£6K A DAY BILL TO FIND MADELEINE MCCANN

by Guest 03.06.12 12:25

Obviously questions being asked by newspapers...................

£6K A DAY BILL TO FIND MADELEINE MCCANN

The Home Office, which is footing the bill, has pledged no expense will be spared in trying to help the Portuguese authorities solve the case

3rd June 2012

By Daily Star Reporter

THE British police hunt for Madeleine McCann is costing almost £6,000 a day, we can reveal.

Around £4,400 goes on detectives’ wages while transport, “supplies” and other police staff bump the figure up to just over £5,800.

Figures obtained by the Daily Star Sunday show the probe – launched last May – is likely to have cost around £2.15million.

The Home Office, which is footing the bill, has pledged no expense will be spared in trying to help the Portuguese authorities solve the case.

It is now more than five years since Madeleine – then aged three – vanished from her family’s holiday apartment in Praia da Luz.

Her parents Kate and Gerry McCann, from Rothley, Leics, believe she is still alive and police also think there is a chance she can be found.

An invoice sent to the Home Office by the Met police team reviewing the case shows the wage bill for “26.5” detectives, is estimated at £1,447,263 up to April 5.

A further £388,906 is estimated for the ten police staff helping the hunt.

With the Met putting no time limit on trying to solve the case the final bill could run into tens of millions of pounds.

And questions have been raised about why officers are working on a case led by Portuguese authorities at the expense of home-based investigations.

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

by **PeterMac** 03.06.12 13:30

Fascinating use of language. And of Accountancy
1 Costing of the operation. If the review were stopped there would be no saving. No extra officers have been taken on to do this work, so they would be paid anyway, and from the same source, the Home Office. This whole idea of calculating the "cost" of an operation was the bane of our lives, as it is totally meaningless, unless you concentrate purely on overtime and extras, which is worth doing, as that is "real' money which has to be found from somewhere.
2 "Her parents Kate and Gerry McCann, from Rothley, Leics, believe she is still alive and police also think there is a chance she can be found."
Interesting mix of language there. Police think there is a chance she can be found, - but do not specify in what condition.
3 "...trying to help the Portuguese authorities solve the case. That is a very interesting use of words.
4 "vanished" NOT "was abducted"

by russiandoll 03.06.12 13:34

The Home Office, which is footing the bill, has pledged no expense will be spared in trying to help the Portuguese authorities solve the case.

If this is quoted from a HO spokesperson, it puts in perspective all the stuff about support for the family. While the family of a missing minor most definitely should be supported, the objective of the review is stated clearly, TO HELP THE PORTUGUESE AUTHORITIES SOLVE THE CASE.
The remit mentioned transparency, SY should be held to that.

by **PeterMac** 03.06.12 13:36

russiandoll wrote: The Home Office, which is footing the bill, has pledged no expense will be spared in trying to help the Portuguese authorities solve the case.
If this is quoted from a HO spokesperson, it puts in perspective all the stuff about support for the family. While the family of a missing minor most definitely should be supported, the objective of the review is stated clearly, TO HELP THE PORTUGUESE AUTHORITIES SOLVE THE CASE.
The remit mentioned transparency, SY should be held to that.

Who knows what evidence they are sending to Portugal ?

by Guest 03.06.12 18:28

PeterMac wrote:Fascinating use of language.

Isn't it. I think there's at least one journalist who might well have been reading this forum maybe, and the 'Is Operation Grange a no-holds-barred search for the truth re Madeleine' thread?

The McCanns have I believe scored a big own goal by not publishing complete accounts for their Fund. Nobody has a clue how they have spent the money donated to them by the public since 2008 and now that Scotland Yard are spending so much money on the case, rightly or wrongly more and more people are going to think the Fund money, and proceeds from the book and Sun/Sunday Times serialisations, is not being spent on the 'search for Madeleine' but on paying the lawyers pursuing Dr Amaral, Mr Bennett and anybody else the McCanns are pursuing or planning to pursue in court. And it didn't say that on the sticker on the front of Kate McCanns book (or on their website)

More and more people are going to get suspicious. I'm sure of it. They only have themselves to blame for being in such a state [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

by friedtomatoes 03.06.12 18:31

Off topic, but does anyone know if they get paid for interviews?

by nomendelta 03.06.12 21:13

PeterMac wrote:Fascinating use of language. And of Accountancy
1 Costing of the operation. If the review were stopped there would be no saving. No extra officers have been taken on to do this work, so they would be paid anyway, and from the same source, the Home Office. This whole idea of calculating the "cost" of an operation was the bane of our lives, as it is totally meaningless, unless you concentrate purely on overtime and extras, which is worth doing, as that is "real' money which has to be found from somewhere.

