The Star of the Libel Courts.
The cyber vigilante paedo-mob, charging across the Twitterscape with flaming torches held aloft, ever alert for the naming and shaming of a fresh celebrity (preferably celebrated for right wing political affiliations) were temporarily baffled by the early morning on-line version of the Daily Star.
The head line brought news to cheer them – ‘Arrests in ‘VIP’ sex ring’ – but the photograph turned glee to consternation. Could this weedy looking individual really be the famously rotund Cyril Smith? Had Cyril been disinterred, could this account for his pasty appearance? Perhaps the picture was mislabeled? Could it be the ’66 year old Catholic priest’ that the Star assured them had been arrested. Or perhaps the ’70 year old deputy head of Grafton Close’. A Google search of the picture was called for to establish exactly who he was.
The Google search turned up screen shots of the man’s appearance on BBC. Raincoat? Shopping trolley? Certainly fitted the widely held perception of what a paedophile should look like – but who was he? More Google searches established that it was one Anthony Bennett, disgraced solicitor – and one time right wing politician. Politician for scarcely longer than that photograph reigned on the Daily Star.
Alert commentators soon informed the Daily Star of their mistake – this was no ‘VIP’ but a common or garden stalker and libeler. The Star didn’t actually remove the picture – they left it in place and put the right story beside it. The one telling how Anthony Bennett was on that very day in the High Court himself – accused of being in contempt of court.
Now normal, everyday folk would be reaching for the telephone to call their lawyers if the Daily Star, or any other newspaper, portrayed them as that vilified figure, an arrested paedophile, however momentarily, but there is a twist in this tale.
Some years ago, the McCanns, parents of missing Madeleine, were forced to take Anthony Bennett to court for libel. Along with other high profile celebrity cases he has shown an obsessive interest in – Stuart Lubbock, Lee Balkwell, Tia Sharp; Bennett had set himself up as a campaigner for ‘the truth’ – his ‘truth’. Always accompanied by the ubiquitous request to send small amounts of money and postage stamps to a suburban address in Harlow to help him fight the good fight…
In the case of the Madeleine McCann mystery, he had appropriated Madeleine’s good name to form ‘The Madeleine Foundation’. An organisation which the McCann’s claim has harmed the search for Madeleine’s whereabouts by continuing to relentlessly promote the idea that she is dead – and further that it was the parents ‘wot dun it’. Now there may well be other people in the UK and elsewhere who are of the opinion that Madeleine is no longer alive, everyone is entitled to their private opinion – however there is a world of difference between holding a private opinion and portraying as FACT in published words that this is so. You might think that someone who once underwent legal training might grasp that difference, but apparently Bennett did not.
Time and again, Bennett sallied forth on forums in the darker recesses of the Internet and expounded theories as factual which the McCann’s alleged were libelous. Eventually, after he had organised a leaflet distribution of these ‘facts’ to their neighbours, which involved skulking round in the bushes outside their home, they had had enough. They turned to the libel specialists Carter-Ruck.
Carter-Ruck were sufficiently convinced that Bennett’s statements were libelous to take the case on under a conditional fee arrangement – contrary to popular opinion, it is not being financed out of the money donated to help in the search for real ‘facts’ regarding Madeleine’s disappearance. Bennett took professional advice from the Wirral firm of Kirwan’s, who pointed out that the only defence available to him was to prove the Madeleine’s parents were indeed responsible for her death – something he was manifestly unprepared to do.
He chose to sign a legal undertaking with the High Court not to repeat the libels. According to Carter-Ruck, he has broken that agreement on no less than 26 libelous occasions. Hence his current appearance in the High Court for Contempt of Court before Mr Justice Tugendhat. Not for libel, but for breaking a solemn undertaking to the High Court.
Mr Bennett’s defence so far would appear to be that any libels he may have ‘inadvertently’ committed were ‘fleeting’ and not ‘widely publicised’, and therefore shouldn’t be punitively dealt with. Mr Justice Tugendhat’s judgment on the matter has not yet been released.
Which is going to put him in an interesting position if he choses to take the normal course of action against a newspaper that ‘fleetingly’ and ‘inadvertently’ publishes a libelous innuendo. Bennett’s own supporters have been freely distributing screenshots of the Daily Star’s mistake all night.
Bennett v Northern & Shell, publishers of the Daily Star, if it ever was unwise enough to occur, could prove to be the ultimate case to exercise the minds of law students for years to come on the subject of ‘clean hands‘ and all that.
*Declaration of interest (1): Bennett is one of the only two people I have had to permanently bar from commenting on this blog, such is his propensity for libel…
**Declaration of interest (2): Such is Bennett’s ‘interest’ in the welfare of children and child protection, that I once had to bar him from another web site for posting information regarding a child murderer that would have derailed the entire case, potentially allowing the murderer to walk free.
***Declaration of glee: Bwa-ha-ha *gasp* bwa-wa-ha-ha….ho-ho-ho. Hoist Mssr, firmly hoist.
February 11, 2013 at 17:12
-
February 11, 2013 at 14:32
-
If I may interject, I am not sure I understand the point you are making
there, Pyrite. Perhaps you would so kind as to elucidate?
- February 11, 2013 at 14:40
-
GM – of course you may but i think you have replied to the wrong post –
although i do easily get lost on forums as i do not have that much
experience – so it could be me.
If you are responding to my questions of Anna – i am not trying to make a
point – i am attempting to establish one.
Regards
- February 10, 2013 at 13:14
-
Scooby says the nastiness of Bennett to Murat ha ha ha Murat’s mother makes
it quite clear it was the Mccanns that were to blame for her sons
problems
including Mr potato head Tanner
Scooby is clearly a paid spinner ,family or a mental
- February 10, 2013 at 10:58
-
And what of poor old Murat the Mccanns seem happy to let him take the rap
but seems uncomfortable answering any questions about him
Poor Gerry he never really wanted a holiday did he
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUcVncYr6xc
THis is them getting over their grief
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vEAySu-hTJo
- February 10, 2013 at 10:48
-
Evidence of an abduction,sorry CREDIBLE evidence of abduction ZERO
- February 9, 2013 at 08:26
-
Anna,
You state unequivocally in your post that:
“Carter-Ruck were sufficiently convinced that Bennett’s statements were
libelous to take the case on under a conditional fee arrangement – contrary to
popular opinion, it is not being financed out of the money donated to help in
the search for real ‘facts’ regarding Madeleine’s disappearance.”
