Re: twitter -- and news from court

almostgothic Tue 5 Feb - 13:49

You should see the state of my ashtray ......

twitter -- and news from court - Page 2 Ashtray-579751

**pennylane** Tue 5 Feb - 13:53

almostgothic wrote:You should see the state of my ashtray ......

Gracious me, I haven't brushed my teeth yet! twitter -- and news from court - Page 2 424625

**kitti** Tue 5 Feb - 14:14

They do break for lunch and usually have a small pee break in the afternoon .

**cass** Tue 5 Feb - 14:18

there is a update on jh -- sorry useless can copy over

chrissie Tue 5 Feb - 14:18

deleted

Karen Tue 5 Feb - 14:19

LATEST Source : Jill Havern site

From what I understand CR have completed their side of the case and this afternoon will start with TB cross examining the CR Witnesses.

The case is specifically about breach of the undertaking. There is no point in TB arguing for anything different.

TB will need to establish that he has not broken the undertaking or if he has its very minor.

END

**kitti** Tue 5 Feb - 14:22

400k...not bad for 2 hours work.

So mike gunnell will be on the stand....wonder if he will tell the truth or perjur himself.

tigger Tue 5 Feb - 14:38

chrissie wrote:A poster on JH has said that from what he/she understands, CR have completed their side of the case and TB will be cross examining the CR witnesses this afternoon.

That would include Mike Gunnill, who called himself Sangerte when he asked for the booklet.
I'm copying a post of mine from JH here, because I certainly hope it's relevant this afternoon. Forgive me for this kind of vanity!

Quote
This is from the Gunhill topic from 2010 (long before I joined - so quite a lot of that was new to me)

13th jan 2010
email:
Sangerte: I will pay a good price.
(so: name your price and I’ll pay it)

13-1
email:
Sangerte: I feel this will be an important document in history. Would be grateful.
(so the money didn't work, try another tack - the uniqueness of this case)

22-1
email:
notification by TB to Sangerte that booklet located, please send cheque.

23-1 Sangerte: I enclose £5 in cash for payment of the 60 Reasons book.

Letter (prob. more weight in court of law than email) enclosing cash.
Stressing that TB was:
receiving the money in cash. (underhand - didn’t need to go through the ‘books’)
was instrumental in obtaining the booklet.

The booklet was sent on Thursday the 28th January.
The letter from CR to Tony arrived when? I believe it was the 29th?
(to add: I think the CR letter was dated the 29th but arrived the following Monday - still not enough time for Gunnill to get an editor to read it, turn it down, have a think and decide to go to CR, who then worked overtime to get the letter out - pull the other one!)

Tony added this to his first post:

It will be interesting if this leads to McCann v. Bennett in the High Court.

Dr Gerald McCann: I call my first witness, Michael Sangerte. Mr Sangerte, why did you e-mail Mr Bennett on 13 January?

Mr Sangerte: Mike Gunnill put me up to it. I said I lived in Reading, but that was a lie. I didn’t want my e-mails published. It wasn’t because I thought this would be an important document in history. That was another lie.

Dr. Gerald McCann: I call my second witness, Mike Gunnill, a.k.a. Peter Trawin, a.k.a Jason Peter, a.k.a. ‘petert’ on the JustAThoughtYouKnow forum. He appears today as Mike Gunnill. Mike, why did you put Mr Sangerte up to getting hold of a booklet from Mr Bennett?

Mr Gunnill: Um, on behalf of you and your wife, I was helping Carter-Ruck to get evidence against him.
Unquote

The above is from the topic 'Muratfan' on JH.
http://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t6428-muratfan?highlight=muratfan

devonmum Tue 5 Feb - 14:39

Karen wrote:LATEST Source : Jill Havern site

From what I understand CR have completed their side of the case and this afternoon will start with TB cross examining the CR Witnesses.

The case is specifically about breach of the undertaking. There is no point in TB arguing for anything different.

TB will need to establish that he has not broken the undertaking or if he has its very minor.

END

Sombrero has now deleted that post.

Not sure why

chrissie Tue 5 Feb - 14:40

The poster has now removed his post on JH?!?

Guest Tue 5 Feb - 14:44

Yeah, Sombrero, usually about as accurate as the Daily Mail twitter -- and news from court - Page 2 294124

chrissie Tue 5 Feb - 14:46

Iris wrote:Yeah, Sombrero, usually about as accurate as the Daily Mail

Oh ok, hadn't come across sombrero before twitter -- and news from court - Page 2 294124

jd16 Tue 5 Feb - 14:49

sombrero Today at 2:44 pm

I posted some very basic information but I am concerned that there are reporting restrictions in place. My friend arrived after the case started. I asked the question and was advised that she has heard nothing but she missed the start of the case. I think its best that I deleted what I wrote not that there was much info in the post.

chrissie Tue 5 Feb - 14:55

jd16 wrote:
sombrero Today at 2:44 pm

I posted some very basic information but I am concerned that there are reporting restrictions in place. My friend arrived after the case started. I asked the question and was advised that she has heard nothing but she missed the start of the case. I think its best that I deleted what I wrote not that there was much info in the post.

