Tony Bennetts responses to Blacksmith's "A worthy cause"

Wintabells wrote:I'm not a member of the JillHavern forum, but would like to express my thanks to Mr Bennett for taking the time to respond to my criticism of five items included within the contents of the '10 Reasons' leaflet and for acknowledging that some of the items (listed in his post as numbers 2, 4 and 5) were inaccurate.

I'd like to add that I did not feel I had misquoted the leaflet when I referred to the statement about extradition lawyers being appointed 'Immediately M was reported missing' but used quotation my marks to highlight the term I was concerned about, i.e. 'immediately' which Mr Bennett has now conceded happened not immediately, but later.

Regarding the 'pact of silence' - As Mr Bennett has pointed out, it has been argued that what was actually said may have been mistranslated (and after all, would the Tapasniks really have said 'we have a pact of silence' even if they did make a pact of some sort - and I can quite imagine they did) and (for me) it makes more sense if they'd said, 'We have all agreed not to talk to the press about our business' or words to that effect... and that, in itself, could be argued to be a normal enough response when dealing with the press.

As for the six corpses tale - of course its nonsense and we all know this, but surely only if we absolutely know that Mrs McC has stated this should it be used to bolster the argument against abduction, which is why I was unhappy about its inclusion in the leaflet - the sources for this story were Aunty P, Susan H and the press. Unless we are scrupulous about having direct sources and are accurate in the points we make, we will not be taken seriously.

Thanks again to Mr Bennett - I don't doubt that his beliefs about what really happened to MMcC concur with my own and I wish him success in his current battles.

tigger wrote:

Wintabells wrote:I'm not a member of the JillHavern forum, but would like to express my thanks to Mr Bennett for taking the time to respond to my criticism of five items included within the contents of the '10 Reasons' leaflet and for acknowledging that some of the items (listed in his post as numbers 2, 4 and 5) were inaccurate.

I'd like to add that I did not feel I had misquoted the leaflet when I referred to the statement about extradition lawyers being appointed 'Immediately M was reported missing' but used quotation my marks to highlight the term I was concerned about, i.e. 'immediately' which Mr Bennett has now conceded happened not immediately, but later.

Regarding the 'pact of silence' - As Mr Bennett has pointed out, it has been argued that what was actually said may have been mistranslated (and after all, would the Tapasniks really have said 'we have a pact of silence' even if they did make a pact of some sort - and I can quite imagine they did) and (for me) it makes more sense if they'd said, 'We have all agreed not to talk to the press about our business' or words to that effect... and that, in itself, could be argued to be a normal enough response when dealing with the press.

As for the six corpses tale - of course its nonsense and we all know this, but surely only if we absolutely know that Mrs McC has stated this should it be used to bolster the argument against abduction, which is why I was unhappy about its inclusion in the leaflet - the sources for this story were Aunty P, Susan H and the press. Unless we are scrupulous about having direct sources and are accurate in the points we make, we will not be taken seriously.

Thanks again to Mr Bennett - I don't doubt that his beliefs about what really happened to MMcC concur with my own and I wish him success in his current battles.

Quoting the McCann's spokespersons is a minefield. Certainly on the night of 3/4/ May 07, news was disseminated through friends and family who all had exactly the same story. The broken shutters, the non existent ledge and the front door 'hanging open'. Although one may argue it all came from the same source, i.e. either of the McCanns, this can never be proved.
The six corpses fall into the same category as do the twins' dirty nappies in the boot of the car.
This tactic served them extremely well and it was used over and over again. If a certain statement cannot be directly contributed to you, it can always have been misinterpreted.

But even so there are many provable statements, answers in interviews and shall we say a certain economy with the truth which can be proved.
In particular the Vanity Fair Interview is an excellent and well researched article - as far as I know it was not sold on (as often happens) to other magazines or newspapers at a later date, but that was the best they could hope for.
That interview was taped and transcribed, the slip-ups in that are many and irretrievable. They can be quoted since they have never been contested by the McCanns. Whether that would stand up in a court of law, I don't know.

Mitchell stated about that interview that it had been agreed it would all be off the record and 'we were caught by surprise'. Hmm.

Here is my favourite clip of a concerned father talking about having ignored the advice of police about publicity and in particular publicising the coloboma

'..... Whoever had taken the child now held a universally recognizable little girl.
Gerry understood that. But, he says, the iris “is Madeleine’s only true distinctive feature. Certainly we thought it was possible that this could potentially hurt her or”—he grimaces—“her abductor might do something to her eye.… But in terms of marketing, it was a good ploy.” unquote

As is often the case with these pearls of truth - no comment necessary.

