Re: McCanns Easter break Donegal 2007

by Lady-Heather 26.10.12 13:00

Perhaps they're hoping the renewed sympathy in Ireland will get them that EURO25,000 of donations that was frozen by TV3.

by Liz Eagles 26.10.12 14:42

Lady-Heather wrote:Perhaps they're hoping the renewed sympathy in Ireland will get them that EURO25,000 of donations that was frozen by TV3.

Hi Lady-Heather,

I've never heard of the 25,000 euros frozen by TV3. Do you have a link or a topic on here? It's very interesting.

Thanks.

by Guest 26.10.12 15:05

Look at that picture! Look at those poor fingers and count.
Take an icecream-cone (a filled one) and try to repeat the posure.

parapono

by Guest 26.10.12 15:10

It certainly looks to me as if her fingers are not actually touching the cone.

by aiyoyo 26.10.12 17:22

ShuBob wrote:

Excuse my language but it's all garbage, Candyfloss. It is my belief that this story has been planted for nefarious reasons [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Precisely!

A family get together reunion is a private affair, why did they need to tell the local press or even go on TV to be interviewed? Why would it be in the Public interest to know where they go for holiday or what they did during their holiday? It's just garbage !

by **PeterMac** 26.10.12 17:42

To take the public's mind off the fact that they are trying to send an old man (Sorry TB) to prison for having the courage to say what he believes, perhaps ?

by Guest 26.10.12 17:54

I'm not sure if the majority of the newspaper-reading public is even aware of the case. Has there been any coverage other than in The Mirror of this week's proceedings - or any previous reports?

To me it seems as if TM doesn't want too much to be published as it could encourage people to check out what Tony has been saying. They wouldn't worry if it was David Icke type ramblings, that's for sure, so I feel that they have reason to fear what is being said.

by **tigger** 26.10.12 18:18

Someone was looking for this: big grin

That's how much the Irish love the McCanns....

McCanns' fury at TV freeze Sunday Mirror (No direct online link - FindArticles.com)

By STEPHEN MAGUIRE
Dec 2, 2007

MADELEINE McCann's family are furious with TV3 bosses who froze a bank account which was meant to be used to help find the missing girl.

Almost EUR25,000 was raised by viewers of the TV station, based in Dublin, when it launched the Missing Maddie Fund in June. But station bosses decided not to hand over the cash because the main Maddie Fund was not a registered charity.

Last night Kate and Gerry McCann's family spokesman Clarence Mitchell said he was very disappointed at the station's move.

He said: "We would appeal to them to think again and forward the cash on so it can be used for the purpose it was intended".

"In relation to the charitable status of the fund we took legal advice on this issue and were advised not to do this".

"But we want to assure people, including TV3, that every penny of the fund can be accounted for." The TV3 Maddie appeal was launched in a blaze of publicity on June 1 after huge viewer interest in the plight of the missing four-year-old.

Donations of EUR24,345 soon flooded in, and the cash remains in an account at the Allied Irish Bank headquarters in Ballsbridge, Co Dublin, gathering interest.

A spokesman for the station said earlier that if a registered charity is not set up for Maddie the money will be donated to a registered child protection cause.
unquote

Sorry, can't resist, will post this in the Please note; the Fund is not a Charity as well.

by Guest 26.10.12 18:23

I love the remark from Clarence about releasing the money so that it can be used for its intended purpose........

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

by aiyoyo 26.10.12 18:42

PeterMac wrote:To take the public's mind off the fact that they are trying to send an old man (Sorry TB) to prison for having the courage to say what he believes, perhaps ?

Perhaps, and the trial hasn't even started.

Just wait till the Libel trial starts, where will they go? Some where far far away to make sure they are not available for comment.

