A question for Mike Gunnill, alias \'petert\' on JATYK, alias Peter Tarwin, alias Jason Peters

She's very good isn't she..

Laffin Assasin wrote:You claimed to have passed it onto Essex Police, who were dealing with your threats

surely they would have tied them both up as having come from the same place?

Internet cafe in chicago/chicago based proxy server?

snigger@ruby

Laffin Assasin wrote:

From: ANTHONY BENNETT [mailto@btinternet.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2009 10:12 AM
To: admin@truthformadeleine.com
Subject: The U.S. Edition of '60 Reasons' (was: 60-reasons)



Steve,



I've given lengthy consideration to this and this would be my working
proposal regarding the content of '60 Reasons', over which I hold copyright
as you know.



I've taken on board all points you've raised including all that you say
about getting it ready for the U.S. market, indexing, updating etc.



1. The copyright will be formally i.e. in writing released to you, or shall
we say waived, subject to the folllowing:



2. If the content is substantially the same as '60 Reasons', the title be
retained but with a sub-heading to make it clear that this is an American
edition or version and with a new author i.e. not m name to appear as the
author.



Here is a suggestion: 'The U.S. edition, by Brian Johnson'.



3. There is prominently ...

Posted at trajic majic's craptor base. by a "Deborah"

Any comment on this Tony ?

Laffin Assasin wrote:

Laffin Assasin wrote:

From: ANTHONY BENNETT [mailto@btinternet.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2009 10:12 AM
To: admin@truthformadeleine.com
Subject: The U.S. Edition of '60 Reasons' (was: 60-reasons)



Steve,



I've given lengthy consideration to this and this would be my working
proposal regarding the content of '60 Reasons', over which I hold copyright
as you know.



I've taken on board all points you've raised including all that you say
about getting it ready for the U.S. market, indexing, updating etc.



1. The copyright will be formally i.e. in writing released to you, or shall
we say waived, subject to the folllowing:



2. If the content is substantially the same as '60 Reasons', the title be
retained but with a sub-heading to make it clear that this is an American
edition or version and with a new author i.e. not m name to appear as the
author.



Here is a suggestion: 'The U.S. edition, by Brian Johnson'.



3. There is prominently ...

Posted at trajic majic's craptor base. by a "Deborah"

Any comment on this Tony ?

Yes.

Look first of all at the heading on my e-mail: 'U.S. Edition of '60 Reasons'. That was what was being discussed. Not 'Faked Abduction.

Steve was proposing to simply copy the whole of '60 Reasons', except for altering a few words for the U.S. market.

He asked me about terms for releasing our copyright on '60 Reasons'.

It was quite clear to me that this was a commercial venture for Mr Marsden, the same as his current book: 'Faked Abduction'. Had it been non-profit-making, like our publications, hed would have been given the copyright without charge. If memory serves, he was talking about a cover price of around $20.

I considered that 20% of his net profit was a fair share of the proceeds to demand as a fee for copying my/our material lock, stock and barrel, for a profit-making book.

During this correspondence, I made reference to the possibility that payment of any copyright fee might have to be paid to me rather than to The Madeleine Foundation. The reason for this was quite simple.

On the date I sent this e-mail, Debbie Butler had been refusing to answer any e-mails for a period of 25 days, apart from asking for return of a £350 loan towards the cost of printing '60 Reasons', which I sent her by return on 7 October. Furthermore, she had already embarked on her vilification campaign on 'Missing Madeleine', and the rest of the Committee were already talking about what action we needed to take in response. Later that week I went to the bank to forewarn them that there was a potentially serious problem in operating our account and we were considering appointing new cheque signatories.

Hence I told Mr Marsden that he might have to send any payment to me rather than to The Madeleine Foundation. I feared the possibility that the account might be frozen and indeed I was proved right as we all know.

The full run of e-mail correspondence between me and Steve at this time will make all this clear. Ms Butler has been given a copy of thess e-mails by Mr Marsden and has selectively disclosed this e-mail in an affort to further vilify.

It is not irrelveant that the very next week, on 5 November, Ms Butler and Mr Marden co-operated to put banner headlines on the former Madeleine Foundation site: "Serious fraud within the Madeleine Foundation".

Tony, do you have a copy of the Madeleine Foundation Bank account statements ?

Laffin Assasin wrote:Tony, do you have a copy of the Madeleine Foundation Bank account statements?

At this moment in time, Essex Police hold some of them, and I hold the rest.

I am happy to answer any reasonable questions about our bank account and about the finances of The Madeleine Foundation.

I will be away for the day in a few minutes however.

Jill has been kind enough to let me on her forum to address this issue that has been brought to my attention. It concerns a post that was made to my site three months ago which was a photograph and some small text in the corner which Susan Menez told me only recently was her address. When she told me that the post was there whether or not it was her address I removed it and have deleted it.

