Open letter to Trustees of Missing People Limited

http://missingpeople2.blogspot.co.uk/

The Trustees


Missing People Limited
284 Upper Richmond Road West,
London SW14 7JE

Dear Sirs
KATE MCCANN AS AMBASSADOR IS UNACCEPATBLE TO THE BRITISH PUBLIC
It is evident from many social networking groups, blogs and other internet sources that your charity, Missing People, has attracted an enormous amount of negative publicity within the past few days which will obviously be detrimental to your charity, the work that you do, and of course future funding.
We are not going to make any comments ourselves other than that we believe that you have made a huge mistake, an error of judgement, in appointing Kate McCann as ambassador. We give our reasons below.
Despite favourable references in the media, there are millions, including a number of professionals such as criminal profilers, solicitors and other investigators that share the view of the Portuguese and British police, that Madeleine died in her parents’ apartment and that the McCanns with the help of their friends conspired to cover this up and conceal the cadaver.

The case was archived due to political interference, interference from the McCanns and their PI’s who tried to move the case out of Portugal and into Morocco, and from the media, which as we know was effectively controlled by Clarence Mitchell, ex head of the Governments media monitoring unit. In order to archive the case, all suspect status was lifted, this was not a declaration of innocence, and if the case were to be re-opened the suspect status of both Kate and Gerry McCann would be re-instated. The report that Kate and Gerry had been formally cleared is incorrect.
It is also known that the McCanns had a deal with the press whereby they would agree to pre-arranged photo shoots and offer exclusive stories.
The McCanns choice of private investigators is also very suspect and although they had no experience of finding missing children, they were able to provide a number of stories for the media, e.g many sightings of Madeleine that turned out to be false.
Many believe that these sightings were engineered by the McCanns private investigators, Metodo 3
The detectives were also of very low credibility, Kevin Halligen now in prison for fraud, Antonio Jiminez for the theft of cocaine. Metodo 3 were investigated for wire tapping and Arthur Cowley set up a bogus company, Alphaig which the McCanns spokesman and the press routinely referred to as Alpha Group Investigations, a company which does not exist but is similar in name to the established company Alpha Investigation Group.
The evidence of Madeleine’s death includes that of the Cadaver dogs, the statements of the doctors Gaspar, the interim report of Dr Almeida, numerous contradictions in the statements of the McCanns and their friends, and much more evidence which is overwhelming and more than enough to realise that Policia Judiciari were right to suspect them.
There is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that Madeleine was abducted
When we consider that Rebekah Brooks at the Leveson inquiry was accused of perjury and it was suggested that payments were made to police officers, and stories were fabricated, put that together with the fact that it was Rebekah that demanded that David Cameron put pressure on the home secretary to order a review of the case, else she would put them on the front page of the news, every day, you can clearly see that this whole thing is nothing more than a scam, unfortunately one that you appear to have fallen for.

Whilst we are not suggesting that there are any problems with your charity or its trustees, we will point out that there is now widespread speculation as to whether you have any credibility at all. Some even suggest that you receive funds purely in order to pay high salaries and that the missing people are not really missing at all, or that they are missing but you are not looking for them, in the same way that Kate McCann did not look for Madeleine.
We say this with the interest of your charity at heart, do you really want to be tarred with the same brush as Kate McCann?
From what is written above you can clearly see why you have angered so many members of the public, and bearing in mind that a charity must meet the public interest test, you really need to do something about this to correct the error that is detrimental to the future of your charity.
We are going nowhere and the campaign will continue until we get justice for this little girl, we will not tolerate the prime suspect in the case being made an ambassador to a missing peoples charity when she failed to search for her very own 3 year old daughter late on a cold night just because it was too dark, and neglected 3 toddlers for 5 nights in a row just for the sake of partying with her mates.

We therefore respectfully suggest that:
You remove any reference to the late Madeleine McCann from your missing people website and at least let the child rest, give her back her dignity.

Relieve Kate McCann of her role as ambassador
Remove any references to Kate McCann from your website

Under no circumstances involve Kate McCann in any of the charities activities
Should you fail to meet our requirements, and we are the public, we will take this further and get an investigation into your charity.

