Re: findmadeleine.com

by Guest 07.12.11 17:55

Calum, who has designed websites "since he was 10" is paid out of the global donations to the fund, which won't be contributing to the McCanns' legal costs.

He refused to be drawn on how much his team of six are paid, and the Sunday Herald's repeated calls to the fund's spokeswoman, Esther McVey, were not returned. He added: "I can't tell you that, it's not much honestly. We are just covering our costs. You would need to speak to the fund about that."

by **Jill Havern** 07.12.11 18:10

Gillyspot wrote:From the Infohost website

Madeleine McCann
The leading Highlands and Islands IT Specialists!

On the 6th of May Infohost received a call from Philomena McCann, Madeleine's aunt, asking if they would set up a website to help find her neice. The website was setup that day as [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Is that the same website that was set up the year before Maddie 'disappeared'?

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

by Gillyspot 07.12.11 18:20

According to here

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

The website was activated on 11th May 2007

Note the categories

Dmoz Category:
Top/Society/Issues/Children,_Youth_and_Family/Child_Abduction/Individual_Cases/McCann,_Madeleine

by Anders 12.12.11 19:14

pauline wrote:
sharonl wrote:Sorry Aquila, this will not cheer you up, I hope you never contributed to the fund.

In desperate times such as these (alleged abduction of a child) you would normally find that family and friends rally round to help you as much as they possibly can and that they are usually quite generous in such circumstances. Faced with such an ordeal I am sure that most of us could find a relative, friend, colleague, neighbour or even someone more remote, a friend of a friend, but if we dig deep enough we will find someone who can create and monitor a website quite cheaply or for free if we are lucky. Unfortunately for the McCanns they didn't have this sort of assistance and in 2007 they (according to the fund accounts) paid £37,000 for their simple, uncomplicated website. Well, they did say that they were naive, maybe thats why they also got ripped off by all those dodgy detectives that they hired.

Does anyone know who the webmaster is? It would be interesting to find out why so much of Madeleines' fund was spent on a simple website.

I am involved in a good cause (not a limited company) and we needed a website but funds were to say the least limited. There was no-one on the committee who could do websites. On an email newsletter sent out by a group of NGOs/charities I found an ad from a website designer. I met him, he liked our cause and did a website for €250 plus some basic training for me in maintenance.This charge was set in late 2010. Now that is not the economic price for sure, but after that I met a more commercially minded designer and could have got a website for €2,000.

I presume the Madeleine website was constantly updated in the months after she vanished, but even allowing for website maintenance charges the figure of £37,000 for the first year for the website is OFF THE WALL. And with all those lawyers protecting them, this rip off happened! They could have asked their lawyers who did their website and the lawyers could surely as a good client of the website designer have negotiated a special rate for the Mccanns. As the website was going to have so many hits, any website designer would have grabbed the opportunity to promote themselves, and would have done the work for a reasonable fee because the spin off business could be lucrative.

I am a writer and designed and built my own web site, I did not want to spend a year learning HTML so bought some software for 100 quid to help me do I - I have used the same sw for a frien for her site - it really is fairly easy.

37k is c r I m I n a l

Should have been done for free by one of the hoodwinked millions...
Having said that, with all their connections, you would think old clarrie and the othe pr sellouts would have done something really very slick indeed - Inhouse, no fee - it actually seems to me that the web site is the very bare minimum they think they can get away with - they don't want something super slick with search functions and so on, as they know theve already messed up a hell of a lot, to paraphrase Gerry, he said it was fortunate that so much stuff is out there, it is hard to get a grip on all the conflicting info

We will see about that!!!!!!

by Guest 06.01.12 18:10

This is the latest on twitter from the find madeleine campaign promoting this piece from the Writing the wrongs.........

Find Madeleine

@findmadeleine UK

Official Campaign to Find Madeleine McCann

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
.
*****************

findmadeleineFind Madeleine

From our friends at Madeleine-Writing the Wrongs. [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

3 hours ago

by Guest 06.01.12 18:15

I wonder if they will start producing jigsaw puzzles (different sizes and numbers of pieces to appeal to all ages) with one crucial piece missing.

by Guest 06.01.12 20:47

Get 'em Gonçalo wrote:
Gillyspot wrote:From the Infohost website

Madeleine McCann
The leading Highlands and Islands IT Specialists!

On the 6th of May Infohost received a call from Philomena McCann, Madeleine's aunt, asking if they would set up a website to help find her neice. The website was setup that day as [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Is that the same website that was set up the year before Maddie 'disappeared'?

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Looking at the web archive for that site, the first archive is on 25 aug 2007. It doesn't show when it was created but that is the first archived instance of the page.

The first two archives (25 aug 2007 and 28 aug 2007) show the 2006 date. By the time of the next archive 12 Sep 2007 the date has changed to 2007..

