SY Review Team - Includes STATEMENT 6 Oct by Inspector Steve Bentley

Stella wrote:Tony, do you know if your source has already contacted the PJ with their information ? Did they appear to be more interested and on the ball, compared to SY ?

In my view even if she were to go to PJ with her info it would at most add to the mountain of circumstantial evidential against the abduction theory and unless the mccanns can be hauled into stations for questioning I suspect it would not be enough to prosecute them. Unless of course the source has been told the plain truth about Madeleine's fate then that would be an entire different thing. Had the source been told definitely about Maddie's fate back in 2008/09 the investigators would have given it back then.
Only a very selective fews were let into the mccanns' secret chamber while those dodgy characters, Halligen et al, hired by team mccanns did it for money and couldnt care less about the truth. Anyone decent on team mccanns' payroll can only guess at the truth b/c mccanns' public tale does not tally with what they learnt or instructed to do behind the scene.

What I don't understand is why didn't the source give that info to the PJ or Police back in 2007 when the dodgy pte dicks HQ was set up in knutsford by Brian Kennedy? Why wait until 2009 to give TB that info? Why wait till now to contact the review team - surely giving it to investigating team while the case is still hot under investigation would be more potent than given it to review team now?

aiyoyo wrote:

Stella wrote:Tony, do you know if your source has already contacted the PJ with their information ? Did they appear to be more interested and on the ball, compared to SY ?

In my view even if she were to go to PJ with her info it would at most add to the mountain of circumstantial evidential against the abduction theory and unless the mccanns can be hauled into stations for questioning I suspect it would not be enough to prosecute them. Unless of course the source has been told the plain truth about Madeleine's fate then that would be an entire different thing. Had the source been told definitely about Maddie's fate back in 2008/09 the investigators would have given it back then.
Only a very selective fews were let into the mccanns' secret chamber while those dodgy characters, Halligen et al, hired by team mccanns did it for money and couldnt care less about the truth. Anyone decent on team mccanns' payroll can only guess at the truth b/c mccanns' public tale does not tally with what they learnt or instructed to do behind the scene.

What I don't understand is why didn't the source give that info to the PJ or Police back in 2007 when the dodgy pte dicks HQ was set up in knutsford by Brian Kennedy? Why wait until 2009 to give TB that info? Why wait till now to contact the review team - surely giving it to investigating team while the case is still hot under investigation would be more potent than given it to review team now?

Hi Aiyoyo, you ask why wait till now. Well maybe this person is very close to the McCanns even a family member and maybe they were supporting the family name, the twins future. I don't mean this is the correct thing to do just that this person may have thought so at the time

If SY is trying to expose the bungling of the PJ, then it works both ways and they should also be following up any leads that this is a scam in their review, wherever it takes them. The evidence of a scam outweighs a bugling of the PJ by at least 1000/1. But we know why they are not following leads. They should be following up on people like Kevin Halligen,Antonio Jimenez, Marcos Aragao Correia, NatWest Bank ,Andrew Dickman, Kennedy, Smethurst, Gail Cooper and Paul Gordon & the likes...all these people should be 'reviewed' and a case brought forward for a full investigation. Thats what the review team is here for. We have more than enough evidence on this forum alone to start a full investigation. They are all so corrupt it is shameful to be British

jd wrote:If SY is trying to expose the bungling of the PJ, then it works both ways and they should also be following up any leads that this is a scam in their review, wherever it takes them. The evidence of a scam outweighs a bugling of the PJ by at least 1000/1. But we know why they are not following leads. They should be following up on people like Kevin Halligen,Antonio Jimenez, Marcos Aragao Correia, NatWest Bank ,Andrew Dickman, Kennedy, Smethurst, Gail Cooper and Paul Gordon & the likes...all these people should be 'reviewed' and a case brought forward for a full investigation. Thats what the review team is here for. We have more than enough evidence on this forum alone to start a full investigation. They are all so corrupt it is shameful to be British

JD agree with every single word [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Nina wrote:

aiyoyo wrote:

Stella wrote:Tony, do you know if your source has already contacted the PJ with their information ? Did they appear to be more interested and on the ball, compared to SY ?

