bennett writes to Clarence Mitchell

With his latest moves..... who are we to stop him?

Peaceful1 wrote:

lily wrote:You never know but it might cause Jim Gamble to question Bennett's motives more closely.

Now that coud just be the turning point that is needed!

Yep, I read this today,
He has well & truly put his foot in it this time

Well, this latest letter just shows how sick and twisted that Bennett is.

He takes an innocent photo of Madeleine where she is clearly happy and having a good time, and tries to overlay a sinister them to it. Only a sicko would see that.

Mark Williams Thomas is entitled to his opinion, but he is leaving out the very important fact that sick paedos take very innocent photos and use them for their sick pasttimes. No photo is safe from these perverts, no matter how innocent. And he overlooks the fact that this photo is considered cute and normal and innocent to the rest of the population.

I have a number of photos of my little girl (and boy) dressed up and often with makeup on. And they are not dressed up to look like adults, they are just dressed up. Anyone thinking that Madeleine was 'dressed up' to look like an adult, is sick, and needs to question why they see 'sexualisation of children' within such an innocent photo. And that includes Mark Williams Thomas.

And this rehashing of what Edgar said, or what the Met 3 said etc etc, is just a waster of paper. Why doesnt he turn his attention to the blatant lies of Amaral instead? And giving advice on what should be done. Give us a break, Bennett has no expertise in anything, except causing trouble on forums and writing long, boring, inappropriate and totally without merit posts/letters.

Lots of words on a page doesnt make what Bennet is saying any better, relevant or even based in reality. All it does is put people off reading it, as if we needed anything more than Bennett's name to just ignore it. Just more mind numbing, inappropriate crap.

And then there is the most inane sentence that the moron has ever written.

The problem is that we do not know where to look nor who to look for.

He could try looking around (past the end of his nose and his computer screen), and look for Madeleine. Does he even remember her, the little girl abducted from her bed, that he seems intent on preventing from being found?

Let me sum up this letter from Bennett. MORE HARRASSMENT AND STALKING OF TWO INNOCENT PEOPLE AND THEIR MISSING DAUGHTER.

Brilliant Jayelles

A little bit more.

OK, if Bennett really thought all of this, then fine write a letter to Clarence Mitchell. I dont know why Clarence and not Gerry, but I suspect that harassment charges may result if he sent the letter to Gerry and Kate. But then why publish the letter for all to see.

The publishing part proves that he is only interested in publicising himself, and his schemes. There is no need, and no value in publishing this letter for Madeleine. The only one to benefit from this is Bennett, or at least that is how he sees it.

So in other words, Bennett wrote the letter and then published it because he is an attention seeker.

Nail on the head Dianeh, I think he also does it for his multitude of fans.

Lily

Yes, his 'fans'. I didnt know that a handful was a multitude. If he doesnt put some piece of rubbish out at least every two weeks, then they wont continue to 'support' him.

IMO, that is because they dont support him at all. He provides their entertainment. If he didnt publish his rot, then they wouldnt have anything to talk about, and would go looking for a new moron to folllow. They are as sick as he is.

So very very true Diane.

His 'followers' are just blindfolded sheep, all looking for entertainment at the expense of a missing child.
What sicko's.
tb the biggest sicko of them all. Attention seeking moron.
Oh tony bennett, we know you read this, and like you we are ENTITLED to our opinion of you!
You obviously live in a world where children aren't allowed to have fun dressing up and wearing mum's make up!
FFS bennett...wake up!
I dont know of a young girl who hasn't done it. I certainly did, wasn't very good at getting it right mind you, and I am sure if digi camera's had been around in my young days, my parents (innocently I may add) would have no doubt taken many a photo of me in my mums dresses and high heels and her best lipstick.
Oh and her beads were always long enough to just throw over my head, no help needed.
Us kids thought we looked quite grand in our 'play' outifts and make up.
Only a mind like yours bennett can warp the image.

*Deleted*

Aren't Carter-Ruck thoroughly sick of this menace by now????? Wish they would put a stop to his antics once and for all.