Must say Dublin TV station had wonderful foresight when they refused to hand the donation over.

by saltnpepper 26.10.12 22:23

Just forward the 24,345 in an envelope to Kate & Gerry,Rothley Towers....it'll get there [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

by aiyoyo 27.10.12 6:16

This publicity about their poignant trip back to Donegal is just a strategy put in practice for a purpose; and the purpose isn't Madeleine because there is no word from them about asking the people of Ireland to continue the search.

by **tigger** 27.10.12 7:40

aiyoyo wrote:This publicity about their poignant trip back to Donegal is just a strategy put in practice for a purpose; and the purpose isn't Madeleine because there is no word from them about asking the people of Ireland to continue the search.

I for one, don't believe Maddie was ever in Donegal. Why else refuse a mere six weeks of credit card records?

(see also Gerry's credit cards topic)

Home Office refused information about Gerry's credit cards

A request sent by PJ to British authorities, asking for details about Gerry McCann credit cards transactions for a period of six months, starting on April 1, six weeks before Madeleine's disappearance, was considered disproportionate by Frances Kennah, the Head of UK Central Authority, a Home Office department.

Zaival or Donegal? Hmmm.

by aiyoyo 27.10.12 8:21

tigger wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:This publicity about their poignant trip back to Donegal is just a strategy put in practice for a purpose; and the purpose isn't Madeleine because there is no word from them about asking the people of Ireland to continue the search.

I for one, don't believe Maddie was ever in Donegal. Why else refuse a mere six weeks of credit card records?

(see also Gerry's credit cards topic)

Home Office refused information about Gerry's credit cards

A request sent by PJ to British authorities, asking for details about Gerry McCann credit cards transactions for a period of six months, starting on April 1, six weeks before Madeleine's disappearance, was considered disproportionate by Frances Kennah, the Head of UK Central Authority, a Home Office department.

Zaival or Donegal? Hmmm.

The refusal to submit his credit card details is indeed an enigma.
The pertinent question is: was the refusal Frances Kenneh's own decision or a decision taken after having consulted with another person/authority and who might that be.

You would imagine when an unusual request like that came in, in relation to a crime, it would be usual for the head-in-charge either to just comply or if unsure, to have consulted with a higher authority before deciding whether to comply.

What I am saying is Frances Keenah's name and signature on the refusal letter may not be worth the ink written on, because the decision to deny may have come from any quarter. Which begs the question did they actually consulted with the mccanns before coming to the decision. I wont be surprised if that did happen.

by **tigger** 27.10.12 8:41

aiyoyo wrote:
tigger wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:This publicity about their poignant trip back to Donegal is just a strategy put in practice for a purpose; and the purpose isn't Madeleine because there is no word from them about asking the people of Ireland to continue the search.

I for one, don't believe Maddie was ever in Donegal. Why else refuse a mere six weeks of credit card records?

(see also Gerry's credit cards topic)

Home Office refused information about Gerry's credit cards

A request sent by PJ to British authorities, asking for details about Gerry McCann credit cards transactions for a period of six months, starting on April 1, six weeks before Madeleine's disappearance, was considered disproportionate by Frances Kennah, the Head of UK Central Authority, a Home Office department.

Zaival or Donegal? Hmmm.

The refusal to submit his credit card details is indeed an enigma.
The pertinent question is: was the refusal Frances Kenneh's own decision or a decision taken after having consulted with another person/authority and who might that be.

You would imagine when an unusual request like that came in, in relation to a crime, it would be usual for the head-in-charge either to just comply or if unsure, to have consulted with a higher authority before deciding whether to comply.

What I am saying is Frances Keenah's name and signature on the refusal letter may not be worth the ink written on, because the decision to deny may have come from any quarter. Which begs the question did they actually consulted with the mccanns before coming to the decision. I wont be surprised if that did happen.

I think the Home Office minister at the time was the one who got her husbands' porn movies on her expense account. Was that the same one with the mortgage deal her husband 'made' her sign, saying she never looked at such documents?
In any case, the request for credit card details should not be unusual - just like the medical details of both parents and the missing child. None of which was forthcoming.

