Friday, 16 December 2016

Sometimes it just has to be said

I received an email from someone residing in America (at least that's what the email header tells me) who had nothing to say except spout several swear words. It seems the person felt a need to vent themselves regards one of my articles although which one vexed them isn't something I can hazard a guess because they never said. Kind of loses the argument from the start on that score. Perhaps if they had explained then I might have contemplated a reply – alas, they didn't so no reply was required on my behalf.

I guess I just have to accept that there are people out there that crawl out of the woodwork from time-to-time who can't seem to hold back while under the influence of a new email account with an inability to express themselves except to fire off some expletives.

If anyone finds any of my articles upsetting then by all means please do send an email but at least try to explain which article you're struggling with, that at least shows you have a brain (this does not, of course, include all the lovely articulate emails I have received over the years to date. I've enjoyed some of our debates).

For the fun of it, here is the inexpressive email from 'Ea Onln' (made up new name) in all its glory with their newly acquired email account just for me: (I apologise in advance for the authors  swearing – shows a little mind is behind the email – as can be seen, the author really had nothing to say in the end)

“you have to be one the sickest pieces of shit i've had the displeasure of encountering. i hope you fucking suffer for the rest of your miserable life you fucking twat.”


I wish you well 'Ea Onln' and hope that you didn't bust a blood vessel during your venting. May light shine on you and calm your nerves :)

Friday, 11 March 2016

Cattle Mutilations. More down to earth than we may think

I wasn't aware of cattle mutilations until we attended a fairly recent talk. It sounded disturbing; the photos were horrendous, but the mystery of who (or what) and why reeled me in.

To cut a long (and probably repetitive) story short: Some believe it's a government body behind the 'mutilations' while others favour aliens. The majority of articles written on the subject suggest that precision surgery was used to remove organs and body parts from the animals. The words 'laser-like' or 'surgical' cuts certainly gives that impression. There are those who tell us that a few animals had broken bones, that there were deep indentations (some say up to three inches deep!) beneath the carcasses, suggestive of being dropped from a height. Then there's the mention of cattle found in trees which can only lead the reader (or listener) to reach the conclusion that the animals had been airlifted, either by helicopter or beamed up by aliens, and then unceremoniously dumped (from a huge height apparently) into the field they had originally been taken from.

But for me there's too many unanswered questions with that scenario. Why go to all the bother of snatching animals under the cover of dark, secret them off to a lab somewhere for testing and then return their 'mutilated' bodies? Why not simply test the foliage, grass or animal feed? If the animals are key to whatever experiments is supposedly going on, then why not tell the farmer/rancher that one or two of his cattle require testing for whatever reason they may care to fabricate (new virus? New disease? How about good ol' foot and mouth?) with the promise of compensation. Why not buy cattle and graze them nearby? Even if I screw on my 'bestest' conspiracy head, it doesn't make sense to steal an animal and then return it, surely that would only cause a stir and risk an investigation (which did happen in the 70's). Or are we to believe that it was designed that way to start the rumour of aliens in the vicinity? Which ever way I look at it, either scenario will cause too much interest. Surely the last thing any covert operation needed was curious reporters or extraterrestrial believers setting up camp let alone an investigation which could very well blow the lid on the supposed secret tests.

All very mysterious that I found myself looking into it. What I discovered behind the 'mutilations' though is somewhat less mysterious and more down-to-earth.

Cattle had been dropped from a great height

Indentation beneath the carcass
I can find no evidence of this supposed “deep indentation” beneath the cows in any of the numerous available photos of 'cattle mutilations', in fact all photos show cows laid on the surface. You would think with this being one of the most pivotal statements to prove alien's are behind the 'cattle mutilations' that there would be at least one. So where did this story come from?

The only documented source I could find that suggests a cow being dropped from a great height is from Dulce, New Mexico (April 20, 1979). An officer claimed “he had seen one mutilation case in which a 600-pound cow was found in the branches of a tree – indicating to him it must have been dropped there by some type of aircraft.

The officer mentioned is Gabriel ('Gabe') L Valdez.

The problem with this is that he apparently later admitted “...that the animal was not actually in the tree but was found at its base”. So if true it removes the suggestion that the cow had been dropped from a great height. It seems his story has been embellished over the years, morphing into “deep indentations in the ground”.

Conclusion: There is nothing to substantiate the claim that 'mutilated cattle' (or any animal for that matter) was dropped from a great height.

Side note: The only photographs of large animals I could find lodged in trees were deer but they are obvious hoaxes.

Broken bones
Another statement to indicate the cattle were dropped from on high is that some had broken bones.

The source appears to originate from the same police officer in Dulce, New Mexico, and again there is nothing to substantiate this story. In fact, there is no mention of broken bones in the autopsies written by trained veterinarians. What makes matters worse is that his associated officer was later interviewed and stated that although a hard-working, dedicated policeman, he has become too emotionally involved in cattle mutilations and “sees things that are not there.” When asked for an example, he mentioned an incident in Taos which both he and the officer had investigated together. The officer, he said, “claimed the animal had broken bones when it did not.

Conclusion: Nothing to substantiate broken bones as proof of being dropped from a height.