We would therefore ask you and your clients to remove the video from circulation and from YouTube.

I say again, this statement is KEY to revealing bennett's true motives. If it was just the photograph he was objecting to, he could have asked that the photo be removed from the video. But no, he has asked for the WHOLE video be removed from circulation. Why? Why do you want to stop Madeleine being found bennett? How much are you being paid, and by who?

TB, know this, that video will continue to be at Youtube, whether you like or not.

Pedro Silva wrote:TB, know this, that video will continue to be at Youtube, whether you like or not.

Well said Pedro. On youtube and on a lot of other places as well. Until she's found.

Yes Cath my friend, I agree with you completely, until she´s found.

vee8 wrote:We would therefore ask you and your clients to remove the video from circulation and from YouTube.

I say again, this statement is KEY to revealing bennett's true motives. If it was just the photograph he was objecting to, he could have asked that the photo be removed from the video. But no, he has asked for the WHOLE video be removed from circulation. Why? Why do you want to stop Madeleine being found bennett? How much are you being paid, and by who?

Vee, his demands are irrelevant, and just gross arrogance that I don't even want to think about. No one is going to do what he says. And no one really cares about his motives. And No, I do not think that he is being paid. Basically, he wanted to be the spokesperson of The McCanns, and they rightly turned him down. He will never forgive them for this, but then he did not realize what a very sad sack he had become.

Just keep on flaying him. But then I will if you don't. And so will a few others.

I am not even sure if this is what I should do, but then I can't think of any other way to decimate the arsehole.

bennett, you will continue to see more videos and photos of Madeleine until she is found.
No bald dimwit will prevent it.
Got that?

Pedro Silva wrote:TB, know this, that video will continue to be at Youtube, whether you like or not.

Yes and in mine too ...

I read something earlier about one of the "Supporters" being embarressed by this photo and edited it to remove the make-up This "Haunting" picture was sent out for one reason, anyone that cannot see it is as disturbed as the ones who took Madeleine.

He has just sent one to Jim Gamble, of CEOPS, pertaining to telling them how to do their job properly. I can't even be bothered to copy it up, it is even longer, and even more incoherent than the last one.

*Deleted*

Rosiepops wrote:As for being paid, who in their right mind would pay Bennett? If he did know anything he would have plastered all over the internet by now, he cannot be trusted, not with anything, he is a liar, a cheat, a conman and he is also barking mad!

Only barking? And there was me thinking that he is a pervert. But I could be wrong about that.

No Sabot I think you have it sussed accurately! I was just trying to be tactful


I see problems for Bennett!

Rosiepops wrote:No Sabot I think you have it sussed accurately! I was just trying to be tactful


I see problems for Bennett!

Dear Rosie, You have no idea of what I think of Mr. Bennett. And you would have to ban me if I ever said.
Meanwhile I am still trawling Google in an attempt to find even worse words than I already know to describe the er..........pits?

In my blind anger and boredom (I'd rather do this than study for finals), I wrote a reply. It's quite long. I'll post it here.

Dear Mr Mitchell,


re: New video produced by Jon Corner The twins' godfather and a close friend of the McCann family. Produced means he put it together for them. using images of Madeleine McCann with eye shadow and jewellerySound the alarm, the little girl was playing dress up and had on child-ish eye shadow and a big necklace of beads - now on YouTube I am aware of the location of the video. Thank God it's on YouTube. Thank God my clients have no given up. Thank God Amaral did not succeed in framing Kate for a crime she did not commit. Otherwise, who would look for Madeleine? Who would seek justice for a little girl stolen from her bed? Certainly not Amaral. Certainly not you.


