Re: Debbie Butler is posting up personal details on MM

by preciousramotswe 07.12.09 20:23

baconbutty wrote:
badmanners wrote:Well, I'm not suggesting for one moment that you will get any but the only other person who can shed any light is Butler and she isn't here.

How do you know she isn't here? :lol:

I wish she would post then big grin

That might get very interesting.

by Jolie 07.12.09 20:34

badmanners wrote:
Molly wrote:
badmanners wrote:Problem is Molly that we had two different accounts.

One of them it was a voluntary amount offered for their time and trouble, another version had Kirwans actually sending Butler a bill for the £500 to be paid up front, which was received before they went to the meeting.

For further clarification see Tony Bennett.

How about that letter to Kirwan then?
"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..."
"we would voluntarily offer £500 to you towards your time, which is a big chunk out of the current balance of the Madeleine Foundation."

Doesn't mention a bill to be paid up front.

No it doesnt but I can definitely assure you that elsewhere Tony Bennett has posted that Debbie Butler received a demand for an upfront payment of £500 by letter before October 2nd.

Yes, Tony did write that comment, but I can't remember which blog or forum I saw that on.

I would like to point out the possibility that the sentence that begins "Nor we were informed that we might be expected to pay for your enquiries..." (was the c&p or typed, because there's a mistake in the order of words--should read "were we" I think) could mean something separately from the alleged request from Kirwans to put money down (perhaps once the decision was made to use them and proceed forward?). It would be helpful if Tony Bennett could clarify this.

by **Tony Bennett** 07.12.09 20:53

badmanners wrote:
Molly wrote:
badmanners wrote:Problem is Molly that we had two different accounts.

One of them it was a voluntary amount offered for their time and trouble, another version had Kirwans actually sending Butler a bill for the £500 to be paid up front, which was received before they went to the meeting.

For further clarification see Tony Bennett.

How about that letter to Kirwan then?
"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..."
"we would voluntarily offer £500 to you towards your time, which is a big chunk out of the current balance of the Madeleine Foundation."

Doesn't mention a bill to be paid up front.

No it doesnt but I can definitely assure you that elsewhere Tony Bennett has posted that Debbie Butler received a demand for an upfront payment of £500 by letter before October 2nd.

Absolutely unbelievable how people can make something out of absolutely nothing at all.

But then if you are looking to land a blow on someone you will twist almost anything to help you to do so.

Yes, I've seen Ambersuz' 'vilification forum' make hay with all this, gloating almost hysterically over what they proclaim as 'another Bennett lie' etc. etc.

Well, you see, the twisting, the exaggeration, the falsification comes when you look at these sentences:

"another version had Kirwans actually sending Butler a bill for the £500 to be paid up front, which was received before they went to the meeting" and

"I can definitely assure you that elsewhere Tony Bennett has posted that Debbie Butler received a demand for an upfront payment of £500 by letter".

Now, I can't recollect the exact words I used before - some of my opponents here have the advantage as they seem to have taken a lot of time and trouble to store vast quantities of my postings and e-mails, no doubt looking for any apparent inconsistency they can twist into a 'lie'.

The key point is that nowhere did I mention Debbie Butler getting a letter or a bill before 2 October.

I simply said that Kirwans had been 'asking for', or 'suggesting' an upfront payment of £500. This I believe was mentioned by Debbie whilst I was still on holiday; I returned on 28 September. There was no bill, no letter. My recollection is that I did not agree to any upfront payment prior to meeting with Kirwans.

At the meeting, Debbie suggested a payment, from The Madeleine Foundation funds, of £500, in the face of Kirwans requiring an upfront fee of £5,000 [FIVE THOUSAND] PLUS V.A.T. merely to settle the terms of any agreement with Carter-Ruck.

There is no inconsistency or untruth in what I have said. Whether or not Debbie had in mind the earlier request for an upfront payment of £500 when she suggested we pay £500 to Kirwans, I don't know.

We both agreed it was a reasonable amount to pay and I would emphasise once again that part of the reason for the payment was because we - on behalf of The Madeleine Foundation - had clearly had the benefit of useful legal advice on libel which would be to the benefit of the Foundation and not just ourselves.

And by the way, yes, Kirwans did thereafter ask for further payment, which I declined to pay. By that time Debbie was incommunicado.

So, no conflict, no contradictions, no lies.

Just unfair mudslinging by others. But I've got quite used to that over the past year, ever since 23 October 2008, three days after our website wnt live, when I was told in an e-mail message that I had 'gone too far this time' and would be 'paid a visit' and there would be 'plenty of blood'.

