I guess with the benefit of hindsight and 12 years on it could be said the McCanns might have been better just to allow events to unfold and not to have sought the sort of publicity they did? Assuming they're not involved easier said than done. If they were involved I've no idea why they would embark on such a campaign?
If MM was abducted then the motive remains unclear. An abductor may have had every intention of releasing her but given the unprecedented publicity felt unable to do so.
I think its safe to say that any abductor could not have foreseen the worldwide publicity following MM's disappearance? Did this change what might otherwise have happened?
Control.
Something they have strived for from the beginning and were fairly successful at in the early years. IMO
But could it be one or both are control freaks in general?
Gamble certainly said Gerry was very cold and controlling.That was his first impression later revised was it not?
Gamble certainly said Gerry was very cold and controlling.
That was his first impression later revised was it not?
Gamble being the CEOP guy?One or two myths in there.
KM describes herself in her book as a "perfectionist"! She also states she didn't turn the bedroom light on straight away through force of habit to avoid waking the children "at all costs". This to my mind is a strange turn of phase. I mean how can children waking be such a big deal? Was/is she controlling not wanting to be interrupted and/or not wanting the children possibly somewhat out of sorts the following day if they didn't sleep well?
And all this suing people imo is extremely counter-productive. KM said it was done to keep the spotlight on the search for MM but this hasn't always been the case. I believe they sued Leic police for not living up to expectation? They also took some guy to court who was leaflet dropping in their village some material they didn't agree with.
Obviously I haven't met them but I don't like what I've seen. KM expecting (and getting) a private audience with the Pope and Father Paul Seddon having to fly out immediately. Once MM disappeared they could not get enough of the little church in PDL. Did they visit before to say thanks for the MW hol and 3 beautiful children? I don't believe so too busy with Kids club, tennis, tapas and jogging.
Did he ? Do you have a cite ?https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/8650613/madeleine-mccann-dad-gerry-supect-brit-cop-netflix/
One or two myths in there.
What ones ?Did the McCanns sue Leicester police? Did Kate exoect a private audience with the pope? Did she get one?
Did the McCanns sue Leicester police? Did Kate exoect a private audience with the pope? Did she get one?
Did the McCanns sue Leicester police? Did Kate exoect a private audience with the pope? Did she get one?
What other set of parents have behaved like this under similar or different circumstance? I don't believe any in the history of mankind. The McCanns are an aberration.The internet had only been around for a few years. IVF how long has that been used.
The internet had only been around for a few years. IVF how long has that been used.
And after all this how has the investigation into MM's disappearance and the 'Find Madeleine Campaign' actually advanced anything?
But lots of people have gone missing since eg Claudia Lawrence and her parents have just gone about searching in a dignified manner?You were making your study quite a broad one "I don't believe any in the history of mankind" that is a long period of time, and the internet and IVF have only been around a few years.
I don't understand your comment re IVF?
What other set of parents have behaved like this under similar or different circumstance? I don't believe any in the history of mankind. The McCanns are an aberration.Bit of a dramatic statement there! Exceptional circumstances demand exceptional responses. I don't lambast the McCanns for trying to keep the spotlight on their missing kid, even if it comes across as attention seeking and money grabbing, they had their reasons, who's to say what you would do in the circs.
But lots of people have gone missing since eg Claudia Lawrence and her parents have just gone about searching in a dignified manner?What is undignified about the way the McCanns have behaved? Has Claudia Lawrence's parents approach been more successful than the McCanns?
I don't understand your comment re IVF?
And after all this how has the investigation into MM's disappearance and the 'Find Madeleine Campaign' actually advanced anything?Well it hasn't achieved its aim, so therefore the simple answer is no - do you think that's for want of trying? Should they simply not have bothered at all in your view? What would you have done? Beavered away quietly with no fuss and with your dignity intact I suppose. And how would that have worked out for your missing kid?
You were making your study quite a broad one "I don't believe any in the history of mankind" that is a long period of time, and the internet and IVF have only been around a few years.
Bit of a dramatic statement there! Exceptional circumstances demand exceptional responses. I don't lambast the McCanns for trying to keep the spotlight on their missing kid, even if it comes across as attention seeking and money grabbing, they had their reasons, who's to say what you would do in the circs.
You were making your study quite a broad one "I don't believe any in the history of mankind" that is a long period of time, and the internet and IVF have only been around a few years.
Has another child gone missing that was conceived by IVF, had coloboma, and had two parents that were doctors, and one internet savy?
Ok Robittybob1 I'll concede the internet gave the McCanns a platform they and others would not have had in a bygone era. But the McCanns are unable to accept the internet isn't just for them and their views. Anyone who disagrees they insult and/or sue.
Still no idea what relevance IVF has to the 'Find Madeleine Campaign'?
What has IVF got to do with it?Lots of people make the point that a child conceived by IVF is a wanted child. It certainly isn't a "mistake" or a "surprise".
What is undignified about the way the McCanns have behaved? Has Claudia Lawrence's parents approach been more successful than the McCanns?
Lots of people make the point that a child conceived by IVF is a wanted child. It certainly isn't a "mistake" or a "surprise".
https://metro.co.uk/2019/07/02/mum-beat-baby-death-years-trying-conceive-ivf-10100946/Well what does that prove?
Lots of people make the point that a child conceived by IVF is a wanted child. It certainly isn't a "mistake" or a "surprise".
Well what does that prove?
Well it hasn't achieved its aim, so therefore the simple answer is no - do you think that's for want of trying? Should they simply not have bothered at all in your view? What would you have done? Beavered away quietly with no fuss and with your dignity intact I suppose. And how would that have worked out for your missing kid?
Well what does that prove?
I certainly wouldn't be seeking help from the religious community that's for sure. I did say as much in post 1Is that because you're not religious?
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=10881.msg544592#msg544592
Everything imo hence a lot of people lay and professional are turned off by them.IMO they have conducted themselves in a most dignified manner. They have not gone off the rails, become alcoholics, got divorced, they have raised their kids out of the spotlight, Gerry's career goes from strength to strength, they have the support of their friends and families, if people have a problem with them I think that says more about their critics than the McCanns themselves personally.
Obviously not, a fact they no doubt appreciated from the start.
In which case why take an IVF conceived child on hol only to spend every evening out eating and drinking and leave IVF conceived child 'home alone' in an unlocked hol apartment? Why even after IVF conceived child asks why no one came to comfort her when she was crying did the parents of IVF conceived child still continue eating and drinking and leaving IVF child 'home alone' in an unlocked hol apartment?Because they thought it was safe.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=10881.msg544692#msg544692As I said "Lots of people make the point that a child conceived by IVF is a wanted child." That is the perception of others not the parents.
The parents certainly planned to take court action against Leicestershire police.So, there you go then, all myths. The McCanns did not sue or even plan to sue the LP, Kate did not expect a private audience with the Pope and nor did she get one.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/mccanns-drop-court-action-as-police-release-files-861524.html
I have no idea what Kate expected but no she didn’t get a private audience with the pope.
Although on a personal level I have difficulty warming and relating to them I don't believe they were involved in MM's disappearance.What is your view on Kate faking the crime scene?
Because they thought it was safe.
How can it be safe, emotionally and psychologically, to allow a small child's cries to go unheard in an unfamiliar place?That is why they told her where they were dining so she could find them if she needed to.
IMO they have conducted themselves in a most dignified manner. They have not gone off the rails, become alcoholics, got divorced, they have raised their kids out of the spotlight, Gerry's career goes from strength to strength, they have the support of their friends and families, if people have a problem with them I think that says more about their critics than the McCanns themselves personally.
Friends and family are emotionally involved and so by definition are unable to remain objective.So does that mean you agree with Kate that Amaral's book was not good for Madeleine? For if they thought she was dead they wouldn't keep looking for her.
As Jim Gamble said the only side he's on is the side of MM. I agree and I doubt there's any right thinking person out there who disagrees.
That is why they told her where they were dining so she could find them if she needed to.
It is one thing to think they are not involved but what is your view on the theory Kate faked the crime scene?
So does that mean you agree with Kate that Amaral's book was not good for Madeleine? For if they thought she was dead they wouldn't keep looking for her.
That is why they told her where they were dining so she could find them if she needed to.
It is one thing to think they are not involved but what is your view on the theory Kate faked the crime scene?
I've seen no evidence that "they told her where they were dining". Even if they did, it's ridiculous to suggest that a child of that age should get up and leave 5A at night to find her parents.
I've seen no evidence that "they told her where they were dining". Even if they did, it's ridiculous to suggest that a child of that age should get up and leave 5A at night to find her parents.Well only Kate or Gerry could actually confirm that they told her.
Was anyone apart from M3 looking for her when Amaral's book was published?
Friends and family are emotionally involved and so by definition are unable to remain objective.You claimed the McCanns were undignified but I don’t see evidence of this. What do you mean by undignified? Ben Needham’s mum went off the rails after her son disappeared and had some unedifying moments in her life that could be described as undignified (not that I blame her at all), but what did thr McCanns ever do to deserve this criticism?
As Jim Gamble said the only side he's on is the side of MM. I agree and I doubt there's any right thinking person out there who disagrees.
I find this whole episode appalling. Parents make mistakes but they consciously decided to leave their children alone even when one had told them they had woken up alone and cried because of it. What kind of parent would do that ? How could they consciously put their own me-time before the needs and fears of their child ? Further if a child had woken up alone would they have simply settled the following night or kicked up an almighty stink ?And yet the only reason you know about this “appalling” episode is because the parents told you about it. Did they really want people to hate them even more d’you think?
I find this whole episode appalling. Parents make mistakes but they consciously decided to leave their children alone even when one had told them they had woken up alone and cried because of it. What kind of parent would do that ? How could they consciously put their own me-time before the needs and fears of their child ? Further if a child had woken up alone would they have simply settled the following night or kicked up an almighty stink ?
So does that mean you agree with Kate that Amaral's book was not good for Madeleine? For if they thought she was dead they wouldn't keep looking for her.
I don't think its a good idea to try and silence your critics best just let it runs it course. Any individual or organisation that engages in a public campaign, whatever the cause, will have its critics.OK you might be right, but "tweeddle dee and tweedle dum" were references to the first two GNR officers that turned up. GNR not PJ.
KM refers to PJ early on in her book as tweeddle dee and tweedle dum and no doubt PJ picked up on any thinly veiled arrogance.
And yet the only reason you know about this “appalling” episode is because the parents told you about it. Did they really want people to hate them even more d’you think?
I will admit when my kids were younger my partner and I, both being vets, would on nights when an emergency case came to the clinic, we'd both go over there and leave the 3 young kids on there own. (House and clinic were 50 meters apart). So I don't find what the McCanns did that unusual TBH.
Well only Kate or Gerry could actually confirm that they told her.
I think it is a fair interpretation of what Fiona is being asked about. It wasn't the first night the patio door was left unlocked.
"Even if they did, it's ridiculous to suggest that a child of that age should get up and leave 5A at night to find her parents."
Its only 85 meters away.
You claimed the McCanns were undignified but I don’t see evidence of this. What do you mean by undignified? Ben Needham’s mum went off the rails after her son disappeared and had some unedifying moments in her life that could be described as undignified (not that I blame her at all), but what did thr McCanns ever do to deserve this criticism?
