UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
Disappeared and Abducted Children and Young Adults => Madeleine McCann (3) disappeared from her parent's holiday apartment at Ocean Club, Praia da Luz, Portugal on 3 May 2007. No trace of her has ever been found. => Topic started by: icabodcrane on October 27, 2013, 03:52:22 AM
-
... says 'The McCann fund source' when speaking to The Times about burying the Smith E fits in favour of Tannerman
Can someone explain that to me ?
'Too expensive to investigate 'both' sightings ... like one had to be chosen at the expense of the other ?
I don't understand this ... does ANYONE ?
-
... says 'The McCann fund source' when speaking to The Times about burying the Smith E fits in favour of Tannerman
Can someone explain that to me ?
'Too expensive to investigate 'both' sightings ... like one had to be chosen at the expense of the other ?
I don't understand this ... does ANYONE ?
I think it means it was too expensive to investigate both sighting so one had to be chosen at the expense of the other
-
I think it means it was too expensive to investigate both sighting so one had to be chosen at the expense of the other
why didnt the mcanns use the fund for it thats what it is for isnt it?? not house payments and trips to the pope and america
-
why didnt the mcanns use the fund for it thats what it is for isnt it?? not house payments and trips to the pope and america
No, the fund is for expensive lawyers & mortgage repayments.
-
why didnt the mcanns use the fund for it thats what it is for isnt it?? not house payments and trips to the pope and america
I thought you had me on ignore...or have you forgotten
-
No, the fund is for expensive lawyers & mortgage repayments.
ahh i see so maddie comes last as always
-
Do any of you very clever posters know how much it would have cost to investigate both sightings.. I don't...but I do know that SY have spent 5 million pounds so far...It doesn't really matter . you need something fresh everyday to feed your hatred
-
Do any of you very clever posters know how much it would have cost to investigate both sightings.. I don't...but I do know that SY have spent 5 million pounds so far...It doesn't really matter . you need something fresh everyday to feed your hatred
How much money has the fund raised?
-
How much money has the fund raised?
it doesn't really matter..in my opinion this is just about feeding the hatred
-
it doesn't really matter..in my opinion this is just about feeding the hatred
I imagine It requires little feeding.
-
I imagine It requires little feeding.
i think it is a reasonable ?? in all seriousness isnt that what people donated to fund for to help find maddie??
-
Do any of you very clever posters know how much it would have cost to investigate both sightings.. I don't...but I do know that SY have spent 5 million pounds so far...It doesn't really matter . you need something fresh everyday to feed your hatred
Yes tax-payers money, not SY's.
Why should the tax-payer have to fork out for incompetent parents on a continual basis ?
-
Yes tax-payers money, not SY's.
Why should the tax-payer have to fork out for incompetent parents on a continual basis ?
Its called living in a civilised society...tax payers should have to fork out for incompetent parents..
-
Its called living in a civilised society...tax payers should have to fork out for incompetent parents..
Why ?
-
I don't think the fund was a fraud and I don't think the parents used the expenses for jetting in private planes around the world..
-
Why ?
father gets drunk ...crashes car..children injured...what happens
-
they paid their house payments and jetted around the world instead of paying to look for maddie shows their priortieis doesnt it and it sounds like the fund was fraud
So what's your opinion of the hundreds of thousands of pounds of the McCann's own money and their friends own money which they put into the fund instead of their own private bank accounts?
-
dont you pros get it they used money that was meant to be for maddie and used it to pay top lawyers who were doing it pro bono according to pros ??? dont you understand anything
-
So what's your opinion of the hundreds of thousands of pounds of the McCann's own money and their friends own money which they put into the fund instead of their own private bank accounts?
'hundreds of thousands of pounds of the McCann's own money and their friends own money'
Proof please.
Book sales don't count, nor do libel payments, since these would not have occurred if the parents had taken care of their children in the first place.
-
dont you pros get it they used money that was meant to be for maddie and used it to pay top lawyers who were doing it pro bono according to pros ??? dont you understand anything
I do understand Carly, and so do the independent accountants who handle the accounts and the Inland Revenue who after inspection have found nothing amiss with them. Are you asking me to believe that they are all a load of idiots and that you know better than they do?
-
anyway whatever money the mcanns got it sounds like they misused it they used it for themselves and not maddies welfare here that is called fruad IE getting money and using it for purposes other then intended
fraud is a serious allegation to make on a forum that can be read by anyone.
-
'hundreds of thousands of pounds of the McCann's own money and their friends own money'
Proof please.