Regards

The campaigners for truth and justice for Madeleine McCann

I've just posted this on MM - don't really understand where this comes from, since the first post with the blog starts as a quote.

quote
Fern wrote:
Yet another load of nonsense from Bennett and his 'mob' no doubt.
unquote

Tigger wrote:
If you take the trouble to check the author on that blog, it's Peter Davis. I have never heard of him before.

Imo sending an open letter is a good idea, but I agree it's not factual in all respects. It's also too long imo. In general the reasons why KM isn't a suitable ambassador for this charity are valid.

Since I also post on JH I feel that I am included in the 'mob' you mention above. If you would take the trouble to read the files, you would find that Tony Bennett has nothing to do with the site and only posts on it from time to time. Under his own name.

A forum is for discussion and rational argument without resorting to facile insults.

Imo, even if the whole abduction and the aftermath were true, KM would still be the wrong person to be ambassador for missing people.
One of the many reasons would be that the fame-hungry public would report children missing who'd not be missing at all, simply to get the same as the McCanns: publicity and money.
Unquote.

I just had to post this letter written by 'Hobnob' to missingpeople.org.uk which she posted on Pat Brown's blog:

Hobnob:

I fired off a snotty but polite email to the charity. I ask anyone who agrees lilo lil (kate) should be kicked out to contact the said charity by phone or email and demand they remove her immediately.

This is the email i sent them

General enquiries
Missing People, 284 Upper Richmond Road West, London SW14 7JE

Tel: 020 8392 4590
Fax: 020 8878 7752

info@missingpeople.org.uk



Morning.

I would like to know why you have chosen as an ambassador to represent missing people including missing children a woman who has admitted child neglect by leaving a 3 yr old toddler babysitting her twin 2 yr old siblings every night for a week in an unlocked apartment on an exposed street in a foreign country.

A woman who refused to answer 48 questions regarding the events surrounding the night her daughter Madeleine vanished from the apartment.

A woman who has admitted not physically searching because she was busy working hard.

A woman who, when offered the chance to keep the case open, refused.

A woman who immediately hired lawyers and spin doctors to protect her own reputation rather than co-operating with law enforcement.

A woman who claimed she was being a responsible parent but refused to say who told her she was.

A woman who refused to take part in a police reconstruction because it wouldn't be helpful, instead wanted it to be shown on tv with actors playing their roles.

A woman who says someone out there has the one piece of info that could solve the case and demands they come forward yet steadfastly refuses to reveal the 48 pieces of info she knows.

A woman who claims she came into contact with 6 dead bodies in the week or so prior to going to PDL which is why cadaver dogs reacted to her trousers and cuddlecat despite being a part time locum doing 1.5 days a week in a small practice.

Who couldn't explain why cadaver dogs with a 100% track record reacted behind the sofa, their wardrobe, a child's red t shirt, car keys and the hire car.
The hire car that stank so much neighbors reported the boot being left open overnight to air.
Who claimed the smell the dogs reacted to was in fact rotting meat, dirty diapers, seabass and sweaty sandals.
Who claimed the body fluids found in the car came from dirty diapers and sweaty sandals.

Who has sued or threatened to sue anyone who disagrees with her version of events and whose husband has said everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

Who has used a fund meant to find her missing daughter to pay legal fees, their mortgage, on dubious private investigators, vacations, travel expenses and cars whilst spending a minute amount on actual searching

Who is currently being sued not only by rt. det. Goncalo Amaral but also criminal profiler Pat Brown.

Who found tme to take part in her own documentary but not time to do a reconstruction.

A woman who if confronted with the same situation at work would report the parents for neglect.

Who claimed Madeleine asked where her parents were when she and her sibling cried and who replied she wondered if it was when they were being bathed, which begs the following:

If kate and gerry were in the apartment at bathtime they would have heard the children crying and investigated.
If they had been bathing the children the question would not have arisen so this leads to several questions:
Who was bathing the children?
David Payne?
A man known to like bathing other peoples children and recognised by a social worker in relation to child abuse.
A a man called out as a paedophile suspect by 2 independant Drs (Gaspar) and also the wife of Goncalo Amaral and who has stayed silent on what are the worse things you could call a man (if he can't deny it neither can we)

If they were in the apartment and didn't hear crying whose apartment were the children in or if the children were in their own apartment where were the parents?

