BENNETT FALLS DOWN RABBIT HOLE; HIS SAUCE IS SUDDENLY SHY

I see it, but I do not believe it - Bennett has clearly never heard the saying, WHEN IN A HOLE, STOP DIGGING....

I can't see any outright libel in it, for once. If the thread suddenly vanishes to the members' area, it means someone has spotted something ghastly.

It starts with Bennett quoting what he said previously to someone called 'Xavier', so I will skip that:


: SY Review Team - Includes STATEMENT 6 Oct by Inspector Steve Bentley
Tony Bennett Today at 10:33 pm

(quotes snipped)

EVIDENCE

The theme of this post will be the word 'evidence'. I doing so I will reply to a number of points on this thread, but I choose to reply to Xavier's posts, as s/he has certainly put his/her finger on a vital point.

I will express the point that Xavier has made as follows (and by the way for this purpose it matters not whether Xavier is friend, for or neutral):

"Does the very short interview Tony Bennett (and one other) had on 3 October with DI Dobson of Operation Grange, and the reference made by Inspector Steve Bentley of the Metropolitan Police Professional Standards Department to 'repetition of the myriad of views and beliefs that individuals choose to interpret from the available information' mean that the Metropolitan Police are not in the slightest bit interested in any evidence (or purported) evidence that points to the possibillity that Madeleine was not abducted, but instead died in her parents' apartment?"

First let me get one point out of the way, raised I think by jimuck. I have indeed said on the record that our informant within the McCann Team is female. However, our position is that we will neither confirm nor deny whether our source is female or male.

In case it should be thought that we are inventing this source, let me just say here and now that our source has both spoken to us verbally and given us very valuable information in writing. The information we have received from the source has been seen by all members of The Madeleine Foundation and by one or two others. I will mention one name here: 'spudgun'. 'Spudgun' spent the best part of a whole day with me here in Harlow earlier in the year and on the basis that he said nothing about what he had seen to anybody at any time, we disclosed to him the written information we received from that source.

I truly wish I could say more, but I cannot. We have already read in the article by Mark Hollingsworth in the Evening Standard in August 2009 references to potential witnesses being intimidated into not giving witness statements to the Portuguese Police. If I say any more than I have done, both our source and ourselves fear repercussions.

I will add one further matter for the record. Since Monday, DI Dobson has indeed asked us in writing for the contact details of the source. I have replied, stating that we are unwilling to do so but that we shall be contacting our source again to see if she would now be willing to help the Scotland Yard Review Team.

The e-mail from Inspector Steve Bentley

Someone up the thread asked why Inspector Bentley, as a member of Professional Standards, was commenting on the internal workings of a criminal case review. If I may say so, I think that was a very good point.

What Inspector Bentley has done is to contrast 'evidence' with 'repetition of the myriad of views and beliefs that individuals choose to interpret from the available information'.

His reply may be taken as a hint - as Xavier interprets and so do all the McCann-believers - that this is a not-too-subtle dig at The Madeleine Foundation. It could well be seen, and maybe this was indeed his intention, as a calculated 'snub' to the Madeleine Foundation for allegedly putting forward 'views', 'beliefs' and 'interpretations'.

I will say this by way of reply.

We will not be disclosing the evidence we submitted in our first dossier, submitted on 16 August to the SY Review Team. Nor shall we say what was included within our second dossier, save to say that it dealt in detail with what we have uncovered (so far) about the conduct of all the private investigations initiated by the McCann Team, from September 2007 (or earlier) to the present day.

Inspector Steve Bentley does not have the advantage of having seen either of the dossiers we have submitted.

Detective Chief Inspector Andy Redwood and his team do have that advantage. I can be certain that they would be bound to acknowledge that what we have supplied to them is 'evidence'. For more about the definition of 'evidence', please see below.

It is no secret that the hypothesis of The Madeleine Foundation is that Madeleine was not abducted but died in her parents' apartment in Praia da Luz.

