WOW A MUST READ -Madeleine clues hidden for five years - Sunday Times Full article now on Page 1

Okeydokey wrote:

KellyLennon wrote:

suzyjohnson wrote:

Searcgforthetruth wrote:The interesting follow up questions to your analysis are:

Why were Gerry and Kate McCann appointed directors in November 2008? Coincidence or did they need to pack the Board in their favour to suppress the PI report?

Of the Board members listed in November 2008 who has since resigned from the Board?

Very good post KellyLennon

I was just thinking the same thing Searchforthetruth. A bit of a coincidence GM and KM joined the board on 12 Nov 2008.

maybe this has something to do with it ...




Are the directors paid?

The directors are not paid as directors of the company. However, they may, if family members, be beneficiaries of the Fund and they may, as is the case with some registered charities, be paid for providing services to the Fund. The Fund has established conflict of interest policies to deal with these situations.



ALWAYS ABOUT THE MONEY 
.

Do you remember Kate was going through all the PJ files looking for clues...so we were told.  Sounds like she would have been eligible for payment if she was doing it on behalf of the Fund.

KellyLennon wrote:

Okeydokey wrote:

KellyLennon wrote:

suzyjohnson wrote:

Searcgforthetruth wrote:The interesting follow up questions to your analysis are:

Why were Gerry and Kate McCann appointed directors in November 2008? Coincidence or did they need to pack the Board in their favour to suppress the PI report?

Of the Board members listed in November 2008 who has since resigned from the Board?

Very good post KellyLennon

I was just thinking the same thing Searchforthetruth. A bit of a coincidence GM and KM joined the board on 12 Nov 2008.

maybe this has something to do with it ...




Are the directors paid?

The directors are not paid as directors of the company. However, they may, if family members, be beneficiaries of the Fund and they may, as is the case with some registered charities, be paid for providing services to the Fund. The Fund has established conflict of interest policies to deal with these situations.



ALWAYS ABOUT THE MONEY 
.

Do you remember Kate was going through all the PJ files looking for clues...so we were told.  Sounds like she would have been eligible for payment if she was doing it on behalf of the Fund.

Kate and Gerry McCann have used the £1million Find Madeleine fund to pay their mortgage, it was revealed
Fund organisers refused to say how much had been spent but confirmed that money donated by the public was made available for the family's living expenses.

n the weeks after Madeleine's disappearance it paid for her parents' campaign trips to Madrid, Amsterdam, Berlin, Washington DC and the Moroccan capital, Rabat.

It was revealed last month that about £300,000 had been spent, and a further £80,000 was paid out this month for a new publicity campaign in Portugal, Spain and Morocco.



more on your mortgage than your missing child...really???

KellyLennon wrote:

Okeydokey wrote:

KellyLennon wrote:

suzyjohnson wrote:

Searcgforthetruth wrote:The interesting follow up questions to your analysis are:

Why were Gerry and Kate McCann appointed directors in November 2008? Coincidence or did they need to pack the Board in their favour to suppress the PI report?

Of the Board members listed in November 2008 who has since resigned from the Board?

Very good post KellyLennon

I was just thinking the same thing Searchforthetruth. A bit of a coincidence GM and KM joined the board on 12 Nov 2008.

maybe this has something to do with it ...




Are the directors paid?

The directors are not paid as directors of the company. However, they may, if family members, be beneficiaries of the Fund and they may, as is the case with some registered charities, be paid for providing services to the Fund. The Fund has established conflict of interest policies to deal with these situations.



ALWAYS ABOUT THE MONEY 
.

Do you remember Kate was going through all the PJ files looking for clues...so we were told.  Sounds like she would have been eligible for payment if she was doing it on behalf of the Fund.

Kate and Gerry McCann have used the £1million Find Madeleine fund to pay their mortgage, it was revealed
Fund organisers refused to say how much had been spent but confirmed that money donated by the public was made available for the family's living expenses.

n the weeks after Madeleine's disappearance it paid for her parents' campaign trips to Madrid, Amsterdam, Berlin, Washington DC and the Moroccan capital, Rabat.

