Is Operation Grange, the 37-strong Scotland Yard Review Team reviewing the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, a wholehearted, no-holds-barred search for the truth?

ShuBob wrote:During the testimony of McCann supporter Sir Christopher Meyer at the Leveson Inquiry, he did respond to a question by saying he understood (or was it believed?) Clarence Mitchell WOULD also be testifying at the inquiry. It is common knowledge that certain witnesses have elected to give evidence "off camera" for a variety of reasons and their names are not listed as witnesses.

ShuBob, IF it is the case that some can give evidence ON camera, whilst others can give it OFF camera, I do not for one moment think that they can simply 'elect' - choose - to do so.

It's far more likely, surely, that certain people have applied for - and been given - PERMISSION to give evidence off camera.

Perhaps citing something like 'security reasons'?

If Colin Myler, former NOTW editor, can give evidence about conversations with Clarence Mitchell ON camera, though, I don't see why Clarence Michell should be able to get away with not being challenged about HIS evidence ON camera as well

I have no idea Candyfloss. I do believe in the case of certain journalists, they feared censure from their employers and only agreed to testify anonymously. I don't see how that particular argument would apply to Clarence Mitchell but there you go. Having said that, he may or may not have appeared at the inquiry but I suspect he has.

ShuBob wrote:During the testimony of McCann supporter Sir Christopher Meyer at the Leveson Inquiry, he did respond to a question by saying he understood (or was it believed?) Clarence Mitchell WOULD also be testifying at the inquiry. It is common knowledge that certain witnesses have elected to give evidence "off camera" for a variety of reasons and their names are not listed as witnesses.

If there is a police/political view that the McCanns have not been cleared but that a future court case might be pending, some time, then perhaps, since Clarence claimed his phone had not been hacked, there was no valid reason for calling him. He had not been attacked at any time by the press, nor made fun of. Only in the real world was he nicknamed pinky.

The authorities might be letting the McCanns show themselves and do not want to press Pinky in case he blows the chances of a conviction by letting crucial information be drawn from him.

They are perhaps keeping him for desserts....pink blancmange, pink semolina. Look how the police let the revolting show of the philpotts go on screen.

Give them enough rope.

Tony Bennett wrote:

ShuBob wrote:During the testimony of McCann supporter Sir Christopher Meyer at the Leveson Inquiry, he did respond to a question by saying he understood (or was it believed?) Clarence Mitchell WOULD also be testifying at the inquiry. It is common knowledge that certain witnesses have elected to give evidence "off camera" for a variety of reasons and their names are not listed as witnesses.

ShuBob, IF it is the case that some can give evidence ON camera, whilst others can give it OFF camera, I do not for one moment think that they can simply 'elect' - choose - to do so.

It's far more likely, surely, that certain people have applied for - and been given - PERMISSION to give evidence off camera.

Perhaps citing something like 'security reasons'?

If Colin Myler, former NOTW editor, can give evidence about conversations with Clarence Mitchell ON camera, though, I don't see why Clarence Michell should be able to get away with not being challenged about HIS evidence ON camera as well

Yes. I didn't put my point across well. That's what I should have said.

With the recent newspaper report on Hewlett, I think this thread is worth reading through from the start.

aquila wrote:With the recent newspaper report on Hewlett, I think this thread is worth reading through from the start.

Yes, the substantial proportion of people who voted 'Definitely not' in the poll seem to be being proved right!

You have to log in and read - this from Mark Watts, Journalist, broadcaster and author. Editor-in-Chief of Exaro, the investigative website.

exaronews.com



Mark Watts‏@MarkWatts_1

Overlooked by media, News International’s lobbying + political interference re police review of Madeleine [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] case. [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] …



ExaroNews‏@ExaroNews

Lord Harris, former chairman of Metropolitan Police Authority: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] review is eg of “direct political interference”. [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] …



Mark Watts‏@MarkWatts_1

Revealed: how News International strong-armed David Cameron into ordering police review of Madeleine [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]’s case. [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] …

Well, following candyfloss's discovery of the ExoraNews website, I have registered and logged in.

It does not seem possible, however, to copy and paste any of the four articles relating to Operation Grange, nor even to print them off. So here's a quick summary of what I found there:

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

The website is called Exaro News.

Its strapline is 'Holding Power to Account'.

A Mr Mark Watts is its Editor-in-Chief

The wesbite features FOUR articles, all dated today, by a comhibation of these three journalists: David Hencke, Frederica Whitehead, and Hui Shan Khoo.