Equally, the McCann Team, through their reputation manager Clarence Mitchell (ex-Head of Tony Blair's Media Unit and ex-Assistant to former News of the World Editor Andy Coulson when Coulson worked for David Cameron on 2010), have made it clear that their 'working hypothesis', or assumption, is that Madeleine was abducted.

I can assure everyone reading this post that our two dossiers, now received by DCI Redwood and his team, do include a very significant amount of evidence which suggests that our hypothesis (and that of Goncalo Amaral and Tavares de Almeida) is to be preferred to what evidence the McCanns can bring to bear that Madeleine was abducted.

Quotes about 'evidence' in the McCann case

Google 'Madeleine' 'McCann' and 'evidence', and numerous quotes come up - far too numerous to list here.

So here's just a few:

1. In a heated exchange with reporters outside the court in Lisbon, Gerry McCann insisted there was 'absolutely no evidence' to support the claim that his daughter was dead, before the court heard more challenges to the McCanns' account of events.

2. Clarence Mitchell confessed that there was 'no evidence of a break-in'.

3. Dr Gerald McCann said: "There is no evidence to implicate us in her death".

4. (Newspaper headline): Madeleine McCann: No evidence our daughter has been harmed, says Gerry

5. Dr Gerald McCann's blog, 14 August 2008: "It will be clear to everyone now, that there is absolutely no evidence that suggests Madeleine has been seriously harmed. Knowing this, we strongly believe that Madeleine is out there and can be found".

6. McCanns' appeal for funds because the Find Madeleine Fund was 'running dry' (3 November 2010): "There's absolutely no evidence Madeleine has been seriously harmed and without that we've got to believe we can still find her", said Gerry McCann.

7. Amazon, this year: "There is no evidence to suggest that Madeleine has been harmed and it is therefore vital to keep looking for her and those who took her. It is for this reason that all royalties earned from the sales of this book will be donated to Madeleine’s Fund".


The dictionary definition of evidence

Many people, most notably on the McCann-believer side of the argument, confuse (perhaps deliberately) the word 'evidence' with the word 'proof'.

Googling 'evidence', 'definition', here is the very first definition I came to:


1. A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment:

Examples:
The broken window was evidence that a burglary had taken place.
Scientists weigh the evidence for and against a hypothesis.

2. Something indicative; an outward sign:

Example: Evidence of grief on a mourner's face.


Let me say very clearly to Detective Chief Inspector Andy Redwood of the SY Review Team, and for that matter to Inspector Steve Bentley of the Met Police Professional Standards Department, and to everyone else, that what The Madeleine Foundation has supplied to the SY Review Team is evidence, both forensic and circumstantial. If he is a fair man, DCI ewdwood would most certainly have to acknowledge that.

Inspector Bentley referred to 'a myriad of views and beliefs that individuals choose to interpret from the available information'.

In truth, whether he realises it or not, he is referring here not to the type of evidence we have taken great care to submit to the SY Review Team, but to the myriad of speculations as to who might have abducted Madeleine, where she might have been taken, and what might have happened to her. In this process of 'views, beliefs and speculations', there has probably been no worse offender than the British media, making profits on a succession of baseless speculations about what might have happened to Madeleine. The Sun and the late News of the World, both Murdoch-owned, being the worst offenders in this respect.

We may never see DCI Andy Redwood's final report. But I hope and expect that it will deal both robustly and fairly with the evidence in the case.

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

The original is all multi-colored, but, well, I can't be ar@ed.

'Spudgun' spent the best part of a whole day with me here in Harlow earlier in the year and on the basis that he said nothing about what he had seen to anybody at any time, we disclosed to him the written information we received from that source.

What, old 'Gorillas In The Mist' Spudders? This one?

Mike Hardy
Rachel. Please DON'T be sorry, sweetheart. I am so NOT preaching morals here!!

There is a LONG list of them that I not only despise with a passion, but I actually RELISH the prospect of finding and meeting them!

