Why Operation Grange can only be a whitewash

bobbin wrote:

galena wrote:

Tony Bennett wrote:

galena wrote:

I am extremely reluctant to believe that the police would just fabricate evidence like crecheman -

We are all reluctant to admit that the police would just fabricate evidence.

i.e. tell deliberate lies.

Yet British police forces and police forces the world over have done it many, many times before.

So what we have to do is simply assess Redwood's credibilty in stating that he has 'traced, identified and eliminated' Tannerman as the abductor - by producing 'Crecheman'.

We might now, for example, ask the following questions:

1. How likely is it that any single man would be carrying a child in Praia da Luz (a) at 9.15pm or later, (b) in the dark, (c) on a coldish night, (d) on his own, (e) without a pushchair/buggy, (f) dressed only in pyjamas, and (g) with no blanket or cover?

2. Having anwsered that question, let us go on to consider how likely it is (as Redwood says is definitely the case) that there was not just one such lone man that night, but actually TWO (Crecheman and Smithman).

3. Then let us go on to consider the likelihood that in both cases (Crecheman and Smithman), the child (h) is female, (i) has blonde hair, (j) is/looks about 3 years old, (k) is dressed only in pyjamas, (l) the pyjamas are white/pink and (m) have a similar pattern to them.

4. Having considered all that, let us move on to think about the fact that in both these cases, the man concerned was described as (n) '25-40', (o) medium height, (p) carrying the child on his left arm/shoulder, (q) wearing a dark jacket and (r) light-coloured trousers.

I make that a total of EIGHTEEN coincidences.

5. When we have considered all of that, what is the probability that Crehceman had retained his child's pyjamas from six years ago?

6. Then - how likely is it that when he was on holiday in May 2007, he habitually walked about in a dark jacket and light trousers?

7. After that, let's ponder why, if he really was leaving the creche with no buggy, no warm coat for a child only in pyjamas etc. etc., he was not actually walking away from the creche, i.e. he was taking a much longer route than required, despite his child only being in pyjamas, and

8. Then, finally, what took him over 6 years to realise that he was Tannerman?


On a scale of 0 to 10, just how credible is Redwood's production of 'Crecheman'?

Well it seems certain that if they did fabricate Crecheman that they had a reason to do so, and that was to steer the investigation in a particular direction.  So either
a) They did it to trip up the McCanns and cast doubt on the abduction theory.
b) They did it to rid the McCanns of a story that had turned out to be an embarrassment and led many people to question if there was enough window of time for an actual abductor (ie part of a whitewash).

Problem I have with option a) is this - if the case ever did come to trial and SY were asked to produce 'Crecheman' what would they do? Produce an actor?  The McCanns lawyers would make mincemeat of them and the whole investigation would be thrown into disrepute.  So it seems likely to me that if crecheman was an invention that they are not expecting to find themselves in that scenario ...

As it stands, Jane could have seen a thousand men carrying children at 9.15 that night.
It does not mean that anyone of them was an 'Abductor' of Madeleine McCann.
They could all have been innocent people carrying a child.

NO ABDUCTION>
1. Since there was NO evidence of stranger DNA in the apartment,
2. Since there was NO broken shutter or sign of forced entry
3. Since the parents insist that the child could NOT have woken and wandered,
It goes without saying that there is NO evidence of 'Abduction'.
Therefore, whether SY do or do not get called to give evidence, they would be being asked to give evidence of something that COULD NOT have happened.

I agree with you - I've never felt that Tannerman, whether real or fake was 'proof' of an abduction. In fact quite the opposite - if Jane made up the story that in itself raises further suspicions.  At the time I considered that Gerry might have put her up to it in order to encourage the police to take the abduction more seriously instead of wasting resources investigating the parents and their holiday friends.   Later I changed my mind given the obviously spurious nature of the search for Madeleine and assumed it was a way of diverting suspicion away from themselves. 

But I feel that if the case ever came to court the McCanns could insist that Tannerman did exist (they seem reluctant to give him up) - then the onus would be on SY to produce  him.  Sorry I can't totally agree with your point in bold - the issues you raise make it unlikely that there was an abduction, but I wouldn't go so far as to say it was impossible. The abductor could have had a key and been very careful not to leave DNA.  Or - as another poster theorised - he could have beckoned Madeleine to the window and abducted her that way.  OR - he could have been someone who wasn't a stranger, who had a legitimate reason for having his DNA in the apartment.

