What is the likelihood that the SY 'review' will be a whitewash?

Thanks for opening up a bit more Hilary, the dwindling of your hostilty is much appreciated. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Believe me, I won't rejoice in the parents downfall should they be found guilty either. That's not my style. I appreciate the attack my fellow man is under, so I'll make no judgement on the McCanns because one way or another, they're going through hell, even I can see that.

I've never expessed what I think happened to Madeleine, truth is I don't know. I have my own theories of course, some match with the theories here, some don't.

The thing that I struggle with, the thing I find hard to understand and therefore forgive, is the way Team McCann keep up the pretense, and the psychological effect this is having on families/our children/grandchildren. (never before have I seen such a case). Our children should not be suffering this trauma - It is so unnecessary.

I've witnessed this trauma up close and personal, within my own family, I have seen the fear and damage the McCann case has caused. My Grandson who was 7 yr old at the time was petrified that some 'bogey man' was going to come and steal his little sister. This is so wrong!

How fascinating it would be to monitor the psychological effect this case has had! Sheesh!

Hilary wrote:Thanks, smokeand mirrors, for positive comments.

lj - if that were truly what happened, yes; I doubt it ever happened though, and that the parents have made things worse for themselves through their attempts to establish that Madeleine was alive and well on the morning of that supposed conversation. In attempting to build up a believable scenario of abduction, it became necessary to more intricately weave the tale, to put out the idea that they missed clues which would have alerted them to a potential abductor, if only they had been more attentive and had picked them up before the 'abduction' rather than after. My instinct is that the children were likely not left alone each evening, but that having the accusation of neglect levelled was preferable to whatever the truth might be. Of course I cannot know this, but looking at their behaviour, and how the abduction story has evolved leads me to this belief. I believe that basically the McCanns are average, loving parents who make mistakes, and that a terrible catastrophe happened with Madeleine, to which they responded in entirely the wrong way (perhaps under the influence, irrationally and in grief), in the belief that ALL their lives would be ruined if the truth was known. In the immediate circumstances they would not have been able to forsee the consequences in future years for the twins, and all their efforts since then have been those of fiercely protective loving parents who will do anything to keep people believing in the abduction in order to protect their loved ones from a different truth. Just my opinion; I can't help that I have so much sympathy for the McCanns in their loss, and in their efforts to keep it all going for the sake of their other children.

Rainbow-fairy, the presents from Maddie - no doubt it was a comfort to them all to be able to do that, and they'll adjust how they handle things as the children's understanding grows. As for Sean and his sword, who knows if that really happened, or if it was another 'for public consumption' yarn, like Madeleine's breakfast conversation about crying in the night? I do think more compassion towards the parents is not at all amiss; they may drive us crazy, but they are real people who have lost a child, and who can only have been going through hell since whatever event befell Madeleine, and not the evil caricature figures built largely from tabloid stories, who I read about here.

So much gets lost in translation, like Chinese whispers; one inaccuracy built upon another, and taking tabloid presentations as gospel truth, is all too hasty. So the McCanns laughed and smiled on Madeleine's birthday, not many days after she went missing; anyone who has experience of extreme trauma and grief will know that people act strangely in its wake and can be irrational and behave in ways that seem inappropriate. To me, that photo just shows their gratitude for the support they were receiving from local people in the midst of their grief, the idea that they were somehow celebrating 'having got away with it...' - well, that, to me, is just absurd.

Anyhow, enough of that...though it is good to find some who agree with some of what I think on here. We may not all be supporters of the way the parents have gone about dealing with their tragedy, but neither are we all 'haters' of them, I'm sure.

Hilary, finally there is someone in this world who offers a reasonable and mature argument in the defence of the McCanns. I can understand with what you say here. But I disagree with their laughing and smiling on Maddies Birthday. I would expect a more embarrassed smile and not the glorious one they portrayed, this does not fit with having your child gone missing only 9 days before. I also disagree that they are loving parents, not because of what happened to Maddie, but at the actual time and also later after they left the twins on their own with the knowledge there was an abductor out there, it was more important to go and see the Pope (who lets be realistic cannot do anything) rather than protecting and being with their twins glued to their side. When KM first discovered Maddie had gone she left the twins totally on their own and went the 49.2 meters to the Tapas bar! being serious, who would leave them in this situation. Also prior to the abduction story, how often where they together as a family? was running and playing tennis more important? Maddie seemed to be at either at creche or back at the apartment being put to bed each day and being looked after by nannies but not by the parents, yet it was meant to be a family holiday after all though GM said he was not there to enjoy himself. And if you are right that they behaved in entirely the wrong way (perhaps under the influence, irrationally and in grief), in the belief that ALL their lives would be ruined if the truth was known.....someone somewhere put them into this position to continue with this lie...who might this be?? and why were the McCanns convinced to continue with it...surely the only important thing was to find their child regardless of pressures from anybody else