I have a wonderful scenario that plays in my head whereby I have Muratfan, Chicane, Urcrazytoo, Wicatty 009, TigerTiger, Nowaymojo, GARTH, Bonniebraes, to name BUT A FEW; stripped naked, tied up and bent over a suitable fence, smeared in corn syrup, whereupon I then get to release a couple of VERY large RAMPANT 'Batchelor' male Silverback Mountain gorillas into the equation.



Since Monday, DI Dobson has indeed asked us in writing for the contact details of the source. I have replied, stating that we are unwilling to do so but that we shall be contacting our source again to see if she would now be willing to help the Scotland Yard Review Team.

I'll bet he has. AgentZ-Coco-Mental-Midas-Darling suddenly gone off the notion, has she?

Sounds like Bennett can't PUT UP.

So he will have to SHUT UP.

have made it clear that their 'working hypothesis', or assumption, is that Madeleine was abducted.

Incredible! Has he still not found out that that is NOT what 'working hypothesis' means?

bb1 wrote: 'Spudgun' spent the best part of a whole day with me here in Harlow earlier in the year and on the basis that he said nothing about what he had seen to anybody at any time, we disclosed to him the written information we received from that source.

What, old 'Gorillas In The Mist' Spudders? This one?

Mike Hardy
Rachel. Please DON'T be sorry, sweetheart. I am so NOT preaching morals here!!

There is a LONG list of them that I not only despise with a passion, but I actually RELISH the prospect of finding and meeting them!

I have a wonderful scenario that plays in my head whereby I have Muratfan, Chicane, Urcrazytoo, Wicatty 009, TigerTiger, Nowaymojo, GARTH, Bonniebraes, to name BUT A FEW; stripped naked, tied up and bent over a suitable fence, smeared in corn syrup, whereupon I then get to release a couple of VERY large RAMPANT 'Batchelor' male Silverback Mountain gorillas into the equation.



Since Monday, DI Dobson has indeed asked us in writing for the contact details of the source. I have replied, stating that we are unwilling to do so but that we shall be contacting our source again to see if she would now be willing to help the Scotland Yard Review Team.

I'll bet he has. AgentZ-Coco-Mental-Midas-Darling suddenly gone off the notion, has she?

Sounds like Bennett can't PUT UP.

So he will have to SHUT UP.

Now how was it Hardy was described to me, give me a moment it will come to me?
Ah yes, the man who thinks he is Captain Nemo

Moby Dick, more like...As for...

First let me get one point out of the way, raised I think by jimuck. I have indeed said on the record that our informant within the McCann Team is female. However, our position is that we will neither confirm nor deny whether our source is female or male.

If it is Zoe who is the recording mole. She is heading for court if she utters a stutter So many clients will have her innards for garters. Another one who will trade brick walls for a tent.

In case it should be thought that we are inventing this source, let me just say here and now that our source has both spoken to us verbally and given us very valuable information in writing. The information we have received from the source has been seen by all members of The Madeleine Foundation and by one or two others. I will mention one name here: 'spudgun'.

So, Zoe the Mole, Apeman Hardy, Bennett, and all of the Madeleine Foundation have information they think is relevant to the search for a missing child.

AND THEY WILL NOT SHARE IT WITH THE POLICE

Disgraceful; if there is any justice in the world, the whole lot of them will be charged, either with wasting police time and money, or with withholding evidence.

Oh dear, oh dear, Tony. That would put old Zoe Coco in a bit of a dilemma wouldn't it? I mean, Bennett has offered her to the police on a silver plate?

And Spudders. And the rest of the Madeleine Foundation.

After all, if she really did have information, it was her duty to contact the police herself, instead of gossiping with that lot.

But, as we all know, she has no evidence.

It's just like the Ace up Gonc's sleeve that he doesn't feel able to share with the real police.

Bunch of frauds, liars and fantasists, all getting their egos stroked at the expense of a missing child and her family.

