McCanns v Bennet

nospinnaker wrote: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?

That's what I thought nospinnaker which would make the Judge's comment irrelevant. Unless of course the McCanns forced the undertakings because they thought Tony was being Libellous . If Tony thought he was not being Libellous he should not have accepted the undertakings and forced the McCanns to take him to Trial .

That's how I see it anyway.

According to a poster on JH, the initial libel claim was held in abeyance when Tony made an undertaking not to repeat certain allegations. Team McCann now says he has broken that undertaking which means that the libel claim is active again and takes precedence over the breach of undertaking.

Tony has not commented so I'm assuming this is correct.

nospinnaker wrote: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?

Here's a quote from TB's account of the Oct 11th proceedings:

Mr Justice Tugendhat throughout the hearing thought that a full libel trial was the appropriate forum for resolving the issues as between the McCanns and myself. He asked Jacob Dean: “Why are these proceedings the appropriate forum?” He added that if these issues were to be addressed in the proper forum, there would have to be “Full disclosure, witness statements, and expert evidence on the sniffer dogs…” He added that he had “never come across a case quite like this, where an application to vary undertakings could be dealt with without it becoming an issue in a libel action…Mr Bennett’s application does require the re-opening of the libel proceedings…these current proceedings do not have the necessary structure to deal with the issues…this can only be resolved in a libel action. He also noted that although the McCanns began their correspondence in August 2009 alleging harassment, they had never pursued that allegation.

At one point in the proceedings, and I quote, Mr Justice Tugendhat said: "Suppose it's established that the Claimants had lied about what happened?

More here:

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

almostgothic wrote:

nospinnaker wrote: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?

Here's a quote from TB's account of the Oct 11th proceedings:

Mr Justice Tugendhat throughout the hearing thought that a full libel trial was the appropriate forum for resolving the issues as between the McCanns and myself. He asked Jacob Dean: “Why are these proceedings the appropriate forum?” He added that if these issues were to be addressed in the proper forum, there would have to be “Full disclosure, witness statements, and expert evidence on the sniffer dogs…” He added that he had “never come across a case quite like this, where an application to vary undertakings could be dealt with without it becoming an issue in a libel action…Mr Bennett’s application does require the re-opening of the libel proceedings…these current proceedings do not have the necessary structure to deal with the issues…this can only be resolved in a libel action. He also noted that although the McCanns began their correspondence in August 2009 alleging harassment, they had never pursued that allegation.

At one point in the proceedings, and I quote, Mr Justice Tugendhat said: "Suppose it's established that the Claimants had lied about what happened?

More here:

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

I reckon Justice Tugendhat sees right through TM and their dubious agenda!

Pertinent questions surrounding the relevance of the blood and cadaver dogs' findings, and the potential minefield regarding the McCanns dodgy version of events and them having lied about what happened on that ill-fated holiday, are precisely what they've spent a fortune attempting to suppress (imo), and now, thanks to the courageous Mr Bennett, they are being broached within the British justice system.

BRAVO MR BENNETT.... David-vs-Goliath

Mr Justice Tugendhat said: "Suppose it's established that the Claimants had lied about what happened?

I maybe wrong, but isn't 'lied' a very strong
and telling word for Justice Tugendhat to
use? I think he has the measure of what is
in store and I think he will be fair and just.
About time.

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.





Mr grimes then did a test with the cadaver dog......he took the keys belonging to the Renault scenic to another floor and hid the keys in a bucket off sand, went to get the cadaver dog and within a few minutes the cadaver dog alerted to the bucket off sand that the keys had been hidden In


PUT THAT IN YOUR PIPE AND SMOKE IT GERRY....

kitti wrote: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.





Mr grimes then did a test with the cadaver dog......he took the keys belonging to the Renault scenic to another floor and hid the keys in a bucket off sand, went to get the cadaver dog and within a few minutes the cadaver dog alerted to the bucket off sand that the keys had been hidden In


PUT THAT IN YOUR PIPE AND SMOKE IT GERRY....