A woman who has told us Madeleine is dead when she said in an interview
Kate said: "It really isn't easy," coping. "Some days are better than others. ... There's days when you think, 'I can't do this anymore,' and you just want to press a button, and we're all gone, and it's all finished, and we're all together and gone. Wherever.
But you can't, you know.
Just occasionally you'll have a -- if you're having a really bad day, which we do. And you can't help but think that."
If Madeleine was alive then logically they wouldn't all be togeather.
Madeleine would be an orphan.
It shows suicidal tendencies and begs the question if she were to face charges would the twins be at risk of harm?

These are the questions:


1. On May 3 2007, around 22:00, when you entered the apartment, what did you see? What did you do? Where did you look? What did you touch?

2. Did you search inside the bedroom wardrobe? (she replied that she wouldn’t answer)

3. (shown 2 photographs of her bedroom wardrobe) Can you describe its contents?

4. Why had the curtain behind the sofa in front of the side window (whose photo was shown to her) been tampered with? Did somebody go behind that sofa?

5. How long did your search of the apartment take after you detected your daughter Madeleine’s disappearance?

6. Why did you say from the start that Madeleine had been abducted?

7. Assuming Madeleine had been abducted, why did you leave the twins home alone to go to the ‘Tapas’ and raise the alarm? Because the supposed abductor could still be in the apartment.

8. Why didn’t you ask the twins, at that moment, what had happened to their sister or why didn’t you ask them later on?

9. When you raised the alarm at the ‘Tapas’ what exactly did you say and what were your exact words?

10. What happened after you raised the alarm in the ‘Tapas’?

11. Why did you go and warn your friends instead of shouting from the verandah?

12. Who contacted the authorities?

13. Who took place in the searches?

14. Did anyone outside of the group learn of Madeleine’s disappearance in those following minutes?

15. Did any neighbour offer you help after the disappearance?

16. What does 'we let her down' mean?

17. Did Jane tell you that night that she’d seen a man with a child?

18. How were the authorities contacted and which police force was alerted?

19. During the searches, with the police already there, where did you search for Maddie, how and in what way?

20. Why did the twins not wake up during that search or when they were taken upstairs?

21. Who did you phone after the occurrence?

22. Did you call Sky News?


23. Did you know the danger of calling the media, because it could influence the abductor?

24. Did you ask for a priest?


25. By what means did you divulge Madeleine’s features, by photographs or by any other means?


26. Is it true that during the searches you remained seated on Maddie’s bed without moving?


27. What was your behaviour that night?


28. Did you manage to sleep?


29. Before travelling to Portugal did you make any comment about a foreboding or a bad feeling?


30. What was Madeleine’s behaviour like?


31. Did Maddie suffer from any illness or take any medication?


32. What was Madeleine’s relationship like with her brother and sister?


33. What was Madeleine’s relationship like with her brother and sister, friends and school mates?


34. As for your professional life, in how many and which hospitals have you worked?


35. What is your medical specialty?


36. Have you ever done shift work in any emergency services or other services?


37. Did you work every day?


38. At a certain point you stopped working, why?


39. Are the twins difficult to get to sleep? Are they restless and does that cause you uneasiness?


40. Is it true that sometimes you despaired with your children’s behaviour and that left you feeling very uneasy?


41. Is it true that in England you even considered handing over Madeleine’s custody to a relative?


42. In England, did you medicate your children? What type of medication?


43. In the case files you were SHOWN CANINE forensic testing films, where you can see them marking due to detection of the scent of human corpse and blood traces, also human, and only human, as well as all the comments of the technician in charge of them. After watching and after the marking of the scent of corpse in your bedroom beside the wardrobe and behind the sofa, pushed up against the sofa wall, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?


44. When the sniffer dog also marked human blood behind the sofa, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?


45. When the sniffer dog marked the scent of corpse coming from the vehicle you hired a month after the disappearance, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?


