The TIME of the alleged Smith Sighting & the Till Receipts that don't Tally?

Tony Bennett wrote:

RIPM wrote:

Tony Bennett wrote:

It is fact that on 15 and 16 May, the following members of the Tapas 7 all made statements (which they have since retracted( claiming (falsely) that they saw Murat hanging around near the Ocean Club the night Madeleine was reported missing:

Rachael Oldfield/Mamphilly
Russell O'Brien
Fiona Payne

Can you inform us on what date and where RO, RO'B and FP retracted their statements implicating Murat as being outside 5a on 3rd May. 

Ah! RIPM! I thought it wouldn't be long before you asked me a tricky question. You joined on 17th October and have been busy on the 'Smith' threads. It has taken you 21 days. Longer than I expected.

Please don't read too much into what I have written above, and it is certainly not meant in any way to be sarcastic.

Certainly not, as I suspect that you have a very great deal of knowledge about this case, possibly a great deal more than we think.  

In actual fact, you have asked a very good question (consistent with someone with a great deal of knowledge about this case).

You asked on what date and where exactly did RO, RO'B and FP retract their statements implicating Murat being outside G5A .

The answer is very instructive.

I have in fact provided an answer to that very question in my 120-page article on Robert Murat. If you've either not read that yet, or you can't find it anywhere on the internet, do let me know, and I'll be pleased to supply you with the relevant passages where I have analysed all this.

Anyway, I suggest that part of the answer, indeed perhaps a great deal of it, begins with a secret meeting held on 13 November 2007 at the house of Raplh and Sally Eveleigh on Portugal's Algarve coast.

The 'Secret Seven' at that meeting were:

1. Robert Murat
2. Brian Kennedy
3. Murat's lawyer Francisco Pagarete
4. Kennedy's in-house lawyer, Freemason and Director of Madeleine's Fund, Edward Smethurst
5. Murat's Mum
6. Ralph Eveleigh, and
7. Sally Eveleigh.

Two weeks later, the Portuguese press got hold of this meeting being held and publicised it. Kennedy had to come up with a rapid explanation for why he was there and said that he had flown over to Portugal 'to offer Murat a job finding Madeleine'.

I will refrain from commenting on that other than to say I found his explanation 'interesting'.

You see, it was not long after that that there was a gradual retraction of the statements of RO, RO'B and FP implicating Murat as hanging around the Ocean Club.

Not only that, these retractions, as well as happening gradually, also happened in newspaper articles.    

A common feature of these newspaper articles was that they were sourced from many people - or were they one and the same? - described as:

'a source close to the family'

'a family friend'

'a close friend of the McCanns'

'a legal source'

'a source close to the McCanns' legal team'

'a well-placed source'

'a spokesman for the McCanns'

(or any one of about two dozen similar descriptions).

Just to give you a clue, the main period for these gradual retractions was late November 2007 to February 2008.

But I'm sure you will find more in my article on Robert Murat.     


 

Tony

Thank you for your answer and the clue about Nov 2007/Feb 2008 but I may have information which trumps yours.

 However I have your best interests in mind and would be very concerned for you sending this article to me, or anyone else, relating to your legal status.  Please take this in a spirit of good will and not as any kind of threat.  I will obtain this article, read it and contact you privately.

currio wrote:

One more question. Were you LogicMan?

No.

However, I have retained a copy of LogicMan's theory.

I don't think he had it sussed, as it goes. It runs to 6 pages of A4.

It is libellous - and I am under severe legal restraint and won't post it openly - but I can send it to you by 'pm' if you wish.

aquila wrote:

TheTruthWillOut wrote:@aquila:

I like to think that some of the top posters here are privy to more info than they are allowed to talk about? At least I hope that's the case because it gives me hope.

The most important thing at the moment is the outcome of the Lisbon Trial - the one that's been so buried in a frenzy of media/police activity to even acknowledge its existence.

I quite like the slow pace of this trial. There's no hurry for the truth in a libel trial. It's a civil court action.

Isn't it God-awful that Madeleine's name has come up in so many libel trials and the only outcome of those is whether you win or lose and how much money is involved.

Poor Madeleine McCann, lost to those who can't even compare themselves to vultures (the innocent animals on this planet who have a purpose).