Thanks kitti.

Thanks for that. It's not surprising that I'm confused.

So it now looks as though the hearing could effectively be 'converted' into libel proceedings. That, in my view, is a considerable boost for Mr Bennet. The opportunity to air the whole thing in court with witnesses on oath and with the PJ case files highlighted would make for a most interesting case, one that I feel the McCanns were not expecting.

kitti wrote: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.


Mr grimes then did a test with the cadaver dog......he took the keys belonging to the Renault scenic to another floor and hid the keys in a bucket off sand, went to get the cadaver dog and within a few minutes the cadaver dog alerted to the bucket off sand that the keys had been hidden In


PUT THAT IN YOUR PIPE AND SMOKE IT GERRY....

Do you have a link for that kitti?

nospinnaker wrote:Thanks for that. It's not surprising that I'm confused.

So it now looks as though the hearing could effectively be 'converted' into libel proceedings. That, in my view, is a considerable boost for Mr Bennet. The opportunity to air the whole thing in court with witnesses on oath and with the PJ case files highlighted would make for a most interesting case, one that I feel the McCanns were not expecting.

This is an Article I had filed which seems to suggest it is NOT Libel, but as you suggest, not adhering to the agreement ,



Retired lawyer faces jail for ‘harassing’ Kate and Gerry McCann



29Jan

A retired lawyer who has repeatedly accused Kate and Gerry McCann of covering up their daughter Madeleine’s death is facing jail for harassment.



For almost five years, Kate and Gerry McCann have suffered the anguish of not knowing what happened to their daughter Madeleine.


Through it all, they have also had to contend with a sustained campaign of harassment conducted by a small band of fanatics convinced they had a hand in their daughter’s disappearance.


Now, one of their main tormentors is facing jail for refusing to leave the McCanns’ alone.


Tony Bennett has waged a campaign since 2007 against the couple – repeatedly accusing them of covering up the girl’s death in leaflets, books and on internet postings.

On one occasion, the Madeleine Foundation, which he runs, handed out 1,500 pamphlets in Rothley, the couple’s home village in Leicestershire, entitled “10 key reasons which suggest she was not abducted.”

Another booklet has been posted by registered delivery to the McCanns’ home.

Next month, a court will decide whether to jail Mr Bennett, 64, for contempt of court.

The action is being brought by Mr and Mrs McCann who have grown increasingly disturbed by Mr Bennett’s attacks on them.

Mr Bennett is accused of flouting an agreement in the High Court – made in November 2009 – that he would stop repeating allegations that the McCanns were in some way involved in their daughter’s abduction.

Since then, Mr Bennett, a grandfather-of-two from Harlow in Essex, who is obsessed with the case, has posted on the subject of Madeleine McCann’s disappearance an astonishing 3,800 times on one website alone.

Lawyers acting for the McCanns accuse him of breaching the undertaking on at least 149 occasions. The list of alleged breaches is not exhaustive.

The McCanns’ spokesman Clarence Mitchell said: “This has gone on for a long time and Kate and Gerry now feel enough is enough. It is obviously very distressing for them. The fact they are taking legal action speaks for itself.

“Tony Bennett is his own worst enemy by persistently doing what he does, he has brought this action on himself.”

The couple, both doctors, live in hope their daughter may still be alive and continue the search for her.

A Metropolitan police review of the evidence, put together by Portuguese detectives, continues but is not thought to have produced any significant new leads in the search for Madeleine.

A draft order seen by The Sunday Telegraph, which a judge is expected to rule upon at a hearing in February, includes an option for Mr Bennett to be “committed to HM Prison for a period” to be determined.

Mr Bennett could also be fined and ordered to pay costs that are likely to bankrupt him.

