The complete run of correspondence with Debbie Butler from 25 October onwards

by **Tony Bennett** 26.11.09 8:39

For those wanting a fuller understanding of the sequence of events which led to the spate of false accusations against me by Debbie Butler, I will publish here the run of e-mails between her and me from 25 October 2009 onwards.

Here is the first. I have a meeting with the top brass of the IPCC in High Holborn, London this morning to discuss the latest developments in their investigation into the death of Lee Balkwell in 2002 and other very serious allegations concerning systematic corrupt conduct by a number of senior Essex Police Officers. I will try to post the remainder of the correspondence later in the day.

(I also have to take up a couple of authorisation letters to Harlow Police Station in response to Ms Butler's false allegations).

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

YOU, ME AND THE MADELEINE FOUNDATION

Dear Debbie,

First of all, I hope all is well with you and the family.

I had decided not to bother you for a while after the long and controversial day we had in Liverpool. I’ve kept you up-to-date with any significant correspondence including of course news about Carter-Ruck. You asked on 7 October for the return of your £350 which you paid to the printer back in December last year and you should have had by return from me a Madeleine Foundation cheque for £500, as I included another £150 towards your postage etc. costs

I left things for a fortnight, and then sent you this on 17 October.

Hallo Debbie,

I see you've been active on MM. We need to talk soon re MF matters...there is the booklet I need to talk to you about, also the Manchester meeting, setting up a new website, also of course plans for the conference in February.

When is a good time to 'phone you?

By the way, I have had a letter from Kirwans asking for more money, I don't know if you have had one as well, I need to discuss that with you. Also, to date I have had no reply whatsoever from C-R to the letter I sent them on 3 October.

Tony

I’ve not had any replies from you at all, until last night when you queried why I’d copied my Carter-Ruck letter to [name withheld].

It’s clear that there is a major issue between us and I assume it’s related to the decision we took up at Liverpool to accede to Carter-Ruck’s demands. If it is something else, please tell me.

Given that Madeleine Foundation decisions have up to now been taken on behalf of the members by you and me - very successfully, in the opinion of many people, I might add - it’s clear that The Madeleine Foundation cannot function if we are in serious disagreement over something and not even communicating with each other. Sooner or later, we need to reach a resolution, not only for our members’ sakes, but also for all those out there who have looked to us for a lead and benefited by our ability to produce and circulate things like ’60 Reasons’, ‘10 Reasons’ and the Clarence Mitchell leaflet.

Incidentally, so far as ‘60 Reasons’ is concerned, some people have responded to what’s been described as the ‘Carter-Ruck ban’ by publishing it on the internet. One good example is ‘Wikileaks’, an organisation that publishes banned material from all over the world.

My main suggestion is that we meet as soon as possible so that you can tell me how you propose to resolve matters. Thursday and Friday next week (29th and 30th) are out for me, but otherwise I should be able to make most dates in the next two weeks.

We can then talk about the four issues I mentioned above: (1) the ‘60 Reasons’ booklet (2) the Manchester meeting (3) the website and (4) the February conference. There are other practical issues as well.

I am assuming from your silence that you want to deal with Carter-Ruck on your own, please tell me if not. Do you want me to keep sending you my correspondence with C-R?

Also, I have written on yours and my behalf to the Press Complaints Commission re the Express ‘Stalker’ article and the Star ‘Sickos’ article, do you still want me to do so, or would you prefer to deal with them on your own?

One of the practical issues we need to discuss, which I didn’t mention before, is to hold our first Annual General Meeting, and I think this should happen sooner rather than later. If I don’t hear from you soon, I shall have to call one anyway. Our subscribing members are entitled to come to an AGM and give their views and, of course, elect a Committee for the year ahead.

I don’t know what your plans are. As things stand, it looks as though you want to go in a separate direction from me. That will be extremely disappointing, given what we have achieved to date, but sometimes it’s for the best, and if that’s what you want, we still need to meet and discuss the practical options for this. That could include, for example, The Madeleine Foundation evolving into two new organisations, that’s just one of a number of possibilities.

Finally, I can assure you that despite the concession to Carter-Ruck, I am still very much involved in the search for the truth about what really happened to Madeleine McCann and I have ideas about how we might carry on that search which I’d like to discuss with you and at the Manchester meeting.

