BREAKING NEWS ON BBC - Madeleine McCann case: Police team cut to four

I could be wrong but sometimes I wonder if the friends were friends out of empathy for her.. He comes across as brash ,self opinionated and controlling and I wonder if the friendship was directed to her .. Mistakenly IMO as I think she'd play an Oscar winning victim and her vindictive nature has been demonstrated more than once especially toward GA amongst others ...

Interesting thought, Honeyblade.

Dee Coy wrote:I don't think there'd be any problem getting to the truth by reinterviewing the Tapas - they've never been questionned on all the inconsistencies and I'm sure as soon as someone did it would be as easy as taking a rattle off a baby.

The real question is if there is any political will to do so and thus get to the crux of this matter?

Neither you, I, nor I imagine anybody else on this forum knows whether or not the T9 have been "questioned on all the inconsistencies".

Or do you have inside information?

Mimi wrote:

I`d be interested to know where they are going to find private detectives who have access to more resources and `supposed` expertise than Scotland Yard.  What a joke.

Yes, exactly.

nobodythereeither wrote:

Mimi wrote:

I`d be interested to know where they are going to find private detectives who have access to more resources and `supposed` expertise than Scotland Yard.  What a joke.

Yes, exactly.

And, indeed, how they could know, absolutely, that those private detectives were not working undercover FOR Scotland Yard, and could, therefore, be working against TM, and gathering as much information as they could while being on TM's payroll. I should think by now that TM's motto ought to be "Trust No One", since they've had such dreadful luck with their hiring practices in the past.

Châtelaine wrote:

Honeyblade wrote:I could be wrong but sometimes I wonder if the friends were friends out of empathy for her.. He comes across as brash ,self opinionated and controlling and I wonder if the friendship was directed to her .. Mistakenly IMO as I think she'd play an Oscar winning victim and her vindictive nature has been demonstrated more than once especially toward GA amongst others ...

Interesting thought, Honeyblade.

It is an interesting thought and one I think could boil down to that old chestnut which will never die (no matter what they tell you to the contrary, it is very much alive and kicking), the British class system.

Despite what the papers tell us, Kate and Gerry were not middle class like the rest of the Tapas. The others were always middle-middle, born into it, schooled through it and entered into comfortable professional status as doctors, etc, secure within it. They were comfortable within their skins, not upwardly mobile - no need for that as they were already there.

Kate Healey was born into a lower-middle household. An only child I reckon she will have been nurtured and pushed by her parents to succeed, go one better that them,take on a good profession and "improve" herself, and this she did.

Gerry, however was working-class through and through. Fiercely competitive, he was determined to drag himself upwards, bluster and force himself into the middle-classes by gaining status as a doctor, and socialising with 'the right sort of people'. And he did.

The problem, though with those determined to "better themselves" is you can't change who you are and where you come from. Gerry will always be a loud, brash, working-class Glaswegian and Kate a suburban Liverpudlian. Kate, of course, didn't have as far to travel to middle-middle Nirvana, she was one rung above Gerry to start with. This could explain why it was more effortless for her to fit in, she already had many of the mannerisms and necessary refinements, as taught during her very correct childhood. This may be why those naturally middle-class companions warmed to her and identified with her more easily. But Gerry, as Honeyblade succinctly put, was brash, self opinionated and controlling - in short, he would have been considered vulgar. Behaviours understandable for a rabid social-climber, but ironically behaviours anathema to those already securely there.

Poor Gerry, the harder he tried, the more obvious the differences.

Some of the phrases used in the Cracked Mirror by the others illustrate this perfectly:

Jane: “they were the two people in the group that - I knew we’d get on with Dave and Fiona, I knew we’d get on well with Matt and Rachael just because they’re our best friends but it was nice to be able to get to know Kate and Gerry better.” The two people that... what, Jane?

Russell: "...so initially it was a working relationship with Gerry at work, then there was a series of err things, largely meetings at Dave and Fi’s house with the kids, yeah well and the fact that we had the kids the same age, err and it’s become erm you know, a friend, a friendship, although we, we wouldn’t sort of see them or necessarily contact them you know regularly, it was more you know that during, you know during err meetings with, with Dave and Fi at their house”.