Did they ever tell you that they were upset by you leaving them ?I'm talking 40 odd years ago. I can't remember that specifically, but the kids did have a tendency to very independent in the end.
You're making an assumption, not stating a fact. I have no idea if the conversation at the table took place or not. I know it wasn't mentioned by anyone until a year after the event.
You have very strange ideas about what is appropriate for a three year old child to be doing in my opinion; especially on a cold night in it's pyjamas.
OK you might be right, but "tweeddle dee and tweedle dum" were references to the first two GNR officers that turned up. GNR not PJ.
Ok GNR then. Have you no patience I'm a newbie! 8(8-))Just be grateful someone corrects you. G-unit corrects me. I like it TBH.
Just be grateful someone corrects you. G-unit corrects me. I like it TBH.
Ok just so long as it doesn't involve you administering any corporal punishment. I'm mindful of your tagline 8)><(Hopefully that never applies to you. [I should remove that tag line. I've turned off seeing signatures. They annoy me.]
Well without wishing to sound rude we do tend to see what we want to see and hear what we want to hear.It made sure Madeleine became the most famous missing child there has ever been which may have led to her discovery or to more people coming forward with vital information. How much publicity is too much in your view? Did the McCanns force people in the public eye to support them?
The whole thing of getting footballers to make appeals and a meeting with the Pope courtesy of the unacceptable face of capitalism's private jet etc, etc. How could any of this assist?
I'm talking 40 odd years ago. I can't remember that specifically, but the kids did have a tendency to very independent in the end.
Well Kate might have thought it better that Madeleine knows where they are, and is told how to get there. Rather than crying for hours in the apartment disturbing the other tenants.
It made sure Madeleine became the most famous missing child there has ever been which may have led to her discovery or to more people coming forward with vital information. How much publicity is too much in your view? Did the McCanns force people in the public eye to support them?
But there's almost always two sides to everything and in this case the unprecedented worldwide publicity might have scared off an abductor who might otherwise have released MM.
The campaign also imo led to a scattergun approach with an ocean of red herrings rather than something fine tuned and focused.
I'm talking 40 odd years ago. I can't remember that specifically, but the kids did have a tendency to very independent in the end.
Well Kate might have thought it better that Madeleine knows where they are, and is told how to get there. Rather than crying for hours in the apartment disturbing the other tenants.
Or perhaps the should have just stayed in and looked after their children like 99% of parents do ?But if they had just think of all those years of free entertainment you’d have been denied.
But if they had just think of all those years of free entertainment you’d have been denied.
I’d rather Madeleine was safe and well and living the normal life of a teenager.That still could happen if the Find Madeleine Campaign works in the end
But if they had just think of all those years of free entertainment you’d have been denied.
That still could happen if the Find Madeleine Campaign works in the endI'm afraid that is a forlorn hope. Or were you being facetious? You have such a quirky posting style, I can't tell.
I'm afraid that is a forlorn hope. Or were you being facetious? You have such a quirky posting style, I can't tell.That is my belief, that we will find her. It is a faith based belief. I find it odd that Kate maintains the same faith based belief too.
sayeth he who only comes here for the craic...So when do you believe the secret of the unlocked apartment was first revealed to a dismayed, hitherto supportive public?
They turned it into a business- they were marketing their daughter ! They would never have had that kind of support had it been known a door was left unlocked so that their babysitter (3 year old MBM) could go fetch them if the twins woke up again? Who then wandered out and met with a horrible situation death or abduction/both even.
Hence the she is alive and abductor grabbed her from her bed. More dramatic.
Oh and don't forget how they constantly told us she came to no harm. yeah Hmm
That was his first impression later revised was it not?
You only get one chance at a first impression.Thanks for stating the obvious, but was it really necessary?
You only get one chance at a first impression.Sounds like a shampoo advert.
Thanks for stating the obvious, but was it really necessary?
My pleasure,sometimes it need reinforcing.Why?
That is my belief, that we will find her. It is a faith based belief. I find it odd that Kate maintains the same faith based belief too.
It isn't going to be easy but that is what I'm preparing for. How to recognise this former Madeleine McCann who is now living as someone else.
KM was talking about Madeleine in the past tense from a very early point.Do you have any examples?
KM was talking about Madeleine in the past tense from a very early point.OK I'll keep my ear open for references with future tense. Well I'm looking forward to the time she is reunited with her parents.
I don't know how the McCann's could have done anything any differently. They were given a lot of money to find Madeleine, people wanted to help, unlike the Ben Needham case Madeleine's case went worldwide with the internet etc. They could hardly have put the money into their own account, and being focused on one child the fund couldn't be a charity for other children. It wasn't just the McCann's who decided on the Madeleine fund they had a lot of help with it.
As for meeting the Pope etc. the Pope was interested in the case, I believe it was Clarence Mitchell who organised the visit to see the Pope, were they supposed to turn it down? They were offered a private jet to get there which made it a lot quicker and less time away from the twins. Everything was organised for them, it wasn't the McCann's who asked for anything. Keeping Madeleine in the news was their goal, which is the goal for all parents of missing children. Ben Needham's Mum said in her book she would have done exactly what the McCann's did, if she had been in the position they were. Sadly for Bens mum, there wasn't the internet when Ben disappeared.
They were warned that it would come a time when it would be all about them and not Madeleine, and sure enough that is what happened, I don't think they would have done anything differently though it kept people aware of Madeleine so that if they went on holiday they could look out for her, or people could be living near to where Madeleine was and report it etc. IMO
I don't know how the McCann's could have done anything any differently. They were given a lot of money to find Madeleine, people wanted to help, unlike the Ben Needham case Madeleine's case went worldwide with the internet etc. They could hardly have put the money into their own account, and being focused on one child the fund couldn't be a charity for other children. It wasn't just the McCann's who decided on the Madeleine fund they had a lot of help with it.
As for meeting the Pope etc. the Pope was interested in the case, I believe it was Clarence Mitchell who organised the visit to see the Pope, were they supposed to turn it down? They were offered a private jet to get there which made it a lot quicker and less time away from the twins. Everything was organised for them, it wasn't the McCann's who asked for anything. Keeping Madeleine in the news was their goal, which is the goal for all parents of missing children. Ben Needham's Mum said in her book she would have done exactly what the McCann's did, if she had been in the position they were. Sadly for Bens mum, there wasn't the internet when Ben disappeared.
They were warned that it would come a time when it would be all about them and not Madeleine, and sure enough that is what happened, I don't think they would have done anything differently though it kept people aware of Madeleine so that if they went on holiday they could look out for her, or people could be living near to where Madeleine was and report it etc. IMO
But one thing is for sure if the case involves an abductor (I think it does) he/she/they could not have envisaged the 'Find Madeleine Campaign' and worldwide media coverage meaning they may have had every intention of releasing MM at some stage but felt unable to do so following all the publicity.
Also if someone abducted MM to raise as their own the abductor(s) may have thought a 'normal' life was possible but again given the publicity he/she/they might have felt the only option was to keep MM hidden.
Kate made an appeal to the abductor/s to let Madeleine go home. To leave her in a safe place. That wasn't done, I don't think anything was stopping the abductor/s from leaving Madeleine some where, though she had seen their faces and could give a description of them.So stolen to order, by the best abduction team going, transported successfully to her new home, then when the brown hits the fan she's relocated to a country where blonde females are ubiquitous and given a name to suit?This abduction was very specific. Magda McMagnusson does have a certain ring though, I have to say.
I doubt if a couple [wanting a child] would imagine they would be able to live as a normal family at the start. They would have known that they would have to keep Madeleine hidden from sight for a while. Could be they went to a country where Madeleine's disappearance isn't so well known, changed her looks and name. IMO
So stolen to order, by the best abduction team going, transported successfully to her new home, then when the brown hits the fan she's relocated to a country where blonde females are ubiquitous and given a name to suit?This abduction was very specific. Magda McMagnusson does have a certain ring though, I have to say.
Kate made an appeal to the abductor/s to let Madeleine go home. To leave her in a safe place. That wasn't done, I don't think anything was stopping the abductor/s from leaving Madeleine some where, though she had seen their faces and could give a description of them.
I doubt if a couple [wanting a child] would imagine they would be able to live as a normal family at the start. They would have known that they would have to keep Madeleine hidden from sight for a while. Could be they went to a country where Madeleine's disappearance isn't so well known, changed her looks and name. IMO
Did the FMC before OG's inception pass any info it had to the PJ?I'd love to know how they would handle all those calls that came in.
But how would they move MM out of the country without official docs: passport, birth cert?
But how would they move MM out of the country without official docs: passport, birth cert?If she was a replacement child as per my theory the parents already have legitimate documents for a daughter.
I'd love to know how they would handle all those calls that came in.
Many of the EU countries have no border control, so crossing to another country would not be a problem.
Documents can be easily forged
By road/rail? Would air and sea ports present a problem?
Suppose it depends on where & when. Indirect flight to, say, South Africa could be made from Germany or Italy after forged paperwork had been obtained.
Obviously no problem for team of such master criminals
Alternatively sail on a private yacht somewhere in the Med and land illicitly.
I don't know how the McCann's could have done anything any differently. They were given a lot of money to find Madeleine, people wanted to help, unlike the Ben Needham case Madeleine's case went worldwide with the internet etc. They could hardly have put the money into their own account, and being focused on one child the fund couldn't be a charity for other children. It wasn't just the McCann's who decided on the Madeleine fund they had a lot of help with it.
As for meeting the Pope etc. the Pope was interested in the case, I believe it was Clarence Mitchell who organised the visit to see the Pope, were they supposed to turn it down? They were offered a private jet to get there which made it a lot quicker and less time away from the twins. Everything was organised for them, it wasn't the McCann's who asked for anything. Keeping Madeleine in the news was their goal, which is the goal for all parents of missing children. Ben Needham's Mum said in her book she would have done exactly what the McCann's did, if she had been in the position they were. Sadly for Bens mum, there wasn't the internet when Ben disappeared.
They were warned that it would come a time when it would be all about them and not Madeleine, and sure enough that is what happened, I don't think they would have done anything differently though it kept people aware of Madeleine so that if they went on holiday they could look out for her, or people could be living near to where Madeleine was and report it etc. IMO
It does show how successful the propaganda campaign has been in some quarters.
The Charity Commission said that they would work with the parents to help them achieve charity status. Even if the extra 25% gained through being able to gift aid donations went to a wider cause there would still have been enough to run their campaign to find there daughter....in fact with so many police forces involved why did the parents even need to fund a search ? There would have been greater scrutiny of how the money was spent though and that’s something the parents wouldn’t countenance.
And no they didn’t need to meet the pope. How confusing must it have been for the twins to not only have their sister disappear on them but also their mum and dad ? Yet again the parents put their own needs before their children’s sense of security. And what has the internet got to do with it ? Would it have made SY throw money at Benn’s case in the same way as Madeleine’s ? Benn’s mum ploughed all she had into keeping her son’s name out there. I wonder how much of their own money the McCanns have used for their daughter.
As to keeping Madeleine’s case out there, when was the last time we heard a word from them ? When was the last time they updated their webpage? Their free Facebook page is now simply a collection of mawkish Hallmark quotes and not much else ( whatever did happen to the webmaster updating the OFM webpage with people’s efforts to help in the search ? )....one thing we agree on though, it was never about Madeleine...it was always about them.
