It's Bennett Of The Yard!

We asked who was the current co-ordinator of the Portuguese Police investigation, and he said: “I don’t actually know, but even if I did know, I wouldn’t tell you”.

That policeman doesn't sound very impressed, does he?

Re: SY review team
Xavier Today

I am not sure about this. Sorry to be a wet blanket but this is absolutely disgraceful.

First of all Mr Bennet was kept waiting by front desk staff, and then he only had a short interview with DI Dobson, interrupted by a phone call. Which sounds to me like a dubious ploy to cut the interview short. In short Mr Bennet was given the brush off.

Do these people not know how important and influential Mr Bennet and the Madeleine Foundation is? And that Mr Bennet is a solicitor? And how many people signed their petition? And how many supporters they have?

One thing that puzzles me. Surely New Scotland Yard would have more than one person on the front desk?

Head Hounder has replied with that eyeball-straining different colors in the middle of posts thing he does - you know, the thing that puts people right off reading it?

I'll bold his bits:


Re: SY review team
Tony Bennett Today

Xavier wrote:
I am not sure about this. Sorry to be a wet blanket but this is absolutely disgraceful.

First of all Mr Bennett was kept waiting by front desk staff...

This is a local police station, NOT Scotland Yard HQ, which is about a mile away on Victoria Street. Operation Grange is based in offices within that building; as is clear from my account, the front desk officer had no knowledge of their existence. Anyone who has had dealings with police station front desks will know that these are a notoriously weak aspect of modern policing. Sometimes you are lucky even to see a person on the front desk at all; you may be confronted by a buzzer and even then it is not uncommon for police to take several minutes to appear. It is also very common for police officers to be engaged on front desks completing a variety of incident forms, sometimes for crime recording purposes, at other times merely to assist a person in making an insurance claim. They generally do not want to be interrupted whilst completing them.

...and then he only had a short interview with DI Dobson,

We have absolutely no complaints about DI Dobson having a short interview with us; indeed he went beyond what was strictly necessary by taking us into an interview room and having a short chat. He could simply and politely received our dossier and covering letter, and said 'Thank you and goodbye'. He did more than that, and for that we are grateful.

interrupted by a phone call. Which sounds to me like a dubious ploy to cut the interview short.

Who knows?

In short Mr Bennett was given the brush off.

We disagree. We arranged the hand-over of the dossier in advance, we met DI Dobson, and we had a short chat including questions about the review process. If it were a 'brush-off', DI Dobson could (a) have refused permission for us to hand over the dossier in person and (b) refused to have a chat with us.

Do these people not know how important and influential Mr Bennett and the Madeleine Foundation is?

Hmmm. We are neither important nor influential, indeed certain sections of the media seem to regard as 'sickos'. However, we have amassed a considerable volume of evidence dealing in particular with numerous contradictions among the statements of the McCanns and the 'Tapas 7' and to that we have added detailed research into the activities of those connected with the McCann Team's private investigations which we say reveals many significant indications. Under standard police policies, guidelines and procedures, a senior police officer MUST evaluate the significance of what we have now (on two separate occasions) provided by way of evidence - and any report and recommendations made in D.C.I. Redwood's final report will need to include an evaluation of the significance of the information supplied - and as to whether or not it might lead to new lines of enquiry being opened into possible criminal acts by anyone or even to a full re-investigation, either in Portugal, or in the U.K., or both.

And that Mr Bennett is a solicitor?

I practised as a Solicitor only between September 1993 and November 1999.

And how many people signed their petition?

880 so far, not hugely impressive, but 880 better than none.

And how many supporters they have?

Depends how you define 'supporters'.

One thing that puzzles me. Surely New Scotland Yard would have more than one person on the front desk?

No. see above.

==========================

OK, extra popcorn to the first person who can work out why Bennett is talking himself down.

Could it be because he is trying to downgrade the damage he has done to people with his malicious smears and lies about them?

If it were a 'brush-off', DI Dobson could (a) have refused permission for us to hand over the dossier in person and (b) refused to have a chat with us.

What, so Bennett could start hassling them and demanding public inquiries into their police station?

Man's a fool; of course they were perfectly well aware of what he is like, and he is kidding himself if he thinks the UK police don't have ample files on HIM and his stalking, harrassment, and general anti-social behaviour.

Man's a fool; of course they were perfectly well aware of what he is like, and he is kidding himself if he thinks the UK police don't have ample files on HIM and his stalking, harrassment, and general anti-social behaviour.

Sauces here at my Führerbunker tell me that Belgravia was warned in advance as that is in fact the 'local nick' for SY, and one of my sauces is a drinking buddy with someone from there - always pays to keep in with the local cops when you are a legal eagle! Also, did I see bennett post up somewhere before he went there that he was targetting Belgravia? If so, he warned them himself; just shows how deranged he is, the 8aters commander telling the opposing army leaders where he going to ambush them? I think I will go and shriek with uncontrolled laughter on the patio! LL

I practised as a Solicitor only between September 1993 and November 1999.