AndyB wrote:

Andrew77R wrote:It worked. SY are great. Convictions done. Mccanns receive 20 years.

For what? SY have no jurisdiction (unless we're talking murder or manslaughter but, as far as I'm aware, there is no evidence for either)

Given that Tracey Connelly (Baby's P's mother) is already out of prison I find it very hard to believe in the 20 year sentence!

Tannerman hasn't been eliminated, crimewatch haven't really confirmed that, wouldn't SY have told them to remove him from their site?
Or would they allow them to say one thing while the say the other. Makes no sense why they should allow them to have him on their site. They're NOT WORKING together

Andrew77R wrote:

galena wrote:Well it seems certain that if they did fabricate Crecheman that they had a reason to do so, and that was to steer the investigation in a particular direction.  So either
a) They did it to trip up the McCanns and cast doubt on the abduction theory.
b) They did it to rid the McCanns of a story that had turned out to be an embarrassment and led many people to question if there was enough window of time for an actual abductor (ie part of a whitewash).

Problem I have with option a) is this - if the case ever did come to trial and SY were asked to produce 'Crecheman' what would they do? Produce an actor?  The McCanns lawyers would make mincemeat of them and the whole investigation would be thrown into disrepute.  So it seems likely to me that if crecheman was an invention that they are not expecting to find themselves in that scenario ...

Option C.

Jane Tanner has confessed that there was never a Tannerman.

SY eliminated Tannerman as the abductor but pretended he does exist to keep the net tight while building the case.

In court - We don't need to produce Tannerman as star witness has admitted it was lie.

Star Witness is let off as she has given a lot more info to help secure a conviction.

SY eventually come clean and say they lied about innocent father coming forward but it was the strategy to put pressure on Mccann's and rest of the group.

It worked. SY are great. Convictions done. Mccanns receive 20 years.

If Jane Tanner has come forward they are going to need her as a star witness to convict the McCanns of anything. The chance of them breaking down and confessing anything are negligible.

bobbin wrote:

whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:

Andrew77R wrote:
Option C.

Jane Tanner has confessed that there was never a Tannerman.

SY eliminated Tannerman as the abductor but pretended he does exist to keep the net tight while building the case.

In court - We don't need to produce Tannerman as star witness has admitted it was lie.

Star Witness is let off as she has given a lot more info to help secure a conviction.

SY eventually come clean and say they lied about innocent father coming forward but it was the strategy to put pressure on Mccann's and rest of the group.

It worked. SY are great. Convictions done. Mccanns receive 20 years.

Yes indeed Andrew77R, I'm definitely in the Option C camp.

I'm yet to be convinced either way, since there have been so many full-frontal cover-ups exposed lately, but if this were a whitewash, then destroying Jane's 'tannerman' puts the onus of 'abductor' onto 'Smithman'.
Smithman looked like 'Gerry' according to Smiths, button trousers to boot.
If AR has removed the "tannerman abduction' possibility, it no longer looks like an investigation into 'stranger' abduction.
The MET's thinking then, would appear to be more in line with the PJ take on things, i.e. removal of body (or at best, abduction of live Maddie) by person known to the child.
Why would AR get rid of the only premise being touted by the McCs as the foundation of their own defense.
A whitewash/govt.coverup would have to give the McCs a way out, not Jane Tanner.
AR's revelation has stripped the McCs of their protection.
The ensuing public interest, after the CW revelation, in this case, has made the public attitude to the McCs change and we are seeing a gradual emergence of 'straighter talking' interviews and daring out-coming of BBC as in the recent radio discussion.
Does this look less like a whitewash than more.
I cannot see how the govt/corrupt politicians/police etc. controlling the police investigation can be actually 'helping' the McCs to get off the hook here....
unless it can be demonstrated that the Smithman sighting was categorically NOT possibly Gerry McCann and therefore Maddie's disappearance remains a perpetual mystery, and all we have at the end, is a little smack on the hand for Kate McCann for being Kate McCann, and wee smackie on the bottom for Gerry because the main judge likes smacking naughty little boys on the bottom, in the belief that naughty little boys actually like this sort of thing also.  

I agree, to all intents and purposes, it looks as though the net is closing in on the McCanns.   They have kept Tannerman, so their will be their defence, but I don't know where that will leave Jane.

Going by their recent public appearance, they still seem confident there is 'no evidence', but I doubt they know what is going on, anymore than we do.