We write to express our concern And what standing have you? about the images of Madeleine used by you, the McCanns and Jon Corner in the video message which was widely trailed Trailed? It followed behind? in today’s newspapers and has already attracted several hundred views on YouTube. Fabulous. Clearly it's already doing the job we put it out there to do - to remind people that there is a missing little girl named Madeleine McCann that my clients love, adore, and greatly miss. To beg the public to not forget her face and what she might look like today. We understand that you as the McCanns’ chief public relations adviser must have approved consulted on, as I imagine the McCanns remain the ultimate arbiters the production and distribution of this video. Indeed, you are quoted in one of today’s newspapers as follows I am no doubt aware of the things I said. :



“McCann family spokesman Clarence Mitchell said: ‘The video is designed to remind people that the search for Madeleine is ongoing. Just because she’s not in the headlines every day doesn’t mean nothing is being done. Kate and Gerry are still devoting a large part of their daily lives to the search’. This is indeed correct and the bulk of the video is devoted to showing how Kate and Gerry McCann continue to search for their missing little girl, Madeleine, long for her return, and cope with her not being in their lives.



The fact that your clients the McCanns explicitly approved the distribution of this video is clear from the following report of SKY News: Of course they did, since it shows how hard they have been working over the past three years to find their missing little girl, Madeleine, and bring her back into the warm and loving arms of her family and friends.

“Parents of Madeleine McCann, who went missing three years ago, have released a new video and photo of their missing daughter to mark the third anniversary of the girl's disappearance”.

The concern we have and that is being expressed by thousands of others This is a lie and hyperbole, Mr. Bennett. is the use of clearly-posed Lie. Disputed.photographs Photograph. of a three-year-old wearing make-up, such as eye shadow,only eye shadow, and bright blue children's eye shadow at that a necklace which is not makeup, and a child's big beaded necklace and lipstick. She is not wearing lipstick in the picture. Perhaps you are confusing this innocent family snap with the photoshopped blurred picture of Madeleine eating an ice cream and smiling sweetly at the camera that JJP stole off a video and photoshopped to add makeup and tried make a 3 yro look tawdry. Perhaps you should speak to him about what motivates a grown man to sit around and manipulate a photo of a tiny child.

You and your clients the McCanns have from the day Madeleine was reported missing claimed explicitly explicitly claimed. Is this what an English public school education amounts to nowadays? and on many occasions no doubt while we were claiming explicitly that Madeleine must have been abducted by a paedophile, or paedophiles, often described by you and your clients as ‘predatory’, ‘evil’, or ‘a monster’. Abduction is the most likely scenario of how Madeleine went missing, as my clients were CLEARED by a Portuguese judge and the PJ stated my clients never should have been made arguidos - a status not comparable to the English 'suspect' but to the English 'person of interest'. Sadly, children who are abducted are often sexually abused and targeted pedophiles. This scenario is one of the many, many sad, horrible, and chilling scenarios that my clients must consider and cannot stop from entering their heads, since their daughter is missing and not with them, and they do not know where she is and what happened to her. Yet the images of Madeleine that you have allowed to be used in your campaign are of a child looking much older than her actual years - the very kinds of images that often appeal to paedophiles. A bold-faced lie and greatly disputed. Madeleine was 3 at the time of the photo and was playing dress up. She is playing for the camera. It was a family snap that had she and my clients not been the victim of a terrible crime would never have been released to the public. As you well know from your association with known pedophiles on various internet forums, any image of a child can appeal to such scum. Unfortunately my clients have no choice but to issue images of Madeleine from time to time to continue to draw attention to her case and attempted to solve the mystery of her abduction. I cannot imagine the sickness of mind that compels a man in his 60s to claim that a photo of a 3 year old eating an ice cream and smiling, and a photo of a little girl playing dress up in an imaginary world, are posed pictures of a child "looking much older than her actual years." It sounds like something Nabokov wrote in Lolita, a character that your friend and cohort Joana Morais had the gall to call Madeleine, a three year old child at the time the picture was taken. Even former police detective, now leading criminologist and child protection expert Ah, only today, when he suits your purposes. Not when he tells you and the world that the mostly likely scenario to explain what happened to Madeleine is abduction. Mark Williams-Thomas, who has often spoken with strong sympathy and understanding for your clients, has today commented adversely on the McCann Team’s use of these images of Madeleine on ‘Twitter’. A quite serious medium, He said, in five separate messages earlier today: Which he needed, of course, because Twitter, that all important and serious medium that serious adults use to pass on serious thoughts, only allows for the use of 140 characters

