Bennettt spinning like a wind farm over Legal Aid

Is Bennett doing this lying and spinning just for the benefit of his fellow pitchforkers?

Remember this gem from him?

The reason we reinstated the article in full was because a few weeks earlier the McCanns’ spokesman Clarence Mitchell had admitted that the abduction of Madeleine was not a fact but only an ‘assumption’ or ‘working hypothesis’.

Now, Bennett can twist, spin, waffle and prevaricate till Doomsday, it is not going to change the fact that that is NOT what Clarence Mitchell said.

From:

http://regretsandramblings.com/2011/10/07/peter-levy-radio-humberside-interviews-clarence-mitchell/

The only assumption that they can make is that somebody took her out of the apartment. That is the working hypothesis on which the private investigation is also based that there is somebody, perhaps on or just two or three people out there who know what happened and that there was an element of pre-meditation, pre-planning went into it.

Bennett may get away with rubbish like that when he's addressing his Cult; he isn't going to get away with it in a court room.

I don't believe that a native English speaker, who went to a fairly good school, is so ill-educated that he doesn't know the difference in meaning; I can only conclude that, again, he thought he would get away with spouting that nonsense without anyone calling him to account for it.

Remember when he pretended that 'public interest' meant that the public were interested?

ETA, Yes, Lily, I think he must be. Basking in their adulation appears to take priority over everything else.

Yes, Lily, I think he must be. Basking in their adulation appears to take priority over everything else.


I suspect that that is it, Bonny. How pathetic if so as it shows what little self esteem he really has.

lily wrote:Is Bennett doing this lying and spinning just for the benefit of his fellow pitchforkers?

I think he must be, Lily. Unless he is trying desperately hard to convince himself. But if he really believes that he has a right to Free Speach then he wouldn't need to do it.
Nothing wrong with Opinions, even if they aren't the same as mine. But even their Opinions are based on false premise. In fact I can't remember the last time any of them said anything that is true.
Okay, The McCanns left their children alone for short periods, and what anyone thinks of that is their own affair. But they did not abandon their children. Therein is The Lie.

Thing is, Bennett can twist and spin what Clarence said for ever and a day; it is not going to change the fact that he simply did not say what Bennett claims he did.

His words are a matter of record, and nothing Bennett does can change that.

Despicable, really. Apart from downright stupid.

What a sad pathetic head hounder he is.

lily wrote:What a sad pathetic head hounder he is.

Spiteful and Despicable, Lily. That's what he is. Who would want to deliberately lie about the family of a missing child?
Five years, and there is still nothing to point to The McCanns harming Madeleine. Everything upon which he is basing his vendetta is supposition, media distortions and forum myths. And he knows it.
And I am convinced that in the beginning he offered his services to The McCanns, and was politely refused.
When in the past, during his previous campaigns, has he ever supported The Police, let alone a corrupt foreigner? His whole modus operandi stinks of sour grapes.
Given the support of The McCanns he would have been in there tearing Goncalo Amaral into tiny pieces.

Now:

Stated reasons for Dr Kate McCann not answering the 48 questions
Tony Bennett Today

listener wrote:
Has she ever made an attempt to explain her action (refusing to answer) ?

Yes, as I explained fully in the introduction to my recital of the 48 Questions on a YouTube video [now removed voluntarily because of the impending committal-to-prison trial], Dr Kate McCann and her advisers have said on the record that she did not answer the questions because she believed that she and her husband were being framed by the Portuguese Police and that, in any event, the European Court of Human Rights conferred on all criminal suspects the absolute right to silence. Whether those reasons are ever justified by a mother claiming that her child has been abducted and who represents herself as being desperate to be reunited with her and says she is doing all she can to find her is another matter


Then:

Tony Bennett
Monday 27 February 2012 at 1:10 pm

I informed Carter-Ruck on 23 February that I would be making no further comment of any kind about the reported disappearance of Madeleine McCann until after the conclusion of the committal-to-prison trial.


I assume he is tired of living in a house? And doesn't that demonstrate nicely why his word is most definitely not his bond, and that he cannot be trusted?

Has he also forgotten that his Youtube 48 Questions Inquisition was put on another site(s) after he was asked to take it down by CR?

How would answering those appallingly biased Questions have helped to find Madeleine?

