Debbie Butler's false allegations against the Madeleine Foundation

UPDATE RE MS BUTLER’S FALSE ALLEGATIONS AGAINST THE MADELEINE FOUNDATION - 25 NOVEMBER 2009

Below is an unedited letter from D C K Chissel, Fraud Officer, of Harlow C.I.D., received by me on 24 November:

QUOTE

Dear Mr Bennett

As you are fully aware I am currently investigating an allegation of fraud relating to cheques written from The Madeleine Foundation bank account, for which both your self and Ms Butler are co-signers.

As part of this investigation I need to retrieve the two cheques from the bank’s archives. For this I need the permission of both yourself and Ms Butler to access the Treasurer’s account, The Madeleine Foundation.

I will also need access to your personal account/s as this is where the disputed cheques were paid into. I have enclosed a form which will be sent to the bank allowing me access to these two cheques.

Once this permission has been obtained from you both the banks have stated that my request should only take a few weeks to obtain which will mean that I should be able to clear this allegation up shortly afterwards.

You have already provided me with the documents I have requested, for which I am grateful for your co-operation. I would therefore be further grateful if you would sign the attached form to enable me to request the cheques from the bank as quickly as possible.

The signed form needs to be returned to me at Harlow CID in order for to liaise with the bank.

Sincerely

D C 3 Chissel

UNQUOTE


To that I need to add that the conduct of D C Chissel and her senior officers is to be investigated by the Head of Essex Police Professional Standards Department, the section that investigates complaints against the police. The complaint is that the police have unreasonably begun an investigation when they have no credible evidence whatsoever of any fraud or financial impropriety of any kind and have been furnished with more than ample evidence that Ms Butler’s allegations are false and motivated by malice.

The Head of Professional Standards wrote this to me on Friday 20 November:

“Mr Bennett, I acknowledge receipt of your email and complaint that you make. I will ensure that your complaint is recorded and you are contacted in due course by a senior Officer appointed to investigate your complaint”.

Regards, Dave Folkard, Head of Professional Standards”

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

As you’ll see from the above, it is going to take weeks for the police to get sight of those two cheques, both of which by the way were signed by myself and Ms Butler, and for which receipts have been provided to Essex Police.

It is out of my hands now, I have replied to Essex Police giving the necessary permission and can only sit and wait patiently for them to conclude their enquiries and vindicate me.

Many thanks to all those who’ve sent me messages of support during what has been a difficult few weeks.

Tony Bennett

25 November 2009


http://jillkhavernandmikehitchen.blogspot.com/2009/11/debbie-butlers-false-allegations.html

D C K Chissel, Fraud Officer, of Harlow C.I.D. wrote:I will also need access to your personal account/s as this is where the disputed cheques were paid into.

was this part previously removed by tony bennett when he posted up that email ?

whatever, this means, both cheques were paid onto bennetts private(!) account ?
=> he must have paid expenses for the MF from his private account, in order to justify this.
why did he need to do that ?

ok, for the Visa Payments of the meeting room (as the MF didnt have a credit card as it seems), it makes sense: he paid the room with his private visa, and had to take this money out of the MF account.
but it were only around 300 pounds...and why should he pay the german translator, or debbies 500 bucks compensation from his private account ?

maybe tony bennett can enlighten on this ?

Hi Scrafen,

I've sent an email to Tony telling him about this place, so hopefully he'll join to answer any questions that he's not allowed to do anywhere else.

I dont believe Bennet was commiting fraud..I do believe Debbie was let down with the solicitors and the giving in to Carter Ruck, I do believe Debbie was then dropped without ceremony or explanation and felt used. I have good reason to think this.

hey, its the t-shirt you planned to wear when shouting through the megaphone at carter ruck together with debbie ?
the message is quite strong, you would have made the headlines this day... :D

but tony could explain (as outlined in my post above), why those cheques were paid onto private accounts ?
it would help to understand - just in case one doesnt rely on "trust" only ?

eta:
or maybe debbie can pay us a visit and tell, what amount of money of those two cheques were paid onto her private account - only the 500 pounds - and they were transferred from MF or TBs private account ?

Yes indeed it is the very T.shirt but this had and daddy hid my body...Like Debbie I am prepared to take direct action.She was doing the shouting, I have a welsh accent half the people wouldnt understand a word I say.
I was actually quite sad when Debbie truned on me, she was very funny, very ballsy and we had some good ideas for campaigns..I blame ambersuz for leading her with bad advice.

MaryB, Tara9 and enigma are all questioning Debs over on MM. Asking her the usual; if she 'cannot' talk about the ongoing investigation, why is she twittering and asking for dirt on TB? Her reply?

"Yes I should be tweeting asking for information as some more things have happened and we need to find the extent to which this dodgy business runs to"

Yawn, more 'things' come 'to light'

Re: Bren, Debs and Ambersuz Make Fools of Themselv
« Reply #73 Today at 5:54pm »

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MsM, it is apparent to anyone that the latest escapades are adolescent silly games with no thought for the consequences. There is a pattern here. I agree with whoever it was suggested to her to turn off the PC.
Link to Post - Back to Top Logged


bonnybraes1
Administrator

member is online




Eddie's PR man

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For goodness' sake, it's time Debs grew up:


Re: Bennett blah blah blah
deborah Today

enigma wrote:
deborah wrote:
MaryB wrote:
deborah wrote:
To clarify - there is more to it than this - and also TB should not be branding these police emails about as he has been told not to , this is why I am not about to discuss it on here - it is a police matter

But hasn't it been a police matter for quite some time now. Sorry if I am not quite understanding things.
Er what is it you do not understand ? It is a police matter that is ongoing - what part do you not get ?

