Re: Oooh..errr Has AR actually been very clever.

by tiny 16.10.13 10:02

AndyB wrote:
tiny wrote:
AndyB wrote:What con?
If the mccanns are guilty then they have conned a few million of pounds out of people knowing that they are responcible for Madeleines death(I don't think Madeleine is alive)
You're conflating the McCanns and the Ltd. They are not the same

If you say so

by AndyB 16.10.13 10:02

russiandoll wrote:
AndyB wrote:I agree with the logic in your argument but I'm not convinced it's legally correct. I'm not a lawyer so I could well be wrong and I would like someone to convince me that I am. However, the fund was set up to search for Madeleine and support the parents using income from public donations. As it has both searched for Madeleine by paying for PIs (albeit hopeless) and supported the family (by making mortgage payments) it has done exactly what it said it would do and is not therefore fraudulent IMO

It's an interesting point about the proceeds of crime. IF Madeleines disappearance was caused by the parents is the funds income the proceedings of crime? I suspect not because the income came from the operation of a business, which is not illegal
what about if it's proven that there was no searching? what constitutes a search ?

I'm assuming that hiring the PIs constitutes searching

by ultimaThule 16.10.13 10:03

notlongnow wrote:Anyone know if the T9 are still good friends and do they keep in regular contact?

I suspect that any contact the T9 have with each other has become less regular of late big grin

by bodiddly 16.10.13 10:03

russiandoll wrote:Did anyone hear Andy R say " we are fighting for Madeleine" . I think this was in a media interview, not on CW. I found his choice of words striking and am sure I did not imagine it...

Yes and agreed.

I am going to keep my faith in AR for the moment. I have faith in GA and I have faith in the Portuguese Police and I have faith in NSY. More importantly I have faith in Joe Public and their increasing demands for a voice.
A whitewash would IMO be impossible now. AR and the media have made sure of that with all this increased publicity. Sites like this have made sure of this from the beginning.
There is an awful lot of people who want answers, truth and justice for Madeleine.

by ultimaThule 16.10.13 10:05

tiny wrote:
AndyB wrote:
tiny wrote:
AndyB wrote:What con?
If the mccanns are guilty then they have conned a few million of pounds out of people knowing that they are responcible for Madeleines death(I don't think Madeleine is alive)
You're conflating the McCanns and the Ltd. They are not the same
If you say so

Conflating the McCanns and the Ltd? Without the McCanns, there would be no Ltd.

by AndyB 16.10.13 10:15

ultimaThule wrote:
AndyB wrote:I agree with the logic in your argument but I'm not convinced it's legally correct. I'm not a lawyer so I could well be wrong and I would like someone to convince me that I am. However, the fund was set up to search for Madeleine and support the parents using income from public donations. As it has both searched for Madeleine by paying for PIs (albeit hopeless) and supported the family (by making mortgage payments) it has done exactly what it said it would do and is not therefore fraudulent IMO

It's an interesting point about the proceeds of crime. IF Madeleines disappearance was caused by the parents is the funds income the proceedings of crime? I suspect not because the income came from the operation of a business, which is not illegal
If the McCanns are responsible for their eldest daughter's disappearance it follows that they know where she is or where her body is concealed and they can produce her, or her remains - or reveal what happened to her remains if her body is not recoverable - at any time of their choosing.

If this should be the case, the fund is fraudulent as it has been created solely for the purpose of soliciting donations from the public to search for a child who is not missing.

In common parlance the fund is a scam and endeavouring to disguise this fact in a company limited by guarantee does not make it any less so.

If the Ltd was just the McCanns I'd tend to agree that the officers of Ltd were deceiving the public into believing that Madeleine was alive and findable. But, unless the other directors knew she was dead they set up the company in good faith.

Where there is a pecunary advantage gained by deception, fraud, is the McCanns deceiving their fellow directors but the fund itself is not fraudulent

by AndyB 16.10.13 10:16

ultimaThule wrote:
tiny wrote:
AndyB wrote:
tiny wrote:
AndyB wrote:What con?
If the mccanns are guilty then they have conned a few million of pounds out of people knowing that they are responcible for Madeleines death(I don't think Madeleine is alive)
You're conflating the McCanns and the Ltd. They are not the same
If you say so
Conflating the McCanns and the Ltd? Without the McCanns, there would be no Ltd.

