A reply to bennett.

Andy, of ChaosRaptor, who was one of the people copied into bennett's e-mail, sent the following reply to bennett, and cc'd in everyone who bennett sent it to, and also some members of the BBC. I then sent my own reply, also to all that Andy sent his e-mail to.



Good Afternoon Mr Bennett,

I do not speak for everyone else you have included on this email because I
don't presume that I have any authority to do so. I have copied these
people in on the email that you initially sent out so there is a audit
trial of this communication.

I have also included some BCC receipents to this email as a matter of
record. I am not treating the contents of this emails as confidential
other than the email addresses that you have included already.

Since Raptors have been in commission in the form that you know it, the
site has been threatened by you at least three times that I am aware of
for what you have said to be comments that you consider libellous. If you
can recall it was this site that contacted you initially to offer you
assistance in tracing the comments that had been made about you and Brenda
Ryan on a media website.

It is now well known that at the time of you replying to this email that I
sent you offering help, you were already informed of the fact that it was
one of the 3 Arguidos owners who had perpetrated this action amongst other
despicable acts across the internet. You even said to me in a reply that
you knew the identity of the person and it was not, as I suggested, Laffin
Assasin. I will come back to your associate Sean Hyland later in this
email.

With regards to your links to the far right BNP party. You have admitted
yourself that your name appears on their membership list. You then went on
to offer a vague reason as to why this is a fact, I believe you said that
your brother signed you up to the party in an error, presumably your names
are similar and that is where the misunderstanding came from ? I do not
know the exact circumstances of your brothers error, only that you have
said it is your name on the list. There is also the well publicised fact
that you have had dealings with a BNP member in the past, you have written
articles that appear on far right websites, for example the piece you have
written regarding Muslims and prophet Mohammed. Your extremist views on
your lack of tolerance or understanding of homosexuals is also widely
known and reported on.

As you can see, you have been whether through your own direct action or
indirect actions associated with at least two aspects of the BNP.

What I find grossly offensive Mr Bennett is that you proudly, and rightly
so, say that your father took the surrender from the Nazis at the end of
the war, yet your intolerance towards certain members of the community is
just as hostile as the far right. Can I draw your attention to your
Websmasters comment on one of his sites where he claims, and I quote:

3. Like the Holocaust, the jemmied shutter story is a complete myth.

This is an appalling and grossly offensive comment to make, not only does
this insult the memory of those who gave their lives to fight the Nazis
but it is also a criminal act. Believe me, I am fairly sure that your
father who took the surrender from the Nazis would be appalled at this
latest outrage from your Foundation.

Turning again to your Foundation associate, Laffin Assasin, aka Sean
Hyland. This associate of yours has threatened to kill the McCann parents
and expressed a desire to fire bomb their family home. Foundation members
of the 3 Arguidos have discussed the possibility of kidnapping the McCann
children is an attempt to get "Kate to talk".

You site has also publically and criminally identified and targeted
members of the press and bloggers spreading malicious lies and offensive
insinuations, as far as I am aware, Mike Gunnill's website remains down
because of direct action taken by your Madeleine Foundation webmaster.

Members of your Foundation have circulated a digitally altered photograph
of Madeleine McCann to sexualise her. Can I remind you that in the UK as
with most countries, there is an absolute prohibition on such altered
material.

You have also claimed that Brenda Ryan and Dr Vanessa Sluming, the 3
Arguidos site owners have endorsed the Foundation on behalf of their team.
Can I point out to you that neither Brenda Ryan nor Vanessa Sluming had
any legal right to endorse anything related to the Foundation on behalf of
anyone. This endorsement is a personal one from Brenda Ryan and Vanessa
Sluming and not from any of their staff, past or present unless you have
been told specifically by them in writing.

I have nothing personal against you Mr Bennett, what I dislike intensely
is what your Foundation has done in the past, for example the absolutely
horrendous action of posting your leaflets through the doors of Rothley
residents, the very home town of the McCanns. I would say that I am a well
adjusted member of society and I find this action profoundly sick and
bordering on a fanatical terrorism against the McCann family and friends.
I have been very vocal in criticising this action not only because of how
insensitive and possible criminal in nature it is, but also because one of
your own Foundation members who gives your leaflets out has threatened
violence against the McCanns. It is not a wild stretch of the imagination
to believe that the McCanns could be in real danger.