I'm disappointed in the false logic there!

Of course it's costing something as these are resources that could be used elsewhere. The fact that these resources are being used to coughwhitewashcough investigate this particular case instead of something else is pretty relevant. Yes, there isn't an "extra" cost in the sense that the officers would be paid anyway but that's not the point. Surely that means extra resources have to be found from elsewhere to do what these officers would normally be doing or is it simply a case that 37 officers costing 1 million quid a year don't normally do anything important or wortwhile?

by Guest 03.06.12 21:25

nomendelta wrote:
PeterMac wrote:Fascinating use of language. And of Accountancy
1 Costing of the operation. If the review were stopped there would be no saving. No extra officers have been taken on to do this work, so they would be paid anyway, and from the same source, the Home Office. This whole idea of calculating the "cost" of an operation was the bane of our lives, as it is totally meaningless, unless you concentrate purely on overtime and extras, which is worth doing, as that is "real' money which has to be found from somewhere.

I'm disappointed in the false logic there!

Of course it's costing something as these are resources that could be used elsewhere. The fact that these resources are being used to coughwhitewashcough investigate this particular case instead of something else is pretty relevant. Yes, there isn't an "extra" cost in the sense that the officers would be paid anyway but that's not the point. Surely that means extra resources have to be found from elsewhere to do what these officers would normally be doing or is it simply a case that 37 officers costing 1 million quid a year don't normally do anything important or wortwhile?

I would tend to agree with that. It is also incurring a huge cost as in the trips to Spain to Metodo offices and to Portugal to meet with the detectives there, the plane fares and hotel expenses. Not to mention the huge cost of translating the files, didn't KM say it cost the fund £100,00 pounds? It's all costs on top of more costs imo.

by Newintown 03.06.12 21:35

candyfloss wrote:
nomendelta wrote:
PeterMac wrote:Fascinating use of language. And of Accountancy
1 Costing of the operation. If the review were stopped there would be no saving. No extra officers have been taken on to do this work, so they would be paid anyway, and from the same source, the Home Office. This whole idea of calculating the "cost" of an operation was the bane of our lives, as it is totally meaningless, unless you concentrate purely on overtime and extras, which is worth doing, as that is "real' money which has to be found from somewhere.

I'm disappointed in the false logic there!

Of course it's costing something as these are resources that could be used elsewhere. The fact that these resources are being used to coughwhitewashcough investigate this particular case instead of something else is pretty relevant. Yes, there isn't an "extra" cost in the sense that the officers would be paid anyway but that's not the point. Surely that means extra resources have to be found from elsewhere to do what these officers would normally be doing or is it simply a case that 37 officers costing 1 million quid a year don't normally do anything important or wortwhile?

I would tend to agree with that. It is also incurring a huge cost as in the trips to Spain to Metodo offices and to Portugal to meet with the detectives there, the plane fares and hotel expenses. Not to mention the huge cost of translating the files, didn't KM say it cost the fund £100,00 pounds? It's all costs on top of more costs imo.

