Tony Bennett's ‘From arguido to applause' - First Draft - in which Murat is the bad guy

Author Blackwatch (of 18/04/2010 @ 21:03:42, in Cryptology, viewed 174 times)

http://www.thesargeants.net/dblog/articolo.asp?articolo=334


A few weeks ago Tony Bennett mailed me a draft copy of an article he was writing on Robert Murat. The article itself was quite defamatory towards Murat, often intimating that Murat may have been complicit in whatever activity was going on during that first week in May 2007. I replied to the draft pointing out the numerous errors Bennett had made in his first draft and made a number of recommendations on how best to present his work. For several weeks we corresponded, and I fed through several other corrections (Bennett's biggest error was in suggesting that Mitchell and Dodd were dispatched to Praia da Luz on May 7th. They weren't. According to his own formal Police statement, Mitchell arrived in Praia da Luz in the last week of May (22nd) after being seconded by Howell James to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Dodd arrives a week prior to this. Both arrived only after Murat was taken in for questioning. A point which I feel to be significant).
Bennett asked if he could include me as a reference and source for much of the information on Murat. I politely declined, pointing out that much of it had been taken out of context, and that this was trend that was likely to continue in subsequent drafts. This was just a few short weeks ago.
Imagine my surprise when I learned that Bennett was finally publishing his article, but had radically transformed his view of Murat's involvement. Bennett's final draft put forward the theory that Murat had no involvement at all; that he was 'framed' by British Police. This was a complete contradiction of the conclusion he had asked me to put my name to (I was pressed on two separate occasions)

if you wish to read Bennet's original (and grossly defamatory) draft of ‘From arguido to applause’ email me at blackwatch@live.co.uk

*****
notes:
1. Another major error Bennett made was in saying that Clarence Mitchell started the rumour that Murat was acting like Ian Huntly. Mitchell did not start this rumour. The quote was made in response to an interview with Lori Campbell by Sky TV - prior to Mitchell's arrival in Praia da Luz. Murat successfuly sued Sky TV because of it. Several other British newspapers repeated the claim - including The Scotsman - and Robert Murat capitialised on each of them. The only time Clarence Mitchell came even close to repeating the claim was in September 2007 when a journalist with Expresso raised the subject:

"Q: Whilst you were a journalist following the case of Jessica and Holly in Soham. The children were found dead 2 weeks later. Did you predict the same ending to this case?
A: I thought that by this time she would have been found dead or alive, but an ending similar to the case of Jessica and Holly is possible, I don't want to and can't speak about Robert Murat but some of the journalists that worked with me in Soham, and that were recently in Portugal, saw similarities between the case and Robert Murat, more than this I will not say.

2. In his first draft Bennett suggets that Murat's decision to go back to Portugal from Exeter was done in an unsually and uncharacterically urgent manner - as if in response to some crisis or other. On the contrary. One look at Murat's flght records for the six-months prior to this date show that he was in the habit of booking last-minute flights. His previous trip had only been booked the night before departure too.
3. In the first draft Bennett treats as fact a rumour that it was the Office of British Consul, Bill Henderson who put Murat's name forward as translator. The source for this particular fairytale was Portuguese journalist, Paulo Reis. The Police files thesmelves record several different explanations, none of them ever mentioning Bill Henderson's office. It seems to be the case that although Murat had translated for Portuguese Police several in the past (as had his friend Gaynor de Jesus), Murat had volunteered his services first to friends of the McCanns and then to the Police (as I say, the Police files record several contrasting statements about this issue).
4. Bennett's reservations about Robert Murat are raised in several emails we exchanged. On January 26th 2010 he mailed me this quote from a British Newspaper, placing areas of interest in bold:

Jekyll and Hyde “SUSPECT OR SCAPEGOAT?” asks the Mail.
“I’ve been made a scapegoat,” says Murat. The Mail says Murat is the sole suspect in the case of Madeleine McCann. So much for Walczuch and Antonio. “It’s ruined my life,” says Murat. “It’s made things very difficult for my family here and in Britain. The only way I’ll survive this is if they catch Madeleine’s abductor.” But the talking has started. This is Murat, of whom Paul Titcombe, an ex-boss speaks. Titcombe is troubled by Murat’s past. He has seen Murat in action, at children’s parties. Says she: “Instead of mingling, he’d go straight to the bouncy castle and jump around. He got a bit of a name for himself. It seemed like a fixation.” The Sun hears from Murat’s former work colleague Ji Stanton. Says he: “If he didn’t take his medication, he could be very Jekyll and Hyde. People did see him as creepy.” Ji once accused Murat of trying to nick his sale: “Rob just flipped out in seconds. He went berserk, eyes bulging. I was freaked out.”

