And you'd know all about Conning people Bennett!

From: ajsbennett@btinternet.com
Date: 29/08/2010 9:08
To:
Subj: Madeleine Foundation press statement re Selle Statement 29.8.2010

We are issuing herewith the attached press statement on the sensational admission by Johan Selle, Director of the Virginia-based company iJet, in the Mail on Sunday, that for a year the McCanns did not follow up a single call to their much-publicised investigation hot-line. The news has been accompanied by further disturbing revelations that the McCanns squandered half a million pounds of publicly-donated money on employing a con-man, Kevin Halligen, who spent donations from the British public to fund a jet-setting luxury lifestyle. The press statement is attached. Tony Bennett Secretary The Madeleine Foundation 01279 635789 Mobile 07835 716537

Old News...wanker...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1231757/Madeleine-McCann-investigator-didnt-listen-ANY-tip-offs-given-hotline--squandered-500-000.html

Kate and Gerry McCanns' spokesman Clarence Mitchell refused to be drawn on the details of Oakley's investigation, much of which, it is understood, the McCanns were unaware of. He said: 'The first phase of the contract was satisfactorily seen through, such as the setting up of the hotline. Towards the end of it there were question marks about delivery and the relationship was terminated.

'Given Mr Halligen is in custody it is inappropriate to comment further.'

Well done Mr. Mitchell. Also thank you Chicane for this link.

Halligen would appear to be a con man. This will be determined after he has fronted court.

Now generally on con men. They make money because they fool people, they con them out of their money. If it were easy to detect the con, then they would not make any money. It would appear the McCanns are victims of this con man, and when it was established that he was a con man, the contract was terminated.


Does Bennett have any idea how foolish he is to try to make the McCanns out to be complicit when they were clearly victims of a crime? Halligen by all accounts must be pretty good, he got a fair swag of money from that US law firm. I wonder if Bennett thinks they were also complicit in being ripped off. The man is a moron.

He's clutching at straws now Diane. Short ones at that.
Would this latest shower of crap he is now pushing to the gullible be in breach of his court order?
Never before have I come across such a undesirable pri ck as tb.

Exactly Di, it wouldn't be so bad if Bennett kept to the facts, I too think Halligen was a professional con man, but throwing in words like The McCanns "squandered millions" and The McCanns "failed to follow up a single call" is down right misleading. Its clear to the sane minded that not only was The McCanns badly let down so was poor Madeleine. Thats the truth Bennett.

The title of this topic fits you perfectly TB.

I wonder whether the McCanns could take court action against him and get some of the money back, surely they could?

dianeh wrote:Halligen would appear to be a con man. This will be determined after he has fronted court.

Now generally on con men. They make money because they fool people, they con them out of their money. If it were easy to detect the con, then they would not make any money. It would appear the McCanns are victims of this con man, and when it was established that he was a con man, the contract was terminated.


Does Bennett have any idea how foolish he is to try to make the McCanns out to be complicit when they were clearly victims of a crime? Halligen by all accounts must be pretty good, he got a fair swag of money from that US law firm. I wonder if Bennett thinks they were also complicit in being ripped off. The man is a moron.

Indeed he is.
He's got an attitude problem.
If he writes anything defamatory about somebody (usually he writes "articles" without proper investigation except for reading forums and tabloids) he thinks it's up to the person about whom he's writing to complain about it to him and to prove that what Bennett wrote isn't true. Which is wrong, he should be able to prove that what he wrote is true, it's not the other way around.
He's been insinuating that women who wear "provocative" clothing (what's that?) and get raped "asked for it". Thus he's blaming the victim in stead of the offender.

It's exactly what he's doing now. The McCanns got ripped by a con man, and he's blaming them - the victims - for it in stead of getting outrageous about what the con man did, about the time that's been lost because of him. The money he stole, money that should have been spend on finding Madeleine.