So who appointed the mccanns as directors.
Why did he use his works address - and not his own.
Gerry McCann became a director of Madeleine's Fund on 12/11/2008, 10 April 2009
Some points to note from this document:
1) This is the electronically filed document that originated from Madeleine's Fund: Leaving No Stone Unturned Limited.
2) Gerry McCann was appointed a director on 12/11/2008, yet, despite promising that Madeleine's Fund would be 'entirely transparent', this information was not made public until it appeared in the UK press on 17 May 2009 - following its submission to Companies House in April.
3) Instead of satisfying the Companies House requirement to state his 'usual residential address', Gerry has used his work address of Glenfield Hospital. Gerry's boss at Glenfield, Douglas Skehan, is also on the board of directors.
What we have here is a public hospital with Trust status - funded by tax payers - being used as the residential address of a director of a privately run business.
4) There is no authorising director listed, and no accompanying signature, so it remains unclear who approved Gerry McCanns' election to the board of a fund of which he, and his family, are direct beneficiaries.
5) What assurance is there that Gerry won't get involved in making financial decisions from which he and his family will benefit?
... and still one is left to ponder why Madeleine's Fund has received such obsessive and pejorative scrutiny scrutiny for a period of eleven years.
The complete negativity towards Madeleine's Fund which used the money it had to successfully achieve its aim of paying for detectives to keep investigating Madeleine's case when no-one else was, raises the question of why the scrutineers appear to resent that success.
... and further to that the fact that money from Madeleine's Fund achieved the objective of keeping things going until the Policia Judiciaria and Scotland Yard opened their own reviews into her case seems to be the cause of some angst among scrutineers who in my opinion were a bit perplexed by that success.
The tenacity of her parents in doing the job of the police in leaving no stone unturned in the search for a missing child is in my opinion quite remarkable.
The fact that the self appointed scrutineers of Madeleine's Fund have spent eleven years knocking them for it using in my opinion innuendo at the least brings the question of what their aims have been throughout.
It costs a lot of money to keep feet on the ground in an investigation into a kidnapping, as the complaints about the now official investigation into Madeleine's case have proved.
Is it possible there are those who object to anyone having the means to search for Madeleine McCann? I think that is a question that the scrutineers have to ask themselves.