And still is.
"practised - skillful after much practice. practiced · experienced, experient - having experience; having knowledge or skill from observation or participation" ...

He's sent all members the crap from yesterday in a Word doc. Got mine thanks Bennett you

OMG!!!! Bennett has told the truth - finally!!!

We are neither important nor influential, indeed certain sections of the media seem to regard as 'sickos'.

How very true!

Well, Dixon of Dock Green isn't at all impressed:

http://jatyk.blogspot.com/2011/10/pc-dixon-that-tiny-bonnetts-wrong-un.html

Oh dear! Bennett has done a Now is the hour to be brave, piece..

Give Redwood a Chance
Tony Bennett Today at 9:41 pm


Ollie wrote:
If this review turns out to be a whitewash or hoax then DC will be accountable considering the millions it is costing. I know there are police of the highest integrity and so hope this review will not be a whitewash.

Responding to Ollie and to the last few points on this thread (many thanks for the nice comments by the way), I fully agree that there are a great many reasons for thinking that the Scotland Yard Review Team is, as it were, stuck with a brief that they may not revisit claims that Madeleine McCann died in her parents' apartment and that there has been a cover-up.

David Cameron saying on the day Dr Kate McCann's book was published that the review was 'to support the family' hardly encouraged the many of us who have never believed the McCanns' claim that Madeleine was abducted.

However, as PeterMac, a retired Police Superintendent, has explained more than once, Police Officers these days must note all the evidence that comes in (whether they are engaged on a live investigation or on a 'cold case' review (rereading the files in other words). They must also explain, for the record, their reasons for either accepting or rejecting certain evidence. And those reasons must be sound. If Police Officers do not follow such procedures, they lay themselves open to misconduct or disciplinary charges - or even an investigation by the Independent Police Complaints Commission.

For example, Andy Redwood's team would be bound by now to have read:

* The 10 September 2007 report by Tavares de Almedia

* 'The Truth About a Lie' by Goncalo Amaral

* The report of Lee Rainbow

* The report by Martin Grime and the video made by Portuguese Police of his sniffer dogs in action.

There is no way on earth that Redwood and his team can avoid confronting the hugely significant evidential issues in those reports.

Now we have given him and his team a great deal of additional information about the conduct of the McCanns' private investigations - evidence again that cannot be discounted and must be properly and conscientiously evaluated by Andy Redwood and his team.

Our position is that we must give Andy Redwood and his team an opportunity. We must trust them to act in accordance with their police oaths, namely to investigate and prosecute all alleged crimes robustly and without fear or favour.

There is one other issue that I want to mention: timing. It could be, for all we know, that the Scotland Yard Review Team share our sceptical views about the McCanns' claims that Madeleine was abducted. As professional officers, particularly in this very sensitive, highly-charged case that has been over-saturated with media coverage, not in a million years would they give even a smidgeon of a hint that they were thinking that way.

But things can change. Two years on, Cameron might not be Prime Minister. The new Metropolitan Police Commissioner, Bernard Hogan-Howe, might prove to be a robust, honest, successful Head of the Met who will ensure that his police officers do their job thoroughly and without fear or favour. Someone with knowledge of the case might speak out. Other new evidence might come to light. All manner of things might change.

And if they do, someone like Andy Redwood might just feel that the moment is right for him to complete his report and conclude it by recommending certain lines of enquiry which might not be the ones that Cameron and the McCanns were thinking of when this Review was set up.

In summary, to alter slightly John Lennon's words, we must 'Give Redwood a Chance'.

There is evidence which should interest Andy Redwood and his team within this very forum. Let us politely, concisely and helpfully continue to share that with him, giving his team of officers more raw material to work on.

And let us all keep digging.


I'll start, shall I?


* The 10 September 2007 report by Tavares de Almedia

That's the one binned following the review by senior PJ officers? And re-binned by the Attorney General of Portugal when he said:


b) The archiving of the Process concerning Arguidos Gerald Patrick McCann and Kate Marie Healy, because there are no indications of the practise of any crime under the dispositions of article 277 number 1 of the Penal Process Code.

and cleared the McCanns of wrong-doing without a charge even being laid?

Maybe the next Sauce will be an improvement.


* 'The Truth About a Lie' by Goncalo Amaral

Oh, the book by the serial debtor who has a criminal conviction for perjury? That book? The one that bears no resemblance to the files?

Best forget about that one....

* The report of Lee Rainbow

Would that be the one by the 'English profilers' quoted by Gonc? The ones who were 90% sure Murat was the guilty party?

Maybe best scrub that. So, what's next?

* The report by Martin Grime and the video made by Portuguese Police of his sniffer dogs in action.

Oh dear. Is that the one that, even allowing for Levy editing it, shows dogs treating 'evidence' like toys - as was noted by senior PJ officers in their review?

