Justice 4 ALL Madeleine McCann Family
You need to be a member of this forum in order to view its entire contents.
We welcome applications to join the forum from genuine caring compassionate people that wish to support Mr Mrs McCann in their never ending resolve to finding their daughter Madeleine and bringing her back home where she truly belongs.

All applicants are checked out so people with no sense, no moral compass, no rationality and only half a brain cell and even less grip on reality and who are devoid of all logic - need NOT apply!
This also applies to ex-members, who no longer want to be members, yet spend their lives viewing this forum and telling people they no longer want to be members.
This is said without prejudice with no one in particular in mind.

Bennett's 30 Reasons (Refuted)

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Bennett's 30 Reasons (Refuted)

Post by Rosie on Fri Sep 04, 2009 1:00 am

We all know by now about Tony Bennett's "60 30 10 Reasons Which Suggest Madeleine McCann Wasn't Abducted" floating about, I would have like to refute all of them, only there is no way I will waste my money buying his booklet, so we will have to be content with working with the 30.

You all know I was going to do this on the Missing Madeleine forum, however, I was banned for absolutely nothing, some silly thing that Bennett and Ironside worked out between them to stop me exposing his works for what they actually are - nonsense!

So on this thread I intend to work through his "Reasons" from number 1 to number 30, as he is always arrogantly claiming that no one has yet refuted them, they have of course, but here I am going to do it officially, while I am working through them, I am going to keep the thread locked, however, if you want to take any of the "Reasons" yourselves and open a new thread to give your own opinions, please feel absolutely free to do so, in fact I would welcome your opinions and I can always edit them into the appropriate posts, this way we can all contribute to answering them.

Each "Reason" is going to take the form of an individual post/entry, so it can be easily accessed.
Bennett bases his 'opinions' which he presents as facts, on Goncalo Amaral and two British sniffer dogs.


