IS BENNETT A MENTALLY-ILL FORMER TURKISH SOLDIER?

He's nuts, he has to be....

The case of McCanns v Bennett can be reduced to one simple sentence: The McCanns' insistence that there is 'no credible evidence' that Madeleine died in Apartment 5A against my assertion that there is at least some credible evidence that points to this.

There is no evidence whatsoever, has that still not sunk in? Scotland Yard know there isn't - why does he think the Yard are trying to find Madeleine alive?

And he is going to use:

1. A trashy book by a disgraced ex-policeman with a CRIMINAL conviction for LYING.

2. A trashy book by another disgraced ex-policeman, who in the past has faced fraud and attempted rape charges, and is now facing charges of blackmail, hacking, entrapment, bribery, illegal surveillance - I am sure there are some I have forgotten.

Both of these two are in the process of being stripped of their links with the PJ, their former employers.

And Bennett is going to quote them in court?

The press are going to have a field day reporting on the assorted scandals enveloping Bennett's character witnesses.

I am beginning to wonder if some members of The PJ go around abducting children so that they can all have a turn at writing a book about it.
Bennett doesn't need to abduct anyone because he can always find a Victim.

But I do seem to have lost track of what these books have got to do with Bennett breaking his undertaking.

Sabot, I haven't a clue why he thinks that garbage is going to help his cause.

bb1 wrote:Sabot, I haven't a clue why he thinks that garbage is going to help his cause.

At the moment, Bonny, I am assuming that Bennett is first going to request the lifting of The Undertaking, since those books have got nothing to do with that.
Then I presume that he intends to proceed on the basis of not having Libelled The McCanns because Amaral and Cristovao said the same as him, despite Amaral and Cristovao having written entirely different erroneous accounts. The point being that they both arrived at the same conclusion, albeit different from Bennett's conclusion, but only in the detail. You know, boring stuff like, when, where, and how. Nothing of any great importance because The McCanns killed Madeleine somehow or another. They all agree on that.

However, I digress. At what point in time and by whose authority Bennett intends to change the whole purpose of this hearing, and how he is going to get this across to this silly old Judge who is obviously only there because he hasn't got anything better to do, could well make Legal History.

I am not sure of when Bennett intends to introduce The Files, or even which version of The Files, but it is quite likely that he will have forgotten to bring those with him as they really aren't at all important.