I agree but they are distinct and separate legal entities

by ultimaThule 16.10.13 10:17

AndyB wrote:I'm assuming that hiring the PIs constitutes searching

Presupposing the 'fund' hired private investigators, what were they searching for? A child who is not missing and whose parents have contrived to conceal her/her remains for the purpose of soliciting donations from the public in a cynical attempt to persuade others they are not responsible for her disappearance and/or her demise.

Please take a look at the Fraud Act 2006 and if you can't be arsed to read it all, take note of Section 2 and Section 12.

by mouse 16.10.13 10:19

ultimaThule wrote:
tiny wrote:
AndyB wrote:
tiny wrote:
AndyB wrote:What con?
If the mccanns are guilty then they have conned a few million of pounds out of people knowing that they are responcible for Madeleines death(I don't think Madeleine is alive)
You're conflating the McCanns and the Ltd. They are not the same
If you say so
Conflating the McCanns and the Ltd? Without the McCanns, there would be no Ltd.

The Ltd Company - the proceeds of which - went towards a mortgage payment or two to Rothley Towers. All very much tied in I'd say.

by russiandoll 16.10.13 10:23

AndyB " I'm assuming that hiring the PIs constitutes searching "

sure of that? the simple act of hiring and paying, even if an audit trial shows they did naff all to find the child? not arguing, asking.

by bristow 16.10.13 10:27

bodiddly wrote:
russiandoll wrote:Did anyone hear Andy R say " we are fighting for Madeleine" . I think this was in a media interview, not on CW. I found his choice of words striking and am sure I did not imagine it...

Yes I heard it, it definitely stood out to me.

by ultimaThule 16.10.13 10:31

AndyB wrote:
ultimaThule wrote:Conflating the McCanns and the Ltd? Without the McCanns, there would be no Ltd.
I agree but they are distinct and separate legal entities

There's no polite way of saying this - you are wrong.

If the McCanns have committed the offences I believe them to be guilty of, the monies their 'fund' has received by way of donations will be subject to recovery by the criminal courts as being the proceeds of the crime of fraud which carries a more severe sentence than theft by deception, which is another means of describing what the McCanns have done.

by russiandoll 16.10.13 10:39

I will try to end this discussion by asking a relative of mine who works for SOCA

by Lance De Boils 16.10.13 10:44

Cristobell wrote:
notlongnow wrote:I'm wondering if SY have played a great game.

By throwing in other efits of charity workers/burglers,people lurking etc.. i think the guilty would be happy that the scent was going elsewhere.

But the smith sighting and the JT wipeout would have some very concerned people who may start making phone calls that will flush them out.

I don't believe anyone has been found in connection with the JT sighting,and it was just a clever ploy to get things moving.
Welcome Notlongnow, and please accept this as a 'like' for a great first post!

I haven't finished catching up this morning yet, but jumping in to say that I agree, notlongnow.

And Redwood has played a blinder for Amaral.

WHO insisted on releasing this "false" abductor sighting? (Tanner's)
WHO went ahead, despite the PJ's reticence?
WHO has pushed and pushed and emphasised JT's bundleman to the exclusion of all other evidence/sightings?

Now, remind me...
...WHO caused the greatest damage to the "search"? Hmm?

by AndyB 16.10.13 10:56

ultimaThule wrote:
AndyB wrote:
ultimaThule wrote:Conflating the McCanns and the Ltd? Without the McCanns, there would be no Ltd.
I agree but they are distinct and separate legal entities
There's no polite way of saying this - you are wrong.

I'm sorry but I'm not wrong. The McCanns and the Ltd really are distinct and separate legal entities but don't take my word for it; ask your accountant or solicitor

by AndyB 16.10.13 11:14

russiandoll wrote:AndyB " I'm assuming that hiring the PIs constitutes searching "

sure of that? the simple act of hiring and paying, even if an audit trial shows they did naff all to find the child? not arguing, asking.

What else can a Ltd company do to search apart from engage people to do the physical searching?