It was revealed last month that about £300,000 had been spent, and a further £80,000 was paid out this month for a new publicity campaign in Portugal, Spain and Morocco.



more on your mortgage than your missing child...really???

candyfloss wrote:Kelly, can I ask when you post from articles you could include links please.

Very good post KellyLennon

I was just thinking the same thing Searchforthetruth. A bit of a coincidence GM and KM joined the board on 12 Nov 2008.

maybe this has something to do with it ...




Are the directors paid?

The directors are not paid as directors of the company. However, they may, if family members, be beneficiaries of the Fund and they may, as is the case with some registered charities, be paid for providing services to the Fund. The Fund has established conflict of interest policies to deal with these situations.

sofa wrote:Just went on Katie Hopkins twitter and she is saying she is reading the Truth of the lie, don't particularly like her but she cracked me on that one!

Searcher wrote:

Very good post KellyLennon

I was just thinking the same thing Searchforthetruth. A bit of a coincidence GM and KM joined the board on 12 Nov 2008.

maybe this has something to do with it ...




Are the directors paid?

The directors are not paid as directors of the company. However, they may, if family members, be beneficiaries of the Fund and they may, as is the case with some registered charities, be paid for providing services to the Fund. The Fund has established conflict of interest policies to deal with these situations.

If the "Fund" is a limited company it will not be subject to the same checks and balances as a registered charitable trust.  I don't know enough about constitution of the company - it may be a charitable company for instance - but if it's not a registered UK charity it won't have the same restrictions on how money is paid out, how money is used in terms of charitable aims and objectives.

sallypelt wrote:

Pennypennypenny wrote:Why did they employ PI's in the first place. What were they hoping to achieve?

Pennypenny, I will copy and paste the information here, so anyone who has never seen it, can read it themselves. They will see Clarence Mitchell's feable excuse as to why Kennedy employed PIs initially.

Start:

The following text is an unredacted version retrieved from Google cache, with redacted text in red identifying a former undercover police officer who worked with MI5. See other hosts of this via Google on "Henri Exton."

September 25, 2009

Mark Hollingsworth Investigates The McCann Files  

Disillusioned with the Portuguese police, Gerry and Kate McCann turned to private detectives to find their missing daughter. Instead the efforts of the private eyes served only to scare off witnesses, waste funds and raise false hopes. Mark Hollingsworth investigates the investigators.

by Mark Hollingsworth

It was billed as a ‘significant development’ in the exhaustive search for Madeleine McCann. At a recent dramatic press conference in London, the lead private investigator David Edgar, a retired Cheshire detective inspector, brandished an E-FIT image of an Australian woman, described her as ‘a bit of a Victoria Beckham lookalike’, and appealed for help in tracing her. The woman was seen ‘looking agitated’ outside a restaurant in Barcelona three days after Madeleine’s disappearance. ‘It is a strong lead’, said Edgar, wearing a pin-stripe suit in front of a bank of cameras and microphones. ‘Madeleine could have been in Barcelona by that point. The fact the conversation took place near the marina could be significant.’

But within days reporters discovered that the private detectives had failed to make the most basic enquiries before announcing their potential breakthrough. Members of Edgar’s team who visited Barcelona had failed to speak to anyone working at the restaurant near where the agitated woman was seen that night, neglected to ask if the mystery woman had been filmed on CCTV cameras and knew nothing about the arrival of an Australian luxury yacht just after Madeleine vanished.

The apparent flaws in this latest development were another salutary lesson for Kate and Gerry McCann, who have relied on private investigators after the Portuguese police spent more time falsely suspecting the parents than searching for their daughter. For their relations with private detectives have been frustrating, unhappy and controversial ever since their daughter’s disappearance in May 2007.