Below I’ve drafted a note I want to send out to our members and supporters about the Manchester meeting. Are you happy for me to send that out?

Looking forward to hearing from you,

Tony

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

MADELEINE FOUNDATION MEETING 14 NOVEMBER

Dear all,

This is to confirm to you all that we shall be proceeding with our meeting, as planned, on Saturday 14 November in the Manchester area.

For those coming by train or car, the venue is a 25-minute train ride from Manchester Piccadilly and is close to the M6. As per usual, we'll give out the precise venue a few days beforehand to avoid unwelcome gatecrashers.

We'll gather any time from 12.00noon onwards, food will be provided, and we expect the core of the meeting to be from about 2pm to 5pm.

Clearly the landscape has changed somewhat with the savage actions taken by the McCanns' lawyers against myself and Debbie concerning our website, '60 Reasons' and '10 Reasons' and the various moves against Goncalo Amaral, including his continuing problems with obviously-biased law courts in Portugal.

We need you all there to help us how best we can pursue the truth of what really happened to Madeleine.

Sincerely

Tony
Secretary
The Madeleine Foundation

by Guest 26.11.09 8:45

so far seems reasonable and that Bennet was trying to sort things out with her but being blanked off.

by Mike 26.11.09 9:33

thank you mr bennett,
so why cant ms butler be as open as you instead of all this cloak and dagger stuff

by **Jill Havern** 26.11.09 9:49

Thank you Tony.

I've posted it on my blog, too, in case this forum gets trashed and deleted at some point.

by scrafen 26.11.09 10:30

Tony Bennett wrote:By the way, I have had a letter from Kirwans asking for more money, I don't know if you have had one as well, I need to discuss that with you.

i think Debbie says she called Kirwans who didnt recall asking for more money.

tony, could you please post up Kirwans letter - or just its text ?
whats the date on that letter ?
for how much more money were they asking ?
was anything additional paid to them in the meantime ?

by Guest 26.11.09 10:32

Got to be Butler herself, Bren or Hitler the NPD MM owner. :cheers:

by Mike 26.11.09 12:53

scrafen ,why in gods name do you not go and ask ms butler for the truth as you obviously do not
believe mr bennett,and you have no right to ask mr bennett to show you this and show you that.

by Mike 26.11.09 12:54

and if you are here on a wind up your wasting your time

by Jolie 26.11.09 16:04

Even if we question his/her motivations, Scrafen is respectfully asking Tony questions that can help prove or disprove Debbie Butler's claims that are being made online.

This forum is for everyone, as long as they are being respectful and allowing others to have their say.

by **Tony Bennett** 26.11.09 16:20

scrafen, a noted and long-time supporter and defender of the McCanns, is quite simply acting as an advocate for Ms Butler in all of this. I have no problem with that so long as her/his role here is understood.

I can't scan the letter received from Kirwans. But as an aid to fuller understanding of the sequence of events, I am happy to post here, unedited, my reply to Kirwans.

Incidentally Kirwans have not written to me again since.

This letter was also copied to Ms Butler at the time it was sent:

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

by Mike 26.11.09 16:37

Jolie wrote:Even if we question his/her motivations, Scrafen is respectfully asking Tony questions that can help prove or disprove Debbie Butler's claims that are being made online.

This forum is for everyone, as long as they are being respectful and allowing others to have their say.

no jolie sorry but i dont see it that way. i dont see why he should be asking alls these question and asking mr bennett to put this and that up.so we will agree to disagree and yes i do know this forum is for everyone

by scrafen 26.11.09 17:21

But there is another court – the court of public opinion.

Tony Bennett

http://209.85.229.132/search?q=cache:YTjNLN4gDZUJ:madeleinefoundation.org/main/%3Fp%3D475%26cp%3D1+%22But+there+is+another+court%22+tony+bennett&cd=1&hl=nl&ct=clnk&gl=en

by Guest 26.11.09 17:34

Evening all, I think posters must wait for the police enquiries to be concluded and then whatever their findings are that should be accepted. It will be a thorough screening of facts.

If i were accusing someone of fraud, i sure as hell would have to be certain.And i would not go advertising on the net for people to come forward with complaints.

Because if people were that unhappy with their dealings with a certain person or firm , they would be able to sort it for themselves, most people know the channels for such disagreements. So asking for people to come forward is a bit risky in my opinion. And might look as if its a deliberate hate campaign?.

by **Tony Bennett** 26.11.09 18:06

Back from a successful meeting with the IPCC.