David Hencke was long-time correspondent on health, welfare and social issues for The Guardian newspape, and very much respected for his work, winning several awards.

Exora and its journalists seem to have homed in on the strange issue of how the UK's Prime Minister, David Cameron, was bounced into announcing a very expensive review into the Madeleine McCann case on the very day that Dr Kate McCann published her book, 'madeleine'.

These items emerge in one or more of the four articles:

* Lord Harris, former Chairman of the Met Police, said the review was set up 'because of political interference'

* Lord Harris queried why the Met volunteered to do this review as 'the case had no connection with London'

* Lord Harris said that at the same time as News International bounced the police into carrying out this review, Cameron was stressing how Police and Crime Commissioners and Chief Constables should be ‘operationally independent’

* Len Duvall, a recent Chairman of the Met Police Authority, asked the question: if they want an extension to the review, do they actually have worthwhile new leads to follow up?

* The McCanns say they did not participate in News International’s lobbying (which they admit they did do) of David Cameron to get a review – but after two Home Secretaries refused to hold a review, the McCanns said that News Interrnational’s involvement ‘tipped the balance’

* Paul McKeever, Chairman of the Police Federation ,said: "It’s up to the officers to decide whether to go on" i.e. it's now an operational decision

* Gerry McCann told Leveson he’d had a 'couple of meetings' with Rebekah Brooks and Will Lewis from News International

* John O’Connor (regularly appears to give comment on crime to SKY, takes the Murdoch shilling) said: “It would be criminal to abandon the investigation if they have good leads”

* Leveson received a ‘confidential briefing’ about NI’s private lobbying of David Cameron

* Rebekah Brooks of News Internatioanl said that News International ‘persuaded’ Cameron to set up the Madeleine McCann Review, they did not threaten him

* Cameron told Leverson: “I do not remember any specific pressure being put on me”.



* Rebekah Brooks and Dominic Mohan spoke to Theresa May, Home Secretary, shortly before she agreed to persuade the Met Police to hold a review. That matter had been discussed within ACPO for some time.

Did Rebekah Brooks THREATEN David Cameron? - McCann Scotland Yard Review -



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

How many erms, errs, and, and, ands have we seen before? Educated, supposedly erudite people just crumble when asked to tell the truth. It really ought to have a caption competition..think bubbles in synch with what comes out of the mouth.

The strangest thing is that RB 'couldn't remember' how much was paid to the McCanns for the serialisation of the book...when Robert Jay suggested £1 million pounds she denied saying half a million maybe - I cannot remember. Such a huge amount being paid out yet she couldn't remember????



Mark Watts‏@MarkWatts_1

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] Far be it from me to give away Leveson team's confidential source. But strange that Rebekah could not remember.



Mark Watts‏@MarkWatts_1

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] Robert Jay QC suggested to Rebekan Brooks £1m. She denied, saying: "Half a million, maybe. I cannot remember."

Would Jay put that across to her if he didn't have a very reliable source? I don't think so!

For Rebekah to first deny, then came up with a much lower figure is bare face lying IMO.

You either remember the sum, be it whatever it be, or you don't. No two ways about it.
If she can remember the figure, 1/2mil is nonetheless a hugh sum, she should have said so definitively. Then her "I don't remember" is not necessary - it's thrown in just to cover her lie. Preparing a fall back for herself so to speak.

I believe Jay is not fooled.

What has become of Operation Grange? I see the home secretary Theresa May is being touted as a potential leader of theTories if they fail to win the next general election. She'll not want anything too controversial on her watch now so will probably kick it into the long grass.

It's starting to annoy me now this Operation Grange business. What is going on - public spending cutbacks left, right and centre and this review just cruises along with no sense of urgency or finality whilst consuming taxpayer's millions.

roy rovers wrote:It's starting to annoy me now this Operation Grange business. What is going on - public spending cutbacks left, right and centre and this review just cruises along with no sense of urgency or finality whilst consuming taxpayer's millions.

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

jd wrote:

roy rovers wrote:It's starting to annoy me now this Operation Grange business. What is going on - public spending cutbacks left, right and centre and this review just cruises along with no sense of urgency or finality whilst consuming taxpayer's millions.

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

Pyramid of lies

PARAPHRASED FROM THE GUARDIAN - Today Keith Vaz, chair of the home affairs select committee, challenged SY assistant commissioner Cressida Dick on whether the linked Operations Elveden (inquiry into corrupt payments to public officials), Weeting and Tuleta – which have so far resulted in 126 arrests but led to only six convictions – could be described as incompetent. Dick said: "I don't think its a valid way of assessing success or otherwise particularly at this stage – the number of people convicted." She said she was "extremely satisfied" the investigations had been "very competent".

