An update on FINDMADELEINE.COM, 1590 days on

by **Tony Bennett** 09.09.11 22:23

If my maths is right, it's 1,590 days since Madeleine McCann was reported missing.

I took a look at the McCanns' fund-raising website, FindMadeleine.com, and found the following:

The main messages on the home page are:

PURCHASE OUR BOOK

ORDER A TRAVEL PACK

ITEMS FOR SALE and

DONATE NOW

Current items for sale are:

Vests (new!) - £7

T-shirt - £6

Good quality wristbands - £2

Travel packs - £1.75.

Information about Madeleine's abduction:

3 sketches and 1 photo are offered, in order:

* Bundleman with no face

* Back of a man wearing yellow-green jacket and trousers with long black hair, a still from the 'Mockumentary' shown by Channel 4 two years and four months ago

* Pock-marked face man/'Spotty man', and

* Victoria Beckham-lookalike lady.

There appears to be a link to a segment of the 'Mockumentary' which showed 'Yellow T-shirt man' staring into the McCanns' apartment. But now nothing happens when you click on that link; when I last looked, a 1-minute video of him was available to view.

There is no information or guidance whatsoever about who might have taken Madeleine or where she might be.

The Trustees of the Fund

These are now:

* Dr Gerald McCann
* Dr Kate McCann
* The Worshipful Edward Smethurst, member and Past Master of East Lancashire Masonic Lodge, No. 5332 (well, the website doesn't tell you that bit, I did)
* Michael Linnett, leading member of Masonic Catholic organisation, the Catenians, described by a House of Commons Select Committee as a 'threat to democracy' (the website doesn't tell you that bit, either)
* Jon Corner, who went out to make a video of the McCanns that was shown on Panorama, and
* Brian Kennedy, uncle who lives in the village, and trhought to be a fellow Catenian

Giving information

Via their information hotline - the one that iJet managed for several months on behalf of Brian Kennedy and Kevin Halligen but whose information was never followed up by the McCann Team.

How the money raised is spent

'Most of it goes on the continuing search for Madeleine...we are the only ones searching for her'.

There is also a 'puff' for the wonderful Dave Edgar, still their 'Head of Investigations' even after his blunders, including his notorious 'Jane-Tanner-might-have-seen-a-woman-not-a-man' comment.

And, er, apart from a few more 'Donate' buttons, that's about it...

If you think I'm making this up...

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

by **Tony Bennett** 09.09.11 22:25

There is also a lot more about how the No Stone Unturned Trust is run like a charity - oh, and it says if you want to find out more about exactly how the funds are spent, look at our published annual accounts.

Hmmm.

by **sharonl** 09.09.11 22:34

Are you sure Tony?

This little girl has been missing for four and half years

Is there not as you would expect:-

A video plea for information and for her safe return
A Reward for information of her whereabouts
Assurance that all information will be treated with confidence
A Message of comfort for Madeleine

Surely the sale of merchandise comes after all of this?

by **sharonl** 09.09.11 22:38

A suggestion for the McCanns

If you want to jog peoples memories why not upload your holiday snaps onto your website?

by **Tony Bennett** 09.09.11 22:41

sharonl wrote:A suggestion for the McCanns

If you want to jog peoples memories why not upload your holiday snaps onto your website?

What a great idea! Lady Margaret Hodge's nephew Philip Martin Edmonds could join in with HIS holiday snaps from Praia da Luz.

Or did he send them into the safe keeping of Jim Gamble, former Head of CEOP, as requested?

by **Tony Bennett** 09.09.11 22:49

sharonl wrote:Are you sure Tony?

This little girl has been missing for four and half years

Is there not as you would expect:-

A video plea for information and for her safe return

NO. But there is a page titled 'About Madeleine' which describes her character.

A Reward for information of her whereabouts

Couldn't see it mentioned anywhere

Assurance that all information will be treated with confidence

I think it does say something like that

A Message of comfort for Madeleine

NO.

Surely the sale of merchandise comes after all of this?