Tranquiliser and anti-coagulant found in the liver
A tranquilliser and anti-coagulant tested positive in a bull, leading to speculation that the animal was rendered unconscious and an anti-coagulant administered to enable the blood to be completely drained.

According to Rommel's investigation, the tranquilliser was Chlorpromazine. It's usually injected but can be added to animal feed or given orally in tablet form. Apparently this is done to calm the animal when it's ill and acting 'goofy'. Chlorpromazine can remain in the body for some time depending on the size and metabolism of the animal.

The anti-coagulant was citric acid.

Dale Spall of Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory, who had performed the original blood tests, said he had found only a trace of chlorpromazine in the blood and was not significant enough to have affected the animal. Also found was high level of napthalene which indicated the animal had been on a hormone feed. He had originally thought the amount of citric acid exceeded normal levels, he has since determined, through additional tests, that the amount of citric acid (anti-coagulant) was normal. The drug, he pointed out, occurs naturally in all animals.

Conclusion: Misunderstanding of 'drug' usage.

Circular 'tripod' marks
These marks/tracks, approximately 4” (four inches) in diameter, have often been cited as proof that alien spacecraft (or hovering craft) had landed in the vicinity of the 'mutilated' cattle; the circular depressions in the ground indicating that the craft was heavy. While this may seem like solid proof that aliens are indeed involved, further reading finds that there is probably a more down-to-earth explanation. The problem with looking for specifics to back a story is that the obvious is sometimes overlooked.

No impressions of the tracks/marks were taken, but I have no reason to doubt Gabe's report, he seems like a genuine and honest police officer who was merely reporting as much as was humanly possible no matter how significant or insignificant. However, Rommel had observed on a number of occasions that the marks are due to a combination of certain weather and soil conditions prevalent in the south-west, the preserved hoof marks from a cow and horses can quickly erode to a circular-like depression of approximately the size mentioned.

Conclusion: Mistaken representation of marks/tracks

During a recorded interview Gabe Valdez stated categorically that it is "humans not UFOs or Satanic groups or people from Mars". Although still determined that the cattle were mutilated he states that “it was humans” and he believes researchers carried out the acts using helicopters.
Read more at Koat NewsAlbuquerque

In another interview (2011) regards the Dulce 'cattle mutilations' he said "I'm not saying it's a government agency or not, but we were able to find some physical evidence at the crime scene...gas masks, er, glow sticks and er, some type of instrument that was monitoring or, whatever it was for we couldn't determine what it was for, because it had to be some form of advanced scientist that knew what they were working on".

I don't know whether or not he mentioned gas masks or glow sticks in his original police reports at the time of the so-called mutilations, but if he did then how have the UFO hunters miss that? If he didn't, then it's mind boggling why he would choose to omit it.
Although there are no other such statements made then, or since, by any other law enforcement, veterinarian or indeed any professional bodies, this story remains, to this day, as the very basis of the belief that aliens are behind the “cattle mutilations.”

No thrash marks or signs of struggle
Apart from other diseases that can cause sudden onset of death in cattle, “a massively underestimated cause of sudden deaths is one of the oldest bacteria of them all – clostridia. They are spread throughout the world and take the lives of cattle, sheep and most other farm livestock on a daily basis

Clinical signs are rarely observed and cattle are simply found dead.

Clostridium disease includes: Black disease; blackleg; malignant oedema; tetanus and botulism). Black disease is triggered by various factors which damage body tissues activating latent spores, followed by rapid multiplication in the animal's body with toxin production, causing death within hours.

Some of the carcasses did indeed test positive for Black Leg.

Why are there no signs of blood on the ground?
The blood naturally coagulates inside the animal soon after death. Once the heart stops beating the blood begins to settle in the parts of the body that are closest to the ground. It partly dries and water content evaporates. The video, posted further down, gives a good example of this.

In some cases a dark black outline is left on the grass surrounding the animal which appears to be a burn mark
When the body goes into purge, the fluids leak and soak into the ground causing a dark 'pool' around the body. This fluid is so nitrogen rich that it initially kills off any vegetation and gives the impression of 'burn'. The vegetation (grass) will grow back the following year.

Something is mutilating the cattle! If it's not aliens or covert operation to collect data then what is it?
This time-lapse video shows the decomposition of a cow in natural surroundings. Unfortunately it was taken in Australia rather than America or UK but it still gives a good idea of what goes on.

As this time-lapse video was taken over a seven day period it flashes through rather quickly. Day one and two go by in a blink of an eye. Those two days are the most important to illustrate how the 'classic' signs of 'cattle mutilation' occur naturally, so the video may have to be paused several times.

The video starts on 1st October. By the 2nd October the anal area has already been 'cored' out and the body bloats. Most of the anal core activity is done by carrion animals, while the crows do their work during daylight hours. During day two, although there is no outward visible signs of entry to the stomach area (no cuts to the underbelly), the stomach starts sinking as the internal organs begin decomposing and ingested by seemingly invisible eaters (insects/blowflies/maggots that have invaded the body). The layman looking for clues as to how the 'missing' organs were extracted may reach the mistaken conclusion that suction was used through the mouth or anal cavity.

Note the lack of blood on the time-lapse video and the dark 'burn' patch (caused by purge fluid as explained in the previously) that becomes noticeable on 4th October when the carcass is moved.

