What really happened to Bennett in court last week

http://inforrm.wordpress.com/2012/10/15/law-and-media-round-up-15-october-2012/

On the same day there was a hearing in the case of McCann v Bennett – relating to the claimants’ committal application. The defendant’s application for an adjournment was refused and the court ordered that the claimants’ committal application would be heard as soon as practicable but with penalty only being determined after any libel trial.

Doesn't quite match with the words Bennett claimed the good judge uttered, does it?

Instead of putting words in the judge's mouth, Bennett might have been better occupied telling the hounders:

1. He wasn't going to be allowed to stall any longer.

2. The libel trial was now going ahead ASAP.

3. He will be sentenced after that.

I wonder if that is why they are all so desperate to see properly-translated files, and so keen to advise the McCanns not to take Bennett to court? Why, it's almost as if they are scared of something.....

1. He wasn't going to be allowed to stall any longer.

2. The libel trial was now going ahead ASAP.

3. He will be sentenced after that.

Absolutely, Bonny. Now, why do I think that the good Judge never mentioned dogs etc. on that day?

Odd, isn't it? I doubt if he would have left the court with such a long face if the good judge had come out with any such guff.

As Bennett doesn't know what phrases like, The only assumption, means, it is entirely possible that Judge Tugenhat said, And no wittering on about dogs and Bennett didn't know what it meant.

Did the fool think that no-one would doubt his word and go and see what report was made of the day's cases? Oh, of course those nasty pros are making ot all up, aren't they will be the cry from the 8ters' camp. Well, the link is there, will they suggest it is a falsehood? LL

It doesn't actually matter what they choose to believe, does it? Yes, they are deeply unpleasant, with their internet lynch mob - but that doesn't really cut much weight in the real world, does it?

And Bennett has fallen into a very big hole indeed. If the contempt had been heard first, then it would have been his actions after November 2009 which were on trial.

Now, the clock has been wound back, and his antics before that are on the table, too.

Suppose it's established that the Claimants had lied about what happened?

Can we speculate as to whether the good Judge did in fact state that, exactly as above, or not?

What, like, speculate that the defendant lied about what had happened?

bb1 wrote:It doesn't actually matter what they choose to believe, does it? Yes, they are deeply unpleasant, with their internet lynch mob - but that doesn't really cut much weight in the real world, does it?

And Bennett has fallen into a very big hole indeed. If the contempt had been heard first, then it would have been his actions after November 2009 which were on trial.

Now, the clock has been wound back, and his antics before that are on the table, too.

I think if there is a libel trial he really is in big trouble. It would include all his activities including his Twitter accounts. And I wonder if there is any way in which CR could then ask for his computers to be examined as they have evidence that he has posted under other names. #justasking

bb1 wrote:What, like, speculate that the defendant lied about what had happened?

Yes, Bonny. I mean we are entitled to our free speach aren't we?

greenink211 wrote:

bb1 wrote:It doesn't actually matter what they choose to believe, does it? Yes, they are deeply unpleasant, with their internet lynch mob - but that doesn't really cut much weight in the real world, does it?

And Bennett has fallen into a very big hole indeed. If the contempt had been heard first, then it would have been his actions after November 2009 which were on trial.

Now, the clock has been wound back, and his antics before that are on the table, too.

I think if there is a libel trial he really is in big trouble. It would include all his activities including his Twitter accounts. And I wonder if there is any way in which CR could then ask for his computers to be examined as they have evidence that he has posted under other names. #justasking

GI, he will be in huge trouble indeed. Furthermore, he cannot prove his libel.

I wonder if there is any way in which CR could then ask for his computers to be examined as they have evidence that he has posted under other names

That's an excellent point, Greenink. In fact, Bennett really should volunteer them for examination. After all, if he hasn't been posting under all those different names, he will have nothing to worry about, will he? RochdaleEye indeed! Alan Marc Lagoa indeed!

And his twitter utterances may certainly come into play.

As a perfect example of why Bennett and Gonc are going to get clobbered, one of the hounders has just repeated the canard that Kate McCann 'dismissed the family liason officers'.