Don't be surprised if in the next few months you hear of several current or former Essex Police Officers of senior rank prosecuted for perjury and/or perverting the course of justice.

Coupled with learning of one of the major miscarriages of justice of the last decade.

Will post the next run of correspondence between me and Debbie Butler later.

by Jolie 26.11.09 18:10

Tony Bennett wrote:Back from a successful meeting with the IPCC.

Don't be surprised if in the next few months you hear of several current or former Essex Police Officers of senior rank prosecuted for perjury and/or perverting the course of justice.

Coupled with learning of one of the major miscarriages of justice of the last decade.

Will post the next run of correspondence between me and Debbie Butler later.

You've got our attention, Tony.

After waiting for more than two years to find out what happened to Madeleine, a few months seems like nothing to wait for information, in comparison.

by Guest 26.11.09 18:32

Chris...you are eing a little ambersuzish about scarafen saying about asking questions although I can see why cos its blatant he or she is either ambersuz, Butler or Bren maybe viv.

by Guest 26.11.09 18:32

Chris...you are eing a little ambersuzish about scarafen saying about asking questions although I can see why cos its blatant he or she is either ambersuz, Butler or Bren maybe viv.

by Mike 26.11.09 18:40

sym wrote:Chris...you are eing a little ambersuzish about scarafen saying about asking questions although I can see why cos its blatant he or she is either ambersuz, Butler or Bren maybe viv.

ok i will butt out of this one ,because i dont suffer fools gladly

by Guest 26.11.09 18:44

what? Im just saying see why you are rounding on him/her, its blatant its a team amber member if you like, but you dont want them calling you as we do amber.

by Guest 26.11.09 18:51

just saw scarafen s name onm JATYK..first I knew he /she was a member..explains a little. Hope its noted there how welcome he/she has been made here even with his bias against Bennet.

by Tinky-Wlnky 26.11.09 19:05

Tony Bennett:

Back from a successful meeting with the IPCC.

Don't be surprised if in the next few months you hear of several current or former Essex Police Officers of senior rank prosecuted for perjury and/or perverting the course of justice.

Coupled with learning of one of the major miscarriages of justice of the last decade.

Will post the next run of correspondence between me and Debbie Butler later.

WOW! Shocked

Is this real?

by Mike 26.11.09 19:33

[quote="sym"]what? Im just saying see why you are rounding on him/her, its blatant its a team amber member if you like, but you dont want them calling you as we do

sorry sym ,got the wrong end of the stick,oh yes i knew he was a pro,easy to spot,but there you go it takes all sorts dont it and
unfortunatly one of them is on here :D

by Guest 26.11.09 20:47

Thought it was Butler amber bren or viv...but would hate to see them saying its as bad over here..

by Mike 26.11.09 20:52

sym wrote:Thought it was Butler amber bren or viv...but would hate to see them saying its as bad over here..

im almost sure i saw him on the the old 3a,s,--and no this is nice easy forum .no hassle here :D

by **Tony Bennett** 26.11.09 21:13

Just got back from my 4-monthly trip to the Blood Doning centre to give the statutory 470 millilitres to the Transfusion Service (that's 5/6th or 83% of a pint for those who still order pints of beer).

It occurs to me that before running through the more recent e-mail correspondence between Debbie Butler and I, it might be useful to review a previous set of events which took place on 15 and 16 September - this by the way being after (as I learnt afterwards) Brenda Ryan had privately been urging Debbie to try a new tactic of 'working with the McCanns' to get a re-investigation into Madeleine's disappearance started and had egged Debbie on to talk to Clarence Mitchell and Adrian Upshon ('Deuce'), a noted strong McCann supporter (items which concerned the Committee when we decided she must be expelled).

The following sequence of events took place on MISSING MADELEINE FORUM on the night of 15/16 September. I had no idea this was coming. I dodn't record the names of all the posters:

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Re: The Madeleine Foundation Website
deborah Today at 12:47 am

As from now until furthur notice if necessary - I am no longer working with the Madeleine Foundation

++++++++

Deuce (Adrian Upshon) has confirmed that he has spoken to Debbie and she confirmed that she has left the MF.