Now, is this post going to be reproduced on Ambersuz' forum, on JustAThought, or any of the other pro-McCann sites that routinely post against me day after day?

I'll wait and see

P.S. Has it occurred to anyone that to spend all this time on what was said about this £500 is wholly disproportionate to the total lack of time being spent on why £500,000 was paid to hard-drinking Irish con-man Kevin Halligen? I wonder why there's so few questions about that payment on here?

by preciousramotswe 07.12.09 20:54

It's here Jolie, on November 30th

https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/have-your-say-f1/why-the-madeleine-foundation-not-tony-and-debbie-personally-paid-kirwans-500-on-2-october-2009-t39.htm

As Tony seems to be having trouble recalling it exactly perhaps he should refresh his memory too.

by preciousramotswe 07.12.09 20:56

There is no inconsistency or untruth in what I have said. Whether or not Debbie had in mind the earlier request for an upfront payment of £500 when she ssuggested we pay £500 to Kirwans, I don't know.

lol!

by **Tony Bennett** 07.12.09 20:56

Jolie wrote:Yes, Tony did write that comment, but I can't remember which blog or forum I saw that on...It would be helpful if Tony Bennett could clarify this.

If my post above doesn't fully clear all this up, please ask again.

Unlike my opponents, I tend to answer questions put to me.

by Limoncello 07.12.09 21:08

Tony, would you have any more success in luring Mr. Fencer back in here. I've typed my fingers to the bone but have only had replies from his various huskies, Janz, clarity, sabot aka truth

by Guest 07.12.09 21:11

Tony Bennett wrote:
Jolie wrote:Yes, Tony did write that comment, but I can't remember which blog or forum I saw that on...It would be helpful if Tony Bennett could clarify this.
If my post above doesn't fully clear all this up, please ask again.

Unlike my opponents, I tend to answer questions put to me.

If so, would you please answer these questions then?
How many cheques did both of you sign on October 2nd?
How many (blank) cheques did Mrs Butler sign on October 2nd?
What's happened to those cheques?

by Guest 07.12.09 21:24

Wha hay way to go Molly. Your fab you are.

by Jolie 07.12.09 21:36

Tony Bennett wrote:
Jolie wrote:Yes, Tony did write that comment, but I can't remember which blog or forum I saw that on...It would be helpful if Tony Bennett could clarify this.
If my post above doesn't fully clear all this up, please ask again.

Unlike my opponents, I tend to answer questions put to me.

When Debbie told you that Kirwans was asking for an upfront fee of 500 pounds, did she specify what that was to be for? Was it for the analysis of your case to give an opinion? Or was it for work in directly settling with Carter-Ruck?

Sorry if I'm slow on this, but have been online too long and my brain is tired.

Can you also answer about the initial offer from Kirwans in looking at your case? Did they (and not the person who referred you to them) offer to represent you and Debbie pro bono? Or offer to just evaluate the case and give you an opinion, pro bono? Or none of the above?

by Jolie 07.12.09 21:38

badmanners wrote:It's here Jolie, on November 30th

https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/have-your-say-f1/why-the-madeleine-foundation-not-tony-and-debbie-personally-paid-kirwans-500-on-2-october-2009-t39.htm

As Tony seems to be having trouble recalling it exactly perhaps he should refresh his memory too.

It was helpful to have the original post to refer to.

by **Tony Bennett** 07.12.09 21:50

Limoncello wrote:Tony, would you have any more success in luring Mr. Fencer back in here. I've typed my fingers to the bone but have only had replies from his various huskies, Janz, clarity, sabot aka truth

Well, I'm not sure I'm that keen to have Mr Fencer back here. He came with an agenda, and has probably now retired, content with his work. Anyway, isn't s/he 'dogwood' over on 'Missing Madeleine'.

You say 'Sabot' a.k.a. 'truth'? But I thought 'Sabot' was 'Eleanor' over on 'MM'?

I'm getting very confused.

And 'janz' is a husky? I read lots of bad reports about 'janz' here and there, but then I tend to discount them as I do not know her and the complaints about her seem somewhat malicious.

Like a few others I could mention.

'clarity' is clear about one thing. S/he is on here to attack anyone who still soubts the McCanns' abduction claim.