And even though Kate worked only 1 1/2 days a week the nursery staff in Rothley state that Madeleine was in their care for 3 days from around 8 - 8.30am to 5-5.30pm. (remember 3 days a week!). I worked full time and my kids had to go to nursery but if I ever got a day off (they were with me not there). Amazingly I had children because I actually wanted to be with them - sadly unlike Kate McCann as it seems.

Some parents see children as a commodity (status symbol) rather than a small person to love and cherish and enjoy time with. I think Kate is one the first type of these people.

Daisy wrote: The thing that I struggle with, the thing I find hard to understand and therefore forgive, is the way Team McCann keep up the pretense, and the psychological effect this is having on families/our children/grandchildren. (never before have I seen such a case). Our children should not be suffering this trauma - It is so unnecessary.

I agree, Daisy, it's playing with people's emotions. They are now embarking into Germany, after 4 years now they are suddenly interested in Martin Ney and this has nothing to do with simply trying to peddle their book. So they are oblivious to the damage they will inflict on many children who will lie awake at night worrying about how this could happen to them. But wait, those children might be useful because they have pocket money too.

It's a very clever ploy. This poor couple who were just "dining in the garden", who used even better baby listening measures than Mark Warner, were so unlucky to have been preyed on by the "abductor". Stirring up a mixture of both compassion for the unlucky couple and horrific images of poor Madeleine & left on her own to suffer her fate. It's something that has haunted almost every person in the world. Using the Media and their lawyers they successfully control people's minds.

This case has more layers than any onion. When you see the crime scene for what it is then you think that perhaps Madeleine had an accident after being sedated so she would sleep through their dinner. But then you notice that there was an adult missing every night and realize that all the children were safely tucked up every night under their watchful eye. Not so much need for sedation now and the watchful eyes have to have known what happened. And then you realize exactly why none of them was willing to do the reconstruction. I wonder how Russell would have stood up to a serious grilling from the PJ's, he was clearly spooked when they questioned him regarding E***'s clothes/bedclothes after he changed his original story from how she was awake & crying to how she was awake & crying because she was ill.

from Molly's post:

So they are oblivious to the damage they will inflict on many children who will lie awake at night worrying about how this could happen to them.

They are not oblibious, they just don't give a damn shlt!

They continue to cause damage to all kind of people and causes. Nothing average about that.

Just saying LJ, that not everyone who doesn't accept the parents' version of events can, or should, be regarded as a 'hater', as Kate likes to put it - but, in fairness to those who see it that way, a lot of the stuff on these forums does give that impression, of happening upon a group of people who so hate the McCanns and everyone associated with them, and who tend to attack anyone who doesn't immediately come out as being 'anti-McCann', that they need not be taken very seriously, etc. It's like a religion, with infidels and true believers!

No, I don't believe there was not someone crying and calling 'Daddy!' or 'Maddie!' for well over an hour one evening; there is no good reason to disbelieve Mrs Fenn; as I recall, concerns were raised with the parents by Ocean club staff that the children were unattended and crying, as a result of a resident's complaint. It was perhaps that evening that an accident befell Madeleine, and it was the twins crying for her? Or possibly it was Kate crying Madeleine's name in grief...Either way someone was crying for 'Daddy' or 'Maddie' and possibly no-one saw Madeleine after that episode - it's only the creche records which offer a confused possibility that she was there the following day, no absolute memory from other people? What I don't believe is that a breakfast conversation about crying in the night ever took place with Madeleine. I think that was invented a lot later to place Madeleine at breakfast, alive and well, on the morning the conversation supposedly took place.

