Isabel Martorell* writes about Leveson; Bennett latest - up creek and paddleless

I'll buy that. He must be insane. He's got all of these really serious Trials hanging over him, and he's still at it.
I would be a gibbering heap with the duvet over my head if I was him.

But at least we know that he isn't going to stop until they lock him up. I don't much care where.

He's clearly a serial offender, Sabot, as the Gadfly book about UKIP shows:

dewi lennard ‏@kikoratton
@pezzsezz @Muttfan #McCann s will be shaking in their shoes. Who will be Tony's barrister? Is there anyone good enough to do it pro bono?



They're very funny, aren't they?

Such are the depths of their delusions. Then they woke up.

e: Could Maddie be in the garden of Casa Liliana?
admin Today at 9:05 am

Stephen Birch wrote:
Tony can you email me at sbirch@birchorganisation.com

Many thx


I've passed on your message to Tony as he doesn't read this thread anymore and he has declined your request.

Yeah, right.

Makes you wonder what Bennett is so scared of, doesn't it?

Bennett now sez:

I can't say what is in the judgment, but what I did report from the hearing was the judge's suggestion that this should be the sequence of events:

A. Trial on the issue of whether I breached the undertakings, but with no penalty being decided even if I am found to be in breach, followed by

B. Full libel trial, with a jury, followed by

C. The committal trial reconvening to decide what penalty, if any, I should face.

==========

Oh right, so, the court doesn't decide his penalty for contempt of court, until his conviction for libel. Double whammy.

No wonder the hounders are all sticking their fingers in their ears, going

You see, Bennett's reporting of events doesn't make sense. The Libel and The Breaking of an Undertaking are two separate issues. Although I personally do not care about in which order they are heard. I just can't see The Undertaking issue being heard before the Libel since The Libel was the Primary Suit. It was brought first. That's it, really.

Well, we're only getting Bennett's version of events, so he may well be misremembering *cough*.

Anyway, reading around, and seeing various comments about Joseph V Spiller, one thing is obvious.

Bennett's kerflkced.

A paranoid hounder speculates:

Is it a coincidence that there's renewed interest in the dogs' abilities since TB posted that the McCanns' case against him may go to full trial with the dogs' evidence allowed to be cross-examined in court?



Calm down, dear, it's only the internet....

Oh, and unless Dr Doolittle will be appearing, I really don't think the dogs will be being cross-examined. Any evidence Keela gave about Eddiewoof would be hearsay, anyway.

Bennett is trying to report this in the best possible light for himself, and why not. He desperately needs one of they Funds that he so despises.
The hypocrisy is mind boggling. But he is a nasty little arsehole who attempts to use his badly flawed knowledge of The Law to influence other nasty arseholes of the righteousness of his witch hunt.

I wish I could tell you all how I came by my knowledge of what is pertinent and what isn't, but it took me a fair old while of endless days in Court listening to experts trying to bludgeon good and fair Judges in Cases that I always won. And I was always alone because I couldn't justify to my employer the expense of a Barrister. And nor did I want to.
The Judges were without exception, exceedingly mindful of what I had to say, and since I always won, then being alone was not ever a problem. But then I stuck to the facts, and not some wild opinions.

Can I ask who Bennett's lawyer will be at the full trial?

bb1 wrote:A paranoid hounder speculates:

Is it a coincidence that there's renewed interest in the dogs' abilities since TB posted that the McCanns' case against him may go to full trial with the dogs' evidence allowed to be cross-examined in court?



Calm down, dear, it's only the internet....

Oh, and unless Dr Doolittle will be appearing, I really don't think the dogs will be being cross-examined. Any evidence Keela gave about Eddiewoof would be hearsay, anyway.

They don't think that Martin Grime is going to appear for Bennett, do they? Or any other Dog Handler for that matter.

Bit of a problem there, Tony - he hasn't got one. No-one is going to touch him with a ten-foot legal bargepole, quotes:


. It had been mutually agreed by the parties to adjourn the hearing listed for 9 & 10 May, to give me a realistic opportunity to see if I could be legally represented on the committal-to-prison hearing.

He got no joy there, as he has been stalling for so long.

He goes on to whinge:

The bad news for me is that there is simply no Legal Aid in any circumstances for those seeking to defend a libel claim. The costs of hiring a barrister to represent me during a libel trial, possibly lasting several days, will be utterly beyond me. Therefore I shall be on my own. It will be very difficult to conduct my own defence.

Now, Sabot managed to represent herself, as she followed the REAL law, and not pretendy law invented on a hate site. She also knew what she was talking about, unlike Bennett.

There is a reek of fear coming off them right now - anyone who doesn't toe the Party Line is being called a 'troll' or a 'disruptor'.

If the hounders can't stand the heat on a forum, how on earth are they going to cope with a real court? Bennett is going to fall apart when he is cross-examined, and starts gibbering some of the rubbish they are coming out with at present. Or the garbage they have spouted in the past.

No-one is going to represent him. He can't even get a no-win, no-fee lawyer, because he hasn't a snowball's in Hell chance of winning.

He is wrong, and in the wrong - and he cannot plead ignorance, he has been told repeatedly that he is wrong.

Here's a perfect example of what I mean. One of them has now decided (because they cannot face reality) that information has been withheld:

Once again, information has been withheld, along with analysis of material found in the boot

What? The material found in the boot was meticulously analysed - it's there for all to read:

http://themaddiecasefiles.com/topic10.html

They are all in for very, very rude awakenings, IMO.

