Re: Maddie Case: Scotland Yard discredits Spanish investigation

by aiyoyo 21.03.12 2:29

ShuBob wrote:PeterMac wrote:

"I suspect because he is already on record as saying how wonderful they were...."

That hasn't stopped him in the past. If you remember, when news of Halligen having allegedly swindled them of between £300-500k emerged, Clarence repeatedly denied the claim. That suddenly changed following his arrest with Clarence saying "We are glad this man was tracked down. It
is distressing someone would seek to make money out of Madeleine."

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/2746506/Maddie-rat-Kevin-Halligen-tried-to-sue-FindMadeleine-fund-for-150k.html

So he has done it all and nothing he says now will be new.

Effectively he's stuck between iceberg and a very hard place. Whoever is captain of their ship is on 24 hours watch alert now.

by Gillyspot 21.03.12 6:37

pauline wrote:I would love to know how Kate defines 'due diligence.'

She uses this phrase in the truthful book but I do not think her understanding of the phrase is the same as the posters here.

The McCanns or actually more likely their "financial backer" will only be able to sue Halligen if the contract initially made between them is detailed enough to prove that he hasn't carried out the work that they asked for (or not to an acceptable standard). Although this isn't part of due diligence (that allegedly being carried out before employing Halligen) it is normal practice where large and expensive contracts are taken out to make sure the work that is required is clearly detailed in a contract to avoid misunderstandings (and litigation).

There wouldn't have been a contract between the McCanns & Halligen if they weren't paying him so they wouldn't have been able to sue.

by russiandoll 21.03.12 9:01

Hope there is more to this than discrediting leads, would be surprised if SY are not going through the Spanish stuff with a fne-tooth comb, to discover the motivation for their employment and what instructions they were following for payment. They might well have produced results for the McCanns, but as stated in the quoted article, nothing regarding progressing a search.
Follow the money.........the evidence for a massive fraud is to be discovered here imo.

by aiyoyo 21.03.12 9:48

pauline wrote:I would love to know how Kate defines 'due diligence.'

She uses this phrase in the truthful book but I do not think her understanding of the phrase is the same as the posters here.

I am not sure you are looking at it from the right angle pauline.
Have no doubt kate knows all about due diligence.
It was exactly the "due diligence" they wanted that suits their purpose to a T.
They got exactly the "sort" of detectives they wanted exactly from due diligence.
No decent detectives would want to be implicated in their dodgy deal.

In case CR is watching. If their detective hire is not dodgy I don't know what is.
Here we are not talking one set of bad detective agency or detectives, we are talking 4 consecutive sets in a row. Is that down to bad luck? I should hardly think so after all the mccanns had been VERY lucky so far with every thing else.
In fact they had been also lucky with the detectives because those were exactly the sort the mccanns were after.

What does their choice of detective tell people about their search? Serious?
Did the mccanns follow up on the detectives work?
Did they ask for leads, did they ask whether leads were follow up?
Did they have meetings with detectives to get updated?
Did they ensure that people's money given to them for the search was not wasted on incompetent detectives delivering zilch.
I would think that is their obligation to the donors, and more importantly their OBLIGATION TO Madeleine at the very least, if they want people to believe she's alive and not come to any harm.

On the "not come to any harm" as said by Gerry the mind boggles because if she was taken she was already harmed, unless he did not consider "abducted by paedophile" or "taken" as having come to harm. It's one of those gerry's verbal diarrhea moments.

by russiandoll 21.03.12 10:13

aiyoyo I could not agree more.

FOLLOW THE MONEY........

by **PeterMac** 21.03.12 11:30

It seems an opportune moment to publish again the letter I got from Bates Wells some years ago.
With luck someone will feel a right prat now.

11 January 2008

Dear Sir,
Madeleine’s Fund - Leaving No Stone Unturned Limited

We acknowledge receipt of your letter dated 22 December 2007 which was also sent to the auditors of Madeleine’s Fund, Haysmacintyre. We are also replying on behalf of Haysmacintyre.
We are advised by our client that reports in the media purporting to be from the investigators, which made claims as to when Madeleine would be found are inaccurate and misrepresentations of their views.

Our client has every confidence in the investigators who continue the search for Madeleine.

Yours faithfully

Bates Wells & Braithwaite London LLP

Wrong, inaccurate, and written by them in the certain knowledge at the time that it was wrong and inaccurate.

by **tigger** 21.03.12 11:58

PeterMac wrote:It seems an opportune moment to publish again the letter I got from Bates Wells some years ago.
With luck someone will feel a right prat now.

11 January 2008

Dear Sir,
Madeleine’s Fund - Leaving No Stone Unturned Limited

We acknowledge receipt of your letter dated 22 December 2007 which was also sent to the auditors of Madeleine’s Fund, Haysmacintyre. We are also replying on behalf of Haysmacintyre.
[b]We are advised by our client that reports in the media purporting to be from the investigators, which made claims as to when Madeleine would be found are inaccurate and misrepresentations of their views.
[/b]
Our client has every confidence in the investigators who continue the search for Madeleine.

Yours faithfully

Bates Wells & Braithwaite London LLP

Wrong, inaccurate, and written by them in the certain knowledge at the time that it was wrong and inaccurate.