I also missed this bit out:

Support: Donations

The full objects of the Fund are:

To secure the safe return to her family of Madeleine McCann who was abducted in Praia da Luz, Portugal on Thursday 3rd May 2007;
To procure that Madeleine's abduction is thoroughly investigated and that her abductors, as well as those who played or play any part in assisting them, are identified and brought to justice; and
To provide support, including financial assistance, to Madeleine's family.
If the above objects are fulfilled then the objects of the Foundation shall be to pursue such purposes in similar cases arising in the United Kingdom, Portugal or elsewhere.

Donations can be made to the fund through the following channels:

INTERNET DONATIONS:

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

Via Paypal (GBP)

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

Via Paypal (USD)

POSTAL DONATIONS:

These can be made with cheques payable to

'Madeleine's Fund : Leaving No Stone Unturned'.

Cheques should be posted to the following address:

Madeleine's Fund: Leaving No Stone Unturned Limited
P.O. Box 9880
Leicester
LE7 7UJ

ELECTRONIC BANKING DONATIONS:

These can made to the following account:

'Madeleine's Fund : Leaving No Stone Unturned'.

Branch
Natwest
PO BOX 113
Cavell House
2A Charing Cross Road
London
WC2H ONN
Sort Code: 60 40 05
Account Number: 32130058

DONATIONS FROM ABROAD:

IBAN : GB63 NWBK 6040 0532 1300 58

Sort Code : 60–40–05

Account number : 32130058

IBAN BIC : NWBKGB2L

All donations will be processed free of charge.

by **sharonl** 09.09.11 23:02

Tony Bennett wrote:
sharonl wrote:A suggestion for the McCanns

If you want to jog peoples memories why not upload your holiday snaps onto your website?
What a great idea! Lady Margaret Hodge's nephew Philip Martin Edmonds could join in with HIS holiday snaps from Praia da Luz.

Or did he send them into the safe keeping of Jim Gamble, former Head of CEOP, as requested?

The days of the 24 or 36 exposure film cameras are almost over, the majority of people today have digital cameras. It is possible, but highly unlikely, that Phillip Edmonds had one set of photos developed and then sent them onto Jim Gamble leaving himself with nothing. If there were photographs from an ordinary camera he would have kept the negatives, that's assuming that he did take pictures and he did send them on to Jim Gamble. It would help the McCanns immensly if Mr Edmonds could produce the photographs of his children playing with Madeleine (in the background) on May 3rd, I wonder why he hasn't done that.

It is much more likely that digital cameras were in use, in which case the McCanns, Philip Edmonds and others would have stored them on a memory card or a PC.

by **Tony Bennett** 09.09.11 23:09

sharonl wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
sharonl wrote:A suggestion for the McCanns

If you want to jog peoples memories why not upload your holiday snaps onto your website?
What a great idea! Lady Margaret Hodge's nephew Philip Martin Edmonds could join in with HIS holiday snaps from Praia da Luz.

Or did he send them into the safe keeping of Jim Gamble, former Head of CEOP, as requested?

The days of the 24 or 36 exposure film cameras are almost over, the majority of people today have digital cameras. It is possible, but highly unlikely, that Phillip Edmonds had one set of photos developed and then sent them onto Jim Gamble leaving himself with nothing. If there were photographs from an ordinary camera he would have kept the negatives, that's assuming that he did take pictures and he did send them on to Jim Gamble. It would help the McCanns immensly if Mr Edmonds could produce the photographs of his children playing with Madeleine (in the background) on May 3rd, I wonder why he hasn't done that.

It is much more likely that digital cameras were in use, in which case the McCanns, Philip Edmonds and others would have stored them on a memory card or a PC.

Which raises, not for the first time, this obvious point.

The so-called 'last photo' of Madeleine was, so the McCanns have informed us, taken on a digital camera.

Apparently on Dr Kate McCann's digital camera.

The police would have been desperate to get an updated photo of Madeleine out to the public ASAP.

Dr Kate McCann had the memory card, with that 'last photo', in her camera. The police could have printed off a quality photo in seconds from that memory card, and circulated it immediately.

Why, why, why wasn't it done?

by **sharonl** 09.09.11 23:18

Good question

There should have been 5-6 days of photographs on that camera, and maybe a few stored from home.

The photograph given to the police was an old one, probably one that was e-mailed to the McCanns from back home. But, where was it printed off so quickly and late at night? The Ocean Club reception staff deny any knowledge of this printing and the paper used for the photograph was not the paper that was generally used by the Ocean Club.

