Re: Madeleine 'detective' from U.S accused of swindling £300k (DM headline wrongly says only £30k) from search fund extradited

by Inspectorfrost 18.12.12 18:48

A scotsman swindled out of of 300,000 pounds and has had nothing to say about it? Not even an apology or statement of any kind about it to all those people who donated to his fund. Quite bizarre, and sounds off the alarm bells.

Kate Mccann went on Daybreak and said her role was to generate income. She of all people would have been livid at best if someone stole all that money off them. Quiet on that front too it seems. perhaps she said something like they were disappointed.

by **PeterMac** 19.12.12 8:16

Here's a thought.
Halligen was said to have had flashes of insight, even through his heavy drinking phases, and to be able to handle and process large amounts of information

What if . . .
He worked it all out and told TM and the lawyers and CM exactly what happened.
Might that account for their all now distancing themselves and not rattling the cage.

Silly thought !

by Guest 19.12.12 9:21

Not so terribly silly, Peter ;-)

It would IMO also be in line with the other PIs, who all fell quite quiet after a while.

by **PeterMac** 19.12.12 11:22

Châtelaine wrote:Not so terribly silly, Peter ;-)

It would IMO also be in line with the other PIs, who all fell quite quiet after a while.

I appended "Silly thought" for the benefit of eavesdroppers and spies.
They can now make of it what they will.

by aiyoyo 19.12.12 15:01

Ribisl wrote:
A self-styled security consultant accused of swindling the Madeleine McCann fund out of £300,000 is to be extradited to the United States this week to face fraud charges.
I am a bit confused. Who exactly is accusing him of 'swindling'? Is it the DM reporter writing these headlines? Have the McCanns made a public complaint after appointing him in the first place? Or is this simply a media campaign in their effort to disassociate themselves from someone who is being extradited to face fraud charges?

Ribisi, I think it's rather the other way round - it's a media campaign to deliberately associate themselves to someone facing fraud charges; although one suspects (likely correctly) that the fraud charges have nothing to do with Mccanns' case.

Question is: from where did the press get hold of the $300K figure - have they got it from the *source* close to Mccanns?
How can it be verified that the reported figure is indeed the amount Halligen got paid by the Fund?

As no one knows the remit or terms of the contract, and since the Mccanns did not report the fraud, how can it be right for the Press to assume the Mccanns were conned. Alright, the Mccanns hired a con-man, but that is not the same as saying they were swindled by the man.

So one is left wondering how come the Press associates Halligen's fraud charges to the Mccanns' case?
Who in the whole wide world could have given the Press that idea - from the horse's mouth?

by ShuBob 19.12.12 15:29

aiyoyo wrote:
Ribisl wrote:
A self-styled security consultant accused of swindling the Madeleine McCann fund out of £300,000 is to be extradited to the United States this week to face fraud charges.
I am a bit confused. Who exactly is accusing him of 'swindling'? Is it the DM reporter writing these headlines? Have the McCanns made a public complaint after appointing him in the first place? Or is this simply a media campaign in their effort to disassociate themselves from someone who is being extradited to face fraud charges?

Ribisi, I think it's rather the other way round - it's a media campaign to deliberately associate themselves to someone facing fraud charges; although one suspects (likely correctly) that the fraud charges have nothing to do with Mccanns' case.

Question is: from where did the press get hold of the $300K figure - have they got it from the *source* close to Mccanns?
How can it be verified that the reported figure is indeed the amount Halligen got paid by the Fund?

As no one knows the remit or terms of the contract, and since the Mccanns did not report the fraud, how can it be right for the Press to assume the Mccanns were conned. Alright, the Mccanns hired a con-man, but that is not the same as saying they were swindled by the man.

So one is left wondering how come the Press associates Halligen's fraud charges to the Mccanns' case?
Who in the whole wide world could have given the Press that idea - from the horse's mouth?

Aiyoyo, in answer to the part of your post I've highlighted, here's a post I made on the previous page:

ShuBob wrote:

To add to the confusion, here's Clarence Mitchell's reported reaction to Halligen's arrest having previously denied that he swindled the Fund:

'"Family spokesman Mr Mitchell said: "We are glad this man was tracked down. It is distressing someone would seek to make money out of Madeleine."'

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/2746506/Maddie-rat-Kevin-Halligen-tried-to-sue-FindMadeleine-fund-for-150k.html

Note that one of the authors of the Sun article is Antonella Lazzeri. I will say no more.

by aiyoyo 19.12.12 15:45

ShuBob wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:
Ribisl wrote:
A self-styled security consultant accused of swindling the Madeleine McCann fund out of £300,000 is to be extradited to the United States this week to face fraud charges.
I am a bit confused. Who exactly is accusing him of 'swindling'? Is it the DM reporter writing these headlines? Have the McCanns made a public complaint after appointing him in the first place? Or is this simply a media campaign in their effort to disassociate themselves from someone who is being extradited to face fraud charges?

Ribisi, I think it's rather the other way round - it's a media campaign to deliberately associate themselves to someone facing fraud charges; although one suspects (likely correctly) that the fraud charges have nothing to do with Mccanns' case.