I would love to see Scotland Yard charge the whole lot of them.

lily wrote:Oh dear, oh dear, Tony. That would put old Zoe Coco in a bit of a dilemma wouldn't it? I mean, Bennett has offered her to the police on a silver plate?

bb1 wrote:In case it should be thought that we are inventing this source, let me just say here and now that our source has both spoken to us verbally and given us very valuable information in writing. The information we have received from the source has been seen by all members of The Madeleine Foundation and by one or two others. I will mention one name here: 'spudgun'.

So, Zoe the Mole, Apeman Hardy, Bennett, and all of the Madeleine Foundation have information they think is relevant to the search for a missing child.

AND THEY WILL NOT SHARE IT WITH THE POLICE

Disgraceful; if there is any justice in the world, the whole lot of them will be charged, either with wasting police time and money, or with withholding evidence.

Can you use hearsay as evidence?

Not in these circumstances, Tony, Sans would know better than me, but to the best of my knowledge, there are very few situations where it can be used.

And Agent Z -Coco -Mental Midas having her bluff called isn't that situation.

She had better tell the police DIRECTLY and VOLUNTARILY what her 'evidence' is, or she can look forward to a court appearance.

Indeed, any of this group who have chosen NOT to contact the police are liable to find themselves in the dock on criminal charges.

This is not a bl**dy forum game.

bb1 wrote:Not in these circumstances, Tony, Sans would know better than me, but to the best of my knowledge, there are very few situations where it can be used.

And Agent Z -Coco -Mental Midas having her bluff called isn't that situation.

She had better tell the police DIRECTLY and VOLUNTARILY what her 'evidence' is, or she can look forward to a court appearance.

Indeed, any of this group who have chosen NOT to contact the police are liable to find themselves in the dock on criminal charges.

This is not a bl**dy forum game.

They obviously don't realize a child is in the center of all this. I thought they cared for Madeleine and wanted Justice for her?

You know guys, this screams of lunacy on Bennett's part.

If he had anything of any note, this information would have been passed to the police a long time ago. So, whatever it is, is much ado about nothing.

Secondly, I feel that Bennett is using this in the hope that he makes some people afraid of what he 'knows'. Possibly in the hope that they back down from court cases. As Bonny has stated, this is his version of Gonc's invisible Ace up his non-existent sleeve.

He is skating on thin ice and looks like he will be falling through at any moment.

Unbelievably, it gets worse; he is now picking a fight with Scotland Yard:

Tony Bennett Yesterday at 11:37 pm

TheTruthWillOut wrote:
The reason I questioned why Inspector Bentley was even making the comment he did was that I see his role as a sort of internal affairs. IMO, it is his role to police the police, not lecture people.

But maybe I'm being too harsh?

'TheTruthWillOut' (great username by the way), you were not being too harsh but accurately stated that Inspector Bentley had indeed stepped outside his brief.

His brief is to deal with complaints, not to make pronouncements about the way a cold case review is conducted.

On the subject of my correspondence with the Metropolitan Police Professional Standards Department, one issue that I have raised - and continue to raise - is the subject of the Scotland Yard Review Team failing to even acknowledge written evidence supplied to them.

raised this again recently when two McCann-sceptics reported to me that they had written to the SY Review Team but had received no acknowledgement from them.

I have never suggested to them that they should reply, unless it was of critical importance to their review, but I have attempted to insist that given the importance of this review and the necessity to record all the evidence submitted, they should at least send a reply postcard to anyone who writes to them - something like:

"Thank you for your communication of 16 August 2011, the contents of which have been noted".

I can only say that I have had a series of evasive replies from DCI Redwood's team on this very point, which is why I raised it with the Met's Professional Standards Unit. I have (though this really should not be necessary) suggested to both DCI Redwood's team and to the Met's Professional Standards Unit that there must be a clear audit trail in a case of such national importance. Not only is it basic common courtesy to acknowldege all communications, but there must be an audit trail to show how each parcel of evidence has been evaluated. Police regulations, policies, procedures and guidance require this.