In my opinion, no one Under Caution should ever answer Police Questions. The Police aren't doing you any favours. They are trying to get you to implicate yourself.
But then I expect that lot know this. They all appear to have great knowledge of what criminals get up to.
And don't tell me that Bennett would ever have advised a client to answer Police Questions. He wouldn't trust The British Police any further than he could throw them. And he knows all about Yuman Rites. Indeed he does. So what the EF is he on about?

I wish someone would ask him a few questions about how he accumulated in excess of £90,000. No Comment, anyone?

Is launching a new attack on Ed Smethurst part of Bennett's Cunning Plan to enter an insanity plea?

Interesting little titbit in some post of Bennett's correcting Smiffy, who has yet again made several large factual errors in one of his, I know Secret Stuff yawnfests.

Bennett sez:

You may recall that at the Case Management hearing before Mr Justice Tugendhat on 8 February, I made an application - for the reasons stated above - that the McCanns be required to be witnesses in their own cause and to make a witness statement, so that their evidence could be tested and cross-examined. I explained that only Ms Isabel Hudson had made a statement in support of the application to commit me to prison.

Mr Justice Tugendhat refused my application, and no doubt correctly.

In dismissing it, he said: "It is up to the Claimants what evidence they bring to court"

Quite; so neither Bennett nor Gonc are going to get to abuse the McCanns in person.

Hilariously, Bennett goes on to say:

He was inviting me, in effect, to make a submission to the Court along these lines:

'The Claimants have not been willing to make any statements themselves, and have not been willing to have their statements tested in court. They have relied on their solicitor to speak for them. Her evidence is therefore indirect evidence, hearsay in fact. The court should take this into account in making its decision'.

He was inviting me, in effect


No, he wasn't. If he had wanted to 'invite' Bennett to say all that ^^^^ he would have done so.

I wonder if m'lud knows that Bennett is putting words in his mouth, and deciding what he really said?

And doesn't Bennett have a shaky grasp of how the law works?

This has always been about getting The McCanns into The Witness Box. And it was never going to work.
Basically, Bennett wanted the chance to grill them with Libellous Questions, thinking he would have a right to demand answers, and that he would be protected by The Court while doing so.
He obviously sees himself a a great Prosecutor. Sadly for him The Judge ain't stupid. But he is never going to let this go.

Their Cunning Plans have failed then, haven't they? Neither Bennett nor Gonc are going to be able to use the protection of a court to publically torment the McCanns.

Oh, you don't suppose that was the idea all along, do you?

I am not a lawyer but I am pretty certain that I am right to say that the representations of a solicitor on behalf of her clients are NOT classed as hearsay in any court in England.

Is Bennett so deficient in his understanding of English law that he believes that claptrap? Or is it just measly mouthed garbage which he believes his sheepish followers will swallow because he is such a legal know-it-all?

If the latter he has the slight problem that what his sheepish followers think is of no interest to anyone in the real world where he is being challenged to prove that he has NOT shown contempt to the HIGH COURT with his very visible and frequent breaking of his solemn promise not to comment again on the McCann case.

bb1 wrote:Their Cunning Plans have failed then, haven't they? Neither Bennett nor Gonc are going to be able to use the protection of a court to publically torment the McCanns.

Oh, you don't suppose that was the idea all along, do you?

I believe that the best course of action for the McCanns is not to attend either the High Court in London or the court in Lisbon. They are not on trial in either place. That dishonour goes to Bennett and Amaral.

greenink211 wrote:I am not a lawyer but I am pretty certain that I am right to say that the representations of a solicitor on behalf of her clients are NOT classed as hearsay in any court in England.

Is Bennett so deficient in his understanding of English law that he believes that claptrap? Or is it just measly mouthed garbage which he believes his sheepish followers will swallow because he is such a legal know-it-all?

If the latter he has the slight problem that what his sheepish followers think is of no interest to anyone in the real world where he is being challenged to prove that he has NOT shown contempt to the HIGH COURT with his very visible and frequent breaking of his solemn promise not to comment again on the McCann case.

Unbelievably, they are falling for it, with remarks like:

So in effect, in not bringing evidence to court, they can present NO evidence, only a second hand account via some paid mouthpiece?

Madness; by their reasoning, not one single Will made with a solicitor is legally-binding, because the client is dead, so, well, it's only hearsay, isn't it, and the solicitor is just a paid mouthpiece.

I am stunned, all over again, by their gross ignorance of, well, everything.

Mind you, what else can you expect from someone who thinks legal agreements aren't binding if you cross your fingers behind your back?

