Re: Debbie Butler is posting up personal details on MM

by Guest 11.12.09 17:08

I find it amazing that people are more interested in Tony Bennett and his money for stamps/defence fund than the alleged fraudulent fund for madeleine which was contributed to by people in good faith from all over the country, including pensioners, children etc., this was given for the purpose of looking for Madeleine but allegedly the accounts have shown very little of this money was actually spent on looking for madeleine and vast amounts seem to have been allegedly spent on trying to shape public opinion/media etc., or given to what seem to be allegedly dodgy people like Halligen and a company called Metodo 3 who appear to have no speciality in looking for missing persons and seem to have been from what we have been told involved in criminal activity allegedly. The fund we are talking about has had thousands and thousands of pounds contributed to it all in good faith, but it seems strange to me that people are not directing questions to the Mccanns and their Team about where this money has actually gone and why so little allegedly has been spent on the purpose for which people donated. Also the public were also frequently misled into believing the fund was a charity which it was not, so perhaps those who seem to want to get to the truth about funds could also direct their questions to the Mccanns and their Team to get to the bottom of what has been going on in their fund.

by flytrap 11.12.09 17:09

Yes, sure he will DCB1 kissykissy

by **Tony Bennett** 11.12.09 17:14

flytrap wrote:Hold fire....Tony STILL hasn't answered about his post requesting stamps for his defense fund when all costs had been paid has he?

You need to go back and look at the exact question and my answers. All the information you need is there. Just to spell it out, the legal defence fund, which has not yet been set up by the way, was in anticipation of further legal expenses, which indeed I did incur.

by Guest 11.12.09 17:18

Cherry wrote:I find it amazing that people are more interested in Tony Bennett and his money for stamps/defence fund than the alleged fraudulent fund for madeleine which was contributed to by people in good faith from all over the country, including pensioners, children etc., this was given for the purpose of looking for Madeleine but allegedly the accounts have shown very little of this money was actually spent on looking for madeleine and vast amounts seem to have been allegedly spent on trying to shape public opinion/media etc., or given to what seem to be allegedly dodgy people like Halligen and a company called Metodo 3 who appear to have no speciality in looking for missing persons and seem to have been from what we have been told involved in criminal activity allegedly. The fund we are talking about has had thousands and thousands of pounds contributed to it all in good faith, but it seems strange to me that people are not directing questions to the Mccanns and their Team about where this money has actually gone and why so little allegedly has been spent on the purpose for which people donated. Also the public were also frequently misled into believing the fund was a charity which it was not, so perhaps those who seem to want to get to the truth about funds could also direct their questions to the Mccanns and their Team to get to the bottom of what has been going on in their fund.

Absolutely spot on Cherry, well said thumbsup

by DCB1 11.12.09 17:24

Tony Bennett wrote:
flytrap wrote:Hold fire....Tony STILL hasn't answered about his post requesting stamps for his defense fund when all costs had been paid has he?
You need to go back and look at the exact question and my answers. All the information you need is there. Just to spell it out, the legal defence fund, which has not yet been set up by the way, was in anticipation of further legal expenses, which indeed I did incur.

£500 Kirwins fees - foundation.

£400 cost (to CR) - who paid for them?

Tony Bennett : REPLY: Practical steps to set up a legal defence fund or similar were discussed at yesterday's meeting and already we have some donations towards that.

Who did the donations go to? Who used them, and how are they accounted for?

by preciousramotswe 11.12.09 17:27

Autumn wrote:Poor Kate and Gerry - when it comes to choosing private detectives they always seem to end up with people who could not even organize a trip to the toilet, let along search for a missing child.

Au contraire Autumn, as I pointed out in my last post on this thread, Halligen is an extremely organized and efficient man.
He is extremeley good at conning people out of their money, something he has managed to do to many people who you would have thought would have more nous about these matters than the McCanns - real intelligence experts, for example.
I actually think that Kennedy showed more acumen than many others that Halliegn has left in his wake. After all, he was told to swivel for the rest of the money.

by Old Nick 11.12.09 17:27

The Devil is in the detail.

by preciousramotswe 11.12.09 17:28

Perhaps you can tell us then big grin

by Guest 11.12.09 17:43

Cherry wrote:I find it amazing that people are more interested in Tony Bennett and his money for stamps/defence fund

You have identified one (of a number) of important reasons why Tony Bennett should continue to reply, as honestly as he can, to questions addressed to him. Where does the Madeleine Foundation (which paid a voluntary contribution to Kirwan's Solicitors) feature in your concern? It has been suggested elsewhere that Tony Bennett misappropriated funds from the Foundation - do you not want him to be exonerated from that accusation?

by Guest 11.12.09 18:05

As far as I am aware the matter is being investigated by the Police so we will find out in due course whether there has been anything wrong or not, from what I can see Tony has politely answered the questions put to him, even when those questions have in many cases been put rudely and in an abusive way.

by **Tony Bennett** 11.12.09 18:19

DCB1 wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
flytrap wrote:Hold fire....Tony STILL hasn't answered about his post requesting stamps for his defense fund when all costs had been paid has he?
You need to go back and look at the exact question and my answers. All the information you need is there. Just to spell it out, the legal defence fund, which has not yet been set up by the way, was in anticipation of further legal expenses, which indeed I did incur.