In that case should you be tweeting asking for information to discredit Mr Bennett??

Yes I should be tweeting asking for information as some more things have happened and we need to find the extent to which this dodgy business runs to

------------------
Has she the slightest idea how totally ridiculous she sounds? And what is all this "we" stuff?
This carp is Bren's idea, it's so stupid it has to be.
I hope the pair of them are on the receiving ends of the biggest, most ridiculous wind-ups anyone can think of; they deserve to be.
They are playing sleuths again, thinking they can crack the case of the missing leaflets or some such bullpoo.
Muppets.

pussycat, if you were a member of a foundation, similar to the MF (booklets etc), you paying fees and donations (lets say you donated 450 GBP), and it came the following to light:

the secretary claims expenses within 60 days of 900 GBP,
and can only produce official (shop) receipts for 450 GBP,
the others he doesnt have.
=> would it be ok for you, that 450 pounds went to the secretaries private account, and just his word as proof that he indeed had these expenses ?

scarfen...out of curiousity are you Debbie ambersuz or brenda or none of them?

none, sym

out of curiosity: what would you say, if something like that had happened to you (as in my previous post ?)

scrafen,where did you get these figures from,may i ask

they are hypothetical (eta: as the whole scenario, but that was made clear in the post already).

also the question to you, chris:
=> when this happened to you (as member, donor), how would you deal with it ?

Photon on MM wrote:I thought the cheques were drawn from the Foundation account to cover Foundation expenses that Tony had paid out of his private account? In the same way that he says that he sent Debbie a cheque for £500 to repay her loan of £350 for start-up printing costs and to cover postage she had paid? Presumably there was a cash-flow problem with the MF account. There isn't anything out of order with this - so long as the amounts taken from the MF account have supporting receipts.

Link MM-forum
WHAT ?! - there was a "cash-flow-problem" with the MF account, and thats why TB posted the cheques on his own one ?

geez...

scrafen wrote:none, sym

out of curiosity: what would you say, if something like that had happened to you (as in my previous post ?)

I would ask Tony straight out, preferably in person to take in his body language and facial expressions as well as listen to his answers. I would then either message members via MF and tell them vaguely there is a discrepancy with the books and to contact me and then it would be up to them if they did and or if not I would contact the police.
What I wouldnt do is themn make it public as she did, nor would I p*ss on people who I was pretending to be friends with, I hate two faced people who say stuff behind the backs of others whilst smiling to their faces)I would not publish emails without the consent of the person unless they were scum like Slim on JATYK, I would not then start acting like a school girl and start spouting totally irrelevant crap about crumble and custard, people hiding in bushes and all the other stuff she has brought up, she was ok with him dining in the canteen at the time, ditto him hiding in the bushes. I also wouldnt have ambersuz jumping on the bandwagon and fighting my battles nor would I twitter about getting more sh*t to throw

well scrafen, i would have asked mr bennett about it and not gone to the papers shouting fraud before i had had a reply from mr bennett,and if i didnt get a straight reply i would have gone to the police and let them deal with it.
end of.
also out of curiosity what would you have done

scrafen wrote:

Photon on MM wrote:I thought the cheques were drawn from the Foundation account to cover Foundation expenses that Tony had paid out of his private account? In the same way that he says that he sent Debbie a cheque for £500 to repay her loan of £350 for start-up printing costs and to cover postage she had paid? Presumably there was a cash-flow problem with the MF account. There isn't anything out of order with this - so long as the amounts taken from the MF account have supporting receipts.

Link MM-forum
WHAT ?! - there was a "cash-flow-problem" with the MF account, and thats why TB posted the cheques on his own one ?

geez...

Yes, there more than likely was a cash-flow problem at the start of the MF. Do you know the costs of setting up a web site and hosting it? Even if the legendary Stevo did the work, he won't have been cheap. Notwithstanding the booklets were produced up-front before anyone had actually paid for them. I will await 'proof' that TB has fraudulently used monies from the MF for his own benefit before I start to discuss 'hypothetical' scenarios thank you. As someone who ploughed huge amounts of my own money into my business in its infancy, I know this is not uncommon - at some point, you pay yourself back.

thanks and sorry, sym. sounds very fair-minded and thoughtful.

sorry, because i thought the question was, not about discovering fraud, but finding out that the 450 GBP were not documented (see below).

to explain, the intention of this question:
as you, and someone else here, were asking like "what should debbie do, if there was no fraud" and "will bennett sue her for libel etc".

my idea was, to ask the other way round and see what posters would do when they were foundation members (and had donated more than "ridiculous 10 Pounds"), and 450 Pounds on expenses were just proven/documented by the word of the secretary - no receipts.

what then ?
would you accept that ?
or just one time ?
or would you ask him to "refund" it ?
or anything else ?

so scrafen what would you have done

can you clarify this line before I respond please. :)
If I was not happy and felt afetr asking there was something wrong would ask him no tell him to rectify it or else and only afetr a reasonable amount of time would I then put it in to the proper hands, not some power mad upstart like ambersuz's hands.

in case those 450 GBP were not properly documented, but "gone", i would ask the secretary to step back.

eta: and ask to refund it :)

answer the question that you have asked us,thats all i ask

what and leave it at that

ok, i answered.

what you chris ?

Why are you reluctant to answe your own question as candidly as we have? Is it because you dont want to admit Butler was wrong or some other reason? you are coming over as someone who has already decided the culpability of Bennet and someone from camp Debbie..
And can you clarify that part pls?