Daisy, yes, I agree, absolutely; children particularly are paying a high price for the McCann's charade,and this is obviously not as great a consideration or concern to the McCanns as perpetuating the myth. Yes, it is hard to forgive - but I really don't think the reality of Planet McCann relates very much to that of the rest of us, which does add a lot to the interest of this case...I think the psychological effect it is all having on Kate is evidently not good...but yes, it would be very interesting to find how the story of Madeleine had impacted on the childhoods of Madeleine's peers, and especially those who had been encouraged to help raise funds, etc., 'to help in the search, because the police have given up', etc ...

jd - Yes, I see what you are saying; but the McCanns own behaviour points to there never having been an abductor! They had no qualms in leaving the twins (alone on the night following the discovery of Madeleine's disappearance, and in the creche or with their close relatives in the following days) precisely because they knew there never had been an abduction, they were confident there was no bogey man to fear. If they truly believed in the abduction, they would not have left the twins, either that night, or in the creche during the following days...their behaviour indicates their not having held any real fear of an abductor. I don;'t think that it was 'their holiday, too' has to mean they didn't love their kids, a lot of parents take those types of holidays, as do a lot of parents who find it difficult to cope with three little kids - sometimes people just need a break from the kids but don't want a total break as in leaving them at home with grandparents, or whatever. We're not all the same, I wouldn't be too hasty to judge them on that.

Gillyspot, good for you; I stayed at home full time, and would never have dreamt of going out to work and leaving my three young children in nursery or with childminders or babysitters etc. I actually had children because I wanted to be with them - sadly unlike Gillyspot, it seems. Easy to judge, isn't it? It's very easy to make comparisons and draw conclusions and be so much better than others - very easy to do, we all can, but it doesn't mean it is in any way reflective of the truth in regard to the life of another or of their relationships with their children. Not meaning to get at you, personally, of course - I don't know you, just making the point.

There are too many utterly weird aspects to this case for it to be a simple case of an accident in the apartment which in their panic they decided in error to try and cover up. Too many people involved and far too much evidence of apparent pre-planning. They clearly thought the twins could be protected from contact with the world for long enough to cover up what had happened in PdL, and yet now they are at school and there will be plenty of their fellow pupils whose parents have not swallowed the abduction story, even if the school itself carries on reserving a desk and a peg for "when Madeleine gets back home". Are they preventing the twins from mixing with other families in case something is said to them by an older child who has overheard his parents discussing the case? I would if I was them.

Anyway, quite apart from what happened to Maddie, which we don't know, it does appear that the McCanns may have perpetrated a world-class fraud on the public in the form of their Fund, which has been used almost in its entirety to maintain their lifestyle and keep them lawyered up so as to counter any accusations against them. The Fund relies on the premise that the parents believe Madeleine is "a findable little girl". If it becomes clear that she is not, and never was, "findable", and that the parents knew that for a fact, they will have to be prosecuted for fraud. This is in a different league altogether from covering up an accident in a panic, and if found guilty a jail term will be inevitable for Dr G McCann, although his wife may escape custody by virtue of her mental state. I hope Clarence Mitchell will not escape justice if the fraud is proven, as he cannot have spent so much time with them and not been aware what was really happening.

This case will be a cause celebre of the future. I only hope it is solved within the lifetime of Goncalo Amaral, who has worked so hard to find justice for Madeleine McCann, but who along with his immediate family has suffered so much injustice himself as a result.

IHilary wrote: "I can't help that I have so much sympathy for the McCanns in their loss, and in their efforts to keep it all going for the sake of their other children".

REPLY: I am struggling to understand how anyone who, like yourself, admits in your postings that the hoax of an abduction was devised by the McCanns and their friends - in order to cover up something bad that caused Madeleine to die - could end up having 'so much sympathy' for the McCanns.

You are claiming that they have deliberately perpetrated a hoax - on their children as well as on the rest of the world - have become celebrities as a result, and are prepared to grind down those who query their hoax..but you end up having 'so much sympathy' for them.

Do you not want the truth?


Chacun a son gout

I think Hilary has written in a moving caring way but like posters who have already responded to her have said, there is a consequence of accepting that the abduction never happened as she does -

it is that the Fund set up so quickly after she vanished was always a fraud - a fraud that has taken money from many well meaning people, many of whom could not afford to donate in the first place. It is a fraud that has gone on for 4 years and if proven would warrant a jail term for both McCanns.

I would love to see SY and the Revenue raid the auditors offices and the offices of all the lawyers that have acted for them. that would be the quickest way to get to the truth.

@hilary
I don;'t think that it was 'their holiday, too' has to mean they didn't
love their kids, a lot of parents take those types of holidays, as do a
lot of parents who find it difficult to cope with three little kids -
sometimes people just need a break from the kids but don't want a total
break as in leaving them at home with grandparents, or whatever. We're
not all the same, I wouldn't be too hasty to judge them on that.