Some Background


  • The name of the original detective in charge of Madeleine's abduction is Goncalo Amaral.
  • Goncalo Amaral headed the Madeleine investigation for just 5 months from May 3rd 2007 until October 2007.
  • Amaral was repeatedly bringing his profession and his country into disrepute during the 5 months.
  • Amaral was thought to be the source of many bizarre leaks to the Portuguese press.
  • The leaks were all totally unfounded rumours and never at any time have any them proved to be true.
  • The leaks were designed purely to blacken the names and characters of Mr Mrs McCann
  • Amaral was finally sacked from the investigation after accusing the British police of telling lies and being manipulated by the British government and the McCanns.
  • Amaral was also demoted from his position as Police Chief in Portimao, Portugal
  • Amaral took early retirement and ever since has been making money out of using Madeleine, her name and accusing her parents of killing her, despite having no evidence to back up any of his claims, he has written a book, been involved in many media promotions promoting his unsubstantiated allegations and is reported to have made over a million pounds off of Madeleine's back.
  • Since leaving the police (or was he pushed?) Goncalo Amaral has since been found guilty in a Portuguese court of lying about the torture of a witness - Leonor Cipriano.
  • Leonor is mother of another missing child, who was convicted on "spurious" claims from Goncalo Amaral.
  • The child, 'Joana' who was 7 when she disappeared just 7 miles from where Madeleine was abducted only 2 years previously, has never been found, or her body discovered.
  • Amaral was leading the investigation into Joana's disappearance.
  • Amaral was convicted of lying and committing perjury and concealing evidence of Leonor's torture while she was in police custody, he received an 18 months suspended prison sentence.
  • Goncalo Amaral has since been charged with yet another count of torture and perjury, of another witness in the Cipriano case,if is found guilty (which is likely due to the way the Portuguese judicial system operates) Amaral will almost certainly go to prison.
  • As Amaral is already serving a suspended prison sentence, if he is found guilty of any misdemeanor, during those 18 months, he will likely go to prison to serve out his suspended sentence.
  • Goncalo Amaral also faces an appeal to have his suspended sentence increased and commuted to an actual term in prison.
  • Leonor Cipriano who a court found was 'definitely' tortured during police interrogation, has since been granted an appeal in the Supreme Court of Justice in Portugal, to appeal her conviction and sentence.
  • In addition Amaral, also faces a civil prosecution for defamation, libel and impeding the search for Madeleine, he is being sued for £1.2 million, by Mr Mrs McCann.
  • Goncalo Amaral is also rumoured to be the detective who passed highly classified and sensitive witness information to journalist Felicia Cabrita, it was never officially discovered or recorded if Amaral received any money for this information.
  • Felicia Cabrita is rumoured to be addicted to class A drugs, she once made a TV appearance where she appeared out of her head.
  • Just after being sacked from the Madeleine investigation, Amaral who was separated from his wife was reported by his then estranged wife to the Portuguese police (documented), for kidnapping his own child and threatening his wife Sofia Leal-Amaral with death.
  • Mrs Amaral alleged in a sworn statement that he had threatened to kill her and she also reported Amaral for driving a police vehicle whilst under the influence of alcohol.
  • However, the couple has since reconciled and have been posing for photographs holding hands
  • Mrs Amaral penned an incredibly spiteful open letter to Mrs Kate McCann, where she attacked Mrs McCann because her husband was poorly paid by the Portuguese government and seemed to resent Mrs McCann, because her husband (Goncalo) had to go to work and investigate Madeleine's abduction!
  • 2 months ago the on off relationship of the Amarals, took another nose dive, when Mrs Amaral suspected her husband as having an affair with the wife of their friends, incensed because she smelled the other woman's perfume on him, she packed up Amarals new designer suits and shoes (bought by Madeleine McCann) and threw them in the door of a cafe', along with a letter explaining what her husband had done.
  • After this Mrs Amaral decided to spend the night with the "friend's" husband. Amaral took offence to this and threatened the man in a bar trying to strangle him 4 times, until he was thrown out of the bar.
  • Sniffer Dogs -The dogs were not brought in until THREE months AFTER Madeleine was abducted
  • The dogs are officially known as E.V.R.D dogs.....Enhanced Victim Recovery Dog
  • Eddie and Keela are described by their trainer/handler Martin Grime as 'operational speciality dogs' trained in Human Victim Recovery and Forensic Crime Scene Investigation.
  • The dogs are very successful 'but' the "vast majority" of their cases, are usually when the crime has first been committed and forensic evidence is still available and uncontaminated by 3 months of the general public walking through the scene. Forensic evidence being gathered at a "fresh crime scene"
  • The dogs are handle by Martin Grime, who is co owner of a 'private' company, which hire out their services on private tariffs.


Last edited by Rosiepops on Fri Sep 04, 2009 8:04 pm; edited 2 times in total

_________________
no way
Goncalo Amaral Your Time Is Nearly Up!


"RICARDO PAIVA SHOULD RESIGN, HIS POSITION IS UNTENABLE - IF HE DOES NOT RESIGN, THEN SACK HIM!
avatar
Rosie
Admin
Admin

Number of posts : 4358
Registration date : 2008-04-27

Back to top Go down

Number 1

Post by Rosie on Fri Sep 04, 2009 1:01 am

As it is so long winded, I have broken this question down into alphabetical paragraphs, and I will answer it in alphabetical order in the post below.



1. ‘Stranger’ abductions of an infant from a family home almost never happen. We always need to examine whether the family may be involved




A) Sadly, throughout the world, every year, many infants and young children die in their own homes, due either to accident, neglect, negligence or a deliberate act.
In some of those cases, especially where very young children are concerned, the parents decide to hide the body, and claim their child had been abducted.


B) Statistics have been kept in some countries about the proportion of alleged ’stranger’ abductions of an infant from a family’s home, or their temporary residence elsewhere, such as being on holiday. They show that in up to 99% of so-called ’stranger abductions’ of infants from a family home, it later turns out - when the full facts emerge - that a member of child’s family has been involved in the child’s death and has tried to cover it up by falsely claiming that their child had been abducted.

C) Last year (2007), for example, there was the case of two-year-old ‘Baby Grace’, whose body was found battered and decomposing in a plastic box on sand dunes near Galveston, on the Gulf Coast of the U.S.A. Eventually, DNA tests linked the body to parents in the U.S. who, months earlier, had told police that their baby had been abducted, sparking a massive man-hunt. Then there was the case of the dead baby found by police hidden in the attic of a couple’s home. Once again, the guilty parents had falsely claimed their baby had been abducted.