Hopefully soon SY will have to answer the same question on Operation Grange - competent or incompetent.

This man writes in the USA and there is regular ref to him on twitter, where I got the link for what is below. I have put *** by a remark I do not understand as I have never heard or read about a 9 p.m. alarm being raised. I have read reports of an alarm before 10 p.m. but not an hour earlier.

        
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Freind: New questions arise about Madeleine McCann case
Published: Tuesday, July 09, 2013
#PinItButton { background: repeat scroll 0 -11px transparent !important; height: 15px !important; }     



By CHRIS FREIND
Times Columnist
In past columns, I have championed Don Imus keeping his job, defended Barry Bonds’ achievements and stood up for the falsely accused Duke lacrosse players long before it was “fashionable” for the media to do so. I even opined that Paris Hilton was wrongly jailed, receiving unfair treatment because she was a celebrity.

But no matter how much I try, I simply cannot find anything worth defending about British couple Gerry and Kate McCann.

The McCanns, for a reason that wholly escapes me, have been worldwide media darlings since their then-3-year-old daughter, Madeleine, disappeared from a Portuguese resort in 2007. A disappearance, mind you, that was 100 percent preventable had Maddy’s parents — both well-to-do physicians — not left her alone, along with her twin 2-year-old siblings, in a ground-floor unlocked apartment not once, but repeatedly, while they sampled the local paella far from their children.

Such gross negligence should have made them pariahs, but instead, their vaunted PR machine fashioned them into something akin to “heroic victims.”

Over the years, they have raised millions, engendered the support of (misguided) icons such David Beckham and J.K. Rowling, had a private audience with the Pope, met with high-ranking staff of then-First Lady Laura Bush, wrote a book, and otherwise lavished in the limelight as globetrotting celebrities.

Along the way, lawsuits have been threatened against anyone who dared question the McCanns’ complicity in their daughter’s fate, despite significant inconsistencies in their stories. Quite sickeningly, their actual search for Maddy all too often seemed like an afterthought, as it was much cooler to hang with stars and dignitaries than do the grunt work.

Yet for all the baggage that should accompany them, their star power still shines bright, as the Scotland Yard, upon the direction of Prime Minister David Cameron himself, just re-opened the investigation, citing new leads and “persons of interest.”

Really? After six years and millions of British taxpayers’ money later, they finally have persons of interest?

Aren’t there laws on the books in Britain against child endangerment? Reckless behavior? Negligence? And to those who say Britain can’t prosecute for a crime committed overseas, you can’t have it both ways, as British investigators are reaching out across Europe in a (likely ill-fated) attempt to interrogate and possibly have suspects arrested in other countries.

The headlines all read that Maddy was kidnapped, yet there is no evidence — none — of that.  


It seems increasingly clear that McCann case is no longer about what happened to a little girl, but an attempt — some say cover-up — to absolve “upstanding Brits” of any responsibility, conveniently blaming Portugal, the poor man of Europe, for a botched investigation and overall ineptness.

Looking past the gushing pro-McCann headlines, many the world over believe the parents, accidentally or otherwise, were directly responsible for Maddy’s fate. I certainly cannot make that claim, though Gerry and Kate would seem to be guilty of child endangerment. That said, there remain inconsistencies which, to this day, remain unanswered.

Therefore, if Scotland Yard wishes to retain its legendary reputation, it needs to investigate the case from Square One, objectively, free from outside influence. No sacred cows, and no one off the table. And the only way to do that is to start with Gerry and Kate, (and their friends who accompanied them that fateful night), forcing the parents to answer tough questions. The taxpayers, and those who have so faithfully followed this saga for so long, deserve no less.

You don’t need to be Sherlock Holmes to ask the following:

1.) Will the McCanns and their friends take lie-detectors tests? While not guaranteed, they’re a good barometer. If there is nothing to hide, releasing the results would be a public relations boon, and the investigation could center on Madeleine — for a change.

2.) What time was Madeleine discovered missing?  *** Was it 9 o’clock, as Kate states, or 10 o’clock as others report, and why the discrepancy? How long did it take for anyone to initially call the police, as there are reports of a significant delay. Kate stated that the shutters were forced open, but the police and hotel staff said there was no evidence of tampering. And Kate, why, upon discovering that your daughter was missing, did you return to the restaurant, leaving the 2-year-old twins alone (again!), while a predator could still have been lurking nearby?