Yes people do need a break from children especially young ones but people leave them in safe hands at home with family or people leave them with babysitter at the resort. People can have a break that way be it a long or short break but people make sure their children are in safe hands and people simply do not risk or endanger their children by leaving them alone while they go out for adult time even if it's going just next door. Because all kinds of danger can befall young children - what if there is a fire, what if they fall and concuss? There is no way responsible adult would dream of leaving one child alone let alone three while on holiday. If they desperately need a break they could make use of the child care service on offer at the resort but they didn't. If they could afford wine they could well afford babysitting cost.

I think the irony is they left the children alone every night except May3rd night where it is a charade to create an alibi for the abduction. No body wanting a break go out and have adult time only to have a checking rota of every 15 minutes. Besides dinning with friends even bringing the children along is still having a break because the routine is broken and you are having intellectual conversation and relaxing with friends.

It's easy to preach "dont judge them" but people are judged by their behavior - that is a fact of life - be it you like it or not. There is no such thing as circumstances force them because they are not the victims. Remember Maddie is the real victim and her ill-fate is caused by her parents be it directly or indirectly. I have no sympathy for people who neglect their children then expect the public to donate to their fund so that they can sue their skeptics.

Some nutters pro mccanns are saying its the baddie's fault for taking away Maddie...even if she was abducted (which we know it's cock and bull) how can people blame baddie for their irresponsible behavior. You take responsibility for your own conduct.

Ai, Hilary, pot kettle etc. Have you ever read a pro McCann forum? Disgust over criminal behaviour has nothing to do with hate: it's just what it is: disgust over the behaviour of these pathetic parents that lasts more than 4 year by now. If you really believe that this was just a one time event, instead of behavior of narcissistic sociopaths, would not there be a sign of normal or "average" behavior after all this time?



The damage these "average" (for your standards) parents have done won't be easy to determine any time soon. We know a bit about the hurt they caused innocent children and their parents all over the world. We know a bit of the financial burden that has come to the Portugese and British society because of this little mistake of these "loving" parents. And still they ask for more. You feel sympathy for that? If you are so permissive for criminal behaviour, why don't you tolerate people who say that parents neglecting their children is about as bad as it comes?



So you do believe there was prolonged crying, and you do believe these "loving" parents were aware of that. I don't give a damn if that conversation happened. I do give a big damn that parents, who aware of the distress of their children, go out to the bar again. I also do care a lot about the way Kate talks about that episode. Fantasy or not the sneer that she can't hide says enough.



Sorry "don't judge" is too often nothing more than cowardly permissiveness, as you often see with enablers.

On the morning of May 3rd, Maddie allegedly asked why they didn't come when she cried last night. So being loving parents they not only put her away in creche all that day, but left her alone at night to go out and get rat arsed!! Nice and caring parents. Playing the tennis comp that day was more important than their daughters concerns. And after all the effort with IVF, why go to all this trouble to have kids and not enjoy them when you have some limited free time on holiday to be with them? Let alone mentioning their responsibilities. The Mccanns treated their kids like a factory production line

Then use her name in the worlds media to make as much money as they can. Any loving parent wouldn't give a damn about money or fame, meeting Popes and White House lunches, and would only be concerned where their child is. They wouldn't employ corrupt PI's either and if they accidentally did, would sue the arse of them instead of the people who actually really care about Maddie

Ashwarya and Pauline - yes, agreed, if it can be proved that Madeleine died and that the parents were aware of it, then obviously the Fund is a massive fraud, and the McCanns will be held liable for it. I believe Britain's SOCA (Serious and Organised Crime Agency) was involved during the early stages of the investigation, but without sufficient evidence to confirm that Madeleine has died and that the parents were aware of her death, they would have no grounds for action in relation to the Fund, if that, indeed, was their interest. The investigative review may of course change all that and lead to their renewed involvement.

Tony, I am not sure I would choose to think of Madeleine's disappearance as a 'hoax'. To qualify as a hoax (at least in my mind) Madeleine's disappearance and the Fund would need to have been planned and pre-meditated with the clear motive of making money. If it transpires that Madeleine has died and the parents are aware of it, then the Fund, certainly, could then be regarded as a hoax, due to the ongoing intention to deceive. It seems it was the McCanns' relatives in the UK who set up the website and Fund in an attempt to be useful, and while its creation does demand it be perpetuated in order to keep public belief in Madeleine's abduction alive, it doesn't prove that the McCanns started out with the intention to commit fraud; it may turn out to be fraud, but I'd still think that was incidental and secondary to creating belief in an abduction, rather than a primary intention because in the panic of events, they could not have foreseen how things would develop in relation to the Fund, and how covering up an accident (if indeed Madeleine died by accident in the apartment, in line with the conclusions of British and Portuguese police at the point of Amaral's departure) would lead them into becoming involved in other areas of serious criminality. Personally, I think they are living in a nightmare which is not wholly of their own creation, but which is perpetuated in order to keep the abduction story believable to those who believe, or who most want to able to believe it, particularly to the twins, their extended families, colleagues and friends. I am not justifying or defending any of it, but I very much doubt if it's the life they wanted or ever imagined they would be living.

