More Libel from Harlow's Failed Resident.

OUR BOOK:

“What really happened to Madeleine McCann? - 60 Reasons which suggest she was not abducted” (60pp)

For information about our new book, titled: “The Madeleine
McCann Case Files: Volume 1”, due out February 2010, please see below.

On
7 December 2008, The Madeleine Foundation produced a 60-page booklet on
the Madeleine McCann case: “What really happened to Madeleine McCann? -
60 Reasons which suggest she was not abducted”. It was written by our
Secretary, Tony Bennett, who had spent over a year researching the
subject.

It sold thousands of copies, and also formed the basis
for an article on our former website titled: “30 Key Reasons which
suggest that Madeleine McCann was not abducted”. In addition, tens of
thousands of copies of a four-page A5 leaflet titled: “10 Key Reasons
which suggest that Madeleine McCann was not abducted”, which summarised
the main points of our ’60 Reasons’ book, were published and
distributed.

Prior to publication, a draft of the contents of
the book was sent to the McCanns themselves, to their chief public
relations officer, Clarence Mitchell, and to three of the various sets
of lawyers hired by the McCanns, including Carter-Ruck, the McCanns’
libel lawyers, who self-proclaim themselves on their website as ‘the
nation’s most feared libel lawyers’.

However, due to the
threat of expensive litigation by Dr Gerald and Dr Kate McCann, we are
no longer able to sell or distribute the ‘60 Reasons’ book.

On
27 August 2009, after the book had been selling for nearly 9 months,
Carter-Ruck, wrote to Tony Bennett claiming that the book libelled the
McCanns and must be withdrawn from sale.

On 2 October 2009,
Tony received legal advice from Kirwans, a noted firm of Solicitors in
Liverpool, that if even one line in ‘60 Reasons’ could be deemed by the
High Court as ‘libellous’, he faced personal financial ruin. The
lawyers advised that because of
the massive costs that could be
awarded against Tony, because Carter-Ruck’s lawyers charged hundreds of
pounds an hour (plus VAT) for their services, and he would be
potentially liable for them as well as any award of damages, he could
lose all his savings and half of his matrimonial home.

On 25
November Tony agreed terms with Carter-Ruck whereby the McCanns would
not claim any costs against him on condition that he agreed to no
longer sell nor distribute any further copies of the booklet.

For those reasons, then, we regret that that booklet is no longer available from us.

NEW BOOK


However,
we are pleased to inform you that, at the time of writing, we are about
to publish another, longer, book on the Madeleine McCann Case.

Titled
“The Madeleine McCann Case Files: Volume 1”, and running to 108 pages,
it reproduces twelve of the key documents in the case which the
Portuguese Police have made public. These include the interim report by
the Portuguese Police in September 2008, published less than a month
before the detective leading the investigation into Madeleine’s
disappearance, Goncalo Amaral, was removed from the investigation, and
the final report of the Portuguese Judicial Authorities.
Also
included are the various statements of Martin Grime, the world-renowned
police dog-trainer who brought Eddie the cadaver dog, who specialises
in scenting the presence of human corpses and bloodhound Keela to Praia
da Luz, and took them to the McCanns’ apartment and the McCanns’ hired
Renault Scenic car.

Lengthy extracts from the witness statements
of Jane Tanner, the McCanns’ friend who claimed to have seen an
abductor walking away from the McCanns’ apartment at around 9.15pm on
Thursday 3 May, the day Madeleine was reported missing, are also
included.

The purpose of our new book is to place this material
in the hands of as many British people as possible. They are curious to
know what is in these files. Much of what is in them is not known by
them as the British media have felt unable to discuss the evidence in
the case since they were effectively ‘gagged’ as a result of successful
libel actions by the McCanns, Robert Murat, his wife and his friend
Sergei Malinka, and the friends of the McCanns, known as the ‘Tapas 7’.

The booklet costs £3.00, or £4.00 including postage.

We hope shortly to be able to include a PayPal button for ordering the book.