46. When human blood was marked in the boot of the vehicle, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?


47. When confronted with the results of Maddie’s DNA, whose analysis was carried out in a British laboratory, collected from behind the sofa and the boot of the vehicle, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?


48. Did you have any responsibility or intervention in your daughter’s disappearance?

A QUESTION SHE DID ANSWER


Q. Are you aware that in not answering the questions you are jeopardising the investigation, which seeks to discover what happened to your daughter?


A. 'Yes, if that’s what the investigation thinks.'

The only reason kate mccann did not face charges in Portugal for child neglect resulting in harm which has a max 10 year sentence is that if they had charged her they could not then have charged her later with homicide, concealment of a corpse and filing a false police report.


I am sad to say i shall no longer be making any donations to your charity whilst you have a self -confessed child neglector representing you, i shall also be informing all my family, friends and social media contacts of my decision and also suggesting they too refrain from supporting your charity.
You may also find that public disgust with kate and gerry mccann, their behavior and parenting skills and lack thereof will result in a large drop in support and donnations.


I would advise you get as a representative someone who has worked hard for missing children such as Kerry Grist or Sara Payne, someone the public would support wholeheartedly rather than a selfish mother who puts her own reputation above that of her daughter Madeleine.

I await with interest your response as to the thinking behind this major exercise in bad taste.

Yours

hobnob (real name concealed here)

http://patbrownprofiling.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/criminal-profiling-topic-of-day-to-dig.html

Good gracious, I must be one of Tony's "mob" too - wonder if that thought makes him choke on his cheerios.........

K.

Some good points re the Peter Davies open letter courtesy of the Missing Madeleine site.

http://www.missingmadeleine.forumotion.net/t21053-open-letter-to-trustees-of-missing-people-limited#402087

I am composing an e- mail and am also sending a letter. Having read a reply to someone on MM forum who complained about KM's appointment in which it was stated that the charity is aware of speculation surrounding Madeleine's disappearance, I decided to avoid speculation and confined myself to what was in Kate McCann's book, an account of the truth according to the author. Sticking solely to the acceptance of the abduction of the child while her parents were at dinner, the issues I intend to address will be :

the distance from apartment 5a to the dining area, not as the crow flies, because the child would need to leave the apartment via the rear patio door and walk a route to the tapas area. This exit brought the child directly into contact with
a flight of stone steps, even if negotiated safely, then access to a road, and a decision of which way to turn to find her parents.
was the child ever told where her parents would be if she were to wake up
was she ever walked through the route she needed to take to reach them [ experts have discounted Maddie's wandering off because she would have gone straight to the lights of the tapas area, how to get there was the issue for the youngster, never addressed by the experts ]
was she familiar with that route from 5a, having never attended a meal there other than childrens high tea with the nannies
how did Maddie get from creche to high tea and would that walk from where her creche was located have confused her if she woke up in 5a and drowsily tried to find her parents
was Maddie told how to open the closed but unlocked patio door
was Maddie ever told to shout over the balcony wall to alert her parents that they were needed
was she told not to climb on any of the patio chairs if she could not see her parents from the balcony [ a published photo shows one dangerously close to the balcony wall and there are many photos showing the drop from that wall to the hard surface below]
Kate McCann compares her apartment to one on a level above that her friends had with a good view, saying she would rather not have balcony that high up, however she fails to draw attention to the fact that 5a was not at ground level
was Maddie ever told what to do if either or both of the twins woke up
because Maddie was in creche most of daytime, did her parents familairise her with the apartment so that she would feel comfortable moving about it in the semi darkness, for example if she woke up and wanted to search the lounge for a book or a toy
were all dangerous items out of her reach eg kitchen knives, matches, gas lighters, scissors

bearing in mind all of the above would have been instruction to a child not yet 4 years old, in an unfamiliar apartment, the layout of which would be strange for the entire holiday duration as she was in creche most of the daytime hours.