I've edited a post and deleted others on the basis they were personal/goading.
Please try and accept we all see the case differently but there's no need for goading etc. Thanks.
Agreeing with a post is NOT goading Please reinstate
I decide what is and what is not goading.
It does show how successful the propaganda campaign has been in some quarters.
The Charity Commission said that they would work with the parents to help them achieve charity status. Even if the extra 25% gained through being able to gift aid donations went to a wider cause there would still have been enough to run their campaign to find there daughter....in fact with so many police forces involved why did the parents even need to fund a search ? There would have been greater scrutiny of how the money was spent though and that’s something the parents wouldn’t countenance.
And no they didn’t need to meet the pope. How confusing must it have been for the twins to not only have their sister disappear on them but also their mum and dad ? Yet again the parents put their own needs before their children’s sense of security. And what has the internet got to do with it ? Would it have made SY throw money at Benn’s case in the same way as Madeleine’s ? Benn’s mum ploughed all she had into keeping her son’s name out there. I wonder how much of their own money the McCanns have used for their daughter.
As to keeping Madeleine’s case out there, when was the last time we heard a word from them ? When was the last time they updated their webpage? Their free Facebook page is now simply a collection of mawkish Hallmark quotes and not much else ( whatever did happen to the webmaster updating the OFM webpage with people’s efforts to help in the search ? )....one thing we agree on though, it was never about Madeleine...it was always about them.
Perhaps your concept of goading is wrong
The McCann's said they couldn't run Madeleine's fund as a charity, it wasn't just the McCann's involved they had lawyers too, so it doesn't look as though it was possible does it. If you have a problem with how the money was spent then contact the fund.
So you don't think the McCann's should have had a campaign to find their daughter and keep her in the public eye? So parents of the missing shouldn't put posters up with the face of their child on them, because the Police are searching for their child. How can the Police apart from contacting the Police in other countries, get the child's face known to the public of other countries?
The Portuguese shelved the case anyway so there wasn't a Police force searching for Madeleine they had to employ private detectives.
The twins were being entertained by family members, remember they went to the creche by themselves, neither Madeleine or their parents were there then. Would it have been better for the twins to have stayed around their parents crying hysterically all the time? The Pope was close to God in the McCann's eyes they wanted him to bless Madeleine. Also it advertised the fact that Madeleine was missing to those in Rome and anyone else who saw it on the tv.
There you go, Ben Needham's Mum wanted Bens name out there, that is what the McCann's wanted too, yet you put Ben's Mum on a pedestal, that is so cruel. Ben's mum said in her book [have you read it?] she would have done EXACTLY the same as the McCann's if she had been in their position.
Now you are asking why they are NOT keeping Madeleine's name out there, how strange. I can only presume they have been told to keep quiet at the moment. Yes it is about them, something they never wanted.
It does show how successful the propaganda campaign has been in some quarters.
The Charity Commission said that they would work with the parents to help them achieve charity status. Even if the extra 25% gained through being able to gift aid donations went to a wider cause there would still have been enough to run their campaign to find there daughter....in fact with so many police forces involved why did the parents even need to fund a search ? There would have been greater scrutiny of how the money was spent though and that’s something the parents wouldn’t countenance.
And no they didn’t need to meet the pope. How confusing must it have been for the twins to not only have their sister disappear on them but also their mum and dad ? Yet again the parents put their own needs before their children’s sense of security. And what has the internet got to do with it ? Would it have made SY throw money at Benn’s case in the same way as Madeleine’s ? Benn’s mum ploughed all she had into keeping her son’s name out there. I wonder how much of their own money the McCanns have used for their daughter.
As to keeping Madeleine’s case out there, when was the last time we heard a word from them ? When was the last time they updated their webpage? Their free Facebook page is now simply a collection of mawkish Hallmark quotes and not much else ( whatever did happen to the webmaster updating the OFM webpage with people’s efforts to help in the search ? )....one thing we agree on though, it was never about Madeleine...it was always about them.
Why do you feel the "propaganda campaign" has been successful " in some quarters" but not in others?
Who were the "many police forces involved" when the fund began?
Was there a time when no police force was actively involved in the investigation of Madeleine's disappearance?
The McCann's said they couldn't run Madeleine's fund as a charity, it wasn't just the McCann's involved they had lawyers too, so it doesn't look as though it was possible does it. If you have a problem with how the money was spent then contact the fund.
So you don't think the McCann's should have had a campaign to find their daughter and keep her in the public eye? So parents of the missing shouldn't put posters up with the face of their child on them, because the Police are searching for their child. How can the Police apart from contacting the Police in other countries, get the child's face known to the public of other countries?
The Portuguese shelved the case anyway so there wasn't a Police force searching for Madeleine they had to employ private detectives.
The twins were being entertained by family members, remember they went to the creche by themselves, neither Madeleine or their parents were there then. Would it have been better for the twins to have stayed around their parents crying hysterically all the time? The Pope was close to God in the McCann's eyes they wanted him to bless Madeleine. Also it advertised the fact that Madeleine was missing to those in Rome and anyone else who saw it on the tv.
There you go, Ben Needham's Mum wanted Bens name out there, that is what the McCann's wanted too, yet you put Ben's Mum on a pedestal, that is so cruel. Ben's mum said in her book [have you read it?] she would have done EXACTLY the same as the McCann's if she had been in their position.
Now you are asking why they are NOT keeping Madeleine's name out there, how strange. I can only presume they have been told to keep quiet at the moment. Yes it is about them, something they never wanted.
Off the top of my head, I think there were
Leicester
Metropolitan
CEOP
Portuguese
Its always easy for those who have never been in such a horrendous situation to critiize the actions of those who have had to exercise decisions and judgements in said situation.
Which of those were still investigating Madeleine's disappearance when her parents paid for the Private Investigators?
Are you suggesting we shouldn't?
If you feel you can place yourself in the situation of having a missing child and can say exactly what you would do and know that your choices, decisions and judgements would be much wiser and more productive than the choices, decisions and judgements of Madeleine's parents, then of course you should.
That's not how it works. People criticize because they can. They don't need to justify that criticisim
Some people.
If you feel you can place yourself in the situation of having a missing child and can say exactly what you would do and know that your choices, decisions and judgements would be much wiser and more productive than the choices, decisions and judgements of Madeleine's parents, then of course you should.
When I place myself in the position of having my child abducted I think the first thing I'd do is actually pick up the phone & call the police.So if your child disappeared from their bedroom the very first thing you would do before making any attempt to find them is call the police?
Maybe that's just me.
Enough to annoy you -IMO
When I place myself in the position of having my child abducted I think the first thing I'd do is actually pick up the phone & call the police.
Maybe that's just me.
When I place myself in the position of having my child abducted I think the first thing I'd do is actually pick up the phone & call the police.
Maybe that's just me.
So if your child disappeared from their bedroom the very first thing you would do before making any attempt to find them is call the police?
Kate has stated that she knew immediately Maddie was abducted.Yeah, she didn’t even bother to tell anyone her kid had disappeared, just sauntered back to the table and said nothing. Now it hasn’t escaped my notice that you failed to answer my question...
Yet, she never bothered to pick up the phone & call the police.
Those are the facts, don't blame me.
Yeah, she didn’t even bother to tell anyone her kid had disappeared, just sauntered back to the table and said nothing. Now it hasn’t escaped my notice that you failed to answer my question...
Yes, she ran back to the table, leaving her remaining children in a room open to the elements, before announcing that 'they' had taken her, it was after that that she didn't bother to call the police.
Am I obliged to respond to your BS?
Yes, she ran back to the table, leaving her remaining children in a room open to the elements, before announcing that 'they' had taken her, it was after that that she didn't bother to call the police. ... snip ...I could image 7 other adults advising Kate not to call the police as they thought she had wandered off and should be easily found once they started looking as a team.
I could image 7 other adults advising Kate not to call the police as they thought she had wandered off and should be easily found once they started looking as a team.I couldn't.
I could image 7 other adults advising Kate not to call the police as they thought she had wandered off and should be easily found once they started looking as a team.
You can imagine what you like.Seems to be quite the chain of poor decisions, pre and post.
Kate was certain from the off that this was an abduction. The open window was proof.
She knew better than her friends, none of whom saw the open window.
She should have called the police. Those are the facts.
I couldn't.Why not? Only hysterical Kate is thinking in terms of abduction. Why can't you imagine the others to wait a while?
Yes, she ran back to the table, leaving her remaining children in a room open to the elements, before announcing that 'they' had taken her, it was after that that she didn't bother to call the police.What BS? I asked you a question that clearly you find so difficult to answer you had to deflect. Never mind, I really wasn’t expecting a straight answer from you.
Am I obliged to respond to your BS?
Seems to be quite the chain of poor decisions, pre and post.One of our members sounds like they rang the police but were told to search for half an hour before ringing back. OK the full story wasn't told to us.
Why not? Only hysterical Kate is thinking in terms of abduction. Why can't you imagine the others to wait a while?Some people are just determined to be cussed and unreasonable.
Why not? Only hysterical Kate is thinking in terms of abduction. Why can't you imagine the others to wait a while?I don't care how inebriated and / or distraught, you run around screaming like a lunatic, looking everywhere, but come on, you ring the police. Particularly if you don't think she's just wandered off, but has been abducted! That's a crime, isn't it, abduction of a minor, a crime?
What BS? I asked you a question that clearly you find so difficult to answer you had to deflect. Never mind, I really wasn’t expecting a straight answer from you.
I don't care how inebriated and / or distraught, you run around screaming like a lunatic, looking everywhere, but come on, you ring the police. Particularly if you don't think she's just wandered off, but has been abducted! That's a crime, isn't it, abduction of a minor, a crime?
These educated doctors suffered an attack of stupidity post abduction. How extraordinary.'Uhh, what should we do guys? I mean, how long does it take for Sangria to go warm?'.
These educated doctors suffered an attack of stupidity post abduction. How extraordinary.No according to Engarth they did it as per the book. If a child goes missing you look for it in the vicinity for about 30 minutes before calling the police. That is to give the abductors plenty of time to get away.
No according to Engarth they did it as per the book. If a child goes missing you look for it in the vicinity for about 30 minutes before calling the police. That is to give the abductors plenty of time to get away.
There is no book!Well there is at least a web page on what to do if your child goes missing.
Why be so flippant?
I ran about like a headless chicken, running one way and then the other for five minutes.
I phoned the police and a very nice policeman calmed me down and advised me to get.some.neighbours and do a quick search but to phone back in twenty minutes.
I even phoned my.father who lived twelve mikes away.
I don't know what I expected him to do at that moment.
Unless you've experienced the panic, you have no idea of what your reactions.would be.
Mine were possibly all wrong.
Well there is at least a web page on what to do if your child goes missing.
What I was wanting to clear up, was who was right? Did your child get found or did you need to call the police back after 20 minutes?
This website has ring the police first, then look. https://www.safewise.com/blog/what-to-do-when-your-child-goes-missing/ so I might be wrong about looking first then ring.
Kate knew immediately that Maddie was abducted. The open window was proof. If I found myself in that same situation I would call the police immediately, not run around the car park wishing I'd dressed the child in different pyjamas.Kate may very well have believed immediately that Madeleine had been abducted but would no doubt have hoped against hope that she was mistaken and that Madeleine was just wandering about waiting to be found. What relevance do you see in this apparent failure of hers not to phone the police within seconds? The Payne family didn’t call the police for well over an hour, do you take the piss out of them too?
