Another Rucking Coming Soon!!

16 CONTRADICTIONS between 3pm and 9pm on 3 May 2007: An invitation to the McCanns to set the record straight once and for all

Post Tony Bennett Today at 5:51 pm
I reproduce a letter sent yesterday to Carter-Ruck by post and today to them by e-mail.

At the heart of this case are the contradictions between the statements of the various members of the 'Tapas 9' (and indeed others) regarding the events of 3 May 2007.

By this letter I have given the McCanns an opportnity to come up with a definitive account of that day's events; 16 specific contradictions are listed.

It will be noted that these 16 contradictions do not in any way touch on one of the central contradictions of that evening - namely the changing and contradictory accounts of Dr Gerald McCann, Ms Jane Tanner and film-maker and photographer Jez Wilkins about the events which took place on the mane between the 'Tapas' restaurant and the 'Tapas' apartments around 9.15pm that evening.

It will be recalled that the McCanns and their various spokesmen have said little or nothing about these significant contradictions, other than to claim that 'there are always inconsistencies' when people try afterwards to give accounts of the same event. The McCann-Tanner-Wilkins conflict of evidence was brushed aside in the lacklustre Panoroma documentary on Madeleine's disappearance shown on 19 November 2007, while in May 2009 ex-Detective Sergeant Arthur Cowley appeared in the dark on a Channel 4 'documentary' giving the same explanation for all the McCann-Tanner-Wilkins divergencies.

Anyway, here is the letter:

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

From: Anthony Bennett
Tel: Harlow (01279) 635789
e-mail: ajsbennett@btinternet.com

66 Chippingfield
HARLOW
Essex
CM17 0DJ

Friday 20 August 2010

Carter-Ruck
Solicitors
6 St. Andrew Street
LONDON
EC4A 3AE

Your ref: Stevie Loughrey
AT/IH/SVL//13837.5 - 15 July and 3 August 2010

Sent by e-mail and hard copy by Certificate of Posting

Dear Sirs

re: Your clients Dr Gerald and Dr Kate McCann - Your letter of 3 August 2010, received 9 August; my letter of 16 August

Further to my letter of Monday’s date, I have yet to receive confirmation that you have received it, together with the attachment; please have the courtesy to confirm safe receipt as soon as possible. Please also confirm safe receipt of this letter.

In my letter I referred to a number of clear contradictions between the statements of your clients and other members of the ‘Tapas 9’ about all-important events on the afternoon and early evening of Thursday 3 May 2007, the night Madeleine was reported missing.

These were only a small selection from many other contradictions there are among the statements of your clients and other members of the ‘Tapas 9’.

I suggested to you that these clear contradictions inevitably fuelled speculation on the internet and elsewhere about the true events of that period of time.

It might be very helpful if your clients could place on the written record their answers to these very public questions, as thousands of people are looking for answers in this case but keep encountering these contradictions. It is very much in your clients’ interest therefore for them to provide clear answers to them. We would certainly be happy to publish their answers on our website, as I am sure would the owners of the many other forums and blogs on the internet which take a generally sceptic stance as to your clients’ claims regarding how Madeleine disappeared. They could set the record straight, for example on their website, by providing definitive answers to the following questions about this period of time:

1. Did David Payne actually visit Dr Kate McCann at all on the evening of 3 May?

2. Did he see Dr Kate McCann only in a towel? - or not?

3. Did he enter the apartment, or not?

4. If he was there, was he there for 30 seconds, or 30 minutes - or how long was he there?

5. Was the tennis game at 3.00pm pre-booked by the McCanns (Jane Tanner’s version) or not (your clients’ version)?

6. Why did Dr Gerald McCann play tennis for an hour from 6pm to 7pm on 3 May (various statements) when he had had to stop playing any tennis at all at 4.30pm due to a recurrence of an apparently pre-existing Achilles tendon injury? (David James Smith article)

7. Did Dr Gerald McCann carry on playing with Julian the tennis coach at 4.30pm (Dr Kate McCann’s statement) or not (David James Smith article)?