D) More recently, in the U.S., the mother of 2-year-old Caylee Anthony reported her as missing a month after she had ‘disappeared’. But forensic evidence, including that of cadaver dogs, now suggests that Caylee died at her mother’s home in suspicious circumstances [UPDATE: Caylee’s mother, Casey Anthony, has now been arrested and charged with first degree murder, but little Caylee’s body has still not been found].

E) Now, the above statistics do not in any way prove that the McCanns were involved in Madeleine’s death nor, like many other parents have done, have made up an abduction ‘cover story’. But what we do say, and what the statistics tell us, is that wherever a parent claims that a complete stranger has lifted their infant child from their home and taken the child away, we should immediately view their claim with grave suspicion. We need to examine their claim, test it, check it out. Which is what the Portuguese police have also tried to do in this case.

F) We need to see what evidence there is that Madeleine was abducted. We also need to see if there is evidence that may point in another direction - for example, the possible involvement of the parents.

G) Since the reports of Madeleine going ‘missing’, it has often been highlighted how many children go missing every year. And we concede that there are, certainly, occasional cases of ’stranger abductions’. However, the vast majority of cases of missing or ‘abducted’ children usually fall into one of the following two categories:

H)
a) children who run away from their parents
b) children snatched by a former spouse or partner during custody disputes
A very small number of children are also:

c) snatched by stranger abductors whilst outdoors and away from their homes (think for example of Sarah Payne and the Soham girls Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman), and
d) snatched by child traffickers whilst outdoors and away from their homes (though this phenomenon is not known to occur in western Europe).

I) Then, in addition, there are very occasional instances of babies snatched from hospital by mothers desperate to have a baby.

J) But we repeat - and this is most important: In cases where parents of infant children claim that their children have been abducted from their family homes (or from a temporary residence elsewhere such as a holiday hotel or caravan), in nearly every case, it turns out that the child has died in the family home, due to an accident, neglect, negligence or a deliberate act. In these circumstances, it is usually a member of the child’s own family, or extended family, or a friend known to the family, who is responsible for that death. Hundreds of examples of such cases have occurred in recent years alone.

K) In the U.S., following the abduction of a child called Megan by a known paedophile, ‘Megan’s Law’ was passed, which provides for parents to be informed if a known sex offender is living in their area. But in the U.K., the Children’s Commissioner said: “We are concerned that a version of Megan’s Law could detract from the fact that children are actually most at risk from people known to them“.
Against this background, where we have seen that in the vast majority of cases of young children reported stolen from inside their family home, the child is dead and the family is responsible, we now turn to examine 29 specific lines of evidence which suggest that Madeleine McCann was not abducted.

_________________
no way
Goncalo Amaral Your Time Is Nearly Up!


"RICARDO PAIVA SHOULD RESIGN, HIS POSITION IS UNTENABLE - IF HE DOES NOT RESIGN, THEN SACK HIM!
avatar
Rosie
Admin
Admin

Number of posts : 4358
Registration date : 2008-04-27

Back to top Go down

REPLY TO REASON NUMBER 1 (part one)

Post by Rosie on Fri Sep 04, 2009 8:09 am

"Bennett Said.....Stranger’ abductions of an infant from a family home almost never happen. We always need to examine whether the family may be involved"


Keeping an open mind about the disappearance of any child and investigating the family is correct procedure and must be carried out, I don't think I have heard anyone dispute this, however, putting in place the correct procedures for an abducted child is of paramount importance.
What happened in this case is that the Portuguese police under discredited Sr Amaral, tried to make suppositon fact without any evidence to support it, decide who was guilty and then sought to try and make it fit the McCanns. The more it looked to the police that the McCanns were not involved, the harder it appeared that sr Amaral, tried to fit the crime to them, it was this that robbed Madeleine of a proper and thorough and prompt investigation. it was evident from the outset with Amaral's failure to attend the scene and personally oversee that correct procedures put in place, that Amaral had already formed a view before he had set eyes on the parents, or the scene from where Madeleine was abducted.


