Re: Webmaster told not to remove Tannerman

by jeanmonroe 08.12.13 13:00

ChillyHeat wrote:Policeman's son Calum MacRae, 18, is responsible for the campaign's website and distribution network for Madeleine's campaign from the unlikely location of the Loch Broom garage, on a windswept industrial estate on the outskirts of Ullapool, Wester Ross.

Could it be him ?

WHO 'received' the £37,000 for the 're-designed' Findmadeleine web site?

by SixMillionQuid 08.12.13 13:01

ChillyHeat wrote:Policeman's son Calum MacRae, 18, is responsible for the campaign's website and distribution network for Madeleine's campaign from the unlikely location of the Loch Broom garage, on a windswept industrial estate on the outskirts of Ullapool, Wester Ross.

Could it be him ?

Maybe. I would imagine the McCanns would place their trust in only a few[color:f6e4=000000], [color:f6e4=000000]select[color:f6e4=000000], li[color:f6e4=000000]ke-minded people.

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

Calum is already working on new ventures after spotting a market in missing-person websites. Last week he contacted the family of missing schoolgirl Rosemary Edwards, from Hampshire, after her father made an emotional TV appeal. He said: "I don't think we should be making money out of it, but I would love to do more stuff like this. We phoned up to see if they wanted a website for that missing girl, but they haven't called back."

[color:f6e4=000000][color:f6e4=000000]Oh the irony! big grin

by chillyheat 08.12.13 13:08

Calum, who has designed websites "since he was 10" is paid out of the global donations to the fund, which won't be contributing to the McCanns' legal costs.

He refused to be drawn on how much his team of six are paid, and the Sunday Herald's repeated calls to the fund's spokeswoman, Esther McVey, were not returned. He added: "I can't tell you that, it's not much honestly. We are just covering our costs. You would need to speak to the fund about that."

What a dreadful scam....

by Ashwarya 08.12.13 13:14

Jontait wrote:It does open a can of worms, doesn't it? I woke this morning to a VERY angry email from the webmaster, berating me for posting our correspondence online.

Well done to you - terrific use of Twitter. Has "Webmaster" actually said anywhere that Operation Grange asked her to keep Tannerman on the site? I may have missed that so apologies if so.

The innocent crèche father must be hopping mad at being kept under suspicion like this when Scotland Yard have publicly cleared him. angry2

by Bishop Brennan 08.12.13 13:22

And Mr Redwood really could not have been clearer on the Dutch version of Crimewatch. After the 'reconstruction', the presenter spoke to Redwood and said that for over 6 years the man seen at 9:15 had been the 'main suspect'. Redwood's reply:

"Our investigation has shown that almost certainly that man is not Madeleine's abductor."

Unlike on the UK version, he did not mention 'crecheman' - but limited himself to the above statement.

Full link available for those interested. [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

And from the MET's own website:

"We believe we have identified the man who was seen by Jane Tanner carrying a child at about 21.15 near the apartment G5A"

by Guest 08.12.13 13:57

ChillyHeat wrote:Policeman's son Calum MacRae, 18, is responsible for the campaign's website and distribution network for Madeleine's campaign from the unlikely location of the Loch Broom garage, on a windswept industrial estate on the outskirts of Ullapool, Wester Ross.

Could it be him ?

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Company Status Financial Statements too old ???

Hmm. Ullapool again...

by margaret 08.12.13 14:47

E

mysterion wrote:TM are running the show. SY are no more than agents. PJ need to be brought into line. That is the impression I get.

Don't be daft, how can the Mccanns be running anything when their abductor's been ruled out by SY?

by Woofer 08.12.13 14:50

Dee Coy wrote:
ChillyHeat wrote:Policeman's son Calum MacRae, 18, is responsible for the campaign's website and distribution network for Madeleine's campaign from the unlikely location of the Loch Broom garage, on a windswept industrial estate on the outskirts of Ullapool, Wester Ross.

Could it be him ?

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Company Status Financial Statements too old ???
Hmm. Ullapool again...

Wasn`t Calum one of Auntie Phil`s pupils at the Ullapool school?

by Guest 08.12.13 15:48

Woofer wrote: Wasn`t Calum one of Auntie Phil`s pupils at the Ullapool school?

***
That's how I remember it too.

by canada12 08.12.13 15:49

WHOIS search results for: FINDMADELEINE.COM (Registered)

Is this your domain?	GO
Add hosting, email and more.

Want to buy this domain?	GO
Get it with our Domain Buy service.

