FROM THE NOT SO SECRET SECTION OF HAVERN'S SITE

Tom Moore Today at 3:33 pm

Can you scan and publish nasty letters you receive? You can always use Infran View or the like to obscure your address and other details.

Remember, apart from priviledged documents, you must never repeat a libel.

I think you should shut-up while you still have something left to defend. These people - Free Masons - have a limitless capacity for evil. You could find your neighbours told you are a paedophile, and when bricks come through your windows the Police are "very, very busy;" have your glasses smashed from behind, the shattered glass rubbed into your right eye socket, and still the British National Police cannot do anything. Then you get followed, access to health and legal services blocked, and toxins sliped into your food.

And if you complain, you've got a grudge and you're paranoid. Maybe a bent Masonic Social Worker will get a Bench Warrant for your detention in a psychiatric hospital, served with no notice with piss taking police and two doctors. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think you can name a bent Masonic doctor.

  aiyoyo Today at 4:52 pm

 Tom Moore,

Who's repeating libel according to you?

The three judges?

Err aiyoyo...that would be Bennett, and every Pitchforker on Havern's

 Simon Gray Yesterday at 1:50 pm

All of us at the Raptors have read Mr Bennett's 60 reasons, up until a week or so ago it was the hardest thing to get hold of. Now the book injunction has been lifted it can be found in many places.

Problem is, and this I understand has been pointed out to Mr Bennett who owns the copyright on the publication, are the copies circulating to date been the original 60 Reasons or an amended version.

  Tony Bennett Yesterday at 8:33 pm

Simon Gray wrote:Mr Bennett, regarding the rogue copies that have been circulating you do know about because I told you via email

Do you mean rogue physical copies or rogue electronic copies?

It seems you meant electronic copies. I am not aware of any amended copies of '60 Reasons', either physical or electronic - and by the way you are 100% able to publish the e-mail to me you refer to on here with my full consent.

Tony Bennett Yesterday at 6:59 pm

Simon Gray wrote:All of us at the Raptors have read Mr Bennett's 60 reasons, up until a week or so ago it was the hardest thing to get hold of. Now the book injunction has been lifted it can be found in many places.

REPLY: The McCanns' problem, not mine. I simply can't keep track of where it is being published, and if someone reproduces it then THEY not me are answerable to the McCanns. I do not break any injunction if someone else gets hold of the contents of our book and publishes it. If I am made aware of any such publication, I try to track down those who publish it and advise them that they are in breach of copyright and also risk a Carter-Ruck letter for libel.Problem is, and this I understand has been pointed out to Mr Bennett who owns the copyright on the publication, are the copies circulating to date been [sic] the original 60 Reasons or an amended version.

REPLY: Nothing along these lines has been 'pointed out to me'. I know of no 'amended version'

Judge Mental Today at 12:53 pm

Simon Gray wrote:Mr Bennett, regarding the rogue copies that have been circulating you do know about because I told you via email

@ Simon Gray

Are you personally pleased to see that copies of '60 Reasons', original or rogue copies, have circulated the internet? Do you agree that the public should see that there is a real alternative to Team McCann's ludicrous story of abduction, and that we wish to enable Amaral and the PJ to find out what really happened to Madeleine?

• 
• 

 The corpse in Flat 5A

  Tony Bennett on Fri Oct 22, 2010 3:22 pm

Priest wrote:Consider the timings involved and the forensic trail. We assume that Madeleine is deceased. Now we need to follow the forensics of the body and the tell tale signs it leaves behind. In the corner in the bedroom, in the living room behind the sofa. My question to you is which locality would contain the body first. 

There are four places within the bounds of the apartment where Eddie was said to have alerted to a corpse:

* The living room behind the sofa

* The (parents') bedroom (near the wardrobe)

* The veranda

* The bushes in the garden (a fainter trace).

There seemed to be an especially strong alert in the living room. Keela also found blood there which is significant in itself, and a tile had to be removed where blood was found.

On that basis, I maintain that the most lilkely scenario is as follows:

Madeleine's body lay on the floor of the living room for at last two hours, then moved to the bedroom, then moved to the veranda, then moved to the garden. I would suggest that the body was initially moved to the bedroom, then, after a place was found to store the body, passed through the window to the veranda, then laid for a short period in the garden, then moved to a location possibly with a freezer.

The four 'alerts' in the apartment

  Tony Bennett on Fri Oct 22, 2010 4:20 pm

Irish Eyes wrote:

Tony Bennett wrote:On that basis, I maintain that the most lilkely scenario is as follows:

Madeleine's body lay on the floor of the living room for at last two hours, then moved to the bedroom, then moved to the veranda, then moved to the garden. I would suggest that the body was initially moved to the bedroom, then, after a place was found to store the body, passed through the window to the veranda, then laid for a short period in the garden, then moved to a location possibly with a freezer.

Why would they need to pass the body through the window?

I have only put forward a possible scenario. Possibly, that window is more hidden from general view than if they had used the door to move the body. I thought perhaps the body rested a short while outside on the veranda before it was moved to the garden, and perhaps put down a short while there as well.

  Tony Bennett on Fri Oct 22, 2010 6:33 pm

littlepixie wrote:I always thought there was patio doors in the parents' room?

In that case maybe the body was placed on the veranda through the patio doors, not the window.

  jkh Today at 1:43 pm

mystique wrote:However i do not believe the parents knew about it, but someone there did.

Welcome mystique
I wish I could believe the parents didn't know what happened. I just can't get my head around any parent suddenly losing their child then acting like this:




I could understand it if this sort of photo was a one off, but we saw them behaving like this time after time after time. They are not grieving parents. They are not behaving as though a swarthy paedophile had just taken their daughter so she could give them her tuppenceworth. Kate positively blossomed days after the event. To me that suggests this whole thing was ....well, I'll keep my thoughts to myself.

 Adam and Stephen