8. Did Dr Kate McCann go jogging between 4.30pm and 5.30pm (her statement) or not (Dr Gerald McCann doesn’t mention this in his first two statements)?

9. Was Dr Gerald McCann really on the tennis courts nearly all the time between 3.30pm and 7.00pm?

10. Did your clients decide that the children were not going to the recreation area and therefore bathed the children together between 5.30pm and 6.00pm (Dr Kate Mccann’s sttaement) or did they not decide this (as evidenced by Dr Gerald McCann asking Dr David Payne at around 6.30pm to ask if his wife and children were coming down to the recreation area)?

11. If Dr David Payne did visit Dr Kate McCann at around 6.30pm the night Madeleine disappeared, for which of the following reasons was it (all these have at various times been given by various witnesses):
(a) to see if she was all right?
(b) to bring her and the children down to the recreation area? - or
(c) because Dr Gerald McCann was worried about how his wife was
coping with the children and to see if she needed help?

12. Were the children taken by your clients for tea on 3 May 2007 (some statements) or were they already having tea when your clients visited the creche (other statements?

13. Were your clients both sat on Madeleine’s bed reading stories to the children (Dr Gerald McCann’s version) or not (Dr Kate McCann does not mention this)? (Note: David James Smith in his Times article gives a third version, namely that Dr Kate Mcann was sitting on the couch with the three chidlren whilst Dr Gerald McCann was elsewhere drinking beer).

14. Did Dr Matthew Oldfield tell Dr Gerald McCann that he’d checked your clients’ apartment and heard nothing (Dr Oldfield’s account) or not (Dr Gerald McCann’s version)?

15. For which reason did Dr Matthew Oldfield leave the table at 9.00pm (a) to chase up the tardy Paynes because he saw the lights still burning in their apartment, or (b) to check on the children? (there are varying accounts and it is generally agreed in the statements that both your clients were present at the moment Dr Matthew Oldfield left the table)

16. Did the Paynes meet Dr Matthew Oldfield en route between the 'Tapas' bar and the Paynes' apartment around 9.00pm? If so, why do some statements say this never happened (e.g. Dianne Webster who was adamant this meeting never took place) while others who say this meeting did happen disagree about where it is supposed to have taken place?

It might also assist your clients if Dr Kate McCann were now willing to answer the 48 questions put to her at interview by the Portuguese Police on 7 September which she declined to answer.

Finally, given that the claim by Dr Kate McCann that she ‘instantly’ knew that Madeleine had been abducted (as opposed e.g. to having wandered off) forms such a central part of your clients’ account, and given that Dr Kate Mcann, so far as I am aware, has never given a definitive explanation of why she thought this, may I with respect suggest that a clear answer to that question, published for example on your clients’ website, would help to end the speculation that her unwillingness to answer this very simple question has generated.

Yours faithfully

Anthony Bennett


Tony Bennett
Addict
Addict

Posts: 1898
Join date: 2009-11-25
Age: 62
Location: Harlow, Essex

Carter Ruck are libel solicitors, not investigative detectives and certanly not bennetts messenger boys. It is not their concern if there are any mismatches in statements. As he himself pointed out, there will always be descepancies in any collection of witness statements. There is nothing to raise any suspicions in any of these descrepancies, save in the eyes of conspiracy theorists and heartless zombies. I doubt the McCanns will welcome the oportunity to see their answers publicised on a website deleberatly set up to persecute them and derail the search for their daughter. Only a tiny, almost miniscule percentage of the population actually doubt the McCanns and only an even smaller number ever bother to read the foundation hate site. The McCanns do not need or welcome your advice bennett, so push off, and leave the investigation to those who know better.

I think he is going to get more than a rucking!.

The man has hit the self destruct button, but hey, who are we to try and stop him. Way to go Bennett!