Seek truth wrote:Tannerman hasn't been eliminated, crimewatch haven't really confirmed that, wouldn't SY have told them to remove him from their site?
Or would they allow them to say one thing while the say the other. Makes no sense why they should allow them to have him on their site. They're NOT WORKING together

Doesn't mean that the McCanns have to do what SY say.  This isn't a totalitarian state.

And I fail to see why Scotland Yard would give a monkeys what the McCanns have on their website. Everything that is going on in Portugal indicates that they are not looking for a live child.

whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:

Seek truth wrote:Tannerman hasn't been eliminated, crimewatch haven't really confirmed that, wouldn't SY have told them to remove him from their site?
Or would they allow them to say one thing while the say the other. Makes no sense why they should allow them to have him on their site. They're NOT WORKING together

Doesn't mean that the McCanns have to do what SY say.  This isn't a totalitarian state.

I for one never imagined a scenario where the McCanns sat down with SY and they agreed what to say. That's not how things work here. It's all a matter of a word in the right ear, a nudge, a hint that it would be a good thing if this went away.  I think the McCanns are clinging on to Tannerman out of habit (either that or they can't be arsed to update their website) but Redwood knows what's best for them - Tannerman has sparked a world of debate about timings and windows of opportunities. He has to go!

whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:

Seek truth wrote:Tannerman hasn't been eliminated, crimewatch haven't really confirmed that, wouldn't SY have told them to remove him from their site?
Or would they allow them to say one thing while the say the other. Makes no sense why they should allow them to have him on their site. They're NOT WORKING together

Doesn't mean that the McCanns have to do what SY say.  This isn't a totalitarian state.

And I fail to see why Scotland Yard would give a monkeys what the McCanns have on their website.  Everything that is going on in Portugal indicates that they are not looking for a live child.

It is NOT RIGHT to go against what the police say, especially when taxpayers money (£7 million) is involved.
This countrys a joke

Seek truth wrote:

whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:

Seek truth wrote:Tannerman hasn't been eliminated, crimewatch haven't really confirmed that, wouldn't SY have told them to remove him from their site?
Or would they allow them to say one thing while the say the other. Makes no sense why they should allow them to have him on their site. They're NOT WORKING together

Doesn't mean that the McCanns have to do what SY say.  This isn't a totalitarian state.

And I fail to see why Scotland Yard would give a monkeys what the McCanns have on their website.  Everything that is going on in Portugal indicates that they are not looking for a live child.

It is NOT RIGHT to go against what the police say, especially when taxpayers money (£7 million) is involved.
This countrys a joke

Firstly, if the investigation is not a whitewash, then I can't think of a single reason for the McCanns to do what the police say.

Secondly, we don't know if the police have even bothered to ask them to take Tannerman off their website. If the investigation isn't a whitewash, why would they? If it is a whitewash, what does it matter? In the former case, if I was in charge I'd let them keep whatever they like on their website as yet another nail in their coffins.

bobbin wrote:If however there is a cover up and it does not offer the McCs a sound escape for losing Madeleine, then either they were completely innocent barring 'negligence' and have nothing to hold against the cover-er-uppers, or, they know of some crime which lead to Maddie's disappearance and will hold this as a bargaining point over the cover-er-uppers.

I understand what you're saying here but imagine for a moment that Madeleine was given to Aliens to be experimented on in exchange for the McCanns being given a ride in the spaceship. Unfortunately, Madeleine dies during the experiment and her body is returned to the McCanns who then dispose of it secretly. The powers that be have had nothing to do with the arrangement but they don't want it known that Aliens exist so they go along with the abduction myth and arrange for the McCanns to be protected. They allow them to set up a limited company, which then gives the McCanns a financial inducement to play along. Everyone's happy until the Portuguese publish the case files and people start questioning the McCann's version of events.

How do the powers that be keep the existence of the aliens a secret when the Sun demands a review of the case and blackmails the Prime minister with threats of bad headlines for a week? I suggest that they would effect to be investigating while secretly trying to find someone to pin it on. (Incidentally, I also think that they would be maintaining a back-up plan of framing the McCanns for murder should there be no plausible patsy).