In my view even if she were to go to PJ with her info it would at most add to the mountain of circumstantial evidential against the abduction theory and unless the mccanns can be hauled into stations for questioning I suspect it would not be enough to prosecute them. Unless of course the source has been told the plain truth about Madeleine's fate then that would be an entire different thing. Had the source been told definitely about Maddie's fate back in 2008/09 the investigators would have given it back then.
Only a very selective fews were let into the mccanns' secret chamber while those dodgy characters, Halligen et al, hired by team mccanns did it for money and couldnt care less about the truth. Anyone decent on team mccanns' payroll can only guess at the truth b/c mccanns' public tale does not tally with what they learnt or instructed to do behind the scene.

What I don't understand is why didn't the source give that info to the PJ or Police back in 2007 when the dodgy pte dicks HQ was set up in knutsford by Brian Kennedy? Why wait until 2009 to give TB that info? Why wait till now to contact the review team - surely giving it to investigating team while the case is still hot under investigation would be more potent than given it to review team now?

Hi Aiyoyo, you ask why wait till now. Well maybe this person is very close to the McCanns even a family member and maybe they were supporting the family name, the twins future. I don't mean this is the correct thing to do just that this person may have thought so at the time

I beg to differ. I mean if 'source' is family member s/he would have known the fate of Maddie (surely even back then in 2007) therefore coming out now to give bits and dribbles of all people to TB (arch enemy of mccanns) and now try and pass info to the review team is not a sign of someone wanting to expose the truth of Maddie's fate b/c the info about dodgy PI set up and operation is not going to help nail the mccanns.
At most it would just add to proof they were not searching for Maddie as they claimed, hence another circumstantial them proving the mccanns lied (AGAIN). The dodgy PI operation in itself is suspicious action and their damning behavior is contrary to their abduction claim and their search but does not prove they were involved in Maddie's demise. All it proves is that they weren't really looking for her.
At best it adds to the theory they knew she's dead hence the pretense search but investigators and prosecutor need more to be able to lay charges with success. If this info was given during active investigation then investigators would have been able to question the mccanns and their answers taken together collectively with other evidence might contain that crucial bits of element sufficient to take them to court.

Now, even if NSY were to collect statement from this 'source, I fail to see how this can be used to charge the mccanns. At most the NSY is obliged to include the info and any subsequent findings into their summation report. But what they cant do is invite the mccanns in for interrogation (interview) only to arrest them (like they did for the hackgate "arrested by appointment") because they have explicitly stated that ' a review is not an investigation'. I stand corrected but I do think they (NSY) dont have the remit nor power to interview anyone. Their recommendations in their summation report will be quite a different thing.

Depending on what's in the final report, and depending on the HO's objective for the review, I suspect it would be down to the Home office whether or not to pass on the info to Portugal side or whether or not to instigate or recommend a reopening hence re-investigation of the mccanns, rounding up also their friends for interrogation especially those who'd allegedly helped them in the cover by vis-a-vis dodgy PI operation and dodgy Fund operation. Reopening based on that would very much depend on the weight PP place on the new evidence. The PP would have to evaluate and ascertain whether the new evidence collected and collated by NSY is feasible to work on to fruition for charging the mccanns and some in order to justify the re-deployment of manpower and resources.

Another round of mcc-media frenzy and mighty nasty mcc-legal team is only going to hamper the investigators best effort if no cast iron proof evidence can render the prosecution conviction-success-proof. The tough manipulative cunning and intelligently evil mccanns are unlike other criminal cases, -- with them I suspect it would have to be more than circumstantial evidence b/c the investigators already have that in abundance but apparently not conviction-proof against their corrupt lawyers. At most they will be exposed for their lies, which will only further erode their credibility and rotten reputation further (if that is possible), but getting a successful conviction though not necessarily impossible, but would be a unnaturally painful process against their lawyers. The only plus point in a re-opening is if it is taken in conjunction with UK police on recommendation of UK's HO, then that being the case, the mccanns can no longer us politicians and govt influence as their ammunition.

Going by historical records of how this case was handled and unfold, can anyone honestly see UK govt instigating a reopening based on the review? Any reopening attempt on Portugal initiatives alone, short of Maddie's remains being found, is just like re-going down the well trodden path with the UK government covered by obstacles that will only lead to a dead end. Can anyone honestly see the Portugal's PP re-opening without having had prior indication of full cooperation (or instigation) from UK's HO, irrespective of the findings of the review, or irrespective of new evidence sent to be them directly? I cant see that happening - not on review outcome anyway. Anyway HO had already made it clear the outcome will not be published - so that alone is indication of ambiguity on their part.

