McCanns v Bennet

Annabel wrote:http://www.harlowstar.co.uk/News/Harlow-news/Former-Harlow-solicitor-could-face-jail-over-McCann-allegations-31102012.htm

The article quotes Mr. Bennett: "I believe that in a country where freedom of speech is valued so highly I should have the right to publish what I believe to be credible evidence about what happened to Madeleine."

I've said it before and I firmly believe and admire Mr. Bennett who, based on what he believes as credible evidence, is prepared to stand for what he believes is right and is not prepared to accept the McCanns' objections to his right.

Good publicity: Will make people want to know what is going on. Well done Tony

I hope he has been misquoted in admitting contempt of court.

Chris wrote:I hope he has been misquoted in admitting contempt of court.

He has.

Mr Justice Tugendhat underlined the vital importance of court orders and undertakings being obeyed and directed that the couple’s case against Mr Bennett should be heard "as soon as practicable".

The case is not about whether the McCanns are guilty of concealing a cadaver and simulating an abduction - it is about whether Mr Bennet has breached undertakings given to the court that he would desist from publicly making certain allegations in this respect. I fear that as far as the court is concerned, the question of whether Mr. Bennett's suspicions about the McCanns are well founded or whether the undertakings were given under duress will be of little interest and that it is actually more important from their point of view that they set an example here irrespective of the background as to why the court was allegedly not obeyed.

Copied and pasted from Jills forum.


A misunderstanding by t4two
Tony Bennett Today at 8:44 am

.This posting by t4two has appeared in another place (MM):

QUOTE

Mr Justice Tugendhat underlined the vital importance of court orders and undertakings being obeyed and directed that the couple’s case against Mr Bennett should be heard "as soon as practicable".

The case is not about whether the McCanns are guilty of concealing a cadaver and simulating an abduction - it is about whether Mr Bennet has breached undertakings given to the court that he would desist from publicly making certain allegations in this respect. I fear that as far as the court is concerned, the question of whether Mr. Bennett's suspicions about the McCanns are well founded or whether the undertakings were given under duress will be of little interest and that it is actually more important from their point of view that they set an example here irrespective of the background as to why the court was allegedly not obeyed.

UNQUOTE

It seems pretty obvious that t4two has not read the Tugendhat judgment. If he had done, he would have realised that the committal trial (whether I have breached any of the undertakings given) will be followed by my application to 'lift the stay' i.e. an application to reinstate the libel proceedings against me which were adjourned, i.e. suspended, back in November 2009.

It remains of course to be seen as to whether I have a valid defence for any apparent breaches of any of the 16 undertakings given.

Maybe a member here who is also a member on MM could put him right?.

____________________


Tony Bennett


Posts: 4858
Join date: 2009-11-25
Age: 65
Location: Harlow, Essex






.
Similar topics.

Krisy22 wrote:
Copied and pasted from Jills forum.


A misunderstanding by t4two
Tony Bennett Today at 8:44 am

.This posting by t4two has appeared in another place (MM):

QUOTE

Mr Justice Tugendhat underlined the vital importance of court orders and undertakings being obeyed and directed that the couple’s case against Mr Bennett should be heard "as soon as practicable".

The case is not about whether the McCanns are guilty of concealing a cadaver and simulating an abduction - it is about whether Mr Bennet has breached undertakings given to the court that he would desist from publicly making certain allegations in this respect. I fear that as far as the court is concerned, the question of whether Mr. Bennett's suspicions about the McCanns are well founded or whether the undertakings were given under duress will be of little interest and that it is actually more important from their point of view that they set an example here irrespective of the background as to why the court was allegedly not obeyed.

UNQUOTE

It seems pretty obvious that t4two has not read the Tugendhat judgment. If he had done, he would have realised that the committal trial (whether I have breached any of the undertakings given) will be followed by my application to 'lift the stay' i.e. an application to reinstate the libel proceedings against me which were adjourned, i.e. suspended, back in November 2009.

It remains of course to be seen as to whether I have a valid defence for any apparent breaches of any of the 16 undertakings given.

Maybe a member here who is also a member on MM could put him right?.

____________________


Tony Bennett


Posts: 4858
Join date: 2009-11-25
Age: 65
Location: Harlow, Essex






.
Similar topics.

Yes, one of a couple of posts by Tony Bennett referring to members of this forum who have expressed an opinion on the judge's comments on his court case which does not agree with his own interpretation. Time will show us who is 'mistaken' and I do sincerely hope that it is not Tony Bennett,

Annabel wrote:http://www.harlowstar.co.uk/News/Harlow-news/Former-Harlow-solicitor-could-face-jail-over-McCann-allegations-31102012.htm

Just read this howler on page 6 of the comments:

TB

TW, What you have written is false. The dog has been wrong before, did not have a good track record, and alerts to dried blood and bodily fluids too (Bennett doe snot seem to mention this or the fact soemone admits to having bled in their a lot shortly before the abduction). And the PJ final report states there is no evidence that the parents did anything wrong, and that it is not possible to conclude if madeleine is alive or dead. Scotland yard have stated that they belive Madeleine was taken in a criminal act by a stranger. Of course Bennett is now bad mouthing Scotland yard claiming they are part of a cover up and inept.

A blood dog that alerts to dried blood - who'd have thunk it eh? Because all blood dogs are straight on the crime scene and can only detect wet blood.

And who was this person who bled alot 'shortly before' the abduction? Was this the person whose blood WAS detected by the dogs that don't work

I could go on pulling it to pieces because l don't think there's one iota of truth in that post.

'IF THE DOGS ALERTED TO A DEAD MADELIENE.....THEN THAT IS A FACT'....Lowe



But what does he know lol....he's just an expert.