You put words into my mouth, Tony; I mentioned nothing about celebrity or willingness to grind down those who query their version of events. You see celebrity, I see notoriety - but chacun a son gout, indeed. :) I wouldn't count having people joke about 'doing a McCann' whenever someone leaves a child alone, as being part of celebrity so much as the result of unwelcome notoriety. They can try to fix their image, but for many it's already very much fixed.

Yes, of course, I want the truth, as I have said, but that does not need to involve dehumanising the parents; wanting the truth does not prevent me from having sympathy towards parents in the loss of their child, however it came about, but which I do believe was accidental, or for the nightmare lives they must now be living on account of the poor choices they made during the days and weeks surrounding Madeleine's disappearance.

Aiyoyo and lj - of course, and we are told the children were left in safe hands as far as creche and planned activities go. I don't think the children were really left alone excepting, possibly, the evening of the crying heard by Mrs Fenn, and assuming it was not Kate she heard grieving for 'Maddie', but rather the twins shouting for 'Daddy'. Seeing that one adult was missing from the table each evening it seems reasonable to conclude that they were taking turns to watch all the children; early on it was suggested that all the children were put to sleep in one apartment with one adult watching them. Possibly the McCann children were sedated, as Kate does seem to be suggesting she feared 'the abductor' had drugged the twins, though a more unlikely hypothesis is difficult to imagine and it is much more likely the parents would have been responsible for that, if it happened. Perhaps the McCanns came back the worse for wear, slept heavily, and did not hear Madeleine get up. Perhaps Madeleine slipped from the sofa and banged her head, or fell into the blind and was strangled by the cord in the early hours (remembering the brief whooshed tv report of investigators believing Madeleine had died of a 'broken neck'). I wonder if the evening the crying was heard is actually the evening during which Madeleine actually disappeared, and if perhaps the other children really were alone during that time. Kate's much later need to place Madeleine at breakfast subsequent to that night is interesting.

Of course the parents are victims, too, be it of their own folly and loss. Madeleine is the primary victim, though we don't actually know if, or how, she died, only that she is no longer with her family, living her life - the whole family are victims. I think they Carter-Ruck people out of absolute desperation to maintain some people's sympathy and keep the abduction story to the fore. I am not condoning any of their behaviour, merely not finding it impossible to understand why they behave as they do, having once created the nightmare.

Yes, I've looked at some pro McCann forums, and they are none too pretty either.

We don't follow the everyday lives of the McCanns, so sensibly, we cannot know how they conduct them but there is no reason to believe they are monsters rather than average, loving parents who, to Madeleine's tragedy acted badly, and who now, on account of their actions or lack of action in relation to her, will now always be going through hell.

As I have said, my sympathy for them is in regard to the loss of their child and the awful lives they must be living as a consequence of the choices they made; I don't support or condone their conduct, I merely try to better understand it and hope others might be minded to take a more compassionate view.

Thanks for the responses; I think I have said what I wanted to say and don't have time or energy to keep responding to more of the same. :)

Molly

You wrote "I agree, Daisy, it's playing with people's emotions. They are now embarking into Germany, after 4 years now they are suddenly interested in Martin Ney and this has nothing to do with simply trying to peddle their book. So they are oblivious to the damage they will inflict on many children who will lie awake at night worrying about how this could happen to them. But wait, those children might be useful because they have pocket money too. "

Imagine the organisation that is involved in these promotions. Martin Ney must be in a file along with other "useful" suspects which can be used for their (McCanns) promotional purposes. How much information has been gathered in order to keep this Fund on the road.

Hilary

They made the choice - Truth or Lies - ironical isn't it!