Question is: from where did the press get hold of the $300K figure - have they got it from the *source* close to Mccanns?
How can it be verified that the reported figure is indeed the amount Halligen got paid by the Fund?

As no one knows the remit or terms of the contract, and since the Mccanns did not report the fraud, how can it be right for the Press to assume the Mccanns were conned. Alright, the Mccanns hired a con-man, but that is not the same as saying they were swindled by the man.

So one is left wondering how come the Press associates Halligen's fraud charges to the Mccanns' case?
Who in the whole wide world could have given the Press that idea - from the horse's mouth?

Aiyoyo, in answer to the part of your post I've highlighted, here's a post I made on the previous page:

ShuBob wrote:

To add to the confusion, here's Clarence Mitchell's reported reaction to Halligen's arrest having previously denied that he swindled the Fund:

'"Family spokesman Mr Mitchell said: "We are glad this man was tracked down. It is distressing someone would seek to make money out of Madeleine."'

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/2746506/Maddie-rat-Kevin-Halligen-tried-to-sue-FindMadeleine-fund-for-150k.html

Note that one of the authors of the Sun article is Antonella Lazzeri. I will say no more.

HO HO HO...indeed Anonella Lazzeri is God sent Father Christmas for team Mccann.

by **tigger** 19.12.12 15:49

corrections@dailymail.co.uk

Daily Mail now has a dedicated email address for corrections. They certainly need it. Another one for spelling mistakes might also be handy. big grin

by Inspectorfrost 19.12.12 19:42

The fund accounts should prove how much they paid him.

Was the 300,000 perhaps the contract for all works to be done, but were not completed? It is possible he was paid hardly anything at all, if anything, and the papers have morphed the contract amount into monies actually paid for nothing? if so, the Mccanns and their spokesman should have made this clear.

http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/m/press/18-Aug8/23_08_2008.htm

This article says KH drained the fund of 500,000

by Ribisl 19.12.12 20:44

The Mail on Sunday has learned that double-glazing tycoon Brian Kennedy, who has been underwriting the fund's search for Madeleine, has conducted a review of the agency's work and has become unhappy with the progress it was making.

The deal was abruptly ended following a meeting last week after the fund brought in independent monitors to assess how the money was spent.
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/m/press/18-Aug8/23_08_2008.htm

According to this article the Fund's directors gave OI a six months contract paying around 80,000 a month which was not renewed. So they would have been paid close to 500,000 before the termination of the contract.

I understand the breakdown of expenditure was made available for the first year's accounts to March 2008 although I haven't seen it myself. But in the subsequent years no detailed information was published and therefore it is impossible to know from their financial reports alone how the donation was actually spent.

Nevertheless, if they signed on OI and their contract was not terminated till after the expiry of the term, then I am not sure how they can claim they had been 'swindled'. Lack of proper management appears more likely to be the case imo.

by ShuBob 19.12.12 22:19

£300k or £500k in just six months is a lot of money to spend on one dodgy contractor. What exactly did he do for them?

by Guest 19.12.12 22:29

ShuBob wrote:£300k or £500k in just six months is a lot of money to spend on one dodgy contractor. What exactly did he do for them?

***
Eh ... nothing ... or shut up ... IMO, of course, IMO

by aiyoyo 20.12.12 6:02

ShuBob wrote:£300k or £500k in just six months is a lot of money to spend on one dodgy contractor. What exactly did he do for them?

Here we are talking about a reportedly formidable reputation professional well versed and experienced with excellent past records (or so we were told by Mccanns' spoken creature) offered a handsome fee matching his reputation to deliver on the job, yet when he did not produce result after a month or two later, the pair of intelligent doctors and their shrewd advisors did not fire him. or at the very least stop paying him sooner. You would have to wonder why they continued to pay monthly for nearly six months before realising he was not fit for purpose?

$80K a month (paid on monthly basis) is a hell of a lot of money, probably Gerry's yearly gross pay . Anyone with an ounce of common sense would have been extremely cautious especially when spending OPM for the important purpose of searching for your missing first born. Which then begs the question how a pair of doctors with a knack for hiring the best lawyers and best PR in the land, ended up hiring a series of completely useless PIs, when the quality of PIs should matter more than the right lawyers or PR if the pivotal aim is the recovery of a missing child!

by **PeterMac** 20.12.12 8:13

aiyoyo wrote: Which then begs the question how a pair of doctors with a knack for hiring the best lawyers and best PR in the land, ended up hiring a series of completely useless PIs, when the quality of PIs should matter more than the right lawyers or PR if the pivotal aim is the recovery of a missing child!

I would re-phrase that as WHY ?

by Guest 20.12.12 9:43

The same question applies to the dynamic duo of Crawley and Edgar but they did at least come up with the required result of "no parental involvement".

I can't help thinking that Kevin Halligen may indeed have "seen the light" after one bender too many!

by **PeterMac** 20.12.12 10:24

We can only hope that the rest " shall see a great light."

The people that walked in darkness have seen a great light: they that dwell in the land of the shadow of death, upon them hath the light shined.
How many of the group are living in the "shadow of death" ?

Log in for more topics