Re: FRAUDULENT FUND

by petunia 27.10.13 19:27

Châtelaine wrote:
PeterMac wrote: [...]
Is it coincidental that the McCanns joined the board of Directors at exactly this time ?
***
No, I don't think so.
It's obvious, isn't it?

But where did it get them? As I see it, only a couple of years respite ... And now, the hammer is coming down IMO

I've said it before, but I would be grateful to family taking in the twins for the next couple of weeks ...

poor poor twins your heart just has to go to them, one has to wonder what the future holds for them.

by tasprin 27.10.13 19:28

Scotland Yard has revealed Jane Tanner's "Bundleman" to be an innocent holidaymaker, but that little matter has not stopped the Findamadeleine site from continuing to promote the man as Madeleine's abductor. How do they get away with it?

by ultimaThule 27.10.13 19:46

No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:The whole family is in it up to their necks in my opinion.

Those poor children - I don't think any of their relatives are fit to look after them.

Those are my thoughts exactly.

Even if their parents had been held to account for their sister's disappearance back in 2007, looking at the members of the McCann and Healy families who have invaded our living rooms for the past 6 years, I can't see one that I would leave a budgie with, let alone a child.

They are all rotten through and through and, IMO, in it up to their necks. Nothing will ever convince me that they didn't know what K&G had done to, and with, Madeleine and I will always believe they were in the loop from day 1, if not before.

What's gone on in those two families has been going on through generations and, frankly, with parents like the McCanns and relatives who are every bit as callous and uncaring as that despicable pair, the twins - and poor Madeleine too - never stood a chance of growing up to be all they could be if they had born into a loving and nurturing family environment.

I''ve been amusing myself by attempting to work out and list what charges will be made and who will be the recipients. Suffice it to say the list is growing daily and the dock will be an exceptionally crowded one which will most probably need a reinforced floor big grin

by **PeterMac** 27.10.13 20:12

A long time ago some of us predicted that this would end up like Al Capone. About money.
Watch the family and follow the money.

until detectives had obtained written permission from the fund.

is most telling.
The Fund, which means the Directors of the Fund, have to agree NOT to sue.
So the Fund = Directors for the past five years may have been committing the specific offence of withholding potentially valuable information,
not only from the PJ, and Leicester Police, but also from Scotland Yard.
This is capable of amounting to the offence of Perverting the Course of Justice
And since the Directors act as a committee, making agreements about their actions it would, ( potentially - Kevin - ) amount to
Conspiracy to Pervert the Course of Justice, for which the sentence can be Life imprisonment.

IN addition, there may be another count on the indictment.
That of Fraud, and by extension Conspiracy to Defraud
There must have been an agreement to continue to solicit funds, and make pleas for donations. Indeed the "Make a Donation button" was aded to the website relatively recently.
So we have the offence ( potentially - Kevin - ) of "Falsely purporting that monies donated would be used for the continued search for Madeleine Beth McCann,
when in fact you, jointly and severally,were actively concealing valuable information from the investigating authorities in both Portugal and England"

by Beanie 27.10.13 20:32

I assume the rest of the tapas are accountable for the cover up as well, so sadly more poor children having their lives turned upside down.

by Guest 27.10.13 20:33

It's needs PROOF that they knew she was dead, PeterMac.
Do they have that yet?
A hint is that one of their "mantras" is a repeated "There is no proof that she has come to harm" ...
Which falls into the category: "Well within the borders of responsible parenting."
There are strangely constructed phrases referring to actual law requirements ...

Apart from that, I've often been thinking too about an "Al Capone" ...

by Liz Eagles 27.10.13 20:34

It will be very interesting to see the next set of accounts which I think are due to be filed by 31st December.

by Smokeandmirrors 27.10.13 20:42

Châtelaine wrote:It's needs PROOF that they knew she was dead, PeterMac.
Do they have that yet?
A hint is that one of their "mantras" is a repeated "There is no proof that she has come to harm" ...
Which falls into the category: "Well within the borders of responsible parenting."
There are strangely constructed phrases referring to actual law requirements ...

Apart from that, I've often been thinking too about an "Al Capone" ...

I'm not certain that matters in this case, because they have been spouting off about things harming the search and suing left, right and centre about that, when they used lawyers to suppress information themselves. I think that is enough to slap something on them.

by **PeterMac** 27.10.13 20:45

Châtelaine wrote:It's needs PROOF that they knew she was dead, PeterMac.

