Re: WHERE IS THE PROOF OF ALL THIS 'FILTH', BENNETT?(merged with pretendy protest letter thread)

[crazytony]

He SAYS they were really filthy. He couldn't get screen shots because he doesn't know how to. And now they have gone.

Very convenient. Where have I heard that before?

Wait a minute, he has no proof of these posts?
ETA
Anyone got a copy of him saying this?

[bb1]

I don't, Tony, sorry.
Any fool can see that if Bennett had proof, it would have been posted long ago ad nauseum.

It hasn't been = the whole thing happened in Bennett's wormy head.

And speaking of worms - Stinkymuckymac having abandoned efforts to get this muck onto MM, has changed heads to call himself TDH, and is now spamming the Brunty blog with it.

Carry on, I say! It's Bennett who will be paying for his actions, every single time it is posted. Because Bennett and Havern is the ONLY source of this sh*t - oh, and SWALK saying, I've seen the filth, it's filthy.

Personally, I would have thought a self-confessed fan of banned torture porn is the last person anyone should pay attention to, but hey ho!

So let's just leave the StinkymuckyTDHillumini hydra to spam any site that lets him with this disgusting libel; every single time the pervy troll hits Submit, it is more money OUT of Bennett's pockets and INTO Mr Smethurst's.

[crazytony]

If he cannot produce the proof, and I mean screenshots showing what has been said; he may very well find himself sued by more than Smethurst.

[bb1]

You can take that one to the bank, Tony - if Bennett had the slightest bit of proof, he would have gone to the police clutching screenshots, etc, long ago.

We would never have heard the last of it.

Bennett is going to get a hefty bill for his lies - which will be growing every time his lies are repeated anywhere.

[lily]

In one of his recent responses to CR, he referred to them as being 'too depraved to..........' so he didn't send them to CR?

Am trying to find his letter..........

[bb1]

Oh, that's right, Lily! The filth was too filthy for anyone bar SWALK to see.

[crazytony]

In one of his recent responses to CR, he referred to them as being 'too depraved to..........' so he didn't send them to CR?

Am trying to find his letter..........

Hang on, he says he has the proof, but he hasn't produced them for the lawyers?
Wouldn't it have saved Bennett a lot of heartache by producing them?
Instead his defense is Mr. Smethurst has made mistakes in his application?.
Bennett is Gerflucked!

[bb1]

I can't see it in this one:

http://jatyk.blogspot.com/2011/06/criminal-complaints-against-bennett.html

I had actually forgotten that Kennedy is after his hide, too.

[bb1]

In one of his recent responses to CR, he referred to them as being 'too depraved to..........' so he didn't send them to CR?

Am trying to find his letter..........

Hang on, he says he has the proof, but he hasn't produced them for the lawyers?
Wouldn't it have saved Bennett a lot of heartache by producing them?
Instead his defense is Mr. Smethurst has made mistakes in his application?.
Bennett is Gerflucked!

By Jove, I think you have spotted the elephant in the room, Tony

Bennett could have stopped all this by producing proof of the filth.

But he can't, can he?

[lily]

Very bizarre isn't it, Tony and Bonny?

I have so far found this which gives us a date........



TB's response to Carter-Ruck's letter of 4.8.11 re Edward Smethurst

Post Tony Bennett Today at 1:05 pm
Please note that Edward Smethurst has objected, via his lawyers, to postings made between 9 and 12 May on this thread, which refer to various comments made by Edward Smethurst's friends on the social networking site 'Facebook'. His lawyers say that: "Readers should have understood your [Tony Bennentt's] postings to mean that our client is or is to be suspected of being a paedophile; that he associates with another allegedly known paedophle friend to whom you refer as 'Greg the Groomer', and that he somehow condones or sympathises with the actions of paedophiles. Not only are these grotesque allegations highly defamatory of our client, they are also entirely untrue, and it is clear that you have no proper basis whatsoever for making any such allegation. Self evidently, your postings will have caused - and continue to cause - serious and entirely unwarranted damage to our cleint's reputation. They have also been the source of considerable distress to him".

Tony Bennett's response dated 4 August 2011:

1. The details of the Facebook comments made by the Facebook friends of Edward Smethurst are a matter of historical record and I have the details secure.

2. I withheld from this thread comments these friends made about even more depraved sexual practices unfit to mention on here.