I'm also wondering if it wasn't so much a question of what might be on the credit card statements as what might not be on them .

by aiyoyo 27.10.12 9:58

It is unusual in the sense that it is not normal for police to ask for any or your records unless you are under Police radar.

There can be only two possible reasons for the refusal. Ie. Home Office was either involved in the cover up, or it was displaying a xenophobic attitude in denial that a pair of white middle-class NHS doctors could be involved in their own daughter's disappearance. Either way the Home Office non-cooperation hampered investigators from a proper investigation.

by Smokeandmirrors 27.10.12 10:24

The refusal to grant access to credit card records only fuels the speculation about what might need to be concealed. Most peoples, I would imagine, would contain very mundane purchases, and there is the old adage if your innocent you have nothing to hide. Just like the medical records. Had the credit card records been revealed I wonder where or to whom the trail would have led?

by aiyoyo 27.10.12 17:00

Maybe PM can tell us whether it is within Scotland Yard's review team power or right to ask for the denied records for inclusion for review.

by DIBarlow 30.10.12 20:54

Probably slightly OT for the thread title, so apologies for that, but I notice that in the following two photos Maddie appears to be wearing the same dress?

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

The length of hair is also very comparable.

It's probably been covered before, but is it possible to put an accurate age to Maddie for these photos? As a comparison it seems some time before the following photo, judging by hair length and the size of the twin?

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

by **Nina** 30.10.12 21:00

DIBarlow wrote:Probably slightly OT for the thread title, so apologies for that, but I notice that in the following two photos Maddie appears to be wearing the same dress?

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

The length of hair is also very comparable.

It's probably been covered before, but is it possible to put an accurate age to Maddie for these photos? As a comparison it seems some time before the following photo, judging by hair length and the size of the twin?

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

The two framed photographs on the hearth of babies, do you think they could be of Madeleine? Can anyone enlarge them please?

by Miraflores 30.10.12 22:49

The red dresses are presumably Christmas with Amelie at 20 months old and Madeleine at 3 years 7 1/2 months? So the iconic photo showing the eye was of a little girl and was already 4 months out of date and children can change quite a lot at that age. Hmm, wonder why? Was this because it was the clearest photo they had of the eye defect, which they didn't make much about?

In the Donegal one Amelie and Sean do look much as they were in photos taken that summer, so I imagine that it was Easter ish time?

by **tigger** 31.10.12 8:10

Miraflores wrote:The red dresses are presumably Christmas with Amelie at 20 months old and Madeleine at 3 years 7 1/2 months? So the iconic photo showing the eye was of a little girl and was already 4 months out of date and children can change quite a lot at that age. Hmm, wonder why? Was this because it was the clearest photo they had of the eye defect, which they didn't make much about?

In the Donegal one Amelie and Sean do look much as they were in photos taken that summer, so I imagine that it was Easter ish time?

The red dress photograph was from christmas 2005, so one year and nearly 5 months before 3/5/07.
The Donegal photo is allegedly taken Easter 2007. The relative size of Maddie and Sean doesn't make sense. Maddie's body is barely bigger than Sean.

by **Nina** 31.10.12 8:13

tigger wrote:
Miraflores wrote:The red dresses are presumably Christmas with Amelie at 20 months old and Madeleine at 3 years 7 1/2 months? So the iconic photo showing the eye was of a little girl and was already 4 months out of date and children can change quite a lot at that age. Hmm, wonder why? Was this because it was the clearest photo they had of the eye defect, which they didn't make much about?

In the Donegal one Amelie and Sean do look much as they were in photos taken that summer, so I imagine that it was Easter ish time?

The red dress photograph was from christmas 2005, so one year and nearly 5 months before 3/5/07.
The Donegal photo is allegedly taken Easter 2007. The relative size of Maddie and Sean doesn't make sense. Maddie's body is barely bigger than Sean.

