£11 Million spent - time to end?

Don't Forget Madeleine wrote:
Directors can resign at any time and say they made a mistake and should not have got involved as they didn't know the full facts at the time, I would think most people now have scrutinised the McCann case from top to bottom and inside out, especially those with their names down as directors of the Fund/Limited Co.

To most people with an ounce of common sense would say that the EVRD dogs put an end to searching for a live Madeleine and please don't start with all the BS about cadaver odour being rotting meat etc.

I agree. You seem to labouring under the misapprehension that I believe the fund directors and shareholders are entirely innocent and am trying to argue their innocence. I'm not. I have no idea what they knew then or know now about Madeleine's disappearance. My only point was to try and show how difficult it will be to convict anyone of fraud in connection with the fund without proof of Madeleine's death and her parents concealment of her corpse. Therefore, it makes no sense for Grange to be spending millions investigating the fund for fraud without that proof. From that, and the fact that Grange have no jurisdiction to investigate the disappearance itself because it was in Portugal, I believe that the only thing they can be doing is attempting to perpetrate some sort of cover up.

Don't Forget Madeleine wrote:You don't know what OG are investigating, whether it's the Fund or anything else, we can all have our say without being shut up by other posters if it's a subject that seems to get certain people jumpy.

We can indeed all have our say, but that includes me. I'm not trying to shut anyone up. This is a discussion board and if you express an opinion you should expect that sometimes it will be challenged by others who have a different view.

I agree with you Andrew - I cannot see how OG can ask Portugal to go along with a cover up after all the problems the PJ have had with our country and our press in this case! I would hope OG are working hard to make amends after the onslaught of insults aimed at Snr Amaral. I think The Met started to make amends with a donation of £1000 to show their support some months ago.

Andrew wrote:You make some interesting points, AndyB. However I (personally) can't see how they can whitewash this. To think that part of OG is not looking into the fund and the connections, would in my view be 'ludicrous'.

I agree that its going to be very very difficult for them to get away with a cover-up but nevertheless I think they're trying. Their problem in part is the internet; places like this, twitter, facebook and mass communication generally. We all talk to each other far more than the pre-internet days and can share information without the need for the press. In short, they've lost control of the message and are attempting an analogue cover-up in a digital world.

I have no problem with others believing that Grange is genuine. I sincerely hope they're right and I'm wrong but I can only go where my logic and analysis takes me

Mo wrote:I agree with you Andrew - I cannot see how OG can ask Portugal to go along with a cover up after all the problems the PJ have had with our country and our press in this case!  I would hope OG are working hard to make amends after the onslaught of insults aimed at Snr Amaral.  I think The Met started to make amends with a donation of £1000 to show their support some months ago.

There's a world of difference though between the Met itself and a few anonymous officers who work there

AndyB wrote:

Mo wrote:I agree with you Andrew - I cannot see how OG can ask Portugal to go along with a cover up after all the problems the PJ have had with our country and our press in this case!  I would hope OG are working hard to make amends after the onslaught of insults aimed at Snr Amaral.  I think The Met started to make amends with a donation of £1000 to show their support some months ago.

There's a world of difference though between the Met itself and a few anonymous officers who work there

It may be only a few (more than a few I would think) anonymous officers who work there but their 'message' of support says it all really which will have been read by thousands of people across the world!

Andrew wrote:You make some interesting points, AndyB. However I (personally) can't see how they can whitewash this. To think that part of OG is not looking into the fund and the connections, would in my view be 'ludicrous'.

I don't think that OG originated because the files were released and they wanted to get this genie back in the bottle.

Again (to me), that makes no sense. The OG remit is not to bury the truth and spend squillions covering up and assisting a couple of Leicestershire Doctors.

Said doctors have intentionally created an absolute spiders web. Yes, I can forsee issues in trying to prove who was in the know and who wasn't. Time consuming and expensive working that one out.

The difficulty is that everything has to be absolute watertight because if it isn't then it might collapse.

They won't /can't allow (or afford) for it to collapse.

They have to get it right and I genuinely believe they're working well with the PJ, quietly and efficiently.

Both forces will know more or less what happened and it's about making charges stick in court. For all associated too.