In the meantime, to order by post, please send a cheque/P.O. made out to The Madeleine Foundation at this address:

The Madeleine Foundation
c/o Mr A Bennett
66 Chippingfield
HARLOW
Essex
CM17 0DJ.

We’re sorry, at the moment we are unable to accept payments by credit card

tony bennett, How about making sure your book includes the IGNORED EVIDENCE including photographs of a child that could have been Madeleine. That way, the British public you hope to deceive, will then be able to make their OWN minds up, not listen to the rants of a deluded pitchforker.
By the way, bennett, DO NOT INCLUDE me as the British subject you hope to sway. I would never buy your trash, nor even accept it for free.
Soon be your turn in court bennett, so please, carry on.

Hi,

Has anyone sent screenshots of that to CR ?
It's about time TB got what is due to him

well said Rosie!!

Rosiepops wrote:
Bennett and please do not include me or any of my family and friends, they hate you almost as much as I do!

You do NOT speak for me you piece of scum, leave the McCanns alone, stop trying to cash in on Madeleine, stop trying to cash in by accusing her parents, we can see right through you, you are pure evil, you are vile, you are lower than excrement.

I look forward to seeing you squirming in court, I plan to be there every single day of your hearing and I plan to rub it in. I hope you lose your house and your savings and I hope they pass an order preventing you from using the internet. You are a pathological lying sub-human, you have shown not an ounce of feeling for any of the people whose lives you have crossed, you do not care about Madeleine, you are in this purely to try and make a name for yourself, quite honestly you are the vilest most stupid arrogant man I have ever had the misfortune to read and hear about and apart from your pathetic brainless racist scumbag followers, there is not one other person that has a good word to say about you, even your neighbours hate your guts.

Bennett will love that, Rosie. He's got a Persecution Complex. He loves being rubbished because it proves what he believes, that everybody hates him because he is worthless.

TB, I second Rosie.

jackf wrote:Hi,

Has anyone sent screenshots of that to CR ?
It's about time TB got what is due to him

CR are fully aware of this.

How Jane Tanner identified Robert Murat as the chief suspect

On
Sunday 13th May, Jane Tanner and her partner Dr Russell O’Brien
positively identified Robert Murat as the man they both saw on the
night of 3 May. Jane Tanner claims to have seen the abductor. Dr
O’Brien claimed he’d seen Robert Murat hanging around the Ocean Club.
This is how her positive identification of Murat occurred.

Tanner
was taken by a Leicestershire Police Officer, Bob Small, into a police
van with darkened windows, from where she could see passers-by. Amongst
those who walked by whilst she was hidden with police officers in the
van was Robert Murat. She instantly identified Murat as the probable
abductor she had seen a few nights previously. Crucially, Robert Murat
has poor eyesight and wears glasses all the time. However, when Tanner
was asked to give a description of the abductor she claimed to have
seen, she did not mention his wearing glasses.

Bob Small had
already been in Praia da Luz for several days. Tanner orignally claimed
that when she first met Bob Small, she didn’t know who he was, and
asked her partner, Russell O’Brien, to write down the registration
number of the car in which the policeman rode. But during the same
questioning session, Tanner says that at the time she was taking her
collaboration with the authorities ‘very seriously’ and that she didn’t
even tell her partner [Russell O’Brien] that she was meeting Bob Small
and why. We don’t know when she was first introduced to Small.