I am not going to accuse Susan of lying, what I can say is that she is mistaken in stating that this information came from Mr Bennett or the Madeleine Foundation.

The brief background to this is that Susan on her Missing Madeleine site posted the details of children from Facebook onto a public forum identifying who they were, this is illegal because they were under eighteen. Also her comments directed at the child although not illegal were highly derogatory and offensive. Because of this I made a complaint to the authorities and I was asked to obtain some identification of Susan. This I did this by normal procedure and within a day or so the site had been given her work address, her home address and just recently, Susan sent me her phone number as well.

The circumstances surrounding the post were wrong. The person who posted it is known for making rather cryptic comments and pictures and therefore I did not look so closely at it when I saw it, especially with the photo being the one from the Overlook Hotel which has a significance to site members.

I spoke with the person who collected this information originally to make absolutely sure of the origins, I do not know precisely who the person was, but I can tell you that it was not Mr Bennett or anyone linked to him. I was told that the information came from someone on the Missing Madeleine site. This person had revealed this information because they had become disillusioned with the Susan and the forum since the 3 Arguidos members joined and turned the forum into a battle ground and a platform to continue attacking people.

The post was removed when Susan told me about it and I did apologise to her. As I am sure anyone who runs a website will know, you have to put faith in people to do the right thing and sometimes a minority will take advantage of this and your good will, my site is not monitored 24/7 and like any system it is open to abuse. All I am able to do on the rare occasions that such an abuse takes place is to deal with it as ultimately it is my site my responsibility.

Tony Bennett wrote:

vaguely1 wrote:Tony, do you believe that this is Mike Gunnill - or do you think someone is using his name to wind you up?

I had assumed it was Mike Gunnill himself. I am quite trusting. It has now occurred to me that this could be yet another 'trick' played by the pro-McCanns. We shall see.

Tony, please be assured that this is Mike Gunnill, freelance photographer that was targetted by Steve Marsden with his site that set out to attack him and resulted in Mike having to close his own site.

Raptor wrote:Jill has been kind enough to let me on her forum to address this issue that has been brought to my attention. It concerns a post that was made to my site three months ago which was a photograph and some small text in the corner which Susan Menez told me only recently was her address. When she told me that the post was there whether or not it was her address I removed it and have deleted it.

I am not going to accuse Susan of lying, what I can say is that she is mistaken in stating that this information came from Mr Bennett or the Madeleine Foundation.

The brief background to this is that Susan on her Missing Madeleine site posted the details of children from Facebook onto a public forum identifying who they were, this is illegal because they were under eighteen. Also her comments directed at the child although not illegal were highly derogatory and offensive. Because of this I made a complaint to the authorities and I was asked to obtain some identification of Susan. This I did this by normal procedure and within a day or so the site had been given her work address, her home address and just recently, Susan sent me her phone number as well.

The circumstances surrounding the post were wrong. The person who posted it is known for making rather cryptic comments and pictures and therefore I did not look so closely at it when I saw it, especially with the photo being the one from the Overlook Hotel which has a significance to site members.

I spoke with the person who collected this information originally to make absolutely sure of the origins, I do not know precisely who the person was, but I can tell you that it was not Mr Bennett or anyone linked to him. I was told that the information came from someone on the Missing Madeleine site. This person had revealed this information because they had become disillusioned with the Susan and the forum since the 3 Arguidos members joined and turned the forum into a battle ground and a platform to continue attacking people.

The post was removed when Susan told me about it and I did apologise to her. As I am sure anyone who runs a website will know, you have to put faith in people to do the right thing and sometimes a minority will take advantage of this and your good will, my site is not monitored 24/7 and like any system it is open to abuse. All I am able to do on the rare occasions that such an abuse takes place is to deal with it as ultimately it is my site my responsibility.

I wonder who summoned you up.

I wonder who summoned you up.

Aye, good question.

ufercoffy wrote:

Mgunnill wrote:Dear Dick: are you starting to forget things again? It has been mentioned before, as you know- some by yourself or perhaps you forgot that as well! Magic

Erm...Jo certainly seems to be in cahoots with Majic Magic.

Just wish he would investigate Madeleine's disappearance. Guess he gets paid more by the CR's though for investigating forum posters.

Hey, Jo, what did you think of Stevo's interview about his new book yesterday?

What makes you think I am not investigating Madeleine's disappearance? With regarding the cheap comment about CR: you seem to think, you know a lot but then again you don't listen or remember. Reminds me of the way Bugalugs used to post.
Sorry again for calling you Dick, I didn't know then!