Bennett follows this up with the following statement, referring to the pornography websites the Police File record Robert to have visited:

"I am of course driven by a strong conviction that Madeleine died in Apartment 5A and that there has been an organised cover-up of the truth. I tend to think that this may be connected with something illegal going on, be it sexual, drugs or perhaps medical. And again, as you mention, the Redclouds site plus the encrypted material on his computer plus the things said about his sexual preferences/perversions by Carlos Costa and the anonymous female witness all conflict with the idea that they are all devout JWs. Further, it cannot surely be coincidence that Brian Kennedy is also a Jehovah's Witness."

To which I replied:

"I think some may have speculated (and I mean speculated) on drugs running - but there's diddly squat evidence. Having said that Amaral headed up the Narcotics Division and Metodo 3 detectives seem to have dabbled in the trade according to some reports. Porn and drugs pertains to organised crime I suppose ... Of course, it's very tempting to entertain the idea of one or more members of the Tapas group being involved in communities like Redclouds. Membership appears to be on the increase. A natural progression of swinging? Not so sure. allowing yourself or your partner to be filmed having sex is a world away from allowing your 4 year old daughter to be used or filmed"

Bennett's response to this was no less insistent:

"BW, I would suggest that for some people, it is not a world away but a STEP away, There is a great deal of evidence that people who develop an obsession with or addiction to sex look for ever more exciting ot novel ways of developing their interest. No need to go into details, but I am aware of some case histories where 'swingers' have indeed gone on to take an interest in sex with young children. Or to put it another way, amongst 100 'swingers', you might find one or two paedophiles lurking secretively amongst them."

What Bennett was right to be cautious about, however, were the substantial inconsistencies in Murat and Walczuch's statements. I'd certainly concur with him on this, but it is far from damning evidence.
update:
I've learned that Mr Bennett has included my name on his article even against my expressed wishes. Perhaps this shows what a grubby and duplicitous little man he really is. Is this how all deeply committed Christians behave Mr Bennett?

Was that the Ian C Cook Bible School you attended? Prayers in the morning - porn in the afternoon?

And on Rosiepops forum:

http://justice4mccannfam.forumotion.com/tony-bennett-f32/bennett-blacksmith-blog-t2697.htm

Parts 1 and 2 of our lengthy article (n in 6 Parts) exploring various issues relating to Robert Murat are now on our website, under 'Articles' at http://www.madeleinefoundation.org.uk/

Parts 3 to 6 will follow over the next two weeks or so

Now posted on Rosiepop's blog?
Well, that should inspire confidence...





NOT

''According to his own formal Police statement, Mitchell arrived in Praia da Luz in the last week of May (22nd) after being seconded by Howell James to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Dodd arrives a week prior to this. Both arrived only after Murat was taken in for questioning. A point which I feel to be significant).''


*********************************************************

Come, come now Blackwatch, or anybody else who takes Mitchell's word as worthy. Do you seriously expect any court to believe any words taken down and written up in formal statements regarding this appalling case?

Of course not.

Mitchell is the man who stated that the Tapas 9 were not wearing watches on the evening of Madeleine's alleged abduction.

Whereas Tony Bennett is the man who has painstakingly taken the time and trouble to immerse himself in the contradictions and amendments of Murat's statements to find that they are seriously in need of substantiating by other witnesses. Alas, it appears impossible to ascertain actual facts from them in any comprehensible way.

For some time now, I have read many personal emails being posted up for the purposes of inflammatory argument and debate. Apart from it being a serious breach of trust, I find it utterly deplorable. When a person offers up their thoughts to another in an email, it is indescribably vulgar to see it plastered all over the internet at the earliest opportunity.

It is not in the international interests of finding out what happened to Madeleine McCanna and it is a most serious distraction from the real issues in hand. I very much hope that people are becoming aware that this gossiping and tantalising is of no interest to the many, but is fuel for the few who wish to continue hindering the investigation.

