The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™
Hi,

A very warm welcome to The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™ forum.

Please log in, or register to view all the forums, then settle in and start chatting with us!

Enjoy your day,

Jill Havern
Forum owner

The Fraudulent Fund

View previous topic View next topic Go down

The Fraudulent Fund

Post by PeterMac on 23.05.11 15:11

p 296, para 3
"Gradually, my outlook was growing more positive and I was beginning to get past my early certainty that Madeleine must have been taken by a paedophile and murdered."
CERTAINTY - MURDERED
If they were certain that she had been murdered, the whole fund raising intention to "search for Madeleine" has been a massive lie, and the true nature of the demand for funds, to pay expensive lawyers to protect them from harmful truths coming out, and from subsequent extradition becomes more clear.
And it is therefore not surprising that Gerry started to repeating the mantra of "no evidence that she has come to any harm", at every possible opportunity.
Can we trace the first occasion he said that ?

____________________


PeterMac
Researcher

Posts : 10170
Reputation : 143
Join date : 2010-12-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Fraudulent Fund

Post by Guest on 23.05.11 15:29

Here is a video where the Brian Kennedy says the money donated to the fund will be mainly for legal fees,

[youtube][/youtube]

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: The Fraudulent Fund

Post by ufercoffy on 23.05.11 15:34

So you've got Kate's book then PeterMac, I am sooooo looking forward to hearing what you have to say about it from a policeman's point of view

thumbsup

____________________
Whose cadaver scent and bodily fluid was found in the McCann's apartment and hire car if not Madeleine's?  Shocked

ufercoffy

Posts : 1641
Reputation : 4
Join date : 2010-01-04

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Fraudulent Fund

Post by ufercoffy on 23.05.11 15:50

@PeterMac wrote:Can we trace the first occasion he said that ?

This is from Get 'ems blog:

A video of Gerry McCann saying "there's no evidence that Madeleine is dead and there's no evidence to implicate US in HER DEATH"

and also a video of Clarence

http://gerrymccan-abuseofpower-humanrights.blogspot.com/2009/09/gerry-mccann-theres-no-evidence-that.html

____________________
Whose cadaver scent and bodily fluid was found in the McCann's apartment and hire car if not Madeleine's?  Shocked

ufercoffy

Posts : 1641
Reputation : 4
Join date : 2010-01-04

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Fraudulent Fund

Post by lj on 23.05.11 16:00

In my memory it was after the "vi$$$$$$ion" in the church, but I'll start looking for it.


____________________
"And if Madeleine had hurt herself inside the apartment, why would that be our fault?"  Gerry

http://pjga.blogspot.co.uk/?m=0

http://whatreallyhappenedtomadeleinemccann.blogspot.co.uk/

lj

Posts : 3275
Reputation : 148
Join date : 2009-12-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Fraudulent Fund

Post by PeterMac on 23.05.11 16:12

@ufercoffy wrote:
This is from Get 'ems blog:
A video of Gerry McCann saying "there's no evidence that Madeleine is dead and there's no evidence to implicate US in HER DEATH"
Clearly backtracking hard on something Kate had said. Does his first statement to that effect coincide with the bruises on her upper arms, I wonder, idly !

____________________


PeterMac
Researcher

Posts : 10170
Reputation : 143
Join date : 2010-12-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Fraudulent Fund

Post by Guest on 23.05.11 16:16

And why did they call on Krugel and his machine that finds dead bodies??


IN SEARCH OF A BODY, WITH KRUGEL'S MACHINE

Kate heard of a man called Krugel, a former South African army colonel, who had allegedly perfected a machine enabling him to detect the presence of a body. A decomposing body emits particles: if hair from the deceased person is placed in the machine, it detects identical particles. On June 9th, Kate asks friends to go to her home in England to collect some of her daughter's hair and send it to Krugel.