£500 Kirwins fees - foundation.

£400 cost (to CR) - who paid for them?

Tony Bennett : REPLY: Practical steps to set up a legal defence fund or similar were discussed at yesterday's meeting and already we have some donations towards that.

Who did the donations go to? Who used them, and how are they accounted for?

These are all matters of which The Madeleine Foundation Committee are aware of and no member is raising any query. I've answered quite enough questions on Kirwans, the cheques, the Carter-Ruck bill/the Court fee, the proposed legal defence fund, donations etc. - far beyond what most people in a similar position would have done.

And of course I truly welcome, indeed am more deeply appreciative than anyone could possibly imagine, scrimas's noble and valiant attempts to exonerate me. You deserve a medal for your heroic efforts, scrimas.

The only person raising allegations of fraud or misuse of funds in The Madeleine Foundation is Debbie Butler and so far as I can see only our oppenents come on threads like this with their endless questions, questions, questions.

Time to draw a line under all these questions and move on to, say...

why the McCanns chose people like Metodo 3 and Kevin Halligen to search for Madeleine

OR

which one of the 14 different artists' impressions of the abductor we are supposed to be looking for

OR

what Dave Edgar, Clarence Mitchell and the McCanns are doing to find Madeleine whom Edgar is convinced is being kept in a prison lair in the lawless hills within 10 miles of Praia da Luz.

by preciousramotswe 11.12.09 18:53

Actually Tony, AntiCS and Ambersuz, among others, were Foundation members who would profoundly disagree that all members are hunky-dory with your actions.
I expect there are others who have just slipped away never to be heard of again.

I'm still waiting for you on the CEOP thread btw big grin

by Guest 11.12.09 19:47

Tony Bennett wrote:
Molly wrote:It was in November when you accidentally revealed the voluntary donation to Kirwan's was paid by the MF. Now you're telling us that by that time it was known there would be a further bill from Carter-Ruck. Those £400 (to which three other people donated £270 according to you) were the Court fees, NOT a bill by CR. So what further bill from Carter Ruck are you talking about? When did they sent you bills? Or when did they tell you you had to pay a bill? When did they file the complaint at the Court?
There was 'nothing' accidental about disclosing that the Madeleine Foundation chequebook was used to pay Kirwans, we have always been open about all that we have been doing.

The 'Carter-Ruck bill' and the 'Court fee' are one and the same. Carter-Ruck billed me for the Court fee, I didn't pay the Court direct.

£500,000 to Kevin Halligen?

Thank you for replying, so there was no further bill from Carter-Ruck.
There's several members who didn't know Kirwan was paid by the MF until November, when you posted that letter you allegedly sent to Kirwan. You didn't tell about that either when somebody offered you money (and I quote) "I would gladly send you 10.00 to help pay for your lawyers cost".

Why didn't you answer the rest of my questions?
- When did CR file the complaint at the Court?
- When did CR send you their bill for the Court fee?

by **Tony Bennett** 11.12.09 23:26

Molly wrote:Why didn't you answer the rest of my questions?
- When did CR file the complaint at the Court?
- When did CR send you their bill for the Court fee?

You won't get answers to those. Those are matters only for Madeleine Foundation members, not you.

You could of course try asking Carter-Ruck.

by aiyoyo 12.12.09 12:47

Autumn wrote:Poor Kate and Gerry - when it comes to choosing private detectives they always seem to end up with people who could not even organize a trip to the toilet, let along search for a missing child.

Perhaps that was exactly why those dodgy PIs and dodgy reputation ex-cops were appointed. Their inabiliy to do anything was precisely why they were used, because the aim was not to find Maddie - its only an apperance, appeared to be - to explain the existence of the fund and to use up the funds. Otherwise the legality of the fund comes under the spotlight.

by Autumn 12.12.09 13:11

aiyoyo wrote:
Autumn wrote:Poor Kate and Gerry - when it comes to choosing private detectives they always seem to end up with people who could not even organize a trip to the toilet, let along search for a missing child.

Perhaps that was exactly why those dodgy PIs and dodgy reputation ex-cops were appointed. Their inabiliy to do anything was precisely why they were used, because the aim was not to find Maddie - its only an apperance, appeared to be - to explain the existence of the fund and to use up the funds. Otherwise the legality of the fund comes under the spotlight.

aiyoyo, yes I totally agree and I would like to know more about Brian Kennedy's involvement with these dodgy agencies.

by Guest 12.12.09 17:26

Autumn wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:
Autumn wrote:Poor Kate and Gerry - when it comes to choosing private detectives they always seem to end up with people who could not even organize a trip to the toilet, let along search for a missing child.