I was under the impression that the Officers carrying out the review were due to retire but were kept on especially to do this extra work, hence not taking any other Officers away from their every day duties. Therefore, a substantial cost would be incurred in their wages which would not be paid if they had retired, on top of that travel expenses etc as mentioned above. I may be wrong but I think that's what I read at the very beginning of this "review".

by Guest 03.06.12 21:44

Yes, I read they were all due to retire. Can't imagine that for one minute. Anyway does that mean they weren't going to replace those officers at all? I thought they were taking on more police in the London area after the riots etc., not cutting down.

by tuom 03.06.12 22:23

I am not in the UK but as a taxpayer I am wondering how those in the UK feel about this amount being spent every day ? is it fair ? while we all would love to see anything possible done for MMC , is this cost per day justified ?

by friedtomatoes 03.06.12 22:37

tuom wrote:I am not in the UK but as a taxpayer I am wondering how those in the UK feel about this amount being spent every day ? is it fair ? while we all would love to see anything possible done for MMC , is this cost per day justified ?

if it SOLVES the case (in truth) then yes

by tuom 03.06.12 23:08

friedtomatoes wrote:
tuom wrote:I am not in the UK but as a taxpayer I am wondering how those in the UK feel about this amount being spent every day ? is it fair ? while we all would love to see anything possible done for MMC , is this cost per day justified ?
if it SOLVES the case (in truth) then yes

Thank You I agree , I just wanted to get another opinion ..........if it brings those responsible to justice then all and more will be worth it ...........

by Ashwarya 03.06.12 23:39

tuom wrote:I am not in the UK but as a taxpayer I am wondering how those in the UK feel about this amount being spent every day ? is it fair ? while we all would love to see anything possible done for MMC , is this cost per day justified ?

Speaking as a UK taxpayer, I would regard it as worth any amount of money to get this dreadful couple out of the headlines and whinging about how they are the only people looking for their daughter etc etc. What I can't understand, courtesy of the Panorama featuring DCI Redwood, is why the Met team are wasting resources chasing up psychics and saying they believe it was a stranger abduction. Of course they don't believe that - you have to have some intelligence and insight to reach the rank of Detective Chief Inspector. So why not cut to the chase and get the parents and friends out to PDL and test their multiple versions of what happened that night in a reconstruction. Is there some reason they can't require them to do this, given that in any other scenario they would all be potential suspects with the possible exception of Diane Webster? They all had the opportunity, even if what they have said is true, particularly Matthew Oldfield who by his own statement was the last adult in the apartment before Maddie vanished.

by The Slave 04.06.12 11:26

Speaking as a tax payer I do resent it. £6000 a day!!!
How many apprenticeships? How many school building repairs?
How many nurses?
How many policemen?
How many midwives?
How many school books?
Madeleine is never coming back.
There are LIVING children that need this money.
Sorry, but that's how I feel.

by Guest 04.06.12 12:56

The Slave wrote:Speaking as a tax payer I do resent it. £6000 a day!!!
How many apprenticeships? How many school building repairs?
How many nurses?
How many policemen?
How many midwives?
How many school books?
Madeleine is never coming back.
There are LIVING children that need this money.
Sorry, but that's how I feel.

I think it's worth it if, at the very least, it uncovers that some of those in Praia da Luz on May 3 2007 were involved in a cover up (for whatever reason) - there must still be a real chance I'd think that some of those people are still worried even today that they may eventually face a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice charge, or Portuguese equivalent. I think it's all there in the statements of those people. I'm still hopeful [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

by nomendelta 04.06.12 13:13

Well the review has been going on for one year and there's talk from SY that it's got another 3 Years to go. In the meantime they've liaised with teh McCanns and produced an image of how Maddie "might" look and generally helped the McCanns generate more publicity for the fund. The fund, now that the review is in place, which is surely redundant?

I think anyone seriously investigating this case would arrive at a conclusion pretty swiftly - I think 2 people giving it full attention for 6 months would have it sewn up let alone 37 officers and various international flights.

by Guest 04.06.12 13:23

Ashwarya wrote:Speaking as a UK taxpayer, I would regard it as worth any amount of money to get this dreadful couple out of the headlines and whinging about how they are the only people looking for their daughter etc etc. What I can't understand, courtesy of the Panorama featuring DCI Redwood, is why the Met team are wasting resources chasing up psychics and saying they believe it was a stranger abduction. Of course they don't believe that - you have to have some intelligence and insight to reach the rank of Detective Chief Inspector. So why not cut to the chase and get the parents and friends out to PDL and test their multiple versions of what happened that night in a reconstruction. Is there some reason they can't require them to do this, given that in any other scenario they would all be potential suspects with the possible exception of Diane Webster? They all had the opportunity, even if what they have said is true, particularly Matthew Oldfield who by his own statement was the last adult in the apartment before Maddie vanished.