Why did Gerry say that he had printed these photographs at reception?
Where did he really get them from?
Would it have been easier and quicker to let the police have Kates' camera?
Were there any photographs of Madeleine in that camera, if not why not?

by **sharonl** 09.09.11 23:32

Tony Bennett wrote:
sharonl wrote:Are you sure Tony?

This little girl has been missing for four and half years

Is there not as you would expect:-

A video plea for information and for her safe return

NO. But there is a page titled 'About Madeleine' which describes her character.

A Reward for information of her whereabouts

Couldn't see it mentioned anywhere

Assurance that all information will be treated with confidence

I think it does say something like that

A Message of comfort for Madeleine

NO.

Surely the sale of merchandise comes after all of this?

Yes, some of those items are sort of there on the website, but have the McCanns got their priorities in the correct order? Plea for information and Madeleine`s safe return first and in a very prominent place on their website, fundraising and marketing second.

by jd 10.09.11 0:02

Tony Bennett wrote:
Dr Kate McCann had the memory card, with that 'last photo', in her camera. The police could have printed off a quality photo in seconds from that memory card, and circulated it immediately.

Why, why, why wasn't it done?

You also have to ask "if it is true" that they used a printer from one of the resort employees within 2 hours of Maddie missing (and before the police got there), why didn't they print posters using the latest photo from the memory stick?

If there was only old photos of Maddie on that memory stick, then why on earth are they going on holiday packing a memory stick with old photos of Maddie?

by jd 10.09.11 0:08

sharonl wrote:A suggestion for the McCanns

If you want to jog peoples memories why not upload your holiday snaps onto your website?

If it was true that your child was abducted, then any parent would have done this

Looking at the police statements re the pictures on the cameras, there are hardly any of Maddie, none from the beach, and quite a few with 'MBM ?' in the description...even with the best quality pictures the police are not sure if it is Maddie in the picture

Then we have last month, KM in her glory stating on Australian TV how they loved to photograph Maddie and how Maddie loved to be photographed!!!....where are they then??? you gotta love the contradictions!

by Gillyspot 10.09.11 0:53

The things that has bugged me (an awful lot - hence why I push it on twitter) are as follows:

1. Why did Gerry need to come back to UK nearly 3 weeks later to produce so called "last photo" when even that makes Madeleine look younger than in the Tennis Pic and the one by the Playhouse.

2. And more important in my opinion. Why did they set up a non "transparent" limited company within 13 days (I have done this and to get it registered takes well over a week before appears on any website) and trademark the name. Then not reveal what the "donated" funds were for yet refer to Institute of Fundraising website yet do not deliver what IOF say is minimum disclosure of accounts - only disclose what any LTD co (registered in UK) has to reveal by law (being Tax Transparent - I E VAT, PAYE needs to know what they should collect) and NOT TRUE transparency as they imply.

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

Also as an aside (but an important one) why has Kate McCann even said in her "novel" that all funds will go to the "search for Madeleine" when the Ltd Fund is so opaque as to be impossible to tell what DONATED money was actually spent on "searching" and what was spent elsewhere (Where?)

Now that makes me MAD! catfight

by jd 10.09.11 1:22

Gillyspot wrote:The things that has bugged me (an awful lot - hence why I push it on twitter) are as follows:

1. Why did Gerry need to come back to UK nearly 3 weeks later to produce so called "last photo" when even that makes Madeleine look younger than in the Tennis Pic and the one by the Playhouse.

2. And more important in my opinion. Why did they set up a non "transparent" limited company within 13 days (I have done this and to get it registered takes well over a week before appears on any website) and trademark the name. Then not reveal what the "donated" funds were for yet refer to Institute of Fundraising website yet do not deliver what IOF say is minimum disclosure of accounts - only disclose what any LTD co (registered in UK) has to reveal by law (being Tax Transparent - I E VAT, PAYE needs to know what they should collect) and NOT TRUE transparency as they imply.

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

Also as an aside (but an important one) why has Kate McCann even said in her "novel" that all funds will go to the "search for Madeleine" when the Ltd Fund is so opaque as to be impossible to tell what DONATED money was actually spent on "searching" and what was spent elsewhere (Where?)