Book sales don't count, nor do libel payments, since these would not have occurred if the parents had taken care of their children in the first place.
LOL I've heard it all now. Maybe we should blame Kate and Gerry's parents, because if it wasn't for them Gerry and Kate would never have been born, and neither would Madeleine and so none of this would have happened.
So what would you have said if the McCanns and their friends had put their compensation money in their own bank accounts Stephen, or if Kate McCann had done the same as Amaral and kept the profits from her book for herself? Would you still be saying that money doesn't count?
-
Where does one get these facts???? proof please, thank u.
-
Do any of you very clever posters know how much it would have cost to investigate both sightings.. I don't...but I do know that SY have spent 5 million pounds so far...It doesn't really matter . you need something fresh everyday to feed your hatred
I have no idea how much it would've cost to investigate, but I imagine that if they'd requested that a news paper printed the photo's most would have jumped at it.
That wouldn't have cost the fund anything and would've got the information out. If anything worthwhile had come in off the back of it, they could have then decided whether it was worth investigating or not.
Its called living in a civilised society...tax payers should have to fork out for incompetent parents..
I actually agree with davel here. It is our duty as tax payers to fork out for incompetent parents. It's not the childrens fault.
-
I think it means it was too expensive to investigate both sighting so one had to be chosen at the expense of the other
I would say at the expense to maddie ....but there again £10 an hour was too much...
So the one they chose then ......seems they suppressed the evidence for five years.....
THE critical new evidence at the centre of Scotland Yard’s search for Madeleine McCann was kept secret for five years after it was presented to her parents by ex-MI5 investigators.
The evidence was in fact taken from an intelligence report produced for Gerry and Kate McCann by a firm of former spies in 2008.
It contained crucial E-Fits of a man seen carrying a child on the night of Madeleine’s disappearance, which have only this month become public after he was identified as the prime suspect by Scotland Yard.
-
LOL I've heard it all now. Maybe we should blame Kate and Gerry's parents, because if it wasn't for them Gerry and Kate would never have been born, and neither would Madeleine and so none of this would have happened.
So what would you have said if the McCanns and their friends had put their compensation money in their own bank accounts Stephen, or if Kate McCann had done the same as Amaral and kept the profits from her book for herself? Would you still be saying that money doesn't count?
Hardly a logical response.
The mccanns are solely responsible as parents for taking care of their children.
They didn't.
-
Hardly a logical response.
The mccanns are solely responsible as parents for taking care of their children.
They didn't.
Indeed as are all parents Stephen. The only difference imo is that in your eyes only the parents of Madelelne McCann are required to be perfect parents and perfect human beings - and must never ever be allowed to get anything wrong - and if they do they must expect to be persecuted by some people for the rest of their lives.
Do you think that's a logical perception?
If so - I can only presume you have never been guilty of 'human error' in the whole of your life Stephen.
-
Too expensive? So you choose the less likely sighting and peddle it for 5 years even though your own guys trash it?
5 years wasted. Incredible.
-
Indeed as are all parents Stephen. The only difference imo is that in your eyes only the parents of Madelelne McCann are required to be perfect parents and perfect human beings - and must never ever be allowed to get anything wrong - and if they do they must expect to be persecuted by some people for the rest of their lives.
Do you think that's a logical perception?
If so - I can only presume you have never been guilty of 'human error' in the whole of your life Stephen.
Well I can say honestly I have never gone out drinking and left any of my children unprotected in unlocked accommodation for 5 successive evenings.
and who said I've never made mistakes ?
-
Too expensive? So you choose the less likely sighting and peddle it for 5 years even though your own guys trash it?
5 years wasted. Incredible.
incredible yes ..........................but the mccs knew what they were doing imo
'' He said the fund wanted to continue to pursue information about the man seen by Tanner, and it would have been too expensive to investigate both sightings in full — so the Smith E-Fits were not publicised. It was also considered necessary to threaten legal action against the authors.''
-
Given that any paper would've jumped at the chance to publish the e-fits and the Fund could have chosen which information to follow up on afterwards, the claim that it would've been too expensive is laughable.
-
wheres the proof of all this ..?
-
Well I can say honestly I have never gone out drinking and left any of my children unprotected in unlocked accommodation for 5 successive evenings.
and who said I've never made mistakes ?
So do you think the McCanns should be persecuted for the rest of their lives Stephen?
All humans make mistakes. Are you being relentlessly persecuted by others for the mistakes you've made.