Yet there is a photo of Gerry walking holding Sean's hand and Sean looks very small. It is from the aftermath of the 'holiday', walking down an alleyway in PdL.

by **tigger** 31.10.12 9:21

Nina wrote:
tigger wrote:
Miraflores wrote:The red dresses are presumably Christmas with Amelie at 20 months old and Madeleine at 3 years 7 1/2 months? So the iconic photo showing the eye was of a little girl and was already 4 months out of date and children can change quite a lot at that age. Hmm, wonder why? Was this because it was the clearest photo they had of the eye defect, which they didn't make much about?

In the Donegal one Amelie and Sean do look much as they were in photos taken that summer, so I imagine that it was Easter ish time?

The red dress photograph was from christmas 2005, so one year and nearly 5 months before 3/5/07.
The Donegal photo is allegedly taken Easter 2007. The relative size of Maddie and Sean doesn't make sense. Maddie's body is barely bigger than Sean.

Yet there is a photo of Gerry walking holding Sean's hand and Sean looks very small. It is from the aftermath of the 'holiday', walking down an alleyway in PdL.

That supports my theory that the body, with the pretty dress we've never seen anywhere else (a lot of Maddie's clothes are in several photos) was that of a younger girl. The head is very clearly pasted on and slightly too large for the body.
Proportion is everything - the Donegal pictures are confusing and imo they don't prove at all that Maddie was in Donegal at that time.
The relative size of Sean and Maddie doesn't compare to e.g. the tennis photo and the one Nina mentioned. At nearly four, Maddie would be a good head taller than Sean.

by Guest 31.10.12 10:57

They did seem to have a lot of holidays. This is from Michael Wrights Rogatory statement...........

On our side, we visited them in Rothley in November 2006 and they repeated their visit [to us] in February 2007. We work well together as a group and we know each other very well. We were planning a family holiday [together] for June 2007 at Center Park.

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

So they went to see MW in Feb 2007. In April 2007 they were in Donegal. In May 2007 PDL, and then they were going to have a holiday at Center Parks in June 2007.

by pauline 31.10.12 11:28

All these holidays might explain why they couldn't afford the £9-10 ph to pay a nanny to babysit, and needed help paying their mortgage.

Holidays are good for health as they know well, being doctors.

by DIBarlow 01.11.12 20:00

tigger wrote:
Miraflores wrote:The red dresses are presumably Christmas with Amelie at 20 months old and Madeleine at 3 years 7 1/2 months? So the iconic photo showing the eye was of a little girl and was already 4 months out of date and children can change quite a lot at that age. Hmm, wonder why? Was this because it was the clearest photo they had of the eye defect, which they didn't make much about?

In the Donegal one Amelie and Sean do look much as they were in photos taken that summer, so I imagine that it was Easter ish time?

The red dress photograph was from christmas 2005, so one year and nearly 5 months before 3/5/07.
The Donegal photo is allegedly taken Easter 2007. The relative size of Maddie and Sean doesn't make sense. Maddie's body is barely bigger than Sean.

I do not think there is any doubt that the image chosen by the parents to broadcast around the world bore precious little resemblance to Maddie as she approached her 4th birthday.

This is truly astounding in my opinion.

As a yardstick, can anyone imagine the parents of poor April providing such an out-of-date image for people to try and find her?

by Guest 02.11.12 10:57

It has been questioned many times why old photos were issued immediately instead of those taken on the holiday.

Here is a link to the first Madeleine campaign film which does not include any of them.

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

This confirms that they never made much of the eye defect!!

by Guest 02.11.12 11:17

Thanks Jean. Isn't it amazing just how many articles and videos have been whooshed. Just clicked on the link to the BBC page linked on this article entitled 'Madeleine parents make denial' and low and behold a large gap where the video was.............whooshed!!!

by Guest 02.11.12 11:21

That's strange, Candyfloss. The video isn't whooshed where I am!

Latest topics