Gerry's brother John agreed with you as late as 7 Sep 2007, the day Philomena was telling everybody she could find that Kate was about to be charged. John McCann said:

"Let's get back to the basic information that was taken in the first few days. What has been done about that man that was seen with a child? What has been done about the timelines with the other seven people who were on holiday with them? I don't know what the answers are, but I would like them quite soon, as would Gerry and Kate."

Interesting isn't it that he only mentions one man seen with a child? We know there were two sightings, but the McCanns (and their spokespeople) completely ignored the Smith sighting and only ever mentioned Tanner's.

Also the McCanns (and Mitchell) have never raised a single doubt about any of the friends have they, they've never questioned their statements or movements on the night of May 3rd. But John McCann clearly wasn't sure of them. From Day 1 the McCanns and their spokespeople stuck to their rigid line of what happened but it's interesting that even Gerry's own brother had his doubts isn't it?

by Guest 04.06.12 14:07

nomendelta wrote:Well the review has been going on for one year and there's talk from SY that it's got another 3 Years to go. In the meantime they've liaised with teh McCanns and produced an image of how Maddie "might" look and generally helped the McCanns generate more publicity for the fund. The fund, now that the review is in place, which is surely redundant?

I think anyone seriously investigating this case would arrive at a conclusion pretty swiftly - I think 2 people giving it full attention for 6 months would have it sewn up let alone 37 officers and various international flights.

If as we all hope the SY review is genuine and not a PR or political exercise then I'm sure they are well aware the case is dynamite and they know who they'll be up against if charges are ever brought - the McCanns have such a formidable legal team behind them as well as most if not all the press. If charges are ever brought against them or any of the friends then the furore is going to dwarf even the Soham and Jill Dando cases - they are going to have to be very, very sure of their facts before they take that step aren't they. That's if they are actually looking at what actually happened to Madeleine, and not just trying to manage the case. I don't think the review is a pro-McCann conspiracy (I've been reading all of Blacksmith's writing and it's fascinating, and he or she make great points about how a conspiracy is just not likely at all) but it might not be all we hope either. I hope I'm wrong, I hope we have 26.5 very busy Sherlocks on the case at the moment [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

by nomendelta 04.06.12 14:17

tcat wrote:
nomendelta wrote:Well the review has been going on for one year and there's talk from SY that it's got another 3 Years to go. In the meantime they've liaised with teh McCanns and produced an image of how Maddie "might" look and generally helped the McCanns generate more publicity for the fund. The fund, now that the review is in place, which is surely redundant?

I think anyone seriously investigating this case would arrive at a conclusion pretty swiftly - I think 2 people giving it full attention for 6 months would have it sewn up let alone 37 officers and various international flights.
If as we all hope the SY review is genuine and not a PR or political exercise then I'm sure they are well aware the case is dynamite and they know who they'll be up against if charges are ever brought - the McCanns have such a formidable legal team behind them as well as most if not all the press. If charges are ever brought against them or any of the friends then the furore is going to dwarf even the Soham and Jill Dando cases - they are going to have to be very, very sure of their facts before they take that step aren't they. That's if they are actually looking at what actually happened to Madeleine, and not just trying to manage the case. I don't think the review is a pro-McCann conspiracy (I've been reading all of Blacksmith's writing and it's fascinating, and he or she make great points about how a conspiracy is just not likely at all) but it might not be all we hope either. I hope I'm wrong, I hope we have 26.5 very busy Sherlocks on the case at the moment [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Point 1: I am quite sure a year is enough to have raised enough info given how certain most if US are with only a fraction of the information available.

Point 2: A "forensic examination of the timeline" allows for the abduction. Which is nonsense but nevertheless an official finding of SY.

Point 3: If there is ANY suggestion that they think the McCanns are guilty then they would have closed the fund down at the earliest opportunity. As it stands, the various statements from SY actually HELP the fund! Encouraging the highly unlikely notion that Maddie is still alive is manna from heaven from that fund.

