Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Compare and Contrast":
"Who says we know the whole Mrs. Fenn statement?She could have told more incidents to the police.It is possible that she informed the OC the folowing morning and the OC warned the McCanns. That could be the reason that Gerry replied her on the fatal night"a child has been abducted (or disappeared")and he did not say "my daughter disappeared" and Mrs Fenn thought it was odd. He probably had heard about Mrs. Fenn complaints.When the PJ asked Kate about the cry incident, Kate denied it "not true".Kate could have used it for the abduction explanation.
It is posssible that Mrs. Fenn left Portugal short after that night and that she came back in August.
Or it is possible that the OC told the police about her complaints.
It is also possible that there is another statement, telling more and we don't know it(rows, fights).
Within a very short time the police knew there was no abduction.No traces, no evidence."
Posted by Anonymous to Textusa at Jan 20, 2012 10:47:00 AM
This Anonymous’ comment seems to credit, and we're beyond innocence at this point in time, someone who, like so many others, acted in a very despicable manner, Mrs Fenn.
S/he implies that Mrs Fenn may have provided the PJ with some relevant information before late August, 2007.
I have said before, and maintain it, that Mrs Fenn was certainly heard in the hours that followed the PJ arrival at the scene, as a resident of the same building where the events supposedly were to have taken place; and I also said, and maintain, that the fact that there’s no written register of this statement it's because the information she had to provide at the time added little or nothing to the investigation.
At that moment Mrs Fenn was truthful, because she indeed saw and heard nothing, and was yet to be indoctrinated about the goings on, so, the investigators at that point in time ruled her as an irrelevant witness, which she indeed was.
But, says Anonymous, what if she did say something?
If she did, both herself and the PJ enquirers seem to have forgotten to make any mention of it in the sole statement that we can find, and read, in the PJ Files.
But, what if this is ANOTHER statement that is in the “unpublished PJ Files”?
It’s time to debunk yet another urban myth.
I would like today to speak about a piece of clutter that I see mentioned much too often: the infamous unpublished PJ Files.
There are two different types of documentation that are perceived to being part of these unpublished PJ files. I divide them into the following categories: those that I know of and those that I don’t know anything about.
Those that I know of are those that are missing from the files. I don’t know, for certain, and in some cases at all, what their content is, but I know they aren't there. How do I know they’re missing? By the page numbering system used.
This page numbering is of mandatory use in any Portuguese legal documentation that has more than a single page. The objective is to make it impossible any innuendo afterwards about any kind of page or pages that were supposed to exist, but can’t be found. Not to avoid, but to make it absolutely impossible the existence of phenomenons such as the "unpublished PJ Files", subject of the present post.
As a side issue, it also allows to determine a timeframe in which a certain document was put into the files, regardless of any other date mentioned in the document itself.
For example, imagine that page #333 is dated with a statement from Aug 15th, and page #334 has one from Jun 14th. The numbering makes it clear that the attaching sequence was that page #334 was attached on, or after, Aug 15th.
The reason for that 62 day interval, or even a bigger one depending on how able we're to determine when documents that follow it were attached, may be clearly and easily explainable, or not. But that is complete separate topic than the one we intend to discuss in this post.
Fact is that the numbering tells us that the Jun 14th document is attached after the Aug 15th one. The numbering makes the whole documentation be consistent and cohesive. There can be no chance for any of its parts to have its legitimacy questioned.
No page in a Portuguese Legal Process is pulled out of a process without justification. None is thrown away, so if, for some reason, it’s to be disregarded, it’s crossed out, so that the number of pages is consistent with the numbering. For the same reason, no pages are added in between existing ones, as per the Aug 15th/June 14th example above .
One thing we know about the PJ Files, and that is there are, in fact, many missing pages from it. Numbers that have been are skipped, meaning pages that ought to be there but aren't.
The reason for a page to be missing in a file, can be conjectured or justified, more or less clearly, but there’s one absolute certainty that if page #4 is the one that follows page #2, then one, and only one, page is missing, which is obviously page #3, and not a dozen, a hundred, or a thousand.
In this example, the numbering allows us to have ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY that ONE page, and ONLY ONE PAGE is MISSING, and that it was inserted AFTER page #2 and BEFORE page #3. There are no two ways about it. Anything else is pure invention.
It's common to hear say that not all of the PJ Files were published, to justify something that is not in the PJ Files, but may be there... we only don't know if it is or is not, because it may be in the unpublished PJ Files.
Confusing? Yes, and maybe that's the idea.
Unless someone corrects me, the documents that constitute the PJ Files that we have access to are numbered, from beginning to end, in a coherent and consistent manner, as they should be. There are some pages missing, as I’ve said, and I’ll speak about them later, but we’re before a unique, and almost complete, set of pages, which were methodically collated and joined together into what we know to be the PJ Files.
This to say, that there isn't any "big chunk" of the PJ Files, that could be considered as whole process by itself, the "unpublished PJ Files", that we didn't know not only its whereabouts, much less could we guess its approximate size...
Let's see what pages are indeed missing. Those whose numbers don't appear. There are various reasons why they were pulled before the documentation's release to the public. You can read here, a thorough and commendable work at Pamalam's:
- Category A, relate to people identified during the inquiry whose possible link to the events is extremely unlikely (the most tenuous) and whose right to privacy would be infringed if their personal information were left on file (basically the 'pervy percy' list).
- Category B, relate to crimestopper data with respect to sightings, the TV program having guaranteed anonymity.
- Category C , relate to information from people - often criminals or having a criminal history - that was volunteered by them and they should not be put at risk for having come forward.
Besides these there's also have a set pulled that aren’t in the files as they involve analysis:
1 - Anexo 17: Analysis of first round of witness statements, Time period 17:30 to 19:59 on 3 May 2007
2 - Anexo 19: Analysis of first round of witness statements, Time period 21:00 to 21:59 on 3 May 2007
3 - Anexo 30: Analysis of second round of witness statements, Time period 21:00 to 21:59 on 3 May 2007
4 - Anexo 37: Analysis of phone contacts of Tapas 9, Dates from 28 April to 1 May 2007 inclusive
5 - Anexo 55: Analysis of phone contacts of Tapas 9, Time period 22:00 to 22:59 on 4 May 2007
6 - Anexo 61: Analysis of events described by McCann parents, Date 3 May 2007
7 - Anexos 63 and 64: Analysis of creche registers, Dated 30 April (Anexo 63) and 1 May (Anexo 64)
These pages, in my opinion correctly pulled out, are not statements, but intermediate conclusions reached during the course of the investigation.
Then you have other non-secretive documentation that was also pulled off, such as Court papers, and personal photographs that the PJ, after analysis, determined not to be linked to the case in any way, and so were pulled out to preserve individual privacy. We consider that Dianne Webster's Tapas dinner photos are NOT among these pictures, as they're definitely linked, and relevant, to the case, if not for anything else, to prove who was sitting next to who, according to their made-up version, of course...
And that’s it. That's about all the papers that are missing from the process that we call the PJ Files.
If you add the above mentioned pages, to the public known documents, you’d have yourself a complete set of PJ Files. Everything else, is NOT PJ Files.
What about the first Carol Fenn-Tranmer (CFT) statement, you ask? That’s missing, isn’t it?
Please don’t confuse missing from left out. To be missing, is to have been in a certain place and not be there any longer. To be left out, is never to have been there.
CFT’s first statement was never a part of the PJ Files. So it is NOT missing, it was left out.
You also have a set of statements, for which you have a roster that the people were heard by the PJ and which statements don’t appear in the PJ Files:
Euan Crosby OC Beach Manager;
Nathan Daniel Francis Scarll [or Scarf] Waterfront Manager;
Robert Cook Driver/Maintenance;
Stephen Steve] Edward Carruthers Dual Qualified Instructor;
Claire Louise Bennet Dual Qualified Instructor;
Sebastian Bollen Godsmark Dual Qualified Instructor;
Clare Hicks Dual Qualified Instructor;
Lauren Hilder-Darling Dual Qualified Instructor;
Steven Jackson Dual Qualified Instructor;
Elizabeth Miles Ocean Club nanny;
Fraser Calum Nixon [or Nickson] Dual Qualified Instructor;
Mark Shult Ocean Club nanny;
Sarah Jane Tily Ocean Club nanny;
Benjamin Wilkins Dinghy Instructor;
Alice_Louise_Stanley Assistant Instructor;
Chris Unsworth Windsurf Instructor;
Robert Ragone OC Kids Chef;
Jackie McConnel OC nanny.
Most likely these people were heard, and their statements not deemed relevant, and probably not even put on paper, so there’s no physical registry of them. Very much like what happened with Mrs Fenn, on the night of the 3rd, possibly the day of the 4th.
And that is so unfortunate, as we now know how important the statements from some of these people would REALLY be. So many watersports instructors... and nannies...
Do read what their jobs were supposed to be, and how high they ranked they are in the OC's hierarchy, and do come up with what any of them could have said that would be so sensitive that couldn’t be published. You can't. There are no statements from them on the PJ Files, because there are no written statements from them. Not missing, simply non existent.
Then you have the statements, or "original statements" from a set of VERY interesting people, that are mentioned in the PJ Files but don’t appear in them:
Stephen Carpenter, original statement taken on 17th May 2007 by a UK Police Officer:
Rajinder Balu, rogatory statement refers to “original statements”
Neil Berry, rogatory statement refers to “original statements”
Carolyn Carpenter, rogatory interview not included in DVD.
Carole Tranmer, original interview and identikit not included in DVD (in the interview of Carole Tranmer on 22nd April 2008, as recorded on DVD, reference is made more than once to a statement given by her to Leics police on 8 May 2007, and to an identikit that was created with the assistance of a police officer from Reading)
These, I repeat, are NOT missing. They just aren’t there. I hope by now, that you understand why they aren’t there and who deliberately left them out.
And, we know of these because they were mentioned somewhere else. How many others were left out that we don't know? And will we ever know?
What matters is that they’re NOT, or ever were, part of the PJ Files. They’re not missing, they were left out. They're NOT something the "PJ knew"... they're something that were kept from PJ's knowledge!
So where are the unpublished PJ Files? Those secretive statements made that only a few know them?
There aren’t any. The missing pages, we know. The left out ones we don't, but these can't be said to be part of the investigation, can they?
There are, however, a series of other documents, and maybe even processes, directly related to the Maddie Affair. Remember Wikileaks, for example?
For example, I imagine that in the UK there are many different processes on this subject and in many different places.
My guess is that each major agency involved has one. In Portugal, there's probably not that many. The significant difference in numbers is due to the fact that this implicates much more the British, than it does the Portuguese.
But none of these documents/processes are the PJ Files, are they? They never were there, there were never pulled from there, so they’re not missing from there.
They are what I called in beginning of the post as those documents that I didn't know anything about, because I don't. Nothing or no one tells me how many there are, what they are, or where I can find them. Obviously I don't know what I most want to know, and that is why I don't know...
The fact they could exist, as they probably do (some of them, like the “original statements” we know they do), tells us lots.
If they’re directly related with evidence pertaining the Maddie Affair, and were not shared with the ONLY legitimate and adequate authority to handle this process, shows us clearly that there was a deliberate intent in sabotaging any chances for the PJ to have any sort of success.
And to mind come the FSS documents, credit cards information, Maddie’s medical information, among others.
If they’re directly related with the consequences and implications that would supposedly result from public knowledge of facts, then it would a fact that those facts have absolutely nothing to do with the eventual abduction of a little girl, as per the official version of things, so they're not part of the investigation.
Whatever may these documents contain, call them what you may, but don’t call them “unpublished PJ Files”.
You see, it’s important that this is very clear.
What has happened is that a myth has been created, a sort of bin where one can easily and immediately put in any uncomfortable answer one doesn’t want or is unable to provide, or from which one can easily and immediately conjecture something up. How many times have we read “that may be/is in the unpublished PJ Files”?
So to the question Anonymous puts: “Who says we know the whole Mrs. Fenn statement?”, the answer is simple: the PJ Files does.
Is there any reason whatsoever for Mrs Fenn to have a statement in a process external to the PJ Files? Or is there a reason for her, in part or entirely, statement to be intentionally left out? I see none, but if you do, as you know, we’re open to discuss it.
Now do go back and read the amount of conjecture that this Anonymous created just on the basis that Mrs Fenn may have had a statement in the “unpublished PJ Files”.
These “unpublished PJ Files” have often been used by many a BH’s as their way to explain the unexplainable and the unexplained, as well as the basis for planting clutter, which much is still taken as fact.
"Who says we know the whole Mrs. Fenn statement?She could have told more incidents to the police.It is possible that she informed the OC the folowing morning and the OC warned the McCanns. That could be the reason that Gerry replied her on the fatal night"a child has been abducted (or disappeared")and he did not say "my daughter disappeared" and Mrs Fenn thought it was odd. He probably had heard about Mrs. Fenn complaints.When the PJ asked Kate about the cry incident, Kate denied it "not true".Kate could have used it for the abduction explanation.
It is posssible that Mrs. Fenn left Portugal short after that night and that she came back in August.
Or it is possible that the OC told the police about her complaints.
It is also possible that there is another statement, telling more and we don't know it(rows, fights).
Within a very short time the police knew there was no abduction.No traces, no evidence."