The Oldfields: Rachael Oldfield said that although they had known the pair for some years before the holiday they only ever met them at the Paynes, not independently. Matthew Oldfield, for his part, said he “didn’t know Gerry and Kate and their children so well,” and, as far as Praia de Luz was concerned, they saw less of them because, “Russell and probably Dave...we knew them better.

None of them quite want to articulate why they don't know the Mcs so well, but the undercurrents are there, all right.

Old fashioned snobbery and distaste for vulgarity, it's as simple as that.

All just my opinion as a (working class) person fascinated by the British class system and the hilarious behaviours that accompany it.

nobodythereeither wrote:

Dee Coy wrote:I don't think there'd be any problem getting to the truth by reinterviewing the Tapas - they've never been questionned on all the inconsistencies and I'm sure as soon as someone did it would be as easy as taking a rattle off a baby.

The real question is if there is any political will to do so and thus get to the crux of this matter?

Neither you, I, nor I imagine anybody else on this forum knows whether or not the T9 have been "questioned on all the inconsistencies".

Or do you have inside information?

Nope, I don't know. Not a scooby-doo. Already stated this a couple of pages ago:

Dee Coy wrote:

PMR wrote:

Dee Coy wrote:I don't think there'd be any problem getting to the truth by reinterviewing the Tapas - they've never been questionned on all the inconsistencies and I'm sure as soon as someone did it would be as easy as taking a rattle off a baby.

The real question is if there is any political will to do so and thus get to the crux of this matter?

Do we know the Tapas have never been questioned on the inconsistencies ?

No, we don't of course. But if they have, I'll bet my bottom dollar the truth will have come out. So unless OG are keeping their cards very close to their chest folowing the announcement the other day I'd guess they haven't been. Yet.

I'm only ever speculating, just like everyone else.

Sorry Dee Coy, I hadn't seen your previous post when I wrote mine, as I'm just catching up with several pages.

However I don't think it's helpful to state things as fact when you don't know they are a fact, as that's how forum myths start and get imprinted in other people's minds as the truth ......

You're right, I did state it as fact, very badly put by me. I should have put, "As far as we know, and this could be wrong, they've never been questionned on all the inconsistencies and I'm sure as soon as someone did it would be as easy as taking a rattle off a baby."

Apologies.

Dee Coy wrote:

Châtelaine wrote:

Honeyblade wrote:I could be wrong but sometimes I wonder if the friends were friends out of empathy for her.. He comes across as brash ,self opinionated and controlling and I wonder if the friendship was directed to her .. Mistakenly IMO as I think she'd play an Oscar winning victim and her vindictive nature has been demonstrated more than once especially toward GA amongst others ...

Interesting thought, Honeyblade.

It is an interesting thought and one I think could boil down to that old chestnut which will never die (no matter what they tell you to the contrary, it is very much alive and kicking), the British class system.

Despite what the papers tell us, Kate and Gerry were not middle class like the rest of the Tapas. The others were always middle-middle, born into it, schooled through it and entered into comfortable professional status as doctors, etc, secure within it. They were comfortable within their skins, not upwardly mobile - no need for that as they were already there.

Kate Healey was born into a lower-middle household. An only child I reckon she will have been nurtured and pushed by her parents to succeed, go one better that them,take on a good profession and "improve" herself, and this she did.

Gerry, however was working-class through and through. Fiercely competitive, he was determined to drag himself upwards, bluster and force himself into the middle-classes by gaining status as a doctor, and socialising with 'the right sort of people'. And he did.

The problem, though with those determined to "better themselves" is you can't change who you are and where you come from. Gerry will always be a loud, brash, working-class Glaswegian and Kate a suburban Liverpudlian. Kate, of course, didn't have as far to travel to middle-middle Nirvana, she was one rung above Gerry to start with. This could explain why it was more effortless for her to fit in, she already had many of the mannerisms and necessary refinements, as taught during her very correct childhood. This may be why those naturally middle-class companions warmed to her and identified with her more easily. But Gerry, as Honeyblade succinctly put, was brash, self opinionated and controlling - in short, he would have been considered vulgar. Behaviours understandable for a rabid social-climber, but ironically behaviours anathema to those already securely there.

Poor Gerry, the harder he tried, the more obvious the differences.

Some of the phrases used in the Cracked Mirror by the others illustrate this perfectly:

Jane: “they were the two people in the group that - I knew we’d get on with Dave and Fiona, I knew we’d get on well with Matt and Rachael just because they’re our best friends but it was nice to be able to get to know Kate and Gerry better.” The two people that... what, Jane?