I don't think it does.
Their collective withholding of information from the enquiry teams, whether Madeleine was dead or alive, is still Perverting the Course of Justice. (possibly - Kevin)

If Madeleine WERE or HAD BEEN alive during that the time, that would exacerbate the crime - not mitigate it. They would then richly deserve the full sentence.

by Guest 27.10.13 20:48

Smokeandmirrors wrote:
Châtelaine wrote:It's needs PROOF that they knew she was dead, PeterMac. [...]
I'm not certain that matters in this case, because they have been spouting off about things harming the search and suing left, right and centre about that, when they used lawyers to suppress information themselves. I think that is enough to slap something on them.

***
I think it does, SAM. The Fund is only "fraud" [20 years' sentence ...], if they knew she was dead, as the money is to find a living child.. Whatever they did with the incoming and outgoing monies is small fries ...

by The Slave 27.10.13 20:55

Spookily enough Al Capone and HIS eventual demise cropped up in conversation earlier in my house.

by Smokeandmirrors 27.10.13 20:57

Châtelaine wrote:
Smokeandmirrors wrote:
Châtelaine wrote:It's needs PROOF that they knew she was dead, PeterMac. [...]
I'm not certain that matters in this case, because they have been spouting off about things harming the search and suing left, right and centre about that, when they used lawyers to suppress information themselves. I think that is enough to slap something on them.
***
I think it does, SAM. The Fund is only "fraud" [20 years' sentence ...], if they knew she was dead, as the money is to find a living child.. Whatever they did with the incoming and outgoing monies is small fries ...

I concede regarding the actual money side, I still think there will be some BIG issue about them hindering the search though, especially given their litigious manner. I certainly look forward to the rest of the libel hearing, if indeed it continues after this. The Judge will not be amused.

by Guest 27.10.13 21:04

PeterMac wrote:
Châtelaine wrote:It's needs PROOF that they knew she was dead, PeterMac.
I don't think it does.
Their collective withholding of information from the enquiry teams, whether Madeleine was dead or alive, is still Perverting the Course of Justice. (possibly - Kevin)

If Madeleine WERE or HAD BEEN alive during that the time, that would exacerbate the crime - not mitigate it. They would then richly deserve the full sentence.

***
Sorry, PeterMac. Somehow this reply escaped my attention. I was referring to having them [Al Capone style] charged and convicted for FRAUD with their "Fund" to search for Madeleine.

Of course, it is more than obvious and slowly also documented by now, that they have "Perverted the Course of Justice", which is another league, but equally useful ... ;-)

by **PeterMac** 27.10.13 21:21

Just suppose . . .

Smithman comes forward or is positively identified and arrested.
He leads the PJ and SY to the Hellish Lair within 10 miles of
PLdL.
Where they find Madeleine. Alive

Who is now deemed responsible for the past 5 YEARS of her incarceration ?

by whmon 27.10.13 21:28

With a bit of luck it might be almost time to change the title of this thread to its anagram:

'Adult Refund Fun' big grin

by Guest 27.10.13 21:41

PeterMac wrote:Just suppose . . .

Smithman comes forward or is positively identified and arrested.
He leads the PJ and SY to the Hellish Lair within 10 miles of
PLdL.
Where they find Madeleine. Alive

Who is now deemed responsible for the past 5 YEARS of her incarceration ?

***
You continue to amaze me ... thumbsup

In the 70s we used to say: "Jezus Christ on horseback".
No idea where that came from BTW

by iamfreecanigo 27.10.13 21:49

PeterMac wrote:Just suppose . . .

Smithman comes forward or is positively identified and arrested.
He leads the PJ and SY to the Hellish Lair within 10 miles of
PLdL.
Where they find Madeleine. Alive

Who is now deemed responsible for the past 5 YEARS of her incarceration ?

The man who kidnapped her and held her captive for 5 years.

The McCanns at least are guilty of neglect and probably of disposing of maddies body after she died accidently. However in your presented scenario all the would be guilty off is being negligent so you could not imply they are responsible for her incarceration.

by **PeterMac** 27.10.13 22:23

iamfreecanigo wrote:The man who kidnapped her and held her captive for 5 years.
The McCanns at least are guilty of neglect and probably of disposing of maddies body after she died accidently. However in your presented scenario all they would be guilty of is being negligent so you could not imply they are responsible for her incarceration.

Of course.
Spookily similar to what the McCanns have said.

Not her initial incarceration, but the subsequent 5 years - certainly.
Who is responsible for the failure to search for her,
Who is responsible for the failure to follow up leads,
Who is responsible for the failure to release e-fits which lead to the identification of the "abductor.

who is responsible for withholding the information which led, eventually, to her release.

by ultimaThule 27.10.13 23:18

aquila wrote:It will be very interesting to see the next set of accounts which I think are due to be filed by 31st December.

I filed my prediction of the final set of accounts a few days ago on another thread, aquila, and am reproducing it here for your information.