Do you have any evidence to support that assertion?
Isabel Martorell stated in court that Carter Ruck have not been paid from
the Madeleine Fund. We should take her at her word that CR have so far not
been paid from the Fund, in that the previous libel actions have resulted in
costs being paid by media organisations who rolled over before going to court
under threat of a CFA.
Note: even Carter Ruck admit that they only threatened a CFA, rather than
operated under one. See below extract from evidence to Select Committee in
March 2009:
Mr Tudor: Yes. My partners and I talked about it. We have a committee of
partners that looks at whether or not a case is on a no win, no fee basis, as
you probably heard from my partner, Mark Thompson. We did that with Kate and
Gerry’s case. It was a longer, more difficult discussion than would ordinarily
be the case because of the extraordinary nature, volume and so on. We sent the
complaints to The Express and The Star, at which point we were acting on a
normal retainer. We indicated to Kate and Gerry and we told The Express and
The Star at that time that if the matter was not resolved we would indeed go
on to a no win, no fee arrangement.
Mr McCann: If there was not the facility for a conditional fee arrangement,
it is very unlikely we would have continued with the action on the basis that
this was not our main purpose. We are still looking for Madeleine. Much of our
energies are diverted in that but also the prospect of a fairly swift,
conclusive verdict along with taking away most of the risk – essentially, we
would have had to remortgage our house to do that. It had a huge bearing and I
am thankful to Carter Ruck for taking us on.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmselect/cmcumeds/uc275-iii/uc27502.htm
So, “acting on a normal retainer”.
Please, why do you state that Carter Ruck took this case on a CFA when the
chances of recovering substantial costs from Mr Bennett, likely to be the high
side of £300k, are… well, I wouldn’t mortgage Adam Tudor’s house on it.
And if the Madeleine Fund won’t be picking up the tab who, I wonder,
will?
- February 9, 2013 at 08:33
-
You would appear to have answered your own question there, Petal
- February 9, 2013 at 14:00
-
Not really, Popsicle. I asked if you could support your assertion that
CR were doing the case on a CFA. Is the answer, “I can’t”? Just for
clarity’s sake.
- February 9, 2013 at 12:47
-
cr will have insurance, that is how cf works, if the defendent does not
pay the insurers do. most big law firms take on pro bono work so working on
cf is not a big sacrifice.
- February 9, 2013 at 14:04
-
Now you’re guessing, Scooby.
-
February 9, 2013 at 01:51
-
Craig. This isn’t anything to do with open minds, since it is not the place
of the general public to decide. But please forgive me if I have misunderstood
your barbed remarks. Although I am not completely unfamiliar with The English
Language. I do know bias when I see it.
I don’t know what happened anymore
than you do, but there is always a a balance of possibilities, and there just
is no possibility of The McCanns disposing of the body of that child under the
circumstances. This is simply not logistically possible. Every avenue has been
looked at and then found wanting. We didn’t all go in with both feet flying to
defend them, you know. Some of us have thought about it before we discarded
it. Not that it was ever our place to begin with.
But don’t you see that
what the likes of Mr. Bennett do undermines the system of Justice? He has
absolutely no proof beyond his badly twisted idea of the non existent
evidence, and the quite frightful lies that he propagates. He has absolutely
nothing to back up what he says. And he may not be allowed to go on doing
this. This is also The Law. “Thou Shalt Not Bear False Witness.” Or in other
words, “Prove what you have to say.” Mr Bennett cannot do this.
And he is
In Contempt of Court. As no doubt The Judge will rule. But I am entirely in
doubt as to whether or not Mr. Bennett will be allowed to precipitate a Libel
Trial. I do hope not, for his own sake.
- February 9, 2013 at 09:45
-
We’re in full agreement there. A trial would be disastrous for him, I’ve
no doubt about that. But by now he may feel he has nothing more to lose,
especially with Carter Ruck asking for £288k for their work.
I take your point about the evidence and Mr Bennett’s exaggeration of it.
But there is evidence to support a certain interpretation of what may have
happened to Madeleine. It is very tempting to exaggerate it. I’ve done it
myself, many times, though now I try to stop doing it. There is however
undoubtedly undisputed evidence of the reputation management campaign and
some people believe that started right on the night of May 3rd 2007. Danny
Collins did, for example. Probably Anna doesn’t want the whole case debated
here though. I agree Mr Bennett has done some shameful things during his
campaign. We all have (the McCanns included). I’m not proud of it
personally.
You are also right to accuse me of bias. I do have my opinion about what
happened to Madeleine. But I’m not totally convinced about it. I do however
probably show I don’t like Kate and Gerry (and Mitchell) a bit too much. At
the very least their reputation management campaign has been – and still is
– very sordid. In my opinion. That’s all it is, my opinion.
- February 9, 2013 at 12:52
-
he did not just exagerate he out right lied, misrepresented, and
omitted. there is no evidence of a reputation management campaign starting
that night.
If bennett goes for a libel trial he will be shown up as
having lied, and if he continues to lie on the stand he could face perjury
charges too which can carry a prison sentence.
- February 9, 2013 at 13:16
-
Thank you, Craig. That is a remarkably honest reply. I might have been
able to debate with you, given half a chance. But as you say, this is not
the place.
- February 11, 2013 at 10:19
-
Thanks, Elena. It’s two days closer to the judgment now – a very
momentous one whichever ‘side’ of the case everybody is on. I’m sure we
are all on Madeleine’s side however. Even Mr Bennett in his fanatical
way.
- February 8, 2013 at 22:09
-
Elena’andcart……yes I accept what your saying with regards the legal
position of lie detectors but would suggest that they can ‘indicate’ to a
wider world audience ,if passed of course, the truthfulness or otherwise of
the participants….thus eliminating the need for expensive ‘reputation
managers’ who seem to have not been very successful!
-
February 8, 2013 at 23:32
-
You try one when you are in a state of total distress, especially with
loaded questions. They are not admissible for a reason. They are totally
unreliable.
Clarence Mitchell was not employed as a Reputation Manager and he didn’t
fail. A small bunch of loonies is not The Wider World much as you might like
to think they are.
Either Tony Bennett has a World Wide Audience, or his
Campaign has little impact, as he stated in Court. Which is it?