Is it the views of the clients they are talking about, or the views of the investigators? Ambiguous sentence at best. Well, I hope they're blushing! laughat

by aiyoyo 21.03.12 12:16

PeterMac wrote:It seems an opportune moment to publish again the letter I got from Bates Wells some years ago.
With luck someone will feel a right prat now.

11 January 2008

Dear Sir,
Madeleine’s Fund - Leaving No Stone Unturned Limited

We acknowledge receipt of your letter dated 22 December 2007 which was also sent to the auditors of Madeleine’s Fund, Haysmacintyre. We are also replying on behalf of Haysmacintyre.
We are advised by our client that reports in the media purporting to be from the investigators, which made claims as to when Madeleine would be found are inaccurate and misrepresentations of their views.

Our client has every confidence in the investigators who continue the search for Madeleine.

Yours faithfully

Bates Wells & Braithwaite London LLP

Wrong, inaccurate, and written by them in the certain knowledge at the time that it was wrong and inaccurate.

Exactly! Talking about misleading the public.......it doesn't come more blatantly clearer than that!

The newspapers could only have got that info from the mccanns source and we know very who that is, since he'd admitted it in public.

by nomendelta 21.03.12 12:23

I have more or less said this before but it's worth repeating. Given how litigious the McCanns have been and how successful they have been in terms of getting money from the press for printing incorrect information...why haven't the sued the papers for misrepresenting what the detective agencies said? Surely claims of "home by christmas" and "we know who took her" along with loads of other extremely dubious stories (the Hewlett connection which in light of SY's dismissal of M3's work would perhaps indicate that too was a nonsense) are as upsetting to the McCanns as suggestions that maybe they aren't telling the truth about things?

by **PeterMac** 21.03.12 14:05

Those claims are also her death sentence, (assuming of course that .....) just as was the detailed description of the coloboma, (assuming of course that .....)

by aiyoyo 21.03.12 18:00

But of course they are not stupid - they knew you cannot sentence a dead person to death.

by **PeterMac** 21.03.12 22:37

aiyoyo wrote:But of course they are not stupid - they knew you cannot sentence a dead person to death.

Indeed not.
But what they can do, and in fact have done, is to sentence many people, their erstwhile friends and their close relatives, to a living purgatory, in which they all are condemned for the remainder of their lives to pretend that the things they said are the objective and provable truth.
There are many many stories of the undead, of ghosts, of ghouls, of spectres, of vampires, - all waiting for the moment when they can be released from their own private Hell by a true word, or a true kiss, or true love, or whatever, but it always involves the word True.
And the release - is - to death.
Death is a place better than that which they inhabit.
Lies devour the inner soul. Only truth can release the spirit.
Look at their faces now. Only 4 years on. They are still young people - in body - but in their Souls ?
Just look at the picture of Mitchell then and now.
Look at JT then, and at the run last year.
They are being eaten alive from within.
How very sad !

by stumo 06.04.12 16:44

I've often thought that M3, whilst appearing on the outside are getting paid a lot of money, were infact, only paid a "retainer" allowing the majority of the money to be syphoned back to the MC's.

That is , IMHO, why they have never been sued etc.

by **PeterMac** 06.04.12 21:24

stumo wrote:I've often thought that M3, whilst appearing on the outside are getting paid a lot of money, were infact, only paid a "retainer" allowing the majority of the money to be syphoned back to the MC's.
That is , IMHO, why they have never been sued etc.

Is that the same with Halligen ?
If so, (C-R, please note), it would explain why he has never been pursued by theTM, nor by the trustees (who in law have a DUTY to do so), nor by Wells-Braithwaite or the auditors Hays-useless-whatsit.
Why have they all apparently just accepted that half a million pounds of publicly and generously donated money was stolen ?
To Carter-Ruck et al.
I do not know.
I am asking the question.
Your duty is to answer it.
Though we all know you won't !

by aiyoyo 08.04.12 18:20

Actually CR relies on dodgy people with questionable reputation for their business, or they will go kaput.

So long as their clients have enough to pay their asking fees, I doubt the CR would two two monkeys how the mccanns acquired or spent their fund!

CR is all about salvaging people's rotten reputation, doesn't matter what you have done to muddy your name.

I bet they know mccanns is a big catch and they're in this long haul.
It's not over by a long chalk -the mccanns will be needing their service indefinitely until someone is charged for Maddie's disappearance and case closed. That would explain why mccanns are still marketing Maddie as a product or they might have to sell their house to afford CR. The sun will rise from the west before that happens!

by aiyoyo 08.04.12 18:21

Actually CR relies on dodgy people with questionable reputation for their business, or they will go kaput.

So long as their clients have enough to pay their asking fees, I doubt the CR would two two monkeys how the mccanns acquired or spent their fund!

CR is all about salvaging people's rotten reputation, doesn't matter what criminality they did.

I bet they know mccanns is a big catch and they're in this long haul.
It's not over by a long chalk -the mccanns will be needing their service indefinitely until someone is charged for Maddie's disappearance and case closed. That would explain why mccanns are still marketing Maddie as a product or they might have to sell their house to afford CR. The sun will rise from the west before that happens!

Log in for more topics