It
had been on Sunday 6 May that Lori Campbell contacted Leicestershire
Constabulary about Murat. A female CID Officer in the Leicestershire
Constabulary [Folio 307 of the CD in the files] faxed the ‘Portugal
Incident Room’ in Praia da Luz stating that Lori Campbell, a reporter
from the ‘Sunday Mirror’, had been in contact. The Officer reported as
follows:

“Lori has been speaking to an interpreter who has
been helping the Portuguese authorities with the investigation into
Madeleine’s disappearance. He has only given his name as ‘ROB’ and has
not given any background information about himself. Lori has become
suspicious of Rob as he has given conflicting accounts to various
people and he became very concerned when he noticed his ’photo being
taken by the Mirror’s photographer. ROB stated to Lori that he was
going through a messy divorce in the U.K. at the moment and that he had
a 3-year-old daughter just like Madeleine, who he is separated from at
the moment. He made a big show of telephoning his daughter in front of
reporters and Lori felt he was being too loud and making a big thing of
speaking to his daughter on the ’phone. The things that ROB has said to
Lori have raised her concerns about him. Could you please call Lori who
is still in Portugal to establish further details to identify ROB in
order to eliminate him from your enquiries on 07917 XXXXXX”.

This
information was relayed immediately to Portugal - in stark contrast, we
may note, to the way Leicestershire Police handled some other matters
of potential interest, for example, their five-month delay forwarding
the statements of Drs Katherine and Arul Gaspar to the UK police. These
were two Doctor friends of the McCanns, whose statements claimed that,
while on an earlier holiday with the McCanns and the Paynes, Dr Payne,
in the presence of Mr McCann, had made disturbing remarks about
Madeleine in what might be construed to be a sexual and perverted way.

As
Paulo Reis commented: “Miss Campbell’s report must have hit the hot
buttons, because Mr Murat came under suspicion and the PJ intercepted
his telephone (see folios 1017 and 1267), picking up some interesting
chats with Martin Brunt of SKY TV (see folios 1675 and 1692). But
little else was picked up except for a conversation with ‘Phil’, a
British Police Officer, whom Murat asked about the ways mobile ’phone
signals could be tracked to specific locations. Mr Murat’s interest
seemed to be whether such tracking could prove that he was at home
during the late evening of Thursday 3 May 2007 as he claimed.

In
the early afternoon of Sunday 13 May 2007, Jane Tanner spoke to what
she called ‘some of the people that Kate and Gerry brought in’. It has
since been established that these were almost certainly two men,
Kenneth Farrow and Michael Keenan, from a group called ‘Control Risks
Group’ (CRG), a private intelligence agency which appeared to have no
track record whatsoever of looking for missing children and seemed to
operate covertly and very much ‘in the shadows’. They had arrived at
Faro Airport on the flight from Gatwick that very morning. Some CRG
staff may already have been in Praia da Luz before that flight. Mr
Farrow is the ex-head of the Economic Crime Unit in the City of London
Police and Mr Keenan had been a Superintendent from the Metropolitan
Police with specialist fraud and investigative experience. These were
just two out of a vast collection of professionals that seemed to
descend on Praia da Luz in the days immediately following Madeleine
going missing: public relations experts, British police officers,
counsellors and advisers, Consular staff and private investigators. It
is hard to know how some of them could realistically have been flown in
to help search for Madeleine. Some of these people seemed much more
used to crisis management than to helping to find a missing child.

Returning
to Control Risks Group, the question of who actually asked them to
become involved and who agreed to pay for their services has never been
made clear. Reports suggest that they were a top-level ‘crisis
management team’ who had been brought in by media advisers Bell
Pottinger on behalf of Mark Warner. But what seems clear is that their
initial mission was to advise Jane Tanner in connection with her
identification of the abductor.

It seems probable that she told
CRG, as she had earlier told an officer from Leicestershire Police
(probably Bob Small), that she could identify the ‘abductor’ if she
were to see him in profile and in context.

It seems that no
sooner had Jane Tanner finished speaking to the two top CRG men than
she took a telephone call from Bob Small, a senior Leicestershire
Police Officer already in Praia da Luz helping the Portuguese Police.
He told her that the police wanted to see her. He actually made a
mistake and said ‘the Spanish police’. It is likely, by that time, that
covert plans had already been made to induce Mr Murat to walk across
the top of the road, north of Apartment 5A, where Miss Tanner claimed
to have seen the ‘abductor’. This situation was thus the precise
context in which she believed she could make an identification.