Posted by Anonymous to Textusa at Jan 20, 2012 10:47:00 AM
This Anonymous’ comment seems to credit, and we're beyond innocence at this point in time, someone who, like so many others, acted in a very despicable manner, Mrs Fenn.
S/he implies that Mrs Fenn may have provided the PJ with some relevant information before late August, 2007.
I have said before, and maintain it, that Mrs Fenn was certainly heard in the hours that followed the PJ arrival at the scene, as a resident of the same building where the events supposedly were to have taken place; and I also said, and maintain, that the fact that there’s no written register of this statement it's because the information she had to provide at the time added little or nothing to the investigation.
At that moment Mrs Fenn was truthful, because she indeed saw and heard nothing, and was yet to be indoctrinated about the goings on, so, the investigators at that point in time ruled her as an irrelevant witness, which she indeed was.
But, says Anonymous, what if she did say something?
If she did, both herself and the PJ enquirers seem to have forgotten to make any mention of it in the sole statement that we can find, and read, in the PJ Files.
But, what if this is ANOTHER statement that is in the “unpublished PJ Files”?
It’s time to debunk yet another urban myth.
I would like today to speak about a piece of clutter that I see mentioned much too often: the infamous unpublished PJ Files.
There are two different types of documentation that are perceived to being part of these unpublished PJ files. I divide them into the following categories: those that I know of and those that I don’t know anything about.
Those that I know of are those that are missing from the files. I don’t know, for certain, and in some cases at all, what their content is, but I know they aren't there. How do I know they’re missing? By the page numbering system used.
This page numbering is of mandatory use in any Portuguese legal documentation that has more than a single page. The objective is to make it impossible any innuendo afterwards about any kind of page or pages that were supposed to exist, but can’t be found. Not to avoid, but to make it absolutely impossible the existence of phenomenons such as the "unpublished PJ Files", subject of the present post.
As a side issue, it also allows to determine a timeframe in which a certain document was put into the files, regardless of any other date mentioned in the document itself.
For example, imagine that page #333 is dated with a statement from Aug 15th, and page #334 has one from Jun 14th. The numbering makes it clear that the attaching sequence was that page #334 was attached on, or after, Aug 15th.
The reason for that 62 day interval, or even a bigger one depending on how able we're to determine when documents that follow it were attached, may be clearly and easily explainable, or not. But that is complete separate topic than the one we intend to discuss in this post.
Fact is that the numbering tells us that the Jun 14th document is attached after the Aug 15th one. The numbering makes the whole documentation be consistent and cohesive. There can be no chance for any of its parts to have its legitimacy questioned.
No page in a Portuguese Legal Process is pulled out of a process without justification. None is thrown away, so if, for some reason, it’s to be disregarded, it’s crossed out, so that the number of pages is consistent with the numbering. For the same reason, no pages are added in between existing ones, as per the Aug 15th/June 14th example above .
One thing we know about the PJ Files, and that is there are, in fact, many missing pages from it. Numbers that have been are skipped, meaning pages that ought to be there but aren't.
The reason for a page to be missing in a file, can be conjectured or justified, more or less clearly, but there’s one absolute certainty that if page #4 is the one that follows page #2, then one, and only one, page is missing, which is obviously page #3, and not a dozen, a hundred, or a thousand.
In this example, the numbering allows us to have ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY that ONE page, and ONLY ONE PAGE is MISSING, and that it was inserted AFTER page #2 and BEFORE page #3. There are no two ways about it. Anything else is pure invention.
It's common to hear say that not all of the PJ Files were published, to justify something that is not in the PJ Files, but may be there... we only don't know if it is or is not, because it may be in the unpublished PJ Files.
Confusing? Yes, and maybe that's the idea.
Unless someone corrects me, the documents that constitute the PJ Files that we have access to are numbered, from beginning to end, in a coherent and consistent manner, as they should be. There are some pages missing, as I’ve said, and I’ll speak about them later, but we’re before a unique, and almost complete, set of pages, which were methodically collated and joined together into what we know to be the PJ Files.
This to say, that there isn't any "big chunk" of the PJ Files, that could be considered as whole process by itself, the "unpublished PJ Files", that we didn't know not only its whereabouts, much less could we guess its approximate size...
Let's see what pages are indeed missing. Those whose numbers don't appear. There are various reasons why they were pulled before the documentation's release to the public. You can read here, a thorough and commendable work at Pamalam's:
- Category A, relate to people identified during the inquiry whose possible link to the events is extremely unlikely (the most tenuous) and whose right to privacy would be infringed if their personal information were left on file (basically the 'pervy percy' list).
- Category B, relate to crimestopper data with respect to sightings, the TV program having guaranteed anonymity.
- Category C , relate to information from people - often criminals or having a criminal history - that was volunteered by them and they should not be put at risk for having come forward.
Besides these there's also have a set pulled that aren’t in the files as they involve analysis:
1 - Anexo 17: Analysis of first round of witness statements, Time period 17:30 to 19:59 on 3 May 2007
2 - Anexo 19: Analysis of first round of witness statements, Time period 21:00 to 21:59 on 3 May 2007
3 - Anexo 30: Analysis of second round of witness statements, Time period 21:00 to 21:59 on 3 May 2007
4 - Anexo 37: Analysis of phone contacts of Tapas 9, Dates from 28 April to 1 May 2007 inclusive
5 - Anexo 55: Analysis of phone contacts of Tapas 9, Time period 22:00 to 22:59 on 4 May 2007
6 - Anexo 61: Analysis of events described by McCann parents, Date 3 May 2007
7 - Anexos 63 and 64: Analysis of creche registers, Dated 30 April (Anexo 63) and 1 May (Anexo 64)
These pages, in my opinion correctly pulled out, are not statements, but intermediate conclusions reached during the course of the investigation.
Then you have other non-secretive documentation that was also pulled off, such as Court papers, and personal photographs that the PJ, after analysis, determined not to be linked to the case in any way, and so were pulled out to preserve individual privacy. We consider that Dianne Webster's Tapas dinner photos are NOT among these pictures, as they're definitely linked, and relevant, to the case, if not for anything else, to prove who was sitting next to who, according to their made-up version, of course...
And that’s it. That's about all the papers that are missing from the process that we call the PJ Files.
If you add the above mentioned pages, to the public known documents, you’d have yourself a complete set of PJ Files. Everything else, is NOT PJ Files.
What about the first Carol Fenn-Tranmer (CFT) statement, you ask? That’s missing, isn’t it?
Please don’t confuse missing from left out. To be missing, is to have been in a certain place and not be there any longer. To be left out, is never to have been there.
CFT’s first statement was never a part of the PJ Files. So it is NOT missing, it was left out.
You also have a set of statements, for which you have a roster that the people were heard by the PJ and which statements don’t appear in the PJ Files:
Euan Crosby OC Beach Manager;
Nathan Daniel Francis Scarll [or Scarf] Waterfront Manager;
Robert Cook Driver/Maintenance;
Stephen Steve] Edward Carruthers Dual Qualified Instructor;
Claire Louise Bennet Dual Qualified Instructor;
Sebastian Bollen Godsmark Dual Qualified Instructor;
Clare Hicks Dual Qualified Instructor;
Lauren Hilder-Darling Dual Qualified Instructor;
Steven Jackson Dual Qualified Instructor;
Elizabeth Miles Ocean Club nanny;
Fraser Calum Nixon [or Nickson] Dual Qualified Instructor;
Mark Shult Ocean Club nanny;
Sarah Jane Tily Ocean Club nanny;
Benjamin Wilkins Dinghy Instructor;
Alice_Louise_Stanley Assistant Instructor;
Chris Unsworth Windsurf Instructor;
Robert Ragone OC Kids Chef;
Jackie McConnel OC nanny.
Most likely these people were heard, and their statements not deemed relevant, and probably not even put on paper, so there’s no physical registry of them. Very much like what happened with Mrs Fenn, on the night of the 3rd, possibly the day of the 4th.
And that is so unfortunate, as we now know how important the statements from some of these people would REALLY be. So many watersports instructors... and nannies...
Do read what their jobs were supposed to be, and how high they ranked they are in the OC's hierarchy, and do come up with what any of them could have said that would be so sensitive that couldn’t be published. You can't. There are no statements from them on the PJ Files, because there are no written statements from them. Not missing, simply non existent.
Then you have the statements, or "original statements" from a set of VERY interesting people, that are mentioned in the PJ Files but don’t appear in them:
Stephen Carpenter, original statement taken on 17th May 2007 by a UK Police Officer:
Rajinder Balu, rogatory statement refers to “original statements”
Neil Berry, rogatory statement refers to “original statements”
Carolyn Carpenter, rogatory interview not included in DVD.
Carole Tranmer, original interview and identikit not included in DVD (in the interview of Carole Tranmer on 22nd April 2008, as recorded on DVD, reference is made more than once to a statement given by her to Leics police on 8 May 2007, and to an identikit that was created with the assistance of a police officer from Reading)
These, I repeat, are NOT missing. They just aren’t there. I hope by now, that you understand why they aren’t there and who deliberately left them out.
And, we know of these because they were mentioned somewhere else. How many others were left out that we don't know? And will we ever know?
What matters is that they’re NOT, or ever were, part of the PJ Files. They’re not missing, they were left out. They're NOT something the "PJ knew"... they're something that were kept from PJ's knowledge!
So where are the unpublished PJ Files? Those secretive statements made that only a few know them?
There aren’t any. The missing pages, we know. The left out ones we don't, but these can't be said to be part of the investigation, can they?
There are, however, a series of other documents, and maybe even processes, directly related to the Maddie Affair. Remember Wikileaks, for example?
For example, I imagine that in the UK there are many different processes on this subject and in many different places.
My guess is that each major agency involved has one. In Portugal, there's probably not that many. The significant difference in numbers is due to the fact that this implicates much more the British, than it does the Portuguese.
But none of these documents/processes are the PJ Files, are they? They never were there, there were never pulled from there, so they’re not missing from there.
They are what I called in beginning of the post as those documents that I didn't know anything about, because I don't. Nothing or no one tells me how many there are, what they are, or where I can find them. Obviously I don't know what I most want to know, and that is why I don't know...
The fact they could exist, as they probably do (some of them, like the “original statements” we know they do), tells us lots.
If they’re directly related with evidence pertaining the Maddie Affair, and were not shared with the ONLY legitimate and adequate authority to handle this process, shows us clearly that there was a deliberate intent in sabotaging any chances for the PJ to have any sort of success.
And to mind come the FSS documents, credit cards information, Maddie’s medical information, among others.
If they’re directly related with the consequences and implications that would supposedly result from public knowledge of facts, then it would a fact that those facts have absolutely nothing to do with the eventual abduction of a little girl, as per the official version of things, so they're not part of the investigation.
Whatever may these documents contain, call them what you may, but don’t call them “unpublished PJ Files”.
You see, it’s important that this is very clear.
What has happened is that a myth has been created, a sort of bin where one can easily and immediately put in any uncomfortable answer one doesn’t want or is unable to provide, or from which one can easily and immediately conjecture something up. How many times have we read “that may be/is in the unpublished PJ Files”?
So to the question Anonymous puts: “Who says we know the whole Mrs. Fenn statement?”, the answer is simple: the PJ Files does.
Is there any reason whatsoever for Mrs Fenn to have a statement in a process external to the PJ Files? Or is there a reason for her, in part or entirely, statement to be intentionally left out? I see none, but if you do, as you know, we’re open to discuss it.
Now do go back and read the amount of conjecture that this Anonymous created just on the basis that Mrs Fenn may have had a statement in the “unpublished PJ Files”.
These “unpublished PJ Files” have often been used by many a BH’s as their way to explain the unexplainable and the unexplained, as well as the basis for planting clutter, which much is still taken as fact.
Great post Textusa. The BHs seem to have swallow a "cassette" that prevent them to see further.
ReplyDeleteI will be not surprised if a true and deep investigation in the future shows us where really went the money grabbed under "Madeleine search" flag. I have a suspicion that some of the BHs who spend time in the Internet defending the indefensible could only be there because their time was not free and wasted in vain. They must be payed by the infamous Fund. A little amount of money to help them balance their monthly economy is enough to corrupt brains and be used as a temptation.
It is impossible to explain some blindness under a normal circumstance. Even a poor QI has some limits. Some of the BHs overpassed the limits of being an idiot quite far and for quite long.
I also, have been an idiot on the first weeks after May 3, because at certain point I believed the abduction story even after reading on the papers there was no "break in" in the flat. I became overprotective of my child's and suspecting all the strangers that I crossed on the streets. Was quite paranoid and affecting the life quality of my children, who lost some freedom. The Mccann's should be charged also with all the disturbance their stories created on normal and careful families. Something the Lev Enq forgot. Because of the Mccann's many families and children were affected and were victims of the Mccann's and had to suffer in silence without any support. And because of that, I start reading everything regarding that story and I change my mind. You cannot go against the evidences. if there is no evidences to support an abduction is because the abduction was an invention. To protect who, it is quite obvious. Why they need such protection? That is the point. Is that question mark that makes me believing there is money running on the hands of some people who posted what they post in some blogs/ forums, etc.
I wish I could be wrong, in the memory of the poor girl.
I can see your point Tex, but I would have thought that all information the pj held should have been kept private until this case reaches court.