-
So do you think the McCanns should be persecuted for the rest of their lives Stephen?
All humans make mistakes. Are you being relentlessly persecuted by others for the mistakes you've made.
Perhaps you should remember the words of km in the interview on Crimewatch as regards what they did is no longer the issue.......... >@@(*&)
Well it is.
-
So do you think the McCanns should be persecuted for the rest of their lives Stephen?
All humans make mistakes. Are you being relentlessly persecuted by others for the mistakes you've made.
How trivial you put it when you post it as a mistake .............they lost their child fgs......a mistake can be a miss spelling a wrong ingredient etc etc etc
They left their children alone ..............................through this maddie was gone ......that's not a mistake ....
you don't know what happened .......you only believe you know ......same as us all....but don't trivialize it as it being a mistake ...when a child has suffered one way or another ....and put the onus on someone else
-
How trivial you put it when you post it as a mistake .............they lost their child fgs......a mistake can be a miss spelling a wrong ingredient etc etc etc
They left their children alone ..............................through this maddie was gone ......that's not a mistake ....
you don't know what happened .......you only believe you know ......same as us all....but don't trivialize it as it being a mistake ...when a child has suffered one way or another ....and put the onus on someone else
A mistake can also be leaving your child to drown in a bath in the mistaken belief that it was safe to do so. Do we persecute those parents, or do we have nothing but profound sympathy for them - even though if you apply the same 'reasoning' to those parents as you do to the McCanns - in essence they are no different.
-
fgs.........
A mistake can also be leaving your child to drown in a bath.............No that would be a tragedy
in the mistaken belief that it was safe to do so.................like check every 30 mins
Do we persecute those parents, or do we have nothing but profound sympathy for them .......you can ....i don't
-
fgs.........
A mistake can also be leaving your child to drown in a bath.............No that would be a tragedy
in the mistaken belief that it was safe to do so.................like check every 30 mins
Do we persecute those parents, or do we have nothing but profound sympathy for them .......you can ....i don't
only sympathy i have is for maddie who though no choice of her own was left to fend for herself and for whatever did happen to her at 3 years old alone and scared
-
only sympathy i have is for maddie who though no choice of her own was left to fend for herself and for whatever did happen to her at 3 years old alone and scared
And whoever abducted her? Took advantage of her vulnerability? How do you feel about them?
-
only sympathy i have is for maddie who though no choice of her own was left to fend for herself and for whatever did happen to her at 3 years old alone and scared
yes me too
-
I do understand Carly, and so do the independent accountants who handle the accounts and the Inland Revenue who after inspection have found nothing amiss with them. Are you asking me to believe that they are all a load of idiots and that you know better than they do?
Correctly established accounts don't inform about the way the money is spent, but surely indicate they're no fools.
corrected
-
Perhaps you should remember the words of km in the interview on Crimewatch as regards what they did is no longer the issue.......... >@@(*&)
Well it is.
no it is not!! ..only to the likes of you..not the authorities ..time you moved on an stopped dwelling on it 8-)(--)
-
only sympathy i have is for maddie who though no choice of her own was left to fend for herself and for whatever did happen to her at 3 years old alone and scared
So no compassion at all then? Do you think your sympathy would mean much to a child, when viewed in the light of what you are saying about her parents?
-
We conclude that the applicants voluntarily decided to limit their right to the intimacy of private life, certainly envisaging higher values like the discovery of their daughter Madeleine's whereabouts, but upon voluntarily limiting that right, they opened the doors for other people to give their opinion about the case, in synchrony with what they were saying, but also possibly in contradiction with their directions, yet always within the bounds of a legitimate and constitutionally consecrated right to opinion and freedom of expression of thought.
We do not see that the right of the book's author, the defendant, can be limited by a right to the reservation of intimacy that suffered voluntary limitations by their holders, the applicants.
In the same way, concerning the applicants' right to image and a good name: upon placing the case in the public square and giving it worldwide notoriety, the applicants opened all doors to all opinions, even those that are adversarial to them.
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id344.html
-
Not surprising that the sighting pursued was the one where the person who witnessed it didn't claim that they were 60 - 80% certain that the man they saw carrying the child was Gerry !
and where in smiths statement does it say that ?
-
and where in smiths statement does it say that ?
8-)(--)
-
To get back to the main point of the thread
Does anyone think "It would have been too expensive to investigate both sightings in full" is a reasonable ?
Does anyone agree that it was reasonable of the McCanns to have 'selected' which sighting to investigate, on the basis that it would cost too much to investigate more than one ?