Not Born Yesterday wrote:http://www.jillhavern.forumotion.net/t5844-criticism-of-the-10-reasons-leaflet-a-response-to-wintabells-on-missing-madeleine#130390

With acknowledgement to the Jill Havern forum - a self-explanatory posting from Tony Bennett.

Wintabells wrote:

tigger wrote:

Wintabells wrote:I'm not a member of the JillHavern forum, but would like to express my thanks to Mr Bennett for taking the time to respond to my criticism of five items included within the contents of the '10 Reasons' leaflet and for acknowledging that some of the items (listed in his post as numbers 2, 4 and 5) were inaccurate.

I'd like to add that I did not feel I had misquoted the leaflet when I referred to the statement about extradition lawyers being appointed 'Immediately M was reported missing' but used quotation my marks to highlight the term I was concerned about, i.e. 'immediately' which Mr Bennett has now conceded happened not immediately, but later.

Regarding the 'pact of silence' - As Mr Bennett has pointed out, it has been argued that what was actually said may have been mistranslated (and after all, would the Tapasniks really have said 'we have a pact of silence' even if they did make a pact of some sort - and I can quite imagine they did) and (for me) it makes more sense if they'd said, 'We have all agreed not to talk to the press about our business' or words to that effect... and that, in itself, could be argued to be a normal enough response when dealing with the press.

As for the six corpses tale - of course its nonsense and we all know this, but surely only if we absolutely know that Mrs McC has stated this should it be used to bolster the argument against abduction, which is why I was unhappy about its inclusion in the leaflet - the sources for this story were Aunty P, Susan H and the press. Unless we are scrupulous about having direct sources and are accurate in the points we make, we will not be taken seriously.

Thanks again to Mr Bennett - I don't doubt that his beliefs about what really happened to MMcC concur with my own and I wish him success in his current battles.

Quoting the McCann's spokespersons is a minefield. Certainly on the night of 3/4/ May 07, news was disseminated through friends and family who all had exactly the same story. The broken shutters, the non existent ledge and the front door 'hanging open'. Although one may argue it all came from the same source, i.e. either of the McCanns, this can never be proved.
The six corpses fall into the same category as do the twins' dirty nappies in the boot of the car.
This tactic served them extremely well and it was used over and over again. If a certain statement cannot be directly contributed to you, it can always have been misinterpreted.

But even so there are many provable statements, answers in interviews and shall we say a certain economy with the truth which can be proved.
In particular the Vanity Fair Interview is an excellent and well researched article - as far as I know it was not sold on (as often happens) to other magazines or newspapers at a later date, but that was the best they could hope for.
That interview was taped and transcribed, the slip-ups in that are many and irretrievable. They can be quoted since they have never been contested by the McCanns. Whether that would stand up in a court of law, I don't know.

Mitchell stated about that interview that it had been agreed it would all be off the record and 'we were caught by surprise'. Hmm.

Here is my favourite clip of a concerned father talking about having ignored the advice of police about publicity and in particular publicising the coloboma

'..... Whoever had taken the child now held a universally recognizable little girl.
Gerry understood that. But, he says, the iris “is Madeleine’s only true distinctive feature. Certainly we thought it was possible that this could potentially hurt her or”—he grimaces—“her abductor might do something to her eye.… But in terms of marketing, it was a good ploy.” unquote

As is often the case with these pearls of truth - no comment necessary.

Agreeing with you, Tigger. It's the direct stuff caught on camera or in writing that is so very useful. Like Kate's, 'What d'you mean you woke up...? ' (who said she woke up?) and Gerry's 'we didn't think we'd get into the Tapas that night, remember?' (despite having a block booking) that is so damning.

Bobsy wrote:Quote..... 'What d'you mean you woke up...? ' and the shaking motion as she said this.

Wintabells wrote:

Bobsy wrote:Quote..... 'What d'you mean you woke up...? ' and the shaking motion as she said this.

Indeed.

Iris wrote:Gerry : "The twins were sleeping on the.... err, in their cots."

Sleeping on the what, Gerry?

Like Kate's, 'What d'you mean you woke up...?

Iris wrote:Gerry : "The twins were sleeping on the.... err, in their cots."

Sleeping on the what, Gerry?

It wasn’t until Kate walked into the villa at 10 and felt a sickening breeze—the front window had been jimmied open—that she realized something terrible had happened. “The scene was stark,” Gerry tells me. On one bed the twins lay sleeping. In the next lay only the plush cat toy Madeleine was never without. That was when Kate came out screaming, “Madeleine has gone!”

maebee wrote:

Like Kate's, 'What d'you mean you woke up...?

Why was Madeleine waking up a surprise to Kate? Wasn't there a "Star chart" in their kitchen relating to Madeleine staying in her own bed? Her waking up must have been an issue.

kathybelle wrote:

snowflake wrote:Am I allowed to say that I don't admire him at all?

