenced.

When was that said out of interest?

Actually monkey mind the quote was from an article published in The Times which has since been whooshed:

"Am I still involved?” he said. “Absolutely. Have we given up hope? Have we hell. The battle has just commenced. We have plans and when we are ready to tell the world about them we will do so.”

https://acs.thetimes.co.uk/?gotoUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thetimes.co.uk%2Ftto%2Fsport%2Frugbyunion%2F

by aiyoyo 01.02.13 15:37

Ribisl wrote:
tcat wrote:
They're sending a message to anybody else out there who might be considering writing about the case. The whole thing is a show of strength.
They are also very aware that the ground they stand on is far from solid and need best barristers in the land to protect them.

The question is: is it ethical to hire an exorbitant "Silk" at last min mounting up the cost considerably for the other party?
Surely that wont go unnoticed by the Judge that despite already having 2 lawyers and 1 barrister they add another top fee silk at 11th hour to pile on the pressure for the other party in more than one way. The ability of mccanns to afford at whim of fancy the best on the land wont be lost to the Judge.

by monkey mind 01.02.13 17:57

Get 'em Gonçalo wrote:
monkey mind wrote:
Get 'em Gonçalo wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:[
You are likely right. I can't see CR doing it FOC.
Who is guaranteeing this is left to be seen.
I suspect we will never learn the name of the anonymous benefactor but can deduce who it would be as only one person has publicly pledged financial support for the Mccanns.

He also said the battle has just commenced.

When was that said out of interest?

Actually monkey mind the quote was from an article published in The Times which has since been whooshed:

"Am I still involved?” he said. “Absolutely. Have we given up hope? Have we hell. The battle has just commenced. We have plans and when we are ready to tell the world about them we will do so.”

https://acs.thetimes.co.uk/?gotoUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thetimes.co.uk%2Ftto%2Fsport%2Frugbyunion%2F

Thank you Get 'em. Unfortunately that link appears to be just a log in page. Do you know roughly when that was off the top of your head? 10,11, 12, 13?

by aiyoyo 01.02.13 18:15

Get 'em Gonçalo wrote:
monkey mind wrote:
Get 'em Gonçalo wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:[
You are likely right. I can't see CR doing it FOC.
Who is guaranteeing this is left to be seen.
I suspect we will never learn the name of the anonymous benefactor but can deduce who it would be as only one person has publicly pledged financial support for the Mccanns.

He also said the battle has just commenced.

When was that said out of interest?

Actually monkey mind the quote was from an article published in The Times which has since been whooshed:

"Am I still involved?” he said. “Absolutely. Have we given up hope? Have we hell. The battle has just commenced. We have plans and when we are ready to tell the world about them we will do so.”

23 September 2007 By Ian Gallagher and Daniel
Boffey, Daily Mail
The mystery benefactor behind Kate and Gerry McCann's
fight back is a double-glazing magnate with a £250million fortune.
Brian Kennedy, who made his money from Everest windows, has pledged to
meet all the growing costs of 'Team McCann', the nickname given to the
array of legal and media...

by Dr What 01.02.13 18:27

He has a track record of good judgement and backing a winner.

...Ask Sale Sharks

by Inspectorfrost 01.02.13 18:43

@MM

http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/m/press/18-Oct8/TIMES-18-10-08.htm

B Kennedy in the Times October 2008. It is in the fifth paragraph. I hazard a guess this could the time when they decided to sue Mr A. Their writ issued the next summer.

by monkey mind 01.02.13 19:46

Inspectorfrost wrote:@MM

http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/m/press/18-Oct8/TIMES-18-10-08.htm

B Kennedy in the Times October 2008. It is in the fifth paragraph. I hazard a guess this could the time when they decided to sue Mr A. Their writ issued the next summer.

Most grateful Inspectorfrost. Thank you.

by sonic72 01.02.13 22:09

That is a lot of money wasted on silencing one person, when they could have spent that trying to find maddy.

But we all know that they have no intention of looking for her.

by sallypelt 01.02.13 22:21

[quote="aiyoyo"]

tiny wrote:
ShuBob wrote:Offer them 50p a week.[/quote

i would offer 25p they are sure trying to put the frightners on Tony,the mccanns do really have something to hide

I would offer them 1p per week spread over 20 life times if it comes to that.

Make it sixpence a week, and I promise to pay Carter-Rucks's costs: £288,503 for fighting McCanns v Bennett - Page 3 94409

by **Hobs** 01.02.13 23:51

On Thursday, two newspapers had to pay substantial damages to seven friends of the McCanns who were on holiday at the time Madeleine went missing. Kennedy cannot comprehend how people could even think that the couple were somehow culpable, or how difficult it must have been to live their nightmare in public. ?To lose your child and then be blamed?? he said. ?It is ludicrous and horrible the things the press were saying.?

