Re: Findmadeleine website update 24th October 2013 - They are STILL promoting the 'Tannerman' sighting at 9.15pm, 10 days after Crimewatch

by aquila on 30.10.13 15:09

tigger wrote:17:10:09
dantezebu wrote:Tannerman still there..21:15
I don't understand it, if they did an update on 24th why not change it then?
But you can still donate
Please do not miss the £ 100,00 donate button!

Donatie Katie....can't take the donate button away just in case the police don't come up with the answers they are looking for.

by jeanmonroe on 30.10.13 15:14

tigger wrote:17:10:09
dantezebu wrote:Tannerman still there..21:15
I don't understand it, if they did an update on 24th why not change it then?
But you can still donate
Please do not miss the £ 100,00 donate button!

Yeah. Donate to find a dead, as we've been told, supposedly, Madeleine.

McCanns want your dosh for a live or even a dead Madeleine!

Got to 'pay' pinky somehow!

by aquila on 30.10.13 15:18

jeanmonroe wrote:
tigger wrote:17:10:09
dantezebu wrote:Tannerman still there..21:15
I don't understand it, if they did an update on 24th why not change it then?
But you can still donate
Please do not miss the £ 100,00 donate button!
Yeah. Donate to find a dead, as we've been told, supposedly, Madeleine.

McCanns want your dosh for a live or even a dead Madeleine!

Why do the McCanns need donations anyhow? They have the 'world's finest' police searching for their daughter. The Portuguese have re-opened the case. The press have been suitably gagged and will only print nicey nicey stuff on the whole. The Fund has scaled down its 'search' fees and has no employees.

So can anyone tell me why the McCanns need a Fund now? I'm open to explanation.

by aquila on 30.10.13 15:29

What is the ongoing campaign that causes the Fund to remain open? What is the campaign?

What is the explanation for keeping a sort of skeleton 'reserve' of translators and a telephone line when Scotland Yard AND the Portuguese police are on the case?

Why have the McCanns not removed their own contact telephone numbers and email details etc from their website and replaced them with only Scotland Yard's details?

Who looks after the website?

by Angelique on 30.10.13 15:57

oakeso wrote:They weren't taking any chances with the public spelling her name, contrary to what Kate says about never shortening her name they were accepting "MADDIE" texts for £1

Imagine if even half of the people who "hit the site" at its inception had donated £1.00 !

by **PeterMac** on 28.11.13 13:41

Thursday 28/Nov
Tannerman picture STILL THERE. (Do they not believe Redwood ?)
On-line store Still down. (Don't they want any more money ?)

Perhaps they are supporters of "Lost Profits"

by aiyoyo on 28.11.13 14:54

Maybe they're revamping the website to put up stock of "Find Madeleine" christmas products?

For eg: mug with face of fragrant Kate or yellow engraved "pray for the mccannns" wrist bands ?

by Guest on 28.11.13 17:10

https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t6793p40-twitter#204278

There's more suggested McCann merchandise on this link.

Friedrich Nietzsche · by Daisy on 28.11.13 17:44

They ought to get together with David Icke's marketers. He peddles an awesome range of merchandise. yes

Example:

http://www.cafepress.com/+david-icke+gifts

by russiandoll on 16.01.14 19:50

on the official site, bold mine. Is this what Redwood said on CW? The image MAY represent an OC guest with his child? I thought Redwood used the words ALMOST CERTAIN [as always, will check !]

Unidentified People of Interest to the Inquiry
Contact Us

Have you seen these men? Do you know who they might be?

These two pictures show a man carrying a child away from the family's apartment. This sighting was seen by a witness at 21:15 on the evening of Thursday, May 3rd, 2007.
Based or more recent information, the Metropolitan Police now believe this man may represent a guest at the Ocean Club who was carrying his daughter back to their apartment. However as it is not possible to be certain that these two men are actually the same person, if you have seen this man in the pictures or suspect who it may be, please contact the Metropolitan Police's OPERATION GRANGE on 0207 321 9251 (0044 207 321 9251 from outside the UK) or Operation.Grange@met.pnn.police.uk and/or the Find Madeleine team on +44 845 838 4699 or investigation@findmadeleine.com.

The picture shows a man that was seen several times by different witnesses during the days leading up to Madeleine's abduction on May 3rd 2007. He was described as ugly with pock-marked skin and was said to be watching the family's apartment intently.
If either of these men appear familiar to you in some way, please contact our investigation team as soon as possible.

YES INDEED quote Andy R : we are ALMOST CERTAIN that this sighting is not the abductor.

by Woofer on 17.01.14 0:14

"Contact our investigation team" ........ eh? They`re `avin a larf aren`t they laughat

by **PeterMac** on 17.01.14 8:52

95 days since Crime Watch
95 days since DCI Redwood told the world that Tannerman had been traced, identified, interviewed, photographed, and eliminated
3 MONTHS LATER
The McCanns are Still proselytising Tannerman.

" />

by Guest on 17.01.14 8:58

PeterMac wrote:95 days since Crime Watch
95 days since DCI Redwood told the world that Tannerman had been traced, identified, interviewed, photographed, and eliminated
3 MONTHS LATER
The McCanns are Still proselytising Tannerman.