I'm not a web developer, but the text is just part of the page footer content and is just text that would have to be typed into the tags.. Therefore I can't see why it would say 2006. I doubt if the website creation software would come with a copyright year as part of the page footer.. suppose it's possible a web developer could have reused a prexisting site that maybe already had a copyright text in the footer ...

This is from the first archive on 25 aug 2007: (had to remove tags so text could be displayed):

div class="page_footer" align="center" div class="page_footer_content" div class="dotted_line_blue" img src="http://web.archive.org/web/20070825081152im_/http://store.findmadeleine.com/acatalog/theme_shim.gif" height="1" width="1" alt=" " div p class="text_footer" span class="text_menu_no_space" © 2006 Find Madeleine Fund Online Store span a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20070825081152/http://store.findmadeleine.com/cgi-bin/mf000001.pl?ACTION=SHOWFORM" class="link_footer" Contact Us a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20070825081152/http://store.findmadeleine.com/acatalog/info.html" class="link_footer" Privacy Policy
href="http://web.archive.org/web/20070825081152/http://store.findmadeleine.com/acatalog/info.html" class="link_footer" Terms & Conds div

FILE ARCHIVED ON 8:11:52 Aug 25, 2007 AND RETRIEVED FROM THE
INTERNET ARCHIVE ON 20:16:07 Jan 6, 2012.

This is from 12 sept 2007:

span class="text_menu_no_space" © 2007 Find Madeleine Fund Online Store span href="http://web.archive.org/web/20070912092152/http://store.findmadeleine.com/cgi-bin/mf000001.pl?ACTION=SHOWFORM" class="link_footer" Contact Us a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20070912092152/http://store.findmadeleine.com/acatalog/info.html" class="link_footer" Privacy Policy
href="http://web.archive.org/web/20070912092152/http://store.findmadeleine.com/acatalog/info.html" class="link_footer" Terms & Conds div

FILE ARCHIVED ON 9:21:52 Sep 12, 2007 AND RETRIEVED FROM THE
INTERNET ARCHIVE ON 20:28:13 Jan 6, 2012.

by **tigger** 07.01.12 8:40

This is from the interview with Dr. Ludke: see sticky topic for the whole interview. Didn't want to post all of it but this always struck me.

WELT ONLINE: It means, the McCanns planned the death of their daughter?

Lüdke: Yes, it is possible that they planned this a long time ago, they must at least have played it through in their minds many times and they must have spoken about it together. Otherwise they would now be contradicting each other.

This backs up the 2006 date imo.

by jd 07.01.12 9:16

tigger wrote:This is from the interview with Dr. Ludke: see sticky topic for the whole interview. Didn't want to post all of it but this always struck me.

WELT ONLINE: It means, the McCanns planned the death of their daughter?

Lüdke: Yes, it is possible that they planned this a long time ago, they must at least have played it through in their minds many times and they must have spoken about it together. Otherwise they would now be contradicting each other.

This backs up the 2006 date imo.

But they are contradicting each other...massively

by **tigger** 07.01.12 9:29

jd wrote:
tigger wrote:This is from the interview with Dr. Ludke: see sticky topic for the whole interview. Didn't want to post all of it but this always struck me.

WELT ONLINE: It means, the McCanns planned the death of their daughter?

Lüdke: Yes, it is possible that they planned this a long time ago, they must at least have played it through in their minds many times and they must have spoken about it together. Otherwise they would now be contradicting each other.

This backs up the 2006 date imo.

But they are contradicting each other...massively

I don't really think so, certainly not in the beginning, which is what counts. They never expected to have to go over the same ground year after year, by now it is likely imo that inconsistencies slip in. Imo it wasn't so much a plan to 'put Maddie out of her misery' as putting them out of their misery of having a demanding child, one too many.

Basically, I think the whole plan went wrong on the 3rd, leaving no time for abduction as they had planned it in. The whole of evening of the 3rd didn't go as planned, therefore even then, some inconsistencies would creep in. (I've often wondered if the whole thing was first planned for the 2nd )
Imo they barely talk to each other now, Gerry is seen looking at Kate in a way that no loving husband should (see the Madrid photos).
But imo, they stuck to the basic story, the book certainly changed all that, I wonder if Gerry went through it before publication?

by jd 07.01.12 9:56

Murat did say "This is the biggest c**kup in history"....you are right they did mess it up. I did think for a while it could have preplanned before the holiday but after learning more facts I think it happened between April 28th - 30th April, though there is also things that indicate strongly May 2nd. Certainly not May 3rd. I agree to that I tend to feel they barely talk now but its too late they are all in it too deep

by **tigger** 07.01.12 14:16

jd wrote:Murat did say "This is the biggest c**kup in history"....you are right they did mess it up. I did think for a while it could have preplanned before the holiday but after learning more facts I think it happened between April 28th - 30th April, though there is also things that indicate strongly May 2nd. Certainly not May 3rd. I agree to that I tend to feel they barely talk now but its too late they are all in it too deep

I'm sorry, but I think the idea at least, came a lot earlier. The actual execution of the idea - the staged abduction - imo was developed in PdL. I think they'd never thought it would be so difficult, they didn't do a dry run, so they created a impossible situation.
Maddie was always a difficult child and she seems barely present in PdL, either recorded (creche etc.) or in recollection. Based on the phone and creche records, I'd go for an early 'accident' and demise not later than the 1st May.