3.) Kate yelled, “They’ve taken her”, but how did she know Madeleine was abducted? After all, the doors were unlocked, and Madeleine was known to sleepwalk.

Or perhaps this little girl just happened to awaken, scared,in a dark, unfamiliar place, and looked for the comfort of her parents. Not seeing them, might she have walked out the unlocked door to find them? And when Kate initially yelled “they” took her, to whom was she referring?

4.) The resort was extremely child-friendly. Why not use its inexpensive baby-sitting services? Some reports state that the McCanns did not want the children to be around people with whom they were unfamiliar. Yet, the same people who ran the day camp the children attended were also the baby sitters. And how could “strangers” be any worse than leaving three young children (with a combined age of 7) alone in an unlocked apartment?

5.) How often did the parents check the children before Madeleine went missing? Every hour, half-hour, or not at all? (The statements of the resort staff differ markedly from the McCanns). Since the room was a considerable distance away from the restaurant, and its view blocked, how could the McCanns compare that “secure arrangement” to eating in their backyard garden?  

6.) During a BBC interview, Kate was adamant that the children would not awaken while she and Gerry were dining. Yet, since Madeleine reportedly had a history of sleepwalking, how could Kate be so sure of this?

7.) How many nights did the McCanns dine out while leaving the children alone? What were the distances of those restaurants from their room? Were any away from the hotel?

8.) How much money raised has actually has been allocated to the physical search for Madeleine? A thorough and independent forensic audit should be conducted.

9.) In an earlier interview, the McCanns stated, “Looking at it from where we are now, I don’t feel we were irresponsible, I feel we are very responsible parents.” Do they still feel that way?

10.) Assume that the police dog was accurate in its detection of death in the room, and the death was that of Madeleine. Why then would the perpetrator take away a dead child?

At a minimum, these questions are a logical starting point to get to the bottom of Madeleine’s disappearance.

As a wise man once said, lies reveal more than they conceal. If Scotland Yard does its job, perhaps we shall put that saying to the test.

Chris Freind is an independent commentator who operates [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]. He can be reached at [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]. His column appears every Wednesday.

russiandoll wrote:This man writes in the USA and there is regular ref to him on twitter, where I got the link for what is below. I have put *** by a remark I do not understand as I have never heard or read about a 9 p.m. alarm being raised. I have read reports of an alarm before 10 p.m. but not an hour earlier.

        
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Freind: New questions arise about Madeleine McCann case
Published: Tuesday, July 09, 2013
#PinItButton { background: repeat scroll 0 -11px transparent !important; height: 15px !important; }     



By CHRIS FREIND
Times Columnist
In past columns, I have championed Don Imus keeping his job, defended Barry Bonds’ achievements and stood up for the falsely accused Duke lacrosse players long before it was “fashionable” for the media to do so. I even opined that Paris Hilton was wrongly jailed, receiving unfair treatment because she was a celebrity.

But no matter how much I try, I simply cannot find anything worth defending about British couple Gerry and Kate McCann.

The McCanns, for a reason that wholly escapes me, have been worldwide media darlings since their then-3-year-old daughter, Madeleine, disappeared from a Portuguese resort in 2007. A disappearance, mind you, that was 100 percent preventable had Maddy’s parents — both well-to-do physicians — not left her alone, along with her twin 2-year-old siblings, in a ground-floor unlocked apartment not once, but repeatedly, while they sampled the local paella far from their children.

Such gross negligence should have made them pariahs, but instead, their vaunted PR machine fashioned them into something akin to “heroic victims.”

Over the years, they have raised millions, engendered the support of (misguided) icons such David Beckham and J.K. Rowling, had a private audience with the Pope, met with high-ranking staff of then-First Lady Laura Bush, wrote a book, and otherwise lavished in the limelight as globetrotting celebrities.

Along the way, lawsuits have been threatened against anyone who dared question the McCanns’ complicity in their daughter’s fate, despite significant inconsistencies in their stories. Quite sickeningly, their actual search for Maddy all too often seemed like an afterthought, as it was much cooler to hang with stars and dignitaries than do the grunt work.

Yet for all the baggage that should accompany them, their star power still shines bright, as the Scotland Yard, upon the direction of Prime Minister David Cameron himself, just re-opened the investigation, citing new leads and “persons of interest.”

Really? After six years and millions of British taxpayers’ money later, they finally have persons of interest?