A) Sadly yes many children do lose their lives as Bennett has suggested, but this is in no way proof that this happened to Madeleine and this is very dangerous 'supposition'.


B) What countries does Mr Bennett mean by his quote of 99% in these *unnamed* countries? I challenge Mr Bennett to provide *proof* of his claims, and to name the countries where he has seen these statistics he quotes and to provide not only the proof, but the links to the figures he has declared as fact. I note he has very conveniently found a set of figures that specifically mentions stranger abductions while the child and family were on holiday. I would like Mr Bennett to provide the figures behind that statement and also the links where we can read them ourselves. If Mr Bennett was stating these figures, in his 60 Reasons booklet, 30 reasons and 10 Reasons leaflets, then he should have provided the statistics, the name and the links, in what is to all intents and purposes a quasi official document.

It is impossible to refute statistics for which Mr Bennett has not given a correct and official breakdown or the source of his information. If Bennett took this into court with him, it would not be heard, a judge would disallow it as it would be termed as *hearsay* and would have no bearing in any trial, either civil or criminal.

As Mr Bennett again has made 'loose' reference to facts (when full facts emerge) I challenge Tony Bennett, to supply the list with full facts and figures and links stating the number of children in the United Kingdom, who were murdered by their parents/guardian, who then hid the body of the child, and feigned abduction.


C)
"
In a case such as Madeleine’s disappearance, we should expect professional investigators to pull together systematic accounts of the circumstances of a variety of child abductions and see what they can learn from them.
It does not seem to me that the Portuguese police have done this. If they had, they might have come to the conclusion that the most plausible reason for Madeleine’s disappearance remains our original conclusion — her abduction by a stranger.


At the Centre for Investigative Psychology at the University of Liverpool we routinely build up accounts of the characteristics of particular types of crimes and the criminals who commit them. Most recently one of my graduate students has collected together all the information she can on those child abductions that were obviously not part of some family custody struggle.


Her reviews shows that of the 800 or so abductions that occur in Britain each year about half are carried out by strangers to the family, but the great majority were quickly brought to an end by the abductor being caught in the act or soon after. It is thus extremely rare for people who do not know the children to be able to steal them away. There are about 50 of these cases a year in Britain."

David Canter Director of the International Centre for Investigative Psychology and professor of psychology at the University of Liverpool.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article2508052.ece

These figures make a complete mockery out of the two cases that Bennett has cobbled together, which are two isolated cases and later on, I will provide the proof of cases of 'stranger abduction'.
In 2007, we had at least 400 cases of stranger abduction in Britain, as stated many were brought to an abrupt end, but in 50 cases this was not the case.

D) The reasons why police had initial reason to be suspicious of the mother of Caylee Anthony, was because;
Casey Anthony had not reported her daughter missing for more than a month. This makes the likelihood that Caylee had been dead and stored somewhere for approximately one month.
(Unlike the McCanns who reported Madeleine missing within half an hour of discovering she was not in her bed and after carrying out a quick check of the apartment, and because Kate McCann found a window open, which she realised Madeleine could not have opened on her own, this indicated immediately that someone else had been present in the apartment.)

Bennett states cadaver dogs as evidence but does not explain how the dogs were used - IN FACT, the dogs DID NOT find Caylee, On December 11, 2008, the skeletal remains of Caylee Anthony were found near the Anthony home by a meter reader, NOT THE DOGS!

The indications are, if the body of Caylee Anthony was ever in the boot, then she was there for a significant time:

Samples of air from the car were sent to the University of Tennessee Forensic Anthropology Center near Knoxville, where researchers gather data on how bodies decay and other information to help law-enforcement agencies determine time of death.

A police dog trained to detect human decomposition also indicated the presence of a body in the trunk, sheriff's investigators have disclosed.

Evidence from the trunk also has been sent to the FBI's forensic lab for DNA testing, but the results have not been announced.

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/orl-casey2808aug28,0,5194122.story

If DNA results have not been announced, how does this fair against Bennett's claim, that cadaver dogs were responsible for determining that Caylee died in her mother's home?