Kate may very well have believed immediately that Madeleine had been abducted but would no doubt have hoped against hope that she was mistaken and that Madeleine was just wandering about waiting to be found. What relevance do you see in this apparent failure of hers not to phone the police within seconds? The Payne family didn’t call the police for well over an hour, do you take the piss out of them too?
There was no mistaking, by Kate & Gerry's own admission.So what?
I'm not taking the piss, I'm just sticking to the facts.
I've no interest in the actions of the Payne family because I'm certain they didn't do it.
PS....not only did the McCanns not phone the police in seconds....they didn't actually phone them at all.
Which of those were still investigating Madeleine's disappearance when her parents paid for the Private Investigators?
The McCann's said they couldn't run Madeleine's fund as a charity, it wasn't just the McCann's involved they had lawyers too, so it doesn't look as though it was possible does it. If you have a problem with how the money was spent then contact the fund.
So you don't think the McCann's should have had a campaign to find their daughter and keep her in the public eye? So parents of the missing shouldn't put posters up with the face of their child on them, because the Police are searching for their child. How can the Police apart from contacting the Police in other countries, get the child's face known to the public of other countries?
The Portuguese shelved the case anyway so there wasn't a Police force searching for Madeleine they had to employ private detectives.
The twins were being entertained by family members, remember they went to the creche by themselves, neither Madeleine or their parents were there then. Would it have been better for the twins to have stayed around their parents crying hysterically all the time? The Pope was close to God in the McCann's eyes they wanted him to bless Madeleine. Also it advertised the fact that Madeleine was missing to those in Rome and anyone else who saw it on the tv.
There you go, Ben Needham's Mum wanted Bens name out there, that is what the McCann's wanted too, yet you put Ben's Mum on a pedestal, that is so cruel. Ben's mum said in her book [have you read it?] she would have done EXACTLY the same as the McCann's if she had been in their position.
Now you are asking why they are NOT keeping Madeleine's name out there, how strange. I can only presume they have been told to keep quiet at the moment. Yes it is about them, something they never wanted.
Thank you for fixing my post.Did you find if they went through or over the fence?
The children turned up five minutes later very close to our back garden from which they had escaped despite a locked gate.
I phoned the police to tell them and thank them.
As I said the Charity Commission was willing to work with the parents to help them achieve charitable status. Unfortunately the parents couldn’t wait that long.
From Enid O’Dowd’s investigation of the fund.
“
A Freedom of Information (FOI) request to the Charity Commission revealed several emails, telephone calls and a telephone conference between BWB and the Charity Commission about the possibility of charity status, for the then unincorporated company, between Monday afternoon May 14 and Tuesday May 15.
BWB emailed Alice Holt, Head of Legal Services (Status and Advice) at 9.39 pm on Monday evening with draft documents for the company as a charity. The email stated there was to be a press launch of the Foundation on Wednesday May 16 and that they awaited instructions on how the founders proposed to operate.
The minutes of the telephone conference held between BWB and the Charity Commission on the morning of Tuesday May 15 record that Alice Holt would look at revising the draft document to a form more acceptable to the Commission. The minutes also record that Commission official Kenneth Dibble was concerned that the press conference set for the next day might send out confused messages to the public unless it was settled what the fund could and could not be used for.
At 1.10 pm on May 15 the Charity Commission received an email from BWB saying their clients were likely to go the ordinary company route rather than pursue charity status. When that email was received Ms Holt was just finalising her promised revisions to the documents submitted to her the previous day. She sent her revised document anyway at 1.28 pm. To meet the Fund launch date of May 16, the McCanns had obviously decided to abandon the apparently hopeful charity negotiations in order to meet the deadline for same day company incorporation. Documents must be filed by 3pm for the company to be incorporated on that day.
It is odd that the McCanns committed themselves to a launch date, set it would appear, before BWB were engaged. In an email to the Charity Commission, BWB refer to being instructed 'this afternoon' (i.e. Monday May 14). What difference would a couple of days delay have made? And it is clear from the documentation that the Charity Commission officials were helpful, and that it was likely that charity status could have been obtained with only minor delay with a little compromise by the McCanns.
Charity status is valuable because it gives an organisation credibility with the public, grant making bodies and local government, making it easier to obtain funds. It also gives the organisation tax advantages. Individuals, sole traders and companies can also benefit from giving to registered charities. Higher rate tax payers may be able to claim a tax refund. Under the Gift Aid scheme a donation is treated as if standard rate tax (20%) has been deducted and this is equivalent to an extra 25p in the £ for the charity. For donations between 6.4.2008 and 5.4.2011 the government gave an extra 3p in the £ supplement. Individuals can also have charitable donations deducted from their salaries, and this is tax efficient as their income tax is calculated on their salary after the donation. See www.hmrc.gov.uk/charities-donors/ for more information on the benefits to an organisation of charity status.
Charities must give an annual report and accounts to the Charity Commission and make these documents available to the public on request. There are also rules relating to fundraising. The trustees (directors) cannot normally receive salary, fees or contracts from the charity and nor can their spouses or other close family members. These requirements are not onerous or unreasonable. Having hired charity experts BWB on the advice of the paralegal, it is surprising that Kate did not let them have a day or two more to explore charity status. And it is surprising that the McCanns have not apparently revisited this issue.
In Chapter 9 in which Kate describes her activities of May 14 she does not mention any dealings with BWB who must have worked very hard that day. Nor does she mention dealing with the paralegal or anyone else at IFLG. There must have been urgent emails and phone calls that day from her advisors. She just states that charity status would not be forthcoming as it was deemed that the 'public benefit' test would not be met, and adds that it (the Fund) 'was set up with great care and due diligence by experts in their field.'
It would be more accurate to state it was set up with great haste and with no apparent reason for that haste.”
Of course parents should publicise their child’s disappearance but how much exactly did they spend on ‘the search’ in the first year ?
The parents didn’t know at the time they were squirrelling away all that money that they’d need private detectives and that Madeleine wouldn’t be found sooner rather than later. To help other missing families with that money would have been the ultimate act of kindness....and please don’t try to justify their action with the old chestnut that people wanted the McCanns to use it to find Madeleine...most probably donated because they couldn’t think of any other way to help...however if that’s so why was it acceptable then to spend the money on litigation?
As to Rome, it was normal for the twins to go to the crèche by themselves, what wasn’t normal was for their parents not to be there when they got back and I really don’t care what spiritual support the parents felt they needed, their remaining children should have been their priority. As to the Rome visit producing publicity, the parents were on every television news report so how would it have helped ?
Benn’s mother did want his name out there and used her own money and money raised by jumble sales etc to achieve that and used not one penny of the money raised on litigation.
It would appear raising awareness of Madeleine’s plight is the only thing the parents aren’t willing to talk about. Walk and wandered is reported to be a theory, the parents talk through their mouthpiece, Netflix is releasing a documentary, the parents speak through their mouthpiece, German paedophile is a suspect, the parents speak through their mouthpiece. Risible.
Enid O'Dowd say no more. This person is all out to get herself noticed, has she given up on the little girl who went missing in Ireland yet? The family of that little child don't want her to say anything she is a mischief maker.
The McCann's lawyers set up the fund, are you trying to say that Enid O'Dowd knows better that qualified lawyers?
The McCann's had a separate fund for litigation. Maybe the fee for lawyers setting up the fund was taken out of the fund but I believe the money to sue Amaral was in a separate fund.
The trip to Rome was to have the Pope bless Madeleine's photo, they believed that somehow his blessing would help or protect Madeleine, when you have desperate helpless parents, they will do what ever it takes to find their child. They wanted the people of Rome to know about Madeleine and that she was missing. They were putting the twins first, they were being well looked after with their Grandparents. They wanted things to stay as normal as possible for the twins. Witnessing the McCann's in a distressed state wouldn't have been good for them.
It wasn't the McCann's fault that people all over the world wanted to help in the search for Madeleine, maybe if Ben had disappeared when the internet was about he would have had the same support. You can't blame the parents for having a larger fund that the parents of another missing child. What were they supposed to do? send the money back? Kerry has said in her book that she would have done the same as the McCann's.
The McCann's didn't want anything to do with Netflix as there is an investigation going on, the Police have asked for silence.
Their website is unhelpful. SY have investigated and eliminated Tannerman but the McCann's don't agree with Totman's statement claiming it was him and being pictured wearing the same clothes as JT's description by SY in 2013 is Tannerman.
The McCanns have always tried to claim that Tannerman and Smithman were the same person (look at the reconstruction documentary - Smithman carrying Tannerman style - that is false misleading information and disgusting underhand tactics!) No wonder many get confused and don't know what's going on because of false misleading information such as this!
Your opinions on the following:
1. They claim Tannerman and Smithman are the same person to rule Gerry out?
2. Tannerman has come forward, Smithman has not because they are different people?
3. The 2008 Smithman efits were missing for Kate's 2011 Madeleine book. If they were featured then no reader would believe that Tannerman and Smithman were the same person as the McCanns claim in that book?
4. What do you think of reconstruction untruthful changes such as Smithman's carrying style to become Tannerman?
Enid O'Dowd say no more. This person is all out to get herself noticed, has she given up on the little girl who went missing in Ireland yet? The family of that little child don't want her to say anything she is a mischief maker.
The McCann's lawyers set up the fund, are you trying to say that Enid O'Dowd knows better that qualified lawyers?
The McCann's had a separate fund for litigation. Maybe the fee for lawyers setting up the fund was taken out of the fund but I believe the money to sue Amaral was in a separate fund.
The trip to Rome was to have the Pope bless Madeleine's photo, they believed that somehow his blessing would help or protect Madeleine, when you have desperate helpless parents, they will do what ever it takes to find their child. They wanted the people of Rome to know about Madeleine and that she was missing. They were putting the twins first, they were being well looked after with their Grandparents. They wanted things to stay as normal as possible for the twins. Witnessing the McCann's in a distressed state wouldn't have been good for them.
It wasn't the McCann's fault that people all over the world wanted to help in the search for Madeleine, maybe if Ben had disappeared when the internet was about he would have had the same support. You can't blame the parents for having a larger fund that the parents of another missing child. What were they supposed to do? send the money back? Kerry has said in her book that she would have done the same as the McCann's.
The McCann's didn't want anything to do with Netflix as there is an investigation going on, the Police have asked for silence.
Enid O’Dowd is a qualified accountant and is well placed to critique the setting up of the fund. Apart from bias have you any other reason to query the work of Miss O’Dowd ? Has her professionalism ever been criticised by anyone else but supporters of the McCanns ? Further lawyers only do what their clients instruct them to do....within the limits of the law. While morally questionable, the setting up of the fund was legally sound so a lawyer would see no problem with it.Ah yes, the Morcombes, now close friends of the McCanns and wholly supportive of them, fancy that. https://www.sunshinecoastdaily.com.au/news/families-united-in-grief-morcombe-mccann/1070571/
The parents have no separate fund for litigation as their own accounts show. The litigation was paid for from the same fund as the ‘search’.