- February 8, 2013 at 23:45
-
It has had little impact, but suspicion about what truthfully happened
in PdL is widespread. It was widespread long before Tony ever got
involved, long before the dogs arrived in Portugal, and also long before
the UK tabloids turned on the McCanns. It will be there long after Tony
has disappeared too. It will never go away.
- February 9, 2013 at
00:09
-
Mr. Bennett involved himself almost from Day One, as has been his
wont in other tragedies, so perhaps you don’t know as much about this as
I do.
The Tabloids paid dearly for their Libel, or perhaps you don’t
know that either.
The Dogs are irrelevant since they discovered
nothing. I suggest that you do some research on that one.
I have no emotional attachment to The McCanns or Madeleine and have
never met any of them, but I loath and detest the flouting of The Law of
the Land which states Innocent until Proven Guilty, so your opinions are
of no interest to me, beyond a hope that you never serve on a Jury But
you may spend your life convinced of their guilt if you wish. I only
hope. Perhaps you should try a bit of that.
-
February 9, 2013 at 00:50
-
Did I say I was convinced they were guilty? I said there is
suspicion about what happened to Madeleine. I’m not convinced of
anything. It remains a mystery and a wise person doesn’t rule out any
possibility (abduction included, but that is only a theory. It’s not
fact.)
Truthfully we don’t know anymore now than we did the week it
happened. Except for the dogs, who did find something. I’d not take
their alerts as conclusive of anything though. I have an open mind.
Unlike some I think.
- February 8, 2013 at 23:49
-
Kingsley Napley and Hanover were employed for the ‘reputation
management’.
-
February 9, 2013 at 13:49
-
Do you have nay actual evidence for that or is it just something you
rea don an internet forum or osmeone told you? Have you actually seen
contracts, correspondance, a statement from the mccanns saying they had
employed them for reputation management etc?
-
February 8, 2013 at 20:41
-
Lie Detector Tests are never admissible in Court, so what would be the
point?
Would anyone answer questions that were not only insulting but also
designed to stitch you up? Especially when you had already attempted to give
an explanation, and were then no longer obliged to repeat yourself.
No
matter what anyone thinks of The McCanns, it was logistically impossible for
them to have disposed of the body of their daughter, never to be found. While
it remains more than possible that Madeleine was abducted which would only
have taken minutes, especially if the abductor was already in the appartment
when Gerry went to check at 9 o’clock.
My assumptions are based entirely on
logistics of which I have some knowledge, being totally addicted to
mathematics. Not to forget my vast knowledge of this case.
- February 8, 2013 at 18:16
-
Ref. question 2. Personally I,ve difficulty understanding why they didn’t
agree to this even though not relevant in a court case. In their situation if
they’d done the test and passed it I’m sure that they wouldn’t have had to
spend so much on “reputation protection”.
-
February 8, 2013 at 20:46
-
Oh, come on. You don’t seriously think that The Stalkers and Hounders
would have accepted this, do you? I can quote a few cases of people who beat
The Lie detector Test, and then went on to murder more people. And I can
think of a few who failed who were entirely innocent. It’s a load of old
rubbish, which is why it isn’t admissible in Court. Even, God forbid, in
America.
- February 8, 2013 at 22:16
-
Because it would have been done for cheap entertainment, like something
from the Jeremy Kyle show. It would cheapen Madeleine. Plus if they were
bound by Portuguese judicial secrecy they would have been breaking the law.
And given the details emerging from the leveson report woudl anyone here
trust something so important to a tabloid desperate for a cheap
headline.
- February 8, 2013 at 14:27
-
Thank you scooby for your comprehensive analysis – its such a relief when
someone is able to explain without resorting to ad hominem attacks.
I wonder if you would oblige me with your interpretation on a few questions
i have – And reminding Anna i would still like to hear her own position on
this case if she would be so kind
1. Why would Kate not answer the 48 questions?
2. Did the McCann’s agree to take a lie detector test – and the refuse?
3. Was the description which was issued over three weeks after Madeleine
was reported missing, based solely on Jane Tanner’s sighting?
4. Is it true that Gerry spoke with Gordon Brown around 9 times on the
telephone?
5. Is it true that Gordon Brown brought up the case at the E.U.’s ‘Lisbon
Summit’ in October 2007?
6. Is it true that the McCann’s were initially hesitant in supplying their
mobile phone records and did Gerry wipe his SMS messages before doing so?
7. Did the McCann’s look for their daughter?
8. Did they go jogging the very next day?
9. Did Gerry play tennis the next day also?
10. Did Gerry compare losing Madeleine to being overdrawn?
11. Why did the Vatican withdraw all references to the McCann’s from their
website 48 hours before the McCann’s were made formal suspects?
12. Did Gerry refuse to answer a question whether he knew Robert Murat? If
so, why?
Thank you in advance.
Personally, i find much of it very strange. I find both of them extremely
cold individuals. When you consider that many children sadly go missing, in
all my years i have never seen such a campaign like this one – where a BBC
exec becomes an official spokesman – a ltd company is set up – fund raising on
such a massive scale – the best (and most expensive) lawyers are employed (i
am aware that they do some work for free, but Ms Martorell of Carter Ruck
admitted in court under oath that some is free and some is paid for)
Having said that, these are my personal feelings and i should not let them
influence the facts – hence my questions.
Regards
- February 8, 2013 at 16:39
-
1. Why would Kate not answer the 48 questions?
FRom what I read in the
files these questions she had already answered when questioned previously,
if one looks at the unanswered question most of them seem to contain a type
of “can you explain any more than you already have done” end to them
indicating thse have already been asked. It was only when she was made a
person of interest that her lawyer told her not to answer the questions
again. Your in a foreign country, you do not speak the language so cannot
understand what the police are saying to ecah other, you have been made an
aguido in the cas eof your missing child when you know you are innocent, you
are going to be so scared you will just do what the lawyer says at that
point.
2. Did the McCann’s agree to take a lie detector test – and the
refuse?
The only quote from the mccanns came via Clarence Mitchell and he
said “”Kate and Gerry McCann have absolutely nothing to hide and, if a
request from the Portuguese authorities was made for them to undergo such a
lie detector test, they would have no issue with it, provided the test is
suitably overseen by an appropriate expert who can ensure the absolutely
reliability of the equipment being used. However, it is my understanding
that such machines are not used in Portuguese criminal cases, nor is the
information from them deemed admissible in court, and there are question
marks over their reliability. Therefore we think it is extremely unlikely
that such a request for a test would come through.”.