I suspect the review is commissioned just to satisfy Cameron's curiosity more than anything else, having joined NO. 10 when speculations about mccanns involvement were still rife and flying in his face. It's his way of finding out the truth what his predecessors knew but he was not let into the secret. OK, they can prove me wrong, but I am not holding my breath.

If I was the source and my conscience got the better of me that brought about my change of mind, I would ask to meet with Theresa May or even Cameron, if after having contacted NSY review team and got no where. Just a thought - what's stopping the source walking into the police station where inspector redwood is based on condition s/he remains anonymous. I suppose one needs courage for that but waiting to be invited also require courage to attend and tell all isn't it?

I think Tony has waisted his time with NSY. All evidence needs to go to the Portugese imo.
I hope Tony kept copies.

happychick wrote:I think Tony has wasted his time with NSY.

I don't think so Happychick...if anything he has proven to everyone how corrupt they are and not the least bit interested in getting to the truth & seem to be helping with the cover up...so we have this proof on our side now

jd wrote:

happychick wrote:I think Tony has wasted his time with NSY.

I don't think so Happychick...if anything he has proven to everyone how corrupt they are and not the least bit interested in getting to the truth & seem to be helping with the cover up...so we have this proof on our side now

That's a good way to look at it jd, and thank you for that because I get so demoralised with this case.
But then how many people are really going to be aware of how corrupt this case is when there's only a few people in forums and the majority believe the media and government? Or maybe they don't believe them but haven't realised there's another side to this case?
I mean it's not like Tony can even go to the media with his evidence that NSY aren't doing a proper job because the media are in on this corruption too becuase they don't print the truth [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
What on earth did Maddy ever do to deserve such a bunch of ******** to be involved with her case?

happychick wrote:

jd wrote:

happychick wrote:I think Tony has wasted his time with NSY.

I don't think so Happychick...if anything he has proven to everyone how corrupt they are and not the least bit interested in getting to the truth & seem to be helping with the cover up...so we have this proof on our side now

That's a good way to look at it jd, and thank you for that because I get so demoralised with this case.
But then how many people are really going to be aware of how corrupt this case is when there's only a few people in forums and the majority believe the media and government? Or maybe they don't believe them but haven't realised there's another side to this case?
I mean it's not like Tony can even go to the media with his evidence that NSY aren't doing a proper job because the media are in on this corruption too becuase they don't print the truth [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
What on earth did Maddy ever do to deserve such a bunch of ******** to be involved with her case?

Poor Maddie was unlucky to have been born to a couple of odd people, she did nothing wrong. To get the truth out which we will trust me, it takes bit by bit and time to build it up, and proving SY is just one aspect of it. Its a war not a battle so to speak, and we will win it

jd wrote:

happychick wrote:

jd wrote:

happychick wrote:I think Tony has wasted his time with NSY.

I don't think so Happychick...if anything he has proven to everyone how corrupt they are and not the least bit interested in getting to the truth & seem to be helping with the cover up...so we have this proof on our side now

That's a good way to look at it jd, and thank you for that because I get so demoralised with this case.
But then how many people are really going to be aware of how corrupt this case is when there's only a few people in forums and the majority believe the media and government? Or maybe they don't believe them but haven't realised there's another side to this case?
I mean it's not like Tony can even go to the media with his evidence that NSY aren't doing a proper job because the media are in on this corruption too becuase they don't print the truth [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
What on earth did Maddy ever do to deserve such a bunch of ******** to be involved with her case?

Poor Maddie was unlucky to have been born to a couple of parasites, she did nothing wrong. To get the truth out which we will trust me, it takes bit by bit and time to build it up, and proving SY is just one aspect of it. Its a war not a battle so to speak, and we will win it

Yes jd, it most certainly is a war and it takes many battles to achieve a victory. I believe Tony has taken brave and very important steps (hopefully) to this end. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

pennylane wrote:. I believe Tony has taken brave and very important steps (hopefully) to this end. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

I second this

happychick wrote:I think Tony has wasted his time with NSY. All evidence needs to go to the Portugese imo.
I hope Tony kept copies.

I don't agree - time and effort is of intrinsic value when seeking justice for a child.