Long time ago on this forum he posted his madeleine voice post.
I did tell him that i found it very creepy.......................
it is still a very wierd post for a mature man to post.......taking on the voice of a missing child to her parents.. shudders if not actually
no is fine
still find it very creepy and repulsive
So no admiring from me ....................imho.

Am I allowed to say I don't admire people who support child neglectors, especially when for reasons best known to the child neglectors, their child disappears never to be seen again?

I'm talking about people like yourself, who whole heartedly support the McCanns, which you have every right to do so, but hurl insults at those of us, who care about Madeleine and the way she was cruelly ousted from her siblings.

The facts speak for themselves, Kate and Gerry McCann perpetrated Madeleine's disappearance, whether she was abducted or not. People like yourself, have never followed the case and neither have you read the PJ files. Nothing you say makes any sense, I have asked you before, to show me why you believe the McCanns played no part in Madeleine's disappearance, given the fact they told the world and his wife, how they behaved on that so called family holiday. I'm still waiting for your answer.

Tony Bennett has done nothing to deserve the treatment he has received from the McCanns. He along with Goncalo Amaral, has done more to find out what happened to Madeleine, than her parents. I've read Tony Bennett's leaflets and I've read a booklet that he had printed, none of these items contained anything that wasn't in the PJ files. Tony Bennett has never accused the McCanns of killing Madeleine and he has always asked posters or people at his meetings, to only make constructive criticism about the McCanns.

I know this to be true, because I attended one of Tony Bennett's meetings in Nottingham and I used to be a member of a forum, that Tony Bennett is still a member of.

So instead of coming on to this forum, which is a pro Madeleine forum, bad mouthing those of us, including Tony Bennett and Goncalo Amaral who care about Madeleine. Go and find yourself a pro McCann forum, where you can badmouth the McCanns critics, till your heart is content.

I think there are still one or two pro McCann forums, however just be careful what you say, when you badmouth the critics. One pro McCann forum was closed down, because the McCann supporters made some unacceptable comments about the McCanns critics. Gerry McCann had threatened to close down every forum that contained criticism of he and his wife. I wonder how he felt, when he found out that it was a pro McCann forum that was closed down.

Wintabells wrote:The puzzling thing for me about 'what d'you mean you woke up?' was that Gerry and Kate affected confusion about when it was that Madeleine and Sean had cried... Gerry said something like, 'was it when they were getting bathed?... or when they were being put to bed?' implying that somehow they weren't alone when this crying episode took place, and that it could have been at bath or bed time but neither Gerry nor Kate noticed because they're either stone deaf or someone else bathed and put the children to bed (which doesn't seem likely) but certainly not that they woke up and mum/dad weren't there.

Kate seems to have forgotten this when she talks about Madeleine's breezy aside that she and Sean had cried and wanted to know where Mum/dad were. The question she should have claimed she wished she'd asked was 'what d'you mean you cried? what was making you cry? was it, perchance, an abductor?'

AnnaEsse wrote:

Iris wrote:Gerry : "The twins were sleeping on the.... err, in their cots."

Sleeping on the what, Gerry?

Vanity Fair article, January 2008, Gerry said the twins were on one bed and only Madeleine's blanket and soft toy were on the other. Will find link.

It wasn’t until Kate walked into the villa at 10 and felt a sickening breeze—the front window had been jimmied open—that she realized something terrible had happened. “The scene was stark,” Gerry tells me. On one bed the twins lay sleeping. In the next lay only the plush cat toy Madeleine was never without. That was when Kate came out screaming, “Madeleine has gone!”

http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/features/2008/02/mccanns200802

About 2/3 down on page 2 of the article.

Iris wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:

Iris wrote:Gerry : "The twins were sleeping on the.... err, in their cots."

Sleeping on the what, Gerry?

Vanity Fair article, January 2008, Gerry said the twins were on one bed and only Madeleine's blanket and soft toy were on the other. Will find link.

It wasn’t until Kate walked into the villa at 10 and felt a sickening breeze—the front window had been jimmied open—that she realized something terrible had happened. “The scene was stark,” Gerry tells me. On one bed the twins lay sleeping. In the next lay only the plush cat toy Madeleine was never without. That was when Kate came out screaming, “Madeleine has gone!”

http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/features/2008/02/mccanns200802

About 2/3 down on page 2 of the article.

It was also in a TV interview, where he started to say "on the..." then very quickly corrected himself. I forget which one, but I will have a rake around for it.

mossman wrote:
Iris - I think it was one of the documentaries, he (Gerry) was driving a car and being filmed as he spoke, it might help to narrow down the search for you.