Firstly the twins would have, I assume, seen their parents in a distressed state since May 3rd so that excuse rings rather hollow. A photograph of Madeleine could have been sent to the pope and he could have blessed it without them going to Rome...further I’d also assume the people of Rome have televisions and as Madeleine’s disappearance was making news all over the world I’m sure they knew about her. Lastly keeping things normal for the twins would be having their parents there, especially as their sister had disappeared from their life.
What were the parents supposed to do with the money ? As they had more support from police officials than possibly any family of a missing child in history possibly set up a fund to help the families of other missing children ? Something like the foundation set up by Daniel Morcombe’s parents when he was still missing.
https://danielmorcombefoundation.com.au/keeping-kids-safe-resources/
Why did Enid O’Doed take it upon herself to conduct an investigation into the Fund? Was she a wholly impartial bystander before she undertook it? Of was she a busy body sceptic with too much free time on her hands? I think I know the answer to that one already...
Ah yes, the Morcombes, now close friends of the McCanns and wholly supportive of them, fancy that. https://www.sunshinecoastdaily.com.au/news/families-united-in-grief-morcombe-mccann/1070571/
1. I think it's a sort of emotional/psychological thing in that the McCanns learned of JT's sighting from the off and came to believe this was an abductor. For those looking at the case objectively we can now pretty much say for certain it wasn't an abductor but Dr Totman. The McCanns are not capable of looking at it objectively and refuse to give it up.
2. Agreed.
3. Agreed. Also the locations and times don't stack up and the GNR tracker dogs did not pick up any scent in these locations.
4. Please explain.
The McCanns are unreliable witnesses as they are at the very least emotionally involved.
You can’t discover facts that aren’t there, no matter what your view.Yep, love it.
You seem to enjoy shooting the messenger.
Fancy that, the Morecombe’s are humane human beings. Doesn’t change the points I made about the money donated to the fund.If only everyone was a humane human being, the world would be a much nicer place, don’t you think? As for the money, who cares? Not me.
You can’t discover facts that aren’t there, no matter what your view.
You seem to enjoy shooting the messenger.
you can be selective in the facts you present and intepretation you promote...based on fact...flat earthers can prove the earth is flat...they just ignore the facts that contradict them...as odowd did
Enid O'Dowd demonstrated that the Fund could have been a charity if a bit more time had been taken. Her main contribution was to highlight the lack of the promised transparency. She didn't ignore anything when doing that.thats you opinion....as far as i know it couldnt because it was only for the benefit of maddie...not all children..just because odowd says something doesnt make it true
Enid O'Dowd demonstrated that the Fund could have been a charity if a bit more time had been taken. Her main contribution was to highlight the lack of the promised transparency. She didn't ignore anything when doing that.And what has her contribution achieved in the grand scheme of things?
And what has her contribution achieved in the grand scheme of things?
you can be selective in the facts you present and intepretation you promote...based on fact...flat earthers can prove the earth is flat...they just ignore the facts that contradict them...as odowd did
If using that as a benchmark, who, if anyone has achieved anything >I guess it depends on what you consider to be an achievement. I suppose dear Enid has gained the admiration and respect of a bunch of fellow sceptics online and this might have given her a sense of worth and well being, but apart from that I don’t really see what she has achieved beyond that to merit all the time and effort she put into studying thr Fund’s accounts. She must have been gutted not to fimd anything remotely illegal.
I guess it depends on what you consider to be an achievement. I suppose dear Enid has gained the admiration and respect of a bunch of fellow sceptics online and this might have given her a sense of worth and well being, but apart from that I don’t really see what she has achieved beyond that to merit all the time and effort she put into studying thr Fund’s accounts. She must have been gutted not to fimd anything remotely illegal.
So why do you think that the parents didn’t wait the few days it would have taken for the Charity Commission to help them achieve charity status ? Do you have an answer that doesn’t contain the words ‘ is it important ‘ or malign the questioner ?You seem to be under the impression that in the early days of their child’s disappearance, with donations flooding in from all quarters that they should have set about creating a charity to help all missing children. I think that is patently absurd, frankly.
And what has her contribution achieved in the grand scheme of things?
Like many others who gave their time for free she added to the public's knowledge of the case. Had those peopke not bothered the only sources of information would have been the McCanns, their lawyers, spin doctors and the media. We would have been completely misled imo.
So why do you think that the parents didn’t wait the few days it would have taken for the Charity Commission to help them achieve charity status ? Do you have an answer that doesn’t contain the words ‘ is it important ‘ or malign the questioner ?
According to KM's book law firm BWB spoke with the Chairty Commission about whether the fund would meet eligibility for charitable status but it was deemed the 'public benefit test' would not be met since it was essentially set-up to assist one family. Therefore it was set up as not-for-profit private limited company? Is this wrong?
According to KM's book law firm BWB spoke with the Chairty Commission about whether the fund would meet eligibility for charitable status but it was deemed the 'public benefit test' would not be met since it was essentially set-up to assist one family. Therefore it was set up as not-for-profit private limited company? Is this wrong?
You seem to be under the impression that in the early days of their child’s disappearance, with donations flooding in from all quarters that they should have set about creating a charity to help all missing children. I think that is patently absurd, frankly.
Like many others who gave their time for free she added to the public's knowledge of the case. Had those peopke not bothered the only sources of information would have been the McCanns, their lawyers, spin doctors and the media. We would have been completely misled imo.
OK Bottom line- The fund was set up to and marketed as a 'find Madeleine fund'. After initial donations sent to perhaps assist a grief stricken family . It became a 'family business'.
I have no issue with that if they want to make money, fair dooz. However, usng their daughters name to emotionally blackmail people is morally and ethically wrong. They could have called it a 'family fund' to be used to help search for Madeliene and legal fees. ofcourse this was done before we found out about the time line-unlocked door-etc.
And people in the beginning were buying into the drama of 'jemied window whooshing curtains and MBM 'snatched' from her bed'. As opposed to could have walked out of the apartment to get her parents who were eating and drinking- not even mentioning the crying incident- 'checks' we listening at a door and not physical checks! I feel sure, armed with this information on day one, things would have worked out quite different.
I think it's morrally wrong to troll the family day in day out and that's how I see what is happening online
I think it's morrally wrong to troll the family day in day out and that's how I see what is happening online
Do you see questioning the parent’s narrative as trolling ?
Snap! he does seem to imply it doesn't he.
Do you see questioning the parent’s narrative as trolling ?
Day in.. Day out.. Criticising just about everything they have done... Accusing them of lying... Accusing them of chucking their daughters body in a bin...
Yes I see it as trolling
The abject nastiness of some of you nearly leaves me defeated. But only nearly.
You may take my Moderation as it pleases you because I no longer care. But then that is what Moderation is all about.
It has been a long and very boring learning curve, and Rob could knock spots of all of you.
But do carry on. We don't have much else to talk about.
What you think of me no longer matters. Most of you would't take this on because you would much rather be really horrible.
But there was a time when I cared about the opinions of all of you. Long gone now. Not one Sceptic can give anyone an answer.
But don't any of you think that have ever been sold on the story, just because.
Why should we? Sceptics aren't trying to persuade others of their point of view - or at least, I'm not
I think it's morrally wrong to troll the family day in day out and that's how I see what is happening online
No, I don't think that you are. Perhaps some sort of Ifs and Maybes. And I don't have a problem with that.
The difference between Thee and Me is that I give the benefit of doubt. Why can you not do this?
How about trolling Martin Grime daily is that morally wrong.Indeed. Poor Martin.
Indeed. Poor Martin.
Martin Grime was a grandstander Nothing wrong with that, so long as no one got convicted.Luckily Martin won't see the incessant trolling from you guys.
Luckily Martin won't see the incessant trolling from you guys.
Indeed. Poor Martin.
Martin is, a professional... Professionals can expect to be criticised Re their professional lifeBy you perhaps. Poor Martin.
Martin is, a professional... Professionals can expect to be criticised Re their professional life
Aye, by other professionals in that field, not amateurs with a dog obsession
no...by members of the public..I dont think you understand how professionals work
its ok to criticiese judges...policemen...politicians...doctors
So you'd be quite happy to be trolled online over your dental work by a bus driver with a denture obsession?Who said I'm a dentist
Who said I'm a dentist[/b]
When you choose a restaurant... Hotel... Or any professional.... Don't you look online for reviews... I do
I'm sure you've said so on more than onel occasions.
No I haven't...
Like many others who gave their time for free she added to the public's knowledge of the case. Had those peopke not bothered the only sources of information would have been the McCanns, their lawyers, spin doctors and the media. We would have been completely misled imo.Misled about what?
Why is it absurd ? What did they need it for at that point ? They were high earners with, I’m sure, money in the bank, and were being given free accommodation, donations could have been kept in an account until a more considered decision was made. I believe that’s what happened with both the money donated when Daniel Morcombe and April Jones went missing.Why would anybody want to start a charity for other missing children when their sole focus was to find their own child? How would this charity have operated? What would have been its aims and objectives? Who would decide who to give the money to and how much? The money was given specifically to help the McCanns so what obligation did the McCanns have to spend their time and efforts helping other parents in the weeks following Madeleine’s disappearance? It is absurd.
Erin Buckels whose research into trolling which was quoted on the OFM Facebook page wrote me the following email ( permission to make it public was given )You wrote to her to gain approval for your online activities? How sad.
Hi ****************
Thanks for your email. I was not aware of Madeleine’s story, but I took a
look at the official Find Madeleine Facebook page a moment ago.
Unfortunately, it’s hard for me to judge the situation because it looks
like the admins have deleted most (if not all) of the offending comments.
From your description, it certainly does not fit the standard definition
of trolling. It sounds more like cyber-activism to me.
In general, I do not support censorship and I do not think it is
appropriate to censor comments like the ones you describe. You should not
label someone a troll just because they have a dissenting viewpoint.
Personally, I think that even real trolling has a legitimate place in
online discourse.
I wish you luck.
Sincerely,
Erin Buckels
Why would anybody want to start a charity for other missing children when their sole focus was to find their own child? How would this charity have operated? What would have been its aims and objectives? Who would decide who to give the money to and how much? The money was given specifically to help the McCanns so what obligation did the McCanns have to spend their time and efforts helping other parents in the weks following Madeleine’s disappearance? It is absurd.
How many police forces were helping the parents in those first weeks and months to search for Madeleine? Why did they need money to search themselves in those first weeks ? The charity would be operated like all other charities who look for missing children with the same hierarchy and the same methods of providing help. Other than a moral obligation, what obligation did they have to help others in the same position as them, none but like the Morecombes, it might have brought them some comfort.As it turned out they did need money for the search, quite a considerable chunk. Charities don’t run themselves. They take time and effort, something that the McCanns were spending on focusing on their own missing child. Why would you expect them to be worrying about everyone else’s missing kids at that time?
You wrote to her to gain approval for your online activities? How sad.
As it turned out they did need money for the search, quite a considerable chunk. Charities don’t run themselves. They take time and effort, something that the McCanns were spending on focusing on their own missing child. Why would you expect them to be worrying about everyone else’s missing kids at that time?
The OFM webmaster used Miss Bukels research on the OFM Facebook page to blacken dissenters. I merely wrote to Miss Buckels asking her opinion of her research being used in this way. The result you have read. When the webmaster was informed of Miss Buckel’s opinion she strangely pulled the article from the page.I find your need for approval from this troll expert pathetic in the extreme.