As the video is shot from the rear of the cow it's difficult to see exactly what is happening to the eyes, eyelid, ears and tongue, however, going by the crow activity they do seem to be working on the head. Note that in most cases of animal 'mutilations' it appears only one ear and/or eye is missing. This is probably because the exposed ear and eye is easier to reach than the ear and eye laid to the ground:

It might be worth mentioning that with the internal body temperature remaining warm after initial death, the internal organs decompose faster than the external body, turning 'mushy'.

Who or what is behind the 'cattle mutilations'?
In a nutshell: The animal kingdom.

Why is it that certain areas on the cow appear to have been mutilated?
Most probably because the skin covering those areas is only about a fifth as thick as the hide on the the animal, so the soft tissues that make for easier pickings – eyes, sexual organs, udders etc – will be pecked, nibbled and eaten first.

What about the appearance of 'laser-like' or 'surgical' wounds?
I know it's hard to believe when the 'laser-like' appearance has been drummed so hard, but it is a fact that large and small carrion help to create the illusion of surgical cuts. Vultures, ravens, crows, foxes, dogs and hogs, eat the soft tissues while the nibbling of blowflies and maggots give the impression, to the untrained eye, of smooth edges. Any veterinarian will be able to tell the difference between a cut made by a knife/laser to the natural process of decomposition. Also, in some cases the skin can tear cleanly when it becomes stretched during postmortem bloat.

In the past many veterinarians have stated the reason for these 'mutilations' is natural decomposition and scavenger activity yet some still refuse to accept the obvious. Before poo-pooing anything I've offered, perhaps browse the internet and read some forensic and pathology reports/articles. They really do make for interesting reading.

I have no personal beliefs regards extraterrestrials, except to say that as yet I haven't seen any proof they exist. I have no problem with those who wish to believe wholehearted, come what may, that aliens from a distant galaxy visit planet earth. I just feel uneasy about so-called 'experts' on the subject of 'cattle mutilations' repeating stories they've come across without checking them. They may have genuinely mistaken various words to mean something else – but I can't help feeling that truth rarely sells as well as a good ol' mystery.

Further reading: Operation Animal Mutilation
Report of the district attorney, 1st judicial district, state of New Mexico, June 1980 
By Kenneth M Rommel, Jr. (Project Director)

Dulce, New Mexico. Scans of the original letters, reports, chemical analysis, autopsy reports etc

Saturday, 27 February 2016

Our Attendance at Richard D Hall's talk in Aylesbury

Apologies in advance for the shoddy photos. My camera is not very good in the dark. 

We had already watched Richard's documentary “When Madeleine died?” (more on this in another article) but still looking forward to attending his talk in Aylesbury and I'm glad we did decide to buy tickets and make the effort.

The route to the Railway Club was not as easy to find as we'd imagined. Our SatNav announced “you have reached your destination.” A row of houses on either side and nothing to suggest there was a building in sight that might be the Railway Club was not boding well. With time closing in on the start of Richard's talk we were a little apprehensive. Pulling up on two occasions to ask directions was met with the same reply “I've just been asked that by someone else. I'm sorry, I don't know.” Small mercies; at least we were not the only ones. Driving up and down the road an ice-cream van pulled up, Mr Morsal was convinced that if anyone would know where this Railway Club is then it would be him. And Mr Morsal was right! Perfect directions from Mr Ice-cream man. We arrived a few minutes late, Richard had already started his talk, but at least we weren't so late that we missed anything important.

The room was packed. We headed to the back and seated ourselves on a line of tables (how embarrassing!) But it turned out to be a blessing in disguise because we had a higher advantage point than the numerous people in front of us.

Richard touched on the McCann case but also introduced a variety of other subjects, some of which got my brain ticking. I had heard of animal mutilations and the oddness surrounding their deaths, but I had not heard that there's also human equivalents until Richard mentioned it (more on this later). That aside, for me the most important part of his talk was the opportunity to get a 'feel' of Richard as an individual.

I knew before we met him that Richard was someone who walked the path of truth seeking but didn't use his talks or documentaries to make money. As far as I'm aware he sells his DVD's until he has made enough to cover his costs plus some to help with future investigations and then he put his DVD's/documentaries on the internet to be viewed free of charge. What a good soul he is.

He wasn't exactly breaking the bank either with asking a mere £12 a ticket.

Okay, Richard gets some things wrong sometimes, but don't we all? I certainly have in the past. This is what happens in truth seeking. We think we have something right but later learn that it might be wrong. The difference with Richard is that if he does get something wrong he will put his hand up and say so and put it up on his site

What more could you ask?

I digress...

...I met Richard...well, I kind of thrust myself on him...I think he was heading to the bar for another glass of water during the break when I advanced with hand held out to introduce myself. He was pleasant and as friendly as I'd imagine him to be. There was absolutely no arrogance about him at all – a persons person; down to earth and certainly someone who has patience. What I noticed is that he made me feel at ease. As soon as we shook hands I didn't feel as if I was in the presence of someone who felt himself above others; I felt I was with a friend. That's how at ease he made me feel.

Later during the break I bought a hard copy of Richard's latest McCann DVD “When Madeleine Died?” Richard kindly signed the cover insert for me at my request. I'm not one for idolising celebrities, but having met him I'm pleased to think that he would sign it for me.

