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

by Woofer 17.01.14 0:14

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

by **PeterMac** 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.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]" />

by Guest 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.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]" />

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

by Mirage 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 17.01.14 9:57

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

by Mirage 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 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** 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 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 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?

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