My thoughts and opinion.

Quite right. They are trying to bury something far bigger. IMO, of course

froggy wrote:

Andrew wrote:You make some interesting points, AndyB. However I (personally) can't see how they can whitewash this. To think that part of OG is not looking into the fund and the connections, would in my view be 'ludicrous'.

I don't think that OG originated because the files were released and they wanted to get this genie back in the bottle.

Again (to me), that makes no sense. The OG remit is not to bury the truth and spend squillions covering up and assisting a couple of Leicestershire Doctors.

Said doctors have intentionally created an absolute spiders web. Yes, I can forsee issues in trying to prove who was in the know and who wasn't. Time consuming and expensive working that one out.

The difficulty is that everything has to be absolute watertight because if it isn't then it might collapse.

They won't /can't allow (or afford) for it to collapse.

They have to get it right and I genuinely believe they're working well with the PJ, quietly and efficiently.

Both forces will know more or less what happened and it's about making charges stick in court. For all associated too.

My thoughts and opinion.

Quite right.  They are trying to bury something far bigger.  IMO, of course

You would be hard pressed these days to bury things. People talk, documents get leaked, and boy when they do they go round the world on the great WWW in seconds. With so many scandals and cover ups being uncovered and exposed I somehow doubt it.

candyfloss wrote:

froggy wrote:

Andrew wrote:You make some interesting points, AndyB. However I (personally) can't see how they can whitewash this. To think that part of OG is not looking into the fund and the connections, would in my view be 'ludicrous'.

I don't think that OG originated because the files were released and they wanted to get this genie back in the bottle.

Again (to me), that makes no sense. The OG remit is not to bury the truth and spend squillions covering up and assisting a couple of Leicestershire Doctors.

Said doctors have intentionally created an absolute spiders web. Yes, I can forsee issues in trying to prove who was in the know and who wasn't. Time consuming and expensive working that one out.

The difficulty is that everything has to be absolute watertight because if it isn't then it might collapse.

They won't /can't allow (or afford) for it to collapse.

They have to get it right and I genuinely believe they're working well with the PJ, quietly and efficiently.

Both forces will know more or less what happened and it's about making charges stick in court. For all associated too.

My thoughts and opinion.

Quite right.  They are trying to bury something far bigger.  IMO, of course

You would be hard pressed these days to bury things.  People talk, documents get leaked, and boy when they do they go round the world on the great WWW in seconds.  With so many scandals and cover ups being uncovered and exposed I somehow doubt it.

Other than those involving the plebs or dead persons, which ones did you have in mind ?

OG has stated openly and plainly the Macs are neither suspects nor persons of interest.
It therefore follows any director of the fund would simply state there is\was nothing to indicate fraud or suspicious activity but a genuine attempt to find Madeleine and they were just trying to help.
After all who would doubt the credentials of SY to spot a fraud!

IMO Grange would just need to have proof, that the McCanns KNEW Madeleine was dead. Not necessarily by whose hands and what happened before or afterwards. It's a complicated matter and I have some theories, which I will not publish.
Knowing she was dead, though, would make the "fund" fraudulent [to which PeterMac and I - and others, of course - have been pointing regularly, referring to "doing an Al Capone"] ...

The police often say 'people are not suspects or persons of interest'.

Then when enough evidence, said people are arrested.

They would never in a million years come out originally and say they are. (the Mc's)

To use that ridiculous word again, it would of been ludicrous if they did.

I know this is off topic but didn't know where to post.

Taken from Textusa's blog



http://openaccess.city.ac.uk/1988/1/2012%20-%20TC%20-%20Madeleine%20McCann.pdf

Any fund for whatever reason, if it gives specific reasons for that fund and those reasons were a lie and they knew it to be a lie, then the fund would be fraudulent and money obtained under false pretences.  The police have to prove this, it can prove to be hard.  In many case people administering the fund or helping out have no idea but are just helping a friend or family, therefore are totally innocent of anything.  



Think of the case of the canoe man and his wife, you would think that such an elaborate hoax would have many involved and many people knowing, but no one else was prosecuted just the couple who defrauded the insurance.  Not even the sons knew anything and were were in no way involved..