The way I see it - TB spent his time contributing to the greater good of fellow beings by fighting injustice and corruption prevalent within authorities, as well as to seek the truth for a (dead) child with the hope to nail her 'real' perpetrator/s. Imo, what TB has done and continues to do is more worthwhile and hence commendable than the mccanns pretending to search for her and her 'imaginary' perpetrator.

Regardless of the result or non-result (yet), TB can only try and if at the end of the day, the desired result is not attained, then he will always be remembered as someone who tries very hard to get justice for Maddie despite all the adversaries.

By comparison what have Maddie's grandparents or relatives on both her parents sides done for her? Have they sold everything down to the back of their shirt to finance and turn every stone looking for her? Have they campaign authorities to look for her? So far only her parents vowed to search for her but only in words and not in actions - their fluffy words uttered on the back of Maddie's name is just to solicit money from the public for legal defense of their 'wrecked' reputation.

[Comment deleted - please avoid personal abuse - ADMIN]

Thank you for your excellent post aiyoyo [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

aiyoyo wrote:

happychick wrote:I think Tony has waisted his time with NSY. All evidence needs to go to the Portugese imo.
I hope Tony kept copies.

I don't agree - time and effort is of intrinsic value when seeking justice for a child.

The way I see it - TB spent his time contributing to the greater good of fellow beings by fighting injustice and corruption prevalent within authorities, as well as to seek the truth for a (dead) child with the hope to nail her 'real' perpetrator/s. Imo, what TB has done and continues to do is more worthwhile and hence commendable than the mccanns pretending to search for her and her 'imaginary' perpetrator.

Regardless of the result or non-result (yet), TB can only try and if at the end of the day, the desired result is not attained, then he will always be remembered as someone who tries very hard to get justice for Maddie despite all the adversaries.

By comparison what have Maddie's grandparents or relatives on both her parents sides done for her? Have they sold everything down to the back of their shirt to finance and turn every stone looking for her? Have they campaign authorities to look for her? So far only her parents vowed to search for her but only in words and not in actions - their fluffy words uttered on the back of Maddie's name is just to solicit money from the public for legal defense of their 'wrecked' reputation.

The mccanns are despicable. To me they are lower than animals - even animals are more capable of protecting their young, but not the mccanns - they harmed Maddie then pretend they didn't do it. If that is not evil I dont know what is!

What Tony has done is to glean information about the SY review. For example, he has asked directly about the Terms of Reference of the review. SY have remained tight-lipped. However, the behaviour of SY along with the morsals of information released seem to reaffirm that the TOR are very narrow and consistant with Camerons statement that the review is to "help the family". As Tony as said, this is a tricky task for any Police force due to the evidence that can not be easily dismissed:

Lee Rainbow suggests homicide rather than abduction.

The doggies are bought in and sniff death in the appartment and hirecar.

The Gaspar statements are apparently withheld by Leicestershire Police.

Questions are unanswered.

Contradictions abound.

aiyoyo wrote :

So far only her parents vowed to search for her but only in words and not in actions - their fluffy words uttered on the back of Maddie's name is just to solicit money from the public for legal defense of their
'wrecked' reputation.

[aiyoyo's comment deleted - please avoid personal abuse - ADMIN]

and remember that Kate compared herself to a raging lioness pacing the villa in Portugal, such was her desire to protect her family...has she ever seen the way a lioness will pick up her cubs and move them back to where she has created a safe haven for them, if they stray too far in their desire to explore?


It was one of a number of statements in her book that made my skin crawl.

russiandoll wrote:
you wrote :

So far only her parents vowed to search for her but only in words and
not in actions - their fluffy words uttered on the back of Maddie's name
is just to solicit money from the public for legal defense of their
'wrecked' reputation.

[aiyoyo's comment deleted - please avoid personal abuse - ADMIN]

and remember that Kate compared herself to a raging lioness pacing the villa in Portugal, such was her desire to protect her family....has she ever seen the way a lioness will pick up her cubs and move them back to where she has created a safe haven for them, if they stray too far in their desire to explore?


Ut was one of a number of statements in her book that made my skin crawl.

Yes, she is adept at making people's skin crawl - her raging pacing and lashing out by kicking at furniture only prove she has a violent streak.

God helps her children, one met her fate -and very likely violently!

I don't believe violence is something she turns into or gains overnight, it is part of her inherent nature. She thinks she's clever telling people about her violent manifestation to protect her family little realising she's giving her away as someone with a volatile side.