Perhaps that was exactly why those dodgy PIs and dodgy reputation ex-cops were appointed. Their inabiliy to do anything was precisely why they were used, because the aim was not to find Maddie - its only an apperance, appeared to be - to explain the existence of the fund and to use up the funds. Otherwise the legality of the fund comes under the spotlight.

aiyoyo, yes I totally agree and I would like to know more about Brian Kennedy's involvement with these dodgy agencies.

I'm sure if you write to him he'll tell you everything you demand to know.

by Guest 13.12.09 21:28

Tony Bennett wrote:
Molly wrote:Why didn't you answer the rest of my questions?
- When did CR file the complaint at the Court?
- When did CR send you their bill for the Court fee?
You won't get answers to those. Those are matters only for Madeleine Foundation members, not you.

You could of course try asking Carter-Ruck.

There's no need to be rude to me. And there's no need for me to ask Carter-Ruck, because the answer if clear.

Here's what you wrote about the meeting with Kirwan :
"We were further advised that correspondence between Kirwans Solicitors and Carter-Ruck on 24, 25 and 29 September and 1 October revealed a strong likelihood that Carter-Ruck had indeed already drafted a libel writ and would be ready to walk into the High Court on Monday (5th Oct) at 9.00am to issue a writ, unless we acceded to their demands in full by close of play on Friday (i.e. today)."

2 October you've sent a fax to Carter-Ruck confirming both you and Mrs. Butler acceded to the demands set out in their letter of August 27th.
2 October you 'voluntarily' paid £500 to Kirwan, using the MF cheque book, without prior approval of the MF members.

4 October you talked about setting up a 'legal defense fund' and encouraged people to send you money, cheques or stamps.

You should have told people who wanted to help you, who wanted to donate, there was no need for that as you paid Kirwan from the MF account.

At that date :
there was NO bill of Carter Ruck re Court fee's as there was no writ issued yet,
there was NO bill from Kirwan (and I doubt there's been such a bill later on),
there was NO reason to expect any legal costs, so
there was NO reason to ask people to send you money.

There's a word for people who do things like that....

by **Tony Bennett** 13.12.09 21:55

Molly wrote:[...there was NO reason to ask people to send you money.

Two points:

1. We did anticipate further costs as we were clearly told by Kirwans that Carter-Ruck would be writing to us wanting to settle the terms of our accession by means of a Court order (which of course they did, straightaway, and we were told this would cost more money. Kirwans wanted £5,000 plus VAT for doing this. Carter-Ruck charged me £400, being a Court fee, which I paid out of my own pocket.

2. I asked no-one to send money. I merely responded to one poster and said she could donate by cheque or PayPal or stamps. Did I appeal anywhere else or on any other occasion for help towards legal costs? No.

by maebee 14.12.09 0:32

[quote="Tony Bennett" Did I appeal anywhere else or on any other occasion for help towards legal costs? No.[/quote]

As someone who has been in contact with TB over the past year or more, I can confirm this.

by Guest 14.12.09 20:36

You're trying to obscure the matter. And it's getting boring.
What you're saying now is not what you reported after your visit to Kirwans.
You did NOT expect a Court order by Carter Ruck.
You wrote you'd deal with any further correspondence with Carter-Ruck yourselves.
There was NO need for setting up a legal defense fund and asking for donations.

You didn't pay the Court fees out of your own pocket. You've had donations to that (£270 according to you).

Cheques, Paypal or stamps IS money. A quick search reveals you talked about the legal defense fund, told people where & how to send donations, on for instance October 2nd, 4th, 5th. And apparently on the Cardiff meeting (October 3rd).

Because you didn't actually accede to CR's demands, they issued a writ. Probably by the end of October. That's when the Court fees arose.

by baconbutty 14.12.09 20:43

Butler still posting spiteful, pathetic tweets --

IWILLNOTGOAWAY

Are the books still in the garage ?????
22 minutes ago from web
crikey - had more calls than 6 ???
26 minutes ago from web
Retired solicitor last seen in Harlow - mistress count - 6 - love chris xxx
26 minutes ago from web

by Pussycat 14.12.09 20:52

baconbutty wrote:Butler still posting spiteful, pathetic tweets --

IWILLNOTGOAWAY

Are the books still in the garage ?????
22 minutes ago from web
crikey - had more calls than 6 ???
26 minutes ago from web
Retired solicitor last seen in Harlow - mistress count - 6 - love chris xxx
26 minutes ago from web

She needs to be sectioned

by Autumn 14.12.09 21:04

Shes her own worst enemy, how bitter she seems.

by baconbutty 14.12.09 21:23

And another --

IWILLNOTGOAWAY

TTTTTTBENNETTITANIC SOON TO BE SUNK
4 minutes ago from web

(I bet she thought that one was hilarious, the sad old ****) daft