He was correct and
no request came from any law enforcement. Howerver I believe a tabloid asked
them to do one and they refused presumably because it is not something that
should be done for entertainment value (and I think this was asked when they
were bound by Portuguese secrecy in regards to the case) and would not be
done professionally as it were. It should be noted that in the UK if they
had done this and got a guilty result it would have prejudiced any future
trial meaning they could never have been tried.
3. Was the description which was issued over three weeks after Madeleine
was reported missing, based solely on Jane Tanner’s sighting?
Not too
sure about this I think so, but the smiths also made a similar sighting
although I would have to double check when they reported it. I do not think
the circumstances of the tanner sighting were reported though just the
general description.
4. Is it true that Gerry spoke with Gordon Brown around 9 times on the
telephone?
There are no primary sources listing the number or content of
the calls, but a newspaper reported a mccann spokesperson as saying that
Brown had spoken to the mccanns at some point.
5. Is it true that Gordon Brown brought up the case at the E.U.’s ‘Lisbon
Summit’ in October 2007?
I have not seen any primary sources for this,
but I am not certain.
6. Is it true that the McCann’s were initially hesitant in supplying
their mobile phone records and did Gerry wipe his SMS messages before doing
so?
The PJ didn’t ask permission to examine the McCann’s mobile phone
records (they obtained them from the three Portuguese national telephone
operators). They asked for identification of the owners of 44 (mobile)
telephone numbers. The Home Office supplied them with a list of the
subscribers. There is nowhere in the files thatclaims the sms messages had
been wiped, and in fact gerry woudl not have been able to do this as the
phone company would have the records of the sms. The files also states that
kate and gerry both gave permission for the data from their phones to be
read.
7. Did the McCann’s look for their daughter?
Yes, witnesses state they
saw kate and gerry looking that night both before and after the police
arrived. The idea that they did not look comes from an interview where they
talk about not physically searching, but they are talking about the long
term rather than the first night. However it is unusual that the police
allowed the parents to look that first night as this is normally prevented
in the UK I believe.
8. Did they go jogging the very next day?
As far as I am aware no, but
they did in later days. Given the enormity of the situation I think this is
a good idea. This is one of the worst things that can happen to a parent,
worse than their own death and if they had allowed themselves to fall they
would not have got up again and they not only had to stay sane for
madeleine, but the twins, each other and their parents. Forcing themselves
to do things like jogging is a good way of keeping it together, that is how
people get through horrendous situations they try to force a normality.
9. Did Gerry play tennis the next day also?
Not that I am aware
of
10. Did Gerry compare losing Madeleine to being overdrawn?
No this
is a misrepresentation. What he actually said was “at the end of that first
week there was so much emotion that we had spent and we actually had a
period where we discussed this openly that we felt devoid, completely devoid
of emotion. The analogy that I like to use is a bit like when we were
students and you’d got to your overdraft limit and you’d gone beyond it and
there was just nothing left in the tank. Also, I think, physically and
mentally we were shattered”.
So he is comparing the draining of emotions
to being overdrawn i.e he had nothing left not the fact his daughter was
missing.
11. Why did the Vatican withdraw all references to the McCann’s from
their website 48 hours before the McCann’s were made formal suspects?
I
have not seen one primary source for this, it is internet rumour as far as I
am aware but correct me if I am wrong
12. Did Gerry refuse to answer a question whether he knew Robert Murat?
If so, why?
I can see nothing in the files to say he refused to answer
the police this question, but he was unable to answer the question from a
journalist as the secrecy had not been lifted so it was illegal for them to
talk about the details of the case in this way. The files state that the PJ
found no evidence that the mccanns knew anyone in PDL.
- February 8, 2013 at 17:53
-
Thank you for taking the time Scooby – it is much appreciated.
I’m afraid i do not understand Anna’s comment above?
Regards
-
February 8, 2013 at 22:14
-
I think it wa sin response to hares comments about dogs getting sore
throats above
- February 8, 2013 at 13:27
-
“The cyber vigilante paedo-mob, charging across the Twitterscape with
flaming torches held aloft, ever alert for the naming and shaming of a fresh
celebrity (preferably celebrated for right wing political affiliations)”
Them damned lefties again!
- February 8, 2013 at 15:19
-
was Cyril smith a righty?
-
February 8, 2013 at 13:23
-
Anthony Bennett was in court to defend an action for Contempt of Court. Any
discussion here on whether the McCanns were in some way culpable is irrelevant
to the case held earlier this week.
As a recap, having given an undertaking to the High Court to cease defaming
the McCanns, he has alledgedly breached that order some 150 times since
October 2009.
In court, his entire defence was directed to “proving” that the McCanns
were in some way guilty and that he was therefore justified in ingnoring the
Undertaking. The Judge, very patiently, on many occasions reminded him that he
was actually in court for contempt, not libel and that most of his defence
points were irrelevant to the case in hand.
The Judge, Court officials, and the Claimants legal team were unfailingly
patient and courteous.
- February 8, 2013 at 12:46
-
I wonder why the doggies went Woof Woof Woof ?
- February 8, 2013 at 13:00
-
If you read the files as well as the reports from operation rectangle you
will see the evrd, eddie, alerts to all degrading human material even that
from a living person. That is why it alerted to the card fobb even thought
the material on that was from gerry mccann and why it alerted to tissues in
jersey (see opertaion rectangle which confirmed the dog was correct to alert
to this material even though it was from living people). Recovery dogs also
alerted in the home of shannon mathews who was found alive, and in the
thomas quick fiasco although it turned out no bodies had ever been at the
site she claimed were graves (it turne dout he had nothing to do with the
disappearences). So whilst an alert can act as a guide it is in no way
evidence because without a body there is no way of knowing what it was
alerting too.
Think about it if the dog did only alert to dead bodies it
means that the only place that the body touched or where odour transfere
occurred was behind the sofa, the wardrobe, a few clothes, and a card fobb.
How on earth is it possible to handle a body, hide it and move it with only
these places geting contaminated?
-
February 8, 2013 at 13:14
-
Why didn’t the doggie bark in any of the other apartments ?
- February 8, 2013 at
13:18
-
Because it had a sore throat?
-
February 8, 2013 at 15:47
-
Apparently, according to Google, dogs with an anal gland infection
might also have a sore throat from spreading the infection while
licking at their glands. Thought you might like to know that for
future reference.