On June 28th, the McCanns request Krugel's presence in the Algarve. They want to make his intervention official and seek the agreement of the PJ. Thanks to Madeleine's hair, the South African allegedly determined a sort of imaginary line that allowed him to state that the body was in the Vila da Luz area. The Portuguese and English police learn, with amazement, about these supposed cutting-edge technologies dedicated to locating bodies. Of course, we knew that such apparatus existed, especially in the United States, but Krugel's mysterious, "machine," leaves us all speechless. Kate and Gerry, they stick to their guns. They saw a television programme in which the effectiveness of Krugel's method was demonstrated, and so are persuaded that the man will be able to move the investigation forward. Without being convinced as to the validity of the method, the police end up acceding to their request.


http://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t1705-chapter-14-madeleine-s-parents-call-attention-to-her-death

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: The Fraudulent Fund

Post by PeterMac on 23.05.11 16:40

@ufercoffy wrote:So you've got Kate's book then PeterMac, I am sooooo looking forward to hearing what you have to say about it from a policeman's point of view
Yes, I got it this morning. £9 with free postage to Southern Spain. There is no 'free' P&P, so I doubt whether Amazon will have got more than £ 6.50.
Initial thoughts,
The only interesting bit is on pages 70 to 73
Page 70 and the top of page 71 is hearsay,
Bottom of 71 and top of 72 is the only bit we get about the abduction, and yet again, there is nothing.
top of Page 73
"I'd done that, and I knew, I knew, that Madeleine had been abducted."
Putting it in italics does not turn it into evidence, and the fact remains there is still nothing concrete.

But apart from that there seem to be some serious questions raised. I had not realised, or had forgotten that Fiona was also a trained anaethetist. So there were two anaesthetists present when two children failed to respond to stimuli, and neither bothered to rouse them, or make any proper checks for vital signs.
Kate says (p 75) that she placed her hand on the twins BACKS, to check for CHEST movement., "basically, for some sign of LIFE" but she does nothing else, no pupil response, no check of pulse, no smelling of their breath for ketones, nothing.
And the next sentence is "Had Madeleine been given some kind of sedative to keep her quiet ? Had the twins too?"

http://www.rcn.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/114484/003196.pdf
is about checking vital sign in children and says simply
Infants and children less than six to seven years of
age are predominantly abdominal breathers
therefore, abdominal movements should be counted


So Kate, a qualified anaesthetist, with the independent assistance of Fiona - ditto - suspects sedatives, but then fails to do any of the proper checks on the twins, or even to turn them over. A hand on their back is enough.
Is this credible ?
If it is true, then for this alone she and Fiona should be struck off.





____________________


PeterMac
Researcher

Posts : 10170
Reputation : 143
Join date : 2010-12-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Fraudulent Fund

Post by lj on 23.05.11 17:48

Kate dabbled in anaesthesiology, but was not a registered anaesthesiologist. Fiona was iirc.

The first snippets about Kate checking "professionally" came from Fiona. It is my personal opinion that these people are so far removed from what a true motherly care would be that they come up with the only care they know: the one they were trained for. Thus" Kate checked on the twins with the finder under their nose, or according to Kate by putting her hand on their back.

If they really had concern about the twins why not have them checked out as was offered?

Could you tell us what's on page 70 and on top of page 71? I understand that according to fair use you can quote small pieces.


____________________
"And if Madeleine had hurt herself inside the apartment, why would that be our fault?"  Gerry

http://pjga.blogspot.co.uk/?m=0

http://whatreallyhappenedtomadeleinemccann.blogspot.co.uk/

lj

Posts : 3275
Reputation : 148
Join date : 2009-12-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Fraudulent Fund

Post by PeterMac on 23.05.11 19:43

@lj wrote:Kate dabbled in anaesthesiology, but was not a registered anaesthesiologist. Fiona was iirc.
The first snippets about Kate checking "professionally" came from Fiona. It is my personal opinion that these people are so far removed from what a true motherly care would be that they come up with the only care they know: the one they were trained for. Thus" Kate checked on the twins with the finder under their nose, or according to Kate by putting her hand on their back.
If they really had concern about the twins why not have them checked out as was offered?
Could you tell us what's on page 70 and on top of page 71? I understand that according to fair use you can quote small pieces.