Nothing leads me to even begin to hope now that the SY review is anything but a whitewash. Even the notion that it will take another 3 years to review instead of actually getting up and tracing Maddie is frankly ridiculous. "Oh we think she's still alive out there but we are so sure she's enjoying heself and we wouldn't want to upset her parents by finding her too quickly so we are going to continue to follow leads and study paperwork."

by Liz Eagles 04.06.12 14:21

I am really chuckling now....officers nearing retirement put onto the Madeleine case....sardine munchers in Portugal and old duffers from SY put out to grass just before they accept their pensions. For a start experienced police officers are diamonds in this sh*t pile and it doesn't matter which country they come from. Spin, spin, spin and more spin.

by Guest 04.06.12 14:52

nomendelta wrote:Point 1: I am quite sure a year is enough to have raised enough info given how certain most if US are with only a fraction of the information available.

Point 2: A "forensic examination of the timeline" allows for the abduction. Which is nonsense but nevertheless an official finding of SY.

Point 3: If there is ANY suggestion that they think the McCanns are guilty then they would have closed the fund down at the earliest opportunity. As it stands, the various statements from SY actually HELP the fund! Encouraging the highly unlikely notion that Maddie is still alive is manna from heaven from that fund.

Nothing leads me to even begin to hope now that the SY review is anything but a whitewash. Even the notion that it will take another 3 years to review instead of actually getting up and tracing Maddie is frankly ridiculous. "Oh we think she's still alive out there but we are so sure she's enjoying heself and we wouldn't want to upset her parents by finding her too quickly so we are going to continue to follow leads and study paperwork."

I wasn't aware they'd said the review is going to take four years - that does seem a ridiculous thing to say (I don't know where or when that was said? I'm going to have a look)

But how could anyone possibly have the Fund closed without any charges having been brought first?

I agree with people who ask why the friends and McCanns haven't been formally interviewed by SY but it is possible they think there's no need to - they have already made multiple statements and we've all seen how inconsistent or even duplicitous they are. They will also be well aware that the moment they speak to the friends or the McCanns the press will go beserk again and SY will be in the same position as the PJ with the media shaping events not the investigators.

I know most of us have reached our conclusions but we'd not be in a position to bring anybody to court if we had the opportunity would we. If as we all hope SY end up going down that road (for there is nowhere else to go) they need more evidence than we know of at the moment don't they?

I can see there is evidence of an effort to pervert the course of justice (Maxine Carr was charged, and convicted, and she did an awful lot less than some of those in PdL on May 3 seem to have done) but there is still not much evidence about what happened to Madeleine is there. There is indicative evidence, and great evidence of evasion and duplicity after her disappearance, but this case is so notorious now if SY are thinking of taking that path they might think they need more evidence in this case than in others to counter the media storm that would accompany any trial or trials.

We know this case has always been political and so would a trial be, in the UK or Portugal, I think. I'm sure they'll not embark on that process until they are very, very confident of a successful outcome, and that evidence gathering will take time. I do hope like all of us this is what they are actually doing [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

by Guest 04.06.12 15:07

tcat wrote:
nomendelta wrote:Point 1: I am quite sure a year is enough to have raised enough info given how certain most if US are with only a fraction of the information available.

Point 2: A "forensic examination of the timeline" allows for the abduction. Which is nonsense but nevertheless an official finding of SY.

Point 3: If there is ANY suggestion that they think the McCanns are guilty then they would have closed the fund down at the earliest opportunity. As it stands, the various statements from SY actually HELP the fund! Encouraging the highly unlikely notion that Maddie is still alive is manna from heaven from that fund.

Nothing leads me to even begin to hope now that the SY review is anything but a whitewash. Even the notion that it will take another 3 years to review instead of actually getting up and tracing Maddie is frankly ridiculous. "Oh we think she's still alive out there but we are so sure she's enjoying heself and we wouldn't want to upset her parents by finding her too quickly so we are going to continue to follow leads and study paperwork."
I wasn't aware they'd said the review is going to take four years - that does seem a ridiculous thing to say (I don't know where or when that was said? I'm going to have a look)

But how could anyone possibly have the Fund closed without any charges having been brought first?