The search has been overseen by the millionaire business Brian Kennedy, 49, who set up Madeleine’s Fund: Leaving No Stone Unturned, which aimed ‘to procure that Madeleine’s abduction is thoroughly investigated’. A straight-talking, tough, burly self-made entrepreneur and rugby fanatic, he grew up in a council flat near Tynecastle in Scotland and was brought up as a Jehovah’s Witness. He started his working life as a window cleaner and by 2007 had acquired a £350 million fortune from double-glazing and home-improvement ventures. Kennedy was outraged by the police insinuations against the McCanns and, though a stranger, worked tirelessly on their behalf. ‘His motivation was sincere,’ said someone who worked closely with him. ‘He was appalled by the Portuguese police, but he also had visions of flying in by helicopter to rescue Madeleine.’

Kennedy commissioned private detectives to conduct an investigation parallel to the one run by the Portuguese police. But his choice showed how dangerous it is when powerful and wealthy businessmen try to play detective. In September 2007, he hired Metodo 3, an agency based in Barcelona, on a six-month contract and paid it an estimated £50,000 a month. Metodo 3 was hired because of Spain’s ‘language and cultural connection’ with Portugal. ‘If we’d had big-booted Brits or, heaven forbid, Americans, we would have had doors slammed in our faces’ said Clarence Mitchell, spokesperson for the McCann’s at the time. ‘And it’s quite likely that we could have been charged with hindering the investigation as technically it’s illegal in Portugal to undertake a secondary investigation.

The agency had 35 investigators working on the case in Britain, France, Spain, Portugal and Morocco. A hotline was set up for the public to report sightings and suspicions, and the search focussed on Morocco. But the investigation was dogged by over-confidence and braggadocio. ‘We know who took Madeleine and hope she will be home by Christmas,’ boasted Metodo 3’s flamboyant boss Francisco Marco. But no Madeleine materialised and their contract was not renewed.

Until now, few details have emerged about the private investigation during those crucial early months, but an investigation by ES shows that key mistakes were made, which in turn made later enquiries far more challenging.

ES has spoken to several sources close to the private investigations that took place in the first year and discovered that:

* The involvement of Brian Kennedy and his son Patrick in the operation was counter-productive, notably when they were questioned by the local police for acting suspiciously while attempting a 24-hour ‘stake out’.

* The relationship between Metodo 3 and the Portuguese police had completely broken down.

* Key witnesses were questioned far too aggressively, so much so that some of them later refused to talk to the police.

* Many of the investigators had little experience of the required painstaking forensic detective work.

By April 2008, nearing the first anniversary of the disappearance, Kennedy and the McCanns were desperate. And so when Henri Exton, a former undercover police officer who worked on MI5 operations, and Kevin Halligen, a smooth-talking Irishman who claimed to have worked for covert British government intelligence agency GCHQ, walked through the door, their timing was perfect. Their sales pitch was classic James Bond spook-talk: everything had to be ‘top secret’ and ‘on a need to know basis’. The operation would involve 24-hour alert systems, undercover units, satellite imagery and round-the-clock surveillance teams that would fly in at short notice. This sounded very exciting but, as one source close to the investigation told ES, it was also very expensive and ultimately unsuccessful. ‘The real job at hand was old-fashioned, tedious, forensic police work rather than these boy’s own, glory boy antic,’ he said.

But Kennedy was impressed by the license-to-spy presentation and Exton and Halligen were hire for a fee of £100,000 per month plus expenses. Ostensibly, the contract was with Halligen’s UK security company, Red Defence International Ltd, and an office was set up in Jermyn Street, in St James’s. Only a tiny group of employees did the painstaking investigative work of dealing with thousands of emails and phone calls. Instead, resources were channelled into undercover operations in paedophile rings and among gypsies throughout Europe, encouraged by Kennedy. A five-man surveillance team was dispatched in Portugal, overseen by the experienced Exton, for six weeks.