They didn’t know they were going to need the money when they set up their fund and true, charities don’t run themselves but neither do funds set up as companies and they managed to find individuals to run that. The parents need not take any part in the running of the charity, just as April Jones’s mum did when a charity was set up on April's name with the money donated.And at what point was April Jones charity set up?
And at what point was April Jones charity set up?
As it turned out they did need money for the search, quite a considerable chunk. Charities don’t run themselves. They take time and effort, something that the McCanns were spending on focusing on their own missing child. Why would you expect them to be worrying about everyone else’s missing kids at that time?
They are an embarrassment. Search lol.
I'm sure you've said so on more than onel occasions.
They are an embarrassment. Search lol.
Kate mentions the Amsterdam sighting.
'My name is Maddie, they took me from my holiday'
One of the most convincing sightings & IMO proof that Maddie was abducted.
It's either that or Anna Stam is full of sh1t.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/madeleine-mccann-dossier-did-this-dutch-couple-325131
‘My name is Maddie’ ? Didn’t the parents tell us that Madeleine didn’t like being called Maddie ?
Does it matter ? It appears the money was held in the bank until it was.Yes it does matter. It only became a charity once it was known that April was gone. Meanwhile the cash was in the Jones’ bank account.
They are an embarrassment. Search lol.I don’t watch propaganda videos.
I don’t watch propaganda videos.
I don’t watch propaganda videos.
How do you know in advance ?Only sceptics make youtube videos about this case afaik.
You've seen 'Madeleine Was Here' ?What’s that? A youtube vid?
Only sceptics make youtube videos about this case afaik.
So your mind is closed ?to propaganda videos yes.
Yes it does matter. It only became a charity once it was known that April was gone. Meanwhile the cash was in the Jones’ bank account.
Do you have a cite for that ?
On 5 October 2012, police officially designated the case a murder inquiry; even though a body had not been found, this was the first indication that the police now had reason to believe that April Jones is dead.[21] Sky News presenter Kay Burley was accused of insensitivity after breaking the news of Jones' probable death live on-air to volunteers who had been searching for her. The interviewees were unaware the case had changed from a search for a missing person into a murder inquiry.[22][23][24]
On 6 October, Bridger was charged with child abduction, murder, and attempting to pervert the course of justice.[1]
——
https://www.countytimes.co.uk/news/15833286.missing-april-jones-fund-to-be-registered-as-a-charity/
News
8th November 2012
Missing April Jones' fund to be registered as a charity
By Barry Jones
APRIL’S Fund, which now stands at around £40,000, is to be registered with the Charities Commission.
The fund was set up as a result of money being handed in at Y Plas to support the search teams, volunteers, the community and the family of missing girl April Jones.
——
Hope that suffices.
On 5 October 2012, police officially designated the case a murder inquiry; even though a body had not been found, this was the first indication that the police now had reason to believe that April Jones is dead.[21][22][23][24]
Sky News presenter Kay Burley was accused of insensitivity after breaking the news of Jones' probable death live on-air to volunteers who had been searching for her. The interviewees were unaware the case had changed from a search for a missing person into a murder inquiry.
On 6 October, Bridger was charged with child abduction, murder, and attempting to pervert the course of justice.[1]
——
https://www.countytimes.co.uk/news/15833286.missing-april-jones-fund-to-be-registered-as-a-charity/
News
8th November 2012
Missing April Jones' fund to be registered as a charity
By Barry Jones
APRIL’S Fund, which now stands at around £40,000, is to be registered with the Charities Commission.
The fund was set up as a result of money being handed in at Y Plas to support the search teams, volunteers, the community and the family of missing girl April Jones.
——
Hope that suffices.
'Sky News presenter Kay Burley was accused of insensitivity after breaking the news of Jones' probable death live on-air to volunteers who had been searching for her. The interviewees were unaware the case had changed from a search for a missing person into a murder inquiry.'
I remember watching that as it happened.
I'd always thought Kay Burley was a horrible old witch & that incident further strengthened my opinion.
No I meant this partNo, , but the money would have to have been kept in a bank account, and the familiy’s own bank account would have been a sensible short term measure. Whether it was or not, I don’t know but the fact is no charity was set up until hope for April had gone.
“Meanwhile the cash was in the Jones’ bank account.”
No, , but the money would have to have been kept in a bank account, and the familiy’s own bank account would have been a sensible short term measure. Whether it was or not, I don’t know but the fact is no charity was set up until hope for April had gone.
So there is no evidence that any donated money was ever in the Jones’s account ?Who do you think I am? Enid O’Dowd? I’ve already answered haven’t I? Do you want me to self flagellate?
Who do you think I am? Enid O’Dowd? I’ve already answered haven’t I? Do you want me to self flagellate?
So you made it up ? Why....and the ‘it would have been common sense’ doesn’t wash as the McCanns didn’t put donations in their own account either ?Yes I made it up. Please continue to berate me and remind me of my evil actions at every opportunity for at least the next 10 years, thanks.
So you made it up ? Why....and the ‘it would have been common sense’ doesn’t wash as the McCanns didn’t put donations in their own account either ?wasnt odowd part of haverns barmy army...about the same level as the flat earth society imo
So you made it up ? Why....and the ‘it would have been common sense’ doesn’t wash as the McCanns didn’t put donations in their own account either ?
I am really sorry if iI somehow embarrassed you. It was not my intention. I think that you are a kind person. Sorry about that.
Yes I made it up. Please continue to berate me and remind me of my evil actions at every opportunity for at least the next 10 years, thanks.
In reality I made a mistake but I doubt that’s forgiveable as far as you’re concerned. @)(++(*
It wasn’t a mistake...it was a calculated attempt to make the McCanns look better by pulling April’s mum into your argument. Noted that you didn’t think the honest facts were enough to absolve them.Who mentioned April Jones fund first? Oh, that would be you. Why? To make the McCanns look worse. I actually thought YOU had written that they (the Jones) initially banked the money, but I was wrong. Keep on beating me up though if it makes you feel like the better person. 8((()*/
Who mentioned April Jones fund first? Oh, that would be you. Why? To make the McCanns look worse. I actually thought YOU had written that they (the Jones) initially banked the money, but I was wrong. Keep on beating me up though if it makes you feel like the better person. 8((()*/This continual back and forth between Faithlilly and you needs to stop. Your comments were noted.
Who mentioned April Jones fund first? Oh, that would be you. Why? To make the McCanns look worse. I actually thought YOU had written that they (the Jones) initially banked the money, but I was wrong. Keep on beating me up though if it makes you feel like the better person. 8((()*/
This continual back and forth between Faithlilly and you needs to stop. Your comments were noted.
Please don’t deem to tell either myself or VS who we can or can’t post to.It appears to be sniping at each other to me. So as a moderator here I'm asking for the interchange of comments to become more civilised.
It does.I don’t know whether to laugh or cry.
What an odd post... For someone who thinks the mccanns chucked Maddie in a bin... I find that quite cruel
But people are entitled to express their opinions however unpalatable they might be to some so long as they do not break the laws of the land and/or the forum rules on the homepage.So just for clarification- is it now ok on this forum to express the belief that the McCanns had a hand in Madeleine’s disappearance and to discuss in detail how this may have been carried out? And that this will not incur punishment for breaking forum rules?
The internet obviously gives everyone with access to it a platform to express their opinions. Before this,in the main, it was restricted to face to face or 1 to 1 via the phone. Likewise the internet enabled the McCanns to launch 'The Find Madeleine Campaign' something unavailable to the Needhams and other such families.
Would it not be better if you just pointed out the Maddie in the bin theory has no substance to it eg the bins were searched and the GNR tracker dogs did not trace any scent beyond the immediate vicinity. This suggests to me MM was either taken to a nearby building and subsequently moved or she was placed in a car within the immediate vicinity and driven away. I tend to think the latter.
But people are entitled to express their opinions however unpalatable they might be to some so long as they do not break the laws of the land and/or the forum rules on the homepage.
The internet obviously gives everyone with access to it a platform to express their opinions. Before this,in the main, it was restricted to face to face or 1 to 1 via the phone. Likewise the internet enabled the McCanns to launch 'The Find Madeleine Campaign' something unavailable to the Needhams and other such families.
Would it not be better if you just pointed out the Maddie in the bin theory has no substance to it eg the bins were searched and the GNR tracker dogs did not trace any scent beyond the immediate vicinity. This suggests to me MM was either taken to a nearby building and subsequently moved or she was placed in a car within the immediate vicinity and driven away. I tend to think the latter.
So just for clarification- is it now ok on this forum to express the belief that the McCanns had a hand in Madeleine’s disappearance and to discuss in detail how this may have been carried out? And that this will not incur punishment for breaking forum rules?It was the inclusion of such comments as "Keep on beating me up though if it makes you feel like the better person." and the reply "It does" that was the type of comment I'm finding against the spirit of John's ruling.
So just for clarification- is it now ok on this forum to express the belief that the McCanns had a hand in Madeleine’s disappearance and to discuss in detail how this may have been carried out? And that this will not incur punishment for breaking forum rules?
I don’t know whether to laugh or cry.
I don’t know whether to laugh or cry.
Suggesting the mccanns chucked maddies body in the bin is libellous... Therefore against the laws if the land and against forum rules ..We, are, all entitled to our opinions but you should realise not if that results in libelIf theories are allowed, a theory that involves in the disposal of Madeleine's body in a bin, is that allowed too? Or do we only allow some theories but not others?
Enid O’Dowd is a qualified accountant and is well placed to critique the setting up of the fund. Apart from bias have you any other reason to query the work of Miss O’Dowd ? Has her professionalism ever been criticised by anyone else but supporters of the McCanns ? Further lawyers only do what their clients instruct them to do....within the limits of the law. While morally questionable, the setting up of the fund was legally sound so a lawyer would see no problem with it.
The parents have no separate fund for litigation as their own accounts show. The litigation was paid for from the same fund as the ‘search’.
Firstly the twins would have, I assume, seen their parents in a distressed state since May 3rd so that excuse rings rather hollow. A photograph of Madeleine could have been sent to the pope and he could have blessed it without them going to Rome...further I’d also assume the people of Rome have televisions and as Madeleine’s disappearance was making news all over the world I’m sure they knew about her. Lastly keeping things normal for the twins would be having their parents there, especially as their sister had disappeared from their life.
What were the parents supposed to do with the money ? As they had more support from police officials than possibly any family of a missing child in history possibly set up a fund to help the families of other missing children ? Something like the foundation set up by Daniel Morcombe’s parents when he was still missing.
https://danielmorcombefoundation.com.au/keeping-kids-safe-resources/
If theories are allowed, a theory that involves in the disposal of Madeleine's body in a bin, is that allowed too? Or do we only allow some theories but not others?
If one was to say it is a fact "they disposed of Madeleine's body in a bin" I'd have to say that is libellous because it couldn't be proven to be true based on the evidence.
Do you see the difference between libel and theory?
Yes I have seen O'Dowd criticised by people other than the McCann's. O'Dowd got herself entangled in the case of the missing child in Ireland and the family really don't want her involved at all. They don't like what she says and neither do they agree with her.
Yes lawyers act on the instructions of their clients, they also advise their clients as to which avenue to take as to what is best for them, obviously it wasn't taking up charity status.