On this showing, Bennett is going to be used as a floor mop in court, when his gross ignorance is shown up in public.

bb1 wrote:Their Cunning Plans have failed then, haven't they? Neither Bennett nor Gonc are going to be able to use the protection of a court to publically torment the McCanns.

Oh, you don't suppose that was the idea all along, do you?

Of course it was. In the beginning Bennett tried to bring a Neglect Prosecution because he thought The McCanns would have to defend themselves in Court. This is why he stuck to The Litigant in Person for so long. He wants to do the interrogation himself.
Unfortunately it all went pear shaped, probably due to his lack of knowledge of The Law.
And didn't Amaral say how much he was looking forward to meeting The McCanns in Court?
I think Amaral has more or less got the message, but I don't think Bennett has. Bennett is using delaying tactics in the vain hope that something will happen in his favour.
But the give away is Bennett asking The Judge for The McCanns to appear as Witnesses. He only did that so he could question them.

Here's another one who knows SFA about anything:


Re: New Blacksmith piece
PeterMac Today

You must be allowed therefore to question the maker of the affidavit, and thereby to expose her lack of knowledge. It cannot be the case in English law that her "evidence" can go unchallenged. Can it?
It should not be difficult to phrase one or two killer questions, or simply to ask for further and better particulars of something she has averred.


'Must' nothing. The McCanns are largely irrelevant to the fact that

BENNETT IS IN THE DOCK FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT

Now, these diversions and irrelevancies may work on thicko haters, but they don't cut it in the real world.

As for that nasty 'killer question' remark - oh, do grow up!

This is what their delusions have led the armchair defectives to, this is what their pretendy courts of public opinion and internet lynch mobs really are.

They thought they were going to be given free rein to abuse and torment the parents of an abducted child whilst hiding behind the protection of courts in Lisbon and London.

It isn't going to happen, is it? It's all led to nothing but ruin for Gonc and Bennett - and it is entirely their own fault.

Bennett has no doubt got a list of "Killer Questions" a mile long. Such a pity he won't get to ask them. And he has no idea of what is relevant anyway.

Hounder:

It's become pretty obvious why CR were so compliant in getting TB's case postponed time and again, isn't it?

They must have been praying on their bare knees hoping for a miracle to happen, i.a. the Met being sufficiently hoodwinked/corrupt/stupid to admit to the possibility of an abduction.

No luck, so far. On the contrary, Bernard Hogan Howe now appearing to implore David Cameron to end the charade.

Oh, do try to learn to read! He actually asked for reassurances funds are in place for the Yard to carry on.

Delusional, the lot of them.

Speaking of.....

Re: New Blacksmith piece
tigger Today

This caught my eye:
.....their status as the parents of the missing child meant nothing and the force was not going to provide evidence that might assist potential defendants which, the officer stated, the parents most certainly remained.

*sigh*

Smiffy appears to have forgotten to give any context to his spin on what was actually said by Leicestershire police.


The Assistant Chief Constable for Leicestershire police said, “While one or both of them may be innocent there is no clear evidence that eliminates them from involvement in Madeleine’s disappearance.”

That was written BEFORE the AG of Portugal ruled:

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.

If the words smiffy has twisted out of context were really so damning, does he really think Kate McCann would have repeated them in her book? And, since then, far from treating the McCanns as 'suspects', Leicestershire police have gone out of their way to help all efforts to find Madeleine.



I think the hotlink to Find Madeleine speaks for itself, doesn't it?

What a pathetic display of spinning, twisting, and downright LYING! The haters would be better employed reading the whole of the ruling, than listening to sh*te from smiffy.

On the other hand, if they want to carry on deluding themselves, who actually cares? It'll be all the more entertaining when they are forced to face reality in a few weeks.

Full Text Affidavit
Portia Today

Dear Mr Bennett,


I'm going over the full Affidavit myself now, finding a number of quite significant pages missing. This concerns the Court undertaking in November 2009, how it came about.

Could I trouble you to supply the full text?

Thanks!....blah blah blah.....

I doubt very much if he will want one of his fans reading the full text, might be a bit embarrassing.

Never mind, we all know the full story. And so do Carter Ruck. Though they may not know the bit about him not wanting to pay Kirwans, or making Debs cry in the car.

I do hope that Portia person carries on advising Bennett, she's digging an even bigger hole for him than he's managed himself.

Are we sure 'Portia' isn't the esteemed Mr D. Bunker in disguise?