1) “On the eve of Madeleine's disappearance I agree with the release of a new photo but question the appropriateness of the photo chosen”

2) “Have not yet seen the new Madeleine video but the photograph is so inappropriate & damaging on so many levels - ill advised again”

3) “Am trying to find out now who gave advise [sic] to use the make up photo - so damaging - as I know what it will become” Perhaps he refers to you Mr. Bennett. Perhaps he, unlike my clients, has the time and luxury to check out your sordid message boards, to investigate how your friends on the forums like to take pictures of my clients' little girl and photoshop them to make her appear to be wearing makeup, in order to make her look desirable to a pedophile

4) Jon Corner may b able 2 answer ur question on who advised the McCanns to release THAT picture. He's friends with Esther McVey” No doubt a response to a tweet from one of the many Anti-Madeleine McCanns on the Internet.

5) “No response yet re who advised of the use of recent photo of Madeleine - as soon as I get a response will let u know”. We await with baited breath his answer of why my clients released a photo of their little girl playing.

There has also been questioning by whom? The sick people on the message boards you frequent, which include people who like to photoshop pictures of Madeleine to make her look desirable to pedophiles, and people who photoshop pictures of her toy CuddleCat having sexual relations with her father? By you, who wrote disgusting, offensive, and imaginary poems and carols from the point of view of a three year old child you never met? of the following statement in one of today’s newspapers:



“Kate and Gerry McCann have released a new picture of their daughter Madeleine as they prepare to commemorate tomorrow’s third anniversary of her disappearance. The photo shows her when she was three after a raid on the dressing-up box - she has a pink bow in her hair and a gold bead necklace and is wearing blue eyeshadow”. My clients do not have any control over what the papers routinely print. They have issued no statement as to the background of this innocuous photo. This is merely the opinion of the journalist who wrote it.


The statement that the photograph shows her ‘after a raid on the dressing-up box’ implies that Madeleine made herself up but is open to serious question for at least the following reasons:



a) it is doubtful if Madeleine could have put on the necklace herself without adult help A giant child's beaded necklace? Really? Are her arms yet another body part that you and your friends have decided she did not have? Or is it because you, like your fellow member of the Madeleine Foundation Stevo, have decided that she had no neck to put the necklace around?

b) similarly, the eyeshadow looks neatly put on in certain places around the eye, whereas a three-year-old attempting to put on eyeshadow would have probably made a mess of it There's eyeshadow on her cheeks. Disputed.

c) Madeleine appears to have no eyelashes. Ah! A new body part for you to find my clients' daugther lacking, a new symptom of a new illness that you will diagnose my clients' perfectly healthy, happy child with momentarily. Quick, head to the Mayo Clinic website fast and put in "no eyelashes". Maybe combine it with "colobloma" for the best results. Photographic experts who have analysed the picture suggest that colour has been digitally added on, hiding they eyelashes. You have no photographic experts, this is a lie. Any human being with half a brain can see that the angle of the photo is directly facing her straight eyelashes, and they are obscured by the shadow.

d) Madeleine’s eyebrows look quite different from other photos, possibly covered with some form of make-up More evidence of your unhealthy obsession with examining and running photoshop and photographic analysis on photos of my clients' then 3-year-old female child.

e) There appear to be two obvious brush tool traces above the eye on the right of the photo. The evidence keeps piling up that you and your cohorts enjoy starting at pictures of my clients' missing three-year-old daughter and envisioning what might be happening to her and what may have happened to her.



