WHEN Bennet is cleared of all accusations.

murat_fan wrote:

Jolie wrote:

Murat Fan, do you have a link to evidence that shows the 500 pounds was paid from the Foundation monies?

Err try this from Bennett's own mouth

"In this letter To Kirwins he writes :
We were thus under no obligation to you as we had given you no instructions to act for us; Debbie and I took the view however that as you has rendered assistance and spent time on the matter we would voluntarily offer £500 to you towards your time, which is a big chunk out of the current balance of the Madeleine Foundation."

I asked a simple question. Must you resort to a wise-ass attitude every time you post?

Thank you for providing the information I asked for.

to Tony Bennett, Can you confirm that the 500 pounds was paid out of the Madeleine Foundation funds for Kirwans' legal advice.? If yes, what changed between September 17 and the time of payment?

Jolie wrote:

murat_fan wrote:

Jolie wrote:

Murat Fan, do you have a link to evidence that shows the 500 pounds was paid from the Foundation monies?

Err try this from Bennett's own mouth

"In this letter To Kirwins he writes :
We were thus under no obligation to you as we had given you no instructions to act for us; Debbie and I took the view however that as you has rendered assistance and spent time on the matter we would voluntarily offer £500 to you towards your time, which is a big chunk out of the current balance of the Madeleine Foundation."

I asked a simple question. Must you resort to a wise-ass attitude every time you post?

Thank you for providing the information I asked for.

to Tony Bennett, Can you confirm that the 500 pounds was paid out of the Madeleine Foundation funds for Kirwans' legal advice.? If yes, what changed between September 17 and the time of payment?

Sorry it is late.

here is what he stated in a e-mail/letter

"From: Tony Bennett M.A.
66 Chippingfield
HARLOW
Essex
CM17 0DJ
Tel: 01279 635789
e-mail: ajsbennett@btinternet.com

Mr Michael Sandys Tuesday 20 October 2009
Kirwans Solicitors
6th Floor
Martins Building
Water Street
LIVERPOOL
L2 3SX

Dear Michael

re: The McCanns - Your Interim Bill

I received with some considerable surprise your letter of 7 October when I returned from holiday on Friday last week (16th).

You began your letter by saying; “I write to thank you for and confirm your instructions”. I think there may have been some misunderstanding here over quite what was agreed between us and David Kirwan. No instructions were ever given to you by me or Debbie Butler. Nor we were informed that we might be expected to pay for your enquiries as to whether you could assist us on a ‘no win no fee’ basis as originally floated by Nick Mason in his e-mail of 21 September. Also we did not see any client care letter until 16th October.

It was clear that our discussion on 2 October was exploratory on both sides and indeed David Kirwan made this abundantly clear by emphasising several times during our meeting that ‘we have made no decision as yet as to whether to offer to assist you’.

The only authority I gave was in a mobile telephone call to David from Northumberland when David asked for my permission for Kirwans to write a holding letter to Carter-Ruck, and after discussing matters with Debbie I agreed to that step being taken.

We were thus under no obligation to you as we had given you no instructions to act for us; Debbie and I took the view however that as you has rendered assistance and spent time on the matter we would voluntarily offer £500 to you towards your time, which is a big chunk out of the current balance of the Madeleine Foundation.

Your correspondence was a touch alarming insofar as it referred to an ‘Interim Bill’, which suggested to us there might be further bills to follow. You did offer to conclude the terms of a settlement for us with Carter-Ruck for a fee of £5,000 plus VAT, which was well beyond what we could afford or raise. Our relationship therefore terminated at the point where we declined that offer.

Sa far as I’m concerned we remain grateful of the help offered but at no time did we agree to incur fees. We made a goodwill gesture towards your time from what we could afford, as we were grateful and wished to end our brief relationship on amicable terms.

I trust that this concludes matters between us.

Yours sincerely


Tony Bennett"

sym wrote:

trunky wrote:

sym wrote:

trunky wrote:Jesus H Christ I have seen some stupid backtracking in my time but this one takes the Garibaldis it really does......

he calls someone a liar because he didnt read his own flaimin' quote

you wanna watch your blood pressure.

you dont have the answer for it do you sym - your hero has just been shown to not have an even elementary grasp of the case forensics and you don't care - you made your mind up - it doesnt matter whether he bothered to get his bookie right before he published it and plastered it around.

