Re: Judge Tugendhat's Ruling

**crazytony** Fri Feb 22, 2013 7:28 pm

bb1 wrote:Ang ‏@angelajdean
The judge didn't say TB was a liar, he just chose the wrong words, even stranger the judge summed up everything that TB said.. Mmmm #McCann

No he didn't. He refused to repeat most of it because it was so vile. Mmmm.

And it was libel.

**barbiecar** Fri Feb 22, 2013 7:30 pm

It was a pathetic attempt at calling down sympathy on himself. "I'm going to be penniless soon, I'll buy my grave". Personally, I'd buy something I'd get a bit of benefit out of, BMW convertible, couple of nice dresses from a nice little boutique......the list is endless.

I think he was sincere, sincere in realising it's all actually happened, all that "You can't get me", (referred to as "Cat and mouse" by Ms Page and reinforced by the judge,) was actually wrong. They could always get him, vbut they allowed him the (several) opportunities to stop and realise. They got him. Carter Ruck got him.

As I said it came to this:

Interviewer: Was it worth it?

Bentit: Probably not.

It was all empty, not borne of conviction, it was something to do, like everything else, no belief, no depth, meddling and hounding. Was it worth it? Probably not.

**Maggs** Fri Feb 22, 2013 7:32 pm

crazytony wrote:No, that's a woman pushing a child in a buggy

No, Tony, its definately a trolley. I can't play it again for some reason. But its got a lid on it, if you can go a little further back.

**bb1** Fri Feb 22, 2013 7:36 pm

It was a woman with a pram, Maggs - I cropped her out deliberately, as she and the child had nothing to do with Bennett.

**bb1** Fri Feb 22, 2013 8:06 pm

I can't get it to play either, but look at the series of stills:

http://thehoundingofthemccans.blogspot.co.uk/2013/02/bennett-bbc-east-midlands.html

Why has Bennett got his hands in his pockets, like some slovenly schoolboy? You can tell he was never in the forces, police, or any other organisation which expected people to be clean, tidy and WALK PROPERLY.

**crazytony** Fri Feb 22, 2013 8:11 pm

It looks as though they have removed it.

**bb1** Fri Feb 22, 2013 8:19 pm

I have a copy on my Sky box. Not that that helps much. rofl

I can, however refer back to it should it be neccessary.

**Maggs** Fri Feb 22, 2013 8:19 pm

crazytony wrote:It looks as though they have removed it.

Just realised, you can only get it for 24 hours. I think the last report was 6.30, yesterday.
I have it on Sky recorded.

**Maggs** Fri Feb 22, 2013 8:23 pm

SNAP, Bonny rofl

**bb1** Fri Feb 22, 2013 8:26 pm

And I haven't the foggiest idea how you get it out of your Sky box. rofl

**Maggs** Fri Feb 22, 2013 8:33 pm

bb1 wrote:And I haven't the foggiest idea how you get it out of your Sky box.

Copy it on to DVD hard drive then disc player, if you have one, Bonny.

**bb1** Fri Feb 22, 2013 9:15 pm

Right.....think I will give that a miss, Maggs, me and teccy don't really go together. I'm surprised HoHo hasn't rushed to get it on YouTube, actually, she's usually quick off the mark.

Maybe didn't like the verdict too much.

**lily** Sat Feb 23, 2013 5:31 am

crazytony wrote:
bb1 wrote:It was one of the least sincere statements I've seen for a long time - including politicians. You could just about see the cogs turning as he worked out how to play it to his advantages.

Personally, I don't think he's taken ANY of it on board; I can see him ending up in jail sooner or later.
But Bonny look at the sincere face he's wearing.

He looks like a garden gnome there (without the hat).

Hmm......he could start a business. Those gnomes could scare all sorts of critters away...... biggrin

**lily** Sat Feb 23, 2013 5:34 am

bb1 wrote:The now-traditional solitary stalkerwalk off into the London sunset:

Hopefully, Bren or someone will YouTube it, Lily. It's a gem

And am I mishearing, or did he insist that everything he said in court was FACT? Despite having just been told by a judge that no, it wasn't.

Oh, I do so hope that someone has. smile

**muratfan** Mon Mar 04, 2013 1:37 pm

Some missed gems in the good Judges report.

