An e-mail from bennett.

A lot of people were CC'd in on this, including myself.
Dear all,

Recently on some forums and blogs the suggestion has been made that the text of a Home Office letter, published by me, which showed that they blundered by wrongly referring The Madeleine Foundation's letter and accompanying documents to Home Secretary Alan Johnson, to the Foreign Office, was a forgery by me.

I have said on past occasions where the authenticity of a document I have typed up and placed on the internet has been challenged - that I don't have a scanner.On this occasion a colleague in The Madeleine Foundation who does have a scanner has created the document in a pdf. format. It is now attached for the record.

One thing neither myself nor The Madeleine Foundation do is to forge or manipulate documents.

Neither do we do that with e-mails. Or anything else.

Nor do we mislead people by using false or proxy e-mail adddress or false names (though some of us may adopt usernames on some forums from time to time).

Neither - and this is important - do we tell lies. Yes, we may ocasionally make mistakes, and if these are pointed out, we will correct them quickly as our past record shows. I have in the past challenged some of those who have claimed that we or I have lied. No such example has ever been produced - only examples of occasional mistakes.

Neither, for the record, have I made any money at all from any of the campaigning groups I have ever been involved with, contrary to the wholly false claims made by Susan Menez and some of her fellow-posters on her 'Missing Madeleine' forum.

Neither have I nor has anyone else in The Madeleine Foundation' made one penny from all our work in The Madeleine Foundation; indeed two of us have currently made a loss since we have had to pay ourselves to fund the printing costs of our latest book which is bringing the contents of some of the most important statements made to the Portuguese Police to a wider audience.

Nor is there any truth whatsoever of claims made by Debbie Butler or Steve Marsden of any fraud by me or otherwise within The Madeleine Foundation.

I would ask all of you who receive this e-mail not to accuse us of forging documents, e-mails or telling lies, making money from The Madeleine Foundation, or in my case making money from other organisations, unless you are really sure that you are correct. To do otherwise is to commit libel.

I also take this opportunity to totally reject repeated claims made on the internet against me that I have ever been 'ambulance-chasing'.

Referring to Terry Lubbock for a moment, he asked me to help him, he asked me to investigate claims of Essex Police misconduct, he asked me to complain (successfully) to the IPCC about that misconduct, he asked me to produce a dossier to Essex Police asking them to re-invesigate his son's death (which they did), he asked me to write a book on the case. True, he didn't ask me to get him £6,800 compensation from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority, that was a bonus based on my knowledge of the CICA scheme. I didn't charge him a penny for helping him with that, nor did I charge Terry Lubbock a penny for the rest of ther work I did for him. Just for the record, The Lubbock Trust (not Terry personally) did pay me a modest fee for writing the book.

As for the other people I help from time time, they come to me for help and advice, I do not seek them out. You can ask any of them.

This e-mail is not confidential and I do not object to its being published.

Tony Bennett

So I hit the 'reply all' button, and sent this reply to everyone he sent his to.



An interesting assertion bennett, that you never tell lies. Let's look a little closer, shall we?

http://nigelnessling.wordpress.com/twisting-the-knife-part-three/


Back to butler’s claim of fraud, and bennett responded, categorically denied any such fraud took place, and went further, saying he had spoken to the very policeman butler originally placed her complaint to. The MM members were told that, in the opinion of this policeman, butler was just gibbering, making no sense, and that it took him less than twenty minutes to realise it was all a hoax.
LIAR.
Within days the police, in a press article, CONFIRMED they were carrying out an investigation, and in the same press article refuted that any police officer had made any comment bennett had attributed to them.

Let’s start with his booklet, the so called 60 reasons why she was not abducted. I need not go into detail here for all of the reasons themselves, the book, 'The Madeleine Investigation: Incompetence or corruption?'

http://www.authorhouse.co.uk/Bookstore/ItemDetail.aspx?bookid=60049 takes a great many of them and comprehensively refutes them.