++++++

deborah Today [16 Sep] at 6:34 pm

Viv - I have not changed my mind and not given up - carrying on as usual thank you

++++++

Ambersuz Today at 6:48 pm

As Debbie has already said above...she is carrying on so there's nothing to worry about

++++++

That statement from MsButler is far from clear.
Does she mean she hasn't changed her mind and is still flounced?
Or she isn't giving up and has unflounced?

++++++

viv Today at 6:50 pm

Hi Amber
I am not worried about it, but do think that given her post she should be prepared to explain herself.
viv
Reg Member

++++++

browneyes Today at 6:53 pm

She is not giving up on looking for justice but has left the MF.

++++++

I don't think anyone is worried about it, but I do feel that those who have supported the Foundation in various ways (including financially) are entitled to an explanation as to why Debbie has felt the need to vacate her post.

++++++

deborah Today at 6:55 pm

Viv - you are the last person I would explain myself to - you are not even a member of the Madeleinefoundation !

++++++

That's scarcely the point, though.
I gather it is now being interpretted as, she has flounced??
In that case, she owes an awful lot of people an explanation.
Unless she is embarrassed?

++++++

WHILST THIS WAS GOING ON THERE WAS THE FOLLOWING INTERCHANGE WITH DEBBIE BY E-MAIL

It folllowed a late evening 'phone call from Debbie during which she accused me repeatedly of wanting to give up the fight for truth for Madeleine. I politely terminated the call after 90 minutes of being told she 'knew' I had given up the fight:

This exchange followed:

DB to TB:

I am out do not trust anyone - nice knowing you

TB to DB:

On Tue, 15/9/09, ANTHONY BENNETT <ajsbennett@btinternet.com> wrote:
From: ANTHONY BENNETT <ajsbennett@btinternet.com>
Subject: Tonight's Conversation
To: Debbie Butler [email withheld]
Date: Tuesday, 15 September, 2009, 10:31 PM

Hi Debbie,

All is O.K., I had to put the 'phone down after 90 minutes, I'm with you all the way - simple as that. Please have a good night's sleep, nothing has changed regarding my commitment to truth for Madeleine and nothing has changed to yours, I'm sure.

TOMMORROW IS ANOTHER DAY, the last two days have been stressful. Don't let the pressure get to you. We have gone a long way together and got many others with us. We must carry on.

I have not 'gone', that's an idea that's slipped into your head after a long day. Tony

DB to TB:

NO - I do not for once believe you - I am out

++++++

It required another e-mail from me before Debbie was willing to talk further about the situation - and then decided she would carry on as Chairman of MF.

The complete run of correspondence with Debbie Butler from 25 October onwards

The complete run of correspondence with Debbie Butler from 25 October onwards

Re: The complete run of correspondence with Debbie Butler from 25 October onwards

Re: The complete run of correspondence with Debbie Butler from 25 October onwards

Re: The complete run of correspondence with Debbie Butler from 25 October onwards

Re: The complete run of correspondence with Debbie Butler from 25 October onwards

Re: The complete run of correspondence with Debbie Butler from 25 October onwards

Re: The complete run of correspondence with Debbie Butler from 25 October onwards

Re: The complete run of correspondence with Debbie Butler from 25 October onwards

Scrafen has legitimate questions

Kirwans wrote to me on 7 October and I replied on 20 October

Re: The complete run of correspondence with Debbie Butler from 25 October onwards

Re: The complete run of correspondence with Debbie Butler from 25 October onwards

The complete run of correspondence with Debbie Butler from 25 October onwards

Meeting with IPCC: senior Essex Police Officers could be charged with serious offences

Re: The complete run of correspondence with Debbie Butler from 25 October onwards

Chris to scarafen

Chris to scarafen

Re: The complete run of correspondence with Debbie Butler from 25 October onwards

Re: The complete run of correspondence with Debbie Butler from 25 October onwards

Re: The complete run of correspondence with Debbie Butler from 25 October onwards

Re: The complete run of correspondence with Debbie Butler from 25 October onwards

Re: The complete run of correspondence with Debbie Butler from 25 October onwards

Re: The complete run of correspondence with Debbie Butler from 25 October onwards

Re: The complete run of correspondence with Debbie Butler from 25 October onwards

DB to TB and on MISSING MADELEINE 15 & 16 September

Log in for more topics