Is he optimistic that there will be a positive resolution? ?I am neither optimistic nor pessimistic,? he said. ?I am realistic. We are just getting on doing what can be done and who knows how it will turn out. It is a very big part of my life. There are a lot of people helping by putting in a lot of time. But as I have said, it is not about me, them, Kate or Gerry. It is about a poor little kid who might be out there needing to be found. So therefore we need to move mountains to find her.? Carter-Rucks's costs: £288,503 for fighting McCanns v Bennett - Page 3 655851

Carter-Rucks's costs: £288,503 for fighting McCanns v Bennett - Page 3 655851

Spot the key word.

Yep MIGHT.

Either she is out there waiting to be found or she isn't, There is no might about it.

She MIGHT be out there or she might be needing to be found.

Since she is clearly not with her parents and since they filed a police report claiming she is missing, she is clearly out there somewhere.

Since she is clearly not with her parents and they filed a police report claiming she is missing, surely then she needs to be found.

To include the word MIGHT implies the possibility she is not missing and doesn't need to be found.

If she isn't missing then the parents know where she is and/or who she is with.

If she doesn't need to be found why then the reports she is missing and all the alleged searching?

Does she not need to be found due to guilty knowledge or fear of the consequences?

If she isn't missing then why the police report and alleged searching?

Is the search to cover up a crime commited by the parents and/or their friends?

Why would parents file a false police report?

Looking at similar alleged abductions, we see guilty and deceptive behavior from the parents and where the parents have been brought to trial we see the parent(s) being found guilty of murder/manslaughter and child neglect and in one specific case with overwhelming forensic and circumstantial evidence showing guilt we saw jurors who were too lazy to actually review the evidenceand generally act as a responsible jury, ignoring the obvious deceptive statements from the mother and the grandparents.

In each case we see the self same behavior in the parents, the same body language, the same statements, the same inaction and the same excuses.

Statement analysis gets to the truth, it reveals the truth and the deception from the subject.

A single word tells us what we need to know, a single missing word, the same.

One has to ask what exactly kennedy knows, who he spoke to, what they told him.

One has to wonder why anyone would offer to spend their entire fortune and has spent large sums on parents who admitted child neglect and child abandonment on a nightly case?

Why the mccanns and not slob and slobetta from the local sink estate who did the same thing?

Why so many backers spending money to support parents who are involved in the disappearance of their daughter, a daughter which kate , gerry and clarence have told us is dead.

What are the mccanns involved in that warrants such financial support?

by Inspectorfrost 02.02.13 0:05

i think its a given and proven factMANY times over the mccans have lied, fact is no knows why exactly, and that is due to thebritishmedia and others a nd THEM, where else bar a court could sort this out I ask

by loopzdaloop 02.02.13 0:12

Tony Bennett wrote:Today Carter-Ruck have informed me of their total costs in the case of McCanns v Bennett, which they expect to claim from me if they win on Wednesday, i.e. prove me guilty of contempt of court. They are as follows:

1. Solicitors' fees of Carter-Ruck to date:

£181,245

2. Disbursements: Court fees, process servers & couriers:

£1,484

3. Fees of Jacob Dean, barrister, for all hearings to date and advice:

£25,475

4. Fees of Adrienne Page Q.C., for advice and a 2-day hearing:

£32,250

5. VAT on all the above

£48,049

GRAND TOTAL:

£288,503

So much for this sentence on pages 289-290 of 'madeleine', by Dr Kate McCann:

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

I think they've shot themselves in the foot with the disparity in cost between the recent involvement of Adrienne Page and the fees of Jacob Dean.
What's to stop them hiring everyone and adding all sorts of fee's!

I hope you remember that when you win and they pay your costs that you should consider yourself a sole trader and that your fee's must surely be equivalent to both Adrienne Page, Jacob Dean and the rest of the solicitors put together!

As otherwise it would be a disparity of arms, and it certainly is not one of those is it.

by monkey mind 02.02.13 10:49

Inspectorfrost wrote:i think its a given and proven factMANY times over the mccans have lied, fact is no knows why exactly, and that is due to thebritishmedia and others a nd THEM, where else bar a court could sort this out I ask

Doesn't do any harm to have those examples re-aired on a regular basis on this forum though does it? No point in letting the truth be drowned out by media inaccuracies or down right deception eh. New members and guests looking in all the time....

by **PeterMac** 02.02.13 11:06

Quite.
As in
I went in through the front door using my key. Signed statement of GM
I now recall that I went in through the patio door. Signed statement of GM

As in
The shutters were broken open and the door hanging open
They were not

As in
The curtains were wide open. Signed statement of Kate
The curtains were drawn together, tight shut. Subsequent demonstration by Kate

As in
The children were not sedated
The children were sedated
As in
I crossed the road to talk to JW. Signed statement by Gerry
I spoke to Gerry on the apartment side of the road. Signed statements by JW and JT

And so on and on and on.

by Guest 02.02.13 11:15

PeterMac wrote:Quite.
As in
I went in through the front door using my key. Signed statement of GM on May 4 2007
I now recall that I went in through the patio door. Signed statement of GM
[...]

***
The very first and one of the strongest ones.
I cannot think of myself, or anyone else for that matter, not remembering through which of the 2 doors I entered and left the NIGHT BEFORE. [ETA and I have 6 ... Carter-Rucks's costs: £288,503 for fighting McCanns v Bennett - Page 3 302873

Carter-Rucks's costs: £288,503 for fighting McCanns v Bennett - Page 3 302873

]

And for a more recent one [non verbatim]: "we actually never made much out of her defect" in contrast to the well documented heavy use of her so-called coloboma in their early awareness campaign ...

by Guest 02.02.13 11:21

Châtelaine wrote:And for a more recent one [non verbatim]: "we actually never made much out of her defect" in contrast to the well documented heavy use of her so-called coloboma in their early awareness campaign ...

Carter-Rucks's costs: £288,503 for fighting McCanns v Bennett - Page 3 Colobo10

by **PeterMac** 02.02.13 11:30

Question
If it costs £ 250,000 to silence one person, how much would it cost to silence everyone in the UK.
Given
The population of the UK is around 60 million.
Working
Multiply 60 million by 250,000
Answer
£ 15,000,000,000,000 - Fifteen Trillion

Second question
What is the GDP of the UK
Answer
£ 1,400,000,000,000 - One point four trillion

Third absurd question
How many years . . . .

by Ribisl 02.02.13 11:57

@Hobs
It could also be read as "a poor little kid who might be out there needing to be found" because she is alive and captive in some way, as opposed to who might be dead therefore doesn't require to be recovered with the same urgency.

He may not know the truth any better than we do. But what is really behind his motive to finance the Mccann campaign is a mystery, at least for now.

by Liz Eagles 02.02.13 12:45

Oh my, things have come a long way in the last 5 years. The McCanns need to remember (my opinion) that the Fund of donations given by the public paid their mortgage a couple of times when they were in need of support (see link below). Now the McCanns are suing people and boosting the Fund from the proceeds (after the exorbitant fees of their chosen top people). How about the McCanns remember who supported them in their desparate hour and show how much they have personally contributed to the Fund - and I don't mean by fund raising events or writing a book, I mean how much have the McCanns personally contributed from their own pockets. Just my opinion.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8521940.stm

All this money, all this fighting, all this legal wrangling and Madeleine has not been found.

by russiandoll 02.02.13 12:49

straying off topic, but in response to Monkeymind and PeterMac and the value of airing well known issues again....

On a foreign holiday people quickly
adopt a routine for everyday things...and we have documented evidence
that the McCanns did just this

breakfast in apartment
drop children at creches
morning activities for adults
pick up children from creche for lunch
drop off children after lunch
afternoon activities for adults
pick up children from creches for high tea *
bath, milk ,biscuits, story ,bed
adults get ready for evening out
glass of NZ white wine, relax.
go out to tapas for drinks and dinner
* [ and iirc there was some short evening playtime for children after tapas tea, before wind-down in apartment]

it defies belief, based on the above, that they did not develop a habit of entrance and exit regarding their apartment.
and so would not forget which door was used daytimes/ evenings, [ if
routine differed ] ,regardless of any stress they were under.

by Guest 02.02.13 14:31

admin wrote:
Châtelaine wrote:And for a more recent one [non verbatim]: "we actually never made much out of her defect" in contrast to the well documented heavy use of her so-called coloboma in their early awareness campaign ...

Thank you Admin. Yes, it's quite illustrative, isn't it?

by saltnpepper 02.02.13 14:44

The coloboma is really useful when there is a sighting...the eye defect is that rare,the McCanns don't have to go here there & everywhere to confirm the childs identity,hopefully it has stopped unwanted attention on young blonde girls too although there has been disturbing reports since may 2007

by monkey mind 02.02.13 14:45

aquila wrote:Oh my, things have come a long way in the last 5 years. The McCanns need to remember (my opinion) that the Fund of donations given by the public paid their mortgage a couple of times when they were in need of support (see link below). .

And they had just moved house back then.

It would be interesting to know if they still have a mortgage wouldn't it?

If not, how so?