No, she didn't. No such thing ever happened. It is all recorded in the police files, as are the statements by the officers, who most certainly were NOT dismissed.

Was anything said or done by Kate or Gerry McCann in your presence or during your contacts that may have raised any suspicion that they had knowledge of what happened to Madeleine, besides the circumstances described to the Portuguese investigators?

My response to the above question is: No.

There are four or five statements by the Family Liason Officers, all saying much the same thing.

Gonc lied. Worse, he invented the whole thing. It never happened, it simply isn't true, and repeating it is not going to make it true. Gonc lied the first time, and it will still be a lie however many times the lie is repeated.

They really are going to have to wake up and smell the coffee.

Hounder, quote:

She very quickly disposed of the English family liason officers too, did she not ?**** Interesting that . Those people I am sure can read people very well, in a very short period of time

Yes, it certainly looks like it, from this FLO Witness Statement:

Witness Statement Statement by Jim McGarvey – 25.04.08

Cartas Rogatorias Vol V

Pages 11 – 12

Witness Statement Statement by Jim McGarvey

Date: 25th April 2008

I am police Inspector McGarvey of the Leicestershire police force, currently based in the criminal unit.

In 2007 and in relation to the Portuguese investigation carried out into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, I was detached to Portugal in the role of communication officer for the family.

In accordance with the Portuguese PJ Letter of Request I was asked to respond to the following question:

Was there anything done or said by Kate or Gerry McCann in your presence or during various contacts that could raise any suspicion that they could have had any knowledge of what could have happened to Madeleine, beyond the circumstances described tothe Portuguese investigators.

My reply to the question: No.

In relation to the above I would like to mention that at approximately 20.00 on the 5th May, I arrived at the McCann apartment with other family communications officers. We were asked several times during this meeting about questions that Gerald and Kate would like to have followed up and responded to by the PJ.

I remember that during the meetings, Kate revealed that Madeleine had spoken with her in the morning of her disappearance and said that she remembered the twins had cried during the night and that she wanted to know why neither her mother or father had appeared. Kate asked herself whether this fact could have any relation with Madeleine’s disappearance.
Gerry and Kate also questioned whether there was any suggestion that pointed to the use of drugs to facilitate Madeleine’s abduction.

This statement was made by me and is truthful in accordance with my knowledge.

Read 'em and weep, hounders. You've chosen to believe a pack of lies, from a disgraced ex-policeman with a criminal conviction for lying, instead of the simple truth.

Which is why Head Hounder and Gonc are both heading the Mother of all Court Spankings.

****Lie quoted solely for demonstration purposes****

We insist on knowing what our English counterparts have come to Portugal to do. I assign one of my investigators to follow the English superintendent like a shadow and to keep me informed about his actions. I want to be informed of everything he learns, the names of the people he meets and the places he goes to.

That bit always makes me chuckle. What kind of nutjob wastes manpower following other police officers around? Mind you, I bet that wasnt' a popular job, as the UK officers weren't having three-hour lunch breaks in Carvi's.

Oh, Bennett's found the report with his name in it:

Law and Media Round-Up, w/ending 15 Oct 2012
Tony Bennett Today at 5:34 pm

A short report on the McCanns v Bennett hearing last week has appeared on the 'Law and Media Round-Up' website, the item in blue below is the only report on the case until now, so far as I am aware.

Please note that as soon as practicable after 23 October, Mr Justice Tugendhat will publish the decisions he made on 11 October and his reasons for his decisions.

I will publish this here as soon as I get it:

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

That should be interesting reading. Oh, this is already interesting, I didn't notice it earlier:

The words complained of in libel claim brought by Elton John against The Times “are not capable of bearing the meanings attributed to them by the claimant or any other meaning defamatory of him“, according to Mr Justice Tugendhat in John v Times Newspapers [2012] EWHC 2751 (QB). John sued the Times over articles about tax avoidance schemes. The judge had to find whether the words complained of are capable of being understood at one of the three Chase levels: 1 (actual guilt), 2 (reasonable suspicion of guilt) and 3 (grounds to investigate whether there is guilt). He rejected that the words could bear a chase level 1 or 2 meaning. On the chase level 3 meaning, he found that “some readers might infer something to the discredit of the Claimant to be investigated“, but accepted the Defendant’s submission “that a hypothetical reader of The Times who inferred that would be outside any definition of the reasonable reader which a jury could apply without perversity“.