Thus, whatever the truth about the circumstances under which this picture was taken Whatever the truth? The truth, Mr. Bennett, is the only thing that matters. The truth is that this is a typical picture of a 3 year old girl named Madeleine McCann playing. , there are very good grounds According to whom? for believing that an ad“The picture of Madeleine reminds me of JonBenét Ramsey’s beauty pageant photos, that kind of images could entice sexual predators”. The statement of one of your anonymous cohorts on message boards devoted specifically to libeling and defaming my clients. The statement of a person who wishes my clients' missing then-three-year-old child Madeleine to be dead, as the poor child was found in that case. The statement of someone who thinks that a picture taken at a terrible angle of my clients' child in her home, in her play things, with a bit of blue eyeshadow on, is comparable to wearing full-on adult makeup, fancy, specially made short dressed, and paraded on stage. My clients do not have the luxury of protecting their missing child's face and image from the world. My clients must ensure that as many people as possible never forget her face, in hopes that a random stranger will be able to do what Mr. Amaral could not and would not do, and that is find their daughter.



“If CEOP endorse this type of public relations for a supposed missing child, then their role in child protection has to be questioned!” Anonymous internet fluff from your friends.



“The latest photo the McCanns have released makes for very uncomfortable viewing. Alongside the Gaspars’ statements, something is very wrong here”. What statements? The statements that appeared, translated and retranslated and translated again by your Portuguese cohorts? That have never appeared or been discussed in any newspaper because they are so clearly libelous? The alleged statement of Mr. Gaspar that completely disputes his wife's version of events? The totally uncorroborated statements of a single individual?



The context here includes the ever-increasing sexualisation of young children, highlighted recently when a high street store, Primark, had to withdraw the marketing of padded bikini tops to 7-year-olds, following a storm of protest from parents. That has high-on nothing to do with Madeleine McCann or my clients. The dressing up of young children to look adult has been condemned by most child welfare organisations and with good reason. Madeleine was not dressed up to look adult; she was playing dress-up. Dress-up is when young children particularly girls put on little outfits and play pretend. For example, a recent Home Office commissioned report stated: “The evidence gathered in the review suggests a clear link between consumption of sexualised images, a tendency to view women as objects and the acceptance of aggressive attitudes and behaviour as the norm”. The only people who could find this image sexualized are sick people predisposed to seeing my clients' young daughter sexualized, who are excited by it, who invite it.

The circumstances in which that photograph of Madeleine was taken may have been wholly innocent, but as many people have been saying today, its use by your clients the McCanns in their attempts to locate a missing child possibly abducted by paedophiles is surely inappropriate. I disagree. It is a one-time image of a child playing dress up. It is not the image, created by your friend JJP, of Madeleine eating an ice scream and smiling. That image was taken from a television program, blown up, photoshopped to include makeup and to change Madeleine's face, and no doubt distributed for sick ends. We would therefore ask you and your clients to remove the video from circulation and from YouTube. You have no standing whatsoever. You are a danger to my clients and their daughter. You are friendly with those who provide a haven for pedophiles and you post along side and are friendly with those who take a sexually-charged interest in my clients' daughter and her image.

Your clients obviously still want the whole world to look for Madeleine and not forget about Madeleine. The problem is that we do not know where to look nor who to look for. That is because we do not know who took her, Mr. Bennett. For example, fourteen different artists’ impressions have been published in British newspapers of people whom the McCanns claim are either the suspected abductor or ‘persons of interest’. Twelve of these are men and two are women. We must release tips and images as they come into us. An important part of investigating is the ability to keep multiple strains of inquiry alive and open. They may be conflicting and different, but until one is explictly (your favorite word), ruled out, they must be kept open. I can understand how you do not understand this concept, as you believe in the Goncalo Amaral school of investigation. This school of investigation includes deciding the parents did it less than 10 hours after a child went missing and/or divining the parents did it through a dream.

As for where to look, the advice given by the McCanns’ private investigators suggests that despite using the services of many of them for nearly three years, there is not a single piece of useful information that you can give to the public which would enable us to know where to begin to look. We are not asking you to look anywhere in particular. We are asking you to LOOK for Madeleine. If you see a child that resembles her, or if you remember something that happened that night that may be pertinent, please let us know. Perhaps you'd spread the word to the pedophiles and other adult men who take a special interest in the pictures of my clients' then-three year old daughter. Despite millions of pounds being spent on Metodo 3, Control Risks Group, Red Defence, Oakley International, senior ex-Metropolitan Police detectives, senior ex-MI5 security staff and now the team of ex-Detective Inspector Dave Edgar and ex-Detective Sergeant Arthur Cowley, we have not a jot of information on where to look. The continued failure of the McCanns and their investigators to find Madeleine is a source of constant heartache for everyone that was blessed to know her. Which is not you.

