How can they?

by Smokeandmirrors 16.10.11 16:21

How can the McCanns justify having a £300k plus mortgage when in Leicestershire you can buy a perfectly adequate 3 bed home for £140K? There outgoings would be considerably reduced. If your search for your daughter was so important, wouldn't you wish to put as much into the search as you could? Under the circumstances, this "lifestyle choice" is pretty crass. Under other circs. it would be neither here nor there, but taking the Mick out of the publics generosity is downright unforgiveable.

Also, Trish Cameron said in 2007 that money was tight for the McCanns. What Carp!! Two qualified doctors need never be short of money. Other people manage to be financiially responsible with a much lower potential combined income.

by **tigger** 16.10.11 18:15

Smokeandmirrors wrote:How can the McCanns justify having a £300k plus mortgage when in Leicestershire you can buy a perfectly adequate 3 bed home for £140K? There outgoings would be considerably reduced. If your search for your daughter was so important, wouldn't you wish to put as much into the search as you could? Under the circumstances, this "lifestyle choice" is pretty crass. Under other circs. it would be neither here nor there, but taking the Mick out of the publics generosity is downright unforgiveable.

Also, Trish Cameron said in 2007 that money was tight for the McCanns. What Carp!! Two qualified doctors need never be short of money. Other people manage to be financiially responsible with a much lower potential combined income.

They were apparently stony broke. Well, with a mortgage of nearly a £ 1000,-- a month, a nanny, a cleaner, four holidays plus weekends away a year, and Kate only working 1.5 days a week, I expect the money could go quite fast. Why they bought that enormous ersatz villa for such a lot too I have no idea. Maddie was in the creche three days a week, not cheap either.
But still, how to get into such financial difficulties that the mortgage for June and July 2007 was paid from the fund? Then Gerry losing his credit cards so soon afterwards, I always found that more than a little suspicious. I believe they told the PJ they didn't have credit cards.

by Gillyspot 16.10.11 18:26

I worked out that using 2007 incomes that the McCanns were on over £125k p/a income and around £65k after tax and mortgage.

Clearly paupers by us normal folk (I wish).

by russiandoll 16.10.11 18:42

were they being blackmailed perhaps? if involved in any dodgy goings on, it's possible, not likely, but possible.

by Guest 16.10.11 19:27

For those who haven't seen it, here's a link to an article which has a photo of the house.

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

Somehow their pledge to sell everything they owned seems to have fallen by the wayside!

by Smokeandmirrors 16.10.11 19:35

Marian wrote:For those who haven't seen it, here's a link to an article which has a photo of the house.

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

Somehow their pledge to sell everything they owned seems to have fallen by the wayside!

Much easier to take money from folks a lot worse off. Or find some new rich friends to fund your search. There is nothing wrong with people having large houses in line with their income etc, but to hang onto it under these circumstances and moan that no-one else is doing enough to find Madeleine is just hideously rude. It really is an insult to complain funds are low when they could probably afford to contribute several thousand pounds a year from their own means, but no, they don't do they? I suppose it's all about keeping up with the McDougals!

by jd 17.10.11 0:23

The McCanns and all their allies are scamming the UK and world public. They use their associated powers to scare all the decent people in this world in their sole motivation of making money in their daughters name...THEY WILL BE STOPPED. Gerry and Kate be worried, your scam is about to be exposed and your lives are ruined....honesty always prevails

by **tigger** 17.10.11 8:08

Marian wrote:For those who haven't seen it, here's a link to an article which has a photo of the house.

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

Somehow their pledge to sell everything they owned seems to have fallen by the wayside!

Anyone who believed their story, then hears they're going to sell all they've got to find Madeleine, will be motivated to send them money. Poor things, already lost their daughter, now losing house, cars, everything. Here's some money.
That alone would bring in millions from decent, loving parents who would never in their lives put their children's lives at risk.

by Gillyspot 17.10.11 11:01

The McCanns were aware that people who had little or no money were giving to their "fund"

"After the abduction Gerry and Kate McCann set in motion their own search with professional
assistance. A Fund was set up to finance the search and many people, often those who could

barely afford it, have given generously to that fund."

The above is from a statement given out by their lawyers (who set the fund up).

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

But the McCanns who could easily afford to give some to their own fund take expenses from it (as is seen in every accounts so far).

by **tigger** 17.10.11 12:34

russiandoll wrote:were they being blackmailed perhaps? if involved in any dodgy goings on, it's possible, not likely, but possible.

Yes, I've wondered that too. Either that, or we must still think of the CAT file on Gerry, which was mysteriously emptied some months before the holiday. I have a feeling something happened to make them want to leave the UK altogether. They were extremely keen to stay in Portugal, don't think Gerry is over fond of most of his family (he wanted to stay in New Zealand years earlier).
If, - this is a wild surmise - something had to be averted re the CAT file, then Maddie's disappearance was extremely well timed.
Jim Garfield, I believe, is a friend and was in charge of CEOP.
The CAT file was a digital file, now I suppose that whoever 'emptied' it, couldn't delete the file or indeed the file number because that might need more than one authorisation, or simply because the deletion of the file would be flagged.

by Invinoveritas 18.10.11 18:05

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

Madeleines T-shirt that indicated cadaver odour on August the 2nd 2007

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]Sean wearing the T-shirt on June the 4th 2007

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]Sean wearing the T-shirt on June the 6th 2007

How could they do that? Money rolling in, surrounded by friends and relatives, T-shirts two a penny, absolutely no reverence for their "abducted" daughter! That says it all for me.

by Tinkerbell81 18.10.11 18:39

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

That is.... first thing I thought of was "tampering with evidence" but its just morbid. Did they ever care for Madeleine at all?

by Invinoveritas 18.10.11 19:35

Tinkerbell81 wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

That is.... first thing I thought of was "tampering with evidence" but its just morbid. Did they ever care for Madeleine at all?

on June the 4th Gerry has a new T-shirt but not Sean,he wears Madeleine´s T-shirt, approx. 30 days after Madeleine was "abducted" the money is there to get a T-shirt printed for Gerry so why wasn´t Sean re-kitted? Questions on Questions, I have a shirt from a friend who "grew out of it", when I sweat I smell his sweat although the shirt has been through the wash many a time, these things don´t go away.

by Guest 19.10.11 9:58

You have to remember, that just because the scent of cadaver was on that T Shirt, it does not mean Madeleine was wearing it at the time. It could simply have been in close proximity to the body, or put in a bag that had touched the body. Cross transference could account for any of the clothing marked. We have to bear that in mind.

by Bebootje 19.10.11 10:31

BTW it looks like a boys T shirt to me. Which makes me wonder if Sean would have been in close contact with Madeleine after she died. If so, in what situation would that have been. Not during the night/bedtime I suppose, because it is not his pyjama. And there was no cadaver odour in Madeleines bed either. It is a pity that Sean and Amelie weren't heard at the time. There are special methods to hear such little children. I suppose they are brainwashed by now.

by Guest 19.10.11 12:16

Bebootje wrote:BTW it looks like a boys T shirt to me. Which makes me wonder if Sean would have been in close contact with Madeleine after she died.

I agree, it looks more for a boy than girl. It's funny that no one has tracked down who made the shirt. It could be one of those pieces of clothing sold on long haul flights, just for children and that was the smallest size they did. Perhaps that might explain why Madeleine might have worn it, maybe she fell in love with it.

by Guest 19.10.11 12:18

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

What is the image under the planes off to the left in blue, is that Westminster and the Houses of Parliament?

by Invinoveritas 19.10.11 12:27

Stella wrote:
Bebootje wrote:BTW it looks like a boys T shirt to me. Which makes me wonder if Sean would have been in close contact with Madeleine after she died.
I agree, it looks more for a boy than girl. It's funny that no one has tracked down who made the shirt. It could be one of those pieces of clothing sold on long haul flights, just for children and that was the smallest size they did. Perhaps that might explain why Madeleine might have worn it, maybe she fell in love with it.

here´s the answer I think:- A child's red T-Shirt, with aeroplane motifs "NEXT "for ages 2-3 years - height 98cm

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

scroll down about a quarter

by Invinoveritas 19.10.11 12:30

strange that one, my typing schrank

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

about a quarter of the way down

by Guest 19.10.11 12:37

Thanks Invinoveritas, I corrected the size just as you replied. Your right, it was recorded as a Next T Shirt, age 2-3. Far to big for the twins at that time and they were small children for their ages. So I guess it must have been Madeleine's.

by steevo1962 19.10.11 23:29

With the Madeleine's Fund being set up as a company, I am sure that the McCanns can claim back rental space for an office, telephone etc.

We know that they ran the campaign from their house so their mortgage would be subsidised by this expenditure.

It would be interesting to find out if any cheques on behalf of the Fund were made out and cashed by the McCanns etc?

This of course would not be illegal, but IMHO would be morally wrong?

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

by pauline 20.10.11 0:13

if they use their house for what is a business, wouldn't that part of the house used as an office, be liable for capital gains tax when the house is sold?

That would be the position in Ireland, but possibly it is different in the Uk?

And if they use the house, are the staff there - the experienced Fund Administrator and the Campaigns co-ordinator (mentioned in C4 interview Nov 2010) etc - the staff must be tripping over the twins.

by steevo1962 20.10.11 0:24

There are 'No Staff' on the payroll.

Most of the company has to rely on volunteers. Specialist areas such as Lawyers, Private investigators, media spokesperson's etc are paid by contract directly from the fund.

Kate and Gerry have their own office/base in that house and most meetings are held in the contractors offices or visited by them at appointed times.

I would assume that when visited by their lawyer for example, they would have someone to look after the twins or they would be in school?

I'm not sure about capital gains tax but maybe someone else can advise?

The Madeleine Fund is a curious one, because although it is set-up as a small company, it behaves like a Trust or charity without the accountabilty of the latter?

Very convenient for the McCanns fundraising I would imagine?

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

by pauline 20.10.11 0:42

steevo1962 wrote:There are 'No Staff' on the payroll.

Most of the company has to rely on volunteers. Specialist areas such as Lawyers, Private investigators, media spokesperson's etc are paid by contract directly from the fund.

Kate and Gerry have their own office/base in that house and most meetings are held in the contractors offices or visited by them at appointed times.

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

It is indeed very strange. the audited accounts tell us there are no paid staff - yet the Mccanns on the website and in an interview tell us they have employed an experienced Fund Administrator, and also a campaigns Co-ordinator. I do not believe these two people are working for nothing though there may be lots of other voluntary help. So do these officials actually exist or is this more fiction to help to justify looking for more money?

by steevo1962 20.10.11 1:09

They do exist, I believe Smethurst and Kennedy are both experienced Fund Managers?

And I assume they may be paid indirectly through a subsiduary by way of contractrual payment?

This is one of the reasons among many that I would call for an investigation into the Fund, I would imagine that there are a few folk with their 'finger indirectly in the pie' and the only way to find out is for an investigation to be instigated which has to be done with substantial evidence of suspected fraudulent activities been carried out and not just based on assumptions or suspicions.

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

by steevo1962 20.10.11 1:15

I don't know if this is relevant to the case, but it seems that the McCanns hadn't paid their 242 euro Saldo/balance when they left apatment 5a on the 5th May?

Under the circumstances, I would imagine it would have been wavered as a gesture by The Ocean Club management?

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

by **tigger** 20.10.11 6:42

steevo1962 wrote:With the Madeleine's Fund being set up as a company, I am sure that the McCanns can claim back rental space for an office, telephone etc.

We know that they ran the campaign from their house so their mortgage would be subsidised by this expenditure.

It would be interesting to find out if any cheques on behalf of the Fund were made out and cashed by the McCanns etc?

This of course would not be illegal, but IMHO would be morally wrong?

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

Somehow, it I don't think that would occur to the McCanns. thinking

by mexx 20.10.11 8:26

The red t-shirt is perfectly appropriate either for a girl or a boy but, from the photos available, Mrs. McCann is really into the ghastly stereotyping of "girls in frilly pink", so I wonder.
I recall that Madeleine was short for her age but the twins seem average height so I guess it makes sense to assume that it always was Sean's.

by Shibboleth 20.10.11 9:50

Stella wrote:Thanks Invinoveritas, I corrected the size just as you replied. Your right, it was recorded as a Next T Shirt, age 2-3. Far to big for the twins at that time and they were small children for their ages. So I guess it must have been Madeleine's.

Or perhaps one of the cousins. My sister gave me some of her childrens clothes and toys when they grew too big, and my own children wore them and used them. If they were still in good condition I then passed them on to a friend. I think it is common in a big family to pass things on to the smaller children. So maybe the t-shirt was purchased not for Sean or Madeleine but another child entirely.

by pauline 20.10.11 10:21

steevo1962 wrote:They do exist, I believe Smethurst and Kennedy are both experienced Fund Managers?

And I assume they may be paid indirectly through a subsiduary by way of contractrual payment?

This is one of the reasons among many that I would call for an investigation into the Fund, I would imagine that there are a few folk with their 'finger indirectly in the pie' and the only way to find out is for an investigation to be instigated which has to be done with substantial evidence of suspected fraudulent activities been carried out and not just based on assumptions or suspicions.

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

brian Kennedy (uncle) and Fund director is a retired school teacher (may have risen to headmaster?) and Smethurst is a lawyer. No background in administration and accounting which are the relevant skills for the Fund manager. Both are directors so getting money by way of fees for services would possibly be in breach of the Articles of association but need a lawyer to check that one. now Mr Smethurst is a lawyer.

Like your phrase 'finger indirectly in the pie'...very tactful....