3. Within days of my postings on 9 to 12 May this year, Edward Smethurst closed his Facebook account.

4. I agree that no conclusions should be drawn against Mr Smethurst simply because of comments made by his Facebook friends. I made no allegation that he either was a paedophile, nor that he associates with other alleged known paedophile friends, nor that he 'condones or sympathises' with the actions of paedophiles. No-one should assume anything at all from the Facebook records I produced; they were placed here merely out of interest since, like any member of the McCann Team, he remains a 'person of interest' to us.



On behalf of ADMIN


Tony Bennett
Researcher

Posts: 3474
Join date: 2009-11-25
Age: 63
Location: Harlow, Essex



Back to top

[Maggs]

Here you go Lily

Tony Bennett’s reply to Carter Ruck’s second letter of the day (4th August 2011) regarding paedophilic & perverse comments made by friends of Edward Smethurst’s Facebook friends


04Aug



Dear Mary Peevers,

I acknowledge receipt of your second letter of today, timed at 4.16pm. I refer also to my earlier reply timed at 1.48pm in response to your first letter timed at 12.21pm today.

In your two letters you ask me to remove all my postings between 9 and 12 May on that thread relating to Edward Smethurst and his Facebook Friends.

In response I have carefully amended and updated those postings and in the process made it clear that Mr Smethurst appears now no longer to have a Facebook presence. I have also made it 100% clear for the written record that whilst Mr Smethurst was a direct Facebook Friend of both James Halley and Ben Murphy, he was not a direct Facebook Friend of Greg ”The Groomer’ Bailey.

I will however also add for the written record that the Facebook friendships existing at the time showed many mutual Facebook friendships between Mr Smethurst, Ben Murphy, James Halley and Greg Bailey.

In looking at the thread in question I note a number of important points.

First, I made very clear, even repeating it in very large type:

“Lest it be thought by anyone that I am making any accusation against Edward Smethurst, I am not. I am merely giving out publicly-available information about his Facebook friends”.

Second, a poster on that forum called ‘Ringo’, who was allowed on that forum despite it being clear to all of us that he was a supporter of the McCanns, dominated that thread for two days by repeatedly pointing out that nothing that I had said amounted to a direct accusation against Mr Smethurst – and that no-one should draw any adverse inferences merely because some of his Facebook friends and contacts were making comments of a very depraved nature.

In short, Mr Smethurst’s demand that all those postings be removed is unreasonable.

I have published details of actual Facebook conversations between some of Mr Smethurst’s Facebook Friends, that is all. They do not defame hiim. They simply inform peeple that some of his former Facebook friends write disgusting, depraved messages to each other. People will make whatever they will of those comments. I have presented facts; others will draw certain conclusions, or alternatively no conclusions, from those facts.

The messages I have quoted are dated and timed, I have a record of them, and they are directly attributable to Messrs Halley, Bailey and Murphy.

For example, in addition to the comments made on the thread referred to, there is:

James Halley to Greg Bailey: ‘[Too depraved to re-publish here - T.B.]‘.

James Halley to Greg Bailey: ‘[Too depraved to re-publish here - T.B.]‘.

Greg Bailey to James Halley: ‘[Too depraved to re-publish here - T.B.]‘.

Our research on Edward Smethurst’s former Facebook friend Ben Murphy showed that his profile included his listed interest as ‘[withheld, too depraved to mention - T.B.]‘ and ‘[withheld, too depraved to mention - T.B.]‘, which in turn linked to Facebook groups where people clearly share these depraved interests. The [2nd of the above two] Facebook groups links directly to what are called ‘[withheld, too depraved to mention - T.B.]‘.

I am not quite clear as to whether Mr Smethurst is saying he was totally unaware of the depraved interests of his Facebook friends, in which case I shall be happy to make that clear, or is he denying that he knows people like Ben Murphy, Greg Bailey and James Halley?

If so, I shall be happy to make that clear and inform readers of the forum that Mr Smethurst says he never knew these three Facebook friends.

Yours sincerely

Anthony Bennett

[bb1]

The only person I have seen being specific about the filth is HLM; that was not a screencap, just her posting what she claimed it said. Bennett kept going on about assorted people and FB, but they could have been anyone, anyone can fake/clone a FB account.

Bennett has just kept going on about the filth but put [too depraved to reproduce] on everything.

So apart from what HLM invented claims to have seen, to the best of my knowledge no evidence of this filth has ever been produced?

[lily]

Thanks so much Maggs, I had just located it myself.