Now that makes me MAD!

I share your frustrations with these questions too. If you put aside the characters and read the facts in just black and white, you have to be highly suspicious why it took 3 weeks to produce the last photo and also only when GM came back to the UK. Portugal is not a backward country and they have all the latest technology like the UK, its all there on hand. In any crime scene, the first 48 hours are the most critical in every sense. Yet also within these 3 weeks of the last photo being produced, we see pictures of the McCanns gloriously happy outside the church like they had just won the lottery

by Gillyspot 10.09.11 1:38

Also remember within these 3 weeks they were setting up their non "transparent & accountable" limited fund ready to accept our DONATIONS also arranging to visit various countries around the globe (in private jets) and also visit the Pope (leaving the unfortunate twins - home (well in PDL) with others. Also arranging for IFLG other legal eagles & PR companies to represent them. Phoning Sky, BBC and doing various media interviews and creating a "media juggernaut" that cause the PJ massive problems with their investigation. Not forgetting Madeleine's EYE! (as if we could!)

by Gillyspot 10.09.11 1:39

I forgot - no wonder they were far to busy to "physically search" for Madeleine!

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

by jd 10.09.11 2:03

Gillyspot wrote:I forgot - no wonder they were far to busy to "physically search" for Madeleine!

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

Didn't KM state in her book, you know the one that carter ruck authorised, how she and GM were jumping over hedges and running through the hills searching for Maddie the night she disappeared!

by jd 10.09.11 2:04

Gillyspot wrote:Also remember within these 3 weeks they were setting up their non "transparent & accountable" limited fund ready to accept our DONATIONS also arranging to visit various countries around the globe (in private jets) and also visit the Pope (leaving the unfortunate twins - home (well in PDL) with others. Also arranging for IFLG other legal eagles & PR companies to represent them. Phoning Sky, BBC and doing various media interviews and creating a "media juggernaut" that cause the PJ massive problems with their investigation. Not forgetting Madeleine's EYE! (as if we could!)

You just couldn't write it and make it believable could you! they obviously had more time before May 3rd to set up the funds

by **PeterMac** 10.09.11 19:02

jd wrote:
Didn't KM state in her book, you know the one that carter ruck authorised, how she and GM were jumping over hedges and running through the hills searching for Maddie the night she disappeared!

No.
That was the following morning. For ONE hour.

p. 83 "Friday 4 May...As soon as it was light, Gerry and I resumed our seach.... We must have been out for at least an hour before returning to David and Fiona's apartment, where Sean and Amelie were now up and about."

And later on that same page it becomes clear that Gerry had not even told her about JT's alleged sighting of the alleged bundleman.
So what the hell were they doing grubbing around in the undergrowth when Gerry MUST CLEARLY HAVE KNOWN that Madeleine had been taken a long way beyond where they were looking. What was he doing to his wife, other than torturing her. And she says that she was "relieved" on hearing the news.
"RELIEVED" is the word she uses.
p 83/84 "...when they did I was strangely relieved"

Not furious at her husband for mucking up her new trainers grubbing around in ditches and climbing over walls. Relieved.

It is doesn't make any sense at all and there is only one sensible conclusion. Which I shall leave the brains at C-R to work out.

by jd 10.09.11 19:15

I don't know what to say PeterMac.....its all so very abnormal. Who in their right minds would hold back such serious info as this? (even though JT's sighting is a big lie)

KM's quote "Friday 4 May...As soon as it was light, Gerry and I resumed our search"....resumed from when?

by Guest 10.09.11 19:45

{snipped]

Summary

It is difficult to confirm where all the elements were in the minutes/ hours after the discovery that Madeleine was missing. It appears that most of the women remained within or near the apartments, Fiona Payne left and searched around the complex, before returning to the McCann's apartment where she stayed with Kate. Then Emma Knights (client support director) searched the beach area and asked Kate what Madeleine had been wearing. Shortly afterwards Emma returned to the McCann's apartment and stayed with Kate.

The men's movements, however, are more difficult to pinpoint.

Gerald was seen and spoken to by Neil Berry and Raj Malu. They heard him calling for Madeleine when they were sitting on Neil's balcony, not far from the McCann's apartment. They both went down to talk to Gerald and helped in the search.