The whole TM circus was operational way too early - even allowing for the kind of people they are, there is a normal period of adjusting to the loss. If it was unforeseen that she'd fall ill and died, a period of mourning or adjusting to the loss and the immediate problem of faking the abduction and the aftermath (lots of questioning) would not allow time to plan the next steps.
That's why I think they 'played' with the idea until it became reality. The 2006 date on the website may well be playing around with those early ideas.

by jd 07.01.12 14:30

You say Maddie was a difficult child, this what the mccanns & cronies would like you to believe for some reason. But when reading statements from witnesses who saw her during the holiday, staff, they all seem to say how sweet and quiet she was...I would believe what they say than any mccann or cronies

Maybe a lot of the planning was for done them? by a certain company, and a certain individual (possible 2) who I cannot name for libel reasons but seems to have had an apartment in OC for a number of years prior to 2007. Now his influence would certainly answer why TM circus quickly got under way. I can fully see why you think it may have preplanned before the holiday though, I think a few more revelations will point us in the right direction now

by **tigger** 07.01.12 15:08

jd wrote: You say Maddie was a difficult child, this what the mccanns & cronies would like you to believe for some reason. But when reading statements from witnesses who saw her during the holiday, staff, they all seem to say how sweet and quiet she was...I would believe what they say than any mccann or cronies unquote

We have no evidence to prove that the witnesses who saw her during the holiday, or the staff at the creche actually saw Maddie, they all said she was very shy, exactly the opposite of what the family and T7 said, they said she was very lively and not at all shy.
I still think she was ill and medicated a lot of the time. Although I feel that a stand-in complicates the case, I think it is quite possible that was done.
In fact one of the first witnesses on the 4th of May described a girl who was very blond (it was a guest I think). The two photographs which were circulated immediately were of a two-year old Maddie, automatically people would link this to children they had seen around, neither of the photographs resembled Maddie at nearly four years old, light brown hair, taller than 90 cm. ...etc.

by Pershing36 09.01.12 10:36

I find Infohosts involvement in this very shady. The website is hosted by Fasthosts, not Infohost. If you look up Infohost's portfolio (available on a Google search) it has a long list on websites. However start clicking on them and most are now dead links, others are just single pages with a company name and number. It doesn't give me the impression of a thriving internet hosting company. Infohost has a page dedicated to Madeliene, however it still does not tell you what input they had in it.

If they are not hosting it what are they doing and what cost £37,000?

by Lady-Heather 09.01.12 11:01

That £37,000 sounds more like an annual salary for a senior web developer .. as discussed previously that amount is unrealistic for a one-off setup, even with annual maintenance & support.

by Mariita 07.07.12 13:33

Have you seen this man? is the question next to a photo of the "abductor" as Jane saw him... This will make people (well, some) believe that there is actually a photo, and now I have found another blog here in Sweden that uses the same image claiming it´s real. I wrote about this in another thread, but apparently findmadeleine.com use the same method. Someone here on the forum told me the image is from "madeleine was here" (I think so, can´t find it now). "The man was seen outside the apartment".... [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

by ProfessorPPlum 07.07.12 15:04

Stewie wrote:
Get 'em Gonçalo wrote:
Gillyspot wrote:From the Infohost website

Madeleine McCann
The leading Highlands and Islands IT Specialists!

On the 6th of May Infohost received a call from Philomena McCann, Madeleine's aunt, asking if they would set up a website to help find her neice. The website was setup that day as [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Is that the same website that was set up the year before Maddie 'disappeared'?

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Looking at the web archive for that site, the first archive is on 25 aug 2007. It doesn't show when it was created but that is the first archived instance of the page.

The first two archives (25 aug 2007 and 28 aug 2007) show the 2006 date. By the time of the next archive 12 Sep 2007 the date has changed to 2007..

I'm not a web developer, but the text is just part of the page footer content and is just text that would have to be typed into the tags.. Therefore I can't see why it would say 2006. I doubt if the website creation software would come with a copyright year as part of the page footer.. suppose it's possible a web developer could have reused a prexisting site that maybe already had a copyright text in the footer ...

