Another clue that the Fund was a fraud

by **PeterMac** 04.04.13 16:38

Just come across this.
p. 296 "In spite of some of the terrible discoveries I was making as I learned more of the stories and statistics relating to missing and exploited children, it wasn’t all bad news. Gradually, my outlook was growing more positive and I was beginning to get past my early certainty that Madeleine must have been taken by a paedophile and murdered. I was coming to realize that didn’t have to be the answer. Meeting Ernie Allen and the people at NCMEC played a big part in helping me along this road.
Gerry and I flew to Washington, DC to visit NCMEC at the end of March. Ever since his first trip there, Gerry had been keen for me to go, too, and see for myself the work they were doing. It didn’t take me long to understand why. Ernie’s support was not only encouraging, it was based on solid facts and figures. In the States, research shows that around 56 per cent of children abducted by strangers are recovered alive."

That was written about the events of MARCH 2008.
Now read it again slowly.
"I was beginning to get past my early certainty that Madeleine must have been taken by a paedophile and murdered."
For 10 months Kate had been CERTAIN that Madeleine was dead. Murdered.

Her words, not mine.
Her use of the word "certain" rather than suspicion, worry, dreadful thought, premonition, nightmare.
No, she uses the word 'certainty" and it has been passed by Carter-Ruck and others. Has it not, Mr Tudor and Mrs Matorell ?
Her admission that the Fund has been a fraud from the start, not my accusation.
Her book which she vows is the truth, not anything suggested by me.
cf. Al Capone.

by Guest 04.04.13 17:10

This has been mentioned before, PeterMac. I've found one topic - [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] - and I think there was another longer one as well.

Another little gem that Carter-Ruck missed but I truly hope that Scotland Yard hasn't.

by **PeterMac** 04.04.13 17:46

No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:This has been mentioned before, PeterMac. I've found one topic - [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] - and I think there was another longer one as well.

Another little gem that Carter-Ruck missed but I truly hope that Scotland Yard hasn't.

Thanks for that. It is often difficult to remember what has been discussed before and what might have been missed.
On balance Carter-Ruck seem not to have done a very thorough or professional job, do they.
They have allowed these gems through, and then, despite having helped with the preparation of the book - Kate's version of the Truth - (p. 382 Their priceless expertise and cimmitment has extended to the completion of this book.) did not bother to read it - Mrs Matorell's version of the Truth - given under oath under cross examination.
Only a lawyer would be able to find that both those statements could stand together.

by Guest 04.04.13 18:08

And Ernie Allen admitted to 400 cases of Missing Children FRAUD ...

by **tigger** 04.04.13 19:07

Châtelaine wrote:And Ernie Allen admitted to 400 cases of Missing Children FRAUD ...

I always feel that people admitting to a large number of crimes probably have committed many more.

by **Hobs** 04.04.13 21:35

tigger wrote:I always feel that people admitting to a large number of crimes probably have committed many more.

Yep they will always seek to minimise their involvement.

They will admit to the minimum they think they can get away with and be believed in order to get a lighter sentence.

Very few will admit to every single crime unless they are seeking notoriety such as a serial killer inwhich case the more the merrier.

by plebgate 04.04.13 21:41

Thanks for OP and the other link.

Very good point and I had not seen it before.

Will anyone in officialdom ever take a look at points like this?

by **tigger** 05.04.13 7:03

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

I don't know the exact date of Uncle Brian stating the above but it was fairly early on, within weeks of 3/5.

The main question here is 'Why legal expenses?' Not the first thing you'd think of, expenses - yes, legal - no. Unless you needed such funds even before you left for PdL?

And here we have the man himself explaining:

GM graciously expands on the purpose of the fund for Jane Hill (BBC). (Dr. Roberts 2009)

GM: "Well, you know, the fund, errm... was really... really evolved to provide an outlet for people who wanted to contribute financially, and their offers, errr... will help us and are helping us and that has helped us to bring in quite a comprehensive legal team and independent sector, errr... consultants as to what we could and should be doing."

First: The money is to help the parents.
Second: The money has paid for a legal team and consultants (recruited within days of the child's disappearance).
Third: There is absolutely no mention of funding search activities per se.
unquote

by Guest 05.04.13 9:07

The date of the interview with Brian K was 17th May 2007.

I can understand that arrangements needed to be made when money started being sent unasked - as happened with April Jones - but the setting up of a commercial enterprise (the Fund) was bizarre.

Why do totally innocent persons ([You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]) need to embroil themselves with legal teams and independent consultants?

by **PeterMac** 05.04.13 9:22

No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:
Why do totally innocent persons need to embroil themselves with legal teams and independent consultants?

Quite.
At the start it was referred to as a "Fighting fund", and was clearly stated to be for legal expenses.
That alone should have rung alarm bells.
Innocent people and true victims do not need legal teams.
Just as the innocent demand the right to speak.

by plebgate 05.04.13 12:42

PeterMac wrote:
No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:
Why do totally innocent persons need to embroil themselves with legal teams and independent consultants?
Quite.
At the start it was referred to as a "Fighting fund", and was clearly stated to be for legal expenses.
That alone should have rung alarm bells.
Innocent people and true victims do not need legal teams.
Just as the innocent demand the right to speak.

Well said PeterM.

If they ever do appear in court I hope the fighting fund will have run out of money. Even if they have "backers" if they are ever found guilty of a criminal act it doesn't necessarily mean that the "backers" will deliver on any promised hand outs.