I agree it will be interesting to see the outcome of the Trial, and i read the updates on it here.
What i have noticed in these types of cases is that the Victim gets lost in all the circus surrounding a case. It is vile that people would use a missing child to profit, but there is some kind of trend that i learnt about in this case and Caylee Anthony's case, that people set up their fund sites and sell the child's pictures to the media, sell t-shirts, wristbands etc.
It boggles the mind really.

PeterMac wrote:

RIPM wrote:
 However I have your best interests in mind and would be very concerned for you sending this article to me, or anyone else, relating to your legal status.  Please take this in a spirit of good will and not as any kind of threat.  I will obtain this article, read it and contact you privately.

Given TB's legal status - as the only person in the entire world not permitted to say that the Tanner sighting was a load of cack, even though the McCanns and SY have now admitted it ! ! -
May I assist.
You will find the article on
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
"articles"
Nos 20.0  to 20.6

Is this the nasty piece of work Gunhill? The one who admitted in court to Judge Tugenhat that he lied?

PeterMac wrote:

RIPM wrote:
 However I have your best interests in mind and would be very concerned for you sending this article to me, or anyone else, relating to your legal status.  Please take this in a spirit of good will and not as any kind of threat.  I will obtain this article, read it and contact you privately.

Given TB's legal status - as the only person in the entire world not permitted to say that the Tanner sighting was a load of cack, even though the McCanns and SY have now admitted it ! ! -
May I assist.
You will find the article on
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
"articles"
Nos 20.0  to 20.6

Not sure if you're already aware of this or not, but Virgin Media consider that to be a "dangerous page". I clicked through regardless, but I thought I should mention it...

currio wrote:

Tony Bennett wrote:

currio wrote:Tony, in your opinion do you think the truth will ever come out?

I keep saying that I hope all the truth will be revealed before I die.

I am now 66

Thanks Tony. ...I have a feeling it's coming very soon :)

One more question. Were you LogicMan?...He seemed to have it sussed, in the first few days.

Didn't Logicman believe the McCann's staged a hoax abduction and that Madeleine would reappear at the 'right' time?

Clay Regazzoni wrote:

PeterMac wrote:

RIPM wrote:
 However I have your best interests in mind and would be very concerned for you sending this article to me, or anyone else, relating to your legal status.  Please take this in a spirit of good will and not as any kind of threat.  I will obtain this article, read it and contact you privately.

Given TB's legal status - as the only person in the entire world not permitted to say that the Tanner sighting was a load of cack, even though the McCanns and SY have now admitted it ! ! -
May I assist.
You will find the article on
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
"articles"
Nos 20.0  to 20.6

Not sure if you're already aware of this or not, but Virgin Media consider that to be a "dangerous page". I clicked through regardless, but I thought I should mention it...

Thanks for mentioning how dangerous the internet is.

I love your name by the way...and its intials...CR...now what establishment has the initials CR I wonder.

Clay Regazzoni was a Swiss racing driver, Aquila.

No I didn't know until a minute ago!

I'm glad that my Internet provider is happy with the Madeleine Foundation website.

aquila wrote:

Clay Regazzoni wrote:

PeterMac wrote:

RIPM wrote:
 However I have your best interests in mind and would be very concerned for you sending this article to me, or anyone else, relating to your legal status.  Please take this in a spirit of good will and not as any kind of threat.  I will obtain this article, read it and contact you privately.

Given TB's legal status - as the only person in the entire world not permitted to say that the Tanner sighting was a load of cack, even though the McCanns and SY have now admitted it ! ! -
May I assist.
You will find the article on
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
"articles"
Nos 20.0  to 20.6

Not sure if you're already aware of this or not, but Virgin Media consider that to be a "dangerous page". I clicked through regardless, but I thought I should mention it...

Thanks for mentioning how dangerous the internet is.

I love your name by the way...and its intials...CR...now what establishment has the initials CR I wonder.

Nothing wrong with the site, if you google madeleine foundation it comes up with a green tick on my McAfee site warnings, which means it is safe.

PeterMac wrote:

RIPM wrote:
 However I have your best interests in mind and would be very concerned for you sending this article to me, or anyone else, relating to your legal status.  Please take this in a spirit of good will and not as any kind of threat.  I will obtain this article, read it and contact you privately.