Aren’t there laws on the books in Britain against child endangerment? Reckless behavior? Negligence? And to those who say Britain can’t prosecute for a crime committed overseas, you can’t have it both ways, as British investigators are reaching out across Europe in a (likely ill-fated) attempt to interrogate and possibly have suspects arrested in other countries.

The headlines all read that Maddy was kidnapped, yet there is no evidence — none — of that.  


It seems increasingly clear that McCann case is no longer about what happened to a little girl, but an attempt — some say cover-up — to absolve “upstanding Brits” of any responsibility, conveniently blaming Portugal, the poor man of Europe, for a botched investigation and overall ineptness.

Looking past the gushing pro-McCann headlines, many the world over believe the parents, accidentally or otherwise, were directly responsible for Maddy’s fate. I certainly cannot make that claim, though Gerry and Kate would seem to be guilty of child endangerment. That said, there remain inconsistencies which, to this day, remain unanswered.

Therefore, if Scotland Yard wishes to retain its legendary reputation, it needs to investigate the case from Square One, objectively, free from outside influence. No sacred cows, and no one off the table. And the only way to do that is to start with Gerry and Kate, (and their friends who accompanied them that fateful night), forcing the parents to answer tough questions. The taxpayers, and those who have so faithfully followed this saga for so long, deserve no less.

You don’t need to be Sherlock Holmes to ask the following:

1.) Will the McCanns and their friends take lie-detectors tests? While not guaranteed, they’re a good barometer. If there is nothing to hide, releasing the results would be a public relations boon, and the investigation could center on Madeleine — for a change.

2.) What time was Madeleine discovered missing?  *** Was it 9 o’clock, as Kate states, or 10 o’clock as others report, and why the discrepancy? How long did it take for anyone to initially call the police, as there are reports of a significant delay. Kate stated that the shutters were forced open, but the police and hotel staff said there was no evidence of tampering. And Kate, why, upon discovering that your daughter was missing, did you return to the restaurant, leaving the 2-year-old twins alone (again!), while a predator could still have been lurking nearby?

3.) Kate yelled, “They’ve taken her”, but how did she know Madeleine was abducted? After all, the doors were unlocked, and Madeleine was known to sleepwalk.

Or perhaps this little girl just happened to awaken, scared,in a dark, unfamiliar place, and looked for the comfort of her parents. Not seeing them, might she have walked out the unlocked door to find them? And when Kate initially yelled “they” took her, to whom was she referring?

4.) The resort was extremely child-friendly. Why not use its inexpensive baby-sitting services? Some reports state that the McCanns did not want the children to be around people with whom they were unfamiliar. Yet, the same people who ran the day camp the children attended were also the baby sitters. And how could “strangers” be any worse than leaving three young children (with a combined age of 7) alone in an unlocked apartment?

5.) How often did the parents check the children before Madeleine went missing? Every hour, half-hour, or not at all? (The statements of the resort staff differ markedly from the McCanns). Since the room was a considerable distance away from the restaurant, and its view blocked, how could the McCanns compare that “secure arrangement” to eating in their backyard garden?  

6.) During a BBC interview, Kate was adamant that the children would not awaken while she and Gerry were dining. Yet, since Madeleine reportedly had a history of sleepwalking, how could Kate be so sure of this?

7.) How many nights did the McCanns dine out while leaving the children alone? What were the distances of those restaurants from their room? Were any away from the hotel?

8.) How much money raised has actually has been allocated to the physical search for Madeleine? A thorough and independent forensic audit should be conducted.

9.) In an earlier interview, the McCanns stated, “Looking at it from where we are now, I don’t feel we were irresponsible, I feel we are very responsible parents.” Do they still feel that way?

10.) Assume that the police dog was accurate in its detection of death in the room, and the death was that of Madeleine. Why then would the perpetrator take away a dead child?

At a minimum, these questions are a logical starting point to get to the bottom of Madeleine’s disappearance.

As a wise man once said, lies reveal more than they conceal. If Scotland Yard does its job, perhaps we shall put that saying to the test.

Chris Freind is an independent commentator who operates [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]. He can be reached at [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]. His column appears every Wednesday.

Have given this post above it's own thread, rd, so any replies to above post can be placed in that thread in Latest News.

I cant understand why, if so want to clear their names, they changed mind about lie detector test apparently they can be 98% ! also the fund from day one has been wrong way round IMO.Family Fund stategy has been clear parents name 1st then find maddy when if find maddy name cleared so why other way around still is beyond my comprehension. You would think board in charge of fund would have objected as so much money wasted IMO:spin:

I've just realised that Scotland Yard is an anagram of "dastardly con"...........

