twitter -- and news from court

MaryB wrote:Thanks Mossman. Will there be a decision tomorrow do you think?

The judge severely limited my questions to Carter-Ruck's Solicitor and Partner, Isabel Martorell.

I think I am right in saying (we shall see tomorrrow) that none of the facts relating to Madeleine's reported disappearance are of any relevance whatosever to this hearing.

Nor is the widespread availability of Dr Amaral's book; that was also ruled as irrelevant.

One issue that emerged during the hearing more than once was the McCanns' powerlessness to control the level of dissent about Madeleine. I was able to demonstrate that I was the only person on the entire planet who was actively being inhibited from expressing his opinions on the disappearance of Madeleine. That was also ruled entirely irrelevant to the issue of whether I had breached any of my undertakings.

The circumstances under which I agreed to give the undertakings - on 2 October 2009 following legal advice from Kirwans - were also deemed irrelevant. The fact that the only alternative I was faced with was to face a full-blown libel trial, up against the legal firepower of Carter-Ruck and with no Legal Aid for defamation cases, was also ruled irrelevant.

Michael Gunnill's evidence was that he obtained the '60 Reasons' book from me purely to make himself some money. He said he had asked the Editor of the Sunday Express if he would be interested in running a story on Tony Benentt breaking his undertakings. He said that the Editor said 'Yes', and so he tried to get a book from me by subterfuge. Having done so, the Editor never ran the story so he never got paid. On this forum, Mr Gunnill claimed to have received the book on 4 February 2010, but in his Affidavit he said it was on 1 February. He could not explain the discrepancy.

In her Affidavit, Ms Martorell had said on oath that 'Madeleine was abducted'. She conceded that she had been told that but didn't know whether or not that was true. Her information came from her clients.

The one ray of hope was that Mr Justice Tugendhat said that many of the issues I sought to raise would become relevant at a subsequent hearing at which I shall be applying to lift the stay on the libel proceedings - and (hopefully) then be able to argue the case to lift the undertakings. This hearing will not release me from my undertakings and it has been spelled out to me that unless and until the undertakings are lifted, I must not give my opinion on what may have happened to Madeleine.

The support at the Court was briliant - thanks so much to all who came.

Especial thanks to Enid O'Dowd, the accountant who wrote up an excellent analysis of the Fund. She flew over from the Irish Republic to help me. She was not allowed to be a witness for me at today's hearing, because Mr Justice Tugendhat deemed it irrelevant to the issues he had to decide. He did however say that her evidence might well be relevant at a future hearing.

There were 5 journalists present during various parts of the proceedings.

It all seems very very unjust

In her Affidavit, Ms Martorell had said on oath that 'Madeleine was abducted'. She conceded that she had been told that but didn't know whether or not that was true. Her information came from her clients.

Iris wrote:He sounds a bit down, but maybe he is just tired. I don't think there's anything unexpected there. The judge is just being very precise and strictly adhering to the letter of the law. But he clearly thinks there is a lot more to come out at a full libel trial. That can only be a good thing as I think it's the very last thing on the face of this planet that the McCanns would want.

This was a very interesting own goal.

In her Affidavit, Ms Martorell had said on oath that 'Madeleine was abducted'. She conceded that she had been told that but didn't know whether or not that was true. Her information came from her clients.

So even the McCanns' own lawyer doesn't 100% believe her clients.

Mr Gunnill claimed to have received the book on 4 February 2010, but in his Affidavit he said it was on 1 February. He could not explain the discrepancy.

devonmum wrote:

cass wrote:

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

just goes to show that they are scared today stooping so low

Its pretty foul, but only has 2 followers so far, and one of them is Pamela Gurney lol

He's one sick puppy.

In her Affidavit, Ms Martorell had said on oath that 'Madeleine was abducted'. She conceded that she had been told that but didn't know whether or not that was true. Her information came from her clients.

The End Is Nigh wrote:Spite, vindictiveness and an arrogant belief that it will help perpetuate the fables of the last nearly six years.

Not Born Yesterday wrote:

devonmum wrote:

cass wrote:

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

just goes to show that they are scared today stooping so low

Its pretty foul, but only has 2 followers so far, and one of them is Pamela Gurney lol

He's one sick puppy.

I hadn't until now put Pam Gurney in quite the same category of pond life as Muratfan!

I was at court - a tiring but interesting day.

Iris wrote:The amount of discord re the McCanns' story is now out in the open. More people are asking awkward questions.
The unbanning of Dr Amarals book, although irrelevant to this case, is now a matter of public court record.
Mike Gunnill has been proven to be a liar and a fraud.
Even the McCanns' own lawyer cannot say with 100% certainty that Maddie was abducted.
Tony has proved that he doesn't even have the same rights to discuss the case as anyone else does. (It may be irrelevant to this trial but it is also now a matter of public record).
The accounts have been analysed by a certified and qualified Accountant and found wanting. Again, not admissable now, but a matter of public record.
The judge keeps saying that things may be relevant if/when it goes to a full libel trial, he's not ruling things out completely, just saying they are not relevant to this trial (which, strictly speaking, they are not - but sounds like he wants to actually widen the scope of any upcoming trial!)
There were 5 journos present (I'm assuming that doesn't include Gunnill) and not one word in any of the media. That should tell you something!
The McCanns, like the cowards that they are, couldn't even turn up themselves.

It's been a good day. I am looking forward to tomorrow.

Not Born Yesterday wrote:What on earth have these trolls got to be afraid of, I wonder, that they feel the need to obliterate a website?

Getting ready to go to court again.

Not Born Yesterday wrote:What on earth have these trolls got to be afraid of, I wonder, that they feel the need to obliterate a website?

Getting ready to go to court again.

tigger wrote:Just to post here that CmoMM is being spammed to death by meatgrinderpete, a new member who registered this morning.

Best not to log on for a bit whilst this is being dealt with as the portal illegible with dingbats and such. Spamming about ten topics a minute by the looks of it.

Who could do such a thing? Mmmmm, Mmmmuuu....