Given TB's legal status - as the only person in the entire world not permitted to say that the Tanner sighting was a load of cack, even though the McCanns and SY have now admitted it ! ! -
May I assist.
You will find the article on
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
"articles"
Nos 20.0  to 20.6

Thank you!

aquila wrote:Thanks for mentioning how dangerous the internet is.

I love your name by the way...and its intials...CR...now what establishment has the initials CR I wonder.

Bloody hell you need a thick skin to post here. Although I well understand your caution. 

(Knew I should have gone with Patrick Tambay. Although if I'd picked Carlos Reutemann I'd have ended up in exactly the same boat....)

I've been reading here a couple of days. Trying to clear my head of the fog - not an easy task!

 Some observations:-

The MET have a duty to the public to be demonstrably unbiased, accountable and professional in any investigation. On that basis, the following needs to happen pdq IMO:-

The McCann website should be taken down with immediate effect and an admission made that it should have been done as soon as the investigation began.

An explanation given as to why the McCanns were able to dictate Spain be used for CW recon. (Reason given demonstrably untrue)

Reasons for why the CW recons varied wildly between countries in crucial details.

A statement of clarification following the Cape Verdean suspect being promoted in the press. Who exactly do the MET want the public to be considering in e-fit terms given the massive expense of promoting CW here and abroad?

An explanation as to why the recon departed from the usual format of CW, in that it didn't show evidence of the open shutters and window. If the McCanns are not suspects then they have told the truth. The accepted truth by the MET is then tacit; i.e that the evidence of the McCanns re the open window and KMs whooshing curtains are put beyond doubt.

Right, there's probably more I, or any of us, could add but this is just for starters. This investigation hasdescended into farce. It's not exactly enhancing the reputation of the UK is it? So, while the "investigators" have lost their head, let's be careful not to lose ours.

With all this in mind I have come to some firm conclusions:

I do not take the word of the MET on trust.
I do not take the word of the McCanns on trust.
I do not take the word of the Smiths on trust.
I do not necessarily take the word of the new PT investigators on trust.

What may or may not be true is that elements of the MET, the McCann, and the Smith versions may contain a grain of truth in each.  Which is why we have the confused situation they all seem to want and which has led to everyone having a ruck (without the carter) on here for the last several days.

Back to basics. Forget the recons. Forget the Smiths. Forget Tannerman. Forget everything put in the public domain for our edification and stupefaction.

Some knowns:-

 A child disappeared.
No evidence of an abduction.
Lies told about the state of the apartment.
Conflicting statements from T9
False testimony against RM
T9 able to read each others' statements prior to LP rogatories
A subsequent pact of silence sworn by T9 when back in the UK
A sighting promoted by T9 and discredited after 6.5 yrs.
Another sighting kept from the public for 6.5 years by former arguidos, now promoted.
Alerts to cadaverine and blood given by two world-renowned sniffer dogs, independently, and to objects and places associated with two people now declared non-suspects by MET.
The Portuguese investigator removed from post having reached conclusion parents were suspects
Unprecedented expenditure of £6million and rising on the review and investigation.
Almost zero reportage of the McCann v Amaral libel case.
Non-co-operation by UK in the early stages of investigation regarding basic information to be sent to PT investigation.
No evidence in word or deed of current co-operation between Portuguese and UK investigators
Public comment on the case systematically supressed.

NB List not exhaustive

It is quite obvious that there has been huge disagreement on the Smith issue. I have my doubts/thoughts/suspicions/ mullings just the same as everybody else as you can see from the above. There are people who are steeped in knowledge far beyond mine and who have dedicated 6yrs or more to uncovering everything that is humanly possible and sometimes at huge personal cost. But if I can offer anything it is this: I spent some time talking to someone about this case yesterday. I realised ears were flapping, it being a public place. It quickly became apparent that people were interested but had VERY limited knowledge.

 Only the public in numbers can force this issue. We now have to be as canny as the Mcs in our PR and it is the time, after 6 wearying years, to stay strong for Madeleine's sake.

No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:Clay Regazzoni was a Swiss racing driver, Aquila.

No I didn't know until a minute ago!

I'm glad that my Internet provider is happy with the Madeleine Foundation website.

As a racing fan I'm well aware of who Clay Regazzoni is/was.

I'm afraid that I didn't progress much from Stirling Moss!

Belated  Clay.

Clay Regazzoni wrote:

aquila wrote:Thanks for mentioning how dangerous the internet is.