Thanks. I've deleted my post about it.

jd16 Tue 5 Feb - 14:56

It does make sense. CR this morning, TB this afternoon....I doubt we will hear anything until late in the afternoon or early evening. They are most likely only halfway through

interested Tue 5 Feb - 14:59

mossman wrote:
MaryB wrote:I don't understand why this isn't on the news. Is there some sort of law in place barring the report of this case. Seems strange such a high profile case as this isn't being reported on. And yet sightings in Brazil and Australia are reported which turn out to be nonsense. In fact most people won't even know that this case is taking place. Could anybody help but wonder why.

Because a press release was not given to the media by a man wearing pink, giving the ok for the information to be printed.

It's getting close to 10:00 am here in Canada and I have just logged on hoping to learn about what has happened in court.

The "quote" above reminds me of 1936 when the British people were kept in the dark for some time about the royal romance. The Prime Minister at the time (Baldwin) and the press barons had an agreement that the public should not know or be informed about the scandal.

I can't tell you how many times I have been reminded of that 1936 "agreement" when trying to find accurate up-to-date information in the U.K. press on anything to do with the Madeleine McCann case.

maebee Tue 5 Feb - 17:25

kitti wrote:400k...not bad for 2 hours work.

So mike gunnell will be on the stand....wonder if he will tell the truth or perjur himself.

I just had a call from one of Tony's supporters who said that when the judge questioned Gunnill this afternoon, he said "I lied, your honour" - numerous times, the supporter said.

jd16 Tue 5 Feb - 17:34

I have just had a phone call from friends who are with Tony. They have all just left the court and will be in touch. Tony sounds well, his supporters one who had driven from Cornwall today to be there number about a dozen. i spoke to 4 or 5 but there wasn't much credit on the mobile. Anyway they all sounded in very good spirits. There will be an official update later.

Nina Today at 5:21 pm

He sounded tired but well. The strain he is under must be enormous, his band of supporters sounded in very good fettle, how I wish that I could have been there. I asked about reporting restrictions but they didn't know of any so I suppose we shall hear more as the evening draws on.

Lillyofthevalley Tue 5 Feb - 18:10

maebee wrote:
kitti wrote:400k...not bad for 2 hours work.

So mike gunnell will be on the stand....wonder if he will tell the truth or perjur himself.

I just had a call from one of Tony's supporters who said that when the judge questioned Gunnill this afternoon, he said "I lied, your honour" - numerous times, the supporter said.

Maebee

twitter -- and news from court - Page 2 306321

hope ur ok, great to hear that Gunnell is telling the truth twitter -- and news from court - Page 2 307691

I would have loved to have been there but hubby would not let me go twitter -- and news from court - Page 2 389741

Lillyofthevalley Tue 5 Feb - 18:12

devonmum wrote:Muratfan is running an abusive spoof Tony account on Twitter today, complete scumbag,

You mean Muratfanny twitter -- and news from court - Page 2 294124

He will be the next one dragged through the courts imo.

devonmum Tue 5 Feb - 18:19

Lillyofthevalley wrote:
devonmum wrote:Muratfan is running an abusive spoof Tony account on Twitter today, complete scumbag,

You mean Muratfanny
He will be the next one dragged through the courts imo.

I Do!

Must remember to call him by his descriptive name twitter -- and news from court - Page 2 23324

tigger Tue 5 Feb - 20:03

Here's a tweet from Pat Brown:

PAT BROWN ‏@ProfilerPatB
Missing child donations buy the best lawyers in the world to shut down free speech. #mccann #bennett #amaral #brown http://tinyurl.com/bl2hmp9
unquote

**MaryB** Tue 5 Feb - 20:12

So what exactly is the purpose of this court case. Sorry if that's a dumb question. But is it to absolutely say nobody is allowed to have an opinion on what happened to Madeleine. And if they do have an opinion then they could be put in prison for it or face charges.

Guest Tue 5 Feb - 20:17

Spite, vindictiveness and an arrogant belief that it will help perpetuate the fables of the last nearly six years.

mossman Tue 5 Feb - 20:36

MaryB wrote:So what exactly is the purpose of this court case. Sorry if that's a dumb question. But is it to absolutely say nobody is allowed to have an opinion on what happened to Madeleine. And if they do have an opinion then they could be put in prison for it or face charges.

Mary B I know I will stand corrected by some of the more intelligent posters here, but as I understand it there are two parts to this. One is the libel proceedings against TB and the other is contempt of court proceedings, the latter being what is happening today. This arose after TB was tricked into selling a copy of his leaflet, having previously undertaken not to do so.

So what is happening now is the judge will decide if he was in contempt of court and that carries a penalty of a fine or imprisonment or both.

With regard to the libel issue, I think that will be dealt with separately, but perhaps someone can clarify that.

Sponsored content