18/09/2016 - Madeline McCann: Fresh cash lifeline in search for missing child

Andrew wrote:

Châtelaine wrote:IMO the "compelling evidence" could have been found in the use and management of the "fund".

I'm not sure.

It would have to be proven in the court of law that Madeleine died and the parents were responsible for any separate charges in relation to fraudulent activity in regards to the fund.

So if this did occur,  Proving it is a different kettle of fish.

Even though the fund is less than transparent, I'm sure with their legal bods on board, then they would be exercising all the unethical but legal loopholes as to not to get caught out there.

They would have to charge them on the first before anything comes of the second...

IMO anyway...

***
All we know about the finances of the "fund" is the summary information provided by their published annual accounts. For the last of which "summary" is an exaggeration ;-)
SY must have access to all underlying information, like bank accounts, expenditure, invoices, receipts AND have [internal/external] financial experts to analyze those.
We should also not forget, that in the past few years quite a number of directors, including Methurst, have left ...
It's been said over the years by quite a number of posters, that the "fund" may be their downfall.

IMO it's easier to find "compelling evidence" of fraudelous use of money, which leaves a paper trail, than of a possible death [notwithstanding the dogs] and subsequent disappearance of a young girl ...

Châtelaine wrote:

Andrew wrote:

Châtelaine wrote:IMO the "compelling evidence" could have been found in the use and management of the "fund".

I'm not sure.

It would have to be proven in the court of law that Madeleine died and the parents were responsible for any separate charges in relation to fraudulent activity in regards to the fund.

So if this did occur,  Proving it is a different kettle of fish.

Even though the fund is less than transparent, I'm sure with their legal bods on board, then they would be exercising all the unethical but legal loopholes as to not to get caught out there.

They would have to charge them on the first before anything comes of the second...

IMO anyway...

***
All we know about the finances of the "fund" is the summary information provided by their published annual accounts. For the last of which "summary" is an exaggeration ;-)
SY must have access to all underlying information, like bank accounts, expenditure, invoices, receipts AND have [internal/external] financial experts to analyze those.
We should also not forget, that in the past few years quite a number of directors, including Methurst, have left ...
It's been said over the years by quite a number of posters, that the "fund" may be their downfall.

IMO it's easier to find "compelling evidence" of fraudelous use of money, which leaves a paper trail, than of a possible death [notwithstanding the dogs] and subsequent disappearance of a young girl ...

Have you seen any evidence that suggests that SY have even bothered to look at the fund?
Their remit is abduction. Anything else may be just wishful thinking

I totally understand and get what you're saying..

The point I was making that there are ways of 'legally' exaggerating such factors (expenditure and the like) which of course are immoral (because it's false) but borderline legal if under scrutiny and can be passed off as such.

(Very much like Tax avoidance V Tax evasion)

I have no doubts that a full investigated audit on the fund would be riddled with 'holes' but holes that could be 'explained away' nonetheless with the very bare minimum.

However if the whole thing was set up on false pretences and if it can be proved to be then there are could be serious fraud charges that ( should or could) lie ahead... But then it gets very complicated on who (directors) were in the know and complicit and so on and so on.

The sheer audacity of their greed is scandalous though.I believe if they had any sense they would of closed it all down correctly years ago. 'take the money and run' scenario. But they couldn't as the greed had overcome them by then. Always wanting more....

The comments left on the Sun article...

Yellow and Black 1 hour ago
Would rather see the money spent on lie detector tests or truth serum for the McCanns as that is the only way we are likely to get the truth on what happened to Maddie.


Carol Mills 2 hours ago
Why not hire a psychic detective to use their powers to what has happened to her and where she is now, you see em on tv like that sensing murder, and u think wow, but it is all a con, ... if these psychics r genuine why not hire them


biggus 5 hours ago
why are these two irresponsible maggots still allowed to bleed the coffers dry..??????


Yellow and Black 1 hour ago
@biggus
Friends in high places


PAUL ARCHER 5 hours ago
It is abundantly clear the investigation has not achieved anything. We have heard repeatedly, there is one more lead...........