Think of Shannon Matthews case and how friends and family were duped.

candyfloss wrote:Any fund for whatever reason, if it gives specific reasons for that fund and those reasons were a lie and they knew it to be a lie, then the fund would be fraudulent and money obtained under false pretences.  The police have to prove this, it can prove to be hard.  In many case people administering the fund or helping out have no idea but are just helping a friend or family, therefore are totally innocent of anything.  



Think of the case of the canoe man and his wife, you would think that such an elaborate hoax would have many involved and many people knowing, but no one else was prosecuted just the couple who defrauded the insurance.  Not even the sons knew anything and were were in no way  involved..

Think of Shannon Matthews case and how friends and family were duped.

You have to put it in perspective though i.e. if my neighbours went on holiday with their small daughter and she "disappeared" without trace whilst on holiday and they were then made arguidos some time after in connection with her disappearance. They set up a fund meanwhile raking in £millions then come home back to the UK and ask "would you like to become a director of the fund to find ........."

What would your answer be?

Good points, CF.

However this case is completely different and so much more complex.

Canoe pair and Matthews was small fry in regards to this. Nobody else involved so no conspiracy.

There are (imo) literally dozens of people who were complicit and involved in this. They know what happened but proving it is another kettle of fish.

They've (OG/PJ) have probably got the Mccann couple themselves bang to rights by now.

It's everyone else connected that's causing the delay and expense etc.

And the whole thing needs to be wrapped up and tight before arrests/court etc.

Imo

@DFM - Sod off and hope you get 20 years.

(not you obviously)

ETA - not that keen on my neighbours.

Don't Forget Madeleine wrote:

candyfloss wrote:Any fund for whatever reason, if it gives specific reasons for that fund and those reasons were a lie and they knew it to be a lie, then the fund would be fraudulent and money obtained under false pretences.  The police have to prove this, it can prove to be hard.  In many case people administering the fund or helping out have no idea but are just helping a friend or family, therefore are totally innocent of anything.  



Think of the case of the canoe man and his wife, you would think that such an elaborate hoax would have many involved and many people knowing, but no one else was prosecuted just the couple who defrauded the insurance.  Not even the sons knew anything and were were in no way  involved..

Think of Shannon Matthews case and how friends and family were duped.

You have to put it in perspective though i.e. if my neighbours went on holiday with their small daughter and she "disappeared" without trace whilst on holiday and they were then made arguidos some time after in connection with her disappearance.  They set up a fund meanwhile raking in £millions then come home back to the UK and ask "would you like to become a director of the fund to find ........."

What would your answer be?

My answer would probably be yes, if it were family or a friend I had complete trust in and I knew well. People are made suspects and then not charged many times, police do make mistakes, as per the man(forgot his name) in the Joanna Yeates case... Therefore I would stand behind them and with them until such time as they were charged and arrested, although there would be a tiny niggle in the back of my mind. It is very difficult DFM unless you are in that situation you cannot say how you would behave.. Even people who have been found guilty of crimes have often been cleared years later, through DNA etc., and I bet those families that deserted them felt rather bad to say the least.

There is also a difference between the unique situation of the parents of a child who has supposedly been abducted setting up a dodgy limited company in near record time and the well-meaning efforts of friends and neighbours collecting money amongst themselves to help someone else.

candyfloss wrote:

Don't Forget Madeleine wrote:

candyfloss wrote:Any fund for whatever reason, if it gives specific reasons for that fund and those reasons were a lie and they knew it to be a lie, then the fund would be fraudulent and money obtained under false pretences.  The police have to prove this, it can prove to be hard.  In many case people administering the fund or helping out have no idea but are just helping a friend or family, therefore are totally innocent of anything.  



Think of the case of the canoe man and his wife, you would think that such an elaborate hoax would have many involved and many people knowing, but no one else was prosecuted just the couple who defrauded the insurance.  Not even the sons knew anything and were were in no way  involved..

Think of Shannon Matthews case and how friends and family were duped.