As long as your Foundation and it's members continue to conduct aggressive
operations against the McCann family I will endeavour to gather such
activities as evidence to present to the various authorities that I have
been in contact with regarding Brenda Ryan and Vanessa Sluming. You cannot
be allowed to conduct this hate campaign when the McCanns are completely
innocent.

Finally, regarding your objection to the photo that appears on my site, I
have acknowledged your objection to this material and will investigate
this image and advise you on my findings and conclusions once the
investigation has been completed.

If you have any problems or queries regarding any of these issues raised
in this communication, then please do not hesitate to contact me.

Rgds
andy




Nigel Nessling’s reply



If I may, I would like to add a few comments of my own, since I am currently one of the people bennett has focused his attention on. I will come to bennett’s attempts to smear my good name later, but firstly, let’s look at the points raised.



First, the dog indications. And please note, it would be wholly wrong to describe these indications as evidence. Can anyone, and particularly bennett, show me a link to any report where the dog’s handler, Mr Grimes, states unequivocally that the dog indications prove conclusively that Madeleine died in the apartment? No, and for the very good reason that he didn’t. In fact Mr Grimes went to great lengths to state the contrary, and that it was very possible the indications were the result of cross contamination. Despite your best attempts to ridicule the following fact, bennett, the dogs are trained on pig corpses, for the reason that pig flesh decays and leaves an almost identical scent to human flesh. The pig and human are so close, genetically, that one of my friends actually has a pig’s heart valve in his own heart.



Now, the dogs are not trained to find a corpse as such. They are trained to detect a scent, sometimes colourfully described as ‘The Scent Of Death.’ This scent consists of chemicals, most notably Putrescine and cadaverine. But these chemicals are also present in other bodily fluids, most commonly saliva. In other words, the dog could very easily be reacting to one of the twins dribble. This is why the dog indications MUST be backed up by corroborating forensic evidence. In this case they were not. The dogs did exactly as they were trained to do. It is the dog’s indications that are useless, not the dogs themselves.



Then we have the video footage of the dogs in action. If we were ONLY to go by the shorter, edited version of this video, where we see only the dog barking at the hire car door, we could be excused for thinking more of this action than it warrants. But if we watch the FULL LENGTH video, it tells a far different story. The entire scene takes place, not in a forensically clean and secure environment, but an underground public car park. Secondly, we can see, right from the start, that the McCann’s car is highly identifiable, covered as it is in ‘Find Madeleine’ posters. THIS FACT ALONE would see any case kicked out of court on day one, even if evidence HAD been found. As Mr Grimes begins his task, he leads the dog to a series of other cars, where the dog sniffs for a few seconds, then ignores and runs off. Mr Grimes spends only moments with each of these cars. Then he comes to the McCann’s car, highly identifiable remember. But the dog can’t read, and treats this car in exactly the same way as all the others. He ignores it and runs off. If the hire car was as anonymous as the rest, we would not be having this conversation now. The dog is called back no less than FIVE times, before indicating. Again, this action would never stand up in a court of law.



Point number two. There is still DNA evidence taken from apartment 5a that has not yet been identified. You claim that it would appear to be a former resident. But I repeat, it has NOT yet been identified, so what on earth qualifies you to dismiss it in such an out of hand way? Why does it appear to be a former resident? No mention is made of this in the police files, it still remains Unidentified, so it has just as much chance of coming from the abductor, does it not? At this point you stray off point somewhat, and talk about your theory about the impossibility of an abduction taking place, and rather arrogantly try and convince us that so far no one has been able to refute that reason. I beg to differ. It HAS been roundly and robustly discredited, many times, on many forums. Indeed, the book ‘The Madeleine investigation: Incompetence or corruption’ has an excellent chapter devoted to this very subject, pointing out the flaws in your own theory, and showing the sheer impossibility of a cover-up, such as you suggest, taking place. I recommend you purchase a copy.