Born in Belgium in 1951, Exton had been a highly effective undercover officer for the Manchester police. A maverick and dynamic figure, he successfully infiltrated gangs of football hooligans in the 1980’s. While not popular among his colleagues, in 1991 he was seconded to work on MI5 undercover operations against drug dealers, gangsters and terrorists, and was later awarded the Queen’s Police Medal for ‘outstanding bravery’. By all accounts, the charismatic Exton was a dedicated officer. But in November 2002, the stress appeared to have overcome his judgement when he was arrested for shoplifting.

While working on an MI5 surveillance, Exton was caught leaving a tax-free shopping area at Manchester airport with a bottle of perfume he had not paid for. The police were called and he was given the option of the offence being dealt with under caution or to face prosecution. He chose a police caution and so in effect admitted his guilt. Exton was sacked, but was furious about the way he had been treated and threatened to sue MI5. He later set up his own consulting company and moved to Bury in Lancashire.

While Exton, however flawed, was the genuine article as an investigator, Halligen was a very different character. Born in Dublin in 1961, he has been described as a ‘Walter Mitty figure’. He used false names to collect prospective clients at airports in order to preserve secrecy, and he called himself ‘Kevin’ or ‘Richard’ or ‘Patrick’ at different times to describe himself to business contacts. There appears to be no reason for all this subterfuge except that he thought this was what agents did. A conspiracy theorist and lover of the secret world, he is obsessed by surveillance gadgets and even installed a covert camera to spy on his own employees. He claimed to have worked for GCHQ, but in fact he was employed by the Atomic Energy Authority (AEA) as head of defence systems in the rather less glamorous field of new information technology, researching the use of ‘special batteries’. He told former colleagues and potential girlfriends that he used to work for MI5, MI6 and the CIA. He also claimed that he was nearly kidnapped by the IRA, was involved in the first Gulf War and had been a freefall parachutist.

Very little of this is true. What is true is that Halligen has a degree in electronics, worked on the fringes of the intelligence community while at AEA and does understand government communications. He could also be an astonishingly persuasive, engaging and charming individual. Strikingly self-confident and articulate, he could be generous and clubbable. ‘He was very good company but only when it suited him’ says one friend. He kept people in compartments.’

After leaving the AEA, Halligen set up Red Defence International Ltd as an international security and political risk company, advising clients on the risks involved in investing and doing business in unstable, war-torn and corrupt countries. He worked closely with political risk companies and was a persuasive advocate of IT security. In 2006, he struck gold when hired by Trafigura, the Dutch commodities trading company. Executives were imprisoned in the Ivory Coast after toxic waste was dumped in landfills near its biggest city Abidjan. Trafigura was blamed and hired Red Defence International at vast expense to help with the negotiations to release its executives. A Falcon business jet was rented for several months during the operation and it was Halligen’s first taste of the good life. The case only ended when Trafigura paid $197 million to the government of the Ivory Coast to secure the release of the prisoners.

Halligen made a fortune from Trafigura and was suddenly flying everywhere first-class, staying at the Lansborough and Stafford hotels in London and The Willard hotel in Washington DC for months at a time. In 2007 he set up Oakley International Group and registered at the offices of the prestigious law firm Patton Boggs, in Washington DC, as an international security company. He was now strutting the stage as a self-proclaimed international spy expert and joined the Special Forces Club in Knightsbridge, where he met Exton.

During the Madeleine investigation, Halligen spent vast amounts of time in the HeyJo bar in the basement of the Abracadabra Club near his Jermyn Street office. Armed with a clutch of unregistered mobile phones and a Blackberry, the bar was in effect his office. ‘He was there virtually the whole day,’ a former colleague told ES. ‘He had an amazing tolerance for alcohol and a prodigious memory and so occasionally he would have amazing bursts of intelligence, lucidity and insights. They were very rare but they did happen.’

When not imbibing in St James’s, Halligen was in the United States, trying to drum up investors for Oakley International. On 15 August 2008, at the height of the McCann investigation crisis, he persuaded Andre Hollis, a former US Drug enforcement agency official, to write out an $80,000 cheque to Oakley in return for a ten per cent share-holding. The money was then transferred into the private accounts of Halligen and his girlfriend Shirin Trachiotis to finance a holiday in Italy, according to Hollis. In a $6 million lawsuit filed in Fairfax County, Virginia, Hollis alleges that Halligen ‘received monies for Oakley’s services rendered and deposited the same into his personal accounts’ and ‘repeatedly and systematically depleted funds from Oakley’s bank accounts for inappropriate personal expenses’.

