Re: As she's questioned by Police, Debbie Butler sneaks a photo of 66 Chippingfield

by jack 07.03.10 9:18

Tony Bennett wrote:
whoknowsthetruth wrote:
whoknowsthetruth wrote:Mr Bennett you seem to be avoiding this question for some strange reason.

Why do you think it is okay for you to have your picture taken outside someone's house, (was it Barrymore's agent) and take photos of the McCanns house, yet you start wailing and whining when someone does it to yourself. I do not condone what everyone has done, but if you do it, you should expect people to do it to you back.
Now can you answer the question please.

Why is Mr Bennett refusing to answer this question? It is a simple question i have asked him, surely someone with an upstanding character as himself should answer this question, especially as he lectures people about not answering questions he puts to them.
For the second time in a few days, you have not observed that I have answered your question already - very specifically - look back at page 4 on this thread.

But then I have already sussed that your obsession with criticising everything I do prevents you from being remotely fair.

As for JoMc/Mike Gunnill/Peter Tarwin/Michale Sangerte/Jason Petes/petert/Carter-Ruck's-errand-boy stating this:

*Why is Mr Bennett refusing to answer this question? * That what he does best, not answering questions!

...he too would appear to suffer from the same obsession...and is therefore vulnerable to precisely the same error.

I'm content with my track record of answering questions on this forum and elsewhere; I would predict that if anyone cared to check, I've answered 95% of all the hundreds of questions I've been asked on here since Jill Havern set up this forum.

That's a whole lot better than Dr Kate McCann's record of answering, er, 0% of the Portuguese Police's questions in relation to the circumstances in which her daughter was reported missing on 3 May 2007...

...which by the way forms Chapter 1 of our new book, 'The Madeleine McCann Case Files: Volume 1', which can now be ordered via PayPal on the 'Publications' page of our website, www.madeleinefoundation.org.uk

Another lie from TB. You just do not understand the meaning of the truth. Kate was questioned for approx 12 hours and therefore must have answerred many questions re Maddie's abduction. It was only when it became clear that the corrupt PJ wanted to "fit her up" for the crime that she stopped answerring questions on tyhe advice of her lawyer.

by aiyoyo 07.03.10 13:13

vaguely1 wrote:QVC is a shopping channel Mr Bennett. They sell everything from solar power hot water bottles to snake oil.

You'd be good.

Do they sell 'key' to solve MBM mystery?

Or ways to 'extract truth' from lying fraudsters?

by vaguely1 07.03.10 13:14

I doubt the second, or they'd be out of business.

by aiyoyo 07.03.10 13:16

vaguely1 wrote:I doubt the second, or they'd be out of business.

HA HA HA !!!!

Then, might they sell way to skin a pig?

Or way to get rid of pink parasite?

by vaguely1 07.03.10 13:18

Yeah, it comes in a 3 for 1 along with 'Ingenious ways to sink the Tories'.

Result!

by Autumn 07.03.10 19:03

jack wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
whoknowsthetruth wrote:
whoknowsthetruth wrote:Mr Bennett you seem to be avoiding this question for some strange reason.

Why do you think it is okay for you to have your picture taken outside someone's house, (was it Barrymore's agent) and take photos of the McCanns house, yet you start wailing and whining when someone does it to yourself. I do not condone what everyone has done, but if you do it, you should expect people to do it to you back.
Now can you answer the question please.

Why is Mr Bennett refusing to answer this question? It is a simple question i have asked him, surely someone with an upstanding character as himself should answer this question, especially as he lectures people about not answering questions he puts to them.
For the second time in a few days, you have not observed that I have answered your question already - very specifically - look back at page 4 on this thread.

But then I have already sussed that your obsession with criticising everything I do prevents you from being remotely fair.

As for JoMc/Mike Gunnill/Peter Tarwin/Michale Sangerte/Jason Petes/petert/Carter-Ruck's-errand-boy stating this:

*Why is Mr Bennett refusing to answer this question? * That what he does best, not answering questions!

...he too would appear to suffer from the same obsession...and is therefore vulnerable to precisely the same error.

I'm content with my track record of answering questions on this forum and elsewhere; I would predict that if anyone cared to check, I've answered 95% of all the hundreds of questions I've been asked on here since Jill Havern set up this forum.

That's a whole lot better than Dr Kate McCann's record of answering, er, 0% of the Portuguese Police's questions in relation to the circumstances in which her daughter was reported missing on 3 May 2007...