The second half of his talk began. Mr Morsal found certain subjects more interesting than me and I found subjects more interesting than him, which would indicate that Richard is reaching out to a wider audience in his talks. 

All in all, an evening well spent. Thank you to Richard. Your talk has inspired me to dig deeper on subjects that I had previously merely glanced over. Certainly there is more going on that requires our attention and I hope that other people are similarly widening their viewpoint.

Wednesday, 28 January 2015

Is reconsideration a dirty word?

This may come as a surprise to some, but having returned to Jane Tanner's statements/rogatory and cross referencing I can find no apparent discrepancies regards the man she says she saw 'striding purposefully' across the road.

What I did notice in her rogatory (10 April 2008) is that she was able to explain herself better considering she was speaking with a British police officer. This is not to suggest that the previous translation are incorrect, only that she appears to have found it difficult to make herself understood.

There is a possibility that Jane Tanner has been misunderstood, called a liar, simply because the mainstream media gave misleading reports in the early days – child wrapped in a blanket in one article and then barefooted in another; man walking in one direction then walking in another. In fact,  reading through her statements, Jane Tanner has always maintained that the child is barefooted and that the man she claims to have seen was striding 'purposefully' across the road was always heading in the same direction.

Personally I believe that she may very well have seen someone crossing the road but I don't believe he was the supposed abductor. There's a possibility that when the alarm was raised the memory of the man 'striding purposefully' across the road came to mind and perhaps she envisioned a pinky hue to the pyjamas. While talking with the British police officer who was interviewing her she admits that “I thought I saw pink pyjamas and I thought I could see colours, but I don't know, it was fairly orange so I don't know. With a turn-up.

What I found strange is the conflicting testimonies between Gerry McCann, Jez Wilkins and Jane Tanner regards who was standing where at the time that Jane Tanner passed the two men as they chatted in the street. Although Jez Wilkins didn't see Jane Tanner his memory of where he was standing concurs with her positioning of the two men, therefore, the sighting could not have been concocted by Gerry McCann, but it does beg the question why he disagrees with both of them and is adamant that it's Jane Tanner who has the positioning wrong, so much so that he discounts her positioning during the 'reconstruction' filming (and, in essence, that of Jez Wilkins too).

So why didn't Jez Wilkins see Jane Tanner and why didn't Jane Tanner say anything as she passed? Mr Morsal and me chatted about this and although only from a personal perspective it seems quite plausible that if someone is unknown to us (in this case Jez Wilkins) who is chatting with someone we do know then we would simply pass by – it would be rude to interrupt. If the person we knew looked in our direction then we'd say hello. So, according to both  Jane Tanner and Jez Wilkins positioning, Gerry McCann would have had his back to Jane as she passed. As Jane Tanner didn't know Jez Wilkins then the likelihood of her saying anything is zero. Why didn't Jez Wilkins see Jane Tanner passing? That, I admit, is a tough one and only guess work because I wasn't there, but to give an example...we are regulars at a particular supermarket and chatty with some of the checkout women there, one of which (later told us) saw us in MK City Centre but didn't say hello because we were discussing something. I didn't see her. Same thing? I think so.

All in all, I feel Jane Tanner has been misunderstood and that she did perhaps see someone that evening, albeit not an abductor.

It's not wrong to be mistaken but it is wrong not to correct it once you realise!

Regards the following chart please note:

1. There appears to be no mention of certain details in Jane Tanner's 10 May 2007 rogatory. This might be because she had “maintained the honesty of her initial version” and therefore no need to repeat every detail in this particular statement.

2. In the last column there's various descriptive details, this is because it's a transcript of a recorded interview and the descriptions have been taken from several areas throughout the transcript where Jane Tanner has offered details voluntarily, been prompted by DC Ferguson (the interviewing police officer) or Jane Tanner has corrected DC Ferguson on reading her statement back to her. Any corrections made by Jane Tanner are in brackets.

4 may 2007 statement
10 May 2007 statement
8 April 2008 rogatory

Friday, 8 February 2013

Our attendance at McCann v Bennett (5th and 6th Feb 2013)

Having navigated through security Mr Morsal and I met up with familiar faces in the lobby along with Grenville Green. There we waited for Mr Bennett to arrive. We then headed upstairs to court 14.

Mr Morsal and I sat at the back row of the gallery – which soon filled. People were turned away because there was no standing room permitted. Some had travelled huge distances to show their support, including one lady who flew over from the Netherlands and who had kindly brought a bunch of tulips for Mr Bennett’s wife. I believe a couple of so-called ‘Pro McCanns’ also attended although I’m unsure who they may have been (except for one who we later met on Day 2). All who attended were well behaved.

On the morning of Day 1, Adrienne Page Q.C started the proceedings. To me she seemed slightly quaky at first but then I had previously formed high expectations of how someone who charges a staggering £32,000 for advice and two-day hearing would perform in court. That aside, Adrienne Page Q.C picked up momentum. She delivered the reasoning’s behind the McCann choice of bringing Tony Bennett to court in a professional and coherent manner. Her colleagues listened intently while periodically scanning the public gallery.

When Tony Bennett gave his opening statements he was told, politely, by Mr Justice Tugendhat that some of his offerings were not relevant to the matter in hand and mentioned a few times that if a libel trial ensues then he may find that he will be able to make his points then. In my personal opinion Mr Justice Tugendhat was being fair while working within the (restricted) boundaries of what could and could not be permitted within this particular hearing. But he did at least allow Mr Bennett to have his say before intervening even if what he had proposed were not permissible.

Court ended at 1pm for lunch. We didn’t join Mr Bennett and others, instead choosing to use the canteen within the Royal Courts of Justice to save having to go through the scanners again on re-entering the building.

The afternoon session was when Tony Bennett came into his own. I admit that I was quietly impressed with the way Mr Bennett confidently, with professionalism, directed his questions.

Mike Gunnill took his oath at 2.15pm.
TB = Tony Bennett
MG = Mike Gunnill
P = Prosecution

Mr G admitted that he had used the aliases ‘Peter Tarwin’ on 20 August and also ‘Jason Peters’ when writing emails to Mr Bennett in an attempt to obtain the banned booklet “60 Reasons.”

TB: Take this through with you briefly, email from Peter Tarwin dated 20 Aug. Is that you?

MG: It is my LordTB: quotes from email re Deborah Butler… said keep up the good work…….was that a true statement?

MG: that was not a true statement my Lord

TB: reply to email from Peter Tarwin ….Peter I don’t know who you are but the address is incorrect and number 4 at the bottom as Peter Tarwin on holiday until Sept and can't reply. 5, 22nd Aug. Over the page…..item 5 from Jason Peters…to Mr Bennett new address provided to the BBC…Keep up the good work

TB: Jason Peters is you, is it not?

MG: it is, yes.

TB: Quoting from Mr Gunnill’s email (20th August?): “Jason Peters was entered in error… you see my name is Peter Tarwin.” That is you.

MG: It is my Lord

TB: email dated 26 Aug, Dear Sec Bennett I would like to attend the Madeleine McCann meeting - please add details, would like to attend...” Again not you is it and you did not intend to attend the meeting did you?
MG I did intend to attend the meeting, yes.

TB: no 9, email from me to others, Gunnill fake email 27 August 2009….Tony reads this out……facts again….you devised that false email address did you not?

MG: No I did not, my Lord

TB: now 10 on page 4, this is from Mr Bennett just for info……reads out email… re Kent police.

TB: The email purports to come from Debbie Butler but it’s not. Did you devise that email?

MG: I did not my Lord

TB: Did you make a complaint to Kent police about Deborah Butler?

MG: I did my Lord

TB: Do you know the outcome of the police enquiry?

MG: They told me they gave her a caution

Mr G stated that he had contacted the Sunday Express asking if they would be interested in buying his story regards obtaining the booklet. When Mr Bennett said that Mr G had intended to sell his story for monetary gain, Mr Gunnill agreed, admitting that he wanted to make money from the story that Tony Bennett had sold his booklet while under obligation to the court.

TB: A courier arrived this morning at 8am to collect the envelope…quotes from … admitted selling “60 Reasons” to me…..quotes on….is that the date that the courier came to collect the envelope?

MG: yes my Lord

TB: paragraph 16 of your affidavit…directing to witness...Are you at page 16? So if I can just read that out…I sent £5 in cash...quotes from that affidavit. Are we talking about received on the 1st or 4th February…in this posting website courier called this morning at 8am but in the letter you are saying Monday 1st Feb…Just asking when you received this booklet

MG: I think it was on the Monday

P: interrupts regarding apparent discrepancy with dates.

TB: I just want to ask him his recollection - you say you received it on Monday 1st February and having got it what did you then do…what was your next action?

MG: I contacted the Sunday Express

TB: They were having a conference at 11am?

MG: Sunday Express said they’d be interested in the story... yes

TB: Point 1 cash sent…because Mr Gunnill did not want to send a cheque to Mrs Bennett.

MG: From my memory that was in one of the emails, yes.

TB: We will see it in a moment and I said I got a copy of the book from my mother- it was her copy – and you say there are two further examples. What are the two further examples?

MG: Not sure, I can’t remember now…..I think of one selling in Wales but I don’t recall

TB: I put it to you there is no other examples

MG: I have no reason to lie

In his affidavit Mr G also states that besides the booklet which he obtained via Mr Bennett he had also acquired two other copies via other sources. When questioned he replied that he had not lied about the other two copies and that he “only needed proof of one purchase and that I obtained from you” [Tony Bennett].

TB: You obtained this booklet and made public with allegations that there are two further

MG: I don’t have my paperwork with me

TB: Do you concede that it might not be true - there are not two further examples

MG: As I said I only need proof of one purchase and that was from you. (Denies he lied about obtaining two other copies.)

TB: I will refer to the Affidavit in more detail... in paragraph 4 you say that in Aug 2009 you were commissioned by the Sunday Express to take a picture...this was commissioned by Debbie Butler. I received hate mail and late night calls...and a fake website set up in my name. As confirmed in paragraph 8.... Tony Bennett was not responsible for this website.