-
from gerrys blog
Gerry's Blogs Oakley International 26 August 2008 1,571 views No Comment In the light of articles in some UK Sunday newspapers this weekend, we feel it is appropriate to comment briefly on our relationship with the investigation company Oakley International. We appointed them several months ago to investigate the disappearance of Madeleine McCann. We continue to work with them to this end. The working relationship is managed by Brian Kennedy, who also confirms the relationship with Oakley International continues to be good and that it remains entirely focused on the search for Madeleine. - See more at: http://madeleinemccann.org/2008/1669/oakley-international/#sthash.gVeY3TXu.dpuf"
-
To get back to the main point of the thread
Does anyone think "It would have been too expensive to investigate both sightings in full" is a reasonable ?
Does anyone agree that it was reasonable of the McCanns to have 'selected' which sighting to investigate, on the basis that it would cost too much to investigate more than one ?
Come on there's a mortgage to be paid! And what about legal expenses?
-
Having read the article in The Times again, I feel the "too expensive to investigate both sighting" response was actually non sequitur ... the answer did not 'follow' ... the logic is broken
This 'Fund source' was not being asked why the Smithman sighting had not been 'investigate' he was being asked why it had not been publicised
Cost has very little to with that
All it would have taken is for the E fits to be passed to the press with a covering statement from their, already employed, media manager
Additionally, when the McCanns appeared on TV holding up the images of Tannerman, they would simply needed to hold up the E fits of Smithman as well
The Smithman E fits could have been put on the official website and included in Kate's book
All this would have cost nothing
-
To get back to the main point of the thread
Does anyone think "It would have been too expensive to investigate both sightings in full" is a reasonable ?
Does anyone agree that it was reasonable of the McCanns to have 'selected' which sighting to investigate, on the basis that it would cost too much to investigate more than one ?
It doesn't seem to make very much sense that either of these sightings would be preferenced over the other, in investigative terms, particularly at that early stage of the investigation, when there was no real evidence to suggest which sighting would have been a more likely source of intelligence than anther.
Are decisions really made like this? Let's go with the cheaper / cheapest line of inquiry? What sense does that make?
And would such decisions be ones of the McCanns?
-
It doesn't seem to make very much sense that either of these sightings would be preferenced over the other, in investigative terms, particularly at that early stage of the investigation, when there was no real evidence to suggest which sighting would have been a more likely source of intelligence than anther.
Are decisions really made like this? Let's go with the cheaper / cheapest line of inquiry? What sense does that make?
And would such decisions be ones of the McCanns?
Who do you think the McCanns would permit to make those decisions ? ... certainly not their private investigators ( their rejection of the advice given by Henri Exton is evidence of that )
If you doubt that the McCanns, themselves, made the decision to promote Jane Tanner's sighting whilst keeping Smithman's E fit secret ... who do you think DID make that decision ?
-
And would such decisions be ones of the McCanns?
Are you suggesting they were manipulated ? What for ?
Ah, and Smithman had a superiority on Tannerman : he was carrying a little girl matching Madeleine, not the legs of a pyjama matching (?) Madeleine's alleged one.
-
I wonder when bundleman actually came forward? Does he even exist?
-
I wonder when bundleman actually came forward? Does he even exist?
There are those of us who doubt it.
That doesn't make it fact of course.....
-
Who do you think the McCanns would permit to make those decisions ? ... certainly not their private investigators ( their rejection of the advice given by Henri Exton is evidence of that )
If you doubt that the McCanns, themselves, made the decision to promote Jane Tanner's sighting whilst keeping Smithman's E fit secret ... who do you think DID make that decision ?
It's a very good question icabod and I don't have a full answer.
It is nonetheless odd the notion that a line of inquiry can be nixed before it even gets off the ground on the whimsy of one of the many parties involved in an investigation - even if that party is a very important one. The McCanns are influential in the investigations but they do not control them. They are not working on the ground and they cannot control intelligence.
Yes, they can manipulate to their hearts' content as far as PR and other considerations are concerned - once intelligence has been gathered. But to smother lines of inquiry for no good reason, especially when hard facts are so lacking, would be very odd indeed.
-
If the e-fits, etc. were ever shared with the official authorities they are not in the files.
All very odd.
-
I wonder when bundleman actually came forward? Does he even exist?
A father certainly exists who carried his young child with in an orange/blue pyjama. Did he cross Gentil Martins à 21h15, did he carry the child like a first helper ? This is dubious as SY reckons they're not certain he was Tannerman.