Don't you think that's rather strange in that Mr Smethurst's lawyers can demand the screenshots/proof but that Bennett is being rather coy about them? I mean, CR will see them one way or another.......

ETA: The onus is on Bennett to prove that what he has stated is true, not on Mr Smethurst.

[Maggs]

Thanks so much Maggs, I had just located it myself.

Don't you think that's rather strange in that Mr Smethurst's lawyers can demand the screenshots/proof but that Bennett is being rather coy about them? I mean, CR will see them one way or another.......

ETA: The onus is on Bennett to prove that what he has stated is true, not on Mr Smethurst.

CR already have them Lily

[crazytony]

Here you go Lily

Tony Bennett’s reply to Carter Ruck’s second letter of the day (4th August 2011) regarding paedophilic & perverse comments made by friends of Edward Smethurst’s Facebook friends


04Aug



Dear Mary Peevers,

I acknowledge receipt of your second letter of today, timed at 4.16pm. I refer also to my earlier reply timed at 1.48pm in response to your first letter timed at 12.21pm today.

In your two letters you ask me to remove all my postings between 9 and 12 May on that thread relating to Edward Smethurst and his Facebook Friends.

In response I have carefully amended and updated those postings and in the process made it clear that Mr Smethurst appears now no longer to have a Facebook presence. I have also made it 100% clear for the written record that whilst Mr Smethurst was a direct Facebook Friend of both James Halley and Ben Murphy, he was not a direct Facebook Friend of Greg ”The Groomer’ Bailey.

I will however also add for the written record that the Facebook friendships existing at the time showed many mutual Facebook friendships between Mr Smethurst, Ben Murphy, James Halley and Greg Bailey.

In looking at the thread in question I note a number of important points.

First, I made very clear, even repeating it in very large type:

“Lest it be thought by anyone that I am making any accusation against Edward Smethurst, I am not. I am merely giving out publicly-available information about his Facebook friends”.

Second, a poster on that forum called ‘Ringo’, who was allowed on that forum despite it being clear to all of us that he was a supporter of the McCanns, dominated that thread for two days by repeatedly pointing out that nothing that I had said amounted to a direct accusation against Mr Smethurst – and that no-one should draw any adverse inferences merely because some of his Facebook friends and contacts were making comments of a very depraved nature.

In short, Mr Smethurst’s demand that all those postings be removed is unreasonable.

I have published details of actual Facebook conversations between some of Mr Smethurst’s Facebook Friends, that is all. They do not defame hiim. They simply inform peeple that some of his former Facebook friends write disgusting, depraved messages to each other. People will make whatever they will of those comments. I have presented facts; others will draw certain conclusions, or alternatively no conclusions, from those facts.

The messages I have quoted are dated and timed, I have a record of them, and they are directly attributable to Messrs Halley, Bailey and Murphy.

For example, in addition to the comments made on the thread referred to, there is:

James Halley to Greg Bailey: ‘[Too depraved to re-publish here - T.B.]‘.

James Halley to Greg Bailey: ‘[Too depraved to re-publish here - T.B.]‘.

Greg Bailey to James Halley: ‘[Too depraved to re-publish here - T.B.]‘.

Our research on Edward Smethurst’s former Facebook friend Ben Murphy showed that his profile included his listed interest as ‘[withheld, too depraved to mention - T.B.]‘ and ‘[withheld, too depraved to mention - T.B.]‘, which in turn linked to Facebook groups where people clearly share these depraved interests. The [2nd of the above two] Facebook groups links directly to what are called ‘[withheld, too depraved to mention - T.B.]‘.

I am not quite clear as to whether Mr Smethurst is saying he was totally unaware of the depraved interests of his Facebook friends, in which case I shall be happy to make that clear, or is he denying that he knows people like Ben Murphy, Greg Bailey and James Halley?

If so, I shall be happy to make that clear and inform readers of the forum that Mr Smethurst says he never knew these three Facebook friends.

Yours sincerely

Anthony Bennett

He has to produce screenshots as proof. Bennett could have written the depravity for all anyone knows.

[crazytony]

In one of his recent responses to CR, he referred to them as being 'too depraved to..........' so he didn't send them to CR?

Am trying to find his letter..........

Hang on, he says he has the proof, but he hasn't produced them for the lawyers?
Wouldn't it have saved Bennett a lot of heartache by producing them?
Instead his defense is Mr. Smethurst has made mistakes in his application?.
Bennett is Gerflucked!

By Jove, I think you have spotted the elephant in the room, Tony

Bennett could have stopped all this by producing proof of the filth.