How much of a threat would "Take us down and I'll tell them everything" have under these circumstances? As to why the McCanns haven't been suicided away, I have no answer but perhaps its because to do so would be too high risk given their high profile. Perhaps its why they maintain a high profile

Please note - I do not believe that aliens were involved in Madeleine's disappearance. The story is meant to illustrate the idea that there are circumstances in which the McCanns can be guilty but the powers that be get involved in a cover up surrounding the disappearance for reasons of their own, reasons which do not provide the McCanns with any leverage. The big questions of course are; who is being protected and what is being covered up.

Just in case any of the zombies and brain-dead from the other side are watching, it is always worth re-stating this on as many threads as possible.

Tavares de Almeida - author of the interim report -
Quick reminder - THE MAN WHO REPLACED Dr Amaral, and who incidentallly has never been described as "disgraced" so far as I know.  
Someone slipping there I think !

Conclusions:
From everything that we have discovered, our files result in the following conclusions:
A. the minor Madeleine McCann died in Apartment 5A at the Ocean Club resort in Praia da Luz, on the night of 3 May 2007
B. a simulation - a staged hoax - of an abduction took place
C. in order to render the child’s death impossible before 10.00pm, a situation of checking of the McCann couple’s children while they slept was concocted
D. Dr Gerald McCann and Dr Kate McCann are involved in the concealment of the corpse of their daughter, Madeleine McCann
E. at this moment, there seems to be no strong indications that the child’s death was other than the result of a tragic accident, yet;
From what has been established up to now, everything indicates that the McCann couple, in self-defence, did not want to deliver up Madeleine’s corpse immediately and voluntarily, and there is a strong possibility therefore that it was moved from the initial place where she died. This situation may raise questions concerning the circumstances in which the death of the child took place.

and from
The Republic's Prosecutor - José de Magalhaes e Menezes
and
The Joint General Prosecutor - Joao Melchior Gomes
authors of the archiving report. Quick Reminder

viii - Despite all of this, it was not possible to obtain any piece of evidence that would allow a reasonable man, under the light of the criteria of logic, of normality and of the general rules of experience, to formulate any lucid, sensible, serious and honest conclusion about the circumstances under which the child was removed from the apartment (whether dead or alive, whether killed in a neglectful homicide or an intended homicide, whether the victim of a targeted abduction or an opportunistic abduction) nor even to produce a consistent prognosis about her destiny and inclusively - the most dramatic - to establish whether she is still alive or if she is dead, as seems more likely.

Thank you for the reminder, PeterMac.  Shame there's no space at the top of the page for it to be displayed.

galena wrote:

AndyB wrote:

Andrew77R wrote:It worked. SY are great. Convictions done. Mccanns receive 20 years.

For what? SY have no jurisdiction (unless we're talking murder or manslaughter but, as far as I'm aware, there is no evidence for either)

Given that Tracey Connelly (Baby's P's mother) is already out of prison I find it very hard to believe in the 20 year sentence!

I was being overly optimistic with the 20 year sentence quote. Figure of speech. 

Will be overly optimistic again. 

'Also we sentence you Clarence Mitchell to life without the possibility of parole as you really are the most hideous creature that is so full of bull to ever walk the planet. Take him down'

PeterMac wrote:Just in case any of the zombies and brain-dead from the other side are watching, it is always worth re-stating this on as many threads as possible.

Tavares de Almeida - author of the interim report -
Quick reminder - THE MAN WHO REPLACED Dr Amaral, and who incidentallly has never been described as "disgraced" so far as I know.  
Someone slipping there I think !

Conclusions:
From everything that we have discovered, our files result in the following conclusions:
A. the minor Madeleine McCann died in Apartment 5A at the Ocean Club resort in Praia da Luz, on the night of 3 May 2007
B. a simulation - a staged hoax - of an abduction took place
C. in order to render the child’s death impossible before 10.00pm, a situation of checking of the McCann couple’s children while they slept was concocted
D. Dr Gerald McCann and Dr Kate McCann are involved in the concealment of the corpse of their daughter, Madeleine McCann
E. at this moment, there seems to be no strong indications that the child’s death was other than the result of a tragic accident, yet;
From what has been established up to now, everything indicates that the McCann couple, in self-defence, did not want to deliver up Madeleine’s corpse immediately and voluntarily, and there is a strong possibility therefore that it was moved from the initial place where she died. This situation may raise questions concerning the circumstances in which the death of the child took place.

and from
The Republic's Prosecutor - José de Magalhaes e Menezes
and
The Joint General Prosecutor - Joao Melchior Gomes
authors of the archiving report. Quick Reminder

viii - Despite all of this, it was not possible to obtain any piece of evidence that would allow a reasonable man, under the light of the criteria of logic, of normality and of the general rules of experience, to formulate any lucid, sensible, serious and honest conclusion about the circumstances under which the child was removed from the apartment (whether dead or alive, whether killed in a neglectful homicide or an intended homicide, whether the victim of a targeted abduction or an opportunistic abduction) nor even to produce a consistent prognosis about her destiny and inclusively - the most dramatic - to establish whether she is still alive or if she is dead, as seems more likely.