Mr
Small then told Miss Tanner not to discuss anything with anyone,
including her husband. She claims she followed this instruction to the
letter, but questions have been asked about whether she could
realistically have followed such an instruction. By this time, Murat
was under suspicion but had not been made an ‘arguido’. He had been
around the Ocean Club a lot from 4 May 2007 onwards and had translated
the PJ’s interviews with Catriona Baker, Stacey Portz, Leanne Wagstaff
and Amy Teirney (Folio 457).

It is very possible that during
that week most of the ‘Tapas 9’ knew that Murat was under suspicion.
They would have either watched the news bulletins or been briefed on
them. Besides that, their spokesman, Clarence Mitchell, had already
publicly compared Murat to Soham double-murderer Ian Huntley. It
appears, though, that by this time Jane Tanner had not yet been
formally introduced to Murat as many of the other members of the ‘Tapas
9’ had.

Arrangements were then made for Miss Tanner to be
collected by Mr Small and his PJ colleagues in a car park near to Mr
Murat’s home at around 7.30pm that day. Goncalo Amaral was in a meeting
room at the Public Ministry, waiting to pounce if Tanner gave a
positive identification.

Miss Tanner has given a rather
dramatic account of being ‘worried sick’ that the ‘Spanish Police’ (as
she called them) might be about to cart her off to destinations
unknown. So she got her partner Dr Russell O’Brien to walk with her to
the rendezvous with Mr Small. That is another reason for questioning
whether she could possibly have kept secret from her partner the
information that she was meeting Bob Small in order to identify a
possible abductor. If, as she claims, she did not discuss the
identification operation with her husband, what precisely did she say
to him? What did he think was going on? Who looked after their children
at this time and what did Tanner and O’Brien tell those who were
looking after the children? Like many other questions in this affair,
we don’t have answers, and this brings to mind Dr David Payne’s
notorious claim to the Sol newspaper that he couldn’t talk to them
because of a ‘Pact of Silence’ amongst the ‘Tapas 9’.

If
Tanner had indeed discussed her meeting with Bob Small with her partner
Russell, we might therefore reasonably infer from that that all of the
‘Tapas 9’ group probably had more than a shrewd idea why Tanner had met
with Bob Small.

The police went on to arrange to pick Tanner up
very close to Murat’s home. One might ask why so close? On their way to
the car park, and just outside his home, Robert Murat, whom we know had
met Russell O’Brien on the morning of 4 May, was driving his mother’s
green VW van. He stopped, got out of his van and chatted, showing
Tanner and O’Brien posters he had made to ‘Find Madeleine’, and
generally rattling on about nothing in particular. This was the first
time, so we are told, that Tanner had been introduced to Murat, but, as
Paolo Reis pointed out, “given the events that were about to follow, it
is amazing she did not cry out ‘That’s him…that’s the person I saw:
that’s the abductor!’” But she didn’t say a single word.

In her
later ‘Rogatory’ interview with Leicestershire Police in April 2008,
she claimed that she had been concerned at the time that ‘there was
some strange conspiracy going on to abduct me’, adding that “Mr Small
scared the daylights out of me”.

She continued as follows:
“But that made me even more suspicious because it was like, so I think
at that point, I think I actually spoke to Stuart [Stuart Prior, the
lead Leicestershire Police investigator in Praia da Luz]”. It seems
from other sources that she did indeed speak to Mr Prior and thus had
no reason whatsoever to believe that she was about to be abducted.

If
Tanner did indeed have a discussion with her partner about the
identification operation, that would have enabled him to point out
Murat and enable her to identify him. Was it merely a coincidence that
Russell accompanied Jane to the pick-up by Bob Small?

When you
add into the mix that the pick-up was just outside Murat’s house, and
that on top of that they just ‘happened’ to bump into Murat, the whole
sequence of events looks less and less as if they were by mere chance.