But there are some less obvious ones, some that may otherwise slip under the radar. Take the publishers for instance. Bennett claims it was published by a group called Parent’s Aid.
LIAR.
When contacted, Parent’s Aid were, in fact, horrified to learn that their name had been attached to bennett’s work, and felt so moved by his actions they now have this disclaimer prominently displayed on their homepage.

http://www.parents-aid.org.uk/

Disclaimer:
“To whom it may concern: there is absolutely no connection between this registered charity, Parents’ Aid Southern Essex, and the organisation calling itself the “Madeleine Foundation” or any associated publication.
We understand that our name may have been attached to its literature without our permission.”
- The Management Committee and Trustees of Parents’ Aid.
Parents’ Aid 1995 – 2009

He claims to be a champion of free speech.

LIAR.

Every forum he joins he sees to it that the admin ban any McCann supporters, or ‘disruptive influences’ as
he calls them, because he knows full well that he cannot hold a fair and balanced conversation with them, or answer any difficult questions put forward by them. Another act of cowardice.

He claims that the vast majority of the British public doubt the McCann’s version of events.

LIAR.

How can any sane, rational and sensible person possibly substantiate such a ludicrous comment? Does bennett actually KNOW the vast majority of the British public?

I myself have been on the receiving end of his lies and slurs. He claims I am the author of a blog, writing under the name of ‘Muratfan.

LIAR.

I am not Muratfan, and I have no idea who he is, a simple check of computer IP’s will confirm this.

He has claimed that I have sent out malicious e-mails, containing comments about how he spent time in a mental institution, and was charged with a public order offence in a public toilet.

LIAR.

I have sent no such e-mails. Any rumours about the mental institution or toilet incident were doing the rounds on the British Democracy Forum long before I became aware of them. bennett was asked on that forum, many times, to refute these claims. He never once responded. I admit to repeating them, once, on an obscure blog that had fewer than a dozen readers, and the blog itself disapeared a few days later. By his own words, if the McCann’s never took the trouble to refute his own claims against them then they must be true. Therefore what’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, and if he too failed to take the trouble to refute these stories about him then he cannot complain if they are accepted as true. I did not start them, and I have no idea who did, but I repeat, I have not e-mailed these stories to anyone.

He claims that he has filed a complaint against me for harassment, that Essex police are currently investigating me, and are close to pressing charges against me.

LIAR.

I have personally spoken to Harlow police, at my OWN instigation, several times, and at great length, and I have been assured that I am not being investigated at all. Further, no officer from the Essex police has ever called me, written to me or asked to examine my computer for any evidence. My computer is four years old, and I understand it is impossible to totally eradicate the history of where I have been, what I have written or who I have e-mailed. If I had done any of these things the police would have taken my computer in for examination. In fact in my entire life I have NEVER been investigated by any police force anywhere in the country, and that includes the disgusting and despicable claim by a poster known as drachensachen that I have been investigated by my own force for causing or hounding an innocent man to commit suicide. I have also never, in my entire life, been arrested, for anything, or charged with anything other than a couple of speeding tickets. Unlike bennett, however, who HAS been arrested at least once, during his ‘Metric Martyr’ fad. It was during this arrest that another example of bennett’s cowardice was displayed, when he cravenly gave the police a false name. These false allegations made by bennett against me are themselves libellous, and I have taken legal advice from a solicitor, who has confirmed I have an excellent case. The only reason I am not so far taking legal action is because I know the McCann’s will soon be taking action against bennett themselves, and I feel strongly that they are far more deserving of what little money bennett has, and I would not like to water down any compensation awarded to them.
Furthermore, in my entire life, I have never, once, been sacked for bringing my profession into disrepute, regardless of whatever my job was at the time.


I am still wating to be questioned by the police, Essex, Suffolk or otherwise. You know as well as I do that no file on me has been sent to the CPS, so why lie about it?