Both David Payne and Matthew Oldfield were seen by Emma Knights when she was on her way to the beach, the search area to which she was assigned by Lyndsey Johnson (child care director and search coordinator).

At about 01.00 Matthew was with John Hill (resort manager) when they knocked on Jeremy Wilkins's door to ask if he had seen anything.

At about 23.30 a white fair haired man aged about 30, one of the friends of the McCann group was seen by Valerie Kerr and her family when he asked them if they had seen Madeleine. They were near to the chapel. Valerie and Laura returned to their apartment, changed clothes and went to help with the search.

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

by Guest 10.09.11 19:48

[snipped from same report above]

Fiona Payne was the only woman from the group to help in the searches. Fiona searched the periphery of the complex ' one search, which she made alone. When she returned she spent the rest of the night with Kate.

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

by Daisy 10.09.11 19:58

PeterMac wrote:
jd wrote:
Didn't KM state in her book, you know the one that carter ruck authorised, how she and GM were jumping over hedges and running through the hills searching for Maddie the night she disappeared!
No.
That was the following morning. For ONE hour.

p. 83 "Friday 4 May...As soon as it was light, Gerry and I resumed our seach.... We must have been out for at least an hour before returning to David and Fiona's apartment, where Sean and Amelie were now up and about."

And later on that same page it becomes clear that Gerry had not even told her about JT's alleged sighting of the alleged bundleman.
So what the hell were they doing grubbing around in the undergrowth when Gerry MUST CLEARLY HAVE KNOWN that Madeleine had been taken a long way beyond where they were looking. What was he doing to his wife, other than torturing her. And she says that she was "relieved" on hearing the news.
"RELIEVED" is the word she uses.
p 83/84 "...when they did I was strangely relieved"

Not furious at her husband for mucking up her new trainers grubbing around in ditches and climbing over walls. Relieved.

It is doesn't make any sense at all and there is only one sensible conclusion. Which I shall leave the brains at C-R to work out.

Nicely deduced Sir, very nicely.

The damage limitation squad of gatekeeper that surround the McCanns are working overtime trying to cover-up, justify or create as much confusion as possible.

Apparently, Kate was 'misrepresented' when she admitted she didn't physically search for Madeleine. Perhaps the McCanns can get Carter Ruck to sue the BBC for this gross (& obviously very distressing) misrepresentation?

18. In a BBC TV interview, Kate McCann admitted that she had never spent any time at all physically looking for Madeleine.

Verdict - False. This
is a misrepresentation of what Kate said in the BBC interview and there
are other sources which record her physically searching the streets of
Praia da Luz (see below - sources provided).

Source - Media interview, Kate McCann's diary, Police Files
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by dragonfly 10.09.11 20:33

PeterMac wrote:
jd wrote:
Didn't KM state in her book, you know the one that carter ruck authorised, how she and GM were jumping over hedges and running through the hills searching for Maddie the night she disappeared!
No.
That was the following morning. For ONE hour.

p. 83 "Friday 4 May...As soon as it was light, Gerry and I resumed our seach.... We must have been out for at least an hour before returning to David and Fiona's apartment, where Sean and Amelie were now up and about."

And later on that same page it becomes clear that Gerry had not even told her about JT's alleged sighting of the alleged bundleman.
So what the hell were they doing grubbing around in the undergrowth when Gerry MUST CLEARLY HAVE KNOWN that Madeleine had been taken a long way beyond where they were looking. What was he doing to his wife, other than torturing her. And she says that she was "relieved" on hearing the news.
"RELIEVED" is the word she uses.
p 83/84 [i] [color=darkred]"...when they did I was strangely relieved .

Resumed ? from when ? at least an hour? That is much less then a tennis match, Is That really real? I spend longer in Tesco doing my shopping that is really sad

by jd 11.09.11 1:32

dragonfly wrote:
Resumed ? from when ? at least an hour? That is much less then a tennis match, Is That really real? I spend longer in Tesco doing my shopping that is really sad

There wasn't a resumption, this is the point, or more to the point the lie. But Carter Ruck are happy enough not to libel this but instead go for people who just point this fact out from official in the public domain statements....what a sorry shameful company they are, so disgusting

by Gillyspot 11.09.11 3:17

How can Kate & Gerry or even Carter-Ruck actually try to sue anyone that shows the video of Kate saying that she "did not physically search" but was "very busy". This is particularly important as the interviewer went to great pains to state that locals and staff of the Ocean Club hadn't slept or gone to work for a week to look for their small child Madeleine - yet Kate is clear that she did not search.