http://www.authorhouse.co.uk/Bookstore/ItemDetail.aspx?bookid=60049



Now, about your attempt to smear my good name. And my name IS good, bennett. In my entire life, the only time I have ever been in trouble with the police is a couple of speeding fines. I have NEVER been arrested, or charged with an offence. And furthermore, I am NOT, as you have claimed, under investigation now, by Essex police. I know this for a fact, as I have spoken to Inspector Maleary, of Harlow police station at great length on this subject. Unlike yourself, bennett, who HAS been arrested, at least five times, according to some press articles. During one of these arrests, you even admitted to giving a false name, because you ‘Panicked.’ Neither have I, like you, ever been sacked, from any place of work, for bringing my profession into disrepute.



I have, however, been libelled, many times, by members of your old fan club, the 3arguido’s. I have been accused of having a nervous breakdown. I have been accused of being investigated for causing a man to commit suicide. I have been accused of being investigated for harassment of an innocent man. ALL of it grossly defamatory. I have spoken to a libel solicitor, and I have been told I have a cast iron case. Sadly, I do not have the funds to bring about such a case, as the laws of libel are out of reach of the ordinary working class man such as myself. You too, bennett, have libelled me, by falsely accusing me of libelling YOU. This ‘e-mail’ you accuse me of passing around. I left a comment on a very obscure blog, one that even I had never heard of, which was up for less than twenty four hours before the author removed it, because, like most ‘Anti’ blogs, only favourable comments are allowed. I doubt more than half a dozen people read it, and the blog itself is now defunct. I have NEVER forwarded that comment to anyone, in any e-mail, and I welcome the police, if they ever DO investigate me, to use whatever software they have, to look through my computer to prove it. Neither have I set up any malicious websites about you. I am NOT Muratfan, and a simple check of computer I.P.s will quickly prove this.



As for the allegations made about you, I did not start any of them. I personally knew nothing about them, until I joined the British Democracy forum. I will not bother with your protestations about not being a member of any far right organisations, the evidence is manifestly incontrovertible, and as I said, I did not start it, and it is not libel to tell the truth. Your stay in a mental institution has also been documented elsewhere, though I cannot remember where exactly, so again I am not committing libel if there is evidence to the contrary. As for your lewd act in a public toilet, this was raised I don’t know how many times on the BDF. You had more than ample opportunity to refute it. You didn’t. Not once. You accuse the McCann’s of heinous crimes, and claim their silence is an admission of guilt. I say to you that your own silence on the toilet matter is equally damning. The only reason you are now picking on me is because I am the only one in all of this whose real name is known to you. My name is good, my conscience is perfectly clear, I have done none of the things you accuse me of, particularly in your rambling letter to my MP and Alan Campbell.



Finally, back to the abduction of Madeleine. There remains three key questions that remain unanswered. How did she die? We know it wasn’t an overdose of Calpol, as it has been proven that Calpol has no sedative properties. Where did the parents hide the body? It wasn’t in the kitchen freezer, that was far to small. And most crucially, how did they move the body over three weeks later, in the midst of the biggest media circus the world had ever seen to that point, without being discovered? No one, not one anti, has EVER successfully answered those questions, and I seriously doubt you will be the first. Unless and until those questions ARE answered, then the whole theory of the parents killed her and covered it up remains a complete non-starter.

brilliantly put Vee, you come across clear and concise unlike the recipient of your email never does!!

Mulleena wrote:brilliantly put Vee, you come across clear and concise unlike the recipient of your email never does!!

Brilliant my friend Vee. Well done.

Vee, well said.
I know it will fall on deaf ears, but we can live in hope that Bennett or at least one member of the now defunct 3as will finally listen to reason and see that what TB is doing is so very very wrong.
I have said many times that I know you are not Muratfan, I still have no idea who it is, male/female? I dont know, but what I DO know it is NOT you.

I agree. An excellent defence Vee, clear, calm, cool and concise. Very effective.

There was so much more I wanted to say, but it needed to be as short as possible, and not immitate one of bennett's boring ramblings. Perhaps one day I will take the time to put it all down in words, even if bennett doesn't read it.

Excellent!
And no you are definitly not Muratfan.....'it' is a she, that is all I know.