Re 'hoax'. It reflects well on you that you try to see the affair from all points of view. However -
You do not believe in premeditation.
I have twisted myself into knots, trying to work my way around the irrefutable evidence of premeditation which is:
1. the poster photograph, 30/40 copies ready in A4 format on quality paper - this photographic paper was not available in PdL, neither is the alleged printer on which it was done, available at MW. It was lost soon afterwards and belonged to one of the girls who worked there.
2. the fake coloboma, which was already present in the photograph and therefore had to have been photoshopped in. To presume that this was done between the hours of 10.00 p.m. and about 03.00 am. is asking rather a lot, seeing that none of the T9 had a laptop with them.
They've recently admitted that there was no coloboma, just a little fleck you could hardly see.
3. the presence of this particular photo on an USB stick belonging to Gerry, according to O'Brien.
A USB stick which I don't believe has ever been produced.
4. Sky news was called before the police was alerted. The news appeared on BBC website at 12.01. This alone is strange, since the girl had been missing for 2 hours, no way would BBC publish anything like this so early unless a trusted source had provided it.
5. The British consul was at the police station at 10.00 a.m. the following morning. They overheard him report by telephone that the Portugese police weren't doing anything. Which was an outright lie.

A website asking for donations for the 'fighting fund' was up and running on the 5th or 6th of May. They did not need any money, half of Portugal was looking, there was world wide publicity. And why a 'fighting fund' not a 'finding fund?'

The story was absolute tabloid fodder:
A little British girl has been abducted on Foreign soil.
The native police are bumbling and hopeless.
The parents weren't to blame in any way, could have happened to anyone. They weren't told! (Actually they were told there had been a number of burglaries and to keep their apartments and valuables secure).
The area is heaving with paedophiles and 'lawless' villages nearby are refuges for criminal elements. (this was news to the Portugese for one).
They needed a 'fighting fund' to struggle against the foreign forces of evil. This turn of phrase appealed enormously to the British public, who are always for the underdog.

Madeleine sells newspapers in the same way Princes Diana did. Her portrait on the front page was and still is, worth a lot of money for the newspaper industry.

I could go on, because there are so many points. But I find these two most unpleasant people. They were not content to stop Amaral, but are still trying to ruin him. They are quite unnecessarily vindictive to people they perceive to be their enemies.
They have a ridiculously high opinion of their own importance. ('Rome is preparing itself for our visit' and 'there will be riots in the UK if we get arrested').
They are still telling outright lies. E.g. that the Portugese police have exonerated them, that nobody is looking for Maddie, that the case in Portugal has been permanently shelved (when it will be re-opened the moment they request this) etc.

I don't think they physically killed Maddie. But they were so ready and the actual date of her death is likely to be much earlier in the holiday. IMO they are 100% culpable.

lj wrote:Why would it make you a "hater" when you strongly disapprove of these pathetic parents? It's funny how people demanding respect for their opinion immediately start with name calling those who don't agree with them.

I believe the only ones they are protecting is kate and Gerry. If the twins were so important in their thinking Kate would never have written the book as it is.

You might believe the crying story was made up, so was Mrs Fenn in on that, or did everything not happen in your opinion?

A loving parent (even just average) wouldn't make a remark as Gerry did, you can read it in my siggy.

lj, I agree with you 100%

Hilary-

Wanting justice for Maddie and dis approving of K + G's actions does not make me a 'hater' (yawn...)
I cannot understand or share your sentiment of not wishing to see MC's prosecuted as it 'won't bring Maddie back'.AND???
I'm pretty sure that prosecuting Maxine Carr and Ian Huntley didn't bring Holly and Jessica back either, would you have advocated they the freedom to walk around making money from tragedy? No, thought not...

Oh, silly me, the mc's suffering aren't they makers all the difference? Well Huntley cried on camera too (maybe more than the MC's). The poor lamb. NOT.

To reiterate :- whichever line you follow, they have comitted criminal acts. IF it was an accident, we have concealment, perverting course of justice, fraud - and that's just from top of my head. To say they shouldn't be charged to protect their suffering is nonsensical. What about Maddie's suffering?

And to bring the impact on the twins is a double edged sword too!

But maybe I've misunderstood what you are saying?

rainbow-fairy wrote:But maybe I've misunderstood what you are saying?