A copy of the video is here should anyone doubt what I have stated.

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

by dragonfly 11.09.11 8:38

jd wrote:
dragonfly wrote:
Resumed ? from when ? at least an hour? That is much less then a tennis match, Is That really real? I spend longer in Tesco doing my shopping that is really sad

There wasn't a resumption, this is the point, or more to the point the lie. But Carter Ruck are happy enough not to libel this but instead go for people who just point this fact out from official in the public domain statements....what a sorry shameful company they are, so disgusting

That's my point , Kate is knowingly giving false information to the public, as any one reading that quote would be lead to believe , that Kate was searching the night before for her , Despite her being on record admitting she did not search for her the night she went missing ,Which is an untruth and knowing this book has had to be proof read and passed, and yet they are so picky at others and demand a thread ( Jon Bennet Ramsey one I think ) and others gets removed , If her book was used in court combined with all the other contradictions would that not be classed as perjury or Perverting the course of justice ? and they are taking Tony to court?

by jd 11.09.11 11:36

dragonfly wrote:
That's my point , Kate is knowingly giving false information to the public, as any one reading that quote would be lead to believe , that Kate was searching the night before for her , Despite her being on record admitting she did not search for her the night she went missing ,Which is an untruth and knowing this book has had to be proof read and passed, and yet they are so picky at others and demand a thread ( Jon Bennet Ramsey one I think ) and others gets removed , If her book was used in court combined with all the other contradictions would that not be classed as perjury or Perverting the course of justice ? and they are taking Tony to court?

This is what I was trying to say Dragonfly. And this is only just one of many many examples from facts which can be classed as perjury or perverting the course of justice....yet not a single Carter Ruck on them!!!!!!

by dragonfly 11.09.11 11:58

jd wrote:
dragonfly wrote:
That's my point , Kate is knowingly giving false information to the public, as any one reading that quote would be lead to believe , that Kate was searching the night before for her , Despite her being on record admitting she did not search for her the night she went missing ,Which is an untruth and knowing this book has had to be proof read and passed, and yet they are so picky at others and demand a thread ( Jon Bennet Ramsey one I think ) and others gets removed , If her book was used in court combined with all the other contradictions would that not be classed as perjury or Perverting the course of justice ? and they are taking Tony to court?

This is what I was trying to say Dragonfly. And this is only just one of many many examples from facts which can be classed as perjury or perverting the course of justice....yet not a single Carter Ruck on them!!!!!!

So they are taking Tony to court, on the basis that they believe he has broken his agreement, on the paper work , I believe it read that cr stated that he had broken something he consented to, Had he not consented what would of happened then? I joint this forum only this year, I understand he can not state his opinion on certain matters as there is no evidence , ie hard concrete proof, despite a lot of people thinking the same thing, but Tony does have hard concrete evidence of lies, all he would need to do is produce extracts from books side by side next to the pj file statements, once the lies have been shown, Surely the Mccanns in their own interest would want to clear this up, I know Tony wrote to transworld CR on questions and either the Mccanns are not getting his letters or they do not want to answer them , surely if they are taking Tony to court he can defend himself with the information just alone on the Mccanns and friends own words?

by **PeterMac** 12.09.11 21:54

Always remember Carter-Ruck are not Criminal Lawyers (If you see what I mean - perhaps I should re-phrase that - they are not lawyers who act for people on criminal matters in the Criminal Courts !!!)
They are therefore not concerned about perjury, perverting the Course of Justice or anything else. They are concerned with getting damages for defamation, or with stopping their victim from saying what they say is defamatory. That is all.
As soon as there is a criminal case they will fade into the background, taking their money with them.
Remember Jonathan Aitken, Archer, Sonia Sutcliffe and all the rest.
Their libel lawyers were nowhere to be seen when the cases came to court, and all references were to the Accused's having made the comments in question.
They are represented by an entirely different mob.