Importantly, Ij, you are wrong.
Kate tells us at P 20 :" I had first met Fiona in December 2000 in the staff coffee room at the Leicester Intensive Care Unit, where we were both anaesthetic registrars. It was the day after I passed my anaesthetic fellowship..." A registrar is only one step away from Consultant. It is the second most senior post, far removed from trainee, and certainly not "dabbling". (information for our overseas readers)

And the fact that you are wrong makes the situation even more incredible, fantastic, and reprehensible. TWO registrars in that very speciality do nothing to assess the twins, even though Kate states very clearly that she suspected, (even at that time, rather than the months later when they were interviewed), that they had been sedated.

As a young cop I went to a chimney fire which the Fire Brigade dealt with. (Oh those happy days of Forces and Brigades !) The house was full of smoke, the three children were asleep upstairs and I knew enough to tell the babysitter to help me get them up and take them downstairs and run them round in the garden until they coughed, and started complaining about being thirsty. And I was just a young cop, not a Registrar !

The fact that Fiona says hand under nose, and Kate says hand on back, is odd, to say the least. The fact that they were not roused is serious professional negligence.

Pages 70 and 71 involve Kate telling us in detail about the details of Gerry's visit. "He entered the apartment ...he looked at the children... he did this... he did that. Gerry saw Jes ... " which is all reported evidence and therefore hearsay. We can assume that Gerry has helped put it together and has proof read it, but nevertheless it comes from Kates pen.
But she then brushes aside the most important part of that Gerry/Jes meeting by adding
"for the record, there was subsequently some uncertainty about which side of the road Jes and Gerry were actually on. Jane and Jes remember it as the same side as the Tapas entrance, whereas Gerry is sure he crossed the street. Either way exactly where they were standing is not crucial. What may be important is that all three of them were there."

Let us just look at that again. Where they were standing is NOT crucial. Yes it is. It is absolutely vital since neither Gerry nor Jes even admit that Jane went past them, at all, ever. .
What may be important is that all three of them were there. It may indeed be important. Particularly if Jane was not. Why does Kate say 'may be important" rather than a more decisive, "What is important is that all three were there." Why is she hedging her bets ? Why have the proof readers and lawyers let her slip this in ?



____________________


PeterMac
Researcher

Posts : 10170
Reputation : 143
Join date : 2010-12-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Fraudulent Fund

Post by PeterMac on 23.05.11 21:44

And yes, before anyone jumps in, I accept there is a difference in seniority between Registrar and Senior Registrar, but the principle is exactly the same.
They know what they are doing.
Or are supposed to.
But they didn't do it.
Either of them.
Is that credible, or is the story itself slightly incredible ?

____________________


PeterMac
Researcher

Posts : 10170
Reputation : 143
Join date : 2010-12-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Fraudulent Fund

Post by lj on 23.05.11 22:47

Thank you PeterMac for that correction. I always thought that it was only a year she worked in anaesthesiology when she stopped because of the pregnancy of Madeleine. But again, I say that from memory. In the Netherlands many specialism require additional years in other specialisms and doctors often do some extra to get an allround training.

Don't get me started about the quality of their medical knowledge and ethics. You have probably in your career seen the freak accidents young kids can get in when left alone. I can't believe that anyone who has worked one weekend on an emergency room can leave their kids out of earshot, especially not in a strange room in a strange house in a strange country. And everytime they do this "who could know they would kidnap her" I think: idiots, effing idiots, you should know better. This latest coloboma thing finished it for me. They both should loose their license or registration. What if indeed Madeleine was kidnapped and brought to Morocco. They see a child there, bring her to the local or police doctor who will say "no, it is not Madeleine, she has no coloboma". They deliberately created a situation where Madeleine could not be identified. How evil.

So this page 70 thing "What may be important is that all three of them were there." is one of those Kate slip of the tongues: Gerry needed an alibi, what better than 2 people seeing him there?