You have to say quite a smart original move by Team McCann. They turned the argument from 'Did the McCanns do such and such' (ie libel) which would create a dangerous possibility of the whole business being aired in courty, to 'Has Mr Bennet broken his agreement?' which wouldn't ever need any examination of the McCann saga.

It may just have backfired on them.

"Do you have a link for that kitti?"

In order to confirm that the dog had effectively 'marked' the car key, that was found in the
map/glove pocket on the side of the driver's door, at 04h13, that key was retrieved from the car
and concealed in a place far distant from the vehicle on parking level -3 of the underground car
park.
At 04h14, it was verified that the dog 'marked' the area of a sandbox [bucket of sand] of the Fire
System where the car key had been concealed beneath the sand.
At 04h50, a new inspection was performed by Eddy on the parking level -4 where the above car
key was concealed in an area far distant from the vehicle.
At 04h51, it was verified that the dog 'marked' the area of a sandbox [bucket of sand] of the Fire
System where the car key had been concealed beneath the sand.

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/EDDIE-KEELA.htm

Findings, as detailed in the PJ's 57-page report summary

7 – In the vehicle used by the MCCANN family

- cadaver odour dog:
* signalled the key of the vehicle;

- blood dog:
* signalled the key of the vehicle;
* signalled the interior of the vehicle's boot;

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id161.html

people read this & still support them

nospinnaker wrote:You have to say quite a smart original move by Team McCann. They turned the argument from 'Did the McCanns do such and such' (ie libel) which would create a dangerous possibility of the whole business being aired in courty, to 'Has Mr Bennet broken his agreement?' which wouldn't ever need any examination of the McCann saga.

It may just have backfired on them.

As I said before nospinnaker, the McCanns claim harassment and in a couple of instances I would agree with them, putting leaflets though letterboxes in Rothley, sending his booklet to all MP's etc. However, forcing him to close his Forum down denied him freedom of speech and had he refused the McCanns would have sued for Libel. as it is, Carter Ruck has turned the charge to not obeying undertakings. Where Tony made a big mistake IMO was to sell a copy of his book to that "plant" and ask him to pay the money into his wife's account when he had undertaken not to sell his book.

I had forgotten about selling the book. That was a bit of a blunder. I have to say that the leafletting was a bit of a blunder, too.

As time goes on I find I am forgetting more and more about this case; possibly that's because there is so much confusion.

nospinnaker wrote:I had forgotten about selling the book. That was a bit of a blunder. I have to say that the leafletting was a bit of a blunder, too.

As time goes on I find I am forgetting more and more about this case; possibly that's because there is so much confusion.

I do think Tony's zeal went a bit OTT , knowing how powerful the McCanns have become and have the money to afford the top Lawyers. Tony by contrast was not in the same league financially and had he not done some of the things he did and just used his Blog/Forum? to get his message across things could have been different.They couldn't have shut him down as long as he stuck to the Reports and if they tried he could have turned the tables and sued THEM for harassment

I don't know what will happen now, Tony is obviously in contempt of a Court undertaking , but I don't think the McCanns will want to see him in Jail or forced to sell his Home which I would think would be in his Wife's name by now anyway.That would not look good for their reputation .





.

I'm pretty certain that transferring assets when you know you have something like this coming up doesn't work.

But you're right, it wouldn't look good.

This is all shenanigans designed to silence a vocal and persistent critic. While he may have stepped over the line with the leaflets they could have silenced him in so many better ways. Attending a reconstruction with their chums, for instance. Being transparent with the fund. Having a real email button rather than just a picture of one, answering some of those questions.

I suspect Team McCann would rather all this wasn't happening, this recent turn-about can't have been in their script.

nospinnaker wrote:I'm pretty certain that transferring assets when you know you have something like this coming up doesn't work.

But you're right, it wouldn't look good.

This is all shenanigans designed to silence a vocal and persistent critic. While he may have stepped over the line with the leaflets they could have silenced him in so many better ways. Attending a reconstruction with their chums, for instance. Being transparent with the fund. Having a real email button rather than just a picture of one, answering some of those questions.