MG: As far as I am aware I had no involvement in that

Mr Gunnill admitted that under one of his aliases: “I was monitoring your [Tony Bennett’s] website.” (Note: In the transcript it states '...monitor the websites'. Mr Bennett was only on one forum at the time. Either way, Mr Gunnill was monitoring a website or websites)

Then directing his words to Mr Justice Tugendhat he continued: “Mr Bennett seemed to be breaching his court application” – he had no proof to offer.

TB: You then go on to say in paragraph 11 that you continued to follow the story and it appeared that the defendant was not honouring his undertakings – How would you do that…what would you look for?

MG: Under one of my aliases I was using to monitor the websites - the general conversation between members on the forum as Tony Bennett seemed to be ignoring his court undertaking. Mr Bennett seemed to be breaching his court application.

TB: You threw it into your affidavit

MG: I did my Lord

(When asked, MG has no proof to offer)

TB: There is nothing that appears to be particular …but you have put in your affidavit - paragraph 12, I thought that the Sunday Express might be interested in reporting it further

MG: Exactly what I did say

TB: What did you mean by it?

TB: You, Mr Bennett

TB: What me personally?

MG: yes

TB: page 3, bottom photo journalist and pitch ideas to newspapers and paid commissions. You were prepared to buy this booklet from me if you could make money

MG: yes

TB: Quote - I spoke to my contacts on the Sunday Express and then you said I emailed using fake ID’s Exhibit MG2 refers to…on page 4 of MG2…page 385 – 386, pages 4 and 5 of exhibit. Can you look at the email you first sent to me on 13th Jan 2010…

MG: Yes that is correct

Mr Gunnill also admitted on oath that he used another alias ‘Michael Sangerte’ offering a ‘good price’ for a copy of the booklet 'as a historical document’. Mr Bennett asked if by stating ‘good price’ it was to entice him, he replied “no, it certainly wasn’t.”

TB: You sent it to me from Michael Sangerte 13th Jan at 3.52pm…quotes from that email…

MG: Yes, I lied my Lord. That was a lie –

TB: Why urgently to be purchased

MG: It was not

TB: So you could make money

MG: yes, (MG admits he wanted to make money from the story of TB selling his booklet while under obligation to the court)

TB Quote – Email from ‘Michael Sangerte’: I will pay a good price - why would you pay a good price?

MG: To purchase it from you

TB: was it to entice me?

MG: No, it certainly wasn’t.

TB: reply which is on the previous page…13th Jan 2010 at 4.19pm. Dear Mr…Then you reply 18 minutes later  from Michael Sangerte...Dear Mr Bennett...quotes... an important book “as a historical document” that was your claim….was that true?

MG: No, it was not true my Lord

TB: Nine days later I sent you a further one, Dear Mr Sangerte...please send a cheque made payable to my mother Mrs M Bennett…quotes from. At that stage you sent me the £5 note.

J: Would prosecution like to cross examine?

P: No

Mr G released 2.30pm

Interestingly Adrienne Page Q.C did not want to cross examine Mr G.

Carter-Ruck's lawyer and partner, Isabel Martorell, took her oath at 2.35pm.

*Mr Bennett held up the book 'The Madeleine McCann Case Files: Vol. 1'

Mr Justice Tungenhadt intervenes; explaining that Ms Martorell is here as a witness and that Adrienne Page Q.C is the one to question regards this matter.

Through further questioning it transpires that although Ms Martorell is aware that the PJ Files have been translated into English she apparently does not know anything about the PJ documentation. She seemed adept at avoiding any definitive answers, one way or the other, to Mr Bennett’s questioning. He states that with each question Ms Martorell keeps relating to the booklet as a whole when the contents are found on the internet. To clarify, he asks “what parts are you referring to?” Ms Martorell replies that Mr Bennett had written the introduction to the booklet but then struggles to recall anything else as having being written by him.

She also admits that she has not read Mr Amaral’s book “The Truth in the Lie.”

Mr Bennett states that Ms Martorell had no sufficient concerns after 23rd July. She agrees that there are none except the video of Mr Bennett reading out the 48 questions which Kate McCann had refused to answer. Mr Bennett then points out: “Yet you [Ms Martorell] have brought things to the court since that date.

In her Affidavit, Ms Martorell had said that 'Madeleine was abducted'. After Mr Bennett had questioned her further she admitted that she had been told this by her clients but didn't know whether or not that was true. In all fairness, I doubt she could say any more than that, after all, as she rightly pointed out, the McCann couple are the clients of Carter-Ruck. I doubt it is up to them to believe their clients, simply to act on their behalf. But it does at least show that this case is rather lopsided. If the McCann version of events is unproven then how can Mr Bennett have breached anything?

It seems inconceivable that a law firm as highly paid as Carter-Ruck has not at least read the
 PJ files. Surely they would naturally want to be furnished with all available evidence from their clients? Even if they had no trust in the translated files held on Pamalam’s site then they could have obtained the ones which the McCann couple say they have spent X amount having translated (professionally)? Again, if they have not read the official PJ Files then how can they possibly know that Mr Bennett has breached his undertakings?

When court closed on Day 1, we later met up with Tony Bennett and others for informal discussions. Everyone seemed in light spirits including Mr Bennett.