.....and about the book, I am not a fiction sort of bloke so I am not interested.

twinkle wrote:

vaguely1 wrote:

vaguely1 wrote:Twinkle, I think it was pre-February and for some reason post pre-February don't come up on a search.


ETA, obviously Tony will remember.

as if my majic magic :iconbiggrin:

https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/madeleine-foundation-issues-f1/how-majic-obtained-a-brief-report-on-the-madeleine-fondation-conference-t645.htm#21179

I saw what you did there, loving your work.

What a wonderful magic sort of day don't you think?

Mgunnill wrote .............. 'What makes you think I am not investigating Madeleine's disappearance? With regarding the cheap comment about CR: you seem to think, you know a lot but then again you don't listen or remember. Reminds me of the way Bugalugs used to post.
Sorry again for calling you Dick, I didn't know then!

.....and about the book, I am not a fiction sort of bloke so I am not interested.'

*****************************************************

The only thing that is not in dispute about this book is the factual content contained therein. Books such as this are a synopsis of evidence collected during three years of events. One would have thought this would be an excellent goldmine of information for any journalist who was giving serious consideration to investigating the case.

Judge Mental wrote:Mgunnill wrote .............. 'What makes you think I am not investigating Madeleine's disappearance? With regarding the cheap comment about CR: you seem to think, you know a lot but then again you don't listen or remember. Reminds me of the way Bugalugs used to post.
Sorry again for calling you Dick, I didn't know then!

.....and about the book, I am not a fiction sort of bloke so I am not interested.'

*****************************************************

The only thing that is not in dispute about this book is the factual content contained therein. Books such as this are a synopsis of evidence collected during three years of events. One would have thought this would be an excellent goldmine of information for any journalist who was giving serious consideration to investigating the case.

It is not factual hence not a goldmine. Simple!

Mgunnill wrote:

Judge Mental wrote:Mgunnill wrote .............. 'What makes you think I am not investigating Madeleine's disappearance? With regarding the cheap comment about CR: you seem to think, you know a lot but then again you don't listen or remember. Reminds me of the way Bugalugs used to post.
Sorry again for calling you Dick, I didn't know then!

.....and about the book, I am not a fiction sort of bloke so I am not interested.'

*****************************************************

The only thing that is not in dispute about this book is the factual content contained therein. Books such as this are a synopsis of evidence collected during three years of events. One would have thought this would be an excellent goldmine of information for any journalist who was giving serious consideration to investigating the case.

It is not factual hence not a goldmine. Simple!

And yet the abduction scenario - for which there is absolutely no evidence - is a goldmine isn't it?

jkh wrote:

Mgunnill wrote:

Judge Mental wrote:Mgunnill wrote .............. 'What makes you think I am not investigating Madeleine's disappearance? With regarding the cheap comment about CR: you seem to think, you know a lot but then again you don't listen or remember. Reminds me of the way Bugalugs used to post.
Sorry again for calling you Dick, I didn't know then!

.....and about the book, I am not a fiction sort of bloke so I am not interested.'

*****************************************************

The only thing that is not in dispute about this book is the factual content contained therein. Books such as this are a synopsis of evidence collected during three years of events. One would have thought this would be an excellent goldmine of information for any journalist who was giving serious consideration to investigating the case.

It is not factual hence not a goldmine. Simple!

And yet the abduction scenario - for which there is absolutely no evidence - is a goldmine isn't it?

but that doesn't mean the book is factual does it?

Well either the book, that is based on the Police files, is factual or the abduction scenario is factual. It can't be both.

There is no evidence of abduction but plenty of evidence which suggests Maddie met her fate in the apartment having been left alone to babysit her two year old brother and sister.

I can see why the McCanns, and those on their bandwagon, want to protect their goldmine. Maddie, in her father's own words, was a "good marketing ploy".

Mgunnill wrote .................. 'It is not factual hence not a goldmine. Simple!'

*********************************************************

Then one may only suggest that one should learn to speak Portuguese and translate the files for oneself in order to qualify your statement that 'it not factual'.

The book is based upon the translated Portuguese and English police files and has used many of the facts contained therein.

One should note that there has not been any attempt to sue the publisher nor the author over the publication of this book which carries a somewhat strong and leading title.

One was terribly amused a couple of days ago, to learn that the police force involved in the faked abduction of Shannon Matthews may be used in a review of the case of Madeleine McCann.

Depsite the fact that it was a member of the public named Baynes who actually discovered the whereabouts of Shannon and that those police had ignored his information for many days.

Judge Mental wrote:One was terribly amused a couple of days ago, to learn that the police force involved in the faked abduction of Shannon Matthews may be used in a review of the case of Madeleine McCann.