I suspect Team McCann would rather all this wasn't happening, this recent turn-about can't have been in their script.

They silenced Pat Brown and she had a cast iron case,the McCanns had the cheek to demand amazon remove her book, which they did. There was much talk of Pat suing the McCanns but no news on that. Amaral proved he hadn't libelled the McCanns and I thought he had the best chance because their claim against him is "ludicrous". However, there seems to be a ? mark as to whether the case will go to Court so I think the McCanns will walk off into the Sunset loaded down with all the money they have made from their Daughter's "abduction". Unless of course SY come up with something positive which I have a feeling is the reason why they have been out of the public eye for a while and we have not been treated to some more "sightings". We can but hope.

Unfortunately, Tony did fall foul of the 'undertakings' being used by the 'plant' - pity no-one will investigate who gave the plant instructions.

I may be alone in this but I don't see why the Rothley residents shouldn't have been leafletted. If the truth about his case ever comes out the MP's can't say they didn't know anything about it like most of the BBC personnel are saying now.

If the new hearing is going to hear evidence about the dogs, this will backfire big time on the Mccanns. they will be shown up for dissing the dogs when evidence can be shown as to the reliability fo the dogs. The British Police and FBI are hardly going to use dogs which are unreliable. More people therefore will be asking questions about the dogs findings in the mccann case. They will also be shown up for targetting a man who is known for working on cases of injustice, his work helped to expose corrupt Essex police for example in another case. They will be shown up for targetting someone who has asked questions and highlighted inconsistencies in the case for the sole purpose of getting to the truth about what happened to their daughter. What does it say about them for targetting someone in this way.

jay2001 wrote: I may be alone in this but I don't see why the Rothley residents shouldn't have been leafletted.

This is a very important point, imo. Had Tony Bennett stayed on line, publishing his leaflet there, I do not believe the MCCanns would have acted in such a manner.

It is a very fine line - is there a difference between voicing your opinions in print on the internet and voicing your opinions in print on paper.

For the McCanns there is a big difference, in so far as Tony Bennetts written word was easily accessible, easily visible, to people. In doctors surgeries, in their letter boxes, everywhere in Rothley. However, in order to read something on the internet you have to make a conscious effort to access it. If you do that, you already have an opinion on something, or at the very least good background knowledge.

The leaftlet runs the risk of educating people as to the simple facts, then encourages them to look further. The same with Amarals book. Hard copy items will be read by many if it is physically in front of them, not necessarily out of interest in the first instance, perhaps out of just boredom. But it might lead to an interest, may create doubts, may pose questions for many.



This is what has annoyed the McCanns the most, I think.

I wonder if this Rothley lady, fell foul of the McCanns, when she spoke very frankly to the media, about their behaviour in Praia da Luz.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=o0wCsXBj_pU&feature=fvwp

I often wonder if she's still around voicing her opinion. Don't suppose she's had C-R after her, but would be interesting to know if TM had made any attempt to silence her.

dazedandconfused wrote:I often wonder if she's still around voicing her opinion. Don't suppose she's had C-R after her, but would be interesting to know if TM had made any attempt to silence her.

Hi Dazedandconfused

I've also been wondering if this lady is still around, in fact I took a look at her You Tube profile apparantly her last activity, was in December 2010. I'm tempted to send her a message, after all and along with others, I supported her on the last video I placed on here and on this one.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APTUmKY-7Zw

kathybelle wrote:I wonder if this Rothley lady, fell foul of the McCanns, when she spoke very frankly to the media, about their behaviour in Praia da Luz.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=o0wCsXBj_pU&feature=fvwp

That could make for an interesting topic - a list of those who the McCanns ought to have Carter Rucked but didn't.

Why is it harrassment leafleting rothely and the surrounding area , After all, the Mccanns leafletted in pdl, didn't they and the residents their Aren't suing the them..