Bennett on selling booklet to MG

At this stage I suspected that he was not a genuine customer and accordingly a booklet was sold to him. Believing that it would yield me useful information, a booklet was indeed sent to him…."

THREE TIMES BENNETT GAVE AN UNDERTAKING

On 21 July 2010 the Defendant wrote again to Carter-Ruck. It is a 5 page letter. He wrote:
"I am happy to repeat my undertakings given previously to the court. In particular, in the light of your e-mail, I will refrain from suggesting that Mr Amaral's suspicions about your client may be correct

On 1 November 2011 the Defendant posted on the JH website a text under the heading "Sofa + accident = death, really?" It includes the following:
"At the risk of triggering a writ for contempt of court for breaching a court undertaking given two years ago, I will comment on this speculation about when and how Madeleine died… In summary, looking at what evidence we have, Madeleine died in the flat … her body was removed before 3 May, this was not premeditated.."

In the present case there can be no doubt that the Defendant had the required knowledge. In any event, I am sure that he intended to allege that the Claimants are to be suspected of causing the death of their daughter, and did in fact dispose of her body, lie about what happened and covered up what they had done. I am sure that he intended his words to bear the other meanings which I have held they do bear. The words are too clear, and the repetitions too numerous, for any other interpretation to be put upon what he did. And while the Defendant has made frequent references to statements emanating from the Portuguese authorities during their investigations, he makes no mention of the Report of the District Attorney dated 21 July 2008, a copy of which is exhibited to the third affidavit of Ms Martorell. That includes the following (in translation):
"With regard to other possible crimes, whilst we cannot dismiss the possibility of a killing, given the high degree of probability, there is no evidence for this in the case records.
The non-involvement of Madeleine's parents in any criminally significant action is apparent from the fact that they were not in the apartment at the time of her disappearance, their normal behaviour up to that moment and afterwards, as witnessed by the statements of the witnesses, the analysis of the telephone communications and the conclusions of the experts reports…
None of the indications which led to their being made suspects was substantiated later; there was no proof of them having notified the media before the police, the laboratory did not confirm the traces found by the dogs, and the initial e-mail indications transcribed above later turned out to be harmless

THE GOOD JUDGE ABOUT BENNETT

In effect, the Defendant's submission is a straightforward denial of the Claimants' rights to equal treatment and protection under the law. His attitude that fundamental or human rights are only for himself

**lily** Mon Mar 04, 2013 1:49 pm

Thanks mf. The Judge did indeed say that.

The Banner on not-Bennett's forum is typical of how Bennett likes to twist what people have said...........

I'm sure that that will not have been lost on anyone who matters?

**Freedomsydney2** Mon Mar 04, 2013 6:42 pm

muratfan wrote:Some missed gems in the good Judges report.

Bennett on selling booklet to MG

At this stage I suspected that he was not a genuine customer and accordingly a booklet was sold to him. Believing that it would yield me useful information, a booklet was indeed sent to him…."

THREE TIMES BENNETT GAVE AN UNDERTAKING

On 21 July 2010 the Defendant wrote again to Carter-Ruck. It is a 5 page letter. He wrote:
"I am happy to repeat my undertakings given previously to the court. In particular, in the light of your e-mail, I will refrain from suggesting that Mr Amaral's suspicions about your client may be correct

On 1 November 2011 the Defendant posted on the JH website a text under the heading "Sofa + accident = death, really?" It includes the following:
"At the risk of triggering a writ for contempt of court for breaching a court undertaking given two years ago, I will comment on this speculation about when and how Madeleine died… In summary, looking at what evidence we have, Madeleine died in the flat … her body was removed before 3 May, this was not premeditated.."

In the present case there can be no doubt that the Defendant had the required knowledge. In any event, I am sure that he intended to allege that the Claimants are to be suspected of causing the death of their daughter, and did in fact dispose of her body, lie about what happened and covered up what they had done. I am sure that he intended his words to bear the other meanings which I have held they do bear. The words are too clear, and the repetitions too numerous, for any other interpretation to be put upon what he did. And while the Defendant has made frequent references to statements emanating from the Portuguese authorities during their investigations, he makes no mention of the Report of the District Attorney dated 21 July 2008, a copy of which is exhibited to the third affidavit of Ms Martorell. That includes the following (in translation):
"With regard to other possible crimes, whilst we cannot dismiss the possibility of a killing, given the high degree of probability, there is no evidence for this in the case records.
The non-involvement of Madeleine's parents in any criminally significant action is apparent from the fact that they were not in the apartment at the time of her disappearance, their normal behaviour up to that moment and afterwards, as witnessed by the statements of the witnesses, the analysis of the telephone communications and the conclusions of the experts reports…
None of the indications which led to their being made suspects was substantiated later; there was no proof of them having notified the media before the police, the laboratory did not confirm the traces found by the dogs, and the initial e-mail indications transcribed above later turned out to be harmless