I will return briefly to the information from our source about the constantly changing witness statements of Jane Tanner. The source thought that these statements had been made 'with the help of staff from the International Family Law Group' (IFLG).

It was swiftly pointed out by McCann-believers that (according to Dr Kate McCann's book) staff from the IFLG did not arrive in Praia da Luz until 11 May 2007, whereas Jane Tanner's two witness statements had been made on 4 and 10 May 2007.

I countered by suggesting that it may be uncertain just who was helping Jane Tanner make her convoluted and ever-changing statements. It seems that around this time she had help from, inter alia, staff from Control Risks Group, Leiecestershire Police, and possibly unknown staff from the British security services - as well as IFLG.

I am now in possession of a carefully-researched article, by a professional in the field, dealing with many apsects of Madeleine's Fund. I very much hope that this article will see the light of day very soon, but meanwhile here is an excerpt from it which explores in more detail the role of IFLG. I've highlighted the passage relating to the matter of when IFLG arrived on the scene in red:

++++++++++++++++++++++++

QUOTE from unpublished article

Madeleine was reported missing on the evening of Thursday May 3, 2007. On 15 May, just 7 full working days later, the limited company Madeleine’s Fund: Leaving No Stone Unturned was incorporated.

The sad truth is that such ‘funds’,’foundations’ or whatever one chooses to call them are normally set up after a tragic event as a tribute to the person’s memory. Amy Winehouse’s father for example has announced that he is setting up a foundation to provide support and counselling to those seeking help with drink and drug addictions. In October 2002 at the memorial service of murdered teenager Milly Dowler, her parents announced ‘Milly’s Fund’. This fund was later subsumed into the Suzy Lamplugh Trust set up in 1986 by the parents of missing estate agent Suzy Lamplugh, whose body has never been found. In 2003, Australian teenager Daniel Morcombe went missing. Two years later, his parents set up a foundation to continue the search and to educate the public. Daniel’s remains were found last month and a man has been charged with his murder.

The book ‘madeleine’ (pp. 124-127) gives us the rather limited information that the limited company arose out of an offer to help ‘from a paralegal based in Leicester, via a colleague of Gerry’s.’ This person worked for the International Family Law Group (IFLG), a firm based in central London and apparently set up in 2006 or 2007.

Dr Kate McCann says: “It was difficult to know what they could do (and anyone in her position would agree) but we decided it would be worth meeting them to discuss the possibilities”. The paralegal is said to have accompanied an as-yet unnamed barrister who both flew to Portugal on the afternoon of Friday 11 May. According to Dr Kate McCann's book, they met that day and had two further sessions with various lawyers over the course of the weekend.

We are told that the barrister, having inspected the proximity of the Tapas bar where the McCanns and their friends had been dining that night to their holiday apartment where they had left three sleeping children aged under four, assured them that their behaviour (in making periodic checks on their children) could not be deemed negligent and was ‘well within the bounds of reasonable parenting.’ The lawyers are also said to have advised about applying to have Madeleine made a ward of court, such status being helpful as the ‘courts could make orders to reveal information not otherwise available that might be relevant in our case’.

In the context of the financial help that was then being offered, Kate says the IFLG paralegal advised them to set up a ‘fighting fund’. The IFLG would devise the objectives of the fund and instruct a leading charity law firm, Bates Wells & Braithwaite (BWB), to draw up Articles of Association. The use of the term ‘fighting fund’ is odd. Who were the McCanns fighting? Whether ‘fighting’ is the paralegal’s word or Dr Kate McCann’s paraphrase is unclear.

It is perhaps strange that the IFLG paralegal, expert in the complex of area of international family abductions, would promote the idea of setting up a limited company so convincingly that the McCanns agreed at once. At the time of the first meeting between the McCanns and the two legal visitors (according to Dr Kate McCann), Madeleine had been missing for only one week.

Interestingly the book doesn’t mention the names of the paralegal and the barrister who spent the weekend in Portugal to advise them, presumably at their own expense, though who if anyone paid them is not stated. Her book does however name, and praise, other professionals who helped her at different times after her daughter vanished; for example trauma psychologist Alan Pike and Carter-Ruck lawyers Adam Tudor and Isobel Hudson. On page 289 of her book, Dr Kate McCann says that “Carter-Ruck continue to do a vast amount of work for us, most of it without payment, most of it quietly behind the scenes”.