Bumping up, so it doesn't get buried. A timeworthy reminder about where the previous Portuguese investigation left off.

@AndyB.

Trying to weigh up which is more believable.

Aliens were responsible for the abduction of MBM.

Or..

The parents and the rest of the tapas lot are completely innocent and had nothing whatsoever to do with MBM's disappearance.

Yep, will go with the Aliens theory.

canada12 wrote:
Bumping up, so it doesn't get buried. A timeworthy reminder about where the previous Portuguese investigation left off.

Are we convinced that the NEW Portuguese investigation is also of the same mindset?

Garrincha wrote:Clay wrote: Monteiro sufficiently of interest to PJ to justify reopening the investigation because phone records show he was in contact with one of the "players" on the evening of the 3rd.
 

IMO if this is true it changes everything, including the title of this thread...

I don't think it is true. Clay was summing up the latest long winded offering from Textusa in a single sentence. He also managed to do it without resorting to random use of bold and differently coloured text. The original Textusa article is thoroughly critiqued here:
http://nottextusa.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/its-dirty-job.html

Andrew77R wrote:@AndyB.

Trying to weigh up which is more believable.

Aliens were responsible for the abduction of MBM.

Or..

The parents and the rest of the tapas lot are completely innocent and had nothing whatsoever to do with MBM's disappearance.

Yep, will go with the Aliens theory.

:-)

Andrew77R wrote:

canada12 wrote:
Bumping up, so it doesn't get buried. A timeworthy reminder about where the previous Portuguese investigation left off.

Are we convinced that the NEW Portuguese investigation is also of the same mindset?

I am, but admittedly I have no proof.

In Clay's summing up of Textusa's blog reference is made to Monteiro having contact with one of the 'players'. IIRC it was reported [size=31]that he was a petty criminal with a history of drug abuse. What if his alledged contact with a 'player' amounted to the supply of  prescription or non-prescription drugs. Does Textusa give any indication of what the contact involved?[/size]

PeterMac wrote:Grange have in the recent past
1   Dismissed Tannerman' (either as a real man or a fantasy) - the only piece of "evidence" of an abduction of a child, whether dead, comatose, or sleeping, on which the McCanns relied -
2   Said that there is a real chance Madeleine did not leave the apartment alive - fairly obvious, but it has been said and cannot now be retracted.
3   Sought permission AND cooperation from the Portuguese authorities in a "search" - fairly obviously for a burial site or sites
4   Sought permission AND cooperation from the PJ in planned digs of various sites - some of which may require warrants of entry - again fairly obviously for burial / disposal
and so on.  Not forgetting the visit at the highest level of the CPS to the equivalent authority in Portugal some time ago.

Can there be any doubt that Grange and the PJ are NOT looking for a living child.

No searching has actually been done since early May 2007, when Police and many residents, holiday makers, and other well- wishers actually did some looking around, whilst the parents "kept vigil" or went to sleep, or went jogging and started their European tour, or started writing a book . . .
Since that time, despite the assurance of their most recent and best qualified PI that Madeleine was definitively in a "Hellish Lair within 10 miles of PdL" no one has bothered searching in a physical sense.
Fairly obviously, again, because no one believes, or has believed, there is any point.

"Find the body and  . . ."
They are trying to, Gerry.

PeterMac

In my opinion the " revelation " at this stage of the investigation may come about due to the penchant of the modern British Police to feel obliged to tell everyone - meaning via the media who claim to represent the public - everyone what is going on. By everyone I mean the great British Public. The PJ on the otherhand don't feel the need to do that until the investigation is over or archived.

Therefore once the searches are done nearly all will be revealed in the media and no doubt what wasn't there but expected to have been will be extrapolated by Her Majesty's Press as a breakthrough or a potential lead not followed up ( one of many as you know) and it was the Portugueses fault for not taking the not finding of anything seriously.