I agree with people who ask why the friends and McCanns haven't been formally interviewed by SY but it is possible they think there's no need to - they have already made multiple statements and we've all seen how inconsistent or even duplicitous they are. They will also be well aware that the moment they speak to the friends or the McCanns the press will go beserk again and SY will be in the same position as the PJ with the media shaping events not the investigators.

I know most of us have reached our conclusions but we'd not be in a position to bring anybody to court if we had the opportunity would we. If as we all hope SY end up going down that road (for there is nowhere else to go) they need more evidence than we know of at the moment don't they?

I can see there is evidence of an effort to pervert the course of justice (Maxine Carr was charged, and convicted, and she did an awful lot less than some of those in PdL on May 3 seem to have done) but there is still not much evidence about what happened to Madeleine is there. There is indicative evidence, and great evidence of evasion and duplicity after her disappearance, but this case is so notorious now if SY are thinking of taking that path they might think they need more evidence in this case than in others to counter the media storm that would accompany any trial or trials.

We know this case has always been political and so would a trial be, in the UK or Portugal, I think. I'm sure they'll not embark on that process until they are very, very confident of a successful outcome, and that evidence gathering will take time. I do hope like all of us this is what they are actually doing [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Exactly tcat.

Hypothetical scenario. The police are watching a drug smuggling ring, and gathering evidence etc. They are under scrutiny and surveillance. The police know they have bank accounts with illegal funds in them. Do they send out a huge signal and telegraph what they are doing to the suspects by closing their bank accounts. If they closed their bank accounts that would immediately warn them wouldn't it. The police just don't do that sort of thing, they gather evidence, arrest someone and the rest then follows.

by Guest 04.06.12 15:29

candyfloss wrote:Exactly tcat.

Hypothetical scenario. The police are watching a drug smuggling ring, and gathering evidence etc. They are under scrutiny and surveillance. The police know they have bank accounts with illegal funds in them. Do they send out a huge signal and telegraph what they are doing to the suspects by closing their bank accounts. If they closed their bank accounts that would immediately warn them wouldn't it. The police just don't do that sort of thing, they gather evidence, arrest someone and the rest then follows.

I agree, candyfloss [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] They might also be hoping the McCanns (and Mitchell) keep digging bigger holes for themselves by generating still more evidence, like K McCann's book with it's clearly at odds with her original statements narrative. Mitchell's 'George Harrison man' press conference is also evidence, with Tanner yet again refreshing her memory of the 'abductor'. There's a mass of evidence of duplicity isn't there - in a court the McCann's dismissal of the Smith sighting and continued championing of just Tanner's would be very important I think. I just hope they're in a court one day [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

by **sharonl** 04.06.12 19:13

They claim to be assisting the Portuguese authorities. Really?

The case is closed in Portugal so who exactly are they assisting?

If Scotland Yard were assisting the PJ, a good starting point would be to forward all the documention that was witheld by the UK authorities, such as Madeleine's medical records, the McCanns credit card statements & telephone records.

by **sharonl** 04.06.12 19:27

candyfloss wrote:Yes, I read they were all due to retire. Can't imagine that for one minute. Anyway does that mean they weren't going to replace those officers at all? I thought they were taking on more police in the London area after the riots etc., not cutting down.

I read that they were able to provide 30 officers for the case because the Murder rate was down

by russiandoll 05.06.12 10:21

sharonl wrote:They claim to be assisting the Portuguese authorities. Really?

The case is closed in Portugal so who exactly are they assisting?