That's why he ended up having to give in to Carter Ruck. Not because they are Evil Meanies, but because he didn't do his research - and wouldn't listen to those who offered him advice about it, either. This is one example of the sort of thing he does - there are literally dozens in everything he has ever written about the McCanns.

I am saying he looks better than his accusers..and then I am saying could be anyones finger prints..besides I love to fight the under dogs corner...easy to join in on an attack,it dont take much.

Tony Bennett is not an under dog.

He's the attack dog. But he often jumps in without getting his facts straight, and that's what lands him in hot water.

Every time I have seen people try to correct him he either goes on the attack - like he did with nicked, claiming she was a McCann relative - or he runs away. You can put your faith in such a man if you want, but if he won't take advice from those better informed than himself then he doesn't deserve your, or anybody's, support.

trunky wrote:

sym wrote:

trunky wrote:

sym wrote:

trunky wrote:Jesus H Christ I have seen some stupid backtracking in my time but this one takes the Garibaldis it really does......

he calls someone a liar because he didnt read his own flaimin' quote

you wanna watch your blood pressure.

you dont have the answer for it do you sym - your hero has just been shown to not have an even elementary grasp of the case forensics and you don't care - you made your mind up - it doesnt matter whether he bothered to get his bookie right before he published it and plastered it around.

That's why he ended up having to give in to Carter Ruck. Not because they are Evil Meanies, but because he didn't do his research - and wouldn't listen to those who offered him advice about it, either. This is one example of the sort of thing he does - there are literally dozens in everything he has ever written about the McCanns.

I am saying he looks better than his accusers..and then I am saying could be anyones finger prints..besides I love to fight the under dogs corner...easy to join in on an attack,it dont take much.

Tony Bennett is not an under dog.

He's the attack dog. But he often jumps in without getting his facts straight, and that's what lands him in hot water.

Every time I have seen people try to correct him he either goes on the attack - like he did with nicked, claiming she was a McCann relative - or he runs away. You can put your faith in such a man if you want, but if he won't take advice from those better informed than himself then he doesn't deserve your, or anybody's, support.

To me this really only involves a few people, those who sent money..foundation members..Butler..me by butler bringing me in to it by publsihing my paypal...whats your excuse?

Far be it from me to help out Tony Bennett but in the interests of truth – which is not strengthened by shouting capitals:

Bennett said “Only Dr Kate McCann’s fingerprints were on that window.”

The evidence which trunky then quoted from the case papers does not refer to the window nor the window frame: it refers to the exterior shutter.

Trunky then said, loudly: “Sym, can you understand what you are being told?
Bennett was WRONG.He is just WRONG. There is an unidentified print on the outside of that window, and it was sat there quoted in his own post and he never even noticed.”

Trunky is referring to the earlier post:
“No Tony, you are wrong.There was a three-digit print on the outside of the window shutter, considered insufficent for proof of ID.”

And Scrafen added, once again with shouts:

“But definitely, tony bennetts statement is misleading and wrong, when he says:
ONLY DR KATE MCCANN'S FINGERPRINTS WERE ON THAT WINDOW.”

Readers with rather more scrupulousness than Trunky & Muratfan and rather more honesty than scrafen will note that “shutter” has been changed to window. Trunky cheated and the others went along with her. No doubt JATYK applauded her.

Tony Bennett’s statement about the window is correct and trunky ,Murat fan and scrafen are both wrong and dishonest. So what’s new?

smith wrote:Far be it from me to help out Tony Bennett but in the interests of truth – which is not strengthened by shouting capitals:

Bennett said “Only Dr Kate McCann’s fingerprints were on that window.”

The evidence which trunky then quoted from the case papers does not refer to the window nor the window frame: it refers to the exterior shutter.

Trunky then said, loudly: “Sym, can you understand what you are being told?
Bennett was WRONG.He is just WRONG. There is an unidentified print on the outside of that window, and it was sat there quoted in his own post and he never even noticed.”

Trunky is referring to the earlier post:
“No Tony, you are wrong.There was a three-digit print on the outside of the window shutter, considered insufficent for proof of ID.”

And Scrafen added, once again with shouts:

“But definitely, tony bennetts statement is misleading and wrong, when he says:
ONLY DR KATE MCCANN'S FINGERPRINTS WERE ON THAT WINDOW.”

