McCanns v Bennet

AnnaEsse wrote:If a full libel trial would include analysis of the work of the sniffer dogs, then I think the McCanns have something to be worried about. Statistics would have to be presented about the success rate of the dogs, Eddie and Keela. And that would be cause for concern for the Teflon Two.

This surprised me...in a nice way i never thought anything regarding the initial investigation would be brought up...has the judge told them...be careful what you wish for?

matthew wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:If a full libel trial would include analysis of the work of the sniffer dogs, then I think the McCanns have something to be worried about. Statistics would have to be presented about the success rate of the dogs, Eddie and Keela. And that would be cause for concern for the Teflon Two.

This surprised me...in a nice way i never thought anything regarding the initial investigation would be brought up...has the judge told them...be careful what you wish for?

If he didn't maybe he should have!

I wonder if Kate McCann not answering questions will be brought up. Didn't it go along the lines. She was asked if she thought not answering questions would hinder the investigation. She answered yes If the investigation thinks so. Maybe Gerry could sue her.

Krisy22 totally agree - wouldn't care my tuppenceworth if I was telling the truth what anybody else said. They've been on ever sofa going when it suited. If I was innocent I'd be shouting from the rooftops. Mmmmm!

The stories, misinformation and inconsistencies are what made me query the tapas timeline, not Tony Bennett. We could all list so many things that made us curious and even if Madeleine was alive today none of know what she would look like.

If I was Kate I would want to face my accusers and let them know my feelings I wouldn't hide behind lawyers, UK media and PRopaganda. Since Tony's writings and Dr Amaral's book there's been several sightings anyway proving people are still looking. The latest on a plane I think! A few million quid, over 18 months SY 'reviewing' supposedly checking 196 leads and still nothing.

If this case goes ahead with a jury I think the press will have to report it. There'll be plenty of news about it on Twitter so I don't think it will show TM in a good light. What the disgraceful UK media will report is another matter because no doubt the pr machine will go into overdrive.

The current shambles over savile just shows what a devious bunch of bar stewards run the 'establishment'. His vile ways were covered up and I pray that the rest of the despicable behaviour so far covered up is unravelle. Problem is this core of evil and corruption goes to the heart of UK plc imo.

I so admire Mr. Bennett's perseverance - if we don't stand for something, we will fall for anything.

It will be interesting if the mccanns decide
(which is their right) not to attend, but rely
on their expensive lawyers to do their deed
without the danger of them committing perjury.
IMO, I think this judge, after viewing their
long history of media interviews and their
keen eye for avoiding courtroom drama by
being absent, and their failure to attend or
assist police/investigative procedures, will
demand instead, that they appear before
the court in person to face the defendant
that they claim has hindered their 'search.'

marxman wrote:It will be interesting if the mccanns decide
(which is their right) not to attend, but rely
on their expensive lawyers to do their deed
without the danger of them committing perjury.
IMO, I think this judge, after viewing their
long history of media interviews and their
keen eye for avoiding courtroom drama by
being absent, and their failure to attend or
assist police/investigative procedures, will
demand instead, that they appear before
the court in person to face the defendant
that they claim has hindered their 'search.'

Oh, do hope you're right marxman.

tabs wrote:read an interesting snippet the other day on twitter

something along the lines of

If the McCanns are saying that Tony's dealings with the case ( ie leaflets, internet postings etc) have hindered the search for their daughter - did it hinder it as much as the McCanns not requesting the process to be reopened?

I've never thought of it like that

which one do you think hindered it more

Search ? ... what search , I didn't know there was an 'official ' search prior to the review that is , even GM stated publically that no police / authorities were searching .... I thought their own private detectives Edgar & co. running the ' unofficial ' search had packed in and they like members of the pulic don't really have a legal right to search as such or at least have limited ability and rights of search.

It's all just nonsense. Obviously the Portuguese police could not have gone on searching for ever - even if there was no doubt whatsoever that Madeleine had been abducted - as there comes a time when every enquiry has to be scaled down.

Tony can have had no effect on the official search and, judging by the barmy stories that crop up regularly from people who are sure they've seen Madeleine here, there and everywhere with suspicious foreigners, he isn't stopping any unofficial ones either.

The reality is that most people have never even heard of him.

Perish the thought that the real reason the McCanns want to silence him is that he is on the right track!

"Perish the thought that the real reason the McCanns want to silence him is that he is on the right track!"

How could you even think such a thing

I am a terrible person, believe me! I recently posted on a non U K based debating forum - everything under the sun is discussed. There was a topic about the troll who was jailed for his comments on Facebook about April Jones.

This led on to some general comments about the McCann case and someone posted a link to the McCann files website, mentioning the PJ files particularly. All I did was to agree with that and added that there was more to the case than met the eye.

Oh dear, the response I got! Just a small sample: "You hate the McCanns because of who they are......there are no words to describe how vile you are".

So now you know how bad I am!

Not Born Yesterday wrote:I am a terrible person, believe me! I recently posted on a non U K based debating forum - everything under the sun is discussed. There was a topic about the troll who was jailed for his comments on Facebook about April Jones.

This led on to some general comments about the McCann case and someone posted a link to the McCann files website, mentioning the PJ files particularly. All I did was to agree with that and added that there was more to the case than met the eye.

Oh dear, the response I got! Just a small sample: "You hate the McCanns because of who they are......there are no words to describe how vile you are".