On that reasoning, Bennett is heading for a very, very big bill indeed, as there is no doubt that his internet activities, and harrassment of the McCanns and others in real life, are at Chase levels 1 and 2.

What a silly man! He would have been far, far better to listen to one of the best legal minds in Europe, instead of getting himself into this position. Ah well, they should all have thought about that when they were hurling abuse and calling sans-souci a 'troll'.

lily wrote:Suppose it's established that the Claimants had lied about what happened?

Can we speculate as to whether the good Judge did in fact state that, exactly as above, or not?

I do not believe that Judge Tugendhat, at this stage, would discuss substantive matter, ie the dogs. I consider it impossible that Judge Tugendhat made ​​the remark about the claimants (McCanns). That would be biased and thus loses the Judge its independence. The experts Carter Ruck would immediately challenge The Court /Judge Tugendhat and would demand an independent investigation and another Judge.

Excellent speculation, Rose, and pretty accurate speculation too, I would think.

Rose wrote:

lily wrote:Suppose it's established that the Claimants had lied about what happened?

Can we speculate as to whether the good Judge did in fact state that, exactly as above, or not?

I do not believe that Judge Tugendhat, at this stage, would discuss substantive matter, ie the dogs. I consider it impossible that Judge Tugendhat made ​​the remark about the claimants (McCanns). That would be biased and thus loses the Judge its independence. The experts Carter Ruck would immediately challenge The Court /Judge Tugendhat and would demand an independent investigation and another Judge.

Rose, I too firmly believe that he did not say that.

I speculate that Bennett said that to make himself look good and give his followers hope. Also, I speculate that it may have aided in the collection for helping his legal funds.

Bentit has to convince his deluded followers that Mr J Tugendhat is on his side. As a supposed solicitor with even the slightest knowledge of the law he must realise that judges are intended to be impartial. He has to try and make it look as if, with the backing of these supporters, financial that is, that he will win. And as they want the Mccanns brought down they will, in their deluded state, believe anything he says. They cannot see further than the Mccanns tied to the stake and bentit setting the wood alight. Well, he has bitten of far more than he can chew, and when the Judge hears/sees what he has said/written ... well, let us watch and wait. LL

Suppose it's established that the Claimants had lied about what happened?

If the judge did say the words Bennett has accredited him with; the McCanns barrister would have immediately objected and asked the judge to recuse himself
However, as far as I am aware, judges do not deal with suppositions but with facts; I would be extremely surprised if his Lordship said anything close to Bennett's uttering. I also believe it wise for Bennett to be silent. Carter and Ruck do still read his forum, has he forgotten that?

IF Judge Tugendhat said that, or anything resembling that then it will have been on a Point of Law pertaining to all Claimants and all Libel Cases. It will not have been anything to do with this particular case or The McCanns.
There does appear to have been a discussion between Jacob Dean and The Judge on points of law regarding in what order these things should be heard in any event, and not just this one.
In which case, Bennett will have taken words meant widely, and then used them to make it seem that Judge Tugendhat was referring just to this case, when in fact he won't have been.

Given his dislike of some of the people he has to deal with, maybe he said, I suppose that's that defendant who lies all the time?

As we all know, Bennett 'misremembers' an awful lot....

Just speculating, of course, but it isn't going to do much for Bennett's cause when the nice judge sees evidence of him giving his solemn word to Carter Ruck that he no longer owned Hounder HQ.

And then being presented with screenshots of Whois that prove, beyond any doubt at all, that he was, well, lying.

He really was a fool not to listen to the best legal advice he will ever be given. Maybe he doesn't remember all the outright libel he posted before he agreed to keep quiet?

Never mind, the internet doesn't do 'forgetting'.