No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:I've just realised that Scotland Yard is an anagram of "dastardly con"...........

 or...randy old cats

IMO The review is simply an information gathering excercise to establish exactly what the PJ know.

The British stonewalled the PJ and now expect the PJ to cooperate with them.

agree, but as investigation now will have to act properly, with all information gathered now hopefully ! Don't think public will put up with anymore whitewashes uk

Cherry Blossom wrote:

jd wrote:

roy rovers wrote:It's starting to annoy me now this Operation Grange business. What is going on - public spending cutbacks left, right and centre and this review just cruises along with no sense of urgency or finality whilst consuming taxpayer's millions.

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

Pyramid of lies

it does feel like fund is some kind of pyramid business, not search fund! always thought they had some kind of delusion of grandeur issues and ?what  wider agenda was in reality.like most, just hope child found or what really did happen and  they go away soon and SY sort all crimes out!

Fund Objectives
The full objects of the Fund are:

• To secure the safe return to her family of Madeleine McCann who was abducted in Praia da Luz, Portugal on Thursday 3rd May 2007;
  
  To procure that Madeleine's abduction is thoroughly investigated and that her abductors, as well as those who played or play any part in assisting them, are identified and brought to justice; and
  
  To provide support, including financial assistance, to Madeleine's family.
  
  
• If the above objects are fulfilled then the objects of the Foundation shall be to pursue such purposes in similar cases arising in the United Kingdom, Portugal or elsewhere
  

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

If the fund objectives are still the same as in 08. 09. 2009 are they still asking for donations to support the family?

Donate untill Madeleine is returned safely?

Donate untill abduction is investigated, and those identified brought to justice?

Does anyone else read it this way?

I'd love a legal person to have a look at those conditions lets call them a, b, c and d.

C is the tricky one I think because there is no limit, number or reason given to cease giving support to the family, including financial support.

A and B could come to be redundant because if e.g. a dead paedophile's full confession is found  of  Madeleine's abduction and subsequent demise, then both A and B are no longer reasons to keep the Ltd. Co. asking for donations.

D is still dependent on C as far as I can see, so that assistance to similar cases may never happen as long as the family decides that financial support is still necessary.

Neat. Even if the basic premise of abduction is debatable.

I think "A" is an anomaly because if we believe the dogs (Sandra) then "A" can't arise so it can never be fulfilled. It will stand for ever as a reason to donate. Mind it is hot today and my brain is slightly frazzled!

B This will not happen IMO unless they intend to take the Government on.

C Well whose to say when anyone worldwide would not feel compassion to the point of contributing - Gerry did say the "wider Agenda" which presumably means global - at least I remember the global push mentioned.

Finally "D" - well children go missing world wide so this stands for ever as well.

Thanks tigger & Angelique, it just seems has if they have got all bases covered, imo they knew Madeleine wouldn't be found thats why the fund was set up so quickly and they were skint, so they used Madeleine has a gravy train, they are so dispicable. How many of the public knew the fund objectives? The MSM & CM pushed the boat out saying it was for searching for Madeleine, how many of the public who donated or still do now know the funds objectives?

To procure that Madeleine's abduction is thoroughly investigated and that her abductors, as well as those who played or play any part in assisting them, are identified and brought to justice; and

 I know it is very naughty of me to nit pick over the fund and to doubt their version of events, however i couldn't help but think...

Will this lead to kate and gerry being prosecuted via their own fund?

Maddie was allegedly abducted whilst she was left home alone in an unlocked apartment in a foreign town and country.

Surely the abduction as claimed could not have taken place if kate and gerry had either dropped them off at the evening creche, hired or made use of the babysitters provided or at least locked all doors and windows and closed appropriate shutters to stop anyone getting out or getting in.

With this in mind, kate and gerry  played a part in assisting the alleged abductor by sedating the children, leaving them home alone in an unlocked apartment of which they had no clear view of the back of the building and none of the front, failing to maintain regular checks as claimed, refusing to cooperate with the investigation fully and openly, to whit, the 48 questions and the reconstruction.

By acting as they have done since day 1 that have actively assisted the alleged abductor, in pursuence of his crimes and subsequent investigation.

Since the tapas 7 have also refused full co-opertation, lied about checks and so on they too are assisting the perpetrator.


Wouldn't it be fun if the fund was used to fully investigate the mccanns and the tapas 7