Has this further contribution more to do with SY not losing face, or with the awaited decision in the Portuguese Supreme Court pending, is it trying to give the impression of a serious on-going investigation to try and effect the decision coming ?


sherlock holmes 3 hours ago
There is a pattern in the past of Scotland Yard making announcements that amounted to nothing around the dates of the long and lengthy libel trial. But surely even Scotland Yard know their attempting to overturn a unanimous court decision in Amaral's favour. A man who was treated appalling by the parents and may well sue the Mccanns himself.

I'm looking forward to being allowed to buy and read his book in English.

Here's to free speech and the right to an opinion.


Philip Lupton 6 hours ago
£100k. They can dine out a few times on that and invite their friends

Yellow and Black 1 hour ago
@Philip Lupton
No doubt they will

clare jones 6 hours ago
Here we go these pair have to get media attention whenever a story about Ben Needham comes out.


RONSTER 8 hours ago
When I try to write about investigating the money raised or why this case is getting so much money then my post gets deleted !! WTF !!


RONSTER 8 hours ago
I have tried to comment 3 times on this and this is the only one that is posted !!

The McCanns censoring these comments ??



jbird65 8 hours ago
Disgusting waste of money when it's blatantly obvious that THE PARENTS DID IT ! I just don't understand why the police refuse to investigate that vile pair properly.


Eddy Buy 9 hours ago
Meanwhile her useless neglectful parents continue to live in their million £ mansion.


sherlock holmes 11 hours ago
The National Police Improvement Agency, through their expert associate, criminal profiler Lee Rainbow, gave it as their view that, "The family was a lead that should be followed. The contradictions in Gerald McCann's statements might lead us to suspect a homicide."

The PJ were put on notice that they should be prepared to encounter a body. On the advice of their able British colleague Mark Harrison they introduce specialist dogs into the investigation. Lo and behold, the dogs indicate: First, the transient presence of a corpse. Second, the historical presence of a corpse in transit. Well, well.
So much of what the McCanns and their spokespersons present to the media is deliberately and scandalously misleading. However, in the light of recent reports concerning the efficacy of the Cadaver dog briefly seconded to the McCann investigation, they will all have a very difficult time indeed in convincing anyone that an animal with a 100% success record, before and since, could have been wrong on several occasions while in Portugal.
The dog was tasked with screening several vehicles and several apartments. For each and every experimenter error to bias the outcome in a single direction would be remarkable indeed (only McCann related items were 'marked'). No evidence Mr Mccann? So lets move on to the "only" interview the parents gave that "attempted" to explain the cadaver paradox which "does exist" regardless of Mr Mccann's or anyone else's claim otherwise.The Mccanns in an interview to Portuguese TV after having their status of arguido lifted and the case archived due to the group's refusal to take part in the requested reconstruction.
SF: "This is the first time that you give us, errr... a big interview, errr... not being arguidos... not being arguidos, since then. Errr... So now I feel free to ask you this directly: How can you explain the coincidence of the scent of cadav... of cadaver found by British and not Portuguese dogs?"

GM: "Ask the dogs, Sandra."
They did ask them Gerry and they said woof woof on eleven separate occasions.


Tanequil Smith 11 hours ago
One day the truth will come out and a lot of people will feel foolish having been taken in by Kate and Gerry.


jbird65 8 hours ago
@Tanequil Smith I hope we do get to see the day when this worthless pair of murderers are put behind bars for what they did. In truth, they should already be there for child abandonment.


sherlock holmes 11 hours ago
The money has been given to the investigation not the parents private fund.

The parents have never offered to contribute to the enormous costs, preferring to use their publicly donated money to sue anyone discussing the police case files and their lies and documented lack of cooperation.

We know Scotland Yard believe the poor child is dead. They weren't digging sometime ago in Portugal for potatoes that's for sure.