" />

But surely even their most ardent supporters would want an explaination for this.

by Mirage on 17.01.14 9:53

I keep asking why the McCanns are begging the public for money.What is the rationale?

This Not-For-Profit Limited Company showed their fund accounts as @ 31st March 2013 standing at £416,177.

The McCanns are currently spending, and have spent, eye-watering amounts of money on suing people who question their story using public donations to do so.

The McCanns carry the Metropolitan Police logo on their website. They again carry the official e-fits issued by the MET, recently re-instated after an unexplained absence. Yet they also contradict DCI Andy Redwood and challenge his authority by continuing to appeal for information on their Home page about a man he has eliminated from the investigation. So effectively three investigations are going on simultaneously: a Portuguese one, a British one plus the McCanns' ongoing investigation into their own daughter's disappearance. Is there a parallel for this in the history of British policing?

This site is concerned not only with the mystery of the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, it seems it is also having to concern itself with the mystery of why the McCanns are the only people in Britain who can publicly contradict the Metropolitan Police with no discernible consequences. They appear to go completely unchallenged whilst causing grave confusion in a major police investigation that is the focus of the world.

Is this state of affairs supposed to rekindle confidence in the Metropolitan police post Plebgate?

by notlongnow on 17.01.14 9:57

When was the last time anyone was paid to search for Maddie?

by Mirage on 17.01.14 10:04

notlongnow wrote:When was the last time anyone was paid to search for Maddie?

I deliberately didn't address that issue in my post for purposes of clarity, notiongnow, but I certainly thought about it throughout. As far as I can discern there is no breakdown of outgoings in the accounts. The last I recall regarding this situation was someone expressing the hope that Enid O'Dowd might give her opinion. The accounts are very basic and that is of concern for a multitude of reasons.

by Mirage on 17.01.14 10:21

Further to my earlier post, some good news everyone. Here it is:

Britain's most senior policeman has told Sky News he was "embarrassed" by the Plebgate affair but has insisted the public can have faith that alleged wrongdoing by officers is investigated properly. Sky's Ian Woods has been speaking to the Met Commissioner, Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe.

Can we take it that the MET are fed up with being embarrassed? If so, what better time for them to remove any further potential for embarrassment by telling the McCanns to ditch Tannerman.

I, for one, would start the long walk back to having some respect for the MET if they put their stamp of authority on the investigation and put the McCanns in their place.

by **PeterMac** on 17.01.14 10:29

Mirage wrote:
Can we take it that the MET are fed up with being embarrassed? If so, what better time for them to remove any further potential for embarrassment by telling the McCanns to ditch Tannerman.
I, for one, would start the long walk back to having some respect for the MET if they put their stamp of authority on the investigation and put the McCanns in their place.

Perhaps that really is part of the long term strategy.
Everyone now knows that the McCanns and Mitchell are clearly Perverting the Course of Justice.
Tannerman's continued existence on their website, which has recently been updated, demonstrates this.
They cannot get out of that.

by aiyoyo on 17.01.14 11:03

Mirage wrote:
notlongnow wrote:When was the last time anyone was paid to search for Maddie?

I deliberately didn't address that issue in my post for purposes of clarity, notiongnow, but I certainly thought about it throughout. As far as I can discern there is no breakdown of outgoings in the accounts. The last I recall regarding this situation was someone expressing the hope that Enid O'Dowd might give her opinion. The accounts are very basic and that is of concern for a multitude of reasons.

That's precisely the problem - the latest accounts being so basic make it difficult to analyse.
Every (dubious) expenditure needing to avoid scrutiny is obscured under one legit heading showing as one big lump sum without breakdowns.
There's no way to analyse something like that without internal access to the accounting books.

I imagine Auditors would cooperate within legit limits.
Bearing in mind one of the Fund's objectives being : "To provide support, including financial assistance, to Madeleine's family", and provided the Fund operates within guidelines of pte ltd governance, auditors would not question spendings or or say if auditors were instructed to list certain spendings under certain headings I believe auditors would not be too bothered how the spendings are accounted so long as the books balanced.

The concerns about the fund is not legally valid (morally valid, yes) until the Fund legitimacy becomes a law contentious issue then the criminality of the spendings/accounts would come under official investigations by the law.

by bobby18 on 17.01.14 13:18

Mirage wrote:Further to my earlier post, some good news everyone. Here it is:

Britain's most senior policeman has told Sky News he was "embarrassed" by the Plebgate affair but has insisted the public can have faith that alleged wrongdoing by officers is investigated properly. Sky's Ian Woods has been speaking to the Met Commissioner, Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe.

Can we take it that the MET are fed up with being embarrassed? If so, what better time for them to remove any further potential for embarrassment by telling the McCanns to ditch Tannerman.

I, for one, would start the long walk back to having some respect for the MET if they put their stamp of authority on the investigation and put the McCanns in their place.

It is that sense of embarrassment and lack of trust in the public's eyes, which lends me to believe that they HAVE to see true justice done in this case. No cover-up, no whitewash purely for the fact that they have no 'credit in the bank' for any of these to be sustained.

There can only be a finite amount of occasions that any ethical failure can be blamed on 'rogue officers'. Are the McCann's worth that risk and, if so, why?