Mr Edgar told newspapers last year that he was ‘convinced’ (his word) that Madeleine was being held ‘in a prison lair within 10 miles of Praia da Luz in the lawless hills around’. Subsequently you and Mr Edgar told a press conference that a conversation at 2.00am (which had been kept secret for two-and-a-half years) between a British banker who had been drinking round the bars of Barcelona and a woman looking like Victoria Beckham and with an Australian accent was ‘a strong lead’ and as a result a nationwide alert was put out in Australia. We believed that to be a credible lead at the time. Prior to that, in December 2007, Mr Francisco Marco, the boss of the first major detective agency used by your clients, Metodo 3, told the British media that he ‘knew Madeleine was alive’, that ‘his men are closing in on where she is being kept’ and that ‘Madeleine will be home by Christmas’. The McCanns expressed great displeasure at those comments by Mr. Marco. However, they continue to hope and hope that others believe that Madeleine is alive.

It would surely be much more helpful to the public to give out the best description of the abductor that the McCanns’ various detective agencies have, between them, been able to compile, so we know who to look for, and to give the public as much information as you are able to about what really happened to her. We do not know for sure who took Madeleine, Mr. Bennett. We give out leads to the public and ask for their help only when necessary and when we have hit a dead end. We must follow up multiple and different leads all at the same time, since the worthless Portuguese investigation did nothing but rule out my clients' involvement. You have often been quoted in the newspapers as saying: “Our investigations are confidential…we cannot disclose the information our investigators have” etc. But this gives the public no help at all in knowing where to look for Madeleine. We are not asking the public to go out and look for Madeleine. We are asking them to keep an eye out as they go about their daily duties, their vacations, and to not forget her face. To know that she is still out there and still missing and still needs our help. When we release information, as you quoted above, Mr. Bennett, it seems to sicken you and upset you; yet you ask us to release more? You often criticize us for invasion of privacy; yet you demand more information? You seem awfully confused about what you'd like to see happen - except that you'd like my clients' daughter to be found or declared dead at their hand.

I trust you will pass these comments on to your clients. Don't hold your breath. At the same time we are raising with Mr Jim Gamble, Chief Executive of the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre (CEOP), and other organisations concerned with the welfare of children, I'm sure that they will appreciate the thoughts of a homophobic rabble-rouser never before involved in a missing children case. whether they approve of appeals for a missing child being made using images of that child in a pose for the cameras and with a considerable degree of adult make-up. This is a total and deliberate lie about the photo. I think they will be more concerned (horrified), if they read your letter at all, of the amount and time and effort that you, a grown man in his 60s, and your peers on the anti-McCann forums that you inhabit, which include known pedophiles, have put into examining a photo of a 3 year old girl which apparently makes you feel uncomfortable sexually.

See, Mr. Bennett, you think that I don't remember the things I say, that my clients say, because you think we are lying and do not believe the things we are saying. I am a grown man, a father of young children. I see a small girl playing dress up and having her photo taken, a photo that would never have been made public but for a vicious crime perpetrated against her and her parents. But, I do not play on internet forums with people that take an interest and enjoyment in pretending otherwise. I do not pretend to be a three year old girl to write sick letters, ruin the Lord's Prayer, and change the lyrics to Christmas carols for a laugh. I do not immerse myself everyday in an internet world where lurid speculation about the amount and kind of sexual abuse allegedly perpetrated on a 3 year old child is acceptable practice and interest matter. Physician, heal thyself, Mr. Bennett.

Yours Sincerely,

What Clarence Mitchell Wishes He Could Say