Russell: "...so initially it was a working relationship with Gerry at work, then there was a series of err things, largely meetings at Dave and Fi’s house with the kids, yeah well and the fact that we had the kids the same age, err and it’s become erm you know, a friend, a friendship, although we, we wouldn’t sort of see them or necessarily contact them you know regularly, it was more you know that during, you know during err meetings with, with Dave and Fi at their house”.

The Oldfields: Rachael Oldfield said that although they had known the pair for some years before the holiday they only ever met them at the Paynes, not independently. Matthew Oldfield, for his part, said he “didn’t know Gerry and Kate and their children so well,” and, as far as Praia de Luz was concerned, they saw less of them because, “Russell and probably Dave...we knew them better.

None of them quite want to articulate why they don't know the Mcs so well, but the undercurrents are there, all right.

Old fashioned snobbery and distaste for vulgarity, it's as simple as that.

All just my opinion as a (working class) person fascinated by the British class system and the hilarious behaviours that accompany it.

Interesting observations.

Freedom wrote:Here's a link to all of The Sun article, with thanks to whoever posted it on Facebook. I'd been hoping that dear old Antonella and her crayons had been pensioned off by now.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/6716434/McCanns-vow-to-keep-searching-for-Maddie.html?CMP=spklr-_-S9SunSocial-_-FBPAGE-_-TheSun-thesun-_-20151030-_-News-_-266375110-_-Imageandlink

Thanks for that, having just read the article two things struck me.

Firstly pinky says the McCanns have 'made sure' £750,000 remains in the fund - well what would they be spending it on anyway with SY investigating now?

And secondly when they said the money was ring-fenced it implies an action has been taken, IMO you can read 'ring-fenced' for 'fund has been frozen'.

margaret wrote:

And secondly when they said the money was ring-fenced it implies an action has been taken,  IMO you can read 'ring-fenced' for 'fund has been frozen'.

That's an interesting thought!

Do you mean frozen by somebody other than Team McCann?

nobodythereeither wrote:

margaret wrote:

And secondly when they said the money was ring-fenced it implies an action has been taken,  IMO you can read 'ring-fenced' for 'fund has been frozen'.

That's an interesting thought!

Do you mean frozen by somebody other than Team McCann?

Yes. IMO by SY.

Would be great if it has been  but we're not likely to know for some considerable time I guess .....

margaret wrote:
Thanks for that, having just read the article two things struck me.

Firstly pinky says the McCanns have 'made sure' £750,000 remains in the fund - well what would they be spending it on anyway with SY investigating now?

And secondly when they said the money was ring-fenced it implies an action has been taken,  IMO you can read 'ring-fenced' for 'fund has been frozen'.

Pre-emptive of a result going against them regards Amaral,we needed the damages to take us past the £million.

margaret wrote:

Freedom wrote:Here's a link to all of The Sun article, with thanks to whoever posted it on Facebook. I'd been hoping that dear old Antonella and her crayons had been pensioned off by now.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/6716434/McCanns-vow-to-keep-searching-for-Maddie.html?CMP=spklr-_-S9SunSocial-_-FBPAGE-_-TheSun-thesun-_-20151030-_-News-_-266375110-_-Imageandlink

Thanks for that, having just read the article two things struck me.

Firstly pinky says the McCanns have 'made sure' £750,000 remains in the fund - well what would they be spending it on anyway with SY investigating now?

And secondly when they said the money was ring-fenced it implies an action has been taken,  IMO you can read 'ring-fenced' for 'fund has been frozen'.

The article does also say that it's Kate and Gerry McCann who have done the ringfencing, and that it is to pay for a team of private investigators. If the fund had in fact been frozen by Scotland Yard, it would be untrue to say that Kate and Gerry did the 'ringfencing', and the frozen fund would also not be available to pay for private investigators.
I'm certainly not suggesting that everything published in the The Sun is true, but if this was an attempt to write around the fact that the fund had been frozen by the police, it would be a clear and outright lie.
On the other hand, it's very hard to see why Kate and Gerry would need to ringfence money – in a fund made up of public donations to find Madeleine – to spend on private investigators to, er, find Madeleine. It does beg the question, what else could the fund possibly be for, and has this always been made clear to its donors?