Readers with rather more scrupulousness than Trunky & Muratfan and rather more honesty than scrafen will note that “shutter” has been changed to window. Trunky cheated and the others went along with her. No doubt JATYK applauded her.

Tony Bennett’s statement about the window is correct and trunky, murat_fan and scrafen are both wrong and dishonest. So what’s new?

Thank you, smith, for saying something very important indeed - more eloquently and concisely than I have done so far on this topic.

Clever Smith...but capitals(shouting) scares me ..

Hair splitting bullshit.

Q what is a window?
A 1) An opening constructed in a wall or roof that functions to admit light or air to
an enclosure
2) A means of access or observation:

Q When is 'only Kate's prints were found on the window' an irrelevance?
A when other prints were found on the shutter which covers the window.

Q when is a shutter which covers a window nothing to do with the window?
A When it suits Tony Bennett

This is what Bennett does.

It's what he always does. He doesnt look at the evidence as it really exists. He introduces irrelevancies, as he did last night with the print of the cop which came from a completely different room, and tries to make out it's something to do with the argument.

Finally, when shown up to be WRONG (again), he calls in one of his helpers to 'put the record straight'.

He did this for months on the 3As, he got swatted like a fly on there at regular intervals and relied on the multitude of willing fools who jumped in to help him out when he got into trouble. This isn't about the truth, it's about a cult of personality. There are those who will cling to this man, like others cling to Amaral, because it's all they have.

Look at yourselves, and at the people you are backing, and get real.

smith wrote:Far be it from me to help out Tony Bennett but in the interests of truth – which is not strengthened by shouting capitals:

Bennett said “Only Dr Kate McCann’s fingerprints were on that window.”

The evidence which trunky then quoted from the case papers does not refer to the window nor the window frame: it refers to the exterior shutter.

Trunky then said, loudly: “Sym, can you understand what you are being told?
Bennett was WRONG.He is just WRONG. There is an unidentified print on the outside of that window, and it was sat there quoted in his own post and he never even noticed.”

Trunky is referring to the earlier post:
“No Tony, you are wrong.There was a three-digit print on the outside of the window shutter, considered insufficent for proof of ID.”

And Scrafen added, once again with shouts:

“But definitely, tony bennetts statement is misleading and wrong, when he says:
ONLY DR KATE MCCANN'S FINGERPRINTS WERE ON THAT WINDOW.”

Readers with rather more scrupulousness than Trunky & Muratfan and rather more honesty than scrafen will note that “shutter” has been changed to window. Trunky cheated and the others went along with her. No doubt JATYK applauded her.

Tony Bennett’s statement about the window is correct and trunky ,Murat fan and scrafen are both wrong and dishonest. So what’s new?

As usual one member one post, defending Bennett. The whole quote stinks of Grenville again.Sorry but come up with a better argument because the GNR Officer refers to the shutter as a window. The Scenes Of Crime officer refers to it as a window. So do you want to speak to them as well.

[quote="trunky"]This is what Bennett does.

It's what he always does. He doesnt look at the evidence as it really exists. He introduces irrelevancies, as he did last night with the print of the cop which came from a completely different room, and tries to make out it's something to do with the argument.

Finally, when shown up to be WRONG (again), he calls in one of his helpers to 'put the record straight'.

He did this for months on the 3As, he got swatted like a fly on there at regular intervals and relied on the multitude of willing fools who jumped in to help him out when he got into trouble. This isn't about the truth, it's about a cult of personality. There are those who will cling to this man, like others cling to Amaral, because it's all they have.

Look at yourselves, and at the people you are backing, and get real.[/quot

You can roll your eyes all you want sym, but it's true.

First of all to more important matters than little pros who can only handle evidence dishonestly or without understanding it. Sym, I am a fan of yours.

Right, that’s out of the way. Secondly I am not a supporter of Tony Bennett’s: the name is Blacksmith but at the moment the system won’t let me log on with that name.

Now, to the issues and our two clever posters. We start with trunky, whose intellectual approach can be seen by her calling my post “hair splitting b*****t”. I will – yawn - explain. The shutters are nothing to do with the window. They are not window blinds (as is often mistranslated) but exterior anti-intruder shutters.