Day 2 – although up bright and early we were a few minutes late arriving at the court due to traffic delays. By the time we arrived the gallery was already full (again) so we were unable to gain entry. Others turned up after us and were also turned away. While we waited outside the court room, another person arrived. She introduced herself as a ‘Pro’ and was hoping to meet other fellow ‘Pros’. Regardless of her personal beliefs we invited her to join us for a tea in the canteen on the proviso that we do not discuss the case. (Grenville carried her case down the stairs – which I thought was a rather nice gesture). Of course, asking someone not to discuss a case is easier said than done. She attempted on a few occasions to get her views heard and unfortunately mistook my smile as a ‘snigger’. But in her defence it must have been an awkward situation for her considering she was sitting with us three and perhaps was looking for any tell-tale signs of disagreement. That was the only uncomfortable moment. I excused myself, left the woman (I’ve omitted her name because I do not have her permission to share) with Grenville and Mr Morsal, and headed for the court room again, thankfully I was squeezed in – albeit very late on in the hearing.

Mr Bennett read an extract from the book (pages 289-290) ‘madeleine’ written by Kate McCann.

Mr Justice Tugendhat stated that he will hand down his verdict in writing within a week or so, which, in my personal opinion, is only fair considering the complexity of the case. I would be worried if he had entered a verdict immediately after both sides had been heard.

A portion of Mr G's Affidavit referencing the above:
Source:  Jill Havern Forum
Written by Tony Bennett:
In paragraphs 12-17 of his Affidavit, Gunnill explains why he schemed to try to get a booklet from me. Here is his account, in his own words – verbatim:

"Hav[ing] previously covered the story, I thought that the Sunday Express might be interested in reporting on it further, if it...turned out that the Defendant wasn't complying with his undertakings. I should mention that while I am a photo journalist, I also write articles occasionally and/or pitch ideas for articles to newspapers. If a newspaper decides to publish an article which I've suggested, I will be paid a commission both for the original idea and if any photographs of mine are used to illustrate it.

"I spoke to my contacts at the Sunday Express, who confirmed that they would consider publishing another articles if I could obtain a copy of the '60 Reasons' boklet from the Defendant in order to prove that he was breaching the undertaking.

"I therefore emailed the Defendant in January 2010, using the pseudonym 'Michael Sangerte', requesting a copy of the '60 Reasons' booklet. Given the use of my photograph in the original Sunday Express article...I thought it extremely unlikely that the Defendant would agree to sell me the '60 Reasons' booklet if I wrote in my own name, hence my use of a pseudonym.

"As can be seen, the Defendant was initialily reluctant to sell me the '60 Reasons' boolket because of the undertaking he had given...However, when I pressed the Defendant further, he confirmed he had been able to locate a copy...

"I inforned by my contact at the Sunday Express that I had been able to obatin a copy of the '60 Reasons' booklet from the Defendant. My contact told me the newspaper wished to consdier a possible article at their 11am editorial conference, so they sent a courier round to my house to collect [the] package which I had received from the Defendant, together with my summary for a proposed article, first thing in the moning. I was curious to see if I could get the Defendant to admit publicly that he had been breaching his undetakings..."
To tidy up any myths surrounding the hearing regards Mr Gunnill it should be made clear that he was not working under instructions of the McCanns when he attempted to, and succeeded in, obtaining “60 Reasons” booklet.

Point number 30 of the official judgement (copy on Pamalam's site) it states:
What the Defendant wrote in the letter about Mr. Gunnill is accepted by the Claimants and Mr Gunnill himself to be correct, except for one important point. As the Defendant now expressly accepts, Mr Gunnill was not in contact with the Claimants. He wanted the book for the purposes of journalism and he was in touch with a newspaper publisher. 


*Mr Bennett later informed me of the following regards the book:
'The Madeleine McCann Case Files: Vol. 1' has been openly sold since January 2010 by 'The Madeleine Foundation' and consists of twelve key extracts from the published Portuguese police files. At the time of writing this it continued to sell steadily.

The McCanns have never attempted to injunct the book or otherwise stop it. The contents of this book were said by Carter-Ruck to amount to a breach of one my undertakings and no doubt Mr Justice Tugendhat will rule in due course on whether it was or not.

Wednesday, 23 January 2013

The Broken Glass at the Front of Sandy Hook School

Screenshot taken from the video:

Footage of the broken glass begins at approx. 0.50:

Friday, 18 January 2013

Sandy Hook: Plants and Provocateurs

Most of the early reports from mainstream media were grasping at any information they could grab and then relayed to the public ‘as it happens’ regardless of whether or not the information was factually correct. This has undoubtedly played a huge part in the apparent inconsistencies surrounding the Sandy Hook massacre.

Naturally the reluctance to offer any visual or substantive evidence has also added to the theory that something is amiss. Let’s face it, in the past when a crime has been committed the mainstream media has been keen to offer photos of bloody footprint trails or blood splattered walls or even the murder weapon in situ or bullet holes...which would of course be distasteful in the Sandy Hook instance, but refusing (or unable) to release any CCTV footage of the supposed ‘lone shooter’ entering the school or even photos of broken windows is bound to have keyboards rattling as people attempt to make sense of the whole thing.

I know because having followed the McCann case for several years and watched closely as the events unfold it is clear that much of the wild speculation and confusing reports have been generated by the very lack of information. So many people can see that something is wrong but almost nobody can get a handle on it.

