Updated = McCanns v Bennett

Karen wrote:Court case IN DETAIL!

With thanks to littlemorsals BLOGSPOT

http://littlemorsals.blogspot.co.uk/

Its very long - well worth the read especially the Mike Gunnill bit.

That is a very well written and hugely informative report - and it raises several times the issue of whether it can possibly be demonstrated that TB broke his undertakings

AnnaEsse wrote:

Claudia79 wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:

Claudia79 wrote:I sense someone will probably have to go look for another forum soon where he/she will complain about two previous fora. Call it intuition.

You've got that psychic nature Claudia.

It's freaky sometimes, Anna!

I don't know how you cope Claudia.

It's a cross I have to bear!

malena stool wrote:

Claudia79 wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:

Claudia79 wrote:I sense someone will probably have to go look for another forum soon where he/she will complain about two previous fora. Call it intuition.

You've got that psychic nature Claudia.

It's freaky sometimes, Anna!

freaky ???? Magic Potions more like..

The End Is Nigh wrote:

Karen wrote:Court case IN DETAIL!

With thanks to littlemorsals BLOGSPOT

http://littlemorsals.blogspot.co.uk/

Its very long - well worth the read especially the Mike Gunnill bit.

That is a very well written and hugely informative report - and it raises several times the issue of whether it can possibly be demonstrated that TB broke his undertakings

I am not sure that the "raising" of it is necessarily correct though. If the undertaking was to not to repeat again "Orville is a pink duck", repeating it whether Orville is pink or green is a breach. Having said that I still hope for the judgement of Solomon along the lines of that if there is a breach, any penalty should actually follow determination of whether there is any libel such that a true measure of the breach can be determined.

Can't disagree with that - you are more erudite than wot I is!

Claudia79 wrote:I sense someone will probably have to go look for another forum soon where he/she will complain about two previous fora. Call it intuition.

Three.

Karen wrote:Court case IN DETAIL!

With thanks to littlemorsals BLOGSPOT

http://littlemorsals.blogspot.co.uk/

Its very long - well worth the read especially the Mike Gunnill bit.

Thanks so much for bringing this in Karen. Everyone should read it. it seems very balanced and actually quite encouraging!

Yes i like the reference to kates book re; carter ruck working away behind the scenes for nothing,hope the judge made a mental note of that.

Having just read the account of the court proceedings as provided by Little Morsals, the most important thing the poster mentions, in my opinion is, "If the McCanns version of events is unproven, then how can Mr. Bennett have breached anything?"

Or, am I over-simplifying?

interested wrote:Having just read the account of the court proceedings as provided by Little Morsals, the most important thing the poster mentions, in my opinion is, "If the McCanns version of events is unproven, then how can Mr. Bennett have breached anything?"

Or, am I over-simplifying?

That's a good point interested.

Also the reference made to Madeleine being abducted, she is I think officially classified as a missing person/child, when I say officially I don't mean McCann officially I mean according to the official authorities.

interested wrote:Having just read the account of the court proceedings as provided by Little Morsals, the most important thing the poster mentions, in my opinion is, "If the McCanns version of events is unproven, then how can Mr. Bennett have breached anything?"

Or, am I over-simplifying?

You make a very fair point.
I realise that a judge has to set an agenda within the technical boundaries and constraints of the system (ie a breach is a breach is a breach) - but speaking purely as an onlooker it seems to me that this case is back to front.
(Or wrong road round, as they say in my neck of the woods).

interested wrote:Having just read the account of the court proceedings as provided by Little Morsals, the most important thing the poster mentions, in my opinion is, "If the McCanns version of events is unproven, then how can Mr. Bennett have breached anything?"

Or, am I over-simplifying?

That had me thinking as well. Is making an undertaking not to do things enforcable if it transpires that you were made to comply with the undertaking on a false premise. Can you be made to do something if it is based on a lie or unfounded alegation.

interested wrote:Having just read the account of the court proceedings as provided by Little Morsals, the most important thing the poster mentions, in my opinion is, "If the McCanns version of events is unproven, then how can Mr. Bennett have breached anything?"

Or, am I over-simplifying?

My understanding of this, is that, its really nothing
to do with what is truthful or not, its simply to find
out did Tony breach a promise or undertaking he has
made to the court. All other matters are external to
proceedings.

almostgothic wrote:

interested wrote:Having just read the account of the court proceedings as provided by Little Morsals, the most important thing the poster mentions, in my opinion is, "If the McCanns version of events is unproven, then how can Mr. Bennett have breached anything?"

Or, am I over-simplifying?

You make a very fair point.


I realise that a judge has to set an agenda within the technical boundaries and constraints of the system (ie a breach is a breach is a breach) - but speaking purely as an onlooker it seems to me that this case is back to front.
(Or wrong road round, as they say in my neck of the woods).