...which by the way forms Chapter 1 of our new book, 'The Madeleine McCann Case Files: Volume 1', which can now be ordered via PayPal on the 'Publications' page of our website, www.madeleinefoundation.org.uk

Another lie from TB. You just do not understand the meaning of the truth. Kate was questioned for approx 12 hours and therefore must have answerred many questions re Maddie's abduction. It was only when it became clear that the corrupt PJ wanted to "fit her up" for the crime that she stopped answerring questions on tyhe advice of her lawyer.

Oh really, and you were there were you?

by whoknowsthetruth 07.03.10 19:21

Tony Bennett wrote:
whoknowsthetruth wrote:Mr Bennett..Is it okay for you to have your photo taken outside someone's house? And to take photos of the McCanns' house? Or does this only apply when it is against you.
I haven't complained about it, have I? Given that Google Earth can beam images of my house to hundreds of millions, one more photo isn't going to do much harm.

I just made an observation about a visit to a police station and a photo taken by the same person who visited the police station.

I believe photos of the McCanns' house have been seen by over half the adults in this country and millions more world-wide.

But then they are happy being world famous.

Good , thank you for your reply. So you even though you say you wasn't implied that you were moaning about Mrs Butler taking the photograph, even though you admit you did not know if it was taken by herself or by someone else. So by implying it was taken by Mrs Butler you say it was her by implying it, that she was guilty of taking it.
Talk about codswallop.

by kangdang 07.03.10 19:29

Tony Bennett wrote:
bunny wrote:She hasn't remained silent about it. She says she was asked to confirm that the two cheques were not signed by her I believe. She confirmed that they were not.
Let's see what happens. Do you think Ms Butler is telling you the truth? One hundred and twenty miles to tell Police Officers that she hadn't signed two cheques? When the police had seen those cheques weeks ago?

Sometimes I think McCann-believers will believe almost anything.

There is only one reason why DB would have had to of gone to the station to answer a few questions, and that would be because they needed to arrest her in order to get what she said on tape and legally documented - informal chats cannot be recorded and later recall of them have little to no use in court. Basically this means that DB had allegations to answer and/or clarify. On completion of the interview she would have 1) been released pending further investigation or 2) insitu CPS advisor may have reviewed outcome of interview & evidence, stated NFA and released DB or 3) she may have been charged with an offence and released on bail.

by **Tony Bennett** 07.03.10 20:05

kangdang wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
bunny wrote:She hasn't remained silent about it. She says she was asked to confirm that the two cheques were not signed by her I believe. She confirmed that they were not.
Let's see what happens. Do you think Ms Butler is telling you the truth? One hundred and twenty miles to tell Police Officers that she hadn't signed two cheques? When the police had seen those cheques weeks ago?

Sometimes I think McCann-believers will believe almost anything.

There is only one reason why DB would have had to of gone to the station to answer a few questions, and that would be because they needed to arrest her in order to get what she said on tape and legally documented - informal chats cannot be recorded and later recall of them have little to no use in court. Basically this means that DB had allegations to answer and/or clarify. On completion of the interview she would have 1) been released pending further investigation or 2) insitu CPS advisor may have reviewed outcome of interview & evidence, stated NFA and released DB or 3) she may have been charged with an offence and released on bail.

I am very glad that 'kangdang' has posted this.

I tried to give a hint earlier on when I said that being arrested does not necessarily mean a marked police car arriving on your doorstep and you being bundled into a car and taken to a police station.

As 'kangdang' has now revealed by this accurate analysis above, there is a procedure known in the trade as a 'voluntary arrest'.

The police say: "We need to ask you some questions on tape. You have a choice. We'll come and arrest you in a marked police car and take you to Harlow". Or: "Drive down yourself in your own car and you'll be arrested by the custody officer when you arrive".

This is what happened on Thursday 25 February.

But Ms Butler added a note of defiance by getting a photo of the front of my house taken and then plastering it over the net.

I just need to add that she was indeed bailed pending a report being sent to the Crown Prosecution Service about the harassment campaign. It has now been sent and the CPS expect to advise the police on the correct course of action within about four weeks from now.

Then I hope that the nightmare of being 'under investigation' for alleged fraud will be over.