Then of course we have those who come on under new usernames, pretending to be 'oh-so', 'very very' neutral - until one observes that they attack and question the abduction-doubters all the time, whilst at the same time not bothering to probe in the least the McCanns' and 'Tapas 7' account of events. Wasn't 'Fencer' ever so, ever so 'neutral'?

by **Tony Bennett** 07.12.09 21:53

Molly wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
Jolie wrote:Yes, Tony did write that comment, but I can't remember which blog or forum I saw that on...It would be helpful if Tony Bennett could clarify this.
If my post above doesn't fully clear all this up, please ask again.

Unlike my opponents, I tend to answer questions put to me.

If so, would you please answer these questions then?
How many cheques did both of you sign on October 2nd?

One or two - not absolutely sure right now as the Treasurer has the cheque-book.

How many (blank) cheques did Mrs Butler sign on October 2nd?

None.

What's happened to those cheques?

Ms Butler still has them, all uncashed.

by **Tony Bennett** 07.12.09 22:00

Jolie wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
Jolie wrote:Yes, Tony did write that comment, but I can't remember which blog or forum I saw that on...It would be helpful if Tony Bennett could clarify this.
If my post above doesn't fully clear all this up, please ask again.

Unlike my opponents, I tend to answer questions put to me.

When Debbie told you that Kirwans was asking for an upfront fee of 500 pounds, did she specify what that was to be for? Was it for the analysis of your case to give an opinion? Or was it for work in directly settling with Carter-Ruck?

Sorry if I'm slow on this, but have been online too long and my brain is tired.

Can you also answer about the initial offer from Kirwans in looking at your case? Did they (and not the person who referred you to them) offer to represent you and Debbie pro bono? Or offer to just evaluate the case and give you an opinion, pro bono? Or none of the above?

I've lost count of how many times I've been asked this, and posted the letter, but here goes once again.

First, the letter from Nick Mason. This was sent on 21 September whilst I was on holiday. I didn't see it until I got back on 29 September:

Tony/ Debbie

I am contacting you in the light of the weekend’s press reports regarding Carter Ruck being instructed to close down your website and to prevent the publication of leaflets etc.

David Kirwan, one of the country’s most campaigning solicitors, would be interested in speaking with you regarding the case and to see if he may be able to act on your behalf, possibly in a pro bono capacity.

David has represented a number of high profile clients in recent years including Winnie Johnson, the mother of Moors Murders victim Keith Bennett, and the Liverpool football fan Graham Sankey who was accused of committing the crime in Bulgaria for which another fan was convicted. Only yesterday, David featured in an article in the Sunday Times in connection with this case.

His Liverpool based law firm, Kirwans Solicitors, is one of the North West ’s most established firms and includes a specialist libel/ defamation team which has acted in cases involving politicians and celebrities.

Should you be interested in having an initial phone conversation with David, please let me know and I will happily put you in touch.

Kind regards

Nick Mason
0151 [rest snipped]

You asked:

When Debbie told you that Kirwans was asking for an upfront fee of 500 pounds, did she specify what that was to be for? Was it for the analysis of your case to give an opinion? Or was it for work in directly settling with Carter-Ruck?

ANSWER: It was vague. Debbie said something like: 'They're asking for a £500 fee upfront'.

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

P.S. Only after posting this did I look back at what I'd posted before. I said:

"Prior to our meeting with Kirwans on 2 October 2009, Debbie Butler informed me that Kirwans were asking for an upfront 'on account' payment of £500.00. I recommended that we waited until we saw them on 2 October".

That's exactly right, and perfectly consistent with what I said about the £500 payment on 2 October.

by Guest 07.12.09 22:06

Thank you for answering my questions. Here's a few more and I can't promise this'll be my last questions. big grin

Aren't we all entitled to our opinion about what's happened? Why can't you accept a lot of people don't agree with your pov?

So what makes you so sure she wasn't abducted? Don't you ever question your interpretation of what's happened? Most of your opinion seems to be based on newspapers and a preliminary report (based on a few misconceptions as well as bias).

by Guest 07.12.09 22:26

Tony Bennett wrote:
Limoncello wrote:Tony, would you have any more success in luring Mr. Fencer back in here. I've typed my fingers to the bone but have only had replies from his various huskies, Janz, clarity, sabot aka truth
Well, I'm not sure I'm that keen to have Mr Fencer back here. He came with an agenda, and has probably now retired, content with his work. Anyway, isn't s/he 'dogwood' over on 'Missing Madeleine'.

You say 'Sabot' a.k.a. 'truth'? But I thought 'Sabot' was 'Eleanor' over on 'MM'?

I'm getting very confused.

And 'janz' is a husky? I read lots of bad reports about 'janz' here and there, but then I tend to discount them as I do not know her and the complaints about her seem somewhat malicious.