Hollis was not the only victim. Mark Aspinall, a respected lawyer who worked closely with Halligen, invested £500,000 in Oakley and lost the lot. Earlier this year he filed a lawsuit in Washington DC against Halligen claiming $1.4 million in damages. The finances of Oakley International are in chaos and numerous employees, specialist consultants and contractors have not been paid. Some of them now face financial ruin.

Meanwhile, Exton was running the surveillance teams in Portugal and often paying his operatives upfront, so would occasionally be out-of-pocket because Halligen had not transferred funds. Exton genuinely believed that progress was being made and substantial and credible reports on child trafficking were submitted. But by mid-August 2008, Kennedy and Gerry McCann were increasingly concerned by an absence of details of how the money was being spent. At one meeting, Halligen was asked how many men constituted a surveillance team and he produced a piece of paper on which he wrote ‘between one and ten’. But he then refused to say how many were working and how much they were being paid.

While Kennedy and Gerry McCann accepted that the mission was extremely difficult and some secrecy was necessary, Halligen was charging very high rates and expenses. And eyebrows were raised when all the money was paid to Oakley International, solely owned and managed by Halligen. One invoice, seen by ES, shows that for ‘accrued expenses to May 5, 2008’ (just one month into the contract), Oakley charged $74,155. The ‘point of contact’ was Halligen who provided a UK mobile telephone number.

While Kennedy was ready to accept Halligen at face value, Gerry McCann ­ sharp, focused and intelligent ­ was more sceptical. The contract with Oakley International and Halligen was terminated by the end of September 2008, after £500,000-plus expenses had been spent.

For the McCanns it was a bitter experience, Exton has returned to Cheshire and, like so many people, is owed money by Halligen. As for Halligen, he has gone into hiding, leaving a trail of debt and numerous former business associates and creditors looking for him. He was last seen in January of this year in Rome, drinking and spending prodigiously at the Hilton Cavalieri and Excelsior hotels. He is now believed by private investigators, who have been searching for him to serve papers on behalf of creditors, to be in the UK and watching his back. Meanwhile, in the eye of the storm, the McCanns continue the search for their lost daughter.


END

irishdub wrote:Not one British newspaper is leading with this story tomorrow. Both BBC's News channel and website have not carried this story. Both Sky News's channel and website have also still not carried this story. The police have said today that this new development is not an issue. As I said earlier, it looks this development is losing traction fast in the media.

Miraflores wrote:And now the 48 questions have appeared on Mumsnet! It's certainly waking people up. Mind you, I expect that post will get whooshed soon.

KellyLennon wrote:

irishdub wrote:Not one British newspaper is leading with this story tomorrow. Both BBC's News channel and website have not carried this story. Both Sky News's channel and website have also still not carried this story. The police have said today that this new development is not an issue. As I said earlier, it looks this development is losing traction fast in the media.