If it later transpired that the PIs hadn't actually done any searching but had instead spent all their fees on, say, high living in hotels, then the company has been defrauded by the PI but the company itself has not committed fraud

by russiandoll 16.10.13 11:15

I think a separate thread should have this debate, it is about Redwood and now there are pages about fraud

by Lance De Boils 16.10.13 11:18

by ultimaThule 16.10.13 11:24

AndyB wrote:
ultimaThule wrote:
AndyB wrote:
ultimaThule wrote:Conflating the McCanns and the Ltd? Without the McCanns, there would be no Ltd.
I agree but they are distinct and separate legal entities
There's no polite way of saying this - you are wrong.
I'm sorry but I'm not wrong. The McCanns and the Ltd really are distinct and separate legal entities but don't take my word for it; ask your accountant or solicitor

I don't need to, Andy. I responded to one of your many posts on this subject with the intention of enabling the thread to get back on track.

If you wish to create a new thread on this particular subject, I'll be happy to enter into further debate with you at a later date. In the meantime, I suggest we adjourn from this topic.

by ultimaThule 16.10.13 11:27

Lance De Boils wrote:

too... and credit should equally go to the Portuguese police who, as Dr Amaral rightly pointed out, 'got there' a lot quicker than the 2+ years it has taken NSY.

by bobbin 16.10.13 11:35

Lance De Boils wrote:

I've just caught up too.
1. I agree that there might be a division between McCs and the Company.
But I think the distinction is one of 'civil law' versus 'criminal law' liabilities.
I may be completely wrong. I agree that 'company house' rules dictate terms, but criminal acts, as punishable by the courts, are not dispelled simply because of the technical application of 'company house rules'.
If the PIs have been 'paid' to search but have NOT, or not adequately according to their payments, then it would start to open questions up of 'money laundering'.
If the directors knowingly claimed terms and conditions for their company, (searching for a live child when knowing that she is dead) which were in fact dishonest claims, then the directors become legally responsible under criminal law, as would any other felon.
Yes, Andy, company law limits itself to company matters.
Criminal law however must be able to be freely applied to persons, where persons have acted in a criminal way, whether they worked this through a company or any other method of action.
I do not believe that Andy Redwood would not have been advised and that the CPS are impotent whichever way they turn, to apply the law where crimes of fraud (whatever their vehicle) have been perpetrated.
This is my opinion only.... I don't know if I am correct.

by bobbin 16.10.13 11:59

I also agree, having seen the last two posts before mine, that the 'legal' liability question should have its own thread.
In the meantime, tigger said something which was amusing and set me thinking.
There have been so many posts but I got that she hinted at Egg-man carrying perhaps, not a child, but a hot meal, wrapped in a blanket.
Jane first described the 'abductor' as striding quite fast, from her left to her right, with his arms outstretched, carrying a sort of bundle.
So my question is, Is there a Pizza Take-Away somewhere to Jane's left, and instead of Egg-man hurrying off (back TOWARDS the creche from where a child would just have been collected) he was keeping his pizza hot and rushing back to his apartment before it got cold (it being a cold night and too dark to see any shoes on the Pizza's feet) and he was holding it with Outstretched Arms because that's how you keep the cheese topping level and don't end up with it all dribbling down your best cotton draws.
So she was perhaps right but wrong at the same time.
Yes it was food, but it wasn't an Egg, it was a PIZZA.
Whether she was lying or confused, whether the police know she was lying or confused, Andy Redwood has served a cracking hot goose up, with all the trimmings.
With Egg-man and all of the scrambled E-offerings that ensued, the focus is on SmithMan, whose buttoned trousers are extremely similar to the ones seen on Gerry McCann's bed and in subsequent photos.
This is where Gonçalo Amaral got some 7 months into the investigation.
Last night on ITV UK, he was finally acknowledged and able to put his points across, in a civilised environment, without being insulted, and one of those points was that he was removed and his replacement chose NOT to pursue the Smith sighting.
This to me smacks heavily of pressure being applied from above.
The McCs have steadfastly 'ignored' or sought to 'distract' from any recognition of the potential validity of the Smith sighting, and for me that speaks VOLUMES.
I think Andy Redwood has done what no other UK authority has dared to do to date.
He has taken the McCs and their protectors/ bullying entourage head on and pulled the floor boards out from under their feet.
Interesting times ahead indeed. Força Andy Redwood, Força Gonçalo Amaral:

by Woburn_exile 16.10.13 12:03

As posted in another thread:

As a quick sideshow, I remember seeing a headline over the weekend along the lines of "First arrest in Madeleine case". I was travelling over the period so didn't pick up on it but this seems to have been totally evaded in the crimewatch programme.
Could this possibly be that SY know fine well what happened, have accepted that unless someone in the know comes forward and grasses them to save their own skin, then they will have no chance of a prosecution, so then SY are using this funding to witch hunt every single suspected paedo on the continent so that when they turn up the square root of fcku all that is new they can at least say "All efforts were made, we did not as yet find out definativly what happened to Madeleine McCann but at least our lines of enquiry have smashed Paedophile rings and terrorist groupings in Europe so from that perspective this operation has been as success". Our European colleagues should take a page from our book in the future bla bla BLAH VOMIT. The McCanns will be able to bask in their glory and write more drivelous books in the name of child protection and how they were instigators of it.

offtopic shit happens

by ultimaThule 16.10.13 12:17

Woburn_exile wrote:As posted in another thread:

As a quick sideshow, I remember seeing a headline over the weekend along the lines of "First arrest in Madeleine case". I was travelling over the period so didn't pick up on it but this seems to have been totally evaded in the crimewatch programme.
Could this possibly be that SY know fine well what happened, have accepted that unless someone in the know comes forward and grasses them to save their own skin, then they will have no chance of a prosecution, so then SY are using this funding to witch hunt every single suspected paedo on the continent so that when they turn up the square root of fcku all that is new they can at least say "All efforts were made, we did not as yet find out definativly what happened to Madeleine McCann but at least our lines of enquiry have smashed Paedophile rings and terrorist groupings in Europe so from that perspective this operation has been as success". Our European colleagues should take a page from our book in the future bla bla BLAH VOMIT. The McCanns will be able to bask in their glory and write more drivelous books in the name of child protection and how they were instigators of it.

offtopic shit happens

The so-called 'first arrest' was the blagger who told the barrister he'd seen Madeleine and this had no bearing whatsoever on Crimewatch and what's going down now.

I had Friday pencilled in my diary but it seems we may get news of the arrest of the 'prime suspect' considerably earlier.

by Guest 16.10.13 12:19

ultimaThule wrote:
Woburn_exile wrote:As posted in another thread:

As a quick sideshow, I remember seeing a headline over the weekend along the lines of "First arrest in Madeleine case". I was travelling over the period so didn't pick up on it but this seems to have been totally evaded in the crimewatch programme.
Could this possibly be that SY know fine well what happened, have accepted that unless someone in the know comes forward and grasses them to save their own skin, then they will have no chance of a prosecution, so then SY are using this funding to witch hunt every single suspected paedo on the continent so that when they turn up the square root of fcku all that is new they can at least say "All efforts were made, we did not as yet find out definativly what happened to Madeleine McCann but at least our lines of enquiry have smashed Paedophile rings and terrorist groupings in Europe so from that perspective this operation has been as success". Our European colleagues should take a page from our book in the future bla bla BLAH VOMIT. The McCanns will be able to bask in their glory and write more drivelous books in the name of child protection and how they were instigators of it.

offtopic shit happens
The so-called 'first arrest' was the blagger who told the barrister he'd seen Madeleine and this had no bearing whatsoever on Crimewatch and what's going down now.

I had Friday pencilled in my diary but it seems we may get news of the arrest of the 'prime suspect' considerably earlier.

Mr Amaral has said the same thing in his interview posted on Goncalo Amaral on ITV thread