I love your name by the way...and its intials...CR...now what establishment has the initials CR I wonder.

Bloody hell you need a thick skin to post here. Although I well understand your caution. 

(Knew I should have gone with Patrick Tambay. Although if I'd picked Carlos Reutemann I'd have ended up in exactly the same boat....)

Ha ha ha...you'll do well here...you have a fireproof suit.

Mirage wrote:I've been reading here a couple of days. Trying to clear my head of the fog - not an easy task!

 Some observations:-

The MET have a duty to the public to be demonstrably unbiased, accountable and professional in any investigation. On that basis, the following needs to happen pdq IMO:-

The McCann website should be taken down with immediate effect and an admission made that it should have been done as soon as the investigation began.

An explanation given as to why the McCanns were able to dictate Spain be used for CW recon. (Reason given demonstrably untrue)

Reasons for why the CW recons varied wildly between countries in crucial details.

A statement of clarification following the Cape Verdean suspect being promoted in the press. Who exactly do the MET want the public to be considering in e-fit terms given the massive expense of promoting CW here and abroad?

An explanation as to why the recon departed from the usual format of CW, in that it didn't show evidence of the open shutters and window. If the McCanns are not suspects then they have told the truth. The accepted truth by the MET is then tacit; i.e that the evidence of the McCanns re the open window and KMs whooshing curtains are put beyond doubt.

Right, there's probably more I, or any of us, could add but this is just for starters. This investigation hasdescended into farce. It's not exactly enhancing the reputation of the UK is it? So, while the "investigators" have lost their head, let's be careful not to lose ours.

With all this in mind I have come to some firm conclusions:

I do not take the word of the MET on trust.
I do not take the word of the McCanns on trust.
I do not take the word of the Smiths on trust.
I do not necessarily take the word of the new PT investigators on trust.

What may or may not be true is that elements of the MET, the McCann, and the Smith versions may contain a grain of truth in each.  Which is why we have the confused situation they all seem to want and which has led to everyone having a ruck (without the carter) on here for the last several days.

Back to basics. Forget the recons. Forget the Smiths. Forget Tannerman. Forget everything put in the public domain for our edification and stupefaction.

Some knowns:-

 A child disappeared.
No evidence of an abduction.
Lies told about the state of the apartment.
Conflicting statements from T9
False testimony against RM
T9 able to read each others' statements prior to LP rogatories
A subsequent pact of silence sworn by T9 when back in the UK
A sighting promoted by T9 and discredited after 6.5 yrs.
Another sighting kept from the public for 6.5 years by former arguidos, now promoted.
Alerts to cadaverine and blood given by two world-renowned sniffer dogs, independently, and to objects and places associated with two people now declared non-suspects by MET.
The Portuguese investigator removed from post having reached conclusion parents were suspects
Unprecedented expenditure of £6million and rising on the review and investigation.
Almost zero reportage of the McCann v Amaral libel case.
Non-co-operation by UK in the early stages of investigation regarding basic information to be sent to PT investigation.
No evidence in word or deed of current co-operation between Portuguese and UK investigators
Public comment on the case systematically supressed.

NB List not exhaustive

It is quite obvious that there has been huge disagreement on the Smith issue. I have my doubts/thoughts/suspicions/ mullings just the same as everybody else as you can see from the above. There are people who are steeped in knowledge far beyond mine and who have dedicated 6yrs or more to uncovering everything that is humanly possible and sometimes at huge personal cost. But if I can offer anything it is this: I spent some time talking to someone about this case yesterday. I realised ears were flapping, it being a public place. It quickly became apparent that people were interested but had VERY limited knowledge.

 Only the public in numbers can force this issue. We now have to be as canny as the Mcs in our PR and it is the time, after 6 wearying years, to stay strong for Madeleine's sake.

Bloody good post that, well put Mirage. 

Daisy wrote:

Mirage wrote:I've been reading here a couple of days. Trying to clear my head of the fog - not an easy task!

 Some observations:-

The MET have a duty to the public to be demonstrably unbiased, accountable and professional in any investigation. On that basis, the following needs to happen pdq IMO:-

The McCann website should be taken down with immediate effect and an admission made that it should have been done as soon as the investigation began.

An explanation given as to why the McCanns were able to dictate Spain be used for CW recon. (Reason given demonstrably untrue)

Reasons for why the CW recons varied wildly between countries in crucial details.

A statement of clarification following the Cape Verdean suspect being promoted in the press. Who exactly do the MET want the public to be considering in e-fit terms given the massive expense of promoting CW here and abroad?

An explanation as to why the recon departed from the usual format of CW, in that it didn't show evidence of the open shutters and window. If the McCanns are not suspects then they have told the truth. The accepted truth by the MET is then tacit; i.e that the evidence of the McCanns re the open window and KMs whooshing curtains are put beyond doubt.

Right, there's probably more I, or any of us, could add but this is just for starters. This investigation hasdescended into farce. It's not exactly enhancing the reputation of the UK is it? So, while the "investigators" have lost their head, let's be careful not to lose ours.

With all this in mind I have come to some firm conclusions:

I do not take the word of the MET on trust.
I do not take the word of the McCanns on trust.
I do not take the word of the Smiths on trust.
I do not necessarily take the word of the new PT investigators on trust.

What may or may not be true is that elements of the MET, the McCann, and the Smith versions may contain a grain of truth in each.  Which is why we have the confused situation they all seem to want and which has led to everyone having a ruck (without the carter) on here for the last several days.

Back to basics. Forget the recons. Forget the Smiths. Forget Tannerman. Forget everything put in the public domain for our edification and stupefaction.

Some knowns:-

 A child disappeared.
No evidence of an abduction.
Lies told about the state of the apartment.
Conflicting statements from T9
False testimony against RM
T9 able to read each others' statements prior to LP rogatories
A subsequent pact of silence sworn by T9 when back in the UK
A sighting promoted by T9 and discredited after 6.5 yrs.
Another sighting kept from the public for 6.5 years by former arguidos, now promoted.
Alerts to cadaverine and blood given by two world-renowned sniffer dogs, independently, and to objects and places associated with two people now declared non-suspects by MET.
The Portuguese investigator removed from post having reached conclusion parents were suspects
Unprecedented expenditure of £6million and rising on the review and investigation.
Almost zero reportage of the McCann v Amaral libel case.
Non-co-operation by UK in the early stages of investigation regarding basic information to be sent to PT investigation.
No evidence in word or deed of current co-operation between Portuguese and UK investigators
Public comment on the case systematically supressed.

NB List not exhaustive

It is quite obvious that there has been huge disagreement on the Smith issue. I have my doubts/thoughts/suspicions/ mullings just the same as everybody else as you can see from the above. There are people who are steeped in knowledge far beyond mine and who have dedicated 6yrs or more to uncovering everything that is humanly possible and sometimes at huge personal cost. But if I can offer anything it is this: I spent some time talking to someone about this case yesterday. I realised ears were flapping, it being a public place. It quickly became apparent that people were interested but had VERY limited knowledge.

 Only the public in numbers can force this issue. We now have to be as canny as the Mcs in our PR and it is the time, after 6 wearying years, to stay strong for Madeleine's sake.

Bloody good post that, well put Mirage. 

Aww Shucks Thankin'  ya kindly.

Tony Bennett wrote:

Cristobell wrote:

Yes, I did see the interview Tony, in fact I took it to twitter and my memory is fine thank you.

As you know, all statements are open to interpretation, and you have interpreted what she said to suit your theory.  Her reply was generic - how many fake suspects have there been over the years?

With the greatest of respect - and trying to keep this on-topic - I haven't 'interpreted what [Wendy Murphy] said to suit my theory'.

Wendy Murphy was as clear as a bell in asserting, for the brief reasons she was able to give in the Fox News interview, that the CrimeWatch hysteria was about a 'fake sighting' (her actual words, not mine).

Let's put it another way.

If Wendy Murphy had seen the Crimewatch programme (which she might well have done for all we know), would she now be saying:

"Gee! I was so, so wrong about this being all about a fake suspect. Wow! That Smith sighting and those two efits of two different blokes from a family who never saw his face have utterly convinced me. How could I have been so wrong?"

That's one of the reasons LancedeBoil's thread is interesting. So far it's thrown up no proof whatsoever that Martin Smith ever had a bar bill/receipt for drinks at 9.55pm as has been claimed, indeed it hasn't substantiated that the Smiths were there at all - and the manager on duty that night can't remember a family of 9 including 5 children.

If we venture into semantics Tony, her message was that the entire Crimewatch programme was smoke and mirrors.  She did not specifically point her finger at the Smith family sighting, the point she was making loud and clear, and you seem to have missed, was, 'why aren't they dragging the parents back in for questioning'.  She was speaking on behalf of those of us who are astounded that Scotland Yard appear to be looking anywhere other than at the parents.  

Wendy Murphy was not aware of the content of the Crimewatch programme when she spoke on Fox News.  It was a well guarded secret and was publicised as containing new and startling information, there was much publicity leading up to the night it was broadcast.  They were telling us, and the press, that the revelations would come when the programme was aired, as indeed was the case.  

In her powerful comments about the case, she was sweeping aside the entire circus that surrounds this case and asking WHY Scotland Yard weren't looking at the parents and why they made their announcement during the ongoing libel trial in Lisbon.

Can someone tell me now that the case is open in Portugal and Scotland Yard have some sort of active investigation why Scotland Yard have not told the McCanns to change their website and insist that all information goes straight to Scotland Yard?

Mouse, I saw your post, and apologies can't find it again.  You did indeed bring us that terrific video of Wendy Murphy - your very first post I believe!  :) x

Mirage wrote:

Daisy wrote:Bloody good post that, well put Mirage. 

Aww Shucks Thankin'  ya kindly.

You're welcome, credit where it's due. You echoed my thoughts & articulated them very well.

aquila wrote:Can someone tell me now that the case is open in Portugal and Scotland Yard have some sort of active investigation why Scotland Yard have not told the McCanns to change their website and insist that all information goes straight to Scotland Yard?

***
To allow them to continue to make their own mistakes ...?

Châtelaine wrote:

aquila wrote:Can someone tell me now that the case is open in Portugal and Scotland Yard have some sort of active investigation why Scotland Yard have not told the McCanns to change their website and insist that all information goes straight to Scotland Yard?

***
To allow them to continue to make their own mistakes ...?

I'd love to believe that but I don't think it's the case. I live in hope.

Joss wrote:I am wondering what the link is between Smith & Murat as to how well they really knew each other and in what capacity? My guess is they knew each other very well If Martin was willing to stick his neck out for Murat to give him an alibi? And then how could Martin be so certain who they saw if it was such a vague description of the man they supposedly saw to know it was not Murat? But if it was only to cover for Murat that they saw some mystery man carrying a small child, and they fabricated that man to get Murat off the hook? Dunno.

Murat seems to have been a bit of a fixer the guy who could get stuff done.  Maybe Smith owed him a  favour and this was his chance to repay it?  Just a thought ...

aquila wrote:

Châtelaine wrote:

aquila wrote:Can someone tell me now that the case is open in Portugal and Scotland Yard have some sort of active investigation why Scotland Yard have not told the McCanns to change their website and insist that all information goes straight to Scotland Yard?

***
To allow them to continue to make their own mistakes ...?

I'd love to believe that but I don't think it's the case. I live in hope.

Frustrating isn't it. People have already had far more liberty than they deserve.

Clay Regazzoni wrote:

aquila wrote:

Châtelaine wrote:

aquila wrote:Can someone tell me now that the case is open in Portugal and Scotland Yard have some sort of active investigation why Scotland Yard have not told the McCanns to change their website and insist that all information goes straight to Scotland Yard?

***
To allow them to continue to make their own mistakes ...?

I'd love to believe that but I don't think it's the case. I live in hope.

Frustrating isn't it. People have already had far more liberty than they deserve.

That rather depends on what people you are speaking of, what your definition of liberty is and what said 'liberty' is 'deserved'.

Perhaps you could enlighten the forum.

aquila wrote:That rather depends on what people you are speaking of, what your definition of liberty is and what said 'liberty' is 'deserved'.

Perhaps you could enlighten the forum.

Er... I might have a fireproof suit but I haven't got a hotline to a team of legal rottweilers.

Clay Regazzoni wrote:

aquila wrote:That rather depends on what people you are speaking of, what your definition of liberty is and what said 'liberty' is 'deserved'.

Perhaps you could enlighten the forum.

Er... I might have a fireproof suit but I haven't got a hotline to a team of legal rottweilers.

What a shame. Still, you're not only fireproof you have the comfort of knowing that unlike Kate you can go for a jog and not be hounded by wild dogs.