Basically bennett your self righteous claims of innocence ring hollow. You are an habitual, compulsive and proven liar, and have been caught out many times. You claim you do not decieve, but your entire Madeleine Foundation is built on a 'foundation' of deception, distortion, misleading statements, fabrication, cherry-picked items and out and out lies. You are, as many people have said, a con-man, a flim-flam artist, an ambulance chaser. Please do me a great favour, and do NOT send me any more of your fatuous self righteous claptrap by e-mail, as I am not interested in any more of your lies.

It makes me want to puke. It also reminds me (yet again) of an individual who injected herself into the JonBenet Ramsey case and who make a packet of money from selling information which she had gleaned. When she was criticised for this, she tried to justify it on the grounds that she had been "out of pocket" blah blah. No-one has forced these goons to stick their noses into other people's business! It's just so wrong for anyone to cash in on another's tragedy.

I fail to see why anyone would be objecting to a full review of Madeleine's case. The anti-Madeleine's profess to want the case re-opened, and now that it is being reviewed, which will most likely lead to further investigation, they are complaining.

Surely they couldnt mean they only want it re-opened if the PJ are the only ones to work on it. That would be extremely bizarre. If seeking the truth, then it shouldnt matter who is working on it, as long as they are seeking the truth. The British are far more experienced in child abduction cases and criminal investigative techniques in general than the PJ, so how could anyone object to that expertise being used to try to reach a conclusion.

Could it be that some people care more about the reputation of the PJ and certain disgraced coppers, than about finding a missing child? Certainly with the British conducting the review, the truth is more likely to come out and not suffer leaks, smears and what amounts to censorship (secrecy laws) as happened in Portugal.

For Dianeh.


Now let's see just how much 'justice' they really want for a missing child, and let's see how much 'truth' they really want out!

The antis have already started their attack on Jim Gamble - so I guess they want only the incompetent PJ to re-open the investigation. I for one will be glad to have the investigation re-opened and hopefully it will lead to a conclusion. I hope all police forces will take note from the learnings of this investigation (when it is reopened).

Calcite

I truly cannot understand why any Brit would not want the British police to review this investigation.

It beggars belief that anyone would want the PJ to investigate when they have quite clealy failed to resolve the case in the first place, and then failed to follow up further leads passed to them since the closure of the case. It needs a fresh set of eyes, and most importantly structured, proven procedures.

What are the anti's afraid of? That Madeleine might be found and the PJ shown up as incompetent. But of course they are so certain that Madeleine is dead and her parents covered it up, that they should have no concerns whatsoever that Madeleine would be found. That is of course, unless they have doubts about the 'died in the apartment scenario', ie that it will be proven to be a crock of s### by a competent police force.

Because their world's would fall apart when the disgraceful more detailed f@ckups come to light...

They have been attacking Gamble and CEOP forever, since even bfore it became clear they were working with the McCanns. Bennett himself , if I remember correctly, wrote an entire screed decrying the "illegal" methods used by organizations like CEOP to ensnare pedophiles.

And he's also having a 'go' at Kennedy (and M3) again in one of his articles.
Is he jealous of the success of that man?
Is that what's often driving him, jealousy? Is that why he's jumping on high profile cases.

Jealousy..inadequacy......unfulfilled..and thats just 3 reasons.......I'm sure there's more.......

Catkins wrote:Jealousy..inadequacy......unfulkfilled..and thats just 3 reasons.......I'm sure there's more.......

Whenever I see bennett the word impotent always springs to mind it sums his whole career up!!

Mulleena wrote:

Catkins wrote:Jealousy..inadequacy......unfulkfilled..and thats just 3 reasons.......I'm sure there's more.......

Whenever I see bennett the word impotent always springs to mind it sums his whole career up!!

I think it springs up more than that... well, fails to spring, at least.

bluj1515 wrote:

Mulleena wrote:

Catkins wrote:Jealousy..inadequacy......unfulkfilled..and thats just 3 reasons.......I'm sure there's more.......

Whenever I see bennett the word impotent always springs to mind it sums his whole career up!!

I think it springs up more than that... well, fails to spring, at least.

Mmmm have you noticed how Bennett's excuses are often "limp"?

Bump, just in case bennett still reads here.