Bennett also states that Caylee's body has not been found, when in fact at the time Bennett went to print with his booklet Her mother, Caysee had already been indicted on October 14, 2008, for her first-degree murder of her daughter! If Bennett cannot research something as important as this and get his facts right about a vital case that he (Bennett) chose to quote, then what does this say about the rest of his booklet? And remember we are still on Bennett's long winder 1st Reason!

A clear picture is emerging here of how Tony Bennett has taken bits and pieces of information and cut bits out and twisted it to suit his own argument. He is actually lying by omission, this is a deliberate ploy and he is seeking to mislead people. The way he has presented his 'opinions' thus far, would NEVER, not in a month of Sundays, stand up in a court of law.

E) If the statistics do not in any way prove that the parents are responsible for Madeleine's death, nor like (Bennett states) many other parents have done and made an abduction 'cover story', why is Bennett mentioning it? The McCanns cannot prove a negative, Bennett is the one making the accusations, it is up to Bennett to provide categorical and irrefutable evidence to back up his claims, NONE of which he can do! Bennett is deliberately making use of the negative here, by introducing a 'subliminal' suggestion.

Bennett goes on completely and utterly without proof, or evidence of any kind, to suggest that no parent should be believed if they say their child was abducted from their home by a stranger and that these parents should all be viewed with "grave suspicion"! On what grounds Mr Bennett? because you say so? Because you make a subliminal suggestion, therefor, so it is? NO, you need cast iron proof to say that and yet again, I challenge you to proved the statistics and the links to cases in law which substantiate your accusations, because without such proof, all you have is your 'opinions' and your opinions Mr Bennett, do not amount to a hill of beans!

The Portuguese did test the McCanns statements out, as they did all their friends, and guess what Mr Bennett? The Portuguese attorney general and two Portuguese prosecutors, shelved the case and quoted that the formal suspects had no case to answer as there was NO proof by any of them to prove wrongdoing and that there was also NO proof that Madeleine was alive and NO proof that Madeleine was dead!

I also state the case of Polly Klaas

http://www.pollyklaas.org/about/pollys-story.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Polly_Klaas

No doubt that Mr Bennett would have sworn that Polly’s mother or father must have been involved, or else how would one man, break and enter a house, enter the room where THREE 12 year old girls were having a sleepover and while ALL the girls were wide awake and were perfectly able to get away, or scream and make a hell of a noise, yet they did not! The abductor managed to tie up two 12 year old girls and then abduct Polly from her own bedroom, in her own home, with her mother sleeping nearby. And successfully mange to get himself and the child away BEFORE the other girls managed to raise the alarm.
Sadly despite 4000 people searching for Polly the body of 12 year old Polly, was discovered 2 months later and a man has subsequently been found guilty of her murder.

F) The child was in her beds asleep and when her mother went to check she was not there.
The bedroom window was wide open and as Madeleine could not have opened this herself, this is indicating the presence of an intruder.
Madeleine was nowhere in the apartment and outside, so the indications were that she had been abducted.
There is a complete lack of evidence that suggests that her parents had anything to do with her disappearance, the attorney general states this, so this again is pointing to abduction.
There is no reason why any of the parents would harm Madeleine - again pointing to abduction.
No one saw the McCanns do anything suspicious, there are no witness that state they ever acted in any way that would arouse suspicion - again this points to abduction.
There may have been forensic proof in the apartment, but as the PJ did not take the appropriate action at the scene of a crime, this evidence is now lost for ever.

I suggest Bennett, you do not want to examine any evidence that suggests that Madeleine was abducted, because again you are asking the McCanns to prove a negative.

You need to get it through your head, that there is NO evidence that suggests the McCanns, in any way shape or form harmed their daughter or were complicit in her disappearance, this is not me that says this, this is the say-so of the Portuguese attorney general. It does not matter how much you try and twist things, or try your best to make it look like you want it to look, the very fact remains and this is a fact Bennett, that there is NOTHING to suggest that Madeleine's parents harmed their child. If there was they would have been arrested and either been tried by now, or still awaiting trial, they are not, they are free.