"A forensic audit of the 'fund' will reveal there's 2p left in the kitty and £10 owed to one of the directors for ~~sandal~~ shoe repairs or similar minor expense incurred when turning over stones at the Hotel Lap de Luxury."

As they stand, the accounts don't look kosher to me and I'd hazard a guess that outgoings have increased over the past few months due to ~~more large sums being transferred to offshore accounts~~ the need for costly legal representation at home and abroad, which is a situation that doesn't look like easing anytime soon.

No doubt GM has equipped himself with a flashy new whiteboard and pointer, and is ~~desperately~~ working on an accompanying powerpoint presentation to show the SFO how the public's generousity has enabled him and his wife to ~~stash~~ £~~millions under the mattress~~ continue the search for Madeleine in 5* hotels around the world.

by iamfreecanigo 27.10.13 23:39

PeterMac wrote:
iamfreecanigo wrote:The man who kidnapped her and held her captive for 5 years.
The McCanns at least are guilty of neglect and probably of disposing of maddies body after she died accidently. However in your presented scenario all they would be guilty of is being negligent so you could not imply they are responsible for her incarceration.
Of course.
Spookily similar to what the McCanns have said.

Not her initial incarceration, but the subsequent 5 years - certainly.
Who is responsible for the failure to search for her,
Who is responsible for the failure to follow up leads,
Who is responsible for the failure to release e-fits which lead to the identification of the "abductor.

who is responsible for withholding the information which led, eventually, to her release.

Well, didn't the PJ know about smithman anyway? Most parents of a missing child wouldn't be responsible for gathering evidence, so technically in your scenario it was still be the abductors fault. However, in the real world scenario, its very damning evidence that they are hiding something.

by sonic72 28.10.13 2:14

iamfreecanigo wrote:
PeterMac wrote:
iamfreecanigo wrote:The man who kidnapped her and held her captive for 5 years.
The McCanns at least are guilty of neglect and probably of disposing of maddies body after she died accidently. However in your presented scenario all they would be guilty of is being negligent so you could not imply they are responsible for her incarceration.
Of course.
Spookily similar to what the McCanns have said.

Not her initial incarceration, but the subsequent 5 years - certainly.
Who is responsible for the failure to search for her,
Who is responsible for the failure to follow up leads,
Who is responsible for the failure to release e-fits which lead to the identification of the "abductor.

who is responsible for withholding the information which led, eventually, to her release.
Well, didn't the PJ know about smithman anyway? Most parents of a missing child wouldn't be responsible for gathering evidence, so technically in your scenario it was still be the abductors fault. However, in the real world scenario, its very damning evidence that they are hiding something.

I was under the impression the police only came across the e-fits when they reviewed the case, they requested all documents from the McCanns I think.

Smithman was logged by police at the time, but I believe the McCann's got their private detectives to create the e-fits.

If the McCann's have withheld any information that could be vital, then they are guilty of something that is for sure.

If they got the Assitiente status, then they could gather their own independent evidence. Didn't they apply for that status before, and got rejected?

by **PeterMac** 11.11.13 10:11

This is two weeks, at least AFTER the Crime Watch programme where DCI Redwood said definitively that Tannerman had been traced, interviewed and ELIMINATED as a suspect or person of interest.

Tannerman is STILL on the official Madeleine website.
So obviously Crime Watch and DCI Redwood count for nothing.
They are clearly still trying to stick with him.

Screen shots from yesterday, Sunday 10th Nov 2013
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]" />" />

So along with a 6 year old photo of Madeleine, we are still being given Tannerman, Barcelona Dockwoman, and Measleman.

PLEASE GIVE GENEROUSLY !

NOTE to Kevin, and Carter-Ruck. Surely even you would agree that this is prima facie evidence of FRAUD

by Guest 11.11.13 12:16

PeterMac wrote:
russiandoll wrote:I have re read the Times piece. Am I right in thinking that when the files were handed over to SY, certain items were missing, having been removed prior to handover?
It is the only way I can make sense of SY not having sat on this info since the start of their review... I would have thought pretty much as soon as it began certain detectives were tasked with going through the PI stuff.
That is the interpretation I put on it, in the same way that the PJ only gave SY and the McCanns and the world certain parts of their information, and Leicester Police also held back vital parts even when the McCanns went to court to try to get everything.
The difference here is that thee were official bodies withholding information, for reasons to do with their part of the investigation .
The Fund's withholding anything of this nature may turn out to be a Conspiracy to Pervert the Course of Justice.

Is it coincidental that the McCanns joined the board of Directors at exactly this time ?