On Sunday, 13 May, the IFLG issued a press brief release with Ann Thomas, ‘Managing Partner’ as the contact person. It merely said that ‘last week’ they and barrister Michael Nicholls QC had been instructed to act for the McCanns…and that details of how contributions could be made to help get Madeleine back would be made available ‘in the next couple of days.’

Presumably, then, Mr Nicholls was the barrister who reassured the McCanns about their ‘reasonable’ parenting. The press release on headed paper contained four names, each with a title, one of which was Richard Jones, ‘Family Law Executive’. Perhaps he was the ‘persuasive paralegal’ at the Portugal meetings? Mr Jones is not currently included as a staff member of IFLG on their website.

The IFLG was apparently set up not long before Madeleine went missing. The website does not say when. However, since co-founder David Hodson was, according to his website career details, working in Sydney ‘until 2005’, the IFLG cannot have been founded until some time during 2005 at the very earliest, maybe later.

REST SNIPPED...UNQUOTE

So on Friday the 11th this IFLG person persuaded the McCanns to start a fighting fund? Unless this was done over the telephone or email between the 4th and the 11th?
Because he must have flown straight back? But the next working day was Monday the 14th.
Bates and Braithwaite must have worked through the night to draw up the Articles of Association to get the thing up and running on the 15th.
I'm smelling sea bass.

tigger wrote:So on Friday the 11th this IFLG person persuaded the McCanns to start a fighting fund? Unless this was done over the telephone or email between the 4th and the 11th?
Because he must have flown straight back? But the next working day was Monday the 14th.
Bates and Braithwaite must have worked through the night to draw up the Articles of Association to get the thing up and running on the 15th.
I'm smelling sea bass.

Tigger, reading the quotes from Tony, it seems the IFLG person and the barrister had the weekend (may 11,12,13) in which to persuade Kate she needed a fighting fund. Did she need much persuading I wonder? It appears they were there for the weekend as it refers to other meetings with them over that weekend.. as you say Bates etc were busy. A company can be set up in 24 hours if you pay an additional fee. Wonder if Bates etc asked IFLG why it was so urgent.

pauline wrote:

tigger wrote:So on Friday the 11th this IFLG person persuaded the McCanns to start a fighting fund? Unless this was done over the telephone or email between the 4th and the 11th?
Because he must have flown straight back? But the next working day was Monday the 14th.
Bates and Braithwaite must have worked through the night to draw up the Articles of Association to get the thing up and running on the 15th.
I'm smelling sea bass.

Tigger, reading the quotes from Tony, it seems the IFLG person and the barrister had the weekend (May 11,12,13) in which to persuade Kate she needed a fighting fund. Did she need much persuading I wonder? It appears they were there for the weekend as it refers to other meetings with them over that weekend.. as you say Bates etc were busy. A company can be set up in 24 hours if you pay an additional fee. Wonder if Bates etc asked IFLG why it was so urgent.

The clue to the rush is mainly that the McCanns' PR folk and advisers had already made preparations to launch the Fund to a blaze of publicity on Wednesday 16 May. They had to have their charity/trust and bank account in place for the launch.

Here is an outline 'timeline' which sets the involvement of the IFLG within the rest of events that were happening around that time.

Madeleine was reported missing on the evening of Thursday May 3, 2007.

Week beginning 7 May: ‘Paralegal’ from IFLG contacts the McCanns (date not given) and says they be able to help. McCanns agree. Dr Kate McCann says: “It was difficult to know what they could do but we decided it would be worth meeting them to discuss the possibilities”.

8 May: Cherie Blair rings the McCanns. The McCanns ask Cherie to (quote) 'help expedite the search for Madeleine'.

10 May: Tony Blair announces his resignation.

11 May (Friday): A paralegal from Leicestershire is said to have accompanied barrister Michael Nicholls QC who are both said to have flown to Portugal on the afternoon of Friday 11 May. They met that day and had two further sessions with various lawyers over the course of the weekend.