I don't think you have

[quote="Hilary"
Tony, It seems it was the McCanns' relatives in the UK who set up the website and Fund in an attempt to be useful, and while its creation does demand it be perpetuated in order to keep public belief in Madeleine's abduction alive, it doesn't prove that the McCanns started out with the intention to commit fraud; it may turn out to be fraud, but I'd still think that was incidental and secondary to creating belief in an abduction, rather than a primary intention because in the panic of events, they could not have foreseen how things would develop in relation to the Fund, and how covering up an accident (if indeed Madeleine died by accident in the apartment, in line with the conclusions of British and Portuguese police at the point of Amaral's departure) would lead them into becoming involved in other areas of serious criminality.
[/quote]

Hilary - the Mccanns set up the Fund - an ordinary limited company having limited statutory disclosure requirements - it was nothing to do with their relatives. The used top London solicitors for this and had them act at incredible speed to incorporate for which they presumably charged a large fee. the book does not say it was pro bono work. Their fee would have been paid from the money send in by all the 'little' people who cared about this missing child. There was simply no reason at that time to set up a company. the Mccanns at the time implied that the wicked Charity Commission had denied the company charity status, but that later turned out not to be true as the Mccanns never formally applied for it.

pauline wrote:[quote="Hilary"
Tony, It seems it was the McCanns' relatives in the UK who set up the website and Fund in an attempt to be useful, and while its creation does demand it be perpetuated in order to keep public belief in Madeleine's abduction alive, it doesn't prove that the McCanns started out with the intention to commit fraud; it may turn out to be fraud, but I'd still think that was incidental and secondary to creating belief in an abduction, rather than a primary intention because in the panic of events, they could not have foreseen how things would develop in relation to the Fund, and how covering up an accident (if indeed Madeleine died by accident in the apartment, in line with the conclusions of British and Portuguese police at the point of Amaral's departure) would lead them into becoming involved in other areas of serious criminality.

Hilary - the Mccanns set up the Fund - an ordinary limited company having limited statutory disclosure requirements - it was nothing to do with their relatives. The used top London solicitors for this and had them act at incredible speed to incorporate for which they presumably charged a large fee. the book does not say it was pro bono work. Their fee would have been paid from the money send in by all the 'little' people who cared about this missing child. There was simply no reason at that time to set up a company. the Mccanns at the time implied that the wicked Charity Commission had denied the company charity status, but that later turned out not to be true as the Mccanns never formally applied for it.[/quote]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From mccanfiles..............

14 May 2007
McCanns lawyers approach the Charity Commission

"We were first approached for our advice about the possibility of a fund to assist the parents' search on Monday 14 May," explained a spokeswoman for the Commission. "We held discussions with the family's lawyers and in the end they decided not to pursue that route."

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


From The Times.........................

Tax blow for search fund

In addition, the fund will not benefit from gift aid, a form of tax relief that allows charities to claim from the government an additional 28p for every £1 they receive in donations. And tax will have to be paid on all interest accrued by the fund.

Last night the Treasury refused to intervene, insisting it was the preserve of HM Revenue & Customs to decide tax liability.

The development will embarrass Gordon Brown who told Madeleine’s family last week he would do all he could to help on “a practical and a personal level”.

The decision on charitable status could hit the family’s efforts to trace Madeleine. Her parents Kate and Gerry are considering hiring a private investigator amid concern over the way police have handled the hunt. A FUND to finance the international search for Madeleine McCann will be forced to pay Vat and denied tax breaks worth tens of thousands of pounds after being refused charitable status writes Mark Macaskill.
The Madeleine fund has already received almost £80,000 from the public and businesses. Madeleine’s parents had hoped for charity status for the fund but were turned down by the Charity Commission because the money raised is not for the “wider public good”.

Instead, the fund has been registered as a company, which means it is liable to pay Vat at 17.5% on advertising costs and goods designed to raise funds, such as stickers. Charities are eligible for “zero rate” tax relief on such expenses.

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



ETA Quote button not worked again

'Riots on the streets of UK if McC's arrested? LMAO...

Kate, Gerry, I won't ask to come and reside with you on whichever planet it is you live on.
But whatever the drugs are you're taking - may I have some, please?

BTW sympathy for Rose West anyone???

-and that protection could MORE easily have covered up an accident and changed any results from a PM, than the circus that actually had to be controlled.
If anybody hates the McCanns, it's the people who had to cover for them to save their own skins probably.

So any apologist for an accident/panic scenario is missing the elephant in the room.

Well, I'd always understood the mindsets of those interested in this case - the pro's, who deny anything that doesn't protect their golden couple, and the anti's, who don't believe the abduction story

I just CAN'T understand those who will allow that the mccanns story has more holes than a fishing bet yet even so, we should feel sorry for them AND not want them charged even if guilt is proven?
This is all too much of a grey area for me. Must be all the smoke and mirrors.