by ultimaThule 16.10.13 12:25

bobbin wrote:I also agree, having seen the last two posts before mine, that the 'legal' liability question should have its own thread.
In the meantime, tigger said something which was amusing and set me thinking.
There have been so many posts but I got that she hinted at Egg-man carrying perhaps, not a child, but a hot meal, wrapped in a blanket.
Jane first described the 'abductor' as striding quite fast, from her left to her right, with his arms outstretched, carrying a sort of bundle.
So my question is, Is there a Pizza Take-Away somewhere to Jane's left, and instead of Egg-man hurrying off (back TOWARDS the creche from where a child would just have been collected) he was keeping his pizza hot and rushing back to his apartment before it got cold (it being a cold night and too dark to see any shoes on the Pizza's feet) and he was holding it with Outstretched Arms because that's how you keep the cheese topping level and don't end up with it all dribbling down your best cotton draws.
So she was perhaps right but wrong at the same time.
Yes it was food, but it wasn't an Egg, it was a PIZZA.
Whether she was lying or confused, whether the police know she was lying or confused, Andy Redwood has served a cracking hot goose up, with all the trimmings.
With Egg-man and all of the scrambled E-offerings that ensued, the focus is on SmithMan, whose buttoned trousers are extremely similar to the ones seen on Gerry McCann's bed and in subsequent photos.
This is where Gonçalo Amaral got some 7 months into the investigation.
Last night on ITV UK, he was finally acknowledged and able to put his points across, in a civilised environment, without being insulted, and one of those points was that he was removed and his replacement chose NOT to pursue the Smith sighting.
This to me smacks heavily of pressure being applied from above.
The McCs have steadfastly 'ignored' or sought to 'distract' from any recognition of the potential validity of the Smith sighting, and for me that speaks VOLUMES.
I think Andy Redwood has done what no other UK authority has dared to do to date.
He has taken the McCs and their protectors/ bullying entourage head on and pulled the floor boards out from under their feet.
Interesting times ahead indeed. Força Andy Redwood, Força Gonçalo Amaral:

Interesting times ahead indeed (& as they say in Ireland) indeed, they are, Bobbin Mrs

I also thought that Jane Tanner most probably did see a guy cross the road ahead of her at some time or other, but I didn't give a great deal of credence to her story that he was carrying a child. I like your pizza theory - I thought it might be some guy carrying his washing home to his mum or some such.

The problem with JT is she's eager to please and highly suggestible. I wonder how she'll fare as a witness for the prosecution big grin

by ultimaThule 16.10.13 12:32

candyfloss wrote:
ultimaThule wrote:The so-called 'first arrest' was the blagger who told the barrister he'd seen Madeleine and this had no bearing whatsoever on Crimewatch and what's going down now.

I had Friday pencilled in my diary but it seems we may get news of the arrest of the 'prime suspect' considerably earlier.
Mr Amaral has said the same thing in his interview posted on Goncalo Amaral on ITV thread

Really? Wasn't 'first arrest' a headline in the Mirror and it then transpired the blagger had been arrested on a drugs or indecent image charge? I'm sure I read that on here somewhere.

by bobbin 16.10.13 12:33

ultimaThule wrote:
bobbin wrote:I also agree, having seen the last two posts before mine, that the 'legal' liability question should have its own thread.
In the meantime, tigger said something which was amusing and set me thinking.
There have been so many posts but I got that she hinted at Egg-man carrying perhaps, not a child, but a hot meal, wrapped in a blanket.
Jane first described the 'abductor' as striding quite fast, from her left to her right, with his arms outstretched, carrying a sort of bundle.
So my question is, Is there a Pizza Take-Away somewhere to Jane's left, and instead of Egg-man hurrying off (back TOWARDS the creche from where a child would just have been collected) he was keeping his pizza hot and rushing back to his apartment before it got cold (it being a cold night and too dark to see any shoes on the Pizza's feet) and he was holding it with Outstretched Arms because that's how you keep the cheese topping level and don't end up with it all dribbling down your best cotton draws.
So she was perhaps right but wrong at the same time.
Yes it was food, but it wasn't an Egg, it was a PIZZA.
Whether she was lying or confused, whether the police know she was lying or confused, Andy Redwood has served a cracking hot goose up, with all the trimmings.
With Egg-man and all of the scrambled E-offerings that ensued, the focus is on SmithMan, whose buttoned trousers are extremely similar to the ones seen on Gerry McCann's bed and in subsequent photos.
This is where Gonçalo Amaral got some 7 months into the investigation.
Last night on ITV UK, he was finally acknowledged and able to put his points across, in a civilised environment, without being insulted, and one of those points was that he was removed and his replacement chose NOT to pursue the Smith sighting.
This to me smacks heavily of pressure being applied from above.
The McCs have steadfastly 'ignored' or sought to 'distract' from any recognition of the potential validity of the Smith sighting, and for me that speaks VOLUMES.
I think Andy Redwood has done what no other UK authority has dared to do to date.
He has taken the McCs and their protectors/ bullying entourage head on and pulled the floor boards out from under their feet.
Interesting times ahead indeed. Força Andy Redwood, Força Gonçalo Amaral:
Interesting times ahead indeed (& as they say in Ireland) indeed, they are, Bobbin

I also thought that Jane Tanner most probably did see a guy cross the road ahead of her at some time or other, but I didn't give a great deal of credence to her story that he was carrying a child. I like your pizza theory - I thought it might be some guy carrying his washing home to his mum or some such.