12 May: Madeleine’s 4^th birthday.

We are told that the barrister, having inspected the proximity of the Tapas bar where the McCanns and their friends had been dining that night to their holiday apartment where they had left three sleeping children aged under four, assured them that their behaviour (in making periodic checks on their children) could not be deemed negligent and was ‘well within the bounds of reasonable parenting.’ The lawyers are also said to have advised about applying to have Madeleine made a Ward of Court, such status being helpful as the ‘courts could make orders to reveal information not otherwise available that might be relevant in our case’. IFLG introduce McCanns to a mystery man called ‘Hugh’ whom they later find out was ‘a former intelligence officer’. Hugh says: ‘Why don’t you keep a diary?’, and says he was ‘brought in by Control Risks Group’. John Hill, Ocean Club Manager, arranged for the McCanns to be taken to ‘a villa’ for the day. Dr Kate McCann: “The men organised a barbecue and there was wine and beer”. Mass at church. Catriona Baker visits the McCanns and says that she and other Ocean Club have been sent packing to Greece. Dr Kate McCann says this was ‘for logistical reasons’.

On Sunday, 13 May, the IFLG issued a press brief release with Ann Thomas, ‘Managing Partner’ as the contact person. It merely said that ‘last week’ they and barrister Michael Nicholls QC had been instructed to act for the McCanns…and that details of how contributions could be made to help get Madeleine back would be made available ‘in the next couple of days’. Jane Tanner identifies Robert Murat as the person she claimed to have seen carrying away a child on the evening of 3 May. The McCanns go for a ‘quiet stroll’ along the beach. Dr Kate McCann has a terrible vision of what might have happened to Madeleine (p. 129 of the book).

On 14 May there were discussions between McCann lawyers Bates Wells and Braithwaite and the Charity Commission. It is uncertain when BWB were instructed (probably on the afternoon of 14 May). Robert Murat arrested.

On 15 May the limited company Madeleine’s Fund: Leaving No Stone Unturned was incorporated. Sheree Dodd arrives to become the McCanns’ temporary spokesperson.

On 16 May the Fund was launched to a fanfare of publicity; English rugby union captain Martin Johnson was present and headed a celebrity cast list. McCanns’ friends Rachael Oldfield, Fiona Payne and Russell O’Brien claim that they saw Murat hanging around the Ocean Club on the evening of 3 May and make statements to that effect.

On 17 May Madeleine was made a Ward of Court. Bank accounts in the name of Madeleine’s Fund were opened. Auditors, Haysmcintryre, were appointed (before the Trustees of the Fund had met).

On 18 May BWB applied for British and European trade marks and they were given the reference 2456061.

Sunday 20 May: Dr Gerald McCann visits England.

Monday 21 May: Dr Gerald McCann meets Clarence Mitchell and the two ‘hit it off straightaway’.

Week beginning 21 May: First meeting of the Board of Madeleine's Fund.

When you read the timeline it does put a lot of things into perspective.....God this really does not add up to a timeline of a child gone missing and I need to read it again

I cannot understand what kate meant when she said Catriona Baker & other OC employees were sent to Greece for logistical reasons....what does she mean by this? Why is anyone thinking about the employees when they are meant to be focusing on abductors

Newintown wrote:The lawyers are also said to have advised about applying to have Madeleine made a Ward of Court, such status being helpful as the ‘courts could make orders to reveal information not otherwise available that might be relevant in our case’. IFLG introduce McCanns to a mystery man called ‘Hugh’ whom they later find out was ‘a former intelligence officer’. Hugh says: ‘Why don’t you keep a diary?’, and says he was ‘brought in by Control Risks Group’.

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

I don't know if it is of any relevance but I'm sure it was a female (Gerry's sister?) who said on their mockumentary (I think) that she told Kate to keep a diary to show to Madeleine when she was found of how much they looked for her and thought about her.

That must have been Philomena who just says exactly what she it told to say. Quite a lot of wrong information which came directly from source, e.g. the cuddle cat on the high ledge (the prop that proved how Kate could know she was abducted there and then), prob. the diary and so on, is relayed via her - a true 'woman of the people'.

Re the ward of court. Surely the court has parental responsibility for Maddie and can deny information to the parents.

The lawyers are also said to have advised about applying to have Madeleine made a Ward of Court, such status being helpful as the ‘courts could make orders to reveal information not otherwise available that might be relevant in our case’. IFLG introduce McCanns to a mystery man called ‘Hugh’ whom they later find out was ‘a former intelligence officer’. Hugh says: ‘Why don’t you keep a diary?’, and says he was ‘brought in by Control Risks Group’.

Two things jump out at me.