You have to put it in perspective though i.e. if my neighbours went on holiday with their small daughter and she "disappeared" without trace whilst on holiday and they were then made arguidos some time after in connection with her disappearance.  They set up a fund meanwhile raking in £millions then come home back to the UK and ask "would you like to become a director of the fund to find ........."

What would your answer be?

My answer would probably be yes, if it were family or a friend I had complete trust in and I knew well.  People are made suspects and then not charged many times, police do make mistakes, as per the man(forgot his name) in the Joanna Yeates case...   Therefore I would stand behind them  and with them until such time as they were charged and arrested, although there would be a tiny niggle in the back of my mind.  It is very difficult DFM unless you are in that situation you cannot say how you would behave..  Even people who have been found guilty of crimes have often been cleared years later, through DNA etc., and I bet those families that deserted them felt rather bad to say the least.

I get your message candyfloss, I won't pursue it.

This case is unique alright.

Because of it's 'uniqueness' then it's an absolute mess of a spider's web. (deliberate confusion is good)

But, they're getting there.

Andrew wrote:This case is unique alright.

Because of it's 'uniqueness' then it's an absolute mess of a spider's web. (deliberate confusion is good)

But, they're getting there.

Yes, but I bet it's a great learning experience for the MET for future years and anyone else who may follow.

I watch a lot of the real FBI and other USA police programmes which are on late at night and their methods of detection are unbelievable, but even so with their amazing brains and special equipment sometimes it can take them years to bring a "perp" to justice because they haven't got that essential last piece of evidence.

I was watching one earlier today and a man who murdered his wife had gone to extremes to cover all his tracks, although he'd forgotten about the things he'd looked up on his home computer, one of which was freeways on his route to kill his wife to make sure they didn't have any CCTV cameras that could pick up his car's number plate.  He thought he could outsmart the police but in the end they outsmarted him.

If I can remember, I think it took the US investigators about 3 years to bring him to justice, they'd missed that crucial bit of evidence the first time but went over the evidence again with a fine tooth comb and came across the search on his computer about the route he'd taken in the morning in his car and where he'd been.  His alibi didn't tie in with the timings of him dropping his child off at her play group first off, he said it was 8.45 and the nanny said it was 8.15 so it gave him more time to drive to his wife's house to kill her on a more roundabout route then having to go through toll booths which would photograph his number plates.

ETA: The nanny also said that the father was wearing different clothes a few hours later when he picked his daughter up from what he was wearing when he dropped her off at 8.15 a.m.

Seems to me things changed when Redwood retired and Nicola Wall took over. We have heard no more gossip about the two departments not getting on. Could it be the PJ and SY are now working well together?

Mimi wrote:Seems to me things changed when Redwood retired and Nicola Wall took over.  We have heard no more gossip about the two departments not getting on.  Could it be the PJ and SY are now working well together?

Perhaps Andy was given the task as a "go between-er" to pacify some people who were getting agitated with not knowing what the hell was going on and to give a few hints out before the "big guns" were sent in and everything was shut down.

Makes a lot of sense.

Although don't think he was being a 'go between' when he revealed the efits...

He wouldn't be on the Mc's xmas card list after that.

I (personally)  think he was tasked to initially 'get close' though.

Before he pre-planned his retirement and now sat on a beach (Algarve maybe)

candyfloss wrote:The ambassador would have to be involved pretty quickly, a child was missing in a foreign country, the media had been notified, therefore it seems perfectly feasible that the ambassador would be informed immediately, he would no doubt have the press etc. on his doorstep, he needed to be kept up to speed, with the press being notified so very early on.  All perfectly normal to me.

It is something I do not recall about the British police not informing the Portuguese police??  Do you have a link for that please.  I may have read it a long time ago and perhaps forgotten. (Are you meaning CRG? that the McCann's called in? )  Sorry memory is not so good these days

As for the evidence not being passed on, (do you mean the Gaspar statement) yes they were slow on that it seems, but it was passed on, but I expect there was a lot of work and enquiries to make around that.  

I'm not sure but did'nt Mr Amaral write in his book that the British police arrived in Portugal on the saturday (5th may) and that him and his team did'nt find this out till the monday (7th may).I' sure i read that the British police spoke to the McCanns on that weekend and they should'nt have done that.