noticed this aswell, doesnt even seem to be on Dm Online anymore atall

ProfMoriarty wrote:Point is, the whole thing has taken a direction neither the McCanns nor SY could have predicted or would have wanted when they began the CW carry-on. They may have thought the gag on the PIs would have kept the origin of the 'new evidence' out of the public eye. If they thought about it at all. The only purpose of the CW show was to generate a buzz around the idea of abduction while the libel case was ongoing in Portugal. From that point of view, job done. The historic British police handling of the matter couldn't afford Amaral's version of events not to be rendered out of order. He must be found guilty of libel. The quickest route to that is to point to live investigations muttering on about gypsies, robbers, paedos and Roma abductors. So great was the need to restore the abductor - and all that 'snatched' gibberish in the papers - that they tiptoed over to the riskiest piece of evidence of all - the piece that only came to light after the McCanns had fled Portugal as arguidos and G McCann was spotted walking across the airport tarmac. A sighting. The only credible one on the whole night. But the one which was so intimately connected to G McCann himself that he and his wife suppressed all reference to it where possible, downgraded its status, buried the efits created on the back of it.
And then ... along comes the ST Insight Team - who could have predicted that? - and the whole sorry mess is planted firmly back in the public press, root and branch. Inconsistent statements from the McCanns, from their Tapas mates, the sleep pattern issue, the theory of 'woke and wandered' ... and the dreadful idea that the child died on that night. 
Why isn't it in the other papers or media outlets? Because the McCanns sued everyone for far less than the ST printed on Sunday.
You'll find the whole thing vanishes like a stone down a well from the British media now. No more kidnapped Roma kids bringing bizarre 'new hope' to Rothley.
The real investigation - if you can even believe there is one - is the one in Portugal, not Britain. That's the one to watch and I hope we get bulletins on it on this splendid site.

KellyLennon wrote:

irishdub wrote:Not one British newspaper is leading with this story tomorrow. Both BBC's News channel and website have not carried this story. Both Sky News's channel and website have also still not carried this story. The police have said today that this new development is not an issue. As I said earlier, it looks this development is losing traction fast in the media.

noticed this aswell, doesnt even seem to be on Dm Online anymore atall

irishdub wrote:Not one British newspaper is leading with this story tomorrow. Both BBC's News channel and website have not carried this story. Both Sky News's channel and website have also still not carried this story. The police have said today that this new development is not an issue. As I said earlier, it looks like this new development is losing traction fast in the media.

worriedmum wrote:

irishdub wrote:

worriedmum wrote:

thetruthbeknown wrote:

irishdub wrote:New here.

I've read some posts on this thread on the lines of Murdoch changing his attitude or is this revenge for Leveson.
So tell me this then, why didn't this story make the Sky News website today or yesterday?
Why was this story not a headline on the Sky News channel today or yesterday, not even a minor story?
Why did this story not make the front or inside pages of the Sun in Britain today?

Also hasn't the Dailystar basically today reported that the Police in Britain are not treating this new development as important yet some posters claim Redwood played a blinder on Crimewatch?

Why hasn't the national broadcaster in Britain not even reported this,  afterall wasn't it the British national broadcaster, the BBC that aired the recent McCann Crimewatch programme?

I think there has been a little too much hysteria in social media regarding this development, from what I can see alot of the same people tweeting the same things over and over again on twitter.

I'm not sure where I stand on the whole affair, some things just don't seem plausible or convincing enough, sometimes I have doubts, other times more sure but at the same time some posts and tweets just have an air of too much conspiratorial looniness to them.

Anyway, that's my tuppence worth. I do enjoy this thread though.

And your view on PJ reopening their investigation..even though saying previously that it would be 'unlikely' to be considered?

''I think there has been a little too much hysteria in social media regarding this development, from what I can see alot of the same people tweeting the same things over and over again on twitter...too much conspiratorial looniness..''

Do please clarify for me, are you saying that the Sunday Times have got something wrong? Or that the decision to suppress what has been and is now regarded as vital evidence by Scotland Yard is a conspiracy?

But anyway, putting aside all these inconvenient inconsistencies, just so glad you are enjoying the thread. Thanks for your er, 'tuppence-worth'  -now  where have I heard that before...........

I'm not saying the Sunday Times got something wrong. It appears from said article that certain efits were surpressed, ones that now appear in 2013 to be crucially important to the case. But regarding the comments from the police today and lack of media coverage (yes there was some) I think there may have been too much social media hysteria in the last 24hrs to this development.  Again judging by the police and media response.

Regarding my use of the word conspiracy, it was used in general and not specifically on this point. Some posts and tweets sometimes do read as conspiratorial to me.

so what do YOU think , irishdub,about the suppression of the file with the e-fits, and the threat of legal action against the investigator if the contents were ever made known?