Definitely more than a rucking and not before time imo.

I can see bennett doing time in prison for his continued harassment of this family.

Well, if TB wants to go into self-destruct mode (it is a favour to us all) I´m sure we will all enjoy that, but only him. I also agree with you Vee.

Who the hell does he think he is???????????????????????

I agree also with you my friends, Tinks, Mulleena.

Can you believe that Bennett? What a fool he is!

Taken from MuratFans Blog. At last it looks like The McCanns are commencing legal proceedings.

http://brenryanandco.blogspot.com/2010/08/carter-rucks-latest-letter-to-bennett.html

They have wrote to you Bennett

Our clients have no interest in opening a dialogue with you concerning the disappearance of their daughter, furthermore they have absolutely nothing to say about your latest letter which was nothing more than insinuation on your part.
They have instructed us to carry out legal proceedings as you have repeatedly broke the undertaking that you had previously given and have had numerous chances to stop doing so

Well, it´s about time to start with those legal proceedings against TB.

Way to go Gerry and Kate -

Tinkerbell43 wrote:Taken from MuratFans Blog. At last it looks like The McCanns are commencing legal proceedings.

http://brenryanandco.blogspot.com/2010/08/carter-rucks-latest-letter-to-bennett.html

They have wrote to you Bennett


<BLOCKQUOTE>Our clients have no interest in opening a dialogue with you concerning the disappearance of their daughter, furthermore they have absolutely nothing to say about your latest letter which was nothing more than insinuation on your part.
They have instructed us to carry out legal proceedings as you have repeatedly broke the undertaking that you had previously given and have had numerous chances to stop doing so</BLOCKQUOTE>

Can this be verified, or is it someones wishfull thinking?

Yes, I would like it to be verified too


ETA: he is pushing and pushing his way to court...he really thinks he can win???
Amaralcloned?

Muratfan is as much in the dark as the rest of us, but he seems to be able to get under bennetts skin by hitting the nail on the head.

BLOCKQUOTE>Our clients have no interest in opening a dialogue with you concerning the disappearance of their daughter, furthermore they have absolutely nothing to say about your latest letter which was nothing more than insinuation on your part.
They have instructed us to carry out legal proceedings as you have repeatedly broke the undertaking that you had previously given and have had numerous chances to stop doing so


I'm sorry to say this, but this doesn't sound very professional. For instance - as you have repeatedly broke the undertaking. [i]Surely this should read broken. I think that the wording should sound more professional if it has come from Carter Ruck??

Yes it could be a typo? Was the letter scanned in, or just re-typed, which means the typo could have come during the posting to the internet.

Regardless of whether the purported letter from CR is authentic (and if it is true, then that will be known in the not to distant future), Bennett has indeed overshot this time. It is beyond belief that he could believe that he could write such tripe to a top flight legal firm that specialises in libel actions, and not incur the wrath of the McCanns. This letter takes away any doubt of his intentions.

And honestly, only a moron would write a letter to solicitors that read like it is post on an obscure blog inhabited by pitchforkers.

And interesting that the Houndation pitchforking team are still in contact. I am not surprised by that turn of events at all. Once an evil vicious lying pitchforker, always an evil vicious lying pitchforker.

Perhaps CR, fed up with his over-long, repetative letters and emails, handed it over to a junior, who drafted something, passed it to a secretary who typed it, who then sent it back to the junior, who read it (and let's face it, how many bosses really and truly scan every word, and how many secretaries never make a mistake?), passed it over for signature, or was told just to sign it CR (which I believe it was?). There are quite a few answers to the queries about it; and I have heard even the most erudite of people fall down on simple words, but never on a long, convoluted one.

My thoughts too Pink Panther.
CR have more important things to be doing than answer an ____ like bennett.
Much better to pass it on to someone lower to reply. You know, more at a level bennett can understand.
Cant wait to see him go behind bars. Then another fund will start...
it might raise a pound or two.
What a twerp!