Thanks go to those within and beyond MF who never believed Ms Butler's allegations in the first place.

by ufercoffy 07.03.10 20:19

I knew someone who had this method of arrest happen to them. He was even put in a cell for about 8 hours. I gather this is a method of punishment to try to prevent the harassment campaign from continuing. While the person was in the cell the police went to his house and confiscated his computer, turned his house upside down and left it looking like it had been burgled. Shock tactic.

Sure enough the harassment stopped and no further action was taken. Prevention is sometimes better than cure, and less costly.

by Snowy 07.03.10 21:33

Well, she's denying that she was ever arrested at all, and also that she was charged or bailed.
So as ever, we have to wait for the official verdict.

by vaguely1 07.03.10 21:39

Yes, just having a nose over at MM forum and she's not only denying it, but she's denying it in CAPITALS.

by **Tony Bennett** 07.03.10 21:49

vaguely1 wrote:Yes, just having a nose over at MM forum and she's not only denying it, but she's denying it in CAPITALS.

There may be denials in capitals but where is the detailed account we should have had by now of what questions she was asked at Harlow Police Station and what answers she gave?

Or perhaps she did a 'Kate McCann' whilst she was there?

by vaguely1 07.03.10 21:50

Has she actually said that she went to the station at all or is this based on information from elsewhere?

by **Tony Bennett** 07.03.10 22:00

vaguely1 wrote:Has she actually said that she went to the station at all or is this based on information from elsewhere?

Yes I think she has admitted it eventually, although it was a bit like extracting blood from a stone. The photo of my house, which was certainly taken on or after Wednesday 24 February and blasted over the internet on Sunday 28 February was, she says, 'taken by someone and sent to her'.

Hmmm.

by ufercoffy 07.03.10 22:06

Hmmm... I wonder if Deborah knows of any willing photographers who could do that for her?

Now let me think.... :scratch:

by **Tony Bennett** 07.03.10 22:37

ufercoffy wrote:Hmmm... I wonder if Deborah knows of any willing photographers who could do that for her?

Now let me think...

Jason Sangerte? Michael Tarwin? Peter Peters?...I think I must be getting confused.

by whoknowsthetruth 07.03.10 23:21

Mr Bennett. That Police Officer seems to have forgotten to come round and see you for a cup of tea.

by **Tony Bennett** 08.03.10 6:29

whoknowsthetruth wrote:Mr Bennett. That Police Officer seems to have forgotten to come round and see you for a cup of tea.

That is true. I reminded him on Thursday about it. He gave me a verbal update over the 'phone instead. That's means I'm two Yorkshire Teabags to the good

by justagrannynow 1 08.03.10 6:57

vaguely1 wrote:Yes, just having a nose over at MM forum and she's not only denying it, but she's denying it in CAPITALS.

Not the CAPITALS ?????

Is she also suggesting people phone her for the truth? You know, all the stuff she can't post on the forum, but can explain on the phone?

by ufercoffy 08.03.10 7:18

Tony Bennett wrote:
whoknowsthetruth wrote:Mr Bennett. That Police Officer seems to have forgotten to come round and see you for a cup of tea.

That is true. I reminded him on Thursday about it. He gave me a verbal update over the 'phone instead. That's means I'm two Yorkshire Teabags to the good

by ufercoffy 08.03.10 7:45

Tony Bennett wrote:
ufercoffy wrote:Hmmm... I wonder if Deborah knows of any willing photographers who could do that for her?

Now let me think...
Jason Sangerte? Michael Tarwin? Peter Peters?...I think I must be getting confused.

Ufergotty erm... Jo McGunnill

laughat

by whoknowsthetruth 08.03.10 10:58

Tony Bennett wrote:
whoknowsthetruth wrote:Mr Bennett. That Police Officer seems to have forgotten to come round and see you for a cup of tea.
That is true. I reminded him on Thursday about it. He gave me a verbal update over the 'phone instead. That's means I'm two Yorkshire Teabags to the good

Obviously nothing exciting happened then, otherwise you would have been shouting it from the roof tops.

by Snowy 08.03.10 11:56

Well if Gunnill tokk that photo it isn't very professional-looking.

Remind me to strike him from my list when I next need shots of my latest makeover big grin

by Mgunnill 08.03.10 12:04

Snowy wrote:Well if Gunnill tokk that photo it isn't very professional-looking.

Remind me to strike him from my list when I next need shots of my latest makeover

I had nothing to do with the photograph. I think it came via Debbie Butler but not taken by her either.

As she's questioned by Police, Debbie Butler sneaks a photo of 66 Chippingfield