The time spent reading this rubbish, is time that could be spent enabling people like Tony Bennett and all those other people who dedicate endless hours in dealing with the few known facts and the elements around those facts. Any good detective work relies on imagination where few facts are to be found. Therefore I would implore people not to involve themselves in the mindless and tedious business of engaging with people who do not support those who are prepared to think outside of the box.

The box is becoming increasingly empty. We need to look at the space surrounding it

Judge Mental wrote: For some time now, I have read many personal emails being posted up for the purposes of inflammatory argument and debate. Apart from it being a serious breach of trust, I find it utterly deplorable. When a person offers up their thoughts to another in an email, it is indescribably vulgar to see it plastered all over the internet at the earliest opportunity.

It is not in the international interests of finding out what happened to Madeleine McCann and it is a most serious distraction from the real issues in hand. I very much hope that people are becoming aware that this gossiping and tantalising is of no interest to the many, but is fuel for the few who wish to continue hindering the investigation.

The time spent reading this rubbish, is time that could be spent enabling people like Tony Bennett and all those other people who dedicate endless hours in dealing with the few known facts and the elements around those facts. Any good detective work relies on imagination where few facts are to be found. Therefore I would implore people not to involve themselves in the mindless and tedious business of engaging with people who do not support those who are prepared to think outside of the box.

The box is becoming increasingly empty. We need to look at the space surrounding it

How true. These forum wars between "hate sites" are nothing more than a distraction.

At the moment I cannot find anybody other than Gonçalo Amaral and Tony Bennett who have made any active attempt to discover how Madeleine McCann disappeared. Now, others may disagree with their opinions and that is fair enough but I am waiting to see some alternative evidence which points to the contrary, i.e., Madeleine was abducted. All I can find are screams of protest concerning the alleged harassment of the parents, but their statements, their version of searching and their private detectives are what IMO has turned the disappearance of Madeleine into a joke. If Kate and Gerry McCann were as active in pushing for a reopening of the investigation as they are in their various publicity stunts to "raise awareness" then they too would have my support.

justagrannynow 1 wrote:

Judge Mental wrote: For some time now, I have read many personal emails being posted up for the purposes of inflammatory argument and debate. Apart from it being a serious breach of trust, I find it utterly deplorable. When a person offers up their thoughts to another in an email, it is indescribably vulgar to see it plastered all over the internet at the earliest opportunity.

It is not in the international interests of finding out what happened to Madeleine McCann and it is a most serious distraction from the real issues in hand. I very much hope that people are becoming aware that this gossiping and tantalising is of no interest to the many, but is fuel for the few who wish to continue hindering the investigation.

The time spent reading this rubbish, is time that could be spent enabling people like Tony Bennett and all those other people who dedicate endless hours in dealing with the few known facts and the elements around those facts. Any good detective work relies on imagination where few facts are to be found. Therefore I would implore people not to involve themselves in the mindless and tedious business of engaging with people who do not support those who are prepared to think outside of the box.

The box is becoming increasingly empty. We need to look at the space surrounding it

How true. These forum wars between "hate sites" are nothing more than a distraction.

At the moment I cannot find anybody other than Gonçalo Amaral and Tony Bennett who have made any active attempt to discover how Madeleine McCann disappeared. Now, others may disagree with their opinions and that is fair enough but I am waiting to see some alternative evidence which points to the contrary, i.e., Madeleine was abducted. All I can find are screams of protest concerning the alleged harassment of the parents, but their statements, their version of searching and their private detectives are what IMO has turned the disappearance of Madeleine into a joke. If Kate and Gerry McCann were as active in pushing for a reopening of the investigation as they are in their various publicity stunts to "raise awareness" then they too would have my support.

Very well said Judge and gran

ufercoffy,
[quote=ufercoffy]
I've learned that Mr Bennett has included my name on his article even against my expressed wishes. Perhaps this shows what a grubby and duplicitous little man he really is. Is this how all deeply committed Christians behave Mr Bennett?

I think people have missed ufercoffy's point altogether.

If I'm not mistaken, her point seems to be her displeasure at TB for using her name despite her explicit objection.

In that regard, I can sympathise with her.

aiyoyo wrote:

ufercoffy,
[quote=ufercoffy]
I've learned that Mr Bennett has included my name on his article even against my expressed wishes. Perhaps this shows what a grubby and duplicitous little man he really is. Is this how all deeply committed Christians behave Mr Bennett?

I think people have missed ufercoffy's point altogether.