They are treated quite separately from the windows in the police files. Why? Because if the interior and exterior of the window frame and glass had only KM’s prints on them then only two conclusions are possible:

1) KM was the only person to handle the window on the evening of May 3 or
2) Someone has wiped the window and frame clear of prints either before KM handled it or afterwards.

There is, however, no forensic evidence of an intruder having been in the apartment to wipe the window.

The exterior shutter is a completely different matter. The forensic evidence is quite clear that the shutter was not opened from outside and, unlike the window, there is eye-witness evidence that Gerry McCann had handled and contaminated it before the police arrived, thus making the question of prints irrelevant.

Next we have the rather hysterical and equally incorrect muratfan. He/she says:

“As usual one member one post, defending Bennett. The whole quote stinks of Grenville again. Sorry but come up with a better argument because the GNR Officer refers to the shutter as a window. The Scenes Of Crime officer refers to it as a window. So do you want to speak to them as well.”

At no point do any of the GNR officers or PJ officers confuse the window with the shutter. They are, unlike some posters, not stupid enough to do so.

None of this will make any difference to our two posters: they have had the evidence pointed out to them that Tony Bennett is correct and in this case they are wrong. As you will see they won’t accept it.

For a full discussion of the shutters & window and an even fuller description of the large number of people who Gerry and Kate McCann told, explicitly, that the shutters had been jemmied, those who are interested can check The Cracked Mirror blog where all the evidence is gathered: http://madeleinemccannaffair.blogspot.com/

Smith you take any opportunity to knock us out with your blog

thank you smith, you have shown the truth about the windows/shutters,so lets hope thats the end of the matter

Then Hello smith..taking you on face value, Might have known when the pro's come across someone who wont knuckle down or run they accuse you of being a troll or someone else.
:flower:

Which is your blog smith or is it more smoke screen tactics?

sym wrote:Which is your blog smith or is it more smoke screen tactics?

The Cracked Mirror. It's not actually a blog, just a set of essays, and rather long-winded ones too, for people who want to look at the evidence in depth.

i havent read it yet but i have seen where people say it is very good

smith wrote:

sym wrote:Which is your blog smith or is it more smoke screen tactics?

The Cracked Mirror. It's not actually a blog, just a set of essays, and rather long-winded ones too, for people who want to look at the evidence in depth.

I am off for a nose now. Link pls smith..think I read it before wont know till I get there have been to so many...but not a reader of muratfans..Only read JATYK cos that BB is soo funny and on the ball in her analysis of Butler and Ambersuz.I scan the other cretins there and dont really read them.

smith wrote:

sym wrote:Which is your blog smith or is it more smoke screen tactics?

The Cracked Mirror. It's not actually a blog, just a set of essays, and rather long-winded ones too, for people who want to look at the evidence in depth.

Blacksmith is ok and is most certainly NOT a supporter of Bennett's.

Smith tends to get his facts right and if he doesn't I will be the first to set him right.

Am not a supporter of Smith either.

Just clearing the air here. :flower:

Let me add this about Tony Bennett. I am not only not a supporter of his but I attacked him in the strongest terms on another forum a while ago before this latest stuff broke out.

I was taught that when you go to hurt someone you do it viciously and properly, preferably disabling them so much with your first blow that they can never come back at you. That is what I tried to warn TB about on the 3As – get the facts right before you start leafleting, don’t fire blanks. Unfortunately he took a different view.

Despite the trail of destruction he leaves behind him I admire his courage, apart from his capitulation to the lawyers which came because he hadn’t been careful enough with his accusations.

Unfortunately he is finished as any kind of leader against the McCanns because he has made himself such a target that it is simply too dangerous for others in the public eye to be seen in association with him. Whatever he does now he’ll have to do it without any of the Portuguese or any public figures.

I wish he’d sit back and reflect quietly on this and try and work out a new strategy for what he wants to accomplish rather than using his megaphone on the forums, especially if he is sincere in saying that “he who runs away lives to fight another day.”

Link pls Smith...agree they have fooked Bennets credibility.
Link to your blog that is..I like your style I like to play hard and fight hard, unfortunately Jill would freak out if I went off as I would wish to, but I say what I like on my blog and that was why I made it, so I could say the things some find too unpalatable.

Smithy havent you come to defend Brenda

Is Brenda muratfan??