All will be revealed by the media. That is if there is anything to be revealed? If there isn't something will be found to fill the void.

As someone said Tannerman dismissed is to point the way to Smithman in all his glory but to me what that means is that either JT was mistaken or JT is a fantasist. The link in this is the alibi of GM. In the Doco GM was busy trying to persuade JT that she was in position A whilst she insisted she was in position B. Problem is for GM is that he says he didn't see her in his depositions so how would he know where she was - he didn't see her?

Your PJ alive or dead point is valid. SY are considering the same possibility of the PJ. With the exception that the PJ think that it was a one off and a tourist ( unnoficially of course) meaning not Portuguese. Why are they interested in Tractorman or the binman then being my only question of the PJ and possibly Textusa?

Co-operation in the digs I think is possibly just humouring the British - a case of look if you want to but you won't find anything because we looked previously and maybe you have to justify the millions but we don't. If you want to tell the media how hard you were looking fair enough but as you don't trust us be my guest.

The CPS  high ups are very interesting because as far as I know they only operate on the basis of  National criminals not foreign ( i.e. Portuguese ) criminals being brought to justice and cannot interfere in other countries prosecutions. As this is a Portuguese investigation if
any perpetrators are to be tried ( British or Portuguese ) it will be via the Portuguese Courts and not any others. So possibly tof the 38 persons of interest 12? may be British and they were advising on how that process would move forward under Portuguese jJurisdiction?

On your last point - vis the search for Madeleiene - this ended when Mr Amaral and his team were taken off the case by The PJ Director Reibero. Technically for the media the search continued but the only ones capable of actually moving towards finding Madeleine was the original PJ team. The problem was that all PJ roads led to the wrong people and some people didn't like/agree with that. The reasons despite our
speculations are at the moment unknown and may remain that way for many years unless some evidence emerges which is credible and unavoidable and non interpretable in its implications.

My tossed coin is in the air as to what SY are up to ditto the current set of PJ investigators .

All I know is that the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth is not being revealed by all concerned and I mean ALL concerned.

If Operation Grange was a genuine review and all aspects of the case were being investigated, NSY detectives may just come to the same conclusion as the Portuguese Police.

If this were to happen and the McCanns were charged in relation to Madeleine's disappearance they would also be charged with many other offences, including fraud and perverting the course of justice.

But, this would not  stop there as many others may be implicated:

Would David Cameron and Theresa May really set up a review and allow NSY to charge the McCanns if they were going to take a huge chunk of our Government  down with them?

Gordon Brown - amongst other things,  rushed over to PDL and insisted that Madeleines' disappearance be treated as an abduction, and he assisted in the setting up of the fund.

Jaqui Smith refused the investigation access to certain documents

A number of Government officials interfered in the case

Clarence Mitchell lied to the world

Officers at Leicester police station withheld information

CEOP officials are alleged to have presented Gerry with their manual that is not available to the public, not to mention the fact that his CATS entry is said to have been wiped.


Then we have these other people who may be guilty of  fraud and deception, or have perverted  the course of justice:

The private investigators

The directors of the fund

The witnesses that falsely claimed to have seen Madeleine

Margaret Hodges Nephew who claimed to have photographed Madeleine

And that's just a small sample

Imagine the embarrassment that it would cause to the UK authorities if NSY did find the McCanns guilty - It's just not going to happen IMO

sharonl wrote:


Gordon Brown - amongst other things,  rushed over to PDL and insisted that Madeleines' disappearance be treated as an abduction, and he assisted in the setting up of the fund.

 

Sharonl, I can't recall this, can you give me a reminder.  Are you meaning  when he went to sign the treaty?  How did he (Gordon Brown)assist in setting up the fund?  I must be getting old as I can't remember this either.  

candyfloss wrote:

sharonl wrote:


Gordon Brown - amongst other things,  rushed over to PDL and insisted that Madeleines' disappearance be treated as an abduction, and he assisted in the setting up of the fund.

 

Sharonl, I can't recall this, can you give me a reminder.  Are you meaning  when he went to sign the treaty?  How did he (Gordon Brown)assist in setting up the fund?  I must be getting old as I can't remember this either.  

He rushed over to PDL early May and insisted that the case be treated as an abduction - I will look for a link

I think that it is written in Kate's book, Gordon Brown was trying all that he could to get charitable status for the fund but it did not meet the public interest test as it was for one child only. There is more, but I need to locate the exact source