none of the above was mentioned in Kate's book, neither have these safety issues been addressed in any interview given by the couple that I have heard. I was shocked not to hear an explicit statement in the book that these basic issues of safety had been dealt with to the parents' satisfaction prior to taking a calculated decision night after night to leave 3 under 4s unattended in that apartment. Not a mistake which was made once, but a choice made on consecutive evenings and which had the child not vanished, would have been made for what remained of the holiday. A choice which was made evening of the same day Maddie had asked her parents why she had been crying with one of her siblings and the cries had been ignored/not heard [ Kate McCann leaves the issue unaddressed]
There was no exhortation in the book to parents, which I would have hoped to be in a significant place like a foreword or epilogue, not to leave children unattended as they did for basic reasons of child safety, never mind child snatching.
The above are the grounds on which Kate McCann should not have been appointed ambassador for this charity.

russiandoll wrote:
I am composing an e- mail and am also sending a letter. Having read a reply to someone on MM forum who complained about KM's appointment in which it was stated that the charity is aware of speculation surrounding Madeleine's disappearance, I decided to avoid speculation and confined myself to what was in Kate McCann's book, an account of the truth according to the author. Sticking solely to the acceptance of the abduction of the child while her parents were at dinner, the issues I intend to address will be :

the distance from apartment 5a to the dining area, not as the crow flies, because the child would need to leave the apartment via the rear patio door and walk a route to the tapas area. This exit brought the child directly into contact with
a flight of stone steps, even if negotiated safely, then access to a road, and a decision of which way to turn to find her parents.
was the child ever told where her parents would be if she were to wake up
was she ever walked through the route she needed to take to reach them [ experts have discounted Maddie's wandering off because she would have gone straight to the lights of the tapas area, how to get there was the issue for the youngster, never addressed by the experts ]
was she familiar with that route from 5a, having never attended a meal there other than childrens high tea with the nannies
how did Maddie get from creche to high tea and would that walk from where her creche was located have confused her if she woke up in 5a and drowsily tried to find her parents
was Maddie told how to open the closed but unlocked patio door
was Maddie ever told to shout over the balcony wall to alert her parents that they were needed
was she told not to climb on any of the patio chairs if she could not see her parents from the balcony [ a published photo shows one dangerously close to the balcony wall and there are many photos showing the drop from that wall to the hard surface below]
Kate McCann compares her apartment to one on a level above that her friends had with a good view, saying she would rather not have balcony that high up, however she fails to draw attention to the fact that 5a was not at ground level
was Maddie ever told what to do if either or both of the twins woke up
because Maddie was in creche most of daytime, did her parents familairise her with the apartment so that she would feel comfortable moving about it in the semi darkness, for example if she woke up and wanted to search the lounge for a book or a toy
were all dangerous items out of her reach eg kitchen knives, matches, gas lighters, scissors

bearing in mind all of the above would have been instruction to a child not yet 4 years old, in an unfamiliar apartment, the layout of which would be strange for the entire holiday duration as she was in creche most of the daytime hours.

none of the above was mentioned in Kate's book, neither have these safety issues been addressed in any interview given by the couple that I have heard. I was shocked not to hear an explicit statement in the book that these basic issues of safety had been dealt with to the parents' satisfaction prior to taking a calculated decision night after night to leave 3 under 4s unattended in that apartment. Not a mistake which was made once, but a choice made on consecutive evenings and which had the child not vanished, would have been made for what remained of the holiday. A choice which was made evening of the same day Maddie had asked her parents why she had been crying with one of her siblings and the cries had been ignored/not heard [ Kate McCann leaves the issue unaddressed]
There was no exhortation in the book to parents, which I would have hoped to be in a significant place like a foreword or epilogue, not to leave children unattended as they did for basic reasons of child safety, never mind child snatching.
The above are the grounds on which Kate McCann should not have been appointed ambassador for this charity.

The open letter in the OP is counter-productive and does nothing for the writer IMO. All that needs to be highlighted is Kate's admitted neglect for her kids which left the window of opportunity for the phantom raptor to pounce. For this reason alone, she's ruled out as an ambassador for anything to do with missing people unless in a role where she advises against the dangers of leaving vulnerable people unattended.

As was commented on the MM site, the last sentence with its "obey or else" remark is reminiscent of Team McCann's own tactics and is very unfortunate.