So now you know how bad I am!

Taking a retired man to court, trying to get him banged up in jail and callously relieving him of his life savings, along with the roof over his head AND his wife's head, is surely one great big PR disaster for the McCanns.

Doing it on their own patch (ie the UK) is an even bigger and extremely hazardous PR disaster for them.
You should never sh*t in your own nest, as my late mother would have said.

Even if the McCanns can't see this action (and its potential consequences) for what it is, surely Clarrie should be advising them against it?
Or are they so pig-headed that they swat away any informed counsel from those being paid to help them?

almostgothic wrote:Taking a retired man to court, trying to get him banged up in jail and callously relieving him of his life savings, along with the roof over his head AND his wife's head, is surely one great big PR disaster for the McCanns.

Doing it on their own patch (ie the UK) is an even bigger and extremely hazardous PR disaster for them.
You should never sh*t in your own nest, as my late mother would have said.

Even if the McCanns can't see this action (and its potential consequences) for what it is, surely Clarrie should be advising them against it?
Or are they so pig-headed that they swat away any informed counsel from those being paid to help them?

Maybe it wasn't anticipated that the judge would rule a full trial is required before any penalty for a breach (if there was a breach) is determined - if I read the summary correctly. Maybe it was thought a hearing of the contempt action would be sufficient to silence (and probably bankrupt) TB.

That's a very good point, Chris.
Maybe their lawyers should have advised them that this full trial option could be on the cards.
Then this sorry saga might not have gone this far.

Although given the relentless arrogance of that pair and their motley crew of hired helpers ......

1) They probably didn't.

and

2) It probably would have.

But if the lawyers told them not to pursue this....carter ruck wouldn't get any money....no 3 weeks holiday for them in the maldives next year and no 2013 reg. Mercedes for the boss.

Not Born Yesterday wrote: Oh dear, the response I got! Just a small sample: "You hate the McCanns because of who they are......there are no words to describe how vile you are".

Have I missed something........ "who they are". Who are they ??

They are a couple who put their own needs before their childrens, have courted publicity and the press for financial gain ever since they neglected to stay with their children so one disappeared into thin air never to be seen again whilst on a family holiday, upped and left the Country in which the disappearance took place thereby being unhelpful to the investigation and the police force, refused to assist in the investigation anyway by not answering questions the police wanted to ask and have tried to destroy the lives of everyday people who took it upon themselves to try to find their missling little girl on their behalf. Is that why you could be accused of hating them NBY ? (Not saying you do)

It's such a typical reaction from the blinkered brigade - we don't believe the McCanns so we must be hateful and / or jealous people.

As I've said before, I certainly don't hate them but I hate what they have, and still are, being allowed to get away with.

HiDeHo if you're out there, I really do admire the way you try to communicate with people like Pam Gurney. I couldn't, I find it so depressing.

kitti wrote:But if the lawyers told them not to pursue this....carter ruck wouldn't get any money....no 3 weeks holiday for them in the maldives next year and no 2013 reg. Mercedes for the boss.

Yes Kitti, I think that you have hit the proverbial
nail right on the head!
I think the mccanns have become a cash cow for
CR and nothing more. CR are a top notch law firm
employing the very best legal brains available.
So why didn't they apply a bit of fore-thought and
advice their clients that a full case hearing maybe
required and to be ready for the consequences?
This may have put them off and CR would have
lost a real good earner.

matthew wrote:http://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t5738-mccanns-v-bennett-hearing-before-mr-justice-tugendhat-today-11-october-2012

Interesting quote from the judge..."Suppose it's established that the Claimants had lied about what happened?

Thanks for bringing that here: particular good points was the defence of 'honest
Comment' and a full trial meaning evidence on sniffer dogs is heard!!! (shamonnneeee) i wish i knew of a lawyer to help him pro bono!

If anyone knows tony bennett, perhaps we could all offer to be volunteer readers for him or compliers of discrepencies in the mccanns version of events into the format he requires for legal argument! In theory he has a free team from us forum folk!

Those of us here who are also members of the Jill Havern site can contact him there via private message.

good luck tony ---

If this goes to a full libel trial and there has to be evidence presented of how sniffer dogs work and how successful they have been, the McCanns will have a problem. Gerry McCann, brilliant scientist that he isn't, found a sample of ONE to prove the dogs unreliable: unfortunately Zapata confessed and the dogs had alerted in the right places. Then there was some kind of experiment Gerry found (once again a sample of ONE) that seemed to show a dog not finding a sample in a box of sand. Gerry said that when the dogs were scientifically tested they were unreliable. Does he think the training by the FBI is unscientific? Has he actually bothered to do some further research to find out how the dogs are trained? I don't think he has.

I was covering a year 8 science lesson a while back in a computer room, where the class were looking for information on germination. After a few minutes, I noticed one boy playing games. When I suggested he do the work he said he had done it. He had one sentence on germination and insisted that was it. He had found out about germination. Gerry McCann's research skills are on a par with that boy's.

Please someone clear up a misunderstanding for me.

People are referring to the Bennet vs McCanns 'libel trial'. I thought this one wasn't libel, more a 'breach of undertakings' matter, where the veracity or otherwise of Mr Bennet's beliefs and statements isn't an issue - it's whether or no he did what he promised not to do.

Anyone?