If Scotland Yard were assisting the PJ, a good starting point would be to forward all the documention that was witheld by the UK authorities, such as Madeleine's medical records, the McCanns credit card statements & telephone records.

well I read recently that there is a fresh investigative team on the case in Portugal led by a Helen Monteiro.
I will check again, but here is what I did not hear DCI Redwood say.
No elaboration on what timeline had been forensicaly examined. He did not mention May 3rd.
When he mentioned" allowing for an abduction" he did not refer to when or where. I heard only taken from her apartment..an abduction from where she was at the time of that holiday.No mention of 5a, the family apartment or such words : simply someone went into her apartment and took her.
He did not state that the timeline allowed for an abduction from 5a between certain alleged "checks" in a specific timeframe. No mention of a check by Kate , Gerry or anyone else. He never stated that he believed Maddie was in 5a that evening at the times of the alleged checks.
He referred only to abduction by a stranger...that does not mean a stranger to the group of friends, but a stranger to the child, a person unknown or barely acquainted.
How do any of us know what info /evidence has been sent to Portugal?

by nomendelta 05.06.12 13:33

candyfloss wrote:

Hypothetical scenario. The police are watching a drug smuggling ring, and gathering evidence etc. They are under scrutiny and surveillance. The police know they have bank accounts with illegal funds in them. Do they send out a huge signal and telegraph what they are doing to the suspects by closing their bank accounts. If they closed their bank accounts that would immediately warn them wouldn't it. The police just don't do that sort of thing, they gather evidence, arrest someone and the rest then follows.

Indeed but in such a case the actual bank accounts, businesses etc would eventually be frozen. If innocent parties were involved in handling money over they could either recoup their money or take legal action etc etc etc.

This is different. This is a public fund. A public fund raising money with the working hypothesis of searching for a missing child who is still alive. A fund that is redundant on two counts - Kennedy's statement that he would always back them up AND the fact that SY are searching for the "truth". Yet SY have ACTIVELY helped the fund continue by making very public statements that they believe Maddie to still be alive. Yes initially a 50/50 she's dead/alive statement was made but Redwood more and more leant to her still being alive. This is not just allowing a fraud to continue (if Maddie IS dead) they have encouraged it to continue. That to me speaks volumes.

by jd 05.06.12 14:07

The Fund:
*Set up in record time
*Same day as the launch a Ward of Court application is made
*John McCann leaves his job
*Later Clarence Mitchell leave his job and paid from it
*No transparency of the accounts

These are not the actions and behaviours for a missing child case and public donated charity fund. These are actions of an ongoing future planned business. With Maddie the trademark.The child could be found the next day or at any time so why leave your current job? The amendments they made to the the fund gives it powers to do what they like and connect through to other companies and services etc. it reads a business and not a missing child charity fund

I have often wondered if the likes of brian 'bulldozer' kennedy are using this fund to channel money through. You do get income tax relief donating money to a charity cause, and he could get away with being able to claim income tax relief through this fund. Might explained why he got so involved, intimidated witnesses to keep the story going and said that he would always back the celebrity child neglecters up

by Guest 05.06.12 14:49

jd wrote:The Fund:
*Set up in record time
*Same day as the launch a Ward of Court application is made
*John McCann leaves his job
*Later Clarence Mitchell leave his job and paid from it
*No transparency of the accounts

These are not the actions and behaviours for a missing child case and public donated charity fund. These are actions of an ongoing future planned business. With Maddie the trademark.The child could be found the next day or at any time so why leave your current job? The amendments they made to the the fund gives it powers to do what they like and connect through to other companies and services etc. it reads a business and not a missing child charity fund

I have often wondered if the likes of brian 'bulldozer' kennedy are using this fund to channel money through. You do get income tax relief donating money to a charity cause, and he could get away with being able to claim income tax relief through this fund. Might explained why he got so involved, intimidated witnesses to keep the story going and said that he would always back the celebrity child neglecters up

jd, I don't think he quit his job he took leave of absence, and then I think returned a lot later.......

Who's who in Team McCann

John McCann, 48

One of seven directors of the Find Madeleine Fund, Gerry McCann's brother has taken indefinite leave of absence from his job as a medical rep for the pharmaceutical company AstraZeneca in order to administrate the £1m fund from his Glasgow sitting room. Worried that focus on allegations about her parents has overshadowed the search for the four-year-old, he has just announced a new campaign of billboards, television commercials and advertisements in newspapers across Portugal and Spain. Retired teacher Brian Kennedy, Kate McCann's uncle, is a fellow director.

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