ReplyDeleteEspecially as Portugal has secrecy laws whereby cases cannot be discussed by suspects, Gerry used this law to his advantage many times.
The mccanns want to know all the information the pj holds so obviously there are certain things they want to attempt to build a case against, eg the stain, cadaver etc.
I feel Amaral was treated appallingly he should have been given support he suspected the mccanns involvement and his theories should have been followed up.
All the publicity surrounding this case I feel will give strength to the Mccanns because they will say that a jury is unfit because there is too much speculation about what happened to Madeleine and this could influence a jury. Unless of course someone comes forward to confess, but I think that is highly unlikely now.
The Mccanns appear to have silenced everyone, even the catholic father from the church who said he had been deceived kept silent, didn't the Lord say 'suffer little children to come unto me' why did this Father not speak up.
Never before has anything like this been allowed to happen, once the Mccanns lies became apparent the pj should have taken a tougher stance and not given them the opportunity to 'go worldwide' and create a fund.
"..because at certain point I believed the abduction story even after reading on the papers... I became overprotective of my child's and suspecting all the strangers that I crossed on the streets.." by Jan 23, 2012 8:16:00 AM
ReplyDeleteThis was missing from kate's behaviour as she still took her children to the creche after the event. They have made so many efforts to point actions into opposite directions.
Also if this was a swingers community (a lifestyle for the politicians, lawyers, doctors hence the network of decisions and influence); they may not have reckoned with Madeleine's restlessness, did she walk in on a liaison? She may not have slept in the same apartment as the other children? Why no sign Madeleine had been in 5A only the blood & cadaver? Where did she live in that week?
Textusa, please publish under this new post of yours the comment I made to the previous post "What If?", and that I'm now resubmitting:
ReplyDelete"Anon Jan 23, 2012 7:12:00 AM, Fenn's statement is crucial for the BHs.
More than confirm the neglect, it's in its credibility that resides the whole independence of the "independent" witnesses.
To descredit her statement as Textusa and her team have so well done MEANS that ALL other statements ARE questionable. This elderly lady had no other reason to lie, except if she was told/asked to do so. Descrediting her, is proving that this telling/asking happened. Proved the action, there has to be an author... and so on.
This is why, no matter how much you say that Fenn's statement is phony, the BHs have no other option but to ask question after question as if Fenn's words are credible.
It's not shamelessness, nor ignorance. It's because they have no other option.
Unfortunately for the BHs, what a read around the net, Mrs Fenn is no longer taken very seriously. We have Textusa to thank for this. I remember when she first questioned Fenn how hard she was ridiculed by BOTH WH and BH alike."
Jan 23, 2012 8:48:00 AM
ReplyDeleteYou present a very legitimate question:
" but I would have thought that all information the pj held should have been kept private until this case reaches court."
This applies until a decision on the process has been taken, after that the secrecy laws no longer apply. Pieces of the processes are pulled out to safeguard the privacy of some and the motivation of those that came foward as the post expolains.
What you must understand is who takes this decision. This is not done by the police, in this instance the PJ, but a magistrate. So the PJ have to present the total documentation to whoever has to decide. Including those parts that are later to be pulled out.
Nothing can be left out, otherwise it nullifies the process.
refer Jan 23, 2012 9:51:00 AM comments and the questions in the post above that it will mean if the crying, as is everything else by McCanns, is an invented story to serve their purposes, mrs Fenn had to make sure we know that the crying points to 5A
ReplyDeleteThe sequencing is what kills any theory that tries to imply that the PJ hold parts of the files with them. I give you just an example, the PJ hears someone. That person has to sign the paper. At that moment, if the PJ were to hold on to documents, the person had to devide whether to number it or not. If a number was put, then it would go to the files, if it wasn't it wouldn't. But if it wouldn't, then the next document inserted in the files, invalidates ever the unnumbered document to be part of the files. The inspector had to take everytime he heard a witness, is this for the file or not? Absolutely ridiculous even to think that ever happened. The pages just kep being numbered and filed in sequence. It's the most logical of scenarios, and I'm not seeing any other. Some may say that an inspector would be ordered to hear a witness but not to put the document into the file. If this happened, then the PJ would be aware that dodgy games were going and they were cooperating with it, and that doesn't seem to be what happened. I agree that there are no unpublished files. But I also agree that there are lot of left out documentation going around...
ReplyDeleteTextusa, where do you think LeeRainbow's report might be held? GA did quote from it in his trial.
ReplyDeleteI'm Anon 3:33. Info about Lee Rainbow's report:
ReplyDeleteMail online Vanessa Allen 11.2.10.
British Police said McCanns should be investigated after Madeleine went missing.
Criminal profiler LR 37, of the National Policing Improvement Agency.
Report sent to Portugal in June 2007
Recommended that police on the Algarve investigate the doctor and his wife because of contradictions in his statement.
Martin Fricker Mirror online same date.
Similar story about how NPIA wrote a confidential report giving advice to Algarve police Chiefs.
Advice was to include the Mcs in their enquiry and take new forensics at their apartment.
I have HARD COPIES of both articles and the fact this was brought up in the libel trial by GAs lawyer.
An NPIA spokesman later described the advice given as generic advice to consider the possibilty of family and close friends.
Anon Jan 23, 2012 3:33:00 PM & Jan 23, 2012 4:35:00 PM
ReplyDeleteIf the Lee Rainbow report (LRr) doesn’t appear in the PJ Files, then as I said, it’s not PJ Files.
The fact that GA quoted from it, doesn’t make it PJ Files. It only means he has a copy of it.
On trial, if I remember, was the book being or not sold, and not it’s content, which GA’s team did force into the trial, making the McCanns wiggle with unease, and proclaiming that there were many sightings not investigated in the PJ Files (we’re still waiting for an example) and that they, the parents, were willing to re-open the process (we’re still waiting for that).
So GA was, and is, free to quote from whatever documentation he feels adequate and that best fits his defense strategy.
Now, should the report be in the Files, as, as you say, it was sent in June 2007?
I can only give you my opinion, and that is that it shouldn’t.
The report, doesn’t provide any evidence, as it only advices on the inconsistencies of the parent’s statements. Well, the first person to detect the inconsistencies should be GA, shouldn’t he? The statements were right in front of him, so did he need advice on what he should be able to read for himself? I don’t think so. It’s like receiving a recommendation on how one should do one’s work.
I’m assuming that this report wasn’t requested, as I don’t see any reference to that effect, nor do I see likely a request of profiling the parents at this stage of events. However, I can be wrong, as I’m purely speculating.
But should it be discarded? No. Why? Because it came from where it came and came when it came. Put yourself in GA’s shoes for a minute, then and there. The PJ were pressured, and I mean pressured, to explore every possible avenue that supported the abduction thesis. Imagine that it was indeed abduction, and it would later be realized that the PJ wasted a single second on any other possibility. It would be a public disgrace to the PJ and GA only comparable with what those in PDL had to face back in Britain if the truth was to be known.
In June, I would say that it was when the tide started to turn definitely against the McCanns within the PJ, and they feel the pressure and start to understand they’re being undermined by the British. He receives a report, from Britain, advising him to reread the parents’ statements for inconsistencies.
I have GA for a very intelligent person, but it doesn’t take a too bright of a person to realize two things immediately. The first and most obvious is how on earth do the NPIA know of the parents’ statements? The second, if the NPIA knows this and advices on the inconsistencies, then bigger players are on board than those that apparently seem to be.
So if I was in his place, this report is relevant not as evidence for the ongoing investigation as to Maddie’s whereabouts, but relevant for future use in terms of having someone, from Britain, confirming, in that particular period of time, that it was unanimous to both Countries’s authorities that there were inconsistencies.
You may not agree with me. You may think that it should have been an integral part of the PJ Files. If that is the case, I respect your opinion, as I hope that you’ll respect mine when I say that then, it would make it a “left out” document and not a “missing” one, which means, not an unpublished PJ File document.
Where is that report today? I don’t know. I imagine GA has a copy. The original probably is somewhere in Britain, together with other documentation.
Thank you for such a pertinent and challenging comment, and I hope I met your expectations. If you consider my answer incomplete, please feel free, as I sincerely hope you feel, to discuss it further.
Perhaps with the forth coming libel trial Amaral will get this case re-opened.
ReplyDeleteWhat is BH?
ReplyDeleteTextusa, have you gotten any idea if an ex-ambassador and an ex- consul are obliged to colaborate with the police, in case of a suspicious death, or can they refuse it? Every witness is obliged to answer questions.
ReplyDeleteAnon, Jan 23, 2012 10:17:00 PM
ReplyDeleteBH, is the acronym for Black Hat.
It was made up by Ironside, in the Metodo 2 times, alluding to the good old westerns, where the good guys wore always a white hat, and the bad guys, black.
Anyone can reopen a process, at any time. But he will be responsible for the expenses of the other part, if he loses.
ReplyDeleteAmaal will not do it.
The best would be the Met or a public prosecuter in Portugal.
Very! I can understand why it's not in the files. It wasn't evidence, just good advice. Thank you.
ReplyDeleteAnon 3:33
Anon Jan 24, 2012 12:21:00 AM
ReplyDeleteDiplomatic personnel are not subject to the laws of the Country in which they reside. Once inside the Embassies or other diplomatic facilities they are in their Nation's territory. For obvious reasons, they're entitled to various immunities. That's the reason why, for example, they drive in vehicles clearly identified as diplomatic by the licence plates.
Anon Jan 23, 2012 9:51:00 AM, you’re absolutely right.
ReplyDeleteAfter having written (Jan 23, 2012 6:17:00 AM ) on what I thought were very clear terms, the following reply to 2 comments in the “What if?” post:
“I cannot be clearer than saying that Mrs Fenn heard or said nothing. Mts Fenn did not hear Maddie cry the night she said she did, or in any other night, for that matter.
I’m not pleading for you to understand, just repeating myself in a last attempt to make myself clear.
If you wish to discuss this issue, please take it somewhere else. There are many sites where all the BHs clutter and “fictional” fact are discussed, Do go there.”
And also on this post:
“At that moment Mrs Fenn was truthful, because she indeed saw and heard nothing, and was yet to be indoctrinated about the goings on, so, the investigators at that point in time ruled her as an irrelevant witness, which she indeed was.”
And after saying all this, this is a comment we received:
Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Debunking Urban Myths: The Unpublished PJ Files":
Why shouldn't we believe in the cry incident? A lonesome child that was feeling let down.
And it is strange that none of the twins woke up during 75 minutes of noise.
The process against Tony Bennett(see McCann Files) is delayed to late April, maybe later.
And according to Kate's book Carter Ruck does not charge the McCanns for their work.
Why such a delay? Waiting for the Met conclusions? In their place, I would hurry up.
I think they fear the Met will accept the truth very soon, arrest the couple and they will have to pay Bennett a lot of money.
If England proves that the fund is fraudulent, possibly the McCanns will have to pay it back. No new clothes for Kate.
Posted by Anonymous to Textusa at Jan 24, 2012 7:09:00 AM
Note the “lonesome”, on the comment’s first part, to emphasize neglect.
Note also the apparent “whiteness” of the comment’s second part. Notice though it’s not as “white” as it seems. It does attack blatantly the McCanns, doesn’t it?
Now do the math. Add up the neglect of the first part, with the attack on the couple of the second, and what do you get? That the McCanns were the only bad guys while the rest were all innocently just watching boats sailing by…
You have to grant these people patience, tenacity and imagination in trying to introduce the same message in such a hostile environment for their thesis as our blog is.
BHs, as I say in the post, we’re beyond innocence at this point, so from now on any “Fenn whitewashing“ comment will either be censored or not be published at all.
One coincidence - Raj Balu, in Profile L - two coincidences – Raj Balu, in compare and contrast - maybe they’re still coincidences. Any more than that and it stops being coincidence: Raj Balu in this post.
ReplyDeleteThe way I see what happened is that someone, not the McCanns, killed Maddie. You say accidentally, I tend to agree. You say it was DP, I won’t agree because the only indication there is the discrepancy between his statement and Kate’s. If it wasn’t DP, it was someone else. I’ll call him Mr X. If Mr X killed Maddie then both the parents and anyone else that helped cover-up the death crime/accident is equally as guilty. They share the exact same blame. I’m not defending the parents because morally they should have honored their daughter and are far much more disgusting than the others, but criminally the whole bunch of people that were in PDL and participated in the cover-up should be equally accountable, from parent to nanny. There’s the question of the fund. Here who should be blamed? Those that set it up and keep putting their money or those that have used it? I don’t think there will ever be the right justice for what happened but I think that in each individual is a prisoner to his own conscience. Nobody can remain indifferent after participating in such a hoax. Those who were there look at each other and know.
ReplyDeleteWas an accident!
ReplyDeleteThey are not hiding the accident in fact they are forced to cover the entire event. the EVENT!
They were forced to hide the accident because the hypocritical english society cannot face the multiple mating habits of their fellow citizens in Praia da Luz knowing those responsible for it brought children into an exclusively adult environment. Modernity has a price and no one want to look at other's ass and wonder where do I know that face from?
Lots of evidence were lost during this time. There is, however, an interesting research that could help: how many names from Ocean guess list and nearby may be found in the Madeleine Fund contributors list?