- February 8, 2013 at 16:02
- February 8, 2013 at
23:18
-
The Dogs never got half a chance in any other appartment. In, Out,
and Bob’s your Uncle. No messing about and pointing at things, and
calling them back when they showed a total lack of interest. Those
Videos were a farce. God forbid, but you might even think it was a set
up.
-
February 8, 2013 at 13:45
-
it was only taken to a few other flats and for all anyone knows there
was no degrading material in these. A person who holidayed in the flat
before the mccanns told the pj he bled in the flat for almost an hour so
the dog could have alerted to that. plus there is the fact the dog could
be wrong, or the handler gave him cues accidently (certainly the handler
kept calling the dog to the mccanns car after he ignored it yet did not
do this to any other car), as despite bennetts claim there is nothing to
back up the idea that the dog was one of the best. in fact according to
a foi request south yorkshire police answered eddie did not have a high
success rate.
grime stated that the dog would alert to material from
a living person, why would bennett know better
- February 8, 2013 at 13:50
-
SCOOBY LOOKS LIKE YOU ARE PHONING IT IN,nonsense
Nice flippant from la raccon
-
February 8, 2013 at 14:12
-
jt how is it nonsense it comes straight from the correctly
translated files.
can you provide any evidence of your claims other
than things written on forums.
- February 8, 2013 at 12:08
-
Has bennets 60 questions been inaccurate in any way? They certainly seem
more viable than”it was a peado what done it gov”
From lies about shutters ,dodgy time lines ,smell of death in the flat
clothes and car of the mccanns and most daming the Gaspars comments and smith
sighting it would seem that the wrong mad man is in the dock ,and it should be
the docs that are in the dock.
Justice is supposed to be blind but not daft
- February 8, 2013 at 12:33
-
yes his 60 questions have been shown to be untrue, irrelevant or
misleading.
Here is a site about his 50 questions. http://madeleinemythsexposed.pbworks.com/w/page/39076140/Main%20Page
There were no lies about the shutters (not one source has the mccanns
themselves quoted as saying the shutters were forced, but even if this is
what they thought given that thye closed the shutters would it not be normal
to asusme when they found them open that someone had forced them, how were
they supposed to have known they could be opened form the outside). The dog
never alerts in the car just at the door and then at the cardfobb which was
in this door which containe ddegrading material from gerry mccann. The dog
is trained to alert to all degrading human material even if it came from a
living person. This is what happened in jersey too, the dog alerted to
material that came from a living person. This is confirmed by the handler,
harrison, and the operation rectangle reports. The smiths never saw gerry
according to them. First of all they said they did not see the mans face,
then weeks later one of them said that it was dark, he was misisng his
glasses, he could not see the man’s face, but by body language he thought
there was a 60% chance it could have been gerry, but not only did the rest
of his party not back this up independent witnesses such as Mark warner
staff put gerry at the complex at this time.
As for the gaspar statements
there is nothing in them to suggets the mccanns or their friends had
anything to do with the disappearence. All that could be said from these is
that someone talked about sex quietly to another adult when there were
children too young to understand a few feet away. If you think that is dodgy
I do not reccomend you listen to mothers gossiping at coffee shop
playdates.
But Bennetts claims as well as untrue seem to have to rely on
claiming or implying that everyone is part of a conspiracy or incapable (i.e
sy are incapable of running the investigation because Redwood is in his
fifties).
It will be interetsing to see what Bennett uses to prove his
claims if he goes to libel trial.
- February 10, 2013 at 10:32
-
Unfortunately for you I know someone who worked with Gerry and thhat
exactly what he told him about the shutters .Horses mouth rather than your
horses arse
- February 10, 2013 at
10:50
-
JT, Sorry your comments are just too long and involved for
this blog. A short précis piece, or a link to the original if you
please.
- February 10, 2013 at 11:01
-
but Anna the devil is in the detail otherwise its just conjecture
exactly the thing Scobby et al deal in
- February 10, 2013 at 11:09
-
Yes, dear, I quite understand – but you can link to the
detail, just don’t reprint yards of it!
-
February 10, 2013 at 13:20
-
do you have to say dear Anna it its a bit condescending
love
- February 10, 2013 at 16:08
-
Condescension begets condescension…
“Scooby is clearly a paid spinner ,family or a mental”
- February 10, 2013 at 16:46
-
Anna dear, will you please thrill us with your
considerations on the story of Madeleine? I’m dying to
know!
Regards
- February 10, 2013 at 17:53
- February 10, 2013 at 16:49
-
are you defending scooby ,
I thought he was a big boy?
I calls it as I sees it
- February 10, 2013 at 17:51
- February 8, 2013 at 12:05
-
JT,
please explain to me why I do not have a clue – is it because I
belive the attorney general and scotland yard?
- February 8, 2013 at 11:39
-
scooby clearly you dont have a clue
-
February 8, 2013 at 12:12
-
It was reading the published files that showed me that there was
definitely an abduction. Prior to that I’d always ‘wondered’ because it all
sounded very odd if you went by the newspapers, which I did. Once you do
read everything (and don’t comprehend it wrongly, like Bennett pretends to –
I say pretend because I think he is just on a mission because he is an
inadequate, glory seeking nasty little twerp) its quite clear that there is
nothing unusual, suspicious, or inconsistent about anything.
I maintain
that all of the pitchforkers know perfectly well that there is no cause for
suspicion but simply don’t wish to give up their game.
- February 8, 2013 at 12:37
-
Just look at the way they behave about Joanne Yates, April Jones (one
even wrote a monty python style comedy sketch about it), Sarah Payne and
Tia Sharp. The fact that as well as the nastiness directed at thos
einvolved there postings could get the cases thrown out of court doe snot
seem to matter to them.
- February 8, 2013 at 11:35
-
“Mr Bennett’s defence so far would appear to be that any libels he may have
‘inadvertently’ committed were ‘fleeting’ and not ‘widely publicised’”
That’s rather like holding up a Jeweller’s shop and then asking for it to
be overlooked because you only took a few items – and the smaller-sized ones
at that…
- February 8, 2013 at 09:15
-
bennett has not seen the evidence either only sy have and they have stated
it was an abduction. bennett has also not bothered to get the released files
properly translated.
- February 8, 2013 at 09:03
-
Why are we surprised by this man?
Haven’t we all met people with almost
messianic beliefs about just about anything, regardless of the contrary
evidence?
Politics and religion seems to attract them.
Shame for the
victims but we’re lucky this wretch is fixated on a specific
incident.
Court won’t change his beliefs.
- February 8, 2013 at 13:23
-
Surely you can’t mean the wonderful Mr Blair…
- February 8, 2013 at 21:17
-
Can’t see that nylon skinned ‘straight kind of a guy’ lizard being in
court.
- February 8, 2013 at 02:23
-
shorthand:
Bennett hates everyone
because he hates himself
- February 8, 2013 at 02:09
-
Bennett
abused in no particular order:
homosexuals/roman-catholics/muslims/Europeans/anything foreign – really
also:
the Lubbock family
the McCann family
(and these are just the Bennett s*tstorms, we know about)
will he get clemency from me when he gets sent down?
hell, not
- February 8, 2013 at 01:42
-
I too would like at all of the evidence – being a bit of a doubting
Thomas
dear Pyrite
where would that be?
- February 8, 2013 at 01:28
-
I doubt whether the majority of poster here have looked at ALL the evidence
in the McCann’s case – I would like to know if you have Anna, and what your
thoughts are?
Kind regards.
- February 8, 2013 at 09:13
-
i have and i agree with scotland yard and the portuguese attorney general
who have all said there is no evidence against the parents. in fact the
portuguese actuallly said it was not possible for the parents to have hidden
the body. the evidence that benett puts forward he has made up or
misinterpreted. he for instance has claimed madeleines dna was found in th
hire car when in fact it could not be confirmed who it belonged to and it
could have belonged to her family members. he also claims the sniffer dog
only alerts to the scent of a dead body which again is not true, they alert
to any degrading human material even from a living person, in fact the dog
alerted to a card fobb which was found to contain material most likely from
gerry mccann who is alive. (that was the only place in the hire car the dog
alerted to).
the site mccannmythsexposed goes through his claims one by
one and demonstrates they are untrue with actual evidence.
- February 7, 2013 at 23:49
-
honestbroker wrote:
quote
Bennett’s highpoint was boasting on the old 3As, boasting that the McCanns
had refused delivery of a copy of his 60 reasons booklet he sent them by
recorded delivery.
unquote
slightly disagree with you there chum.
Bennett’s highpoint was being born,
it all went pear shaped after that
- February 7, 2013 at 22:55
-
So Brilynn, you went to court to support Tony Bennett?????
…. yet he made you walk 10 paces behind, like he is some kind of royalty,
can’t be seen to be walking with the riff raff can he.
Yeah, we watched him on webcam from across the road
- February 7, 2013 at 20:07
-
First there was a blogging stoat
http://www.cheekystoat.blog.co.uk/
..then there was a
blogging raccoon
First there was a Bloggers Arms
http://www.thebloggersarms.blog.co.uk/
..then there was a
blogging Raccoon Arms.
Sincere flattery is a wonderful thing.
M. St.M
- February 7, 2013 at 20:03
-
Bennett is due for another kick. Boasting on his forum after 24 hours. The
stupid b’stard
- February 8, 2013 at 08:59
-
How was he boasting? Or is that your very liberal intepretation of how he
was reporting events in court?
- February 8, 2013 at 14:10
-
he was telling them all about how he told a journalist lies about
themccanns as he left the court
-
February 7, 2013 at 18:23
-
Tangentially… this one is still in court ongoing as of today.
http://news.stv.tv/tayside/213073-giovanni-di-stefano-is-said-to-have-claimed-he-was-an-advocate/
- February 7, 2013 at 18:26
-
Oh my good God – I shall be spoilt for choice this week! “Dodgy
Solicitors R us”
- February 7, 2013 at 18:46
-
That’s just a summary. Not sure of the procedure; it seems to have been
going on for a few days suggesting that there may delays in court for some
reason. And we mustn’t forget that it is ongoing. Here, this seems to have
other details.
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/giovanni-di-stefano-fraud-case-1564715
Due to the number of charges press reports are a patchwork depending on
what the editors think would interest their readers. Plenty to choose
from, but your spaminator will grab them if I post them here. The case is
in Southwark but the Dundee connection means the Scottish press are fairly
hot on it.
- February 7, 2013 at 19:01
-
Mr Di Stefano of Canterbury, denies
Nine counts of obtaining a
money transfer by deception,
Eight counts of fraud and money
laundering
Three counts of acquiring criminal property
Two counts
of using a false instrument,
One count of attempting to obtain a
money transfer by deception
One count of obtaining property by
deception
One count of using criminal property
And a partridge in
a pear tree
The case continues.
- February 8, 2013 at 09:50
-
Could do some work on the music – where that Webber chap when you
need him?!?!
-
February 8, 2013 at 08:37
-
It’s an eight week trial.
-
February 7, 2013 at 18:19
-
Anna says:
Mr Bennett’s defence so far would appear to be that any libels he may have
‘inadvertently’ committed were ‘fleeting’ and not ‘widely publicised’, and
therefore shouldn’t be punitively dealt with. Mr Justice Tugendhat’s judgment
on the matter has not yet been released.
Which is going to put him in an interesting position if he chooses to take
the normal course of action against a newspaper that ‘fleetingly’ and
‘inadvertently’ publishes a libelous innuendo. Bennett’s own supporters have
been freely distributing screenshots of the Daily Star’s mistake all
night.
__________________________________________________________________________
Two good points, there. Of course, libel is all about damage to a person’s
reputation arising from allegations (in UK law) that are untrue. Were Mr
Bennett to take this matter further, and were the paper to plead in mitigation
that they were prompt in removing the complained of material, Mr Bennett would
be betraying a dual standard in claiming the same defence in the action
against him by the McCanns.
But I don’t think his action would fail on that basis because I’m not aware
of any evidence linking Bennett to anything that was the substance of the
paper’s story.
And as to further publication by Bennett’s staunchest allies, well, all
Bennett can plead there is that, as the litigant, he has the prerogative to
choose whom he sues or whom he doesn’t.
But Mr Bennett would be betraying a further dual standard …
- February 7, 2013 at 18:13
-
My time on earth has convinced me that war
IS a biological
necessity.
- February 8, 2013 at 13:17
-
But unfortunately even war rarely removes those who necessitate it…
- February 7, 2013 at 17:52
-
Who’s the other person banned from posting on here then? (Crosses fingers
and wishes it to be Broxted/Rehill/MacFarland/Goggins).
- February 7, 2013 at 17:57
-
February 7, 2013 at 17:43
-
Erm, Xcuse me. Dare I mention that it’s his supporters who have done this
to him. No one would have noticed if they hadn’t gone clodhopping in and
posting it all over the shop, and hollering for Mr. Bennett to Sue. It was a
mistake, and everyone with half a brain knew that.
However, I have to admit
to a bit of a giggle.
-
February 7, 2013 at 17:36
-
Bennett’s highpoint was boasting on the old 3As, boasting that the McCanns
had refused delivery of a copy of his 60 reasons booklet he sent them by
recorded delivery.
His low point was in court.
Excellent article by Anna.
- February 7, 2013 at 17:05
-
Craig,
Bennett had two days of gentle questioning and submitting his answers to
‘did you or did you not….’ . That is not a battering. A decent battery is
Tony’s continuous daily onslaught against the McCanns (and their friends and
anyone loosely associated with the case by helping the McCanns) for 5 whole
years. No wonder the McCanns designated Carter Ruck to monitor all libellous
posts. It would have been far too harrowing for kate and gerry to stomach day
in day out. They needed to delegate this job to somebody else in order to
preserve their sanity.
And where is Tony Bennett now? Not reporting back to his faithful minions.
Not updating anyone on the forum which he does/does not administrate. Not
telling the form members that he has their personal details and he is not
afraid to use them in Court (which he has done)
- February 7, 2013 at 17:19
-
You can’t blame him for the idiots on Twitter. I don’t support their
methods either. But Tony Bennett has no influence over them. You are wrong
if you think otherwise.
- February 7, 2013 at 17:05
-
Craig,
Why the hell are you trying to dignify the actions of someone who is
clearly a nutter?
-
February 7, 2013 at 16:57
-
I saw this go up on the Star website very late last night. I was laying in
bed at the time and laughed so damn hard I had to get up to go for a pee.
Excellent summation Anna.
What do you think his chances are with his
application to remove some of the undertakings?
- February 7, 2013 at 16:46
-
Anna, please could you change my username to BrenR1958 on the above post
please, made a typing error and added some years to myself…
- February 7, 2013 at 17:47
- February 7, 2013 at 16:45
-
It’s not clever to kick a man when he’s down, especially not when he’s
such an easy target. He got most things wrong but it took guts to walk into
that courtroom.
Are you being serious there Craig or are you having a little joke? If, not
I say this to you and the supporters of Bennett.
It is not funny to kick a family when they’re down due to the fact that
they have a missing child. You and others expect people to lay of Mr Bennett,
shouldn’t that courtesy also be extended to the family of a missing child.
Mr Bennett didn’t care what pain the McCann family were going through when
he decided to try to take them to court for neglect back in 2007. He didn’t
care how much they hurt, and how much they were longing for their daughter to
be found and how much they were yearning for her, when he decided to a) allow
his Foundation members to leaflet the McCanns neighbours, b) when he leafleted
the areas the McCann family lived in, c) went to the hospital where the father
of the missing child works and left leaflets for the staff, the doctors
colleagues, patients or visitors to read and finally d) when they went to the
place where a missing child went pony riding..
That is not seeking justice, that is being nothing but a bloody vigilante
in my opinion. So please spare me the poor Mr Bennett…
The McCanns since 2009 have tried everything to persuade him to stop,
Carter Ruck have written to him time and time again, telling him to stop and
to seek legal advice, what does he do… posts private and confidential letters
up on forums and blogs and basically sticks two fingers up at them..
The mess Mr Bennett is in, is due to his own actions. He could have
stopped, he was given the opportunity to stop but HE decided NOT TO.
- February 7, 2013 at 16:54
-
I’m no supporter of Bennett. I’m on that ‘side’ of the case but have
never been a supporter of his methods. I’m merely pointing out that kicking
a man who’s down (whoever he is) isn’t clever, and I think actually shames
those who are doing it. I can assure you after the battering of the last two
days he will be suffering enough.
- February 7, 2013 at 16:40
-
Wouldn’t it be interesting to know what a paedophile looks like? save a lot
of time and money if they all looked like that delusional character. I hope
they throw the book at him.
- February 7, 2013 at 17:57
-
@ Wouldn’t it be interesting to know what a paedophile looks like? @
You obviously haven’t been reading the papers…… we even know what they
smell like……..
- February 7, 2013 at 16:21
-
What a way with words you have, Anna. Its not often I literally laugh out
loud but the ‘fitting the widely held perception of what a paedophile should
look like’ did it for me. Thank you, I needed that.
Craig, Craig, oh dear, what can I say. Your misconceived sympathy for that
abominable creature leaves me speechless.
- February 7, 2013 at 16:12
-
Well, I am going to kick him until he stops libelling the McCanns. I do not
believe that he will ever stop his vindictive crusades against innocent
people.
- February 7, 2013 at 23:46
-
How has he libelled the McCanns? Has he actually gone through an entire
lible trial and been found by the court to have libelled the McCanns? And
what are the McCanns innocent of exactly? We know they left three kids under
the age of 4 in an apartment on their own on a number of occasions while on
holiday. If the McCanns are innocent why did they lawyer up so soon after
thier daughters disappearance?
- February 7, 2013 at 23:59
-
because they were made aguidos in a foreign country.
and he has
libeled the mccanns by lying about them and the case on numerous
occasions.
-
February 8, 2013 at 00:53
-
I must admit I will never understand why an intelligent couple like
the McCanns left their three young children alone, however that is
something they will have to live with for the rest of their lives and I
would hate to be in their shoes. It doesn’t justify them being accused
of killing their daughter. I have often wondered if she didn’t wake and
look for her parents as kids that age would and fell victim to an
accident or opportunistic perpetrator. If a kidnap it would make more
sense to take one of the younger ones I would have thought. I don’t
suppose we will ever know now though.
- February 8, 2013 at 08:55
-
What exactly are the lies he has told? Has he accused them of killing
their daughter?
-
February 8, 2013 at 11:28
-
Yes he has on several websites. His booklet made false claim after
false claim such as syaing madeleine’s dna had bene found in the hire
car, that she had been sedated, that the find madeleine fund has been
used to pay carter ruck, that kate’s father said they used calpol as a
sedative, he claimed the distance from the tapas bar to the flat was
nearly twice the distance it really was, he claimed Tanner was
inconsistance in her description of the man she saw carryoing a child,
he claimed the smiths positively identified gerry as the man carrying
a child, claimed that clarence mitchell said the abduction was only an
asusmption which is a misquote etc. These are just a few of his
untruths, and he has not been able to provide evidence of any of his
libelous claims.
Here is a breakdown of many of his claims and
evidence that demonstrates they are untrue and misleading.
http://madeleinemythsexposed.pbworks.com/w/page/39076140/Main%20Page
carol,
Listening services where children are left in the room
and a nanny listens outside the door every half an hour are common
throught the EU. The McCanns had use done at another mark warner
resort the yera previously which is where they got the checking every
half an hour idea from.
-
February 8, 2013 at 12:02
-
should have read the mccanns friends had previously used a
listening service
-
February 8, 2013 at 12:32
-
Yes he has Bob S
And that is why the McCanns have had no alternative but to try and
stop his behaviour. It is true, the more people that believe that
Madeleine is dead, the less people that will bother to search for her.
People won’t bother so the crux of the matter is, yes he does harm the
search for Madeleine McCann
- February 7, 2013 at 16:02
-
It’s not clever to kick a man when he’s down, especially not when he’s such
an easy target. He got most things wrong but it took guts to walk into that
courtroom.
- February 7, 2013 at 16:11
-
‘Guts’ is when you have a choice, m’dear.
- February 7, 2013 at 16:20
-
He could have stopped it if he’d wanted to. Carter Ruck gave him the
option, but he refused it. That’s all documented.
-
February 7, 2013 at 16:23
-
Its not bravery though, its delusion.
-
February 7, 2013 at 16:35
-
Probably a fair proportion of both. Nothing is black and white in
this case. Not even Mr Bennett.
-
February 7, 2013 at 23:55
-
Carter-ruck allowed him to avoid libel court several years ago if he
undertook to stop libeling the mccanns. he signed it, but continued to
libel them. This time he was taken to court for contempt and accoridng
to letters bennett postd online he tried to avoidcourt, but his offers
were refused (who would trust him).
Interestingly Bennett continued
ot lie about the McCanns in court and claims to have told a reporter
outside the court that the find madeleine fund paid for carter ruck
despite the fact he wa sinformed by carter ruck that the find madeleine
fund had never paid them as they work on conditional fee
arrangements.
If you feel sorry for bennett I suggets you read the
parody of silent night he wrote and put online making fun of the McCann
case. Besides which, if bennett is telling the truth then why did he
even sign the undertaking. The libel case woudl have been a very simple
one as there was no arguement that he wrote these things, that they were
defamatory, and they were made under English law. The only question was
were they true or untrue. If as Bennett claims they are true and he has
proof all he needed to do was tell carter ruck to take him to court, and
stroll in and hand his evidence over, but he knew full well that he has
peddled lies so he did all he could to avoid having this shown up in
court. He has really helped to damage the search for a missing child as
people seeing his claims might believe him and not come forward if they
have suspicions about anyone else.
-
February 8, 2013 at 13:24
-
How on earth has he or anybody else damaged the search when it’s
still on the front pages nearly six years later? That accusation is
just Kate’s propaganda.
-
February 8, 2013 at 14:08
-
because if someone has suspicions that a friend or family member is
involved it will not take a lot to keep them quiete simply because if
they report someone and get it wrong they could ruin their life (look
at the nastiness bennett directs towards murat). so by planting false
material on the internet bennett is putting doubts in their minds and
making it less likely they will come forward.
- February 7, 2013 at 16:16
-
“It’s not clever to kick a man when he’s down”
Nobody ever said it was clever. It’s fun.
- February 7, 2013 at 17:29
-
Besides, as we now know, the only people qualified to libel or slander
others with no comebacks whatsoever are the agents of the State:
A sad pathetic Walter Mitty? Undoubtedly. But does anyone else find
this rather distasteful?
- February
7, 2013 at 15:31
-
this is going to be fun.
- February 10, 2013 at 18:56
-
Thank you Anna.
As a new member to your forum, and from your response to jt, do i
understand then that debate is to be procured on the way the media portray
news – rather than the content per se?
If we can debate the content, i would like to put a few points to your good
self about the content in your article – if i may?
Regards
- February 10, 2013 at 20:57
- February 11, 2013 at 10:26
-
Well said, Anna. I believe it’s the way the UK media have handled the case,
and how they are still handling it, that winds people up to be so vitriolic.
For years they have stated abduction to be a fact, and that’s what continues
to drive people like myself and Mr Bennett.
- February 11, 2013 at 13:48
-
Thanks Anna – i will get to that asap.
In the meantime, can i ask if you have ever met Mr Bennett?
Regards
- February 11, 2013 at 13:52
- February 11, 2013 at 13:56
-
Hahah! No i don’t think so.
I was just trying to establish how you arrived at the opinion you seem to
have of him – i guess then, predominately its from media articles and
research?
Regards
- February 11, 2013 at 16:08
- February 11, 2013 at 16:56
-
I gave him a choice
I also tried to post relevant links that supported my diagnosis of Scoobys
highly suspect analysis of the situation ,which was a gross distortion of the
facts ,and seemed to omit vital corroborating evidence ie the dogs the dna the
Gaspars and the Smiths which while not the “smoking gun” in themselves,in the
round indicate a certain”complicity ” of the Mccanns in the non abduction of
Madeline aka Maddie .
He professed to have some knowledge of the case yet his rather biased
comments lead me to the conclusion on his mental health which I stated rather
too pithily rather than go on some long winded explanation for which I whole
heartedly and unreservedly apologize .
- February 12, 2013 at 00:11
-
Mmmm agreed – media today is completely unreliable. However it does give
you an insight on what is not going on perhaps…lol
Thank you again – it would have been so disappointing if you had based your
opinion on the media – at least you have had some personal contact.
I will “attack” your article tomorrow
–
been a busy day for me today.
Toodle pip for now.
Anna: Oh dear Pyrite, you are new around here, you wouldn’t have
realised, but if you look at the old posts you will see that comments close
automatically on the fifth day after the article is posted. It’s because we
discuss current events, rather than as in a specialist forum, go on endlessly
chewing at the same bone….
Regards
–
{ 128 comments }