The McCann's do have a seperate account for litigation, may be it is there to pay off Amaral if need be.
The Pope had expressed an interest in the McCann case he wanted to meet them, how rude if they just sent a photograph of Madeleine instead of going in person. The twins were being looked after by family, they were being entertained and they were given help and back up as to what to say to them when they asked questions.
The McCann's have said when Madeleine has been found, all money in the Find Madeleine Fund will be donated to other Missing Children.
Libel is not allowed according to Angelo... Doesn't matter if you call it a theory... It's, still libelI will post what Angelo said again: "Theories and opinion have always been permitted. Anything which might constitute a libel is not."
I will post what Angelo said again: "Theories and opinion have always been permitted. Anything which might constitute a libel is not."
So when does a theory or opinion constitute libel? He doesn't explain the finer detail.
If theories are allowed, a theory that involves in the disposal of Madeleine's body in a bin, is that allowed too? Or do we only allow some theories but not others?
If one was to say it is a fact "they disposed of Madeleine's body in a bin" I'd have to say that is libellous because it couldn't be proven to be true based on the evidence.
Do you see the difference between libel and theory?
If a theory suggests criminal activity it's libellous... Opinion can also be libellousCan you tell me where you got that from?
Can you tell me where you got that from?
From this Law site https://www.minclaw.com/legal-resource-center/what-is-defamation/can-opinion-defamatory/
"Can An Opinion Be Defamatory?
Labeling a statement an opinion does not automatically make it an opinion or make it safe from the possibility of it being defamatory. If a reader or listener could reasonably understand that the communication as stating a fact that could be verified, the communication will not be considered an opinion, especially if it is sufficiently derogatory to hurt the subject’s reputation. Also, a communication that is presented in the form of an opinion may be considered defamatory if it implies that the opinion is based on defamatory facts that have not been disclosed.
In other words, the fact that a statement is one’s opinion does not necessarily make one immune from a defamation lawsuit."
It seems to depend on whether the opinion is untenable because it is not based on verifiable facts. ".... as stating a fact that could be verified ...."
That is interesting. Not sure if that is English law or the USA.
It's US... Try thisAs if you are the expert in training cadaver dogs!
It's my opinion that Martin Grime needs to make sure his dogs, are more thoroughly tested
As if you are the expert in training cadaver dogs!
What difference does that make... I thought opinions were okBut you say that because you want to make a difference. You would like cadaver dogs to be tested more thoroughly. It sounds like a good idea initially as I have agreed but where does that extra thoroughness stop. How necessary was it in the first place.
But you say that because you want to make a difference. You would like cadaver dogs to be tested more thoroughly. It sounds like a good idea initially as I have agreed but where does that extra thoroughness stop. How necessary was it in the first place.
I did find one section in those papers where areas of confusion are discussed. There could be chemical combination concocted that smelt like the target odour. But as far as I know no one has done that yet.
What difference does that make... I thought opinions were ok
Dog discussion is off topic... It's, what constitutes libel that was being discussedFair enough. I was thinking the same. All threads ATM are off topic. "what constitutes libel that was being discussed" is probably off topic too when you think about it.
Fair enough. I was thinking the same. All threads ATM are off topic. "what constitutes libel that was being discussed" is probably off topic too when you think about it.
Perhaps admin could clarify what constitutes libel on this forum
It isn't rocket science. The straight forward definition of libel is any false statement that is damaging to a person's reputation; a written defamation.
I know what I think it is... Rob is suggesting opinion and theories, are not libellous... Could you clarify what is considered libel on this forumCould it be that English law is different to USA law? The rules of this forum refer to USA law rather that UK law don't they?
Could it be that English law is different to USA law? The rules of this forum refer to USA law rather that UK law don't they?US, law is different ..this forum is published in the UK so I would say UK law, applies too... I believe there has already been one letter from CR
"You agree, through your use of this forum, that you will not post any material which is false, defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, adult material, or otherwise in violation of any International or United States Federal law."
Should that read "National" rather than "International". Who sets International Law? Is that the United Nations?
Could it be that English law is different to USA law? The rules of this forum refer to USA law rather that UK law don't they?
"You agree, through your use of this forum, that you will not post any material which is false, defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, adult material, or otherwise in violation of any International or United States Federal law."
Should that read "National" rather than "International". Who sets International Law? Is that the United Nations?
It is dependant of the Web design company, what language (code) is used, what platform is used, which country the server is in...That's all double Dutch to me.
Copyright © 2019 UK Justice Forum
SMF 2.0.15 | SMF © 2017, Simple Machines
Red-it Random by MGCVisuals.com
XHTML RSS WAP2
It is dependant of the Web design company, what language (code) is used, what platform is used, which country the server is in...
Copyright © 2019 UK Justice Forum
SMF 2.0.15 | SMF © 2017, Simple Machines
Red-it Random by MGCVisuals.com
XHTML RSS WAP2
Firstly Enid O’Dowd is an accountant...I think you are thinking of Gemma O’Doherty who proved that Martin Smith hadn’t changed his story re Smithman as claimed by the BBC.
Yes lawyers advise their clients on what avenue to take however their clients don’t have to take their advice.
If the parents have a private fund for litigation why is the cost of litigation mentioned in the fund accounts ? It’s time for a cite I think.
The Pope expressed an interest ? I’m sure he didn’t expect the parents of a missing child to hot tail it to Rome to meet him. It wasn’t even a private audience. As I said I attended a more intimate audience.
If they knew Madeleine wouldn’t be found that’s hardly generous. They don’t need the money for a search now so why not donate some of it now ?
Theories and opinion have always been permitted. Anything which might constitute a libel is not.So it’s no not libellous to say “IMO the McCanns accidentally killed their child after and threw her body away in a bin”? I’m sure it was a few months ago, in fact I’ve received warnings for libel simply for writing statements like the above, even though this clearly isn’t my view.
It was just a bit of teasing.I’m beginning to think you’re just a little bit in love with me Vilanelle... 8**8:/:
Michael Linett- retired accountant, one of the directors of the Madeleine fund.
I'm not going to go back and forth debating what the McCann's should or shouldn't have done with the moey for Madeleine. It was entirely up to them, we don't know what was said in the meeting between the directors of the Madeleine fund with the lawyers, so it is a pointless exercise as far as I am concerned. They must have done what was best for them and Madeleine. As for giving some money to other charities at this time, I believe the McCann's have said they will use the money in the fund for private detectives if OG doesn't find Madeleine.
The Pope expressed an interest in the case and wanted to meet the McCann's, they didn't 'hotfoot' as you say, it was probably arranged through Clarence Mitchell. You make it sound as though they asked to go.
“Mr and Mrs McCann, who are both Catholics, had received an invitation from the Vatican and sat in the prima fila - the front row - 20 yards from the Pope at Wednesday's regular general audience. The seats are normally reserved for world leaders and dignitaries.”
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1553186/Tender-moment-with-Pope-gives-parents-hope.html
“Mr and Mrs McCann, who are both Catholics, had received an invitation from the Vatican and sat in the prima fila - the front row - 20 yards from the Pope at Wednesday's regular general audience. The seats are normally reserved for world leaders and dignitaries.”
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1553186/Tender-moment-with-Pope-gives-parents-hope.html
They must have felt they had hit the jackpot 8)-))) - IMOHow can you begin to understand how they felt?
None of this proves that the Pope invited them personally.Sigh. So an invitation from the Vatican proves nothing. Did you get a personal invitation from the Vatican? Did you sit in the bit for visiting dignitaries? Did you stay with the British ambassador?
At the audience I went to it was inside and I was in the front row.....perhaps it wasn’t a general audience.
Didn’t the Vatican wipe all trace of the case from their website rather speedily ?
Did you sit in the bit for visiting dignitaries? Did you stay with the British ambassador?
All this just makes the case more bizarre, IMO. Can anyone explain why the parents got such high level assistance from the Government, from a former Government spin doctor, from the Prime Minister, from insiders in the Leicestershire Police, from the Pope??Yes, but if I told you I would have to kill you.
Yes, but if I told you I would have to kill you.
Very funny... but in all seriousness, and we are discussing a missing child after all, how would you explain this high level support they received?High Level Paedo Ring probs. They’re everywhere these days.
High Level Paedo Ring probs. They’re everywhere these days.
Really? Is that what you believe? Please try to explain it seriously.No I am not being serious, but this is the sort of explanation your question demands isn’t it? I doubt you’d be satisfied with a more innocuous suggestion.
All this just makes the case more bizarre, IMO. Can anyone explain why the parents got such high level assistance from the Government, from a former Government spin doctor, from the Prime Minister, from insiders in the Leicestershire Police, from the Pope??
I agree. Millions of parents all over the world who share the McCanns faith have suffered tragic consequences with their children: accidents, natural disasters, illness, separation etc, etc and no 1 to 1 with the Pope. The whole circus was absolutely ridiculous imo and completely counter-productive.If this was just any old tragedy why are we still talking about it 12 years later?
Quite ironic too given the Catholic church's record on child sex abuse and abuse in general.
And if the Catholic church had its way we would not even be here mass debating 8)><(
If this was just any old tragedy why are we still talking about it 12 years later?
If this was just any old tragedy why are we still talking about it 12 years later?
If this was just any old tragedy why are we still talking about it 12 years later?
And this sort of forum is in its infancy. Once a case is cracked online then it will open up all sorts of opportunities and possibilities.
I think you mean IF a case is cracked online... These discussions have been going on for 12 years Re this case..
I don't see it being cracked by any of the armchair detectives
Cases have already been cracked online.
Remind me how long the official investigations have been going on? Remind me of all those who investigate such cases for a living eg Mark Williams Thomas, David James Smith, Anthony Summers and Robyn Swan how have they advanced anything in recent cases they've reviewed?
Like all things in life there are armchair detectives and armchair detectives 8(0(* Imo those most likely to succeed in cracking a case are those who avoid spats, accept the views of others and always keep an open mind.
Could you give me a couple of cites of cases being cracked online
Could you give me a couple of cites of cases being cracked online... I think you are totally mistaken if you think I for one don't have an open mind... I certainly do.. And, I think I have, a, far better understanding of the evidence than most on here...
https://www.insider.com/crimes-solved-by-people-online-2018-5
Did I say anything about you personally in my previous post?
The fact you think you have a far better understanding of the evidence than most on here is your subjective opinion. It is not an objective fact.
The first example on your link is, a person who had, their laptop stolen and, was, able, to turn it on and view the perp... Is, that really the sort of example you are relying on it doesn't support your claim in the slightest
As your opinion is totally subjective.. ..
Oh I thought you said you had an open mind?
The title:
"8 times crimes were solved by the internet"
Why not read about the other 7 cases and then respond?
Oh I thought you said you had an open mind?
The title:
"8 times crimes were solved by the internet"
Why not read about the other 7 cases and then respond?
No it isn't. You're saying you think you have a far better understanding of the evidence on here than most. By what measurement and who is doing the measuring?
I'm sorry Davel but I will not be drawn into your "arguments" when I have a lawn to mow.
for one...you have said you have little knowledge of the case...and two....where posters are continually asking me for cites because they are not aware of facts i am posting.Cite for that claim.