Here's to justice for Madeleine and the truth of the sabotage job on the investigation by the parent being brought to the wider public. Richard Hall's True Story of Madeleine Mccann is a pretty accurate youtube documentary.



adrian nicholas 12 hours ago
Bloody disgusting!!! the money should have been given to the Ben Needham search, how long does his mother have to suffer?!


Zara Hughes 12 hours ago
Disgrace it's their fault they should be jailed who leaves their youngs kids in another country asleep to go out with friends this government need to stop bailing them out they should pay for it themselves we done our part as a country never known so much money to go into one family they will moan that others are coming here rinsing us


Eddy Buy 9 hours ago
How very dare you speak the truth?


chiangmai1 13 hours ago
that is so wrong it keeps the lies the parents keep telling everyone to give money and help find our daughter.we did nothing honest but we will take the money no problems and do more travelling spreading more lies

why are these two irresponsible maggots still allowed to bleed the coffers dry..??????


I like that one    

froggy wrote:Have you seen any evidence that suggests that SY have even bothered to look at the fund?
Their remit is abduction.  Anything else may be just wishful thinking

I keep reading the bolded but unless I missed it the abduction remit was for the review and then later it became a full blown investigation to which I don't remember a remit being given?

Châtelaine wrote:

Andrew wrote:

Châtelaine wrote:IMO the "compelling evidence" could have been found in the use and management of the "fund".

I'm not sure.

It would have to be proven in the court of law that Madeleine died and the parents were responsible for any separate charges in relation to fraudulent activity in regards to the fund.

So if this did occur,  Proving it is a different kettle of fish.

Even though the fund is less than transparent, I'm sure with their legal bods on board, then they would be exercising all the unethical but legal loopholes as to not to get caught out there.

They would have to charge them on the first before anything comes of the second...

IMO anyway...

***
All we know about the finances of the "fund" is the summary information provided by their published annual accounts. For the last of which "summary" is an exaggeration ;-)
SY must have access to all underlying information, like bank accounts, expenditure, invoices, receipts AND have [internal/external] financial experts to analyze those.
We should also not forget, that in the past few years quite a number of directors, including Methurst, have left ...
It's been said over the years by quite a number of posters, that the "fund" may be their downfall.

IMO it's easier to find "compelling evidence" of fraudelous use of money, which leaves a paper trail, than of a possible death [notwithstanding the dogs] and subsequent disappearance of a young girl ...

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/35/section/2

From the Fraud Act 2006 in the section Fraud by false representation:

(2)A representation is false if—

(a)it is untrue or misleading, and

(b)the person making it knows that it is, or might be, untrue or misleading.

and

(5)For the purposes of this section a representation may be regarded as made if it (or anything implying it) is submitted in any form to any system or device designed to receive, convey or respond to communications (with or without human intervention)

According to Kate's book, published after the fund was instigated, the McCanns were made aware of police evidence that Madeleine had died. Their campaign to raise money claiming that it was to search for Madeleine as a "live and findable" child while concealing the police conclusion from the dogs findings, regardless of what they actually used the fund for, is fraud under UK law.

What the fund was actually used for, whether cash was siphoned off, what happened to the book royalties etc. etc. - makes investigating the McCann finances is a huge and complicated task.

Poe wrote: [...]

What the fund was actually used for, whether cash was siphoned off, what happened to the book royalties etc. etc. - makes investigating the McCann finances is a huge and complicated task.

***
Oh yes. But that's probably, why they need so much time. SY [IMO] have some experts on it. And [IMO again] maybe some involved are singing by now.

Andrew wrote:Just going to put these snippets here from an article last year:

Kate and Gerry McCann continue to pump thousands of pounds into a special fund for use when the official investigation, codenamed Operation Grange and launched more than four years ago, finally ends.

He told how former GP Kate and heart doctor Gerry, both 37, of Rothley, Leics, had moved money from the publicly-backed Find Maddie Fund into a special account in anticipation of having to finance the hunt for their daughter themselves.

Mr Mitchell said: “In a common sense and practical move, they have kept some money back from the Find Madeleine Fund in case it is needed for an ongoing search.”