Domain Name: FINDMADELEINE.COM
Registry Domain ID: 967266690_DOMAIN_COM-VRSN
Registrar WHOIS Server: whois.godaddy.com
Registrar URL: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Update Date: 2013-05-03 08:54:50
Creation Date: 2007-05-10 03:40:00
Registrar Registration Expiration Date: 2015-05-10 03:40:00
Registrar: GoDaddy.com, LLC
Registrar IANA ID: 146
Registrar Abuse Contact Email: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Registrar Abuse Contact Phone: +1.480-624-2505
Domain Status: clientTransferProhibited
Domain Status: clientUpdateProhibited
Domain Status: clientRenewProhibited
Domain Status: clientDeleteProhibited
Registry Registrant ID:
Registrant Name: Registration Private
Registrant Organization: Domains By Proxy, LLC
Registrant Street: DomainsByProxy.com
Registrant Street: 14747 N Northsight Blvd Suite 111, PMB 309
Registrant City: Scottsdale
Registrant State/Province: Arizona
Registrant Postal Code: 85260
Registrant Country: United States
Registrant Phone: (480) 624-2599
Registrant Phone Ext:
Registrant Fax: (480) 624-2598
Registrant Fax Ext:
Registrant Email: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Registry Admin ID:
Admin Name: Registration Private
Admin Organization: Domains By Proxy, LLC
Admin Street: DomainsByProxy.com
Admin Street: 14747 N Northsight Blvd Suite 111, PMB 309
Admin City: Scottsdale
Admin State/Province: Arizona
Admin Postal Code: 85260
Admin Country: United States
Admin Phone: (480) 624-2599
Admin Phone Ext:
Admin Fax: (480) 624-2598
Admin Fax Ext:
Admin Email: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Registry Tech ID:
Tech Name: Registration Private
Tech Organization: Domains By Proxy, LLC
Tech Street: DomainsByProxy.com
Tech Street: 14747 N Northsight Blvd Suite 111, PMB 309
Tech City: Scottsdale
Tech State/Province: Arizona
Tech Postal Code: 85260
Tech Country: United States
Tech Phone: (480) 624-2599
Tech Phone Ext:
Tech Fax: (480) 624-2598
Tech Fax Ext:
Tech Email: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Name Server: PDNS03.DOMAINCONTROL.COM
Name Server: PDNS04.DOMAINCONTROL.COM
DNSSEC: unsigned
URL of the ICANN WHOIS Data Problem Reporting System: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Last update of WHOIS database: 2013-12-8T15:00:00Z

They've certainly gone to great lengths to protect their privacy, making sure their registration and admin contact info is kept anonymous.

by chillyheat 08.12.13 15:53

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

Director at miPass

Ullapool High School

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

Hmm... thinking

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

by aiyoyo 08.12.13 16:02

tiny wrote:You seriously don't believe what the fm webmaster said,why on earth would grange ask them to keep it there IF they are
no longer looking for him.

Why not?

As he said he's not privy to info from Grange Team. Why should he?
And I believe neither would his paymaster, the Mccanns, be privy to it.
The Police will do what they do and for all we know Mccanns found out about Crecheman just like us ie through the media.

All he did was follow his paymaster's instructions.
I should think it's not his position to question the Mccanns what they want or don't want on their website.

Since Kate & Gerrry and relative forms half of the Trustees/Directors of the Fund, the pertinent question might be: are the rest of the independent (?) Trustees agreeable to this decision not to remove Tannerman in spite of Redwood's announcement?

If there's such thing as FOI on Pte Ltd Company, some questions could be posed to the Independent Directors. After all they're collectively responsible for info for public consumption on the "FindMadeleine" website and should there be ambiguity on any of the info that can mislead the public they're all answerable.

by tiny 08.12.13 16:15

aiyoyo wrote:
tiny wrote:You seriously don't believe what the fm webmaster said,why on earth would grange ask them to keep it there IF they are
no longer looking for him.
Why not?

As he said he's not privy to info from Grange Team. Why should he?
And I believe neither would his paymaster, the Mccanns, be privy to it.
The Police will do what they do and for all we know Mccanns found out about Crecheman just like us ie through the media.

All he did was follow his paymaster's instructions.
I should think it's not his position to question the Mccanns what they want or don't want on their website.