I have to question because as we know the McCanns' version of events (abduction) has not been proven. How then can Mr. Bennett "breach" was has not been proven?

Or, as I believe they say in Texas, 'that dog won't hunt'.

marxman wrote:

interested wrote:Having just read the account of the court proceedings as provided by Little Morsals, the most important thing the poster mentions, in my opinion is, "If the McCanns version of events is unproven, then how can Mr. Bennett have breached anything?"

Or, am I over-simplifying?

My understanding of this, is that, its really nothing
to do with what is truthful or not, its simply to find
out did Tony breach a promise or undertaking he has
made to the court. All other matters are external to
proceedings.

Indeed as I said above re Orville . My earlier point about then deciding the truthfulness though is that it is potentially a mitigating factor in determing a punishment for any breach.

So mike gunnell admits he was in it for the money.

Sod the truth.


Sod Madeleine.


Make as much money as you can.


A child has lost her life but what the hell...I can sell the story about a man that will go through bloody hell and may go to prison all because he seeks the truth ....but I'll get a big BIG pay packet....and I ain't got no conscience anyway.


Reminds me off Clarence Mitchell....'If she's dead, shes dead...but not by their hands'......


Birds off a feather .

Didn't mike gunnell work with james murray from the Daily Express and they both went to PDL together? Then as if by coincidence James Murray was outside court this week and asked Tony for an interview?

I suppose it all really boils down to Judge T's comment "what if your clients are lying", first prove they told the truth then the rest will all fall into place.

jd16 wrote:Didn't mike gunnell work with james murray from the Daily Express and they both went to PDL together? Then as if by coincidence James Murray was outside court this week and asked Tony for an interview?

Yes, what another coincidence that is!!!

http://themaddiecasefiles.com/topic17242.html

Yes, Messrs Murray and Gunnill do know each other.

As marxman says above - it's simply a matter of ruling if there has been a breach. If so, Tony will get a chance to plead mitigating circumstances, if not, there's nothing to plead and he's home and dry.

If Tony is found guilty of contempt, it's highly likely that the judge will defer sentencing as there is (I believe?) an application to lift the stay in place. This application has to firstly survive the inevitable attempt Carter Ruck will make to have the application struck out as being without merit. If it makes it past a directions hearing of some sort then it will have a full hearing at which Tony can put forward a case as to why the stay should be lifted to allow him to have his undertaking varied. He will have to demonstrate that there have been significant changes in circumstances surrounding the case and/or that new evidence has come to light. He is almost certain to include the Amaral book ban being overturned and to make an argument based on the Clarence Mitchell "the only assumption..." interview. Whether this will be enough to persuade the court to allow the stay to be lifted will have to remain to be seen.

I can scarcely imagine what the CR legal fees will be by the end of a full libel trial if it gets that far. £250K or so to date and I would estimate 3 times that amount if it goes all the way. Of course there will be the Amaral outcome in the meantime which will have relevance. And perhaps the SY review will be declared over by then too.

Estimate? I thought you were keen on precision?

Chris wrote:

The End Is Nigh wrote:

Karen wrote:Court case IN DETAIL!

With thanks to littlemorsals BLOGSPOT

http://littlemorsals.blogspot.co.uk/

Its very long - well worth the read especially the Mike Gunnill bit.

That is a very well written and hugely informative report - and it raises several times the issue of whether it can possibly be demonstrated that TB broke his undertakings

I am not sure that the "raising" of it is necessarily correct though. If the undertaking was to not to repeat again "Orville is a pink duck", repeating it whether Orville is pink or green is a breach. Having said that I still hope for the judgement of Solomon along the lines of that if there is a breach, any penalty should actually follow determination of whether there is any libel such that a true measure of the breach can be determined.

Very true - excellent points

kitti wrote:So mike gunnell admits he was in it for the money.

Sod the truth.


Sod Madeleine.


Make as much money as you can.


A child has lost her life but what the hell...I can sell the story about a man that will go through bloody hell and may go to prison all because he seeks the truth ....but I'll get a big BIG pay packet....and I ain't got no conscience anyway.


Reminds me off Clarence Mitchell....'If she's dead, shes dead...but not by their hands'......


Birds off a feather .

mccanns are Carter Rucks clients, they have no idea if their clients are telling the truth, nor do they care.

mccanns are Clarence Mitchells clients, he has no idea if his clients are telling the truth, nor do he care.

It's business, money, contract... nothing more nothing less.

I may be wrong but I think Tony breached the undertaking on a few occasions which is why the McCanns had to sue him.
Surely the Judge must take this into account? If he agreed in the first instance it was because he didn't want to get sued
because he could not afford to pay Legal Fees. How many times did he agree to stop before the McCanns took Legal action?
No doubt the Judge will study the case carefully before making a decision , it will be interesting to read his summing up.
A very good little morsals report , do we know if the McCanns attended the hearing.?