Depsite the fact that it was a member of the public named Baynes who actually discovered the whereabouts of Shannon and that those police had ignored his information for many days.

Ah yes!, Judge Mental, that triggers memories of the out-and-out liar and fake, Karen Matthews, now serving a very long jail term. According to experts, her body language gave her away to the experts. Remember this?

QUOTE

EXTRACTS FROM SKY NEWS REPORT:

In Tears, Lies and Videotape, which airs on ITV1, psychologists and body language experts suggest there were clues that Matthews was lying.

They identify tiny movements in her shoulder during her TV appeals and the tendency for her mouth to upturn into a smile as clear signs.

Professor David Canter said the way Matthews clutched Shannon's teddy bear during press conferences was fake.

He suggests she may have tried to copy the genuine signs of distress displayed by the mother of missing child Madeleine McCann.

REST SNIPPED

Mgunnill wrote:

ufercoffy wrote:

Mgunnill wrote:Dear Dick: are you starting to forget things again? It has been mentioned before, as you know- some by yourself or perhaps you forgot that as well! Magic

Erm...Jo certainly seems to be in cahoots with Majic Magic.

Just wish he would investigate Madeleine's disappearance. Guess he gets paid more by the CR's though for investigating forum posters.

Hey, Jo, what did you think of Stevo's interview about his new book yesterday?

What makes you think I am not investigating Madeleine's disappearance? With regarding the cheap comment about CR: you seem to think, you know a lot but then again you don't listen or remember. Reminds me of the way Bugalugs used to post.
Sorry again for calling you Dick, I didn't know then!

.....and about the book, I am not a fiction sort of bloke so I am not interested.

You wouldn't have the first idea on how to conduct an investigation Mike. Why are you spending so much time on here anyway, are you short of work?

kangdang wrote:Why are you spending so much time on here anyway, are you short of work?

kangdang, oh ye of little understanding...this is his work - remember, he's 'only acting under instructions', like...

'Pretend to be someone else, get that hated book off Bennett and prove he's selling it, and you will be well rewarded, my son'

Tony Bennett wrote:

kangdang wrote:Why are you spending so much time on here anyway, are you short of work?

kangdang, oh ye of little understanding...this is his work - remember, he's 'only acting under instructions', like...

'Pretend to be someone else, get that hated book off Bennett and prove he's selling it, and you will be well rewarded, my son'

As in this tempting little letter, dated 13 January 2010:

Dear Mr Bennett

I have received your email address after asking for help. I am trying to purchase the 60 Reason book urgently and can't find it anywhere.

I will pay a good price, please help if you can. Please state your price including first class postage.

Thank you

Michael Sangerte
Reading. Berkshire.*

Note: Michael Sangerte didn't live in Berkshire and, er, he wasn't Michael Sangerte either.

And while we're on the subject, let us not forget this, well, unforgettable case of memory loss:

From: Peter Tarwin <petertarwin@gawab.com>
Subject: BBC Tv
To: ajsbennett@btinternet.com
Date: Thursday, 20 August, 2009, 6:46 PM

Hello:

I wish to alert you, the local BBC have been around Total asking about Deborah Butler. They had the address of [withhled by TB], Maidstone Kent. I think the story is for Monday of
next week.

keep up the good work
Peter

FOLLOWED BY

ANTHONY BENNETT writes:

Peter

I don't know who you are, but many thanks for the heads-up, I'll pass this on to Debbie.

By the way, the address is incorrect.

Tony Bennett
Secretary
The Madeleine Foundation

FOLLOWED BY

On Sat, 22/8/09, Jason Peters <petertarwin@gawab.com> wrote:

From: Jason Peters <petertarwin@gawab.com>
Subject: Re: ALERT! - Now the BBC tries to find dirt on Debbie Butler
To: "ANTHONY BENNETT" <ajsbennett@btinternet.com>
Date: Saturday, 22 August, 2009, 12:24 PM

New address provided to the BBC I understand is
[withheld by TB], Maidstone [postcode withheld by TB]
Deborah Butler + [other dertails withheld by TB].

Keep up the good work.

FOLLOWED BY

Hello

Jason Peters was entered in error, my name as you can see/read is Peter Tarwin. I beleive you thanked me some information.

Peter

Peter L. Tarwin
Wouldham near Rochester.
Kent.

petertarwin@gawab.com

rights reserved 2009.

It's just soooo embarrassing, isn't it, when one forgets exactly what false name you've been using?

And especially when acting under instructions

So why even entertain those 'acting on instructions'?

Decent posters have been treated like naughty children, temporarily banned to teach them not to upset Tony - the next thing you know there's a distinct smell of sulphur pervading the forum.

I'm at a loss as to what gives here. I really am.

Me too,Pascal,me too but its all very silly imo.