Like a few others I could mention.

'clarity' is clear about one thing. S/he is on here to attack anyone who still soubts the McCanns' abduction claim.

Then of course we have those who come on under new usernames, pretending to be 'oh-so', 'very very' neutral - until one observes that they attack and question the abduction-doubters all the time, whilst at the same time not bothering to probe in the least the McCanns' and 'Tapas 7' account of events. Wasn't 'Fencer' ever so, ever so 'neutral'?

Such Paranoia. Not good for the blood pressure. And such a pity to besmirch a poster rather than apologise for rudeness. No wonder you have made so many enemies.

by Jolie 07.12.09 22:37

Tony Bennett wrote:
Jolie wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
Jolie wrote:Yes, Tony did write that comment, but I can't remember which blog or forum I saw that on...It would be helpful if Tony Bennett could clarify this.
If my post above doesn't fully clear all this up, please ask again.

Unlike my opponents, I tend to answer questions put to me.

When Debbie told you that Kirwans was asking for an upfront fee of 500 pounds, did she specify what that was to be for? Was it for the analysis of your case to give an opinion? Or was it for work in directly settling with Carter-Ruck?

Sorry if I'm slow on this, but have been online too long and my brain is tired.

Can you also answer about the initial offer from Kirwans in looking at your case? Did they (and not the person who referred you to them) offer to represent you and Debbie pro bono? Or offer to just evaluate the case and give you an opinion, pro bono? Or none of the above?
I've lost count of how many times I've been asked this, and posted the letter, but here goes once again.

First, the letter from Nick Mason. This was sent on 21 September whilst I was on holiday. I didn't see it until I got back on 29 September:

Tony/ Debbie

I am contacting you in the light of the weekend’s press reports regarding Carter Ruck being instructed to close down your website and to prevent the publication of leaflets etc.

David Kirwan, one of the country’s most campaigning solicitors, would be interested in speaking with you regarding the case and to see if he may be able to act on your behalf, possibly in a pro bono capacity.

David has represented a number of high profile clients in recent years including Winnie Johnson, the mother of Moors Murders victim Keith Bennett, and the Liverpool football fan Graham Sankey who was accused of committing the crime in Bulgaria for which another fan was convicted. Only yesterday, David featured in an article in the Sunday Times in connection with this case.

His Liverpool based law firm, Kirwans Solicitors, is one of the North West ’s most established firms and includes a specialist libel/ defamation team which has acted in cases involving politicians and celebrities.

Should you be interested in having an initial phone conversation with David, please let me know and I will happily put you in touch.

Kind regards

Nick Mason
0151 [rest snipped]

You asked:

When Debbie told you that Kirwans was asking for an upfront fee of 500 pounds, did she specify what that was to be for? Was it for the analysis of your case to give an opinion? Or was it for work in directly settling with Carter-Ruck?

ANSWER: It was vague. Debbie said something like: 'They're asking for a £500 fee upfront'.

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

P.S. Only after posting this did I look back at what I'd posted before. I said:

"Prior to our meeting with Kirwans on 2 October 2009, Debbie Butler informed me that Kirwans were asking for an upfront 'on account' payment of £500.00. I recommended that we waited until we saw them on 2 October".

That's exactly right, and perfectly consistent with what I said about the £500 payment on 2 October.

I have read that letter from Nick Mason before, which why I specifically asked you three separate questions about Kirwans fees possibly being pro bono. I'm assuming that after receiving Mr. Mason's letter, you and/or Debbie met or spoke with one of the firm's attorneys to get more information and to give them the booklet, etc., to review and evaluate. Were fees discussed or was pro bono work discussed with a member of the firm at that point? At what time and in which aspect were they willing to do work for free, if at all? Or was the only time the words pro bono mentioned was in the letter from Nick Mason.

If you had expected not to pay for an evaluation/consultation, then Debbie's mentioning a request for an upfront fee would have certainly raised a red flag, wouldn't it, and warranted further discussion between you and Debbie to understand exactly what Kirwans' request was for.

by **Tony Bennett** 07.12.09 22:55

Jolie wrote:

So six questions.

I've tried to explain the situation as fully as I can elsewhere, but here goes with six answers:

When Debbie told you that Kirwans was asking for an upfront fee of 500 pounds, did she specify what that was to be for?

NO.

Was it for the analysis of your case to give an opinion?

Possibly. It wasn't made explicit.

Or was it for work in directly settling with Carter-Ruck?

NO.