If I'm not mistaken, her point seems to be her displeasure at TB for using her name despite her explicit objection.

In that regard, I can sympathise with her.

I am surprised and disappointed if Tony Bennett has indeed used ufercoffy's name against his/her wishes. He once attributed an e mail to me but removed my username and apologised as soon as I pointed out the mistake to him, so I hope this too is a mistake.

aiyoyo and justagranny.... both of you have misunderstood my post. The whole OP was authored by Blackwatch and any quotations were his, not mine.

I obviously didn't make it clear, but the only thing I added to Blackwatch's post was the Rosiepops link at the end.

I shall edit the post to make it clearer.

Just to add that I don't have any issues with TB and am glad he's doing what he's doing for Madeleine.

Ah.........I see. Apologies for misunderstanding.

Apologies from me too, both to ufercoffy and Tony Bennett.

Perhaps I should keep my fingers off the keyboard until I have woken up properly

Well I have often thought that Mitchell was in PDL earlier.

Once he said, "I know, I was there!"

Also in the CdeM I read once that Mitchell was the one who paid with his credit card for the 14 bottles of wine and they have the receipt. So did he pay later on May 22? I don't think so.

Estelle wrote:Well I have often thought that Mitchell was in PDL earlier.

Once he said, "I know, I was there!"

Also in the CdeM I read once that Mitchell was the one who paid with his credit card for the 14 bottles of wine and they have the receipt. So did he pay later on May 22? I don't think so.

That's on of Truth_M'lud's lies.

justagrannynow 1 wrote:Apologies from me too, both to ufercoffy and Tony Bennett. Perhaps I should keep my fingers off the keyboard until I have woken up...

The correspondence between me and 'Blackwatch' over the past few months would be extremely embarrassing to 'Blackwatch' if I published it. It began promisingly with some exchanges of information between us re Murat, but then rapidly deteriorated, why, I don't know, but he began making a whole series of allegations e.g. that I was in league with barrister Michael Shrimpton. As I have publicly accused Shrimpton of being a fantasist over his ludicrous claims about what happened to Madeleiene, as well as over other matters, that allegation was clearly baseless.

On his blog he made a wholly unjustified attack on me containing many deliberate lies (I must speak plainly).

On the specific issue he raises, I offered in respect of the Murat article to thank him for his help in discussions we had had about Murat for several weeks. I respected that, but did quote from his blog in my article and naturally simply acknowledged the source by giving a URL.

If 'Blackwatch' were to resume his personal attacks I would probably publish the correspondence, as that would very readily put paid to his complaints about me. I might have to delete his expletives first, however.

Parts 3 to 6 of my article on Murat should be on The Madeleine Foundation website during the next two weeks: www.madeleinefoundation.org.uk

What on earth is it with so many people attacking you TB?

I read the posts between you and Shrimpton on the MM forum and I know you were against what he was saying, as were many people.

You'll be pleased to know that Amber has finally deleted the threads attacking you.

ufercoffy wrote:What on earth is it with so many people attacking you TB? I read the posts between you and Shrimpton on the MM forum and I know you were against what he was saying, as were many people....

O.K., just to give you a flavour of the correspondence, here's an exchange - unedited - between 'Blackwatch' (in black) and myself (in blue) from about two months ago. The matters raised by 'Blackwatch' are:

1. Whether or not Jane Tanner, from the police van on 13 May, adamantly identified Robert Murat as the abductor she'd seen, and

2. Michael Shrimpton and my alleged connection with him.

I would add that Goncalo Amaral's account of Tanner adamantly identifying Murat is crystal clear in his book [see AnnaEsse's translation] whereas the McCann camp continually attack Amaral for having lied about it. I conclude that this is a pivotal event in the whole Madeleine McCann drama and we should pay very great attention to this important event:

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

From: ANTHONY BENNETT <ajsbennett@btinternet.com>
Subject: RE: Shrimpton
To: "BlackWatch Mail"
Date: Tuesday, 23 February, 2010, 20:33

Please see below

Tony

--- On Tue, 23/2/10, BlackWatch Mail wrote:

From: BlackWatch Mail
Subject: RE: Shrimpton
To: "Tony Bennett" <ajsbennett@btinternet.com>
Date: Tuesday, 23 February, 2010, 9:11


I think you misundertand me Tony. My fault.