1) Why did the lawyers (of all people) think investigators would divulge investigative process to the Court, which they otherwise wouldn't unless Maddie is made WOC. Since when investigators during ongoing investigative process give out info whether by court order or not? Even if in exceptional circumstance and if ordered by Court, the info will be strictly for the privilege of Court and never for the family of the missing child or anyone else, not even to lawyers unless before judges in court case.

2) Why did 'Hugh' concern himself whether Kate should keep a diary or not when the focus should be the search for Maddie? Why did he feel the diary keeping was crucial at that early stage - was book already in the planned pipeline?

On the whole the heavy involvement of IFLG at that early stage with their advice to mccanns all contrary and going beyond their usual remit as International Family Law Group is ODD to say the least. What would be interesting to know is why didn't Kate name those who went to PDL and who authorised and finance their trip to PDL?

Also since Hugh didnt object to Kate's statement that it was he who suggested the diary keeping - then it must be true. Unless, Hugh wasn't given the bewk to proof read.

Thanks Tony for that timeline, what struck me is the early appearance of the page 129 story - on the 13th of May? We never heard such graphic descriptions in the interval between the 13th and the book.
Especially as she kept on about a species of caring paedophile who would treat Maddie with the respect she deserved.
It's just that now I know it came that early and imo Kate was pretty well catatonic judging from the early interviews, I wonder.

In the context of the financial help that was then being offered, Kate says the IFLG paralegal advised them to set up a ‘fighting fund’. The IFLG would devise the objectives of the fund and instruct a leading charity law firm, Bates Wells & Braithwaite (BWB), to draw up Articles of Association. The use of the term ‘fighting fund’ is odd. Who were the McCanns fighting? Whether ‘fighting’ is the paralegal’s word or Dr Kate McCann’s paraphrase is unclear.

Although it's unclear who originated the term "fighting fund", the fact that kate states it as 'that' in her book would mean that they (the mccanns at least) had considered it as a "fighting fund'. Interesting term "fighting fund' - why not 'search fund'?

If however on the premise that kate has borrowed the term 'fighting fund' from the lFGL lawyer who coined and suggested it, then wouldn't the implication be patently obvious that they (IFLG) were in the know about Maddie's fate right from the onset and were especially despatched to PDL to help the mccanns in their cover up. It's interesting to note that IFLG, Control Risks Group as well as Intelligence Officer were all sent to help out the mccanns, a highly unprecedented occurrence by all accounts in a missing child or person case. hmmmmm...definitely fishy......too many coincidences .....

aiyoyo wrote: Although it's unclear who originated the term "fighting fund", the fact that kate states it as 'that' in her book would mean that they (the mccanns at least) had considered it as a "fighting fund'. Interesting term "fighting fund' - why not 'search fund'?

If however on the premise that kate has borrowed the term 'fighting fund' from the lFGL lawyer who coined and suggested it, then wouldn't the implication be patently obvious that they (IFLG) were in the know about Maddie's fate right from the onset and were especially despatched to PDL to help the mccanns in their cover up. It's interesting to note that IFLG, Control Risks Group as well as Intelligence Officer were all sent to help out the mccanns, a highly unprecedented occurrence by all accounts in a missing child or person case. hmmmmm...definitely fishy......too many coincidences .....

I agree, Aiyoyo, fighting fund is a very strange choice. And why did Philomena McCann already have the campaign slogon on 05/05/07 for Sky News?

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

When Ian Woods asks: ''Is there a temptation for them to get out and try and search themselves...'' Philomena replies: ''Yeah, well, I mean for Gerry and Kate they want to get out there, they want to search everything, they want to leave nothing unturned.''

'Fighting Fund'...I wonder if this was in anticipation to fight the people who were going to expose the truth of their scam?

Just a thought......From the timeline Tony Blair resigns on the 10th May. This is a week before Gordon Brown takes over the reigns of power. There is enough to suggest GB was in the know about this scam, and if it is true of some chip or whatever the reason behind this, is it a coincidence the scam is executed just as GB is taking power. Didn't gerry and GB's brother work on the same board of COMARE. We will never know but if GB had taken power on say July 25th, would the Maddie scam story have been released on 18th July? the levels of the UK government involved in this is certainly to be deeply questioned

Philomena McCanns Freudian slip......To me she really slipped up and gave it away with these 2 slips...oh Philomena!

[youtube][/youtube]