One would suppose the McCs would now drop the libel case against Dr Amaral pronto, as it's their own legal entity, the Fund Limited, which hid vital evidence for five years; therefore, it is the Fund Limited and its directors who should be taken to task/Court right away, and be made to pay for their neglect in facilitating the search for missing Maddie McCann for five years.

And as Maddie is a Ward of Court, shouldn't the Court do just this?

Judge Hogg, what are you waiting for?

by Miss Trunchbull 12.11.13 14:44

A ward of court?

This is the first time I've heard about this.

What would be the reason behind it, and what (if any) are the benefits to the family or the child?

by Guest 12.11.13 14:48

Miss Trunchbull wrote:A ward of court?

This is the first time I've heard about this.

What would be the reason behind it, and what (if any) are the benefits to the family or the child?

Have a look here.....

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

by **tigger** 12.11.13 15:11

Portia wrote:
PeterMac wrote:
russiandoll wrote:I have re read the Times piece. Am I right in thinking that when the files were handed over to SY, certain items were missing, having been removed prior to handover?
It is the only way I can make sense of SY not having sat on this info since the start of their review... I would have thought pretty much as soon as it began certain detectives were tasked with going through the PI stuff.
That is the interpretation I put on it, in the same way that the PJ only gave SY and the McCanns and the world certain parts of their information, and Leicester Police also held back vital parts even when the McCanns went to court to try to get everything.
The difference here is that thee were official bodies withholding information, for reasons to do with their part of the investigation .
The Fund's withholding anything of this nature may turn out to be a Conspiracy to Pervert the Course of Justice.

Is it coincidental that the McCanns joined the board of Directors at exactly this time ?
One would suppose the McCs would now drop the libel case against Dr Amaral pronto, as it's their own legal entity, the Fund Limited, which hid vital evidence for five years; therefore, it is the Fund Limited and its directors who should be taken to task/Court right away, and be made to pay for their neglect in facilitating the search for missing Maddie McCann for five years.

And as Maddie is a Ward of Court, shouldn't the Court do just this?

Judge Hogg, what are you waiting for?

Nice one! Portia of our chambers...

by Guest 12.11.13 15:52

tigger wrote:
Portia wrote:
PeterMac wrote:
russiandoll wrote:I have re read the Times piece. Am I right in thinking that when the files were handed over to SY, certain items were missing, having been removed prior to handover?
It is the only way I can make sense of SY not having sat on this info since the start of their review... I would have thought pretty much as soon as it began certain detectives were tasked with going through the PI stuff.
That is the interpretation I put on it, in the same way that the PJ only gave SY and the McCanns and the world certain parts of their information, and Leicester Police also held back vital parts even when the McCanns went to court to try to get everything.
The difference here is that thee were official bodies withholding information, for reasons to do with their part of the investigation .
The Fund's withholding anything of this nature may turn out to be a Conspiracy to Pervert the Course of Justice.

Is it coincidental that the McCanns joined the board of Directors at exactly this time ?
One would suppose the McCs would now drop the libel case against Dr Amaral pronto, as it's their own legal entity, the Fund Limited, which hid vital evidence for five years; therefore, it is the Fund Limited and its directors who should be taken to task/Court right away, and be made to pay for their neglect in facilitating the search for missing Maddie McCann for five years.

And as Maddie is a Ward of Court, shouldn't the Court do just this?

Judge Hogg, what are you waiting for?
Nice one! Portia of our chambers...

The silence on behalf of the good Guardian has been deafening these past years

Wonder why!

by potato clock 01.12.13 16:25

Full disclosure. Long time lurker, brand new member, first post.

Suspicious of the current state of the findmadeleine.com online store, today I tried to pay £1.00 to 'Madeleine's Fund : Leaving No Stone Unturned' using the account information provided under 'ELECTRONIC BANKING DONATIONS:' on the SUPPORT page of findmadeleine.com.

The payment didn't work, each time I tried my bank returned the message 'Invalid payee account number', yet the details I used matched those provided. Would this mean the account has been closed? Perhaps frozen?

Now I don't advocate giving money to this severely limited company but can anyone else replicate the results, or had a similar experience?

I apologise whole heartedly for any successful 'donations' made as a result of my post.

by Guest 01.12.13 16:34

potato clock. I've just learned that there are such things!

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

Funnily enough, I heard from a friend the other day who said she was going to send one euro (wow!) by bank giro to see if money was still being accepted.

Perhaps there will be others who might like to risk a few pence to see what if anything happens.

by Guest 01.12.13 19:23

I've been thinking of making the test too. However ... for one my name and location would be fully available AND I would have to pay [from the continent] GBP 4.50 for the transaction [of 1GBP]. There's only so much one would do for an experiment ... big grin