Wednesday

An update about the Madeleine Foundation - 28 October 2009


from Tony Bennett - 28 October 2009

Thanks, Jill, for asking for an update about The Madeleine Foundation.

It’s no secret that The Madeleine Foundation has conducted an active campaign to bring to the public’s notice facts about the disappearance of Madeleine McCann which suggested that the claim that Madeleine McCann was abducted might not be true. That campaign was assisted by a booklet: “What Really Happened to Madeleine McCann: 60 Reasons which suggest she was not abducted” and a much-condensed version of that titled: “10 Key Reasons which suggest that Madeleine McCann was not abducted”.

On 27 and 28 August Carter-Ruck, whose own website proclaims them as ‘the most feared libel lawyers in the country’, sent legal letters to Debbie Butler as Chairman of The Madeleine Foundation and to myself as Secretary. These letters demanded closure of our website at www.madeleinefoundation.org and the cessation of the publication and distribution of ‘60 Reasons’ and ‘10 Reasons’. In addition, Carter-Ruck required Debbie and I to sign a written undertaking agreeing:

“Not to publish in any medium whatsoever the allegation that the McCanns know that their daughter Madeleine is dead, and either caused or allowed her death, and that the McCanns have knowingly covered up this fact”.

That is an undertaking I personally gave in writing to Carter-Ruck on 3 October 2009. Debbie, our Chairman, is considering her position.

This means I am bound not to repeat the above allegation, at risk of libel proceedings being brought in the High Court which could be financially ruinous, given not so much any financial penalty the court might impose but liability for the costs of Carter-Ruck. These could easily run to a high five-figure sum with the McCanns employing one of their leading libel partners Adam Tudor, whose charging rate is reputed to be £500 an hour (over £8 per minute).

So for Debbie, myself and The Madeleine Foundation, the landscape has changed since Carter-Ruck wrote their letters to us on 27 and 28 August. The Madeleine Foundation has not been wound up; on the contrary, we had a successful regional meeting in Cardiff on 3 October and we have another planned in the Manchester area on 14 November. We are also planning to have a General Meeting of all our subscribed members as soon as practicable where all aspects of whether, and if so how, we continue will be discussed.

However, even our holding meetings has been questioned by Carter-Ruck in their most recent, 4-page, letter dated 23 October, which says on page 3:

“As further proof that your campaign against our clients is ongoing, we are aware that you issued a statement on behalf of yourself and Ms Butler at 23.35 on 2 October 2009 (that is, only a few hours after you purported to 'accede' to our clients' demands):

'Well, the Madeleine Foundation website is no more, but The Madeleine Foundation itself is unaffected by the McCanns' demands made via their libel Solicitors Carter-Ruck. Our programme of meetings continues, starting with tomorrow's meeting in Cardiff and our meeting in Manchester on 14 November'.

We understand that you did indeed proceed to hold a meeting of the so-called 'Madeleine Foundation' in Cardiff on 3 October 2009".

I should like to take this opportunity to make it crystal clear for the record, Jill, that the website now running on: http://www.madeleinefoundation.org/ is no longer in any way shape or form owned or controlled by The Madeleine Foundation, but has been taken over by Stevo, as must be clear from anyone who's been over to that site recently. Thus we have no website at present.

Perhaps paradoxically, despite the banning of '60 Reasons', it is now appearing in a number of places elsewhere. For example, on 13 October, Wikileaks published not only the whole of '60 Reasons' but also the whole of '10 Reasons' as well. So the content is being brought to a still wider audience.

http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Suppressed_Madeleine_Foundation_book_by_Tony_Bennett,_2008

http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Suppressed_Madeleine_Foundation_leaflet,_2009

That’s really all I can say right now; how things develop from here on depends on what members decide at our next two upcoming meetings.

Tony Bennett, 28 October 2009


Note from myself: Evidence which suggests Maddie has not been abducted and which people are being silenced from talking about:

1. Cadaver scent found on Kate McCann's trousers and blouse
2. Cadaver scent found on Maddie's Cuddlecat
3. Blood found on the walls, floor and on the back of the sofa
4. Cadaver scent found on child's red tshirt
5. Cadaver scent detected by Eddie the British sniffer dog in the McCann's car that they hired 25 days after Maddie disappeared
6. Bodily fluids from a thawing corpse found in the boot of the same hire car.

Amongst other places, including the wardrobe in the McCanns apartment.

More here
------
The investigating Police Officer, Gonçalo Amaral, has also been 'gagged' by the McCanns for writing a book "Maddie: The Truth about the Lie" based on the Official Portuguese Police Files, and the final Intercalary Report by Tavares de Almeida, all of which were released to the public and journalists but which are NOT being published here in the UK because we are being forced to believe the abduction story, of which there is not a shred of evidence, and which enables the McCanns to continue raising millions of pounds, some of which has paid their mortgage.

The conclusion reached by the PJ Chief Inspector:

From everything that is exposed, the process files result in the following:

A) the minor Madeleine McCann died in apartment 5A at the Ocean Club resort in Praia da Luz, on the night of the 3rd of May 2007;

B) a simulation of an abduction took place;

C) in order to render the child’s death impossible before 22H00, a situation of checking of the McCann couple’s children while they slept was made up;

D) Kate McCann and Gerald McCann are involved in the concealment of the cadaver of their daughter, Madeleine McCann;

E) at this moment, there seem to be no strong indications that the child’s death was not the result of a tragic accident, yet;

F) from what has been established up to now, everything indicates that the McCann couple, in self-defence, doesn’t want to deliver the cadaver immediately and voluntarily, and there is a strong possibility that it was moved from the initial place of deposition. This situation may raise questions concerning the circumstances in which the death of the child took place.
-----
Source: Intercalary Report
PJ Final Report