Sorry if I'm slow on this, but have been online too long and my brain is tired. Can you also answer about the initial offer from Kirwans in looking at your case? Did they (and not the person who referred you to them) offer to represent you and Debbie pro bono?

Nick Mason's letter says 'possibly pro bono'. As the days went by, there was talk of Michael Mansfield taking the case for free. Then there was talk of 'no win no fee' help which I told Debbie we would need to ask about. as it was far from clear what was meant by that in the context of a libel action. Debbie did 90% of the talking with Kirwans as I was away on holiday. I can't be sure now whether she relayed to me fully and accurately what was said to her by Kirwans.

Or offer to just evaluate the case and give you an opinion, pro bono?

That offer seems to have been abandoned, certainly by the time we got to Liverpool.

Or none of the above?

One day I will publish the full sequence of texts I got from Debbie during this period. They are quite illuminating.

by Old Nick 07.12.09 23:05

My ears are burning.

Have you missed me Tony? I've been away on business. Glad to see you're not letting anyone get the better of you.

by SofaPeace 07.12.09 23:08

Mr. Bennett, did you always know that Debbie Butler was mentally ill or did this weakness manifest after your relationship was irretrievably broken down, you both having tried?

May I just say I can't find words to express my admiration for you and I understand your feelings about metric.

by **Tony Bennett** 07.12.09 23:13

SofaPeace wrote:Mr. Bennett, did you always know that Debbie Butler was mentally ill or did this weakness manifest after your relationship was irretrievably broken down, you both having tried?

May I just say I can't find words to express my admiration for you and I understand your feelings about metric.

Ah! Yet another newcomer.

I wonder why.

Someone I have little doubt who supports the abduction theory without question.

Just for the record, and once again, I have never suggested that Debbie Butler is mentally ill, although Ambersuz over on the 'Missing Madeleine' forum did refer to her possibly having a nervous breakdown.

Debbie was committed to the cause of The Madeleine Foundation until 2 October, and did well up against Clarence Mitchell at Oxford and also on Esat Midlands TV in August.

by preciousramotswe 07.12.09 23:21

Debbie Bulter has recently posted up an email exchange she had with Kirwans which seems to scotch claims they wanted extra payment.

Did you tell her they did require further payment after the intial £500 settlement?

by preciousramotswe 07.12.09 23:26

Tony Bennett wrote:
Molly wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
Jolie wrote:Yes, Tony did write that comment, but I can't remember which blog or forum I saw that on...It would be helpful if Tony Bennett could clarify this.
If my post above doesn't fully clear all this up, please ask again.

Unlike my opponents, I tend to answer questions put to me.

If so, would you please answer these questions then?
How many cheques did both of you sign on October 2nd?

One or two - not absolutely sure right now as the Treasurer has the cheque-book.

How many (blank) cheques did Mrs Butler sign on October 2nd?

None.

What's happened to those cheques?

Ms Butler still has them, all uncashed.

Well that's odd.

I could have sworn I saw you post in the past that she signed more at the Kirwans meeting.

by **Tony Bennett** 07.12.09 23:29

badmanners wrote:Debbie Bulter has recently posted up an email exchange she had with Kirwans which seems to scotch claims they wanted extra payment.

Did you tell her they did require further payment after the intial £500 settlement?

Deliberate misinformation from Debbie Butler once again.

Note the date of her e-mail - 6 December I think.

Kirwans wrote to me on 7 October, enclosing an Interim Bill for £575, including £75 VAT,

Here is my reply, to which Kirwans did not reply:

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

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 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 give 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

Kirwans were able to tell Debbie yesterday that there were not seeking more from us because of my letter of 20 October.

By the way, one e-mail from me to Debbie that I've not posted up yet was this one sent to her on 17 October.

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

She did not reply.

by preciousramotswe 07.12.09 23:35

Mr Bennett wrote this on the MF site at the end of October. I hope you can now see why I'm a little confused:

Debbie raised an issue about 4 cheques yesterday and then 'Laffin' asked what they were for. O.K., just this once for the record, all cheques issued by The Madeleine Foundation must be signed by both Debbie and I. As we are about 60 miles apart, Debbie has sometimes signed two or three blank cheques in advance as is common in such situations. The basis of that is mutual trust and no cheque has gone out unless we both know precisely what it is for. At Liverpool we had our chequebook and on this occasion Debbie signed four in advance. Just for the record, none of those have yet been used and signed yet, as under normal circumstances I would speak to her before issuing a cheque for any reason. I hope that's cleared that one up.