THE GOOD JUDGE ABOUT BENNETT
In effect, the Defendant's submission is a straightforward denial of the Claimants' rights to equal treatment and protection under the law. His attitude that fundamental or human rights are only for himself

I like this quote MF from Bennett: " At this stage I suspected that he was not a genuine customer and accordingly a booklet was sold to him. Believing that it would yield me useful information, a booklet was indeed sent to him ".

In Bennett speak this means: < He was offering money so I took it, to place in my mothers bank account. It was the cash that made me do it! >

What a silly-billy.

**muratfan** Mon Mar 04, 2013 6:50 pm

If you thought someone was not genuine, and you were being set up, then surely you would not see the book at all.

In other words, Bennett was not selling just one book, he sold more than one book and was using his mothers bank account to get the money

**Sabot** Mon Mar 04, 2013 6:54 pm

Look now, Sydney, if anyone believes Bennett sold a book to anyone to gain evidence in his own favour, then they have to be off their trolly.

Xcuse me, Yer Honour, I robbed this bank because The Police were trying to set me up, and I wanted to prove it.

**Freedomsydney2** Mon Mar 04, 2013 6:56 pm

Sabot wrote:Look now, Sydney, if anyone believes Bennett sold a book to anyone to gain evidence in his own favour, then they have to be off their trolly.

Xcuse me, Yer Honour, I robbed this bank because The Police were trying to set me up, and I wanted to prove it.

Perhaps he did it to attract attention?

**bb1** Mon Mar 04, 2013 7:01 pm

Ego and greed, I should think. Pcorneater

**Maggs** Mon Mar 04, 2013 7:09 pm

Freedomsydney2 wrote:
Sabot wrote:Look now, Sydney, if anyone believes Bennett sold a book to anyone to gain evidence in his own favour, then they have to be off their trolly.

Xcuse me, Yer Honour, I robbed this bank because The Police were trying to set me up, and I wanted to prove it.

Perhaps he did it to attract attention?

Well he's got that attention Sydney, just not how he wanted it rofl

I wonder if he keeps getting the feeling he's being watched, very closely Eek

**Sabot** Mon Mar 04, 2013 7:15 pm

Freedomsydney2 wrote:
Sabot wrote:Look now, Sydney, if anyone believes Bennett sold a book to anyone to gain evidence in his own favour, then they have to be off their trolly.

Xcuse me, Yer Honour, I robbed this bank because The Police were trying to set me up, and I wanted to prove it.

Perhaps he did it to attract attention?

Using his Mother's Bank Account? That was to avoid attention.

Someone should have reported him to The Court of Protection. He is abusing his Power of Attorney.
And No, I don't believe that the book he sold to Mike Gunnill belonged to his Mother.

**Freedomsydney2** Mon Mar 04, 2013 9:11 pm

Sabot wrote:
Freedomsydney2 wrote:
Sabot wrote:Look now, Sydney, if anyone believes Bennett sold a book to anyone to gain evidence in his own favour, then they have to be off their trolly.

Xcuse me, Yer Honour, I robbed this bank because The Police were trying to set me up, and I wanted to prove it.

Perhaps he did it to attract attention?

Using his Mother's Bank Account? That was to avoid attention.

Someone should have reported him to The Court of Protection. He is abusing his Power of Attorney.
And No, I don't believe that the book he sold to Mike Gunnill belonged to his Mother.

He was abusing his mothers trust. I don't think anyone believes the book was his mothers. That includes the Judge of course.

Silly silly-billy.

**Jean-Pierre.t50** Mon Mar 04, 2013 9:14 pm

I think this is more akin to the "I was researching an article about child pornograph and the images on my computerwere part of that research, your honour"

Sponsored content