____________________
"And if Madeleine had hurt herself inside the apartment, why would that be our fault?"  Gerry

http://pjga.blogspot.co.uk/?m=0

http://whatreallyhappenedtomadeleinemccann.blogspot.co.uk/

lj

Posts : 3275
Reputation : 148
Join date : 2009-12-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Fraudulent Fund

Post by PeterMac on 24.05.11 7:00

Ij
A slip of the tongue if said during an interview, but not IMHO if written, re-written, edited, proof read y Gerry, by Carter-Ruck, by Sue,Grabit and Run for the Fund, by Mitchell, and by the Tapas7.
It has been written, and approved. But it allows of interpretation. Why ?

____________________


PeterMac
Researcher

Posts : 10170
Reputation : 143
Join date : 2010-12-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Fraudulent Fund

Post by RBxHN on 26.05.11 19:19

@PeterMac wrote:p 296, para 3
"Gradually, my outlook was growing more positive and I was beginning to get past my early certainty that Madeleine must have been taken by a paedophile and murdered."
CERTAINTY - MURDERED
If they were certain that she had been murdered, the whole fund raising intention to "search for Madeleine" has been a massive lie, and the true nature of the demand for funds, to pay expensive lawyers to protect them from harmful truths coming out, and from subsequent extradition becomes more clear.
And it is therefore not surprising that Gerry started to repeating the mantra of "no evidence that she has come to any harm", at every possible opportunity.
Can we trace the first occasion he said that ?

Not lies again surely?

Only joking, dont get me involved in that.

Anyway, out of curiosity, do you read 'search for Madeleine' as only being alive? Its just that I read it as searching for her no matter what the outcome.

Sorry, but I just look at things as I see them. i don't always look for some underhand connotations.

RBxHN

Posts : 110
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2011-04-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Fraudulent Fund

Post by PeterMac on 28.05.11 15:21

p. 170 "At the beginning of June ......... Whatever the case, it was suggested to Gerry that we should use Madeleine's Fund to employ someone to replace Clarance once our campaign visits were complete. Reluctantly, Gerry agreed. We honestly hadn't bargained for having to pay a salary for media liaison out of the fund, which we'd envisaged being used primarily to meet costs related directly to the search for Madeleine." [my emphases]
This was June 2007.
Gerry and Katey were not trustees of the Fund until much later, and no decision about spending the money could have been legally taken by Gerry. His agreement is irrelevant, in law. I practice however it may be that the trustees were always under the thumb and simply rubber-stamped what they were told to do, which may be why so many resigned.
The language is very clear. ...suggested to Gerry, Gerry agreed, We honestly hadn't bargained for..."

____________________


PeterMac
Researcher

Posts : 10170
Reputation : 143
Join date : 2010-12-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Fraudulent Fund

Post by lj on 28.05.11 16:37

I don't think Gerry would have anyone but himself take decisions that would directly concern his lifestyle.

So help me out here, paying the mortgage is directly related to the search for Madeleine, but a media liaison is not?

With their extremely poor people skills I would say the latter would help more.

But then I would have sold my house, and not have bought a new car etc etc.

____________________
"And if Madeleine had hurt herself inside the apartment, why would that be our fault?"  Gerry

http://pjga.blogspot.co.uk/?m=0

http://whatreallyhappenedtomadeleinemccann.blogspot.co.uk/

lj

Posts : 3275
Reputation : 148
Join date : 2009-12-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Fraudulent Fund

Post by PeterMac on 28.05.11 22:54

Ij.
There is a legal point here. In English law the Trustees are the legal owners of the money, and only they can decide how it is spent.
Gerry and Katey were not Trustees at that point. They had no role in deciding anything. But Katey has possibly made it all too clear what was really going on.

____________________


PeterMac
Researcher

Posts : 10170
Reputation : 143
Join date : 2010-12-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The Fraudulent Fund

Post by lj on 29.05.11 0:08

I understand that, PeterMac. I think that's why Gerry is member of the board now too. iconbiggrin

____________________
"And if Madeleine had hurt herself inside the apartment, why would that be our fault?"  Gerry

http://pjga.blogspot.co.uk/?m=0

http://whatreallyhappenedtomadeleinemccann.blogspot.co.uk/

lj

Posts : 3275
Reputation : 148
Join date : 2009-12-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum