Re: Maddie Case: Scotland Yard discredits Spanish investigation

by **PeterMac** 21.03.12 11:30

It seems an opportune moment to publish again the letter I got from Bates Wells some years ago.
With luck someone will feel a right prat now.

11 January 2008

Dear Sir,
Madeleine’s Fund - Leaving No Stone Unturned Limited

We acknowledge receipt of your letter dated 22 December 2007 which was also sent to the auditors of Madeleine’s Fund, Haysmacintyre. We are also replying on behalf of Haysmacintyre.
We are advised by our client that reports in the media purporting to be from the investigators, which made claims as to when Madeleine would be found are inaccurate and misrepresentations of their views.

Our client has every confidence in the investigators who continue the search for Madeleine.

Yours faithfully

Bates Wells & Braithwaite London LLP

Wrong, inaccurate, and written by them in the certain knowledge at the time that it was wrong and inaccurate.

by **tigger** 21.03.12 11:58

PeterMac wrote:It seems an opportune moment to publish again the letter I got from Bates Wells some years ago.
With luck someone will feel a right prat now.

11 January 2008

Dear Sir,
Madeleine’s Fund - Leaving No Stone Unturned Limited

We acknowledge receipt of your letter dated 22 December 2007 which was also sent to the auditors of Madeleine’s Fund, Haysmacintyre. We are also replying on behalf of Haysmacintyre.
[b]We are advised by our client that reports in the media purporting to be from the investigators, which made claims as to when Madeleine would be found are inaccurate and misrepresentations of their views.
[/b]
Our client has every confidence in the investigators who continue the search for Madeleine.

Yours faithfully

Bates Wells & Braithwaite London LLP

Wrong, inaccurate, and written by them in the certain knowledge at the time that it was wrong and inaccurate.

Is it the views of the clients they are talking about, or the views of the investigators? Ambiguous sentence at best. Well, I hope they're blushing! laughat

by aiyoyo 21.03.12 12:16

PeterMac wrote:It seems an opportune moment to publish again the letter I got from Bates Wells some years ago.
With luck someone will feel a right prat now.

11 January 2008

Dear Sir,
Madeleine’s Fund - Leaving No Stone Unturned Limited

We acknowledge receipt of your letter dated 22 December 2007 which was also sent to the auditors of Madeleine’s Fund, Haysmacintyre. We are also replying on behalf of Haysmacintyre.
We are advised by our client that reports in the media purporting to be from the investigators, which made claims as to when Madeleine would be found are inaccurate and misrepresentations of their views.

Our client has every confidence in the investigators who continue the search for Madeleine.

Yours faithfully

Bates Wells & Braithwaite London LLP

Wrong, inaccurate, and written by them in the certain knowledge at the time that it was wrong and inaccurate.

Exactly! Talking about misleading the public.......it doesn't come more blatantly clearer than that!

The newspapers could only have got that info from the mccanns source and we know very who that is, since he'd admitted it in public.

by nomendelta 21.03.12 12:23

I have more or less said this before but it's worth repeating. Given how litigious the McCanns have been and how successful they have been in terms of getting money from the press for printing incorrect information...why haven't the sued the papers for misrepresenting what the detective agencies said? Surely claims of "home by christmas" and "we know who took her" along with loads of other extremely dubious stories (the Hewlett connection which in light of SY's dismissal of M3's work would perhaps indicate that too was a nonsense) are as upsetting to the McCanns as suggestions that maybe they aren't telling the truth about things?

by **PeterMac** 21.03.12 14:05

Those claims are also her death sentence, (assuming of course that .....) just as was the detailed description of the coloboma, (assuming of course that .....)

by aiyoyo 21.03.12 18:00

But of course they are not stupid - they knew you cannot sentence a dead person to death.

by **PeterMac** 21.03.12 22:37

aiyoyo wrote:But of course they are not stupid - they knew you cannot sentence a dead person to death.

Indeed not.
But what they can do, and in fact have done, is to sentence many people, their erstwhile friends and their close relatives, to a living purgatory, in which they all are condemned for the remainder of their lives to pretend that the things they said are the objective and provable truth.
There are many many stories of the undead, of ghosts, of ghouls, of spectres, of vampires, - all waiting for the moment when they can be released from their own private Hell by a true word, or a true kiss, or true love, or whatever, but it always involves the word True.
And the release - is - to death.
Death is a place better than that which they inhabit.
Lies devour the inner soul. Only truth can release the spirit.
Look at their faces now. Only 4 years on. They are still young people - in body - but in their Souls ?
Just look at the picture of Mitchell then and now.
Look at JT then, and at the run last year.
They are being eaten alive from within.
How very sad !

by stumo 06.04.12 16:44

I've often thought that M3, whilst appearing on the outside are getting paid a lot of money, were infact, only paid a "retainer" allowing the majority of the money to be syphoned back to the MC's.

That is , IMHO, why they have never been sued etc.

by **PeterMac** 06.04.12 21:24

stumo wrote:I've often thought that M3, whilst appearing on the outside are getting paid a lot of money, were infact, only paid a "retainer" allowing the majority of the money to be syphoned back to the MC's.
That is , IMHO, why they have never been sued etc.

Is that the same with Halligen ?
If so, (C-R, please note), it would explain why he has never been pursued by theTM, nor by the trustees (who in law have a DUTY to do so), nor by Wells-Braithwaite or the auditors Hays-useless-whatsit.
Why have they all apparently just accepted that half a million pounds of publicly and generously donated money was stolen ?
To Carter-Ruck et al.
I do not know.
I am asking the question.
Your duty is to answer it.
Though we all know you won't !

by aiyoyo 08.04.12 18:20

Actually CR relies on dodgy people with questionable reputation for their business, or they will go kaput.

So long as their clients have enough to pay their asking fees, I doubt the CR would two two monkeys how the mccanns acquired or spent their fund!

CR is all about salvaging people's rotten reputation, doesn't matter what you have done to muddy your name.

I bet they know mccanns is a big catch and they're in this long haul.
It's not over by a long chalk -the mccanns will be needing their service indefinitely until someone is charged for Maddie's disappearance and case closed. That would explain why mccanns are still marketing Maddie as a product or they might have to sell their house to afford CR. The sun will rise from the west before that happens!

by aiyoyo 08.04.12 18:21

Actually CR relies on dodgy people with questionable reputation for their business, or they will go kaput.

So long as their clients have enough to pay their asking fees, I doubt the CR would two two monkeys how the mccanns acquired or spent their fund!

CR is all about salvaging people's rotten reputation, doesn't matter what criminality they did.

I bet they know mccanns is a big catch and they're in this long haul.
It's not over by a long chalk -the mccanns will be needing their service indefinitely until someone is charged for Maddie's disappearance and case closed. That would explain why mccanns are still marketing Maddie as a product or they might have to sell their house to afford CR. The sun will rise from the west before that happens!

Latest topics