Tanner
was taken away by Bob Small and the Portuguese Police and she says
Russell wrote down their car registration number, presumably so he
could rescue her if the Spanish Police abducted her. She was driven to
another location and hidden in the back of an undercover surveillance
vehicle, a van, which was driven to a position near the side entrance
to Apartment 5A, facing north.

Tanner then apparently saw three
people walk across the top of the road: but Mr Murat was the first to
do so. It is not clear exactly what words she used to the police at the
time but, whatever she says now, it was very clearly strong enough to
make them believe that Tanner had positively identified Murat as the
‘abductor’. This was despite Murat not matching her verbal description,
nor looking anything like the ‘egg man’ sketch of the alleged abductor
that Tanner had approved, nor wearing glasses. Immediate plans were
made to arrest Murat.

Three of the ‘Tapas 9’ now go on to identify Murat as a man they saw on the night Madeleine was abducted

Mr
Murat’s home was searched on 14 May and he was made an ‘arguido’ on 15
May 2007. His face was then on every TV screen in Europe.

It
seems that what happened next, so we are told, is that a SKY News
report caused Rachel Mampilly to immediately walk to the Tanner’s
apartment saying she recognised Murat from her sighting of him at the
Ocean Club on the night of 3 May 2007. Fiona Payne immediately
corroborated this and Russell O’Brien added that he had met Mr Murat
during the searches for Madeleine on the night of 3/4 May. He says he
entered Murat’s telephone number into his mobile’s memory at that time.


Tanner has claimed that she had not told her friends anything
about her outing in the police van and said that their reactions to Mr
Murat’s exposure on SKY News were spontaneous. However, in her April
2008 interviews with the Leicestershire Police, Tanner made a slip. She
said that her friends suggested that she should speak to Bob Small
about Mr Murat. That raises the question of how they knew that she had
Bob Small’s contact details, if she had not already discussed the
identification charade with them?

Tanner told Leicestershire Police [this is taken from the official Transcript]:

“Cos
I’d got, I’d got his number from the day before (for/from?) them and
you know, they sort of, you know, to say, oh is this, is this relevant
and also I wanted to tell him that I’d seen him [Murat] on the way to
doing the surveillance as well as, yeh, just for that so it’s just to
make the point really that I think at that point, they didn’t know that
Robert Murat had said he wasn’t there on that night”.

Later in the interview, Tanner said:

“…get
to the truth of the matter and the truth is, you know they, when they
asked me to ring Bob Small to make these statements, we didn’t even
know that he’d, erm, hadn’t, hadn’t said he was there on the night and
they didn’t know that I had done the surveillance…I mean when I got
back, I didn’t even tell Russell what I’d done ’cos I took everything
seriously what the police said in terms of, you know, not telling
anyone”.

It has been suggested, by contrast, that there may have
been a deliberate plan between members of the ‘Tapas 9’ and some the
police officers, criminal profilers and private investigators who were
talking to them, to accuse Murat and have him arrested. We make no
comment on that suggestion.

Tanner then ’phoned Bob Small and
relayed her friend’s concerns, but it is not clear whether or not she
told him about the compromising, supposedly accidental, encounter with
Murat outside his house, just five minutes before identifying him as
the ‘abductor’. In most jurisdictions, this encounter would have
invalidated Miss Tanner’s identification evidence. It would also have
raised suspicions that there had been a deliberate plan for her to bump
into the prime suspect (accompanied by someone who knew him) so that
she would see what he was wearing and, based on such knowledge,
identify him as the ‘abductor’ a mere five minutes later.

Whether
this suspicion is true or not, it does not alter the fact that the
identification exercise was thoroughly incompetent. Murat denied being
at the Ocean Club on 3 May 2007. Now there were three members of the
‘Tapas 9’ who suddenly claimed to remember seeing him there. Let it be
noted that it was on 15 May that these three members of the ‘Tapas 9’
first told Portuguese Police that they had seen Murat on the night of
3/4 May. They had therefore waited twelve days to do so.