The problem with JT is she's eager to please and highly suggestible. I wonder how she'll fare as a witness for the prosecution

or his ironing, back from his mum's... so you know guys like that too....huff. sarcastic

by galena 16.10.13 12:36

ultimaThule wrote:
bobbin wrote:I also agree, having seen the last two posts before mine, that the 'legal' liability question should have its own thread.
In the meantime, tigger said something which was amusing and set me thinking.
There have been so many posts but I got that she hinted at Egg-man carrying perhaps, not a child, but a hot meal, wrapped in a blanket.
Jane first described the 'abductor' as striding quite fast, from her left to her right, with his arms outstretched, carrying a sort of bundle.
So my question is, Is there a Pizza Take-Away somewhere to Jane's left, and instead of Egg-man hurrying off (back TOWARDS the creche from where a child would just have been collected) he was keeping his pizza hot and rushing back to his apartment before it got cold (it being a cold night and too dark to see any shoes on the Pizza's feet) and he was holding it with Outstretched Arms because that's how you keep the cheese topping level and don't end up with it all dribbling down your best cotton draws.
So she was perhaps right but wrong at the same time.
Yes it was food, but it wasn't an Egg, it was a PIZZA.
Whether she was lying or confused, whether the police know she was lying or confused, Andy Redwood has served a cracking hot goose up, with all the trimmings.
With Egg-man and all of the scrambled E-offerings that ensued, the focus is on SmithMan, whose buttoned trousers are extremely similar to the ones seen on Gerry McCann's bed and in subsequent photos.
This is where Gonçalo Amaral got some 7 months into the investigation.
Last night on ITV UK, he was finally acknowledged and able to put his points across, in a civilised environment, without being insulted, and one of those points was that he was removed and his replacement chose NOT to pursue the Smith sighting.
This to me smacks heavily of pressure being applied from above.
The McCs have steadfastly 'ignored' or sought to 'distract' from any recognition of the potential validity of the Smith sighting, and for me that speaks VOLUMES.
I think Andy Redwood has done what no other UK authority has dared to do to date.
He has taken the McCs and their protectors/ bullying entourage head on and pulled the floor boards out from under their feet.
Interesting times ahead indeed. Força Andy Redwood, Força Gonçalo Amaral:
Interesting times ahead indeed (& as they say in Ireland) indeed, they are, Bobbin

I also thought that Jane Tanner most probably did see a guy cross the road ahead of her at some time or other, but I didn't give a great deal of credence to her story that he was carrying a child. I like your pizza theory - I thought it might be some guy carrying his washing home to his mum or some such.

The problem with JT is she's eager to please and highly suggestible. I wonder how she'll fare as a witness for the prosecution

That's an interesting point. The reason she did nothing at the time was very likely that there was nothing remotely suspicious about it - just a guy carrying his kid from the creche in the normal way. My feeling is that at some future date she was perhaps asked 'Now think Jane - did you see anything suspicious - it's really important' and dredged up this memory. I think at some point imagination and the desire to please the McCanns morphed this innocent figure into the highly suspicious 'blanket man'

by Guest 16.10.13 12:36

ultimaThule wrote:
candyfloss wrote:
ultimaThule wrote:The so-called 'first arrest' was the blagger who told the barrister he'd seen Madeleine and this had no bearing whatsoever on Crimewatch and what's going down now.

I had Friday pencilled in my diary but it seems we may get news of the arrest of the 'prime suspect' considerably earlier.
Mr Amaral has said the same thing in his interview posted on Goncalo Amaral on ITV thread
Really? Wasn't 'first arrest' a headline in the Mirror and it then transpired the blagger had been arrested on a drugs or indecent image charge? I'm sure I read that on here somewhere.

He said it had nothing to do with the case.

Latest topics