No I am not being serious, but this is the sort of explanation your question demands isn’t it? I doubt you’d be satisfied with a more innocuous suggestion.Thanks for answering.
for one...you have said you have little knowledge of the case...and two....where posters are continually asking me for cites because they are not aware of facts i am posting.
If you post a fact the protocol is to provide a link. Without that supporting evidence your fact becomes opinion.
Do you accept that the statements of the T9 may be inaccurate... That's the sort of thing I mean
The T9 signed the statements as accurate. We have the statements to translate....and the friends have had 12 years to tell us that the statements are inaccurate, which currently they have not done. Why do you think that you know better than those who gave the statements?do you beleive the stateemnts are accurate
do you beleive the stateemnts are accurate
kate has told us the statements were not accurate and new ones were given to control risks....are you not aware of this..
they signed the statements..they didnt know how accurate they were as they were in portuguese
Because it wasn't allowed to fade from people's awareness? The never ending media stories, the suing of the newspapers, the documentaries, the long runnung case against Anaral et al......I don’t think 99.9% of the world’s population gives this case more than a passing thought once a year let alone on a daily basis.
I think there are minor errors in the statements but we have no reason to believe that they are inaccurate per se. As to Kate writing that they were inaccurate, as Mandy Rice Davies said ‘ she would say that’.I think the police were totally unprofessional in the, way the statements, were taken... We, simply have no idea how accurate they are... That is, an undeniable fact
The new statements given to Control Risk group, how did the differ materially from the T9’s original statements and how can we be sure after the friends had spoken to each other about the disappearance that they hadn’t, innocently, contaminated each other’s memories?
The statements were read in English to the interviewee and they signed that the statements were a true representation of their words so unless you are accusing the translator, police officers etc of being unprofessional, with absolutely no cause, then we can assume that they are broadly accurate.
I think the police were totally unprofessional in the, way the statements, were taken... We, simply have no idea how accurate they are... That is, an undeniable fact
I notice you have avoided all my questions.Discussion of the accuracy of witness statements is important but it is in the wrong thread. I have started another thread on the this topic http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=10892.0
In what way do the statements taken by Control Risk differ from the once’s taken by the PJ ?
In what way were the statements taken by the PJ unprofessional. Did any of the T7 claim that they were misrepresented in their statements? If not, why not ?
for one...you have said you have little knowledge of the case...and two....where posters are continually asking me for cites because they are not aware of facts i am posting.
I'm not up to speed with the minutiae eg whether or not the children had 1 or 2 ice creams but how would this help even if my case knowledge was at this sort of level?
This case really is simple to my mind. I know I keep banging on about it but imo its all down to the UNLOCKED patio doors. This narrows the field considerably as imo realistically it was someone who knew MM was home alone in the unlocked apartment.
Mass tourism to overseas destinations only took off in the 60's/70's. As far as I can recall MM is the only child who has disappeared without trace during all this time? The case of Ben Needham is different in that he disappeared outside on public? ground. I don't believe I would ever have left my children in hotel rooms etc but parents do but afaik it has always been in locked rooms with or without some sort of baby monitor or listening service. This is a world away from an unlocked door which the McCanns entered and exited several times a night allowing anyone with a knowledge of the doors to understand the doors were unlocked.
Everything else imo is a red herring: Tannerman, Smithman and all the efits in KM's book. Tannerman and Smithman were more than likely fathers collecting daughters from night creche. The efits were probably guys waiting for partners to do a bit of shopping in Barista or some other innocent event. If guys wanted to size up 5A they would do it discretely by walking past a few times and/or during the hours of darkness. They would not just hang around during day light. Note also none of the T9 observed anything remotely sinister nor did any of the other guests eg JW/BO, Moyes etc.
It may well be someone knew Maddie was, alone in an unlocked apartment but it's still IMO a stranger abduction.. Which are notoriously difficult to solve.... Unless the police get any help from the public... As most Portuguese think the parents are involved there's unlikely to be any help
Yes most definitely a stranger abduction. How could it be otherwise? How can it be difficult to solve when only a finite number of people knew MM was home alone in an unlocked apartment?
Do you have a cite for your assertion that most Portuguese think the parents are involved?
First it doesn't have to be someone who knew she was, alone
Second... It could have been someone unknown watching the apartment... Not related to the OC
Third.. Sil who lives in Portugal has told us many times the opinion of the Portuguese people
Yes most definitely a stranger abduction. How could it be otherwise? How can it be difficult to solve when only a finite number of people knew MM was home alone in an unlocked apartment?
Do you have a cite for your assertion that most Portuguese think the parents are involved?
First it doesn't have to be someone who knew she was, alone
Second... It could have been someone unknown watching the apartment... Not related to the OC
Third.. Sil who lives in Portugal has told us many times the opinion of the Portuguese people
No it doesn't but in all probability it was.
Where would you suggest said individual was watching from? Bearing in mind T7 were making several trips a night to and fro and no one observed any strangers lurking. Nor did others who sat out on their balconies eg JW/BO, Moyes and Mrs Fenn who had the advantage of looking down on the entire area.
Well if Shining in Luz wants to join in he/she will no doubt provide the evidence. As it stands I can't see any evidence the Portuguese as a whole believe the McCanns were responsible. People from all over the world believe the McCanns were responsible.
I've seen the evidence... I've seen sils posts. I'm also aware of the propaganda put out by the Portuguese media.... Amarals book.. Documentaries.. All blaming the mccanns
Please post the evidence then that most Portuguese believe the parents were responsible.
Do you think the British believe everything they read in the tabloids?
Yes most definitely a stranger abduction. How could it be otherwise? How can it be difficult to solve when only a finite number of people knew MM was home alone in an unlocked apartment?
Do you have a cite for your assertion that most Portuguese think the parents are involved?
They would have had to have known that Madeleine was in that bedroom too. Much easier to go in through the front door. I believe it was someone who knew the layout of 5a. An inside helper.
Sils posted several times... But refuses to confirm..
And yes I do think on the whole the public believe what they read in the papers
That's your opinion. It is not a fact.
That's, why I said it's what, I think... After all.. Half the UK public are below average intelligence
Really? So the established bell curve is all wrong then?
How can it be easier for someone unauthorised to enter via a locked door when an unlocked door is available?
That's, why I said it's what, I think... After all.. Half the UK public are below average intelligence
That’s why the parent’s narrative was so successful.
Half the UK public are below average intelligence... That's a factYou should have said "below the mean intelligence". With your intelligence being so superior it disrupts the average score IMO.
You should have said "below the mean intelligence". With your intelligence being so superior it disrupts the average score IMO.
You should have said "below the mean intelligence". With your intelligence being so superior it disrupts the average score IMO.
Mean median.mode! the skewer and kurtosis it all adds up!! BI bring it on.3 out of 4 families were OK for all the nights.
I wouldn't put the T9 down as very smart when chosing childminding for their childrenl
3 out of 4 families were OK for all the nights.
"Kurtosis" - you got me there. Is that some sort of disease?
kurtosis
noun STATISTICS
the sharpness of the peak of a frequency-distribution curve.
3 out of 4 families were OK for all the nights.
"Kurtosis" - you got me there. Is that some sort of disease?
kurtosis
noun STATISTICS
the sharpness of the peak of a frequency-distribution curve.
The locked front door was a gift to an abductor with a copy or original key, maybe from a member of OC personnel.
- Door was hidden in a deeply recessed alcove.
- No-one passed by
- very dark corner etc.
+ other things listed elsewhere.
The closed, but unlocked patio door
- had to be accessed by a lit patio area that could be seen from afar.
- It was overlooked by the Tapas group from only 50 metres away. Several of them athletes
- Even Amaral insisted that no abductor would enter by that door.
No comparison. Lace is correct IMO; The front door was safer and easier, so long as there was a key.
Here we go again: Were OC personnel involved ?
I have made the point previously that the experts in the Dispatches doc homed in on the unlocked door as did former police officer Ian Horrocks. Why complicate things with OC staff and keys when an unlocked door was available.
How many families have stayed in MW accommodation over the globe over the years?
How many OC staff with access to keys?
How many disappeared children form MW accommodation? 1 which just happened to have an unlocked door. I rest my case.
Why are you quoting Amaral? I didn't think you believed his theories?
Holly, the Front door was NOT UNLOCKED. Please take that on board. It was not double locked but the latch was such, that nobody trying to enter would be able to get in without a key.
A key was needed to get into 5A via the front door. It was SINGLE locked like the old Yale front door locks that most of us were happy to leave the security of our homes to. I can never remember our front door being double locked; it was safe without it.
BTW, were the other Tapas apartments double locked, or single locked likie the Mccanns?
As for Amaral, why shouldn't I use hiim when so many on here are using Kate and Gerry Mccann in a similar way in the reverse direction
Errrm where I have said the front door was unlocked? I appreciate a key was needed to get in via the front door but the point I keep making is that the patio doors were unlocked and numerous others unknown to the McCanns knew this to be so.
From a security perspective T7 apartments were totally different from the McCanns in that they were totally secure in that to enter without force a key would be required. This was not the case with the McCanns.
If the perp entered via the unlocked patio doors he/she then had the option of exiting back out via the patio doors or through the front door.
Afaik those who quote Amaral believe the McCanns were directly responsible. I do not believe the McCanns were directly responsible therefore why would I quote Amaral? If I believe his theories are all wrong why would I choose to quote him? Can it be that we say oh he is was right on this but not the other? No imo this would amount to cherry picking to fit a poorly conceived narrative.
I appreciate what you are saying, Holly, but from a number of posts on here it has become apparant that a number of people still think that the FRONT door was unlocked.
It wasn't; it was single locked and still needed a key to enter it
How many of the Tapas group had double locked their front doors? Had they and other residents at Ocean Club just slammed the door as they left, like most of us do at home ?
As for the patio door.
The patio was awash with a gentle light from the street light opposite 5A, Anyone going there would be seen for a long distance down Rua Dr FGM as well as certain nearby villas and certain flats in block 6 and that balconies on the side of block 6.
And, of course, it was overlooked by the Tapas group from just about 50 metres away
Anyone who was foolish and decided to go in by the patio door was then in a position that he was stuck, with no means of escape if someone came. This would be the case if the front door was double locked (I think this is correct?) and he had problems opening the shutter and window really quickly. He also had to be small and very agile to make a hasty exit from such a small window
No wonder that Amaral ruled it out.
This is all IMO and you have right to yours, but please weigh up the odds carefully.
Take your pick:
1. Front door hidden away, in a pitch black alcove with no one passing and with a key? OC personnel
involvement ? ... and a good escape route inn emergency via patio doors.
or,
2) Patio entrance awash with a pale light, visible from a good number of viewpoints. Also just 50 metres away from Madeleines parents and in sight of a group of friends who we call the Tapas seven. Also, an extremely tricky escape route that might not work.
How about we try and stick to the thread titles. Even Mods are taking threads off course!Thor, by golly, someone's stolen your thunder! Of course its a mod's fault for going off course.
Thor, by golly, someone's stolen your thunder! Of course its a mod's fault for going off course.
No One stole anything 8)--)) This is a moderated Forum, it should be moderated as John has asked. We need consistancy. 8**8:/:It is back on track, now keep it on track.
It was wrong for the family to use their daughters name to raise cash for legal fees and tell people it was to find their daughter. IMO
back on track 8((()*/