Here is another extract from Inspector Steve Bentley's letter:


QUOTE

You have also stated you wish to make a complaint against DCI Redwood and DI Dobson for failing to ensure acknowledgement is given to members of the public providing information. The policy is that a courtesy call should be made acknowledging any correspondence that is sent into the office. This policy has been circulated to the review team and if there are occasions where this has not occurred then I apologise. I have passed your observations back to DI Dobson to allow him the opportunity of reviewing the compliance of this policy.

UNQUOTE


Make of that what you will.

I do appreciate though that if the Editor of the Sun or ex-Detective Inspector Dave Edgar, supremo of the Brian Kennedy-led McCanninvestigation team, were to bombard DCI Redwood and DI Dobson and co with 'a myriad of views, beliefs, speculations and interpretations of the available information' such as the following, they might well lose patience and say: 'Keep your ludicrous speculations to yourself':

* The secret of who took Madeleine is contained in a letter that Wayne Hewlett burnt

* Basketball-playing Angolan bouncer and part-time 'amateur sleuth' Marcelinho Aneglino knows that Maddie is in America

* Brilliant ex-cop Dave Edgar is 'convinced' that Madeleine is being held in a prison lair within 10 miles of praia da Luz

* A British banker who agonised for two years before telling the police the McCanns says that a Victoria-Beckham lookalike he met after several hours drinking in downtown Barcelona and who had an Oz accent may have taken Madeleine on a boat to Australia, or


* A friend of the McCanns, Jane Tanner, saw a man carrying a child who had longish black hair and was wearing mustard chinos, but changed her evidence 10 days later to say it was Robert Murat she saw, then months later said it wasn't Robert Murat she saw after all, then (although she said she had never seen the man's face) said that the man she saw looked like the artists's sketch of Gail Cooper's 'Monsterman'...only for brilliant ex-cop Dave Edgar to ruin it all at a Crimewatch-style press call by Clarence Mitchell by saying that 'Jane Tanner might have seen a woman'.

Good luck in establishing the truth, DCI Redwood and team.


I can scarcely believe my own eyes. Bennett's family should give serious thought to having him sectioned.

I can only say that I have had a series of evasive replies from DCI Redwood's team on this very point, which is why I raised it with the Met's Professional Standards Unit.

Un-bl**dy beleivable. Yet more police time and public money wasted by Bennett. And it's pretty clear now why he got to hand in his 'dossier' about his victims - he'd already been whinging because the Yard wouldn't jump to his commands.

I really, really hope he ends up being charged for his disgraceful conduct.

Here is another extract from Inspector Steve Bentley's letter:


QUOTE

You have also stated you wish to make a complaint against DCI Redwood and DI Dobson for failing to ensure acknowledgement is given to members of the public providing information. The policy is that a courtesy call should be made acknowledging any correspondence that is sent into the office. This policy has been circulated to the review team and if there are occasions where this has not occurred then I apologise. I have passed your observations back to DI Dobson to allow him the opportunity of reviewing the compliance of this policy.


So, he's been busy complaining and that's why they personally received his pile of junk on Monday?

What a whiner. Complain, complain, complain. He sounds more like a weak nagging washer woman than a man.

bb1 wrote:Unbelievably, it gets worse; he is now picking a fight with Scotland Yard:

Tony Bennett Yesterday at 11:37 pm

TheTruthWillOut wrote:
The reason I questioned why Inspector Bentley was even making the comment he did was that I see his role as a sort of internal affairs. IMO, it is his role to police the police, not lecture people.

But maybe I'm being too harsh?

'TheTruthWillOut' (great username by the way), you were not being too harsh but accurately stated that Inspector Bentley had indeed stepped outside his brief.

His brief is to deal with complaints, not to make pronouncements about the way a cold case review is conducted.

On the subject of my correspondence with the Metropolitan Police Professional Standards Department, one issue that I have raised - and continue to raise - is the subject of the Scotland Yard Review Team failing to even acknowledge written evidence supplied to them.

raised this again recently when two McCann-sceptics reported to me that they had written to the SY Review Team but had received no acknowledgement from them.