From Hilary's post:

snipped
As I have said, my sympathy for them is in regard to the loss of their child and the awful lives they must be living as a consequence of the choices they made;

snipped

This really reminds me of the joke (I have posted it several times before) of the boy who kills his parents and then asks the judge for clemency because he's an orphan.

snipped
Thanks for the responses; I think I have said what I wanted to say and don't have time or energy to keep responding to more of the same. :)
snipped

So sad we bore you, it must be much more exciting to listen to "swarthy man smashes shutter, please send money" stories. It is however just as with the McCanns: it's your choice to write you sympathize and you will get dozens of reasons why we don't. I'm sure their are many fora where you will be applauded for that.

snipped
Perhaps Madeleine slipped from the sofa and banged her head, or fell into the blind and was strangled by the cord in the early hours (remembering the brief whooshed tv report of investigators believing Madeleine had died of a 'broken neck').
snipped

Now this is the interesting part of your post. In the very beginning I posted on another forum about an accident that happened years ago in my neighbourhood. One family had the same type of shutters and a brother and sister, I believe he was 4 and she was 6 yrs, tried to open them. Of course they could not, these things are really heavy, and the boy climbed behind the strap (these are not strings but sturdy straps, to push with all his weight, while his sister was pulling. They got it up a bit but, because they did not let the strap roll up, when it slipped out of their hands the shutter fell down and the strap smacked the boy with all the weight of the shutter against the wall and then more or less choked him. He died of brain damage through both the direct trauma and the choking. Because of the emphasis on the shutters I have wondered in the past if something like that happened.

I would like to add, if they had come out right away that it was an accident and showed a normal regret about their neglect, I believe they would have had tons of sympathy. Now even if you believe their story about abduction while they left their kids alone, they still don't show any regret for leaving them alone. Nope anyone who dare to question their parenting gets this "it was responsible parenting" pushed down their throats. They don't need sympathy, they have enough paid for support thanks to the Madeleine fund.

Bridget O Donnell (wife of Jeremy Wilkins) said in an interview for the Evening Standard re the abduction "........ recalled admiring them (The McCanns) for leaving their children to sleep in their apartment as they ate at a tapas restaurant nearby"

Ive never recovered from this statement from her

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

lj wrote:I would like to add, if they had come out right away that it was an accident and showed a normal regret about their neglect, I believe they would have had tons of sympathy. Now even if you believe their story about abduction while they left their kids alone, they still don't show any regret for leaving them alone. Nope anyone who dare to question their parenting gets this "it was responsible parenting" pushed down their throats. They don't need sympathy, they have enough paid for support thanks to the Madeleine fund.

lj, I think you are a mind-reader! Everything, more or less, you say is what I've thought but not posted,

Ya know what, EVEN NOW I would think very slightly more of them if Kate and/or Gerry just put their hands up, admitted what happened and put a stop to this farce once and for all. They'd get far more respect that way than waiting for the police to finally turn them over (I hope this happens sooner rather than later)
I must stress - I'd only respect their owning up. Everything they have done since May 3rd 07, and quite likely long before that, has been utterly despicable.

rainbow-fairy wrote:
Ya know what, EVEN NOW I would think very slightly more of them if Kate and/or Gerry just put their hands up, admitted what happened and put a stop to this farce once and for all. EDIT

Luke 15:7 - "I say unto you, that likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance."
Think on this, Kate. And all the Tapas 7. Think, reflect, and steel yourself to tell the truth. If you believe in a God, of course. If not, then just go on as you are, and someone else will do it for you. Perhaps someone very close to you.

So true, rainbow-fairy and PeterMac, even now.

lj wrote:So true, rainbow-fairy and PeterMac, even now.

Confession is a good thought, but whilst they're still spouting the same old 'it was like dining in you backyard-we've-done-nothing-wrong' type lines, TBH I don't think the odds are good!
Dunno about yours, but my 'backyard' doesn't have a swimming pool (I wish!), nor does it have Tom, Dick, Harry and Albert wandering through it either!
Chumps.

Taken together with their visit to the Pope, as well as the received donations amounting to several million pounds sterling Kate and Gerald McCann have in their denial of the death of their little daughter developed a new reality , from which there is no return for them: the immense shame in the case of a public confession of their incomparable deceiving of the world would probably be even greater than their perceived fault, not to have been there (at the decisive moment) for Madeleine.

This is a rough translation from a comment in Daniela´s book, we could add the White House, the European Parliament etc. They don´t live in our world (my comment). They think that they are untouchable.