Bonny, he cannot possibly represent himself; unless of course, he studies the laws of libel.

Here's another one:

The blood found under the tiles in 5a must surely mean that a considerable quantity of blood must have run to get underneath the tiles. That, together with the blood spatter on the wall and the curtains, the fact that Eddie also alerted in the same place, does not indicate a minor accident. imo

For the millionth time - THERE WAS NO 'BLOOD SPATTER' on the walls, curtains or anywhere else in 5A. Neither was there a 'considerable quantity' of blood under the tiles. READ THE POLICE FILES.

Read the forensic reports and weep for how vicious, cruel and WRONG they are when they repeat this garbage ad nauseum.

And sticking imo on outright LIES will not make them true - or acceptable.

crazytony wrote:Bonny, he cannot possibly represent himself; unless of course, he studies the laws of libel.

It's looking like he is going to have to, Tony - this is civil, not criminal, and he has made no attempt whatsoever to help himself.

crazytony wrote:Bonny, he cannot possibly represent himself; unless of course, he studies the laws of libel.

Libel is probably the most convoluted aspect of the law that one could ever tangle with. A good libel lawyer will have done many years studying, understanding and practising it; a practising solicitor cannot come up to the standard of knowledge required, let alone one who seems to be a total failure. Reading up the subject is no way to prepare yourself for going into court and facing one of the CR lawyers, is it? LL

Bennett's idea of 'preparing' seems to be to throw the kitchen sink at the authorities, with irrelevant carp about M3, Halligen, and Smethurst's choice of interior decor, LL.

He doesn't seem intellectually-capable of looking at the law, and then looking at what he has said and done.

I doubt if he is able to follow complicated legal matters, as he doesn't seem to know what simple, everyday phrases like, the only assumption, mean.

Apologies, he made a post before that one ^^^^ which I didn't notice in the general cluttter:

Trial No. 1
Tony Bennett Today at 1:43 pm

Yesterday I was sent the DRAFT of Mr Justice Tugendhat's judgment for correction. There were indeed some minor matters than[sic] needed amending, and I've done that and sent off my comments. Both sides have an opportunity to point out minor errors.

I am not allowed to release the judgment, as the judge has to approve the final version. It is scheduled to be released on Wednesday 24 October.

I can say that it does not prescribe the way forward in terms of the sequence of events in which various issues will be tried, rather, it makes clear recommendations and then invites the two parties to agree the most appropriate legal way forward.

An agreed order will then be drawn up if we can agree, otherwise the judge will rule on the way forward.

As I said originally, the judge has already determined that trial No. 1 is go ahead straightaway, and this will detemine [sic]:

1. have I breached any of the undertakings?

2. if so, what breaches have I committed?

He knows nothing of the law; what little he thinks he knows is garbled and not at all useful for the mess he has got himself into. But he wouldn't listen to those who know of these things, he is a cocky, silly know-it-all who is about to be hoist by his own petard. All he wants is to be worshipped by those deluded enough to think he is a genius and who, when he falls, will come crashing down with him. Personally, I await that day with keen anticipation. LL

I can say that it does not prescribe the way forward in terms of the sequence of events in which various issues will be tried, rather, it makes clear recommendations and then invites the two parties to agree the most appropriate legal way forward.

Wonder if it suggests Bennett settle out of court? In a manner acceptable to CR - unlike his last offer?

I don't know. Is he really going to defend himself with Hearsay? But there is nothing else. There has never been any proof, no matter what one might think.
I just don't understand how it has come this far. I don't understand how he could be so stupid. He of all people should know that Hearsay will not do.
But there is absolutely no reason for why he cannot defend himself. And believe me, he will be treated fairly. Probably even more so, as his words might not always reflect exactly what he means, and Judges know that. In fact, he could be at an advantage because he will be given leeway that a seasoned Barrister will not be given.

Fair Comment? How can any comment be fair if there has never been any proof? This isn't a case of who said what. This is a statement of The McCanns having killed their daughter even if only by accident, and then disposing of the child's body. There has never been any proof that this happened. The fact that Bennett stated that he might have thrown the body of his dead grandson off a cliff to avoid detection after an accident, doesn't mean that someone else might have done the same thing. It only means that he is one sick f**ker who believes that the whole world is guilty of whatever he thinks.
I hope they don't bring that one up in Court, because I am pretty sure that he didn't mean what he said. But you can see what why Judges need to be aware of stupidity.

I think we can assume that CR are running the show and that whatever is decided will be in their, and their clients', favour and not his. Personally I think he is going to get all he deserves and in spades! LL

bb1 wrote:Here's another one:

The blood found under the tiles in 5a must surely mean that a considerable quantity of blood must have run to get underneath the tiles. That, together with the blood spatter on the wall and the curtains, the fact that Eddie also alerted in the same place, does not indicate a minor accident. imo

For the millionth time - THERE WAS NO 'BLOOD SPATTER' on the walls, curtains or anywhere else in 5A. Neither was there a 'considerable quantity' of blood under the tiles. READ THE POLICE FILES.

Read the forensic reports and weep for how vicious, cruel and WRONG they are when they repeat this garbage ad nauseum.

And sticking imo on outright LIES will not make them true - or acceptable.

It is not possible for blood to seep under grouted tiles. This is why they are grouted, although mainly to stop water seepage. Otherwise every tiled floor in Christendom would be rotting and stinking. Including mine where the dog pees daily.