Since Kate & Gerrry and relative forms half of the Trustees/Directors of the Fund, the pertinent question might be: are the rest of the independent (?) Trustees agreeable to this decision not to remove Tannerman in spite of Redwood's announcement?
They are all collectively responsible for info on the "FindMadeleine" website.

so you believe grange ask them to keep it there,although he has been eliminated,ok

by aiyoyo 08.12.13 16:18

tiny wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:
tiny wrote:You seriously don't believe what the fm webmaster said,why on earth would grange ask them to keep it there IF they are
no longer looking for him.
Why not?

As he said he's not privy to info from Grange Team. Why should he?
And I believe neither would his paymaster, the Mccanns, be privy to it.
The Police will do what they do and for all we know Mccanns found out about Crecheman just like us ie through the media.

All he did was follow his paymaster's instructions.
I should think it's not his position to question the Mccanns what they want or don't want on their website.

Since Kate & Gerrry and relative forms half of the Trustees/Directors of the Fund, the pertinent question might be: are the rest of the independent (?) Trustees agreeable to this decision not to remove Tannerman in spite of Redwood's announcement?
They are all collectively responsible for info on the "FindMadeleine" website.
so you believe grange ask them to keep it there,although he has been eliminated,ok

You've lost me there? Grange asked who?

by Guest 08.12.13 16:41

Bishop Brennan wrote:
"Our investigation has shown that almost certainly that man is not Madeleine's abductor."

"Almost" certainly? Almost? I hope they've kept the chap's contact details in case they decide he is the abductor after all.

by mysterion 08.12.13 16:46

Tannerman has not been eliminated. He has almost been eliminated according to SY`s quote. The MET only believe they have identified him. Leaves room for the website to keep him and maintain credibility with their supporters around the world especially the ones that haven`t seen CW. If SY were running things TM would be helping them by showing Smithman. If SY were running things TM would be charged with obstructing an investigation by promoting false information about a former suspect and for putting his life in danger.

by **PeterMac** 08.12.13 16:59

Hilariously, the mad woman from Scotland, Hereditary Chief of the Clan McChild-Neglecters, denies that Tannerman / Crecheman is still there ! (I am NOT joking !)
You would think that she could negotiate her own version of McHoly Writ.
But perhaps she really does need professional help.

by **PeterMac** 08.12.13 17:02

mysterion wrote:Tannerman has not been eliminated. He has almost been eliminated according to SY`s quote. The MET only believe they have identified him. Leaves room for the website to keep him and maintain credibility with their supporters around the world especially the ones that haven`t seen CW. If SY were running things TM would be helping them by showing Smithman. If SY were running things TM would be charged with obstructing an investigation by promoting false information about a former suspect and for putting his life in danger.

Almost eliminated.
What a wonderful expression. It could be used in so many ways.
Madeleine is almost still missing, The Fund is almost transparent,

by tiny 08.12.13 17:02

aiyoyo wrote:
tiny wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:
tiny wrote:You seriously don't believe what the fm webmaster said,why on earth would grange ask them to keep it there IF they are
no longer looking for him.
Why not?

As he said he's not privy to info from Grange Team. Why should he?
And I believe neither would his paymaster, the Mccanns, be privy to it.
The Police will do what they do and for all we know Mccanns found out about Crecheman just like us ie through the media.

All he did was follow his paymaster's instructions.
I should think it's not his position to question the Mccanns what they want or don't want on their website.

Since Kate & Gerrry and relative forms half of the Trustees/Directors of the Fund, the pertinent question might be: are the rest of the independent (?) Trustees agreeable to this decision not to remove Tannerman in spite of Redwood's announcement?
They are all collectively responsible for info on the "FindMadeleine" website.
so you believe grange ask them to keep it there,although he has been eliminated,ok
You've lost me there? Grange asked who?

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] Sorry my mistake,i thought it read that grange had ask them to leave it there.also I didn't realize he had not been eliminated,as I thought I had read that he had.

by margaret 08.12.13 18:00

mysterion wrote:Tannerman has not been eliminated. He has almost been eliminated according to SY`s quote. The MET only believe they have identified him. Leaves room for the website to keep him and maintain credibility with their supporters around the world especially the ones that haven`t seen CW. If SY were running things TM would be helping them by showing Smithman. If SY were running things TM would be charged with obstructing an investigation by promoting false information about a former suspect and for putting his life in danger.

Thanks, it's All in the wording l didn't realise he'd 'almost' been eliminated.