There
is nothing in the Portuguese Police CD files to indicate whether the
supposedly accidental encounter was ever reported to Bob Small. It may
have been. The critical unanswered question, though, is whether or not
Small reported this evidentially corrupting incident to the Portuguese
Police and to the Portuguese judiciary.

On 15 May, Russell
O’Brien, Fiona Payne and Rachael Mampilly all made statements to the
police placing Murat in the Ocean Club late on the evening of 3 May.
Their evidence conflicts with that of a number of Portuguese Police,
GNR Officers and Mark Warner’s staff who say Murat was not there that
night. There was some activity on his computer that night but not
enough to rule out the possibility that he left his mother’s home for a
period that night (see Folio 1166).

On 11 July 2007, a formal
confrontation between the Tapas 3 and Mr Murat took place in Portimao.
He stuck to his guns, they stuck to theirs, and it became a stand-off.
In this meeting Tanner was able to get a very good look of Mr Murat and
apparently continued to maintain he was the person she had seen
carrying the child on 3 May 2007, despite the fact he looked nothing
like the ‘egg man’ sketch. The Portuguese Police seemed to believe Mr
Murat.

An extract from bennetts next folly.

Mulleena

Thanks for putting that piece of drivel up. It is so long winded and full of BS that I almost fell off my chair asleep.

But on a serious note, is Bennett truly deranged? He has clearly made up a quite a lot of that, (for eg, JT must have spoken to Obrien about where they were going and who she had to see, and why, also, how would Bennett know she was asked to keep it secret, and further, secrecy does not apply to spouses). I swear, CR is going to tear him a new one, and he will be living in a tent.

Forgot to say as well, that it is strange when publicising a new libellous book to refer to the old one, and as well to show the proof of their stalking by writing that they sent the booklet to the McCanns. What the hell has that got to do with anything except what a foolish idiot that Bennet is? Is he trying to say that it must be right because we sent it to the McCanns and of course it wasnt because he now involved in a libel action over it. Or is he trying to say, look how professional we are becuase we sent the booklet to the McCanns.

What it actually says is, look at us, we are completely lacking empathy, we write a libellous book and then send it to the people we are libelling, to make them suffer. As I said, proving to the world he is a heartless stalker, by his own words.

Bennett seems to be on a high and like a lot of others after the hearing this week putting all their eggs in one basket.
Its almost like they have been listening to events unfolding but on a completely different wavelength.
But its obvious he is clawing at publicity by his timing and is in for a rude awakening when that writ drops on his mat.
He is not going to get a hearing like the one thats just taken place but an ear bashing and a hefty bill and not before time imo!!

I think you are right about the timing and their warped view of the current proceedings concerning the injunction. In fact, most of them dont even realise that the current proceedings are an appeal against the injunction and are not even the main libel case. And worse, Amaral and the other defendents (the publishers, TVI etc) are getting into even more trouble as their appeal progresses, via their own mouths.

So that is Bennett's take on Jane Tanner's involvement? It doesn't even make sense. It's a mish mash of innuendo, contradiction and suggestion. But if the Muppets want to pay four quid for it, who am I to interfere?

And where is her Rogatory Interview where she says it probably wasn't Robert Murat she saw? That interview reads as though she had already said she didn't think it was him, and was simply repeating what she had already said in Portugal.

If I were Jane Tanner I would be seriously thinking about a libel action myself.

Right, Tinkerbell. Jane Tanner wasn't at that meeting. And has never said that Robert Murat was definitely the man. Neither did she see him on the night of the 3rd of May.

This is just a classic example of how Bennett twists things.

But I doubt that it is cause for Jane Tanner to sue Bennett.

Bennett is just preaching to the brain dead converted.

Bennett has it completely wrong, as usual.

Jane Tanner was not at the meeting, and the people at the meeting were insisting he had been around the night of the abduction, whereas Murat insists he was at home all night. There was never anyone that suggested he was the man in the sketch, just that he was around (the apartment, the resort etc) after Madeleine was abducted when he said he wasnt.