Popcorn wrote:
I'm certainly not suggesting that everything published in the The Sun is true, but if this was an attempt to write around the fact that the fund had been frozen by the police, it would be a clear and outright lie.

On the other hand, it's very hard to see why Kate and Gerry would need to ringfence money – in a fund made up of public donations to find Madeleine – to spend on private investigators to, er, find Madeleine. It does beg the question, what else could the fund possibly be for, and has this always been made clear to its donors?

I'm sure it wouldn't be the first time the Sun has published a clear and outright lie

The purpose of the fund was not just to find Madeleine, if memory serves. I can't remember the exact wording but it was something like to support the family. Which I guess if push came to shove is how they would defend any use of it in legal action.

Information here about the aims of the fund.

http://www.findmadeleine.com/about_us/madeleines-fund.html

nobodythereeither wrote:

Popcorn wrote:
I'm certainly not suggesting that everything published in the The Sun is true, but if this was an attempt to write around the fact that the fund had been frozen by the police, it would be a clear and outright lie.

On the other hand, it's very hard to see why Kate and Gerry would need to ringfence money – in a fund made up of public donations to find Madeleine – to spend on private investigators to, er, find Madeleine. It does beg the question, what else could the fund possibly be for, and has this always been made clear to its donors?

I'm sure it wouldn't be the first time the Sun has published a clear and outright lie

The purpose of the fund was not just to find Madeleine, if memory serves. I can't remember the exact wording but it was something like to support the family. Which I guess if push came to shove is how they would defend any use of it in legal action.

Have a look at what CM says 6.00 mins into the video......

The McCanns seem to be behaving as if Scotland Yard are going to announce that the case of missing Madeleine cannot be solved. They don't seem to have any interest in the remaining focused lines of enquiry nor the still live investigation by the Portuguese. They are already preparing to take over the 'search' themselves when the files are shelved. They either know Operation Grange are giving up, or they are, once again, playing out an elaborate bluff.

It is odd behaviour indeed, how are they are happy with the progress Operation Grange have made - they haven't found Madeleine or arrested anyone. Are the parents not hopeful that the 'focused' lines of enquiry might lead somewhere? If they were genuinely searching for their daughter the loss of 25 officers should have been devastating. I can't see Kerry Needham being happy if the search for Ben were to be cut back.

I agree with NBTE, the aims of the Madeleine Fund were carefully worded to cover any eventuality - all sorts of things call fall under the head 'supporting the family', from flights and luxury hotels to malicious libel actions. The Fund seems to be under a bit of scrutiny at the moment, maybe there is a whistleblower?

They may be saying now, and in the small print, that the fund is to assist Kate and Gerry, but that is not the way the fund was promoted in the press, on TV and in their interviews when it was first launched (when, let's face it, most of the cash came in). Back then, it was always promoted as being there to help 'find Madeleine' and 'bring Madeleine home'.
This blurring of the lines between helping Madeleine and helping the people who were responsible for safeguarding her at the time of her disappearance has always troubled me.

Cristobell wrote:The Fund seems to be under a bit of scrutiny at the moment, maybe there is a whistleblower?

There are two apparently
http://metro.co.uk/2015/10/26/100000-donated-to-madeleine-mccann-campaign-stolen-to-fund-lavish-lifestyle-whisteblowers-claim-5462667/

Although I made the comment with my tongue slightly in my cheek, having read the article again, once you take away all the Sun's pro-McCann froth, there isn't much left apart from "fund", "fraud" and "whistle-blowers"

Would be great to have a whistleblower re the Fund. If there is such a person could he/she be connected to the AUDITORS?

Now the Fund has had the same auditors from the time the company was set up. We don't know if the same staff at the auditing firm dealt with the Fund each year. Nor do we know whether any of the staff who have worked on the audit have now left the firm and might feel free to talk to the media 'off the record.'

A small piece in the Sun newspaper today,it say's that last year(2014) there were 67 visits to Portugal by OG officers,this year there have been 4 yes just 4,this info was provided following a FOI request by the Sun.

This was the online version the hard copy (newspaper) carried a bit more including what I quoted.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/6716434/McCanns-vow-to-keep-searching-for-Maddie.html?CMP=spklr-_-S9SunSocial-_-FBPAGE-_-TheSun-thesun-_-20151030-_-News-_-266375110-_-Imageandlink