But he can't, can he?

If he had produced the screenshots; E Smethurst would never have taken it this far.
He doesn't have Screenshots. He's Gerflucked!

[Maggs]

Well Tony, he's got them published somewhere.

Note he says "too depraved to re publish here".

[bb1]

He has to produce screenshots as proof. Bennett could have written the depravity for all anyone knows.

Saying nothing

[crazytony]

Well Tony, he's got them published somewhere.

Note he says "too depraved to re publish here".

Maggs, he may have written them somewhere, he may even have written them to the lawyers. But do you honestly believe with Screenshots, a lawyer would advise his client to move forward?

[muratfan]

Apparently Chucky Misspell has sent a letter as well.


Dur Cartder luck,

I am riting my lerter to me to tel me how wonderfil the man tony bennett is. I like him as he reminded me ov my Sims Dully, and they never did dye.
Mr Bonnett told me Mudeleine did in 5A

Yours sinksearly

Carly never mind the dingos Misspell

[crazytony]

Apparently Chucky Misspell has sent a letter as well.


Dur Cartder luck,

I am riting my lerter to me to tel me how wonderfil the man tony bennett is. I like him as he reminded me ov my Sims Dully, and they never did dye.
Mr Bonnett told me Mudeleine did in 5A

Yours sinksearly

Carly never mind the dingos Misspell

[Maggs]

Well Tony, he's got them published somewhere.

Note he says "too depraved to re publish here".

Maggs, he may have written them somewhere, he may even have written them to the lawyers. But do you honestly believe with Screenshots, a lawyer would advise his client to move forward?

Sorry Tony, I meant he could have screenshot them, if he'd wanted to.
Any decent person would not have hesitated in contacting the police, and how come nobody else has. IF they were on Facebook.

Bennetts computer should be taken off him for checking his hard drive IMO!

[lily]

Well Tony, he's got them published somewhere.

Note he says "too depraved to re publish here".

Maggs, he may have written them somewhere, he may even have written them to the lawyers. But do you honestly believe with Screenshots, a lawyer would advise his client to move forward?

Sorry Tony, I meant he could have screenshot them, if he'd wanted to.
Any decent person would not have hesitated in contacting the police, and how come nobody else has. IF they were on Facebook.

Bennetts computer should be taken off him for checking his hard drive IMO!

Bennett is insinuating something by association, which he would have to prove in a court of law.

His hard drive should definitely be analyzed, Maggs.

[bb1]

I am still baffled as to why smiffy thinks anyone should feel sorry for Bennett. In no particular order, his recent antics have included:

Hiding in the Kennedy familys' garden

Photographing, and posting on the net, people's security systems

Skulking around at the Smethurst home and inventing dirty stories about why some extension doesn't have windows he can peer in

Travelling all the way to Wales to stalk Arthur Crowley

Knowing the man had health problems making sick jokes about coffins

Treating the High Court of England and Wales with total contempt

Smearing and lying about Ed Smethurst in a foul, filthy fashion

Accusing total strangers of having sex with animals because they like a genre of heavy metal music

Being unable to produce a scrap of evidence to justify his disgusting smears and innuendos

I have, no doubt, missed a few - but would smiffy feel sorry for Bennett if he was some inner-city nutcase instead of one of the so-called Truthseekers?

I doubt it very much.

Personally, I hope the civil AND criminal courts throw the book at Bennett; it's long overdue.

[crazytony]

I am still baffled as to why smiffy thinks anyone should feel sorry for Bennett. In no particular order, his recent antics have included:

Hiding in the Kennedy familys' garden

Photographing, and posting on the net, people's security systems

Skulking around at the Smethurst home and inventing dirty stories about why some extension doesn't have windows he can peer in

Travelling all the way to Wales to stalk Arthur Crowley

Knowing the man had health problems making sick jokes about coffins

Treating the High Court of England and Wales with total contempt

Smearing and lying about Ed Smethurst in a foul, filthy fashion

Accusing total strangers of having sex with animals because they like a genre of heavy metal music

Being unable to produce a scrap of evidence to justify his disgusting smears and innuendos

I have, no doubt, missed a few - but would smiffy feel sorry for Bennett if he was some inner-city nutcase instead of one of the so-called Truthseekers?

I doubt it very much.

Personally, I hope the civil AND criminal courts throw the book at Bennett; it's long overdue.

Breathing the same air as decent human beings.

[Sponsored content]