I have never suggested to them that they should reply, unless it was of critical importance to their review, but I have attempted to insist that given the importance of this review and the necessity to record all the evidence submitted, they should at least send a reply postcard to anyone who writes to them - something like:

"Thank you for your communication of 16 August 2011, the contents of which have been noted".

I can only say that I have had a series of evasive replies from DCI Redwood's team on this very point, which is why I raised it with the Met's Professional Standards Unit. I have (though this really should not be necessary) suggested to both DCI Redwood's team and to the Met's Professional Standards Unit that there must be a clear audit trail in a case of such national importance. Not only is it basic common courtesy to acknowldege all communications, but there must be an audit trail to show how each parcel of evidence has been evaluated. Police regulations, policies, procedures and guidance require this.

Here is another extract from Inspector Steve Bentley's letter:


QUOTE

You have also stated you wish to make a complaint against DCI Redwood and DI Dobson for failing to ensure acknowledgement is given to members of the public providing information. The policy is that a courtesy call should be made acknowledging any correspondence that is sent into the office. This policy has been circulated to the review team and if there are occasions where this has not occurred then I apologise. I have passed your observations back to DI Dobson to allow him the opportunity of reviewing the compliance of this policy.

UNQUOTE


Make of that what you will.

I do appreciate though that if the Editor of the Sun or ex-Detective Inspector Dave Edgar, supremo of the Brian Kennedy-led McCanninvestigation team, were to bombard DCI Redwood and DI Dobson and co with 'a myriad of views, beliefs, speculations and interpretations of the available information' such as the following, they might well lose patience and say: 'Keep your ludicrous speculations to yourself':

* The secret of who took Madeleine is contained in a letter that Wayne Hewlett burnt

* Basketball-playing Angolan bouncer and part-time 'amateur sleuth' Marcelinho Aneglino knows that Maddie is in America

* Brilliant ex-cop Dave Edgar is 'convinced' that Madeleine is being held in a prison lair within 10 miles of praia da Luz

* A British banker who agonised for two years before telling the police the McCanns says that a Victoria-Beckham lookalike he met after several hours drinking in downtown Barcelona and who had an Oz accent may have taken Madeleine on a boat to Australia, or


* A friend of the McCanns, Jane Tanner, saw a man carrying a child who had longish black hair and was wearing mustard chinos, but changed her evidence 10 days later to say it was Robert Murat she saw, then months later said it wasn't Robert Murat she saw after all, then (although she said she had never seen the man's face) said that the man she saw looked like the artists's sketch of Gail Cooper's 'Monsterman'...only for brilliant ex-cop Dave Edgar to ruin it all at a Crimewatch-style press call by Clarence Mitchell by saying that 'Jane Tanner might have seen a woman'.

Good luck in establishing the truth, DCI Redwood and team.


I can scarcely believe my own eyes. Bennett's family should give serious thought to having him sectioned.

Trying hard to be civilized......not working. Going to kick a rock!!!!!!!!

You have also stated you wish to make a complaint against DCI Redwood and DI Dobson for failing to ensure acknowledgement is given to members of the public providing information.

DISGUSTING

I think I'll join you kicking that rock, Tony. Bennett really does hate Madeleine, doesn't he, trying to wreck the work of Scotland Yard like this.

I think it's as we say here, Tony. He's cruisin' for a bruisin'.

bb1 wrote:You have also stated you wish to make a complaint against DCI Redwood and DI Dobson for failing to ensure acknowledgement is given to members of the public providing information.

DISGUSTING

I think I'll join you kicking that rock, Tony. Bennett really does hate Madeleine, doesn't he, trying to wreck the work of Scotland Yard like this.

He must hate her really badly. Is this all for Gonc, the incompetent womanizing drunkard?

I so hope they charge him with wasting valuable police time. I really do.

As I mentioned earlier. He disrespects law enforcement and then has the audacity to ask for their attention. He does know you get more with honey than you do with vinegar, doesn't he?