The one with dogs woofing at garage walls? Turning up no evidence whatsoever, despite all that woofing? That video?

It's valueless, as Scotland Yard are well aware.

Still Bennett tries to put a brave face on it all.


And let us all keep digging.

Excellent idea! Made sure the hole is really, really big

Is he aware that by publishing the picture of the dossier on the Internet with his victims names portrayed; his victims can now apply to the courts to have a copy of said dossier?

Oh yes, Tony, and I am sure CR will be delighted that he also handed over proof of his harrassment of these people.


http://thehoundingofthemccans.blogspot.com/?zx=8fcebce3cfda20de

None of those people have anything at all to do with whatever happened in PDL on May 3rd, it's just crazy.

The whole 'dossier' is totally irelevant, just more stalking and smearing.

bb1 wrote:Oh yes, Tony, and I am sure CR will be delighted that he also handed over proof of his harrassment of these people.


http://thehoundingofthemccans.blogspot.com/?zx=8fcebce3cfda20de

None of those people have anything at all to do with whatever happened in PDL on May 3rd, it's just crazy.

The whole 'dossier' is totally irelevant, just more stalking and smearing.

None of the people mentioned had even heard of the McCanns until after May 3 2007.
So how can they possibly have been part of a cover-up?

Is he aware that by publishing the picture of the dossier on the Internet with his victims names portrayed; his victims can now apply to the courts to have a copy of said dossier?

Very good point, Tony. You can bet they will do just that.

It is harassment in the extreme to hand over a so called dossier to the police about the people listed, as shown in the photograph.

CR will make good use of that.

The horror of what Bennett has done is really only just dawning on me....

He and the rest of the hounders have compiled 'dossiers' on total strangers who were nowhere near PDL on May 3, 2007, and are demanding Scotland Yard investigate them for...what?

Personally, I feel Kennedy and Smethurst are really going to have to throw the book at him now; this is beyond the Pale.

bb1 wrote:The horror of what Bennett has done is really only just dawning on me....

He and the rest of the hounders have compiled 'dossiers' on total strangers who were nowhere near PDL on May 3, 2007, and are demanding Scotland Yard investigate them for...what?

Personally, I feel Kennedy and Smethurst are really going to have to throw the book at him now; this is beyond the Pale.

Seriously, what crime have the people in question committed against Bennett?

In the case of Marcos, Smethurst and Kennedy - being succesful, I would say, Tony.

Halligen is being dealt with by the law; Jiminez has nothing to do with anything.

As for this business of stalking Edgar and his former partner - all the way to Wales - it's disgusting, obsessive, sick...

bb1 wrote:In the case of Marcos, Smethurst and Kennedy - being succesful, I would say, Tony.

Halligen is being dealt with by the law; Jiminez has nothing to do with anything.

As for this business of stalking Edgar and his former partner - all the way to Wales - it's disgusting, obsessive, sick...

It is sad when you lay it all out and realize just how mind sick Bennett really is.
Those who egg him on; in my opinion, should be prosecuted. It is against the law to manipulate the afflicted.

Does this not fall under criminal harassment? Well, I am sure that CR know what they are doing.......

Tony, Bennett's minions think he is wonderful, and knows what he is doing. They really think he is brave etc., etc., etc.

It is truly the sick of mind leading the same. They don't see it the way that we do.

http://thehoundingofthemccans.blogspot.com/?zx=482c5390d02a4543

On October 4 2011 when I saw on the Internet what the Madeleine Foundation had done I shook my head in disbelief. I am disgusted at the leader and his cult’s action. However, there was one particular member that raised my anger a notch or two; the ex law enforcement officer Peter Mac. I honestly cannot believe he would allow Bennett to libel a fellow officer in such a degrading manner without saying something that would stop his master’s foolish actions.

That's a very good point, Tony, and one I had missed. Yes, it is pretty shabby behaviour.

bb1 wrote:http://thehoundingofthemccans.blogspot.com/?zx=482c5390d02a4543

On October 4 2011 when I saw on the Internet what the Madeleine Foundation had done I shook my head in disbelief. I am disgusted at the leader and his cult’s action. However, there was one particular member that raised my anger a notch or two; the ex law enforcement officer Peter Mac. I honestly cannot believe he would allow Bennett to libel a fellow officer in such a degrading manner without saying something that would stop his master’s foolish actions.

That's a very good point, Tony, and one I had missed. Yes, it is pretty shabby behaviour.

I found Peter Mac's silence disgraceful, Bonny.

Pretty Shabby? You joke, Madame. It was diabolical.

PeterMac an ex Police Superintendant? Hmmmm. If you say so....

sans_souci wrote:PeterMac an ex Police Superintendant? Hmmmm. If you say so....

In his dreams, maybe, in real life? Nah!!!! LL

He does seem to be strangely unfamiliar with the law and police procedures.