However, l still don't think the mcs are in charge of anything at the moment, apart from their own story. big grin

by aiyoyo 08.12.13 18:03

PeterMac wrote:
mysterion wrote:Tannerman has not been eliminated. He has almost been eliminated according to SY`s quote. The MET only believe they have identified him. Leaves room for the website to keep him and maintain credibility with their supporters around the world especially the ones that haven`t seen CW. If SY were running things TM would be helping them by showing Smithman. If SY were running things TM would be charged with obstructing an investigation by promoting false information about a former suspect and for putting his life in danger.
Almost eliminated.
What a wonderful expression. It could be used in so many ways.
Madeleine is almost still missing, The Fund is almost transparent,

Her parents are almost innocent.
Their private detectives almost got her home.
And, Grange almost solved the case except they weren't sure Tannerman was Crecheman or not...?

by ultimaThule 08.12.13 18:07

PeterMac wrote:Hilariously, the mad woman from Scotland, Hereditary Chief of the Clan McChild-Neglecters, denies that Tannerman / Crecheman is still there ! (I am NOT joking !)
You would think that she could negotiate her own version of McHoly Writ.
But perhaps she really does need professional help.

@PeterMac

Professional help??? Ye gods... they 'really need' locking up < sob > banghead

by bristow 08.12.13 18:21

They seem to be totally contradicting themselves, I remember AR showing us on CW a photograph of the man who had 'come forward' to say he was taking his daughter home from the creche, it showed him sideways on face blurred but they definitely said it was an actual photograph of him showing the clothes he was wearing that night, same with his child's Pyjamas both had been kept.

by SixMillionQuid 08.12.13 19:50

bristow wrote:They seem to be totally contradicting themselves, I remember AR showing us on CW a photograph of the man who had 'come forward' to say he was taking his daughter home from the creche, it showed him sideways on face blurred but they definitely said it was an actual photograph of him showing the clothes he was wearing that night, same with his child's Pyjamas both had been kept.

But Mr Redwood did nothing address certain issues like, which creche was this man coming from, which direction and where was he going, whether Jane Tanner was immediately notified to verifiy this is the man she saw and the pyjamas she saw the child wearing. And more importantly why it took this man six years to come forward.

by Guest 08.12.13 21:15

The 'Grange Team'

Yet another odd choice of words: what is meant here:

1. The AR/SY crowd watching (2)
or
2. The Mec team watching (1)

Anyone got an inkling?

by aiyoyo 08.12.13 21:31

bristow wrote:They seem to be totally contradicting themselves, I remember AR showing us on CW a photograph of the man who had 'come forward' to say he was taking his daughter home from the creche, it showed him sideways on face blurred but they definitely said it was an actual photograph of him showing the clothes he was wearing that night, same with his child's Pyjamas both had been kept.

It would of interest to know where they got those clothing items from just to re-animate Tannerman?
And how much they paid the talent to play the part?

I am almost certain they think they convinced the main players Tannerman was Creche man.
While the odious pair almost certainly did not believe Redwood since they did not remove Tannerman from their site...

by Woburn_exile 08.12.13 22:00

aiyoyo wrote:
bristow wrote:They seem to be totally contradicting themselves, I remember AR showing us on CW a photograph of the man who had 'come forward' to say he was taking his daughter home from the creche, it showed him sideways on face blurred but they definitely said it was an actual photograph of him showing the clothes he was wearing that night, same with his child's Pyjamas both had been kept.
It would of interest to know where they got those clothing items from just to re-animate Tannerman?
And how much they paid the talent to play the part?

I am almost certain they think they convinced the main players Tannerman was Creche man.
While the odious pair almost certainly did not believe Redwood since they did not remove Tannerman from their site...

The "odious pair" as you describe them did not believe Redwood because they had concocted the lie in the first place. They kept it from poor KM until the next day to "spare her the distress". Who believes the bollox ontheir miserable site anyway.
shark

by **PeterMac** 09.12.13 8:38

margaret wrote:
However, l still don't think the mcs are in charge of anything at the moment, apart from their own story.

The big question is Which One ?

by aiyoyo 09.12.13 10:40

The Tannerman one? Almost certainly?

Still on their site! Well, almost disappear for a while, then brought back for Christmas..

They got Tannerman home for Christmas but their PI has yet to deliver Madeleine back for Christmas - Oh the Irony!

by gbwales 09.12.13 14:57

tiny wrote:You seriously don't believe what the fm webmaster said,why on earth would grange ask them to keep it there IF they are
no longer looking for him.

The webmaster's reply doesn't in any way clarify WHO has asked for crecheman/tannerman not to be removed. Perhaps by mentioning Grange in the same sentence they would like us to assume that's who asked, but it doesn't actually say that at all.

Latest topics