And I think if somebody had a desire to mislead the public over this incident then the greatest weapon in their armoury would be the cloak of secrecy that they throw across the issue.

However, unlike Sandy Hook, researchers of the McCann case now have access to the official police files. Sandy Hook – at least at the moment – is void of anything official for reference; instead it’s down to looking for anomalies among available photos and videos, watching for any betrayal in the faces of the speakers and relying on the media’s half cocked way of reporting. It’s this part that bothers me...

... Over the years conspiracy theorists (or Truth Seekers) have worked hard to gain some credibility, which, by and large, has been accomplished with the dedicated efforts of many in their respective areas. Truth Seekers have done well to gain respect yet now I’m seeing a downward slide once more because of those who are too quick to publish their research  when further digging would make a marked difference to the outcome of their findings. Already Emilie Parker has been mistaken for her sister Madeline and school nurse Sally Cox marked as a fraud, all because the authors have reached a conclusion they’re satisfied with rather than dissecting it to ensure they’re correct. What’s worse is that they’re offering their findings to the internet world as gospel and people are running with it.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with asking questions and putting a viewpoint across, after all that’s how most brainstorming reaches useful conclusions, but some of the ‘evidence’ offered on the Sandy Hook case has been rushed in an almost competitive way to reach a final conclusion regardless of whether there is a full picture or not, it doesn’t seem to matter any more. What seems to matter is being the first to claim a viable scenario which may have little bearing on the truth. More importantly, this clambering for a conclusion, devoid of any evidence, serves only to destroy the truth movement and one can only conclude that this in fact maybe what qualifies Sandy Hook as a pysop and not Obama’s desires to take your guns? That’s simply a side issue because they never pass on an opportunity.

In short, what matters is for the truth community to get refocused, kick out any destructive elements that are undermining our efforts (plants and provocateurs) and come together again in our common cause of exposing lies and manipulation.

Thursday, 17 January 2013

Sandy Hook: The missing triage area

Mystery of the 'bundles' has now been solved!

Many thanks to Anonymous who left a HD helicopter video and an explanation in the comment section where he/she has kindly solved the ‘bundle’ mystery – as Anonymous has rightly pointed out, the ‘bundles’ are nothing more than white folding chairs:

Anonymous pointed out that Gene Rosen can be seen perfectly at 1:19 through to 1:35 and again at 8:15 - 8:48, while the 'shooters' car is already roped off at 4:37 - 4:44:

Screenshots taken from the above video showing the white chairs: 

The rest of this article is no longer applicable. However, I'm leaving it here as an example of how the imagination can sometimes fill in the gaps when there is lack of clear information.

Wednesday, 16 January 2013

Sandy Hook nurse Sally Cox is Sarah Cox

Sally Cox – school nurse – Administered hearing tests to the students

60 year-old Sally Cox had worked as a nurse for Sandy Hook Elementary School for the last 15yrs. She hid under her computer desk when the shooter walked into her office. She could see him only from his knees down when she peered through a small hole in the desk holding computer wires. After the shooter had gone Barbara Halstead, a secretary, ran into the office and hid under the desk with Sally. She pulled the phone off the desk and dialled 911. The two women then raced into a supply closet, where they remained until they were escorted out of the school by police who told them to close their eyes.

Some have suggested that Sally Cox is a fraud. They’ve typed her name into The State of Connecticut eLicencing Website, with zero results and therefore concluded that she was never a nurse at the Sandy Hook Elementary school.

However, Sally is a nickname for both Sarah and Sandra. A quick search on the internet for ‘Sandy Hook Nurse Sarah Cox’ and the mystery is solved by the New York Post 
“[Sarah] Cox, known as Sally to friends and co-workers, took no chances.” 
So the true name of Sandy Hook Elementary School nurse is Sarah Cox. Placing that name into the database does indeed bring up one record:

Name: Sarah D Cox
Credential: 10.E35858
Credential Description: Registered Nurse
Credential Status: ACTIVE
City: Newton
State: CT
Zip Code: 06470

License Type: Registered Nurse
License Number: E35858
Expiration Date: 02/28/2013
Granted Date: 05/06/1974
License Status: ACTIVE
Licensure Actions or Pending Charges: None

Sally Cox is listed as a nurse on the Sandy Hook School Directory:

Sunday, 13 January 2013

Emilie Parker still alive after Sandy Hook shooting – Not true!

I have to admit there does appear to be some contradictions and inconsistencies with the Sandy Hook shooting, but one thing I am certain of is that Emilie Parker was not photographed with Obama.

The members of Metabunk forum have outlined this fact and offered their findings with indisputable evidence. The children with Obama are Emilie’s sisters Samantha and Madeline – I hope Metabunk doesn’t mind my using their photos to illustrate:

The following photo enables us to gauge the sister’s heights. It’s plain to see that Emily is taller than her two younger siblings while Samantha and Madeleine are of similar height. Also note Madeline’s smile.

Now look at the sisters with Obama – notice the similar heights between the two girls and the distinct smile:

 Close up:

Emilie was photographed in the red dress in 2010 (age: 4) – it stands to reason that two years later Madeline will be of similar age/height. The girl with Obama is Madeline wearing her sister’s dress.