Shrimpton's report appears to be pure fantasy - but that's my point (although I doubt it was ever written by Shrimpton - and if it was it was consciously absurd). His reports are always pure fantasy - and there's probably a good case for arguing that much of his 'expert' opinion is bought.

The sheer number of people hovering around the fringes of the private intelligence and private security industries is simply too compelling to ignore - and the arrest of Halligen tore open a window onto all that (just look at the names and backgrounds of the Halligen whistle-blowers - all have links to Shrimpton and his usual friends like Caplan QC).

The same can be said of the significant volume of far right-wing activity in forums - which is why I sent you that link (of course this activity may only account for the political/religious profiteering that came in after Madeleine's disappearence).

Shrimpton? Caplan? Bell Pottinger et al? - they all fall into the Michael Cherney / John Loftus camp (and far-right enclaves in the UK).

Arabs bundling Madeleine into cars in Malta? Well it was never going to be anyone or anywhere else. It's a Christian Fundamentalist's idea of a wet-dream.

Shrimpton is an idiot. A dangerous idiot though and his usual fantasy attempts to do little more than foist blame onto everyone other than British and Mossad Intelligence (and those involved in private security and intelligence). It was the same with his speculation over David Kelly. He provides plausible counter-theories at the drop of a hat should certain people request it.

TB: Not much to comment on here except that I see no evidence for any 'right-wing' activity around the subject of Madeleine's disappearance

Tanner's identitifcation is a complex issue - made more complex because there doesn't appear to be any formal record of the surveillance episode. We know it happened

TB: Yes - although the 'McCann-believers' deny it

- but not even Amaral was there to record it. Jane's official/formal response doesn't seem to be recorded outside of Amaral's book (and he wasn't present) and Jane's rogatory statement.

TB: I believe about one quarter of all the police files have been withheld, which is no doubt a reason the McCanns want to see them all

Her rogotary statement is vague. They parade several anonymous men and she identifies one of the men who looks MOST LIKE the man she saw carrying the child. According to Police (and do we have trust trust them implicitly given so many processing errors and riddles in the official files?) the man she points out is Robert Murat.

Even Amaral is at a loss to explain why she later goes to so much trouble to say it is not Murat (and this is recorded in her statements both to Police and the press). The most plausible explanation is that she never did point him out - or if she did it was pure chance.

TB: No. There is IMO a much more plausible explanation, which I hint at in my article on Clarence Mitchell (attached). I think there is sufficient evidence to suggest that somewhere before the evening of 13 May, the suggestion was put to her, by the men from Control Risks Group, Bob Small or others, that she should positively identify Murat. Later, it became convenient to deny that it was Murat. Note the proximity of Kennedy and Smethurst meeting Murat and Pagarete on 13 November and then on 16 November Tanner saying:' Oh, I really not sure now if it was Murat or not'. Doh!

http://www.thesargeants.net/dblog/articolo.asp?articolo=290

Why doesn't any record of this identity parade feature in the files? No tape recorded conversation? No transcript?

TB: See above. 25% of police files withheld.

(unless you can point to one for me?)

So how do we know for a fact she identified Murat? We and Tanner have only the Police's word for it - unless you can show me otherwise.

TB: To believe otherwise would be to suggest that Amaral was an out-and-out liar about this in his book.

I'm not 'pro-Murat' (as you well know) and I'm not not 'pro-McCann' - but even I have my doubts about this identification.

If it is in the files then show me.

Can we stop using phrases like 'pros' and 'antis' please?

TB: I have consistently used the phrases 'McCann-believer' and 'McCann-sceptic' as I believe these to be much more descriptive than 'pros' and 'antis'. I think personally that that does define the two camps. Either you believe the McCanns and their friends. Or you don't.

They seem like a deliberate attempt to corrall opinion into just two possible opinion camps.

Controlling both the argument and counter-argument/ theory and counter-theory is an asset when trying to manipulate opinion as any decent PR man will tell you. If people have only two options (both of them wrong)

TB: I Repeat: Either you believe the McCanns and their friends. Or you don't. Either they are telling the truth, the whole truth, or nothing but the truth. Or they're not.

then they'll never get near the truth.

I think any right-wing (far-right) element has to be considered here. Any.

I think the intelligent commentator (and the Police) are ignoring this kind of pantomime altogether.

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

[NOTE: It was about this time that the tone of Blackwatch's responses to me began to plummet - T.B.]