This is from the first archive on 25 aug 2007: (had to remove tags so text could be displayed):

div class="page_footer" align="center" div class="page_footer_content" div class="dotted_line_blue" img src="http://web.archive.org/web/20070825081152im_/http://store.findmadeleine.com/acatalog/theme_shim.gif" height="1" width="1" alt=" " div p class="text_footer" span class="text_menu_no_space" © 2006 Find Madeleine Fund Online Store span a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20070825081152/http://store.findmadeleine.com/cgi-bin/mf000001.pl?ACTION=SHOWFORM" class="link_footer" Contact Us a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20070825081152/http://store.findmadeleine.com/acatalog/info.html" class="link_footer" Privacy Policy
href="http://web.archive.org/web/20070825081152/http://store.findmadeleine.com/acatalog/info.html" class="link_footer" Terms & Conds div

FILE ARCHIVED ON 8:11:52 Aug 25, 2007 AND RETRIEVED FROM THE
INTERNET ARCHIVE ON 20:16:07 Jan 6, 2012.

This is from 12 sept 2007:

span class="text_menu_no_space" © 2007 Find Madeleine Fund Online Store span href="http://web.archive.org/web/20070912092152/http://store.findmadeleine.com/cgi-bin/mf000001.pl?ACTION=SHOWFORM" class="link_footer" Contact Us a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20070912092152/http://store.findmadeleine.com/acatalog/info.html" class="link_footer" Privacy Policy
href="http://web.archive.org/web/20070912092152/http://store.findmadeleine.com/acatalog/info.html" class="link_footer" Terms & Conds div

FILE ARCHIVED ON 9:21:52 Sep 12, 2007 AND RETRIEVED FROM THE
INTERNET ARCHIVE ON 20:28:13 Jan 6, 2012.

Bit crazy. Most people will use a commercial template or one of their own previous designs as a template - that's where the copyright 2006 will have come from. It's going overboard to claim this proves premeditation!

by **tigger** 07.07.12 21:35

6 May 2007
1st - OFFICIAL WEBSITE LAUNCHED AS
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Day 13 - 16/05/2007
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] LINKED TO:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
This is the day the Fund is launched.

DAY 23 6/05/2007
3rd - OFFICIAL WEBSITE REGISTERED AS
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] - LINKED TO
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] - LINKED TO
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] Domain tools

DAY 26 - 29/05/2007
4th- OFFICIAL WEBSITE REGISTERED AS
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] - LINKED TO
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] - LINKED TO
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] - LINKED TO
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

If you enlarge the screenshots below, you will see that the original versions of the official site asked people to 'Help find Madenleine'. It is surprising that this glaring error was carried thoughtlessly over from the original 'bringmadeleinehome.com' site without correction.

Sorry - didn't manage to transfer the screenshot which can be found on McCannfiles.

by Guest 01.02.13 11:15

on their message of support page on their website

Messages of Support

We are currently updating our messages of support application. If you would like to send a support message, please leave us a message on our Facebook page.

Wonder why ?

And ironicly this is what they put on their FB page yesterday

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

by **PeterMac** 01.02.13 11:36

The last sentences on the "missing-children" page always make me wince.

" My thoughts of the fear, confusion and loss of love and security that my precious daughter has had to endure are unbearable - crippling. And yet I am not the victim, Madeleine is. No child should EVER have to experience something so terrible."

Like being ABANDONED by her own parents for six nights in succession, whilst she cried inconsolably for an hour and a quarter.
I think that qualifies as fear, confusion, loss of love and security, doesn't it.

But, hang on. There is no evidence of harm. So this "terrible" thing doesn't count as "harm" ?

What world are they living in?

by Guest 01.02.13 12:05

PeterMac wrote:The last sentences on the "missing-children" page always make me wince.

" My thoughts of the fear, confusion and loss of love and security that my precious daughter has had to endure are unbearable - crippling. And yet I am not the victim, Madeleine is. No child should EVER have to experience something so terrible."

Like being ABANDONED by her own parents for six nights in succession, whilst she cried inconsolably for an hour and a quarter.
I think that qualifies as fear, confusion, loss of love and security, doesn't it.

But, hang on. There is no evidence of harm. So this "terrible" thing doesn't count as "harm" ?

What world are they living in?

Good point, I thought they was sure she was beeing loved by someone else and no evidence of harm or anything so how does she know she is in fear ? And what about : and yet I am not the victim, She almost sound bitter !

And yes what is that terrible thing? She don't tell us so we can't tell it for her !

by Guest 01.02.13 12:40

Madeleine is being treated like a princess by the paedophile who took her, so I understand.

Well, there certainly are allegations as to what royalty and their mates get up to!

Kate must be falling about laughing when she pens nonsense like this.

Log in for more topics