A.
guests, workers and some members of the foreigner local community were forced to cover up because behind the accidental death there was a "swing holiday type" that was hapenning consistently in the OC ( not only in PDL but also in another places), involving with some consistency the same guests. Even if the guests arrived separetly and without knowing each other, after the first day they were all well introduced by the resort, to each other. The Tennis lessons, the creche and many other activities were proposed with objective of letting the guests to meet other guests in a friendly environment( they all shared the same
ReplyDeleteinterests and the same hobbies). What else can we conclude when we see Tennis lessons booked in group with Gerry sharing the lessons with some ladies?
Another question is why the resorts related with the OC are always located in isolated places and quite villages? See the comments of people in the tripadvisor...
...."Carter-Ruck and the McCanns probably had to read every single one of my 3,700-odd posts on Jill's forum before deciding which 50 or so, in their terms, breached my undertaking (the other 3,650 or so presumably were not breaches of my undertaking) and they had to presumably read every single one of our articles on our website before deciding which 10 out of the 60 breached my undertaking). It looks like the McCanns think I crossed some 'line' in 50 postings here, but not the other 3,650. I have to say it is very hard to know where the line should be drawn.
ReplyDeleteCarter-Ruck have written three letters to me before August 2011 and they and the McCanns would have had to read and deal with my replies.
Then there are the hours every day they spend on this forum hunting for possibly libels - Jill has all the daily records from Peter carter-Ruck's I.P. address.
The question has certainly been asked before: exactly who is paying for all this?
According to Dr Kate McCann on page 289 of her book 'madeleine', all the work of Adam Tudor and Isabel Hudosn is being given 'without payment'. Until they decided to bring contempt proceedings against me, it seems." Tony B replying to a comment on Jill H forum.
The McCann's and their team are really insulting every other citizen in the world. The way they pretend to be exceptions is a shame or a crime. Credible journalists on the pass published the huge costs of their lawyers per hour. Because those costs can only be payed trough their millionaire Fund, since before Maddie they were just an ordinary couple living from their salary like most of us, they need an excuse to avoid connecting the Fund with the expenses spent with their lawyers and cleaning up machine. The excuse, is the lawyers working for free or a millionaire baking their new lifestyle. Who believes that? Why they insist in fooling the public and why there is a blackout in UK media regarding that scandal?
If Carter ruck works for free for the Mccann's, very serious questions should be raised starting with most simple ones: why? What made the Mccann's exceptions? If I was one of the Carter Ruck clients I will ask the same type of services and if I had payed a penny to them, I will claim it. The access to justice must be equal for everybody if we live in democracy.
It is also ultrageous to see that Mr. T B has not the same rights as the Mccann's, in court for his defense. How can the Uk citizens allow that and don't go to the streets to denounce such discrimination? The media could be gagged but we as individuals, we are not. Blogs and Foruns could have a major play to invert the situation and inform the public about that enormous insult, the Mccann's are doing to all honest public in the world.
Kate, even admitted they were trying to gagg all the blogs but they had no success with blogs/ forums hosted in USA. What is that? The beginning of a new Hitler kingdom? They can do and say whatever they want and we are not free to express our opinion, our disbelieve on the crap stories they so hardly tried to pass as facts, despite all lake of evidences? Why should we be prevented to express our indignity if some of us payed the investigation of a crime they created, trough our taxes? I don't want less or more rights the Mccann's have. I want the same rights for everybody without any type of discrimination, since they share with us the same world, the same politics, the same laws and the same responsibilities.
Anon 11;25 brilliant post. I also cannot understand why our media is so quiet regarding the fund, its the type of story that would sell newspapers, there must be superinjunctions in place, but why has this been allowed to continue for so long.
ReplyDeleteCameron put aside 3.5 million of tax payers money for the review, what a scandal it all is.
I also found it strange that only Kate wrote the book, it was not a joint effort, every interview they do they 'hold hands' yet only she put her name to the book why?
There is a lot that has gone on that maybe we will never know, but the fund should be investigated it is a worldwide scandal how they have been able to use that money not on searching but funding their life style.
If the met put pressure on the Tapas group they would find out what happened that night.
Kate and Gerry and their big PR machine built on lies and deceit, and yes of course they pay Carter Ruck, they would not be working for free all these years and to state otherwise is an insult to peoples intellegence.
I suspect money goes through the fund to off shore accounts that nobody can touch, money laundering, all those involved are crooks along with the Mccanns they are the biggest crooks and the Met sits back and does nothing...why?
TB has nothing to fear, in my opinion. The McCanss are not exactly popular in this Country. The book flop and the silence that have been subject to lately, shows just that. They can't afford to discuss facts, and long gone are the days that they could stand outside a Court's stairs boasting they "sucked" money out fo someone... They can't afford the bad publicity that would mean, on an already huge National embarassment.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.mccannfiles.com/id232.html
ReplyDelete"Rumours", another excellent article by Dr. Martin Roberts.
IMO, TB is as good-hearted as he’s naïve. He’s staunch supporter of the negligence version, and maybe because of this he has demonstrated some hostility towards Textusa. He chose to use his name and show his face. If it’s was choice made by courage, ambition or foolishness, is debatable, but I think that we all agree that he acts out of good-will. He does what we expected from Maddie’s parents and that is commitment and dedication to what he states to be his beliefs. He believes that the parents were neglectful, and sets out to prove it, using all his available means at his disposal. The parents who say believe that Maddie was abducted and may still be alive should do the same, and we all know that they don’t.
ReplyDeleteThe McCs, through CR, chose TB in the UK and GA in Portugal as the enemies they should fight. The TB choice is based, IMO, on two factors. One is that TB has become, by his activeness, the most visible Maddie defender in the Country, and because they know him to be wrong, again IMO.
They forgot that to prove TB wrong, they can only do so with the truth, and they can’t use it because it would hit them harder than the falseness of TB’s accusation.
Libel is a big weapon that the UK’s wealthy have at their disposal, and which those that aren’t so fortunate cannot risk challenging. That’s the basis of CR technique. To threaten, and because the threat is real, most of the results (I would even say all results, as many have said before, we haven’t ever seen a victory from this firm inside a Court, but always outside one and always before any proceeding) are obtained by the opponent folding. Not because the opponent feels that he’s not within reason, but because the risk of proving it is simply not affordable. And by the looks of what UK’s Court biased decisions have been on anything involving Maddie, loosing wouldn’t be a risk but a certainty.
With TB, they expected him to back down and he didn’t. CR doesn’t really want to fight him in the open they want to wear him down. If, and I repeat if, TB was ever to really go to a Court, it would have to be in some sort of closed session. Shambolic but what is Maddie’s case in UK but that? What CR is going to do is to use the gigantic costs involved in such Court proceedings to force TB to back down, and will most likely succeed. Pitiful Country where it’s legal to bully like CR is doing to TB.
To TB, as I’ve shown we do not share convictions, but my heart goes out to you, and wish you the best of luck and let’s hope that it’s true when they say the good always win, because I really think that you’re a good heart and you’ve shown a courage that many should envy.
After seeing the shambolic and manipulated Lev Enq, nothing surprises me. The Lev Enq was supposed to investigate the behavior of the media regarding real victims of the papers business and quickly was transformed in a Mccann whitewash with their case filling sessions after sessions, when they were probably and the "solo hypothetical victims" who deliberatly called the media and fomented the behavior. A shame that didn't dignifies the British justice.
ReplyDeleteI hope TB let his courage to go further and refuse any agreement with Mccann's out of courtroom. Some voices said CRuck is rubbish if they had to face judges and real arguments. They are good with letters and threatnings. exactly like in the Inquisition time, when people were persecuted and scared.
The Mccann's and special Kate, have no arguments to defend their theories and they don't even realized how some of their theories are auto-contradicting. just one of many examples is the statement of Mrs. Fenn ( the famous crying that never happen) . Kate recovered it because it was very convennient to bake the negligence scenary and the abduction. Did she realize that the same statement kills another scenary they strongly wanted us to believe? - the checking time setled by the group with some of them regularly out, checking the kids? What a bunch of idiots and the judges from the Lev Enqu. who allow that bunch to shine by giving them extra attention and transforming them in the center of all the victims, deserve an adjective that my pollite maner didn't let me to say it here. They are insulting us, every time their names appear on papers.
Mccann Vs Amaral and Mccann Vs TB rescheduled for almost the same time-April. Again a strange coincidence or one case to distract the other?
ReplyDeleteAnonymous 12,04 -
ReplyDeleteThat was so beautiful.
He is of good heart and I am hoping against hope that this man, of small physical stature and yet great effort and tenacity can withstand the onslaught and turn the tables.
There must be some philanthropists out there willing to help a good cause.
Maybe the Mccanns changed the Feb dates to April because they are not as confident as they pretend.
ReplyDeleteIf they were 100% confident of winning they would have nothing to fear and would want the court case to take place as soon as possible, especially with such top lawyers such as Carter Ruck.
So by delaying the court case it gives them more time and it will silence Amaral and TB a little longer, or until after court case both men will be wary of what they say, it also gives a warning to others definite bullying tactics.
If SY are doing their job properly they should be observing both court cases and the media should be able to report freely on both cases.
The Mccanns do not want this they just want to silence people albeit temporarily.
TB and Amaral should call their bluff, its a big news story so should be covered by SKY and other news agencies.
The fund is paying for these litigation cases, support for Mccanns has waned, they do not have any backers financially supporting them not after 5 years, we are in a recession nobody has that sort of money to throw away and why would they.
The more I read about the Mccanns I can see what a truly evil scheming pair they are, they have over stepped the mark this time with their litigation cases attempting to strip individuals of their savings so they can add more money to their fraudulent fund.
http://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t4103-smethurst-latest-the-mccanns-main-lawyer-edward-smethurst-palladium-associates-and-a-failed-4-week-long-blackmail-trial
ReplyDeleteJust an appetizer to see the type and the methods used by people hired/ surrounding/ working for the Mccann's.
try again
ReplyDeleteDear textusa et deux,
For those that want to dig a little deeper into Tony Bennet and his 'self-appointed' role in the UK as the McCann 'Inquisitor Generalis' - if folks are seriously interested in this case, folks need to read TTW4's allegations about Bennet's case being a 'straw man' - Bennet a dupe, a foil for Carter-Ruck, and you need to read about another man's experiences (myself) with Tony Bennet and the truth- squashing 'moderators' at the official Madeleine Foundation website.
You will find Mr Bennet's reply to TTW4's suspicions, and his defence is lame, I'm afraid to say.
Read this thread and make your own minds up.
http://forum.davidicke.com/showthread.php?t=171088
Textusa (trois), whether you publish this or not, I would be interested in your three's 'take' on how 'badly' or 'well' Mr Bennet has played his poker hand. I play poker, and this guy is a dummy, tells all over the place, and he folded far too early and far too easily to Kirwan, representing the McCann's.
Why? Why did he cave in so easily? Doesn't sound too clever or smart, does it? Can You see Mr Amaral agreeing to such punitive terms?
I don't think so!!!
He (Bennet, the MF) basically 'caved in' to ludicrous demands from Kirwan Solicitors some while ago, promised that he would NOT breach the court order, then he continued to breach the court order!!! In other words he would not shut up! His own fault for agreeing to the draconian terms in the first place!
Now, he will CLEARLY lose the case in April - Maddie will not even be mentioned in the case, because the case is specifically about the failure of Mr Bennet to keep his promise to the court.
Yes, it is THAT simple, and we have just seen the Freemasonic Establishment find child abuse victim Hollie Greig's Solicitor, Robert Green, GUILTY - in Scotland, two days ago. It is a disgrace and a scandal, (not a WORD on the BBC) but if you read the case transcription, Mr Green was not adequately even able to outline his case in full about Hollie's abuse.
The same thing will happen to Mr Bennet - he will be totally forbidden by the judge to even mention Maddie, let alone go into all the various theories - so he has messed up spectacularly, and, like Mr Green, he will be steamrollered by the Establishment.
Bennet will LOSE, it is that simple, he breached a contract with the court THAT HE SHOULD NEVER HAVE AGREED TO IN THE FIRST PLACE!
Thus this guy has let the whole 'Anti-McCann' blog movement down, IMHO.
He had NO RIGHT to take it upon himself to be some sort of 'spokesman' (a rather useless one at that, he has a long long history in the UK of serial failures, metrication, Veritas, Lubbock, being a Solicitor etc etc etc) - so now we are left with a situation where the McCanns will get an EASY VICTORY in April, and the BBC/CNN/SKY/ABC/CBS/FOX/Murdoch Inc. etc etc etc will be ALL OVER IT.
Thanks Tony, for nothing.
Read the thread above, TTW4 goes into great detail, and Mr Bennet arrogantly dismisses him as if he were squashing a fly.
Hubris.
My prayers for Maddie, for God's sake we need better people than this!!!
I have great faith in Mr Amaral, HE is the true leader, and Bennet IMHO is a self-serving leech. I think he is a 'usefull idiot' (maybe...), but the HARM he has done in all the causes he has been involved with - let's just say they all turn out to be epic failures. Read the TTW4 statement on Bennet witting or unwitting complicity.
My best to you 3 sisters, Advocatus.
sorry about that
ReplyDeletethis took me about an hour to post, i have no idea what i was doing wrong!
i wish to emphasis that I am not attacking Mr Bennet, but I think you have to questions what the hell has happened
he has played a very bad game
on purpose???
i dont know
i have my suspicions
all best
advo
Advocatus @ 3:43,3:44, are you from Carter-Ruck?
ReplyDeleteTB is well known for his irreverence and appetizer to hot and polemical issues. Perhaps one of the most hated guys in UK for politicals and lawyers.
He could be naive, taking the wrong horse sometimes but I think he is not stupid and many doubts he voice and gave a face, are common to almost the all world.
I don't agree with some methods he used to raise his doubts, but he has his rights to raise them in the way he considers more adequate. I agree, some in a very perverted vision, could defend in some way that his methods have damaged the reputation of who doubt the Mccann's. That is exactly the point of view the Mccann's wanted to achieve and who defends that is working on Mccann's track.
I think, who defends Madeleines rights knows exactely what mr. TB means and I don't think he gets close in any way with what you want to pass here.
The doubts you raised regarding him, are the same your posts raise on me, specially because TB v Mccann's is under discussion in many places at the Internet and was already under discussion here for a day or so, and your post just show up after the post of an anon reader who post here at 11:05 highlighting a post from mr. TB where he exposed the methods used by some of the Mccann's lawyers.
As many said, the case that opposes the Mccann's to him is a revenge and not an opportunnity for the Mccann's to highlight the truth. Then, no surprise, Maddie will be not mentionned. The Mccann's are the first and the only one who don't wanted it to be mentionned. They want the guy silenced with a out court deal.
What makes you so sure that TB will lost the court case in April? Something thing already decidid behind scenes like what happen with Amaral book on the first trial? From my point of view, if the case has independent judges( not the biased Lev Enq) I think mr. TB has all the chances to win. The doubts he has are the same the PJ have and mae it already public. The lies from Kate and Tapas 9 or their witnesses are all there, available in prime voice on their statements, media articles or interviews. TB has nothing to fear, appart that because he made his voice and face public known, he becomes a named ( not a fictionnate) Mccann's enemy, like Amaral and they want a revenge believing the money they have in the Fund, the reputation of their expensive lawyers and the behaviour of some biased judges can scare him and work on Mccann's behalf without them having to go to court and face the contradictions and the lies they delivered to the world for almost 5 years.
I'm not surprised if you said, some of who started with TB, over the time was revealed they were working on Mccann's behalf. The money from the Fund corrupts the easy brains and they were working hard in setting spys at the enemy terrain. What was the case of Leonor Cipriano against GA?
I would like to see you dedicate also some effort to bring to us information regarding Marcos Aragao Correia, Metod 3 and Mr. Halligen and the MCCANN'S. That, is really a dark corridor to where Mr. Cameron should allocate some money and allow an investigation instead of the fake review of an investigation the British police knows well and totally agree with it.
I always criticised Mr TB methods, but at this time, I hope he brings the case until the Courtroom. The public want to see the Mccann's dismissing their own statements.
Anon 8:04 well said we all want to see the Mccanns in court, these out of court settlements are a travesty.
ReplyDeleteAn independent unbiased judge would strip away their lies and then what would they do?
It is a disgrace the amount of legal cases they have brought attempting to whitewash their dirty names, they will certainly go down in history for ALL their crimes when the truth finally surfaces.
'Textusa(trois), whether you publish this or not, I would be interested in your three 'takes'on how 'badly' or 'well' Mr Bennet had played his poker hand'... Anon 3:43
ReplyDeleteWhy? Why you want her opinion on that matter? Whatever was the opinion belongs to a private domain and Mr. Bennet has done nothing wrong compared with what the Mccann's have done. He didn't went to PDL and let one of his child disappear mysteriously.
What blogs like Textusa want is justice and the truth.Very simple. What Mr. Bennet does or have done, is irrelevant but what the Mccann's do or have done, is not.
They have a millionnaire Fund achieved with help of the Media who gave them a lot of Antenna to fool the public. No matter that, who payed the investigation and the real search of Madeleine ( something they prevented in many ways), was people like me, trough our taxes. We deserve to know what happen, where lies the truth and where went the money from the Fund. Any discussion regarding that is mandatory and not allowing it is insulting the intelligence of the all citizens who left their chairs and went out to elect their politicians.
Dear anon 3:43, some of your sentences show your true face and remind me the one who wants to know where Textusa lives.
If you have many things to say regarding Mr Bennet, why don't you post your comments in other Foruns where he can reply to you and answer many of your suspicions? Will be more honest. Or are you affraid because he already make it clear that at least one of the Foruns where he use to post, knows the IP adress of some of who tried hard to pervert the mission of the Forum?
Have a good day. Took me few minutes to post my comment here. I don't know why should we be bothered with the lenght of time you took to post here. Strategies to divert the attention of the readers from the main post, Textusa post.
A.
ReplyDeleteFirstly, we don't promote David Icke's theories as he believes lizards have taken over human beings!
We, as you know, disagree with the neglect theory whilst TB makes it the basis of his campaign.
We use our blog to explain the reasons why we disagree with that theory, he uses his to explain his.
We then suggest that people look at what he has to say on his own blog and form their own views.
We are not going to be drawn into taking sides. He has never attacked our views publicly to our knowledge and we will take the same position. We have enough work to do in checking out our sources and information on the Madeleine issue, to allow other issues to distract us from this.
If he’s genuinely threatened by CR he has our sympathy. If he has breached an agreement, then he should be accountable for his actions. The crux of the question is, obviously, if he did, or didn’t, commit a breach.
That is something for the adequate entities to analyse and decide. The outcome of his court case will be a better guide as to the wisdom of his actions.
If ( seems yes) A. de Advocatus?
ReplyDeleteLike always Text knows how to answer.
And my intuition..... right again.
xxs,Text.
For all I care, TTW4 should be squashed like a fly. He deserves the same respect as DL and the 24 made up photos. TTW4 is just someone who fills this case with clutter. Makes absurd deductions and assumptions, and then takes those as facts to which base further absurd deduction and assumptions. Does this make me fond of TB? No, I even tend to agree to all A. says about the man. He accepted something and now pretends he didn't. When everyone knows that the McCs can't attack facts but dedicate their watchdogs on side issues, like if something is published or not, TB goes and creates a side issue. But that is TB and I don't want to talk much about him. I just wanted to say to A. that I grew to like and respect his comments, so it's disappointing his support to someone who has some sort of ego-maniacal agenda that captivates people by waving freemasonry mysteries about and other obscure enigmas that he pretends to understand but doesn't know anything about.
ReplyDelete'Textusa(trois), whether you publish this or not, I would be interested in your three 'takes'on how 'badly' or 'well' Mr Bennet had played his poker hand'... Anon 3:43
ReplyDeleteWhy? Why you want her opinion on that matter?
Simple, I have followed textusa's posts for quite some time and she has an uncanny 'nose' for smelling bullcrap. I respect TTW4s knowledge on this case too. He has been around a long time, and operated several anti-McCann web sites. He walked the talk for years. He smells a rat with Tony, and frankly so do I, for reasons outlined in the links I gave. This is allsoo Machiavellian – did you know Tony went to the LSE? Do you know the reputation of the London School of Economics. I will say no more in detail, but along with Oxford and Cambridge, the LSE is one of the trireme of spy/intel ratholes for recruitment in the UK. Tony has popped along to put forth his USP (Unique Selling Point) – which is that he fails spectacularly at everything he does. Do a wiki on the man. I don't and can not believe this is a coincidence. He has annoyed the Judges in the UK so much he has become a joke as a serial vexatious litigant. My point is this – no one asked Tony, but he pushed himself forwards, volunteered to be the WORLD's (until Goncalo Amaral came along) most high profile anti-McCann spokesman. My 'beef' is he did this, then FAILED to adequately defend the Madeleine Foundation when it came under attack, an attack which he knowingly precipitated. When the attack cane, he rolled over like a pet spaniel to have his tummy tickled. He caved in to extremely strict gagging/muzzling orders by the Court as to what could or could not be said by Mr Bennett ref the McCann parents. Instead of following the Court orders, he broke them, systematically – he indeed sold a 160 page Questions booklet via the Royal Mail to someone in the UK – the court forbade that, and he broke the order. (Incidentally he had NO NEED to do that, you can find all the pamphlets he published on the internet for nothing, so why break the Court order and put the Madeleine Foundation into disrepute. Mr Bennett also broke the Court orders with 60-something more posts. So in April, the Judge will simply be confining his ruling to Mr Bennetts actions. As I said, I think he knowingly or unknowingly set himself to lose. If he loses, it will be ALL OVER the media. If he wins, there will barely be a paragraph in any newspapers. The April case has nothing to do with Maddie, it is all about Tony being a naughty boy, and showing contempt for court.
Whatever was the opinion belongs to a private domain and Mr. Bennet has done nothing wrong compared with what the Mccann's have done. He didn't went to PDL and let one of his child disappear mysteriously.
ReplyDeleteI agree entirely. However he is doing the cause no good IMHO, and is actually causing HARM to the cause via this court case. Of he loses then the whole anti-MacCann blogosphere will take a body blow, whilst the mainstream press and TV worldide will have a field day, thanks to Clarence. We don't need martyrs, we need people with cojones, like Mr Amaral, who DO NOT ROLL OVER like Bennett did.
What blogs like Textusa want is justice and the truth.Very simple. What Mr. Bennet does or have done, is irrelevant but what the Mccann's do or have done, is not.
It IS relevant when him losing for no reason will have a serious impuct on the public psyche ref this case. It is all just so totally unnessecasry.
They have a millionnaire Fund achieved with help of the Media who gave them a lot of Antenna to fool the public. No matter that, who payed the investigation and the real search of Madeleine ( something they prevented in many ways), was people like me, trough our taxes. We deserve to know what happen, where lies the truth and where went the money from the Fund. Any discussion regarding hat is mandatory and not allowing it is insulting the intelligence of the all citizens who left their chairs and went out to elect their politicians.
I agree. I pay very high taxes too. I also fear that Scotland Yard will be another whitewas, we will have to wait and see.
Dear anon 3:43, some of your sentences show your true face and remind me the one who wants to know where Textusa lives.
If you have many things to say regarding Mr Bennet, why don't you post your comments in other Foruns where he can reply to you and answer many of your suspicions?
last one
ReplyDeleteI did, so you clearly not bother to read the link I gave you. I replied to Mr Bennet on his forum, and ge simply deleted my post. I sent ten Pms to folks that I was talking to, on the “What Happened in Room 5A” thread, and they were all deleted, none of the recipients got them. I started posting as “Advocatus” on page 18 of that thread, and I was questioning Mrs Fenns weird actions for several pages – i.e. why it took her so long, 109 days, to report a vital crying episode to the PJ.
See here, page 18 onwards - http://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t4212p170-what-was-5a-really-used-for
The mods all shouted me down. One mod, Stella, when asked another probing question about Mrs Fenn said, “We don't need to go into that, she was 85 and has passed away.” Now THIS is supposed to be an investigative site, yet biased mods are running the show and quashing research, opinions, and evidence. I don't care if Mrs Finn died at 105, I want to know what went on. Mr Bennett was quite happen to oversee folks being prevented from arguing just why Mrs Fenn has so many question marks aginst her. 109 days is sure long enough to have been possinly 'got at'.
Will be more honest. Or are you affraid because he already make it clear that at least one of the Foruns where he use to post, knows the IP adress of some of who tried hard to pervert the mission of the Forum?
That was a threat, and the last person in the world I am afraid of as Anthony Bennet. We still have free speech in the UK, but apparently not on Mr Bennett's forum.
Have a good day. Took me few minutes to post my comment here. I don't know why should we be bothered with the lenght of time you took to post here. Strategies to divert the attention of the readers from the main post, Textusa post.
It took me so long because it is my first time tring to post here. The s/w does not seem to like more than 4,096 characters. So I will try again.
There is IMHO far too much paranoia going on at all the forums. If Bennett loses in April, it will be all over the news. If he wins, no big deal, it was just a minor court breach. Thanks to Bennett's gross stupidity, he has got the while anti-McCann supporters into a fine old pickle. All he had to do was 1. Not agree to the draconian terms in the first place, and, 2. If agreeing to then, simply shut up, because you have agreed to be muzzled, gagged. And this bloke thinks he's a lawyer? It's a lose-lose situation for the ant-McCann supporters, those seeking justice for Maddie, may she Rest in Peace.
For all I care, TTW4 should be squashed like a fly. He deserves the same respect as DL and the 24 made up photos. TTW4 is just someone who fills this case with clutter.
ReplyDeleteIt is all about free speech is it not? Your clutter are my gold nuggets. If you see a TTW$ post, then skip by it, takes you one second. Easy.
Makes absurd deductions and assumptions, and then takes those as facts to which base further absurd deduction and assumptions. Does this make me fond of TB? No, I even tend to agree to all A. says about the man. He accepted something and now pretends he didn't.
I'm afraid that is exactly the heart of the matter. He has no-one else to blame but himself. He has done the truth cause, by this action a lot, a lot of harm.
When everyone knows that the McCs can't attack facts but dedicate their watchdogs on side issues, like if something is published or not, TB goes and creates a side issue. But that is TB and I don't want to talk much about him. I just wanted to say to A. that I grew to like and respect his comments,
Me too, he has a great way with legalise, but he was unable to keep it up 100 per cent.
so it's disappointing his support to someone who has some sort of ego-maniacal agenda that captivates people by waving freemasonry mysteries about and other obscure enigmas that he pretends to understand but doesn't know anything about.
I had a convo with him and he has read Knight's "The Brotherhood" - one of my bibles. I've warned him time after time the way it works in the UK (everywhere, really), but he refuses to listen.
Advocatus,
ReplyDeleteYou seemed to miss my point. As Textusa has shown, not everyone is able to detect clutter the way she does, so when you realize that you're being indeed cluttered, then it's too late because you don't exactly know when it started and how far you have to go back to continue on the right track.
I'll give you an example. In the last post, TTW4 said 2 things. Both very relevant. The first was that Fagan was from somewhere other than D. (Irish twon form where he is, and difficult to spell), the second was that Fagan and John G (difficult to spell his surname also) made a deal based on handshake in Faro's airport. Plus, he stated that these two people didn't know each other. When asked to back his statements up, he answered feebly to the first, with an article about someone else that refers in a paragraph full of other names that Fagan was from somewhere different than D.
But asked to back what of the two was more important, which was the relationship between JG and Fagan, what does he have to say? that he's too important to answer... an answer that we've heard from before from who? Insane and Johanna.
Hi textuse :O)
ReplyDeleteFirstly, we don't promote David Icke's theories as he believes lizards have taken over human beings!
Sorry about that, but it was the only online forum I could put up my side of the story without Mr Bennett or others deleting it!
We, as you know, disagree with the neglect theory whilst TB makes it the basis of his campaign.
I am coming to the conclusion that most if not all the children were looked after in rotation by nannies, speaking via the digital baby-minder device. Still an open mind, and I'm only about 10pc into this site yet! Yes the neglect aspect seems to be a huge piece of misdirection.
We use our blog to explain the reasons why we disagree with that theory, he uses his to explain his.
Fine, and that is the way it should be.
We then suggest that people look at what he has to say on his own blog and form their own views.
Fine.
We are not going to be drawn into taking sides. He has never attacked our views publicly
No but his mods have, and he oversees them. See my posts from page 18 onwards about Mrs Fenn, basically supporting the textusa theories - yet the mods all shouted me down, then banned me. That is my experience with TB/the mods and the Mrs Fenn conundrum.
to our knowledge and we will take the same position. We have enough work to do in checking out our sources and information on the Madeleine issue, to allow other issues to distract us from this.
Actually the person CAUSING the distraction is TONY BENNETT!
http://diaryofamadperson.blogspot.com/2011/12/whats-it-all-about-then.html
If he’s genuinely threatened by CR he has our sympathy.
He has already made one out of courts settlement for 2,500 pounds, then rolled over.
If he has breached an agreement, then he should be accountable for his actions.
Alas, he will be in April, and the McCanns will be crowing about it all over the world's media.
The crux of the question is, obviously, if he did, or didn’t, commit a breach.
That is something for the adequate entities to analyse and decide. The outcome of his court case will be a better guide as to the wisdom of his actions.
Yup, not long to wait :O)
Cheers!
A
You seemed to miss my point. As Textusa has shown, not everyone is able to detect clutter the way she does,
ReplyDeleteTrue, but amongst clutter, are the golden nuggets. Your clutter may be my gold, and vice-versa. That is the precise nature of a discussion forum, to weed out the clutter, is it not?
so when you realize that you're being indeed cluttered, then it's too late because you don't exactly know when it started and how far you have to go back to continue on the right track.
I see your point, but that's life - with experience one develops a 'nose' - textusa has one, I am trying to develop my BS antennae much more, but yes, we can be take in. I have no set micro-opinions on this case, my mind is still open, so we will see.
I'll give you an example. In the last post,
I can't seem to find it?
TTW4 said 2 things. Both very relevant. The first was that Fagan was from somewhere other than D. (Irish twon form where he is, and difficult to spell), the second was that Fagan and John Geraghty? (difficult to spell his surname also) made a deal based on handshake in Faro's airport. Plus, he stated that these two people didn't know each other. When asked to back his statements up, he answered feebly to the first, with an article about someone else that refers in a paragraph full of other names that Fagan was from somewhere different than D.
But asked to back what of the two was more important, which was the relationship between JG and Fagan, what does he have to say? that he's too important to answer... an answer that we've heard from before from who? Insane and Johanna.
Well I don't know 'Insane', and I don't know who the 'too important' man is - if that is the case, then TTW4 must have his reasons, I would ask him again. BTW he has recently stopped all his anti-macCann blogs, I have no idea why.
Has anyone stopped for a second to think that all this TB vs CR business is to keep us scared of CR? The same way that the T's lined up in front of the Court to announce that they had just received 600.000 from a tabloid, so the message was clear, if you mess with us we will sue you! TB is in fact keeping the CR myth very well alive. If A. is right, or not, I don't know, but looking at his link to JH's, this blog's ideas are not well accepted there...
ReplyDeleteA. the TTW4 is on the "Follow or not to Follow" Post. Sorry
ReplyDelete"Follow or not follow" - Thanks, will take a look.
ReplyDeleteHas anyone stopped for a second to think that all this TB vs CR business is to keep us scared of CR?
That is a very good point indeed, CR like to push their image as 'the most feared libel lawyers in the world'... So Beating up Tony Bennett in a totally uncalled for case in the first place will simply cement their reputation, once spun by Clarence.
The same way that the T's lined up in front of the Court to announce that they had just received 600.000 from a tabloid, so the message was clear, if you mess with us we will sue you!
Yes indeedy!
TB is in fact keeping the CR myth very well alive. If A. is right, or not, I don't know, but looking at his link to JH's, this blog's ideas are not well accepted there...
Nope. BTW I made only two threads there. The first was rather ambitious and quite stupid really - my nephew is a Cambridge maths PhD, and I thought, with all the 100s (probably 1000s) or weird 'coincidences' in this case, a mathematical proof might be developed to show that these so-called coincidences were statistically almost impossible. Anyway it turned out to be way too much work for me!
The 2nd thread was simply a repost of truthformadeleine's "Gerry's Tunnel Vision" essay - about a possible Royal link as an explanation for the overwhelming establishment presence pervading this case.
Of course, yes, it could be a load of old codswallop, nevertheless I thought it deserved a thread of it's own under the "purported theories" section, and people could take it or leave it. Maybe clutter, maybe not, but it deserved a look, as the coincidences ((again!) are many in that article.
What did the mods do (supported by TB)? They simply deleted it, without even telling me, no PM, no explanation, nothing.
And they are supposed to be an investigative site or not?
All very very curious IMHO.
Please don't compare GA with TB! That's nothing short of ridiculous.
ReplyDeleteAdvocatus @ 3:43,3:44, are you from Carter-Ruck?
ReplyDeleteCertainly not, I am a writer/researcher with a huge interest in this case, there has been nothing in crime history quite like it before – the nearest I can think of is the JonBenet Ramsey case.
TB is well known for his irreverence and appetizer to hot and polemical issues. Perhaps one of the most hated guys in UK for politicals and lawyers.
Apparently so.
He could be naive, taking the wrong horse sometimes
Seems to be ALWAYS on the wrong horse – from wiki – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Bennett_(English_politician) failed Veritas, failed metrication, solicitor???, failed Lubbock case, failed road signs, failed this that and the other, and now self-employed...
but I think he is not stupid and many doubts he voice and gave a face, are common to almost the all world.
I don't agree with some methods he used to raise his doubts, but he has his rights to raise them in the way he considers more adequate. I agree, some in a very perverted vision, could defend in some way that his methods have damaged the reputation of who doubt the Mccann's. That is exactly the point of view the Mccann's wanted to achieve and who defends that is working on Mccann's track.
I think, who defends Madeleines rights knows exactely what mr. TB means and I don't think he gets close in any way with what you want to pass here.
He's not exactly John F Kennedy! The man to take this forward and get justice for Maddie is Goncalo Amaral. TB needs to keep quiet and take a back seat and stop causing distractions all over the place.
The doubts you raised regarding him, are the same your posts raise on me, specially because TB v Mccann's is under discussion in many places at the Internet and was already under discussion here for a day or so, and your post just show up after the post of an anon reader who post here at 11:05
Pure coincidence, I saw this thread a day or three ago, following textusa's essay on the Mrs Fenn issue and I've been meaning to post something – now I was arguing more or less the same points at Tony Bennet's site on the “5A” thread when I got banned. Apparently TB and mods have respect for a dead 85 year old lady, and have no wish to ask any awkward questions. Trouble is, this is a potential homicide case, and awkward questions need to be asked from time to time, because I have just as much respect for Maddie. Far more in fact, she never even made it to 4, 82 years less than Mrs fenn – who's actions apparently cannot be questioned!
highlighting a post from mr. TB where he exposed the methods used by some of the Mccann's lawyers.
As many said, the case that opposes the Mccann's to him is a revenge
Here I agree, this case against TB is pure spite and revenge. They want to ruin him and put him in prison.
and not an opportunnity for the Mccann's to highlight the truth. Then, no surprise, Maddie will be not mentionned. The Mccann's are the first and the only one who don't wanted it to be mentionned. They want the guy silenced with a out court deal.
ReplyDeleteWhat makes you so sure that TB will lost the court case in April?
Because he has broken the terms that he agreed to. He was banned from selling any more books. He sold at least one, and that is enough to hang him. He was asked not to libel the parents – CR have 60+ examples, so let the court decide. I don't see how he can win.
Something thing already decidid behind scenes like what happen with Amaral book on the first trial? From my point of view, if the case has independent judges( not the biased Lev Enq) I think mr. TB has all the chances to win.
We will see. You don't have to be a 'bent' judge to find TB guilty, as he has made something like 4,000 posts, and CR have cherry-picked the most libelous. And there is also the book, which Tony claims was some sort of set-up, a go-between for CR bought it. Who knows? But the fact is, he sold it. Naught boy!
The doubts he has are the same the PJ have and mae it already public. The lies from Kate and Tapas 9 or their witnesses are all there, available in prime voice on their statements, media articles or interviews. TB has nothing to fear, appart that because he made his voice and face public known, he becomes a named ( not a fictionnate) Mccann's enemy, like Amaral and they want a revenge believing the money they have in the Fund, the reputation of their expensive lawyers and the behaviour of some biased judges can scare him and work on Mccann's behalf without them having to go to court and face the contradictions and the lies they delivered to the world for almost 5 years.
Yes but this case is not about Maddie at all, it is about TB's breaking of an agreement he made with the court to 'behave' – this, he failed to do. TB will not be *allowed* to go off into his theories, he will have to stick to a strict set of guidelines, which the judge will impose. Therefore there can be only one outcome the way I see it.
ReplyDeleteI'm not surprised if you said, some of who started with TB, over the time was revealed they were working on Mccann's behalf. The money from the Fund corrupts the easy brains and they were working hard in setting spys at the enemy terrain. What was the case of Leonor Cipriano against GA?
I would like to see you dedicate also some effort to bring to us information regarding Marcos Aragao Correia, Metod 3 and Mr. Halligen and the MCCANN'S.
I have been posting on all manner of aspects elsewhere, but I sense there is a possibility of very large sums of money at stake here, property deals and so on – so that may be an avenue to explore. I believe a lot of agendas are at play, concurrently. Remember, Gerry was there on specific business - “F**k off, I'm not here to enjoy myself!”
That, is really a dark corridor to where Mr. Cameron should allocate some money and allow an investigation instead of the fake review of an investigation the British police knows well and totally agree with it.
I always criticised Mr TB methods, but at this time, I hope he brings the case until the Courtroom. The public want to see the Mccann's dismissing their own statements.
I don't think you'll see that in that TB 'breach of court order' case.
I very much HOPE that we will see some fireworks in the Goncalo case – I believe he will be more than ready for his day in court!!! :O)
Jesus, Advocatus. All this posts because of Tony Bennett? You are giving him an importance he don't have.
ReplyDeleteI remember when I first heard his name was long ago, trough a Portuguese paper who was reporting his accounts on the Madeleine Fundation. I think, it was immediately after the Mccann's arrived to Uk and he was questioning why they were not charged with negligence if they assumed they were negligent and due to that the girl disappeared? He sticks on that and all his effort was more to expose why the Mccann's got an exceptional and strange political support and not exactly what happened to Maddie. Then came the free Manson, etc, etc. He became a stone on the shoes of some people because contrary to other Anti-Mccann who limited their feelings to anon posts in the Internet, he got some protagonism and attracted the Media attention. Something the McCann,s don't want to share, specially because he was damaging their business- the Fundraising. At some point the Mccann's had to defend their site and said their site had nothing to do with Madeleine Fundation because they were affraid that the name could confuse potential money supporters and leave them to donate to Bennett instead of the Mccann's. CONT
Cont :He clear annoyed the Mccann's in the heart of their business- wanted them charged with something that was a crime in Portugal and Uk ( the negligence) and was public assumed by the Mccann's ( at the time ) and on top of that set a site with a name that could be mistaken with their site. Then, he becomes a named enemy and they start using him as a scapegoat to scare who could potentially try to damage their business. No surprise, Carter - ruck elected him to try to scare others, knowing he has no importance at all.
ReplyDeleteThe Portuguese paper where I first read about TB, while reporting his efforts regarding Madeleine case, highlighted also the controversial pass of mr TB with several cases he lost in the pass while battling some political issues. Maybe because of that, TB targets on Madeleine, are more then the Mccann's. Are the politics, lawyers, business mans . People that he loves to annoy . He is that, the naughty boy who decide to cross Mccann's life.
Saying that if he lost the case in April he will damage the reputation of all anti, is giving him an importance he don't have . He is not GA and there is no any parallelism between the two.
Off course, if he lost, Mitchell and team McCann will use that opportunity to fill the papers with more innuendos that can feed their agenda. That just shows the poverty of some Media and the disrespect the Mccann's have regarding the public.
What is really important and scares the Mccann's, is GA and the people who worked in his team. Bennett is a peanut.
After Amaral, what scares the Mccann's is the public opinion. For that, the comments in the papers, when are allowed, worked as a barometer for the Mccann's to understand how they were/ are disbelieved. The public, if allowed to have a voice, has the power of a number. A number that could be big enough to force the authorities to act. That's why they are trying so hard to prevent that number to show up.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2092059/Swinging-couple-drug-fuelled-orgy-sex-partner-sprayed-bear-repellent-refused-let-explicit-photos.html
ReplyDeleteThe swing and the isolated places.
Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteA. the TTW4 is on the "Follow or not to Follow" Post. Sorry
Jan 26, 2012 8:22:00 PM
Thanks, just checked it out and a few other articles - regarding TTW4, he did give you his considered answer so I can't really help you with that. It really is up to you to address TTW4 I think. From my own research everyone seems to be connected on some way to everyone, a la the six degrees of separation theory. Only there seem to be 1 or 2 skips for most of the (known) links, and nowhere near 6...
Hi Advocatus,
ReplyDeleteI'm not following TB saga but even if the coming Court case is not about Maddie but about something he breach, I don't think he will loose. Both cases are at the end related.
Who imposed what he breach? Was a court or was a deal he accepted after recIeving some letters from Carter-Ruck?
If was a deal with Carter-ruck, I don't understand why breaching this should be a problem. He refuse to follow what the Mccann's wanted and due to that they bring him to Court. That is my interpretation but I could be wrong.
I can't see how a court can condemn him for selling his leaflets. Many wrote books about the case and were sold out in a blink reaching millions of readers. No one of that books (Excluding Amaral which we know was a biased judgement and the book was later released) got the attention of Carter-ruck. Was it because they were sold out outside Uk and TB manage to sold his point of view inside Uk? Well, that bring us to another discussion where I believe the image of Uk will end up in a very bad position, because the country shows a dual behavior regarding freedom of expression. How many times papers wrote very bad articles about football layers or artists and reached the high public in a day? I lost the number. how many books were wrote having lady Di as the main character, killing her image? Some and nothing happen to that stirrers.
Now, per comparison, how many leaflets TB manage to sell? I think the number has no comparison to any of the others. Then, just a biased judge can see here any guilty.
Ok, he went to Rothley to spread door to door his leaflets and that had annoyed the Mccann's. Could be criticized but is far from being a crime. Nothing compared to a Fund that raised millions if the Fund was settled when the girl was already dead and who settled the Fund know it.
Hi, Advocatus, I think is time to move on and leave TB. You didn't like your comments to be deleted from the forum where he is allowed to post. That is their right when they moderate the comments. Here you manage to pass your point of view but Is enough.
A.
ReplyDelete"Thanks, just checked it out and a few other articles - regarding TTW4, he did give you his considered answer so I can't really help you with that."
Could you quote from TTW4's comment where he backs up in any way what he said about the airport meeting having happened?
Please don't tell me to ask TTW4. I already did. But it seems I'm not the sort of people he dignifies with answers.
"Thanks, just checked it out and a few other articles - regarding TTW4, he did give you his considered answer so I can't really help you with that."
ReplyDeleteCould you quote from TTW4's comment where he backs up in any way what he said about the airport meeting having happened?
Please don't tell me to ask TTW4. I already did. But it seems I'm not the sort of people he dignifies with answers.
Hi again, I've barely met (internet-wise) the man, and why should he take me into his confidence? And if he did, I would not break it, so Catch 22. I have already had several PRIVATE emails about the MBM case I sent to various people (via PMs etc) leak out on various fora, and it has taught me a lesson that you basically can't trust abybody! I trust a few other researchers I have known for 20 years, and we swap tidbits, but that's it. You have to admit TTW4 has come up with some amazing digging, and I have not yet scratched the surface of all his posts. What worries me are the amount of people folding and rolling over right now, there seems to be a concerted purge going on: Pamalam, TTW4, 3 Arguidos, the Blackwatch Inn, and etc etc etc. In many cases even the wayback machine cached archive has been expunged, 404d, and that sounds like .intel interference to me, or at least someone with heavy clout.
"You have to admit TTW4 has come up with some amazing digging"
ReplyDeleteA.
You seem not understand what I'm saying. No, I don't admit he dug up ANYTHING. In fact, I'm accusing him of cluttering up things, intentionally. Tell me one thing that you've found out that he's dug up, besides fanciful and deductions. To be fair, I'll give two recent examples of what I'm trying to say, but you seem not to want to understand. One, is it posible for the two of the biggest businessmen in PDL not to know each other before Maddie? TTW4 says that they have never met before. Based on what? I'm not saying they did, what I'm saying, based on probabilites, is that the two not only met, as they knew each other very well. Two, based on what does he say that Fagan going corrupt would cause an economic havoc the a UN scale? Why, because the man owns 2, 3 or a dozen hotels? In Western Algarve, where the highest investments existing are in the East? Is this digging anything up, or is it just creating clutter? You cannot ask others, at JH to see things rationally, if you're the first to be unable what is right before your eyes. Also TTW4, did not close his blog recently. It's been more than year, at least.
Also TTW4, did not close his blog recently. It's been more than year, at least.
ReplyDeleteJan 27, 2012 12:04:00 PM
Fair enough, you know more than me obviously. TTW4 is big enough to fight his own corner. I'll continue reading all the clutter on all fora that catch my eye, to sift out the nuggets - incidentally, that is what the PJ did with all the 'errms' and 'uhms' and 'you knows' in almost all (if not all) all the T9 interviews (I think Mr Payne had maybe had 1753 "erms" in just one interview! Each errm of course buys a little time to "think" ...)
Anyway, I don't want to distract this forum any more, I just wanted to state my experiences when I asked some awkward questions about Mrs Fenn at TB's site. That is what the latest textusa article (with update in red) is bout - Debunking Urban Myths: The Unpublished PJ Files... to which the TB moderators insisted there was some sort of secret or 'witheld' Mrs Fenn file taken in the immediate aftermath. 4th/5th time period. I argued 'I don't think so' and gave some good reasons, and all it got me was abuse, derision and a banning.
One, is it posible for the two of the biggest businessmen in PDL not to know each other before Maddie? TTW4 says that they have never met before. Based on what? I'm not saying they did, what I'm saying, based on probabilites, is that the two not only met, as they knew each other very well. Two, based on what does he say that Fagan going corrupt would cause an economic havoc the a UN scale? Why, because the man owns 2, 3 or a dozen hotels? In Western Algarve, where the highest investments existing are in the East?
ReplyDeleteYou seem to be trying to goad TTW4 into making some sort of claim, libelous or not. These folks are big boys, and despite a property price collapse in the Algarve, the big boys are still rich beyond our wildest imaginations. It is rumoured that at least one 'fat cat' is bankrolling the McCanns' legal bills, and has put up a rolling retainer, topped up when needed. That is a rumour and I don't know the precise details, or the veracity thereof.
I suggest reading Nick Cohen's new book about how the rich and famous can bully the likes of GA and TB. It is a rigged game, always has been, always will be.
"These days British journalism is often portrayed in a damning light: an industry where malicious hacks besmirch the reputation of whoever wanders into their crosshairs. But a new book on British libel laws reveals another side to the story, showing a system exploited by the wealthy and powerful to censor the truth."
Extracts from Nick Cohen’s book You Can’t Read This Book: Censorship in an Age of Freedom, published in the Observer, reveal the stranglehold of libel laws on press freedom...read more
http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2012/01/16/how-british-libel-laws-help-rich-villains-escape-the-scrutiny-of-the-press/"
Jesus, Advocatus. All this posts because of Tony Bennett? You are giving him an importance he don't have.
ReplyDeleteGreetings! My bad, I apologise for that, it sort of snowballed!
I remember when I first heard his name was long ago, trough a Portuguese paper who was reporting his accounts on the Madeleine Fundation. I think, it was immediately after the Mccann's arrived to Uk and he was questioning why they were not charged with negligence if they assumed they were negligent and due to that the girl disappeared? He sticks on that and all his effort was more to expose why the Mccann's got an exceptional and strange political support and not exactly what happened to Maddie. Then came the free Manson, etc, etc. He became a stone on the shoes of some people because contrary to other Anti-Mccann who limited their feelings to anon posts in the Internet, he got some protagonism and attracted the Media attention.
One only has to examine his history at wiki – he has a habit of jumping on bandwagons and taking them over – then it all usually ends in tears. The pattern is there, and we are watching it all over again I fear..
Something the McCann,s don't want to share, specially because he was damaging their business- the Fundraising. At some point the Mccann's had to defend their site and said their site had nothing to do with Madeleine Fundation because they were affraid that the name could confuse potential money supporters and leave them to donate to Bennett instead of the Mccann's. CONT
Bit like the McCanns LIMITED COMPANY very craftily giving all the impression that it is a charitable organisation. It is not, and the Govt. rumbled them, and refused to give the the normal VAT discount for charities.
Cont - Cont :He clear annoyed the Mccann's in the heart of their business- wanted them charged with something that was a crime in Portugal and Uk ( the negligence) and was public assumed by the Mccann's ( at the time ) and on top of that set a site with a name that could be mistaken with their site. Then, he becomes a named enemy and they start using him as a scapegoat to scare who could potentially try to damage their business. No surprise, Carter - ruck elected him to try to scare others, knowing he has no importance at all.
ReplyDeleteI agree. He did the 'cause' no good by rolling over so easily. For a seasoned troublemaker, he sure played his cards very badly indeed IMHO. Now we have the distraction of his sideshow in April, when it is the Goncalo trial that we should all be concentrating on. Because in April, who knows what new evidence may emerge under discovery and/or cross-examination – the trial has the possibility that any bombshell evidence coming out will precipitate Portugal to re-open the case. IMHO it has all gone political now, there must be political will from the PMs of the UK AND Portugal for a trial, IMHO. I don't trust SY one little bit., as textusa has covered in great detail.
The Portuguese paper where I first read about TB, while reporting his efforts regarding Madeleine case, highlighted also the controversial pass of mr TB with several cases he lost in the pass while battling some political issues. Maybe because of that, TB targets on Madeleine, are more then the Mccann's. Are the politics, lawyers, business mans . People that he loves to annoy . He is that, the naughty boy who decide to cross Mccann's life.
He is IMHO 'poisoning the well' – from wiki - Poisoning the well (or attempting to poison the well) is a rhetorical device where adverse information about a target is pre-emptively presented to an audience, with the intention of discrediting or ridiculing everything that the target person is about to say. Poisoning the well can be a special case of argumentum ad hominem, and the term was first used with this sense by John Henry Newman in his work Apologia Pro Vita Sua (1864).[1] The origin of the term lies in well poisoning, an ancient wartime practice of pouring poison into sources of fresh water before an invading army in order to diminish the invading army's strength. Consider also Black propaganda is false information and material that purports to be from a source on one side of a conflict, but is actually from the opposing side. It is typically used to vilify, embarrass or misrepresent the enemy. It is covert in nature in that its aims, identity, significance, and sources are hidden. The major characteristic of black propaganda is that the people are not aware that someone is trying to influence them, and do not feel that they are being pushed in a certain direction.
Saying that if he lost the case in April he will damage the reputation of all anti, is giving him an importance he don't have.
I really hope so!
He is not GA and there is no any parallelism between the two.
Yes, but the danger is the SPIN Clarence will supply. If it goes into top gear, the public psyche will be affected to some extent or another. Actually I think the tide has turned viz a viz the McCanns and the British public, going by the comments on any given McCann article. They have been rumbled.
Off course, if he lost, Mitchell and team McCann will use that opportunity to fill the papers with more innuendos that can feed their agenda. That just shows the poverty of some Media and the disrespect the Mccann's have regarding the public.
A.
ReplyDeleteAs I said, we don't wish to take sides on this.
I think you've expressed, and substantiated it, quite cleary your opinion about this person in question.
By the amount of space used on this sublect, visitors may be mislead into thinking that they express the blog's authors' views.
We now suggest that if you wish to take this particular subject any further, we suggest that you set up your own blog. That way all who'll want to agree/disagree with you are able to make their comments to you.
Please take our suggestion within the rights that do assist us in moderating the blog's content.
Cont - Which is why TB has let us all down, wittingly or unwittingly, I'd like to give him the benefit of the doubt. But no more chances!
ReplyDeleteWhat is really important and scares the Mccann's, is GA and the people who worked in his team. Bennett is a peanut.
After Amaral, what scares the Mccann's is the public opinion. For that, the comments in the papers, when are allowed, worked as a barometer for the Mccann's to understand how they were/ are disbelieved. The public, if allowed to have a voice, has the power of a number. A number that could be big enough to force the authorities to act. That's why they are trying so hard to prevent that number to show up.
Totally agree, the tide has turned, and the antagonism of the British public to the McCanns will IMHO only continue to grow. Hence the urgency to stop the Truth of the Lie and Gagged from being published in the UK. They want at all costs to stop the drip drip drip effect. Interestingly Kate's fictional fairytale bewk is being released in paperback in April – I'm sure that is why some the trials have been delayed. Don't forget Pat Brown is suing the McCanns too! It is all seemingly their self created Perfect Storm. I expect the McCanns are expecting Scotland Yard to ride to their rescue in May, if all goes to plan. February will be a busy month, so not long to wait now! :O)
As I said, we don't wish to take sides on this.
ReplyDeleteI think you've expressed, and substantiated it, quite cleary your opinion about this person in question.
By the amount of space used on this sublect, visitors may be mislead into thinking that they express the blog's authors' views.
We now suggest that if you wish to take this particular subject any further, we suggest that you set up your own blog. That way all who'll want to agree/disagree with you are able to make their comments to you.
Please take our suggestion within the rights that do assist us in moderating the blog's content.
Fine by me, I didn't mean to derail this into the TB saga, was trying to be polite in answering some wuestions - so, no more about that from me. Please feel free to edit down anything you feel appropriate.
Cheers!
A
With the help from google translator.
ReplyDeleteThis article, like all, is very good. He must have a lot of work and many hours devoted to debunking the pages do not exist in the files of the Portuguese PJ.
Just for that, I think, just now received due attention.
I was one of those who believed in these pages of absences. Apparently, collapsed more a myth.
And this myth was much enjoyed by the couple and the person, usually screaming, which represents them here in my country .
They went very interested in seeing the missing pages. Then they must have realized it was not so.
As such, the lady who screams a lot, came to the sightings, imagine. In the old sightings.
As for L.C., advogatus or A. , A one suggestion:
You should save your health and seek to avoid long and put so many comments here and other blogs.
So much excitement can cause a stroke. How do you write on many sites must have plenty of time.
You will have much free time, perhaps a privileged situation or already in retirement?
I appreciate the fact that the Textusa set the type of comments, so that they can comply with the respective article. Is that the discussion was going on next door. And this has happened quite regularly.
Este artigo, como todos, é muito bom.
ReplyDeleteDeve ter dado imenso trabalho e muitas horas dedicadas ao desmitificar das páginas não existentes nos ficheiros da PJ Portuguesa.
Só por isso, penso eu, só agora mereceu a atenção devida.
Eu era uma das pessoas que acreditava nessas faltas das páginas. Pelos vistos, desmoronou-se mais um mito.
E este mito foi muito aproveitado pelo casal e pela pessoa , normalmente aos gritos, que os representa aqui no meu PaÃs.
Eles andavam muito interessados em ver as páginas em falta. Depois, devem ter percebido que não era assim.
Como tal, a senhora que grita muito, veio falar nos avistamentos, imagine-se. Nos velhos avistamentos.
Quanto a L.C. , advogatus ou A. , um conselho:
Deve poupar a sua saúde e procurar evitar colocar tantos e longos comentários, aqui ou noutros blogs. Tanta exaltação pode provocar um acidente vascular cerebral. Como você escreve em muitos sÃtios deve ter muito tempo . Terá muito tempo livre ; talvez uma situação privilegiada ou já na reforma?
Agradeço a Textusa o facto de ter regulado o tipo de comentários, para que estes possam estar de acordo com o respectivo artigo. É que a discussão estava a passar ao lado. E, isto tem acontecido com muita regularidade.
Uma coisa rápida a dizer sobre cardÃaco e cursos de ataque - no fim do dia, é one' saúde de s que é importante! Você pode ter todo o dinheiro no mundo, mas sem boa saúde você está enganando-se. Tão sim é muito importante pisar para trás e para tomar um respiradouro, passe o tempo com famÃlia e amigos. Eu sou treinamento eu mesmo para começ o bact na ficção da leitura (I' m em Val McDermid neste momento!) e tentando sentar-se ainda o suficiente para prestar atenção a uma boa pelÃcula, LOL! OTOH que eu sou um escritor e posso multitask, ele não é como ' work' como tal, à s vezes quando escrever/que researcing o incorporar ' o zone' onde o tempo não se aplica, silva perto, e qualquer um creativo e que trabalha do coração reconhecerá este. O que eu gosto sobre os artigos do textusa é que há sempre uma abundância de ' meat' - frequentemente um encontra-se oneself relê-los diversas vezes a ' get' o ângulo que está sendo transportado. Eu encontro o mesmos com Dr. Roberts, e igualmente ferreiro de John. Eu gosto daquele, ele significo que o leitor tem que fazer algum trabalho demasiado. Eu espero trabalhos do babelfish! Todo o melhor - Advokaat.
ReplyDeleteI've just done a double take, I log on everyday and yesterday the number of posts was 35 and suddenly today its 70 odd, I've not read them yet as it going to take a while, but just like to say Thank you Textusa you certainly have got the comments coming.
ReplyDeleteWhen did the British Government decided on the Review? Wasn't it around the time Kate published her book, May 12?
ReplyDeleteI ask this because it's been over 250 days...
It took the McCanns how long to translate the PJ Files? A year, wasn't it? Is SY going to take that long also? Don't they have more people to do that than the McCanns had, even with the fund? Don't they trust the McCanns translations?
So many questions about so much time. From this post, they're not wasting any time in translating the "unpublished PJ Files", because all the "missing" (as Tex explains, left out) don't require translation. It's evident that all those papers that have been left out were written in English, weren't they? If it wasn't tragic it would be funny.
Advocatus, 27 @ 6:48 pm,
ReplyDeleteWhat a problem when you use the Brazilian Google translation to write in Portuguese. The Portuguese is not easy. I can't stop laughing with your post. What was really the message you tried to pass? A reply to Anon 27, 6:11?
Advocatus, 27 @ 6:48 pm,
ReplyDeleteWhat a problem when you use the Brazilian Google translation to write in Portuguese. The Portuguese is not easy. I can't stop laughing with your post. What was really the message you tried to pass? A reply to Anon 27, 6:11?
Jan 27, 2012 8:57:00 PM
LOL!!! Yes it was to 6.11 - I tried replying using Babelfish English to Portuguese translator, LOL, so it sounds like it is using the Pele version rather than the Eusebio version!!!
Só um aviso à navegação... especialmente à pessoa que sabe que me estou a dirigir a ela (à brilhante equipe penso que não seja necessário).
ReplyDeleteNão penses que estás a enganar quem quer que seja. De falinhas mansas está o mundo cheio. A verdade é como a azeite, e eu só vou ficar à espera a ver quanto tempo levas a chegar à superfÃcie.
An acknowledgment to the navigation especially to the person who knows that I am to direct it (to the shining team I only think that is not necessary). You do not think that you are to deceive who wants that it is. Of falinhas tame it is the full world. The truth is as the oil, and I only go to be to the wait to see how much time you lead to arrive at the surface. Jan 28, 2012 8:50: 00 AM
ReplyDeleteThanks. We will see, won't we? Stay tuned.
Advo
QUOTE
ReplyDelete"After seeing the shambolic and manipulated Lev Enq, nothing surprises me. The Lev Enq was supposed to investigate the behavior of the media regarding real victims of the papers business and quickly was transformed in a Mccann whitewash with their case filling sessions after sessions, when they were probably and the "solo hypothetical victims" who deliberatly called the media and fomented the behavior. A shame that didn't dignifies the British justice."
Just wish I'd said that.
ThenThereWere4
TTW4, instead of wishing saying what others said, why don't you justify what you say instead? I'm still waiting for the ref about the handshake in Faro's airport that you said that happened.
ReplyDeleteAs the Portuguese say "You sing well, but it doesn't please me a bit"
It was Dublin - Dublin airport.
ReplyDeleteThe same airport that was not built/extended by the O'Rourke brothers despite all the assurances they had received and their very best efforts to secure the work.
They only got some basic concrete infrastructure works and not the big deal they had been promised.
The big stuff all went to the Portuguese builders and boy did they pay a heavy price for that. Locals say they literally paid in blood.
Noone messes with the O'Rourke brothers and certainly not in their own backyard Dublin.
Our man John Geraghty is an associate director of Laing O'Rourke. Tells you alot about Geraghty - the types he has done business with through the years.
Anon, Feb 7, 2012 5:34:00 PM
ReplyDelete"It was Dublin - Dublin airport."
I ask you again, and believe me, I'm a hard person to tire out, where can we verify this information?
"Our man John Geraghty is an associate director of Laing O'Rourke. Tells you alot about Geraghty"
Are we supposed to know who the O'Rourke brothers are. And why are bringing their name up here?
My cousin Lefty works for Captain Bligh. So what? Unless I explain why Bligh is relevant for the case, it's just clutter.
You and Advocatus are nothing but a carbon copy of each other.
Only not surprised to hear you also have a brother Vinnie who works on the lower east side.
ReplyDeleteTHENtherewere4 - The Real Deal
TTFN - TAF
This is what Advocatus had to say about you, TTW4:
ReplyDeleteOn Jan 26, 2012 3:43:00 AM
“if folks are seriously interested in this case, folks need to read TTW4's allegations about Bennet's case being a 'straw man' –“
“You will find Mr Bennet's reply to TTW4's suspicions, and his defence is lame, I'm afraid to say”
“Read the thread above, TTW4 goes into great detail, and Mr Bennet arrogantly dismisses him as if he were squashing a fly”
“Read the TTW4 statement on Bennet witting or unwitting complicity”
On Jan 26, 2012 7:27:00 PM
“I respect TTW4s knowledge on this case too. He has been around a long time, and operated several anti-McCann web sites. He walked the talk for years. He smells a rat with Tony, and frankly so do I, for reasons outlined in the links I gave”
On Jan 26, 2012 8:06:00 PM
“Well I don't know 'Insane', and I don't know who the 'too important' man is - if that is the case, then TTW4 must have his reasons, I would ask him again. BTW he has recently stopped all his anti-macCann blogs, I have no idea why.”
Comment: strange for someone who reads Textusa for such a long time not to know who Insane is. We all do.
On Jan 27, 2012 3:59:00 AM
“Thanks, just checked it out and a few other articles - regarding TTW4, he did give you his considered answer so I can't really help you with that. It really is up to you to address TTW4 I think”
Comment: TTW4’s answer was a link to newspaper article about someone, where Fagan appears by accident and an arrogant “Those of you who know me will appreciate I'm sure the fact I don't usually reply to comments such as yours. Therefore it will come to noone, apart from you that is, as no great surprise in this instance I have decided to do just exactly that.”
On Jan 27, 2012 11:30:00 AM
“You have to admit TTW4 has come up with some amazing digging, and I have not yet scratched the surface of all his posts. What worries me are the amount of people folding and rolling over right now, there seems to be a concerted purge going on: Pamalam, TTW4, 3 Arguidos, the Blackwatch Inn, and etc etc etc.”
On Jan 27, 2012 1:02:00 PM
“You seem to be trying to goad TTW4 into making some sort of claim, libelous or not. These folks are big boys, and despite a property price collapse in the Algarve, the big boys are still rich beyond our wildest imaginations. It is rumoured that at least one 'fat cat' is bankrolling the McCanns' legal bills, and has put up a rolling retainer, topped up when needed. That is a rumour and I don't know the precise details, or the veracity thereof.”
Let’s leave it to the readers to reach a conclusion for themselves.
I believe entirely on something else that Advocatus also said:
On Jan 26, 2012 7:27:00 PM
“I have followed textusa's posts for quite some time and she has an uncanny 'nose' for smelling bullcrap”
TTW4,
ReplyDeleteI’m afraid that reason lies with Anon that’s been biting your heels. You have said “Some time ago Gerry Fagan was at Dublin airport and whilst waiting for a plane to Portugal he met a man doing exactly the same thing. Within minutes of the meeting Fagan shook his hand and agreed a million pound property deal in Portugal. The stranger Fagan met in Dublin airport and whose hand he shook was the McCanns businessman friend from Loughborough - John Geraghty.”
You have failed, albeit Anon’s insistences, to provide any sort of proof for the encounter you mention and in which you name the alleged participants and describe the alleged purpose in detail.
Our blog is not the place for allegations without sustainment.
Textusa, thank you!
ReplyDeleteWhere is the posting that discusses the Mrs. Fenn witness statement as possibly untrue? I have something important to tell you but first I would like to read your full argument. Incidentally, what I would like to share in this context is both a fact and an alternative theory based on such fact. I think you missed an important fact but like I just wrote, I first need to read the full argument. I can't find it and it is getting late. Much obliged.
ReplyDeleteAnon Mar 14, 2012 1:43:00 AM
ReplyDeleteFirst you'll find partly here:
http://www.textusa.blogspot.com/2010/11/my-thanksgiving-turkey-to-all-of-you.html
And here
http://www.textusa.blogspot.com/2011/12/christmas-reading.html
Where it says:
"We wrote about a crucial character in this story, the "not-so-white-hat-after-all" Mrs Fenn: (1), (2), (3), (4), (5), (6), (7) and (8)"