That Mr Bennett is the position in law!

G) & H) & I)
Portugal, is a population of approximately 10 million, the police list seven people who went missing as children,including one two-year-old who was abducted from home.
In Britain, between 2002 and 2007, 44 children were listed as missing and unaccounted for, with 11 having disappeared when five or younger, and four under 12 months old. Our population is six times that of Portugal, and it is not possible to say whether the figures are collated in ways that make them compatible, but as above, you can actually make a reasoned argument. Eg over five years with a population of 10 million Portugal lists 7 children missing etc compared to GB with a population of 70 million 44 children missing over 5 years. Would actually average around the same. But suffice to say that Britain actually lists honestly, as Portugal has actually had 31 children listed officially missing. In Portugal, SOS Criança Desaparecida (SOS Missing Children) of the Instituto de Apoio à Crianza opened 31 new cases last year (2005/6) of missing children, involving 19 girls and 12 boys.

We should remember here also, the incidences that recently came to light where the children on the Algarve and children of tourists were targeted. This is something the Portuguese police chose to ignore. There was six sex attacks on youngsters in the Algarve leading up to the time that Madeleine was abducted, ranging from April 2004 up until May 28th 2007, this last one being when an intruder was disturbed at the bottom of a nine year old girls bed, her parents in the NEXT room. These are documented reports and could well be of interest in the investigation of Madeleine's abduction, there were also a large number of known paedophiles in the Algarve at the time Madeleine was abducted.

_________________
no way
Goncalo Amaral Your Time Is Nearly Up!


"RICARDO PAIVA SHOULD RESIGN, HIS POSITION IS UNTENABLE - IF HE DOES NOT RESIGN, THEN SACK HIM!
avatar
Rosie
Admin
Admin

Number of posts : 4358
Registration date : 2008-04-27

Back to top Go down

Reply To Reason Number 1 (part two)

Post by Rosie on Fri Sep 04, 2009 8:11 am

I note you chose to involve 'other' reasons when it suits, by manipulating the figures up or down and including or excluding, depending on what you want to portray.

Bennett mentioned that "snatched by child traffickers whilst outdoors and away from their homes (though this phenomenon is not known to occur in western Europe)."

This is another completely poorly researched comment snatched out of thin air. In fact the incidences of child trafficking in Western Europe, Spain Portugal Italy etc is on the increase. Romanian Gypsies snatching children, selling their own daughters because they get a good price for 'virgins' or selling children to force them into begging and stealing. There have been raids across Europe, in one raid 15 young children were discovered in a shed chained up kept in deplorable conditions.
In fact there was a programme on just this on 2nd September BBC2, a real eye opener and I hope the Portuguese police have thoroughly investigated this.

Bennett appears to base his 'opinions' (which he refers to as evidence) on what he believes to be a non existent threat of stranger abductions, which I have proved clearly exist and in far greater numbers than Bennett wants to admit, which is probably why he does not include statistics. Anthony Bennett apprently, does not want people to see that unfortunately, 'stranger abduction' clearly does exist and can happen and in greater numbers than he wants us to believe, even if the parents are actually in the home at the time of the abduction.

I suggest Bennett stops trying to mislead here because what he is doing in order to prove his non existent point, is extremely dangerous. It was precisely because the McCanns were labouring under a misapprehension, and were lulled into a false sense of security that they thought it was OK to do what they did, had these dangers been clearly spelled out and warnings issued in each holiday let in the Algarve, then perhaps they would not have felt it was OK to be that distance away to eat their meal, no matter how short a distance it was.

Bennett you are an extremely ignorant and arrogant man and you are a danger to children with your ignorance and arrogance.

With reference to the abductions of infants from maternity wards etc, it is thanks to electronic devises and heightened security in such institutions that more children are not abducted, however, babies abducted under these circumstances have been fairly high in the not too distant past. The number of people wanting children and feeling desperate about not having them has not decreased, security has improved, which is what has probably cut these instances of infant abduction. There have also been reports of fake social workers, appearing on people's doorsteps trying to gain access to children, alarmingly, these attempted abductions etc, take place with the parent or parents actually in the home and aware that there is a stranger present!