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/madeleine-mccanns-parents-ready-continue-6370581

It's unusual for their lot to admit moving money around from fund to fund. Maybe there was a reason for them coming out with this. Maybe the fund is now being investigated and they heard it was about to happen beforehand. That was a weird statement to make. There was no need for it.

Why would they need to move money from a Fund that was set up to search for Madeleine into another Fund to search for Madeleine?

The above article about the moving money etc is approx a year old but it was said for a reason... otherwise why admit it?

If as others have suggested, that the fund has been (or about to be at the time) looked into, then no doubt some spin/preempting was needed to 'explain away' the movement of such transfers.

The 'continue to pump thousands of pounds' suggests that there are and have been numerous and regular transfers from one to the other. And not just a one off or a couple of large payments.

So if they have been siphoning off money for a long period of time then that really is the only reason they can give.....

Or Clarence the clown is a double agent and deliberately dropped them in the sh!t.

I agree with you on clowns and double agents Andrew

Bampots wrote:I agree with you on clowns and double agents Andrew

Double O Clarence - Licence to spin bullsh!t.

Andrew wrote:

Bampots wrote:I agree with you on clowns and double agents Andrew

Double O Clarence - Licence to spin bullsh!t.

Perhaps that's why they parted company :-)

You can certainly tell that Clarence isn't at the McCann helm anymore or have I missed the quote from the McCann family expressing their gratitude for this extra injection of cash?

No you've not missed that, Poe. But then again I've not seen the McCanns show any gratitude whatsoever for all the millions of pounds that have been poured into the coffers from day 1. I've seen immense delight but not gratitude or appreciation.

Maybe Clarence is now this mystery 'Whitehall' source....

I'll put this here, but strange that Katie has just bumped her own article again and retweeted this link from a few months ago, - interesting.


Katie Hopkins Verified account  ‏@KTHopkins · 4m4 minutes ago

I would put Cuddle Cat under my pillow each night to be close to the baby I lost. Not wash its memories away #McCann http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3457221/KATIE-HOPKINS-ll-never-know-really-happened-Maddy-parents-accept-share-blame-let-go.html …

Also.....

Katie Hopkins ‏@KTHopkins 4m4 minutes ago
Thank you for your continued support for this article. #standstrong for Maddie. https://twitter.com/beccamustang/status/778149401554542592 …

Not meaning to be overly picky, but I wouldn't describe a missing child as "the baby I lost".

Losing a baby has a well understood inference and generally is not used to refer to failing to keep tabs on your three year old.

I have been known to be the teensiest bit picky myself - though my specialist gripe is apostrophes dumped everywhere where not needed!

I agree that the term "lost baby" is not really applicable but the intended meaning is good - Kate's behaviour was not what you'd expect from a parent whose child had disappeared.

Apologies Freedom. I do have the occasional tendency to dump the odd 'apostrophe' in from time to time when not needed.

Anyway... back to the McCanns.

Have they been arrested yet?

Andrew wrote:Apologies Freedom. I do have the occasional tendency to dump the odd 'apostrophe' in from time to time when not needed.

Anyway... back to the McCanns.

Have they been arrested yet?

Me too, and add them when not needed - she is always telling me off

Your "baby" seems to me to be a very American use of words, applied to anyone's child, who's under 18 ...

ETA did I use an apostrophe too many?
;-)

costello wrote:

Andrew wrote:Why should the 2 be related though.....?

If they have compelling evidence then why sit back and wait to see what the outcome is regarding the Appeal decision etc?

Whatever is going on with Goncalo and the McCanns on a private matter should'nt have any bearing at all on a £12 million pound plus investigation..... Should it?

Again just my thoughts Andrew, but if Dr.Amaral wins his appeal, he is then a loose cannon. I would imagine OG will have to continue for sometime.

Spot-on, costello.

Châtelaine wrote:IMO the "compelling evidence" could have been found in the use and management of the "fund".

Precisely, Chatelaine