J)
I repeat again, provide the statistics to back your OPINION up and provide us with the data for the cases in the UK where parents/guardians have claimed that children have been abducted, when in fact the children have been murdered and their bodies hidden. You say this is most important and you highlight it in bold script, but yet again you fail to back up your claims with cold hard facts.

SO PROVIDE YOUR FACTS TO BACK YOUR CLAIMS UP MR BENNETT.

You stated in Reason 1 that hundreds of examples of these murders by parents have occurred in recent years, so go away and look up at least the data for 100 such cases. If as you state there are 'hundreds of cases', then providing 100 of them to back up your own claims, should be very easy.

I will cite another case of child abduction from the home, this time in the UK.

A six year old girl was abducted from her bath, while her mother was in another room attending to something else. The abduction occurred at around 7 pm on a freezing cold snowy night. An abductor entered the flat and actually took the little girl from her bath, he drove her off and a serious sexual assault took place, fortunately the girl was then dumped back in an ally near her home, where a man/neighbour found her. A man was later arrested and charged and convicted. THIS WAS A STRANGER ABDUCTION FROM THE CHILD'S OWN HOME, WITH HER MOTHER PRESENT.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2006/jan/02/ukcrime.childprotection

There was another case of a child abducted from her bed while her father slept in the next room, the abductor got in through a WINDOW, abducted the child. The poor little girl was later found murdered, this was yet another stranger abduction.

In fact stranger abductions are NOT as rare as Bennett will have you believe, stranger abductions are quite high, as I have proved with statistics.


K) The last part of your long winded and jumbled up first reason, concerns a paragraph which has no bearing on the abduction of Madeleine McCann, you included only because it contains one line which was of use to you. ie "children are actually at most risk from people known to them" so what? And this suggests that Madeleine McCann was not abducted, how? And Why?

Yet again we have for the 4th time Bennett dropping a subliminal hint, that if a child does go missing from their home it is the parents/guardian that did it, and yet again, Bennett has not provided a scrap of evidence to back his claims up.

Bennett has stated that there are hundreds of such cases.


We are challenging Mr Bennett, to produce the statistics for 100 such cases in the UK within the last 2 years, where it was claimed the child was abducted by a stranger, but the parents or guardian killed the child and hid the body.

100 cases please Mr Bennett.

This is actually quite serious, because this is a direct claim made by Bennett in an attempt to convince people that the McCanns are not telling the truth.
It does not actually have any basis in law and could not form part of any court case, because of course, no matter how small the risk of a stranger abduction is, it is not impossible and does not mean that it did not happen. However, as Bennett has made it such a big part of his reasons and has stated that there are indeed "hundreds of such cases", then the onus is on him to now produce at least 100 of them.

Just dropping in handy little one liners like the "vast majority of cases" is not good enough. You have accused these parents of harming their own child and concealing her body, so the onus is on you to provide the proof of what you are saying.

Throughout Bennett's reasons there are many subliminal suggestions, these actually prove nothing other than Bennett deliberately using the 'subliminal' to deliberately mislead. What Bennett is actually doing, is spreading disinformation, via means of using black propaganda, knowing making false statements and spreading innaccurate information.

Bennett is fond of referring to his Reason as "factual leaflets", this is a direct and deliberate lie, nothing is true about those leaflets, other than they are not worth the paper upon which they are printed.

There is nothing written on those leaflets which would stand up in a court of law, a judge would not even hear them because Bennett has absolutely nothing to back his claims up, they are just Bennett's opinions and as such, they are not worth anything, but this applies especially to a court of law. I believe that Bennett can and should be sued for defamation and libel. I also believe that this time is drawing near for him.

_________________
no way
Goncalo Amaral Your Time Is Nearly Up!


"RICARDO PAIVA SHOULD RESIGN, HIS POSITION IS UNTENABLE - IF HE DOES NOT RESIGN, THEN SACK HIM!
avatar
Rosie
Admin
Admin

Number of posts : 4358
Registration date : 2008-04-27

Back to top Go down

Re: Bennett's 30 Reasons (Refuted)

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum