PDA

View Full Version : psychic Acorah angers McCann's.


guuna
15-05-2012, 10:26 PM
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/4316621/TV-psychic-Derek-Acorah-in-sick-Maddie-dead-claim.html

Sorry it's a Sun link.

Derek Acorah who has some popularity as a Psychic in the UK Television media, has caused anger and upset to the parents of missing child Madeleine McCann, by saying that he believes her to be dead.

The tragic case of Maddie, as she is known goes back to 2007 when she went missing from her parents holiday home on The Portuguese Algarve, this has resulted in one of the most infamous missing persons cases in UK history.

merla
15-05-2012, 10:34 PM
According to this (http://uk.tv.yahoo.com/derek-acorah-slammed-over-maddie-claims---daily-tv-round-up.html) he's come out and said he didn't even say it, it's all from 'sources'. So really the story is something like 'the sun and possibly the mccanns grab headlines with a good old fashion bit of liable'

I tend to believe him, I mean he's a big fat faker but where is he supposed to have said this and to who? And he's not so crazy that he'd breath a word about Madeleine being dead even if he believe it, that can get you sued by Kate and Gerry.

anders7777
16-05-2012, 05:08 AM
According to this (http://uk.tv.yahoo.com/derek-acorah-slammed-over-maddie-claims---daily-tv-round-up.html) he's come out and said he didn't even say it, it's all from 'sources'. So really the story is something like 'the sun and possibly the mccanns grab headlines with a good old fashion bit of liable'

I tend to believe him, I mean he's a big fat faker but where is he supposed to have said this and to who? And he's not so crazy that he'd breath a word about Madeleine being dead even if he believe it, that can get you sued by Kate and Gerry.

Hey M

I follow the MM tragedy very closely

Check this out

http://mccannexposure.wordpress.com/2012/05/15/derek-acorah-his-upcoming-tour-and-recent-interest-in-the-mccann-case/

Be sure to watch the videos

Especially the second one

LMAO

Snip

Derek Acorah has a busy schedule ahead of him over the course of the next few months.  A cursory glance of his upcoming listingssuggests that ample tickets are still available.  Acorah made the news in the last 24 hours over comments on the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, although he has denied his past claims that McCann is dead.  He has also offered to fly to Portugal and speak with spirits to see what happened to the child and turn his findings over to police; I’m sure New Scotland Yard will welcome any gobbledegookinformation he offers up. Acorah believes that McCann will be reincarnated shortly, adding, “‘When children pass over who haven’t had full lives I believe they choose the time to come back in the same form again – as another little girl.’

End snip

Win win for

Sun

Acorah

Team McCann

All best!

Anders

the_ascensionist
16-05-2012, 05:11 AM
Acorah says what the whole world is thinking and it upsets the McCanns. They will milk it for all it's worth.

anders7777
16-05-2012, 05:16 AM
Hey M

I follow the MM tragedy very closely

Check this out

http://mccannexposure.wordpress.com/2012/05/15/derek-acorah-his-upcoming-tour-and-recent-interest-in-the-mccann-case/

Be sure to watch the videos

Especially the second one

LMAO

Snip

Derek Acorah has a busy schedule ahead of him over the course of the next few months.  A cursory glance of his upcoming listingssuggests that ample tickets are still available.  Acorah made the news in the last 24 hours over comments on the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, although he has denied his past claims that McCann is dead.  He has also offered to fly to Portugal and speak with spirits to see what happened to the child and turn his findings over to police; I’m sure New Scotland Yard will welcome any gobbledegookinformation he offers up. Acorah believes that McCann will be reincarnated shortly, adding, “‘When children pass over who haven’t had full lives I believe they choose the time to come back in the same form again – as another little girl.’

End snip

Win win for

Sun

Acorah

Team McCann

All best!

Anders


PS

If this disgusting fraud NEEDS to fly to Portugal to speak to spirits

First class no doubt, five star jolly etc etc

Then what does it say about his superluminal ESP 4D connection to the spirit world, what does this greedy statement say about this stupid troughing git?

Everyone really MUST see the second video

LMAO again, you couldn't make it up!!!

A

anders7777
16-05-2012, 05:18 AM
Acorah says what the whole world is thinking and it upsets the McCanns. They will milk it for all it's worth.

Yup, they all will.

Hopefully one day we shall see some justice for poor Maddie.

RIP

stelios
16-05-2012, 05:57 AM
Yup, they all will.

Hopefully one day we shall see some justice for poor Maddie.

RIP
Justice for Maddie will only come the day they arrest her parents for her murder.
Derek Acorah might be a scam artist but he is right on this one.
Madeline McCann is dead and died on that night in the villa.
Exactly how the Portugese police investigation showed

stelios
16-05-2012, 05:57 AM
Yup, they all will.

Hopefully one day we shall see some justice for poor Maddie.

RIP
Justice for Maddie will only come the day they arrest her parents for her murder.
Derek Acorah might be a scam artist but he is right on this one.
Madeline McCann is dead and died on that night in the villa.
Exactly how the Portugese police investigation showed

http://www.anorak.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/254636_1.jpg

cadenza
16-05-2012, 07:07 AM
Regarding Derek Acorah, I recall reading about the lion the witch and the wardrobe 'haunting', check out this page http://www.ripaonline.co.uk/famous-folk/the-kreed-kafer-story

As for the Maddie case, I still cannot get over the fact that her parents have not been charged with, at least, child neglect, or that they appear not to understand that leaving 3 young children unattended was wrong.

godner
16-05-2012, 08:14 AM
Regarding Derek Acorah, I recall reading about the lion the witch and the wardrobe 'haunting', check out this page http://www.ripaonline.co.uk/famous-folk/the-kreed-kafer-story

As for the Maddie case, I still cannot get over the fact that her parents have not been charged with, at least, child neglect, or that they appear not to understand that leaving 3 young children unattended was wrong.

Aye, and neither do the press, gutter or otherwise.

Can anyone confirm 100% that Gerald McCann is a freemason?
I've read up on these lamentable 'parents', but I would appreciate absolute proof that the guy is being looked after by the funny handshake brigade.

He's being looked after by somebody, that's for sure. Would like to know if it's definitely the masons though.

velma
16-05-2012, 08:14 AM
You must ask yourself, why... the Sun newspaper, whose whole raison d'être is scandal and slander, who invent stories to defame people and print pure lies for sensational headlines, always jump to the defense of the McCann's whenever their "feelings are violated" by the likes of Acorah or anyone else who does not conform to their abduction fantasy. Also, the McCann's are still begging cash in the 'hunt for Maddy' but, the MET are obligingly re-examining the case, at their own expense, so why the need for Private Detectives and further fund-raising?

noxverulam
16-05-2012, 08:21 AM
As for the Maddie case, I still cannot get over the fact that her parents have not been charged with, at least, child neglect, or that they appear not to understand that leaving 3 young children unattended was wrong.

Hear hear.

merlincove
16-05-2012, 08:21 AM
Acorah, is, imho, a shill who is in it purely for the $ - i know a few people who know him (though have never met him) and they all say he is a nice guy but he fakes it all, because it is in his contract to do so.

One person i know was offered the job on most haunted, she said that part of the contract stipulated that there would be a 'taking over' (read trance-channel) in every show and she said she couldn't do a show and fake it if that is what was needed, they then offered to Achorah.

Having said all that though, it's likely that poor girl died at the hands of her parents, and how they have escaped justice for so long is very telling that he is a Mason - they have earned a lot of £ from her disappearance, and unlike other children who have disappeared, why is Maddie always in the headlines - rarely a month goes by without the McCanns hitting the front pages.

dolores1
16-05-2012, 09:15 AM
For all concerned, the Sun, McCanns and Acora, there is no such thing as bad publicity!


It is the child that was to be pitied. And how are her siblings now being cared for?

babybumasylum
16-05-2012, 10:14 AM
So if anyone be it psychic or not believes Madelene to be dead, they are slandering?


How the fuckity fuck does that work? :confused:
Lets stick to the facts...

Fact
The Mc-Canns put themselves on camera and said we will not leave Portugal until we find her.
Fact
They left as soon as the authorities wanted to question them.
Fact
The Portuguese police were then found to be abusive, to other women in other cases.
Fact.
Police in all countries are by the very nature of the job abusive.

Fact
I'm pissed off with this, my opinion not a statement of fact by any means is that they are guilty in so many ways, yet because they are doctors they get sympathy instead of a prison sentence.


Fact
If I left my kids alone in the very same holiday camp at the same time the Mc canns did and one of my kids got took, I would now be serving time and probably found guilty of murder to boot.

anders7777
16-05-2012, 10:36 AM
Aye, and neither do the press, gutter or otherwise.

Can anyone confirm 100% that Gerald McCann is a freemason?
I've read up on these lamentable 'parents', but I would appreciate absolute proof that the guy is being looked after by the funny handshake brigade.

He's being looked after by somebody, that's for sure. Would like to know if it's definitely the masons though.

It is a little known fact that all doctors are automatically de facto Freemasons via their teaching hospitals - whether they become active practisers is another matter.

Gerry has a unique record number on the child protection register, but one of his fellow masons in the police has scrubbed the file.

I bought this book and it goes into MASSIVE detail on all the FREEMASONIC connections and influencers amongst the major players, Smethurst, Kinsley Napley, etc etc etc

Remember - 3 Masonic prime ministers have personally called the parents to bury ( pun intended ) poor Maddie. And all the UK controlled media have followed "on message" like the bastards they are.

IMHO they are covering up something so huge and stinking it would have brought down the government of g brown, a known bi sexual and the guy who along with Blair covered up operation ore and Dunblane

They are IMHO covering up paedophile rings at the highest levels

Child trafficking to order

Read up on the CASA PIA orphanage case in Portugal

Haute in jersey

Kincora

North Wales

Take a look at all the info at Aangirfan

Dutroux in Belgium

Ted Heath

Mi5 supplying kids for blackmail reasons

Something stinks so much tptb will go to any lengths to cover up the truth

Including the current yard whitewash



http://fakedabduction.com/2010/03/the-book-contents/


The Book Contents
Posted on 05. Mar, 2010 by admin in News
The Book Contents
Here is the chapter listing:
British Establishment Cover-ups
Maddie: A Name the Media Invented
The Police Conclusions
How the Story Unfolded
Experts in Propaganda
The Locations and People
A Neighbor Hears Crying
An Obsession with Lawyers
The Five Photographs
Payne & McCann Allegations
Dogs Don’t Lie
The Weekend of June 9 – 10
McCanns on the Oprah Show
Letter to the Madeleine Fund
Gerry’s Blogs and Kate’s Diary
The Official Fund
The Arguido Interviews
Dealing with a Corpse
Flaws in Gonçalo Amaral’s thesis
Interesting Details from the Files
The Author’s Conclusions
APPENDICES
Appendix A: Timeline 2007-2010
Appendix B: Timeline May 3, 2007
Appendix C: Tavares Almeida’s Report
Appendix D: Mark Harrison’s Report
Appendix E: Martin Grime’s Profile
Appendix F: Documentaries & Interviews
Appendix G: Kate Healy’s Bible
Appendix H: Justice Hogg’s Judgment
A few book Highlights:
Copious footnotes and cross references to verify sources
Correspondence from Peter McCann of Castle Craig about his relationship with Gerry McCann
The statements deliberately held back from the Portuguese police by Leicester Constabulary
The blatant discrepancies in the Tapas Nine witness statements
Jane Tanner’s conflicting statements
Did Kate falsify legal documents?
Where did Gonçalo Amaral go wrong?
Correspondence from the Masonic law firm entrusted with setting up Madeleine’s Fund
Gordon Brown’s wife and the fellow Bristol University graduate behind the Madeleine Fund
Information about other appalling British Establishment cover ups including Dunblane, Omagh and the recent shock Hollie Greig case
But remember…
According to Clarence Mitchell in the Sun newspaper on January 27, 2010, all the allegations in Faked Abduction are entirely untrue.
Read it for yourself.
3 Responses to “The Book Contents”

1
jkh Says:
March 8th, 2010 at 2:40 am
Funny how Clarence said “all the allegations in Faked Abduction are entirely untrue” – before it was even in print.
It’s a bit like when he said “There is a wholly innocent explanation for any material the police may or may not have found” before news of bodily fluids in the back of the car was released.

2
THENTHEREWERE4 Says:
March 8th, 2010 at 6:34 am
Mitchells words should nicely bolster the circulation figures. For that I am eternally grateful both to the man and to his wicked words.
The cadaver trails through the village should be a fascinating read.
Quite as to how the McCanns are now going to explain away the cadaver scent found in Madeleines bed. Perhaps the McCanns will yet again require the services of Mitchell and his everso expansive mouth.

3
tinysusieporter Says:
March 12th, 2010 at 3:12 am
They never told their parents
that Madeleine had been abducted.
They said it was a disater
and she was gone.
Jane tanner said it could be too late for Madeleine
but not other children.
Raechel talked about them knowing how to resuscitate a child
Kate checked twins to see if they were breathing……
no one else saw any abduction ,i mean none of the loaclas did only Kate’s family and friends.
They went to bed till light all of the party did
and none searched for Madeleine…..but went back to normal life as if nothing had happened
almost apart from trying to make pots of money.
no one else would go to bed if they lost a little child,
nor be laughing and smiling asif almost relieved she was gone forever.

scottishryan
16-05-2012, 10:40 AM
One person i know was offered the job on most haunted, she said that part of the contract stipulated that there would be a 'taking over' (read trance-channel) in every show and she said she couldn't do a show and fake it if that is what was needed, they then offered to Achorah.



Thats really interesting!! I have a contract here from Most Haunted (its post-Acorah though 2008) and I have not read it fully to see if they stipulate any of that :o I am terrible for signing things and not reading fully!

Guess what I will be pulling out the filing cabinet today to read over Hahahhaah :D

Via facebook, Derek has clearly indicated that he has been stitched up by the Sun and I believe him!!

anders7777
16-05-2012, 10:52 AM
http://blacksmithbureau.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/benny-hills-alive-too.html?m=1

Cameron's taxpayer funded whitewash

SATURDAY, 28 APRIL 2012

Benny Hill's Alive Too

The Review Leader in action

Andy Redwood might have hidden talents as a whizzbang investigator, though if his role in the shockingly botched  Jill Dando murder inquiry, which ended in  the long and tragic incarceration of  a helpless mentally handicapped  victim is anything to go by, these talents must be hidden very well indeed. But at communication he is not just a disaster but a slow-talking, slow-thinking, slow-burning horror show. All he lacks is a suicide vest.
What he said
In his Scotland Yard  April 24 official interview, available on You-Tube, Mr Redwood gave his reasons for going public now. The primary reason for the initiative, he said, is a public appeal for assistance and information that might be of value in terms of sightings etc, complete with a photo projection of what the child would look like now. The other, subsidiary, reason is to prompt the memories of those who  were staying in the Praia da Luz area during that week in 2007, an appeal, by the way, first made over four years ago.
He said nothing whatever about wanting the case re-opened now, and it was clearly no part of his brief to do so.  He spoke of increasing co-operation between both police forces and “working together towards a position where we would very much like the case to be re-opened”.  This peculiar prose, found at 2 minutes 10 or so on the  video and sadly typical of Mr Redwood’s mode of conversation, obviously refers to a position which has not yet been reached.
What he then said - or did he?
At the official media conference to launch the appeal the  hapless Redwood was ambushed by questioners into  enlarging on this aim and proceeded, with great West Country determination and dexterity, to slowly  winch his foot upwards  and sideways until it was jammed firmly into his mouth.  Before actually swallowing it and putting us all out of our misery, he managed to give the impression to the hacks that the Yard definitely wanted the case re-opened now – the precise opposite of his formal scripted policy announcement on April 24. And off rushed  the Guardian, the Independent and  the tits and bum papers to write inflammatory stories on that basis without once quoting him actually saying so. Not once.
An international debut
Quite an achievement, isn’t it? A Scotland  Yard detective has single-handedly  started a diplomatic incident on his first major media  appearance. Until that press conference the word was that the UK and the Portuguese authorities were working well together; now this  witless buffoon  has triggered off the UK press into one of its uncouth chauvinist outbreaks with all the consequences that anyone not embalmed in scrumpy could forecast, including a frosty statement from the Portuguese Attorney General, political grunting noises from the former postman  Alan Johnson  and a clearly perceptible  frisson  of resentment  from  Portuguese people which bodes very badly for the future. 
Redwood has nobody to blame but himself. It is quite right that the Yard should issue a definitive appeal on the child’s behalf and this anniversary was the obvious time to do so – after all even Mr Redwood might gag at waiting until the sixth anniversary, still only halfway through his task, to appeal for more information. It is quite right also that he should treat the McCanns as innocent victims of a terrible event. But the man has the diplomatic sensitivity, nous, finesse and awareness of a walrus.
Obviously he couldn’t make an age-progression-picture-based appeal  for sightings of the child while simultaneously stating that she was dead, could he? So what was his plan for handling this potential contradiction when he was asked about it, as he was bound to be? Oh, he hadn't thought of that, or rather, oh, 'e adn't thorra that.  Instead we received his revelation that Madeleine McCann was definitely, yes definitely, certainly, er, aloive or dead, an insight which went straight round the world, fuelled by a wave of mockery. Goncalo Amaral might have been forgiven for just a little schadenfreude behind his sleeve, although he was too decent to twist the knife on a fellow cop in distress -  no not just distress but buried up to his neck with his foot in his mouth, his boots in the air, his pants on his face, in a giant brown mound of steaming Somerset cowshit.

Andy Redwood's cold, ruthless hitman killer Barry George
Eaten for Breakfast
The Madeleine McCann affair  involves some of the most highly paid professional communicators in the world, as well as brilliant media and communication lawyers. All are waiting for their next engagements in the case.  Mr Redwood has made his first venture into this snake pit and it has not been a pretty sight. Wait till the heavies get to work on him! Whether he will still be around when the Yard actually have to get to grips with the investigation, which they have certainly not done yet, must be a matter of some doubt.
Lastly, for those of the belief that Mr Redwood is in some way carrying out a policy determined for him by others, just pause and think over what you have witnessed. Mr Redwood, a man unable to remember the scripted priorities  he had laid out just three days before on April 24 is not the sort of man that David Cameron, or whoever the supposed puppet-master is,  would entrust with  a sensitive cover-up. On this performance he wouldn’t  entrust him with calling a taxi.









john blacksmith at 16:57

anders7777
16-05-2012, 11:06 AM
Thats really interesting!! I have a contract here from Most Haunted (its post-Acorah though 2008) and I have not read it fully to see if they stipulate any of that :o I am terrible for signing things and not reading fully!

Guess what I will be pulling out the filing cabinet today to read over Hahahhaah :D

Via facebook, Derek has clearly indicated that he has been stitched up by the Sun and I believe him!!

Hi

Please let us know about the contract!

Did u see the second video in my link?

We clearly see acorah faking two "possessions"

Both names given are anagrams of

DEREK LIES

and

DEREK FAKER

LMAO!!!!!

Someone's "having a laugh..."

From 2005

Ciaran, who joined Most Haunted in April 2004 became suspicious of Acorah's antics on a shoot at Castle Leslie, Co Monaghan in Ireland where a 17th Century four-poster bed has been claimed to levitate.

Ciaran recalls: "As we walked into the bedroom, Derek touched the bed and came out with extremely accurate information.

"He insisted he got all the information just from touching the bed. But it was the wrong bed."

Antix Productions claims the mediums have no idea where they will be filming or know any details about the history of the locations.

But Ciaran says: "Derek must have had prior knowledge of the locations."

He devised a plan to see if Derek was deliberately deceiving the public.

While on a shoot at Bodmin gaol he invented a long-dead South African jailer called Kreed Kafer - an anagram of Derek Faker.

"I wrote the name down and asked another member of the crew to mention it to Derek before filming.

"I honestly didn't think Derek would take the bait. But during the filming he actually got possessed by my fictional character!"

On the next shoot at Prideaux Place, Cornwall, Ciaran made up another fictional character, highwayman Rik Eedles - an anagram of Derek Lies. Sure enough, Derek made contact with the dead outlaw.

Ciaran says: "In my professional opinion we're not dealing with a genuine medium.

"When Derek is possessed he is doing it consciously - all we are seeing is showmanship and dramatics."

Ciaran went a step further at Craigievar Castle, near Aberdeen.

"I made up stories about Richard the Lionheart, a witch, and Richard's apparition appearing to walk through a wardrobe - the lion, the witch and the wardrobe!" True to form, Derek mentioned all Ciaran's stories - even though Richard I reigned 500 years BEFORE Craigievar Castle was built.

The final straw came last month when Most Haunted presented a three-night special from Manchester.

On the second evening, the show claimed to be broadcasting live from the site of Cheadle's Victorian asylum, a place where - according to presenter David Bull - thousands died in torment. In fact they were in the derelict remains of Barnes Convalescence Home - where nobody died in torment.

Ciaran remembers: "Derek was communicating with spirits that sounded as if they'd been in an asylum, but it was never an asylum."

Yesterday the Mirror confronted Derek Acorah with Ciaran's allegations. He told us: "I've worked with Ciaran for many shows and he's got every right to say what he says.

"However, it does shock and surprise me. Not only do I believe that I am a genuine medium - I live my work 24 hours a day. If I thought that I wasn't a true medium, I wouldn't work as one."

Right.

thentherewere4
16-05-2012, 01:33 PM
http://img42.imageshack.us/img42/5654/derekacorahhomepagesusp.jpg

Not unusual behaviour between Freemasons.

scottishryan
16-05-2012, 03:32 PM
Hi

Please let us know about the contract!

Did u see the second video in my link?

We clearly see acorah faking two "possessions"

Both names given are anagrams of

DEREK LIES

and

DEREK FAKER

LMAO!!!!!

Someone's "having a laugh..."

From 2005

Ciaran, who joined Most Haunted in April 2004 became suspicious of Acorah's antics on a shoot at Castle Leslie, Co Monaghan in Ireland where a 17th Century four-poster bed has been claimed to levitate.

Ciaran recalls: "As we walked into the bedroom, Derek touched the bed and came out with extremely accurate information.

"He insisted he got all the information just from touching the bed. But it was the wrong bed."

Antix Productions claims the mediums have no idea where they will be filming or know any details about the history of the locations.

But Ciaran says: "Derek must have had prior knowledge of the locations."

He devised a plan to see if Derek was deliberately deceiving the public.

While on a shoot at Bodmin gaol he invented a long-dead South African jailer called Kreed Kafer - an anagram of Derek Faker.

"I wrote the name down and asked another member of the crew to mention it to Derek before filming.

"I honestly didn't think Derek would take the bait. But during the filming he actually got possessed by my fictional character!"

On the next shoot at Prideaux Place, Cornwall, Ciaran made up another fictional character, highwayman Rik Eedles - an anagram of Derek Lies. Sure enough, Derek made contact with the dead outlaw.

Ciaran says: "In my professional opinion we're not dealing with a genuine medium.

"When Derek is possessed he is doing it consciously - all we are seeing is showmanship and dramatics."

Ciaran went a step further at Craigievar Castle, near Aberdeen.

"I made up stories about Richard the Lionheart, a witch, and Richard's apparition appearing to walk through a wardrobe - the lion, the witch and the wardrobe!" True to form, Derek mentioned all Ciaran's stories - even though Richard I reigned 500 years BEFORE Craigievar Castle was built.

The final straw came last month when Most Haunted presented a three-night special from Manchester.

On the second evening, the show claimed to be broadcasting live from the site of Cheadle's Victorian asylum, a place where - according to presenter David Bull - thousands died in torment. In fact they were in the derelict remains of Barnes Convalescence Home - where nobody died in torment.

Ciaran remembers: "Derek was communicating with spirits that sounded as if they'd been in an asylum, but it was never an asylum."

Yesterday the Mirror confronted Derek Acorah with Ciaran's allegations. He told us: "I've worked with Ciaran for many shows and he's got every right to say what he says.

"However, it does shock and surprise me. Not only do I believe that I am a genuine medium - I live my work 24 hours a day. If I thought that I wasn't a true medium, I wouldn't work as one."

Right.

I have checked the contract and there is nothing in mine with regards mediumship. Its mostly about confidentiality and promotion along with my appearance on the show. So it may have changed from back in Derek's time.

I have included photos of my contract against the screen and covered my personal details for the naysayers who may think I am at it lol. :D

http://i473.photobucket.com/albums/rr92/rcps-scotland/photos022.jpg

http://i473.photobucket.com/albums/rr92/rcps-scotland/photos023.jpg

grakkus
16-05-2012, 03:51 PM
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/4316621/TV-psychic-Derek-Acorah-in-sick-Maddie-dead-claim.html

Sorry it's a Sun link.

Derek Acorah who has some popularity as a Psychic in the UK Television media, has caused anger and upset to the parents of missing child Madeleine McCann, by saying that he believes her to be dead.

The tragic case of Maddie, as she is known goes back to 2007 when she went missing from her parents holiday home on The Portuguese Algarve, this has resulted in one of the most infamous missing persons cases in UK history.

Mr Acorah has probably read about the two dogs that smelt blood and corpses in the McCann's apartment and their car.

oonalu
16-05-2012, 04:13 PM
I still can't get my head around the fact that she ( Kate ) washed the curtains , who washes curtains on holiday ? :confused:
Ben Needhams mother met a goverment minister last September 2011 for the first time and not one british policeman have ever travelled to Kos said a private investigator who was hired by the Needhams............. says it all really:mad:

sillybilly
16-05-2012, 05:29 PM
Let's face it the world is full of 'psychics'. So why has not one of them been able to pinpoint where Madeleine (the name 'Maddy' was made up by the press) is - alive or dead? Why has no one been able to identify the culprits?

anders7777
16-05-2012, 07:58 PM
I still can't get my head around the fact that she ( Kate ) washed the curtains , who washes curtains on holiday ? :confused:
Ben Needhams mother met a goverment minister last September 2011 for the first time and not one british policeman have ever travelled to Kos said a private investigator who was hired by the Needhams............. says it all really:mad:


Not only the curtains, but also pyjamas, also cuddle cat, which of course bore the only traces of Maddie's scent - most parents would have sealed it within three or four ziplock bags to preserve the scent. Apt 5a was also super bleached so that virtually no Maddie DNA could be found. There was not a single Maddie hair on the pillows or bedding, so the Portuguese police had to send to Rothley for a sample of hair. Maddie did not have her own hairbrush or toothbrush, according to Kate. One toothbrush for three kids.

One toothbrush??? Gimme a break.

And Gerry taking a "broken" fridge to the dump, instead of asking maintenance to do it. Gerry buying masses of red meat, and leaving it to fester and stink out the back of the Renault Scenic along with apparently several soiled nappies on the boot.

The same car that the EVRD dogs alerted to Cadeverine odour and Maddie DNA.

The same DNA samples that were got at by mi5 so that the initial positive match to Maddie turned out to be a "mistake"...

So hygenic, these alleged Doctors.

Right.

I could list literally several hundred red flags.

RIP Maddie.

merla
16-05-2012, 08:31 PM
I know all about the Kreed Kafer and general fakery, I just didn't think he's be mental enough to put himself in the McCanns' crosshair. Hasn't he seen what they did to Amaral? Good on him for winning in court against them though :D Not that the papers over here will ever mention that.

merlincove
16-05-2012, 08:38 PM
Thanks for that Ryan - when i see my friend i'll tell her she's talking bollox - just like Derek does most of the time :)

anders7777
16-05-2012, 09:09 PM
http://blacksmithbureau.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/it-won-go-awaypart-one.html?m=1

Posted TODAY


The Blacksmith Bureau
WEDNESDAY, 16 MAY 2012

It won't go away–Part One
 



When the fuss has all died down and the 195 clues have been chucked into the Thames or the Tagus the police of both countries will turn their attention to the Archiving Summary and the section entitled "In the interest of the reconstruction".

It is the repeated contention of the McCanns and their allies that the refusal of the couple to attend is a myth. Why, they say, the McCanns were arguidos, there was no question of not returning: their status meant that they had to return.

It was only the Tapas 7 who had problems and expressed reservations against going back. When they did so, goes this version, then the police didn't bother to insist on the parents returning since there was no point unless all nine were present.

We can leave aside the obvious sophistry of this claim and  the way it ignores the fact that the parents had already spent tens of thousands on lawyers with the aim of thwarting the requirement to return, and the unrealistic supposition  that the attitudes and decisions of the Seven and the Two would not interact with each other.

We can ignore it and go straight to the evidence rather than the alibis. The McCanns and their supporters aren't keen on that, which is why they were so keen to sink the famous Gerry blog and other audit-trail footprints into oblivion. They aren't keen on it because this meretricious  version was invented with one eye on the future when there might be other investigations. Which is now.

For during the coming months police investigators can hardly avoid asking, what do the actions of the parents in regard to a reconstruction at that time tell us about them? If they were always going to return, OK, but if, after having stated repeatedly  that they and their seven friends wanted to go back and help and would do so whenever asked, they actually stalled and refused under various excuses, then that was a quite different matter. And meriting some pretty close attention. Just what were they evading, apart from, as the archiving prosecutor wrote, "the chance to demonstrate their innocence"?  And who would ever turn that down? And why?

So here we go: we will hear the parents and the Third Man who speaks for the three of them, Clarence Mitchell, in their own words. No leaks, no anonymous feeds, just public verbatim statements. And we can compare what they say they were going to do with what they actually did.

Far from being any sort of myth, the evidence shows a clear pattern of events.

From September 2007 until the turn of the year the Three maintained effusively that they and the friends wanted to co-operate in any  reconstruction requested by the police. And they knew perfectly well, from the police and their own lawyers, what an official investigative reconstruction, as codified in Portuguese law, involved.
After January, however, the idea of the reconstruction began to change into reality. The Portuguese saw both it and the prior rogatory UK interviews as a unity:  the McCanns were not involved in the latter because their arguido status gave them the right to silence but the seven friends would be intensively questioned about what they did on the night of the disappearance. And then a reconstruction – which arguido status did not exempt the couple from – would test the credibility, even possibility, of all nine's supposed actions on  May 3.
In April the parents were given until the end of the month to come to a decision on participating. Their tone changed and the excuses began. In the last few days before the deadline expired the couple made it clear publicly but sotto voce that they would not go. Most of the Seven also declined although until their interviews were leaked – how very unhelpful for them – their refusals were kept strictly secret. But we are not concerned with them here. With those decisions the reconstruction was out and the investigation was effectively at an end.
Those who find evidence tedious can simply accept this summary although, then, of course, they won't know,yet again,  whether they are being fibbed to.

You will find Part 2/3 already published in the archive list below

 

john blacksmith at 18:20

anders7777
16-05-2012, 09:10 PM
Thanks for that Ryan - when i see my friend i'll tell her she's talking bollox - just like Derek does most of the time :)

All of the time. He is a con man and a disgrace to real mediums/psychics.

oonalu
16-05-2012, 09:36 PM
not only the curtains, but also pyjamas, also cuddle cat, which of course bore the only traces of maddie's scent - most parents would have sealed it within three or four ziplock bags to preserve the scent. Apt 5a was also super bleached so that virtually no maddie dna could be found. There was not a single maddie hair on the pillows or bedding, so the portuguese police had to send to rothley for a sample of hair. Maddie did not have her own hairbrush or toothbrush, according to kate. One toothbrush for three kids.

One toothbrush??? Gimme a break.

And gerry taking a "broken" fridge to the dump, instead of asking maintenance to do it. Gerry buying masses of red meat, and leaving it to fester and stink out the back of the renault scenic along with apparently several soiled nappies on the boot.

The same car that the evrd dogs alerted to cadeverine odour and maddie dna.

The same dna samples that were got at by mi5 so that the initial positive match to maddie turned out to be a "mistake"...

So hygenic, these alleged doctors.

Right.

I could list literally several hundred red flags.

Rip maddie.


omg !

scottishryan
16-05-2012, 10:55 PM
Thanks for that Ryan - when i see my friend i'll tell her she's talking bollox - just like Derek does most of the time :)

Oh goodness, please don't :eek: Pre-2008/9 the contracts could have been so different!! She could be correct for all we know! :)

scottishryan
16-05-2012, 10:59 PM
Not only the curtains, but also pyjamas, also cuddle cat, which of course bore the only traces of Maddie's scent - most parents would have sealed it within three or four ziplock bags to preserve the scent. Apt 5a was also super bleached so that virtually no Maddie DNA could be found. There was not a single Maddie hair on the pillows or bedding, so the Portuguese police had to send to Rothley for a sample of hair. Maddie did not have her own hairbrush or toothbrush, according to Kate. One toothbrush for three kids.

One toothbrush??? Gimme a break.

And Gerry taking a "broken" fridge to the dump, instead of asking maintenance to do it. Gerry buying masses of red meat, and leaving it to fester and stink out the back of the Renault Scenic along with apparently several soiled nappies on the boot.

The same car that the EVRD dogs alerted to Cadeverine odour and Maddie DNA.

The same DNA samples that were got at by mi5 so that the initial positive match to Maddie turned out to be a "mistake"...

So hygenic, these alleged Doctors.

Right.

I could list literally several hundred red flags.

RIP Maddie.

Certainly gets the old mind ticking eh? I remember watching the Portuguese documentary on the case and it raised a plethora of questions and surprise. Not one piece of it was ever raised by our supposed Investigative journalists either.

All very strange and surprising as if it was all false....usually our press comes out and does it discrediting act! Most of it was just blanked completely :confused:

anders7777
16-05-2012, 11:02 PM
Published TODAY


WEDNESDAY, 16 MAY 2012

It won't go away Part Two – the detailed evidence

 



The Madeleine Three

Throughout the summer and autumn of 2007 The Three, that is the McCanns and the spokesman who retailed their views, maintained time and again that they wanted to go back and help with an officially mooted  police  reconstruction of May3. From November onwards the idea of such a reconstruction, the format of which was fixed and which, of course, had nothing to do with Crimewatch – type  badly acted re-creations, began to turn into reality.

In April the McCanns were informed that there was an end of the month deadline for their decision and at that point the tenor of the Three's public statements began to change. As late as  January 2008, however,  they were still repeating their four month old mantra of full-hearted support for the Portuguese investigation.

Clarence Mitchell, December  5 2007: 

"If Kate and Gerry, or indeed any of their friends, are required to go back to Portugal they will be more than happy to comply.They will do anything necessary if it helps them move on and be eliminated as suspects."'

Clarence Mitchell, December 13:

"We are well aware of what the papers are saying but we have heard nothing official from the Portuguese police. If it does happen, no-one has anything to hide and they will happily tell the police what they want to hear over timings and anything else they are not sure about."

Clarence Mitchell, January 4 2008:

"Kate and Gerry, and their friends particularly, are very keen to talk to the Portuguese police again because they want to be able to clarify any inconsistencies to do with the timeline of events on May 3, or whenever the police put forward."

Clarence Mitchell, January 29:

"For some months now we have actively offered to assist this process, to get it underway as soon as possible. Kate and Gerry's friends are keen that it should happen soon and want any bureaucracy - whether it's in Portugal or England - to be cleared quickly.

Any inconsistencies the police believe exist in their evidence can be cleared up very quickly and then we hope Kate and Gerry's names will be cleared. As far as we are concerned this cannot happen soon enough."

There followed a lengthy period of relative silence while the groundwork was being laid for the UK rogatory interviews in early April. The Portuguese saw the reconstruction and the interviews as a unity: the Tapas 7 could have their full say and then the reconstruction would test their considered versions.

The reconstruction was therefore suddenly becoming a reality rather than a possibility and the McCanns had until the end of the month at the latest to inform the Portuguese of their intentions – so it was now time for the parents to put their "keenness" to co-operate with such an exercise into action. On April 7 the PJ arrived in the UK for the interviews.

Clarence Mitchell, April 4:

'Kate and Gerry are currently deciding whether to return to Portugal. [again, clearly demonstrating that they had a choice]. It is being discussed.Going to Portugal would send out the strongest possible message that Madeleine could still be alive and the search for her should continue. The family feel the focus should be on finding Madeleine.

Next week's interviews will help in gauging the police attitude. In an ideal world they would not be arguidos and their lawyers have always warned them not to return while they have that status."

Clarence Mitchell had let the cat out of the bag, hadn't he? And two days later he explicitly confirmed that under legal advice they were not going back to Portugal until they were no longer arguidos, even though all the reasons and reservations they were to come up as their "reasons" hadn't arisen yet!

Clarence Mitchell, April 6:

"If they returned now to Portugal it would be a distraction and would put pressure on police.Their lawyers would block it anyway.But once their arguido status has been lifted, they will feel differently."

And a day after that they began to spin in the new direction. What had happened to the repeated promises to participate with enthusiasm?  After being quoted anonymously as saying that Kate McCann might be too traumatised to take part in a reconstruction Mitchell made another statement.

He put forward the complete invention that a PJ reconstruction, an official measure of the Portuguese criminal code, its status and format fixed and known, a part of the investigative process and not for public consumption, was actually a televised Crimewatch episode.

Clarence Mitchell, April 8:

"There are loads of questions still to be addressed such as whether the twins, Sean and Amelie, will be required and what the actual re-enactment will be used for.

No-one knows whether it will be done behind closed doors or whether it will be a Crimewatch-style reconstruction used to try and generate new leads. All these types of things need to be ironed out before a decision is made." [But, as you have just seen, the lawyers had already made the decision].

And then in an another interview at the same he and the parents made their  second invention of the week. That the idea of the reconstruction was not part of the Portuguese penal code at all – but a suggestion of the McCanns!

Clarence Mitchell:

"Gerry and Kate suggested months ago that a reconstruction [here the three deliberately conflate the idea of a television appeal with the Portuguese penal code provision] should take place but were told by the police that they didn't do it.We want to be sure that no confusion or contradiction comes out of this [!] and that it doesn't in any way make matters worse.

They are happy to assist the police in anything that might help them generate new leads but there are genuine considerations to be discussed."

And now Kate appears to have had one of her convenient mental collapses.

Clarence Mitchell:

"Kate is upset. There's been no sense of concern for her feelings or the anguish it will cause her. On an emotional level she is not sure she can go through with it.The family will consider it. If it's felt that there's a chance of it helping to find Madeleine then, of course, they will do it. But given it is a year on, you have to wonder about the value of it."[Again, free to choose, and in the process of choosing, not compelled]

Clarence Mitchell:

"However, Kate and Gerry would very much welcome a Crimewatch-style reconstruction which is properly broadcast for millions of people to see and could generate important new leads and fresh information.

"It's untrue to say that Kate and Gerry have been called back or summoned back. Their lawyers are very much continuing discussions with the Portuguese police and if any such decision is taken to take part, an announcement will be made at the appropriate time."

So yet again he is confirming that their presence was a matter for decision by them and their lawyer team, not the Portuguese. And, with the deadline for telling the Portuguese of their decision only days away, Gerry finally came in to speak himself on the BBC.

Gerry McCann, April 24:

"We want to work with the Portuguese authorities,  we have co-operated with them since day one and we have been completely open and transparent. We’ve told them every single bit of information that we have had at our disposal and answered all their questions, so of course we can see a scenario by which we continue to work with them."

Fine. But near the end of the programme the interviewer asked him if going back to Portugal for the reconstruction was "risky", given that they might be still be charged with child neglect.

Gerry McCann:

"Well we talked about this early on. We were given legal advice that what we did was well within the bounds of reasonable parenting and of course, at the time, we thought what we did was perfectly reasonable.

However hindsight has proven that we made a mistake. Clearly we would never leave the children again. We are paying more for that than anyone could possibly ever imagine, but, you know, clearly I think such a charge one has to ask why are people talking about that now when we’re almost a year down the line and Madeleine hasn’t been found? They have no more information now than was available to them on the 4th of May, so why are we talking about such a charge now?"

Did you get all that? He was asked the simple question "was it 'risky' to return to Portugal now?" Yes or no? Where's his answer in all that self-serving junk? Why isn't it there?

The answer is missing from the transcript. Readers may wonder – although the reason is really obvious given the terms that the pair and their lawyers impose on their interviewers – why that is so and why music is played instead. After the music ends the interviewer seems to have been in no doubt that he had replied and what the answer to his question was.


Interviewer:

"So the McCann’s continue to campaign and to travel, but for now Portugal remains off limits. The crime of ‘abandoning’ children carries a jail term of up to 5 years, and the couple simply won’t risk another confrontation with the police."

The McCanns were given a transcript of the programme before it was broadcast.



It won't go away  Part Three, the invented alibi

So the decision had been taken, just under a week before the Portuguese deadline was up; clearly it had not been dependent on any decisions the Tapas 7 had taken. Since it was the first Madeleine Memorial Birthday Carnival & Jamboree  the two dozen or so interviews that the pair gave that week concentrated on the gooey stuff, not the highly significant decision they had taken, which – surprise, surprise – was drowned out by the noise.

It remained for Mitchell to try and package the whole affair up on behalf of all three of them, insert the alibi about it being the T7's decision and not the parents', since the latter had no choice, and hope that it would all be forgotten. Bad luck, Clarence!  On May 9 he was interviewed in Ireland in front of an audience and was given a most helpfully phrased take-off point for discussion of the reconstruction by a production team and  interviewer with rather odd standards of background research. Just what Clarence wanted, in fact.



Mitchell's Irish interviewer

Note the limited neural area.That's why Mitchell was there

Interviewer: "Now, the.. the last err, thing is quite amazing. It's an astonishing development in the sense that it's about a cancellation of a reconstruction of what happened on that night. Wh... the reconstruction wasn't going to be televised, so what was the point of it?"

Clarence Mitchell: [Having, of course, had the details of Portuguese investigative reconstructions explained to him in detail by the couple's lawyers for months but apparently totally ignorant of them now] "Well, that's exactly the question that Gerry, Kate and their friends were asking. Err, there were a whole host of reasons that they had very strong concerns about what this would actually achieve, what they've all said consistently and continue to do so, will do anything to help find Madeleine."

And then, sounding rather like Aunty Phil, as he often does on the rare occasions he speaks extempore, he  gave the compelling reasons that had somehow overridden those months of promises to return and co-operate. Note again how an official action under the penal code had somehow been turned into a kind of showbiz "proposal" with no investigative or legal basis.

Clarence Mitchell: "This particular proposal, the way it was phrased and the way it was being put forward, then [sic]  felt not in any shape or form help to find her. [no, we don't know what the twat meant by that either.] As you say, it wouldn't have been televised, there would be no new leads coming in... Err, why, what good would it have done well over a year after the event. Erm, nobody seemed to have given any consideration to Kate's mental well being. You know, was she expected to see a child playing Madeleine in front of her? All sorts of other questions. "

Interviewer: Now, they, they were going to use erm, the McCann's and the people who were there actually that night rather than actors.
Clarence Mitchell: Well exactly, and how many reconstructions have you heard of, erm, in Ireland, Britain, or anywhere else, where the original people involved in a case, actually take part. It is virtually unheard of.And so again, that made us, made our Lawyers wonder what, you know, what is going on here? [our italics] And on top of that the Portuguese as a norm, do not do reconstructions.

Finally, the new line emerged in all its glory, the one the supporters have fallen for ever since, that – despite all the evidence you have read above that the McCanns were not going back come what may – the parents couldn't refuse because they were helpless law-abiding arguidos but the Tapas 7 were free to choose and unfortunately…

Anyway, read, and treasure this climatic example of Mitchell-junk at its uncomplicated worst.

Clarence Mitchell: "Last year, just after Madeleine was taken, BBC Crimewatch [ah, not Gerry or Kate then] proposed just such a reconstruction with actors, and the police said no, no, we don't do that here, we don't do reconstructions. And yet suddenly they turn round over a year later to say we will do one on our terms. And, erm, you know, there was some debate within the group. Now Gerry and Kate, as arguidos, as... as suspects, err, I... [remembers his lines] would have had to go back if they were forced back, legally to go.

There was no question of them saying 'no we couldn't go'. But the friends are not, erm, suspected of anything, or not involved directly in that sense, err, that degree. And as a result they have freedom of choice. And they discussed it themselves at length, and decided to let the police know that no, thank you for this offer on this occasion, but we don't feel it would be helpful.

An... and that's what happened and the Police made it clear as well, they wanted everybody or it wouldn't happen. And as soon as one or two of the friends said no, then it simply, erm, fell away. And... "

Yes Clarence. Yes, Kate & Gerry.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


john blacksmith at 16:27

stillwakingup
16-05-2012, 11:12 PM
Not only the curtains, but also pyjamas, also cuddle cat, which of course bore the only traces of Maddie's scent - most parents would have sealed it within three or four ziplock bags to preserve the scent. Apt 5a was also super bleached so that virtually no Maddie DNA could be found. There was not a single Maddie hair on the pillows or bedding, so the Portuguese police had to send to Rothley for a sample of hair. Maddie did not have her own hairbrush or toothbrush, according to Kate. One toothbrush for three kids.

One toothbrush??? Gimme a break.

And Gerry taking a "broken" fridge to the dump, instead of asking maintenance to do it. Gerry buying masses of red meat, and leaving it to fester and stink out the back of the Renault Scenic along with apparently several soiled nappies on the boot.

The same car that the EVRD dogs alerted to Cadeverine odour and Maddie DNA.

The same DNA samples that were got at by mi5 so that the initial positive match to Maddie turned out to be a "mistake"...

So hygenic, these alleged Doctors.

Right.

I could list literally several hundred red flags.

RIP Maddie.:eek::eek:
jesus!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

anders7777
16-05-2012, 11:19 PM
Certainly gets the old mind ticking eh? I remember watching the Portuguese documentary on the case and it raised a plethora of questions and surprise. Not one piece of it was ever raised by our supposed Investigative journalists either.

All very strange and surprising as if it was all false....usually our press comes out and does it discrediting act! Most of it was just blanked completely :confused:



Hey Ryan, thanks for the info - I've read as much as I can on the subject, been banned from all the major pro Maddie forums, because there appear to be infiltrators, gatekeepers, mods - who simply WILL NOT ALLOW any discussion of paedophile rings and coverups.

The very worst is candyfloss at the biggest site, the jillhavern forum.

Anyone interested in just how DEEP the coverup goes, even right to the heart of those supposedly seeking truth and justice, the Tony Bennet site...

Read this:

http://aangirfan.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/madeleine-mccann-and-taxi-driver.html?m=1




Madeleine McCann was in my taxi but police ignored me

Taxi driver  Antonio Castela, 72, claims he picked up Madeleine McCann the night after she vanished.

Castela says he is ­certain the little girl in pink pyjamas was three-year-old Madeleine.

The girl had the same distinctive mark in her eye as Madeleine.

Castella says the Portuguese police dismissed his evidence.


Castella

Castela said: "After I went to the police, I never heard anything from them again. They did not seem to take me seriously and never questioned me. They simply took down the details and that was it.

"I am amazed that it has been five years and nobody has ever asked me what I saw that night. I am absolutely certain it was her."

(When madeleine disappeared in May 2007, the Portuguese police did not set up effective searches and did not alert the Spanish border for 12 hours.

A check of the other guests at the Ocean Club resort in Praia da Luz was not completed for 48 hours.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2138286/Madeleine-McCann-latest-news-Antonio-Castela-claims-picked-girl-taxi.html#ixzz1tnzDbJh0)


Website for this image

Castela said he picked up the girl on the evening of May 4, 2007, in Monte Gordo in the Algarve.

Monte Gordo is about an hour’s drive from Praia da Luz where Madeleine vanished.

The girl in the taxi was travelling with four adults - three men and a woman

 They were driven to the Hotel Apolo in Vila Real de Santo Antonio, near Faro. 

Once there, they got into a blue 4x4 and drove off.

Castela said: "The little girl, who looked like Madeleine was sat on the lap of a man sitting in the back of the cab. I remember thinking it was odd because they did not speak a word during the entire journey apart from at the end when the man sat in the passenger seat said to me, ‘How much?’" 

He said the girl in his cab did not speak but was “staring ahead” as though she had been doped.


Very often it is the police who are involved in the kidnappings of children, reportedly.

In Portugal, the Casa Pia scandal was about child abuse being carried out by top people, including, reportedly, the police.

The following is from "Madeleine McCann - a wide angle versus a microscope" by churchofnobody.blogspot.com/

The Pedophocracy WILL blow your mind - I guarantee it.
The six chapters look at half a dozen massive paedophile scandals: Dutroux in Belgium; the Franklin/Boy's Town scandal; the Presidio/West Point military childminding scandal; the McMartin preschool scandal; and last but not least the perfectly mind-boggling bust of the 'The Finders'. First up, the most singular thing about each of these headfuck scandals is how HUGE they were. They were the kind of HUGE that makes the Madeleine McCann case look scrawny.

Sure enough the media worked its magic and each of these scandals was rescripted, recast, and all shot through a blurry vaseline lens. The parents had dreamt it all!...
How then to portray a scandal like the Finder's Bust? That didn't spring from complaints from parents but rather from the police arresting two well-dressed men with a van full of kids, aged 2 to 7, all of whom were unwashed and without underpants, just as you'd expect for 'gifted' children being taken to Mexico for 'special education'. But the thick plottened when their Washington headquarters were busted. Paedophiles with headquarters... wow, who knew? And the Finders had two facilities... double wow.

There police found not only: a large collection of jars variously containing urine and faecal matter; a bloody altar surrounded by video cameras; and so many photos and videos (of both porn and satanic ritual) that they needed garbage bags to haul them all away, but also: computers and telexes with orders from all over the world specifying particular 'looks' for children all of whom, one presumes, were to be kidnapped and trafficked overseas. In addition to all this were procedural handbooks detailing how to infiltrate child-minding centres and how to traffic children whilst avoiding police attention. (Hmm... perhaps they should've read that last one a bit more carefully).

Oh! Did I mention that the entire investigation was completely shut down with a single click of the CIA's fingers? It seems the Finders' leader, Marion Pettie, had been CIA since the days of the OSS. And not forgetting his spook wife and spook son. Faced with the obviousness of the Finders as a total CIA gig, the media refused to touch it at all apart from a solitary article in the US News and World Report assuring us that whatever it was the Finders were up to was "eccentric, not illegal".

aangirfan: FREUD, MADELEINE McCANN, MURDOCH

aangirfan: MADELEINE McCANN; NETHERLANDS; BELGIUM ...

aangirfan: MADELEINE McCANN & CERTAIN FASCISTS

aangirfan: LAURENT LOUIS EXPOSES TOP CHILD ABUSERS

aangirfan: Jersey, Dutroux and cover-ups

aangirfan: MADELEINE McCANN; NETHERLANDS; BELGIUM ...

aangirfan: MADELEINE MCCANN; BELLIRAJ; BIN LADEN; AND ...

aangirfan: MADELEINE - MYSTERY MAN - CCTV FOOTAGE WIPED






OK Anders here again


This is the relevant litmus test that the "nobody" blog warned about several years ago...


http://churchofnobody.blogspot.co.uk/2010/02/madeleine-mccann-wide-angle-versus.html?m=1


Snip

But what has all this to do with Madeleine McCann? Okay, here is what I know as a cold hard certainty - so huge is this pedophocracy disinfo effort that what with the mainstream media all singing from the same songbook (or not singing as the case may be), there is no way the internet will be spared. And certainly not in regards to the biggest story there is: Madeleine McCann. Thus the various Madeleine forums and usegroups you frequent will have, beyond a shadow of a doubt, at least one fully paid-up and completely dedicated member of the pedophocracy whose sole job it is to make sure that no one gets near the big picture. They may be in the comments, junior, senior, whatever; or they may be the moderator; or they could even have their name right up there in the masthead. Oh, and loners are a rarity, particularly on dedicated sites. Tag-teams are infinitely more likely. The mere fact that a fellow has others agreeing with him increases the weight of that opinion by orders of magnitude. Three? Four people? No problems. We've seen it all before.


Remember - Madeleine McCann was HUGE. The thought that the likewise huge pedophocracy could ignore it and stand back with their fingers crossed hoping that ever larger numbers of people don't wake up to them is an abject impossibility. Remember - they founded the FMSF for no reason other than to convince us all that we shouldn't pay any attention to any crazy stories.

It's an unpleasant fact that full time disinfo merchants hang out pretty much everywhere that free discussions take place. As God is my witness. If you find that too unlikely it's only because you haven't challenged one of them yet. Do that and they give themselves away. It's a long-ish read but if you want to see what a paedophile disinfo spook in action looks like, stevieb provides a salutary lesson. You can actually see me wising up in real time.

And how about the sites you've been hanging out at? Have you ever had cause to wonder at certain dominant people over at the forum you frequent? Would I be right in thinking that they are heavily into blame-the-victim? Do they hate discussions that frame the whole thing in terms of the big picture? Are they big on disinfo buzz words like 'hoax', 'hysteria', 'witch-hunt', 'debunked' etc? Do they link to the FSMF or the IPT and use them as 'debunking' reference points? Do mentions of Dave McGowan have them recoiling like vampires to crucifixes?


Here's something you can try - post a link to this article smack dab in the middle of your favourite forum. There's nothing in it for me you understand. We're just conducting an experiment to see what happens. Just so you know I'm not just making this up, here's Su in the last comments (and actually the inspiration for this piece. Hi Su, smiley winky thing)
As you are aware I have been on several forums for almost three years regarding Madeleine. An eternity ago you said be careful her parents are not guilty it is the paedophocracy. (In my recollection I wasn't quite that definite - ed nobody)

And I was convinced I knew better. I had been spending hours on these forums with some brilliant posters each splicing over the events and concluding lies, lies and more lies.

And we stripped the parents bare, they killed their child of that there was no doubt. And there was an intelligent army of us believing it.

A few days ago a fellow poster was posting about child abuse and Operation Ore and she got banned. Banned for fcuks sake. And then I posed a different question - I asked whether there was a possibility she had been sold to a high powered elite pedophile network. Some fucking pervert abusing the most famous child in the world - again and again - imagine what a thrill that would be. But I did not say that I just said it was a possibility that she did not die in the apartment as alleged by the cop and then posted a link to the aangirfan thread on Haiti.

For the first time ever they deleted the link - declaring it offensive and without validity.

When I went to log in this morning I found my account had been deactivated.

I have come to the conclusion that these places that are meant to be finding out the truth of what happened to this child are manned and controlled and indeed manipulated by a small handful of people - who find what aangirfan says is too close to the truth.

E voila! And that's how it's done. And... that's all it takes. You just have to raise the topic and they give themselves away. So, who's up for it? Do any of you feel like doing battle? Most excellent. Take no prisoners and remember nobody's rule - If they've got the game, they may as well have the name. Godspeed and do pop back in and tell us how you went yeah? All the best.

End snip



Anders here again...

So I took the nobody test

This is what I posted to the Aangirfan post at the top:

You need to read the comments at the bottom of this link as I cannot cut and paste my comments, I'm sure you can figure out who I am, comments two three and four

http://aangirfan.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/madeleine-mccann-and-taxi-driver.html?m=1

stelios
17-05-2012, 12:41 AM
Can anyone confirm 100% that Gerald McCann is a freemason?
I've read up on these lamentable 'parents', but I would appreciate absolute proof that the guy is being looked after by the funny handshake brigade.

He's being looked after by somebody, that's for sure. Would like to know if it's definitely the masons though.
Gerald McCann was a close confidant of Tony Blair and the Labour Party.
He wasnt a Doctor as such rather he was on some Government committee advising the Labour Government on health and the NHS.

Clarence Mitchell former BBC man and former Labour party spin doctor who was also a candidate to become an MP. I mean who ever heard of a candidate MP resigning and deciding to become McCann's PR guy instead.
Clarence Mitchell now works for the PR company, Freud Communications, whose boss is Matthew Freud - the husband of Elisabeth Murdoch, who is the daughter of Rupert Murdoch.

Crooked or what.
Mason maybe not but up to their necks in Labour party sleeze for sure.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_mXbRBcSh0gs/SK0Ktp0eoHI/AAAAAAAAB9A/yjdZv70Yjfk/s400/Clarrie_Gerry_Kate.jpg

presidentgas
17-05-2012, 01:07 AM
I saw a photograph of my Great-Grandfather a little while ago, from sometime in WW1 or around that period (he was in Army uniform), and he is (was) the spitting image of Gerry McCann, even down to the sneer on his face. And he was Scottish! And he was a Mason!

A stonemason that is.

isabeau
17-05-2012, 01:18 AM
I'm suprised that medium Derek didn't team up with the McCanns and say she was alive to be honest.

If the McCanns didn't make a penny or use any money for their own personal use I may have been inclined to believe their story.

As it stands it is a money making scheme, a business. If anyone uses Maddies image without paying them they sue.

They only follow up leads that get them publicity and frequently ignore all the rest.

In cases like this the most obvious answer is usually the correct one.

The most obvious answer is an accident that has been covered up to protect the 7 doctors from the law.
There are scents of blood behind the moved sofa that was by a window (moved by the McCanns) and on curtains (washed by the McCanns)
- suggesting a fall, scents of a dead corpse being kept in a small area in a wardrobe and in the boot of the McCanns car (washed by the McCanns), on the childs toy (washed by the Mccanns) etc..

As long as there is no body no one can be charged with abandonment of their children . If there is no evidence they cannot be arrested.

The least obvious answer would be that someone watched a block of apartments night after night in a small community without being seen, picked an apartment that was being checked on every 10 minutes by many different people plus they checked on each others kids as they checked on their own, the kidnapper took just one older child when there were two other smaller children, came in through the front door and left through the window without leaving any evidence on the windows sill at all - not even a footprint - even though it was covered in moss.

When there are loads of unattended children every day in a nearby beach playing alone that could have more easily been taken.
Other suggestions are that it was a planned kidnapping because she was so beautiful and special....etc....

The most obvious answer is staring you in the face - the simplest explanation is usually the right one.

anders7777
17-05-2012, 01:28 AM
Gerald McCann was a close confidant of Tony Blair and the Labour Party.
He wasnt a Doctor as such rather he was on some Government committee advising the Labour Government on health and the NHS.

Clarence Mitchell former BBC man and former Labour party spin doctor who was also a candidate to become an MP. I mean who ever heard of a candidate MP resigning and deciding to become McCann's PR guy instead.
Clarence Mitchell now works for the PR company, Freud Communications, whose boss is Matthew Freud - the husband of Elisabeth Murdoch, who is the daughter of Rupert Murdoch.

Crooked or what.
Mason maybe not but up to their necks in Labour party sleeze for sure.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_mXbRBcSh0gs/SK0Ktp0eoHI/AAAAAAAAB9A/yjdZv70Yjfk/s400/Clarrie_Gerry_Kate.jpg

Absolutely correct Stelios.

Further, Gerry McCann was setting himself up to be a Labour MP - just another fecker in the endless line of Scottish masons whose aim is to trough and trough and trough at the pig swill that is Westminster - his mentor was the disgraced paedophile coverup merchant Gordon Brown. Linked to Tony Blair. Linked to David Cameron.

They have the big guns out to cover this all up

We shall see

I predict war crime tribunals, assassinations, the truth will out.

n317v
17-05-2012, 01:36 AM
Kate mccann always looks like shes watching her back all the time.

Her expression is one of guilt.

It looks like she will be the one to break first IMO.

anders7777
17-05-2012, 01:41 AM
Gerald McCann was a close confidant of Tony Blair and the Labour Party.
He wasnt a Doctor as such rather he was on some Government committee advising the Labour Government on health and the NHS.

Clarence Mitchell former BBC man and former Labour party spin doctor who was also a candidate to become an MP. I mean who ever heard of a candidate MP resigning and deciding to become McCann's PR guy instead.
Clarence Mitchell now works for the PR company, Freud Communications, whose boss is Matthew Freud - the husband of Elisabeth Murdoch, who is the daughter of Rupert Murdoch.

Crooked or what.
Mason maybe not but up to their necks in Labour party sleeze for sure.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_mXbRBcSh0gs/SK0Ktp0eoHI/AAAAAAAAB9A/yjdZv70Yjfk/s400/Clarrie_Gerry_Kate.jpg

I'm suprised that medium Derek didn't team up with the McCanns and say she was alive to be honest.

If the McCanns didn't make a penny or use any money for their own personal use I may have been inclined to believe their story.

As it stands it is a money making scheme, a business. If anyone uses Maddies image without paying them they sue.

They only follow up leads that get them publicity and frequently ignore all the rest.

In cases like this the most obvious answer is usually the correct one.

The most obvious answer is an accident that has been covered up to protect the 7 doctors from the law.
There are scents of blood behind the moved sofa that was by a window (moved by the McCanns) and on curtains (washed by the McCanns)
- suggesting a fall, scents of a dead corpse being kept in a small area in a wardrobe and in the boot of the McCanns car (washed by the McCanns), on the childs toy (washed by the Mccanns) etc..

As long as there is no body no one can be charged with abandonment of their children . If there is no evidence they cannot be arrested.

The least obvious answer would be that someone watched a block of apartments night after night in a small community without being seen, picked an apartment that was being checked on every 10 minutes by many different people plus they checked on each others kids as they checked on their own, the kidnapper took just one older child when there were two other smaller children, came in through the front door and left through the window without leaving any evidence on the windows sill at all - not even a footprint - even though it was covered in moss.

When there are loads of unattended children every day in a nearby beach playing alone that could have more easily been taken.
Other suggestions are that it was a planned kidnapping because she was so beautiful and special....etc....

The most obvious answer is staring you in the face - the simplest explanation is usually the right one.


Of course I and many others have thought along your lines.

Occam's razor and all that.

So how do you account for the PERSONAL involvement of 3 prime ministers, just to save the arses of 2 neglectful parents?

How do you explain the repeated intervention of mi5?

The withholding of crucial evidence by the Masonic leics police force? I e the Gadpar doctors' statement that Payne made repeated paedophile references about Maddie, at a dinner, to Gerry, with a dozen people listening? Blow job and. Nipple rubbing comments to Gerry? And Gerry did not punch Payne's lights out?

Why didn't Payne sue the gaspars?

Why has Gerry got a record I'd on the child protection register?

Why did the leics police, Gerry's Masonic home town, not give the port police Maddies medical records, Gerry's red flag to the operation ore coverup merchants, the credit card and phone and text records to the port police.

Again

I could list literally HUNDREDS of killer prosecution red flags against these two

But the fix is in

It is patently obvious

The elite treat us like cattle

Like sheep
Man's they get away with it all the time

It is a rigged game

stelios
17-05-2012, 01:48 AM
"There's no evidence that Madeleine is dead and there's no evidence to implicate us in her death"

McCann Mantra - Absolutely No Evidence that Madeleine is Dead - YouTube
www.youtube.com/watch?v=nbpJeioLQHE

anders7777
17-05-2012, 01:49 AM
Kate mccann always looks like shes watching her back all the time.

Her expression is one of guilt.

It looks like she will be the one to break first IMO.

I totally agree.

Gerry is the alpha dog.

Check out all the interview analyses non you tube

Their body language

He often wants to throttle her

Sooner or later someone will crack

But as I have said before

Many times

This is now a matter of "national security"

If anyone looks like cracking they will be Kelly'd beforehand

All of them are being monitored 24x 7

peabrain
17-05-2012, 02:18 AM
PS

If this disgusting fraud NEEDS to fly to Portugal to speak to spirits

First class no doubt, five star jolly etc etc

Then what does it say about his superluminal ESP 4D connection to the spirit world, what does this greedy statement say about this stupid troughing git?

Everyone really MUST see the second video

LMAO again, you couldn't make it up!!!

A

Let's hope it's a one way ticket.
He's a fake imo and has been exposed as such on more than one occasion.

zephirop
17-05-2012, 02:22 AM
I have a strong dislike for that man, but I can't fault him for saying that, sad as it is.

You hardly need to be psychic though. :(

anders7777
17-05-2012, 03:01 AM
More info from TODAY

Notice please why us little plebby sheep/cattle are fooling ignored

Old Benett, for all his faults, and there are many, but I still like the blOke - well he is going up against the rigged game masons in th uk

All very well

His points are A1

Correct

Yet he still gets shafted by the masons who illegally

TWICE

Refuse to give him legal aid

Just read the below

The big mistake tony b is making IMHO is putting his faith in the bullshit EEC court of human rights judges

If it ever gets that far, and I sincerely hope it doesn't

In other words IMHO if TB gets shafted at the old bailey IMHO he will also get shafted at Strasbourg

We live in a totally corrupt police judicial political framework

Lord Puttnam said just the same very recently, he said the uk was a totally corrupt banana republic

Just like the USA on fact

Lol! (no dave)


Anyhoos read this and make your own mind up



New post on McCann Exposure: Exposing myth, distortion, corruption and truth


#McCANN v BENNETT, LEGAL AID and ROBERT HALFON M.P.
by Hardlinemarxist
The following information authored by Tony Bennett was retrieved from The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann -

I was at the House of Commons today for the launch, chaired by Rt Hon David Davies MP, of a new campaign to defend - or rather, win back - freedom of speech in this country. My report on the day's event is here:

http://jillhavern.**********.net/t5024-today-at-the-house-of-commons-reform-the-public-order-act#109353

I was also able to meet Robert Halfon MP's secretary in the lobby about the 'equality of arms' issue in McCanns v Bennett. My report, and update, is below:

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

McCANNS v BENNETT, LEGAL AID and ROBERT HALFON M.P.

I was able to have a useful meeting with Mr Paul Abbott, Robert Halfon M.P.’s Parliamentary Secretary, today at the House of Commons. So here’s a full update on where McCanns v Bennett stands at the moment.

On 26 April, Robert Halfon kindly write on my behalf, as requested, to the Justice Minister, Ken Clarke. Paul Abbott today handed me the letter sent by Robert.

The relevant part reads: “Mr Bennett has asked whether your Department can intervene to assist with legal aid that he needed to make his case to the courts. As his local MP, he has asked me to forward his attached letter to you for your consideration. I would be grateful for your comments…especially given that his court date is approach in a few weeks”.

Whist on the subject of the help Robert has given me, for which I am very grateful, I must for the record make clear (as Robert himself has requested) that Robert has, both since the General Election and before it (since I write to him about the Madeleine McCann case in 2010), stated that he does not support in any way my questioning of the McCanns’ account of events. His help is merely confined to the matter of supporting me in my reasonable quest for legal aid, and I don’t think I suggested otherwise in any way in my previous post on this forum.

Moreover, Robert has told me that he sympathises with the suffering and tragedy that has affected the McCann family. Thus it is plain where he stands and where I stand. He has kindly agreed to use his influence to make sure that the legal aid aspect is fully explored - especially as the Legal Service Commission may have made a mistake (twice) in refusing me legal aid.

The second letter of refusal of legal aid by the Legal Services Commission, however, enclosed various extracts from a document called the Legal Services Commission Manual - a very lengthy tome. As I had thought, on reading through its provisions carefully, it appears that there are special provisions for those aged 60 or over, in relation to the savings cut-off point, under Section 7 (Capital Allowances and Disregards).

I replied to the Legal Services Commission about this on 11 My and by coincidence today they replied, stating, and again I quote:

“I would like to acknowledge receipt of your letter to Matthew Coats, Chief Executive, received here at our offices on 16 May 2012.

Your letter has been passed to the appropriate department to look into further and you will receive a substantive response in due course

Yours sincerely

Emma Williams
CEO's Office
Legal Services Commission
Floor 8 (8.42), 102 Petty France, London, SW1H 9AJ”.

And that is where the matter stands. My commital-to-prison trial date will be fixed once the outcome of these representations is known. To be fait to the McCanns, their solicitors Carter-Ruck advised me when serving me with the committal papers of the Supreme Court decision in Hammerton v Hammerton, which, in terms, said that a defendant should always be legally represented. They also agree that it would be far better if I were to be legally represented, which is why they agreed to the adjournment. Perhaps what the McCanns don’t realise is how impossible it is to match their legal resources, their having already spent £120,000-plus, with the prospect that the trial will cost tens of thousands of ponds more.

I would just like to return to the subject of Robert Halfon. I see that today that certain people, with certain agendas, have twisted my statement that Robert was supporting me in my quest for legal aid and suggested, wholly falsely, that I had made out that he supported my doubts about the McCanns’ account of events concerning Madeleine. That was clearly not what I said, but those who wish for their own reasons to stir things up appear to have had some temporary success.

Let me just say that I have known Robert for many years, stood against him in two General Elections in Harlow, and am happy to acknowledge publicly that since being elected he has worked hard for the people of Harlow and the surrounding villages, even I think sponsoring the most successful petition so far on the Prime Minister’s website, namely against fuel duty tax. His willingness to make sure that I am able to secure full ‘equality of arms’ in these court proceedings, in accordance with the right to fair trial guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights, does not in any way conflict with the fact that clearly, as he has expressed today on Twitter, he strongly sympathises with the McCanns and therefore takes a dim view of those, like me and many others, who question their account of events.

A brief reminder, then, that as recently as February this year the European Court of Human Rights at Strasbourg clearly ruled, and again I quote, that

“The Court reiterates that the Convention is intended to guarantee practical and effective rights. This is particularly so of the right of access to court in view of the prominent place held in a democratic society by the right to a fair trial. It is central to the concept of a fair trial, in civil as in criminal proceedings, that a litigant is not denied the opportunity to present his or her case effectively before the court and that he or she is able to enjoy equality of arms with the opposing side”.

Given that:

(a) Carter-Ruck’s costs up to 19 April were ‘well over £120,000’, and

(b) that the British government is still perpetuating s these oppressive libel laws which a vast range of freedom-of-speech organisations agree are an unreasonable restraint on free speech which enables the wealthy and powerful to get their own way, and

(c) that at the last General Election all three main parties promised the electorate that they would reform these draconian libel laws…

…it is difficult to see how the Justice Secretary will be able to be seen to refuse legal aid to someone facing lawyers who charge £1,200 an hour, simply because my savings are over £8,000. The European Court and our Supreme Court have both made it crystal clear in unanimous decisions that a person faced with going to prison must have full ‘equality of arms’ to enable him to defend himself ,and especially so if that person has to face a team of the country’s top-earning lawyers plus a barrister.

The government is, then, required by the European Court of Human Rights, which now governs our laws as per the Human Rights Act 1998, to guarantee me equality of arms with Carter-Ruck in these proceedings.

Hardlinemarxist | 16/05/2012 at 10:43 pm | Categories: Madeleine McCann case - assorted commentary, The Madeleine Foundation | URL: http://wp.me/pCs0i-1V3
Comment    See all comments
Unsubscribe or change your email settings at Manage Subscriptions.

Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser:
http://mccannexposure.wordpress.com/2012/05/16/mccann-v-bennett-legal-aid-and-robert-halfon-m-p/
Thanks for flying with WordPress.com

elshaper
17-05-2012, 09:42 AM
Not only the curtains, but also pyjamas, also cuddle cat, which of course bore the only traces of Maddie's scent - most parents would have sealed it within three or four ziplock bags to preserve the scent. Apt 5a was also super bleached so that virtually no Maddie DNA could be found. There was not a single Maddie hair on the pillows or bedding, so the Portuguese police had to send to Rothley for a sample of hair. Maddie did not have her own hairbrush or toothbrush, according to Kate. One toothbrush for three kids.

One toothbrush??? Gimme a break.

And Gerry taking a "broken" fridge to the dump, instead of asking maintenance to do it. Gerry buying masses of red meat, and leaving it to fester and stink out the back of the Renault Scenic along with apparently several soiled nappies on the boot.

The same car that the EVRD dogs alerted to Cadeverine odour and Maddie DNA.

The same DNA samples that were got at by mi5 so that the initial positive match to Maddie turned out to be a "mistake"...

So hygenic, these alleged Doctors.

Right.

I could list literally several hundred red flags.

RIP Maddie.
If I were Maddie's parent and believes it was a true abduction, I would want to keep the crime scene untouched so that there may be some chance of finding the abductor. Wash curtains on a holiday!? Never. Why would I wanna erase all that evidence? It does not make sense. But such assumption alone isn't enough to convict the parents. Of course, there is a possibility that the child fell and died without them doing anything to her but that is still a child neglect because they left children alone in the first place. It is so messed up, with or without the disapearance of Maddie, something should have been done about child neglect anyway.

I too believe Maddie is dead and I hope there will be justice for Maddie one day :(

bustamove
17-05-2012, 12:52 PM
Not only the curtains, but also pyjamas, also cuddle cat, which of course bore the only traces of Maddie's scent - most parents would have sealed it within three or four ziplock bags to preserve the scent. Apt 5a was also super bleached so that virtually no Maddie DNA could be found. There was not a single Maddie hair on the pillows or bedding, so the Portuguese police had to send to Rothley for a sample of hair. Maddie did not have her own hairbrush or toothbrush, according to Kate. One toothbrush for three kids.

One toothbrush??? Gimme a break.

And Gerry taking a "broken" fridge to the dump, instead of asking maintenance to do it. Gerry buying masses of red meat, and leaving it to fester and stink out the back of the Renault Scenic along with apparently several soiled nappies on the boot.

The same car that the EVRD dogs alerted to Cadeverine odour and Maddie DNA.

The same DNA samples that were got at by mi5 so that the initial positive match to Maddie turned out to be a "mistake"...

So hygenic, these alleged Doctors.

Right.

I could list literally several hundred red flags.

RIP Maddie.

OMG never knew half of that stuff :eek::eek::eek: there was always something creepy i felt about those two i don't know what it is but they leave me cold anytime i see them on t.v.

zephirop
17-05-2012, 12:58 PM
OMG never knew half of that stuff :eek::eek::eek: there was always something creepy i felt about those two i don't know what it is but they leave me cold anytime i see them on t.v.

Not the half of it when it comes to these two ghouls...Look into it.

merlincove
17-05-2012, 03:55 PM
Not only the curtains, but also pyjamas, also cuddle cat, which of course bore the only traces of Maddie's scent - most parents would have sealed it within three or four ziplock bags to preserve the scent. Apt 5a was also super bleached so that virtually no Maddie DNA could be found. There was not a single Maddie hair on the pillows or bedding, so the Portuguese police had to send to Rothley for a sample of hair. Maddie did not have her own hairbrush or toothbrush, according to Kate. One toothbrush for three kids.

One toothbrush??? Gimme a break.

And Gerry taking a "broken" fridge to the dump, instead of asking maintenance to do it. Gerry buying masses of red meat, and leaving it to fester and stink out the back of the Renault Scenic along with apparently several soiled nappies on the boot.

The same car that the EVRD dogs alerted to Cadeverine odour and Maddie DNA.

The same DNA samples that were got at by mi5 so that the initial positive match to Maddie turned out to be a "mistake"...

So hygenic, these alleged Doctors.

Right.

I could list literally several hundred red flags.

RIP Maddie.

OMG never knew half of that stuff :eek::eek::eek: there was always something creepy i felt about those two i don't know what it is but they leave me cold anytime i see them on t.v.

Not the half of it when it comes to these two ghouls...Look into it.

Wasn't there some issue with them sedating the children too - with aenesthetic or whatever?

anders7777
17-05-2012, 04:19 PM
Wasn't there some issue with them sedating the children too - with aenesthetic or whatever?

IMHO it is a given. Gerry or Kate's father, I forget which, said that Maddie would routinely be given calpol.

Remember - Kay WAS an anaesthetist. She admits that she kept putting her fingers unders the twins' noses to see if they were still breathing. This was AFTER the faked abduction. When the mccanns purposely allowed twenty or thirty folks to destroy the crime scene (they didn't even call the police! A waiter had to do it circa nearly an hour after the fakery), the twins DID NOT WAKE UP DESPITE ALL THE WAILING ABD GNASHING OF TEETH!

the twins did not wake up all night

IMHO they must have been drugged, there is no other explanation.
Iirc the mccanns refused to allow the twins to be tested too, they wanted days for the calpol or whatever to get out of their systems.

This is all on the net, as is info on what drugs were brought on the business meeting/swingers convention in the first place.

Gerry on the bus from the plane to the arrivals terminal, in full hearing of wives and several children:

"fuck off, I'm not here to enjoy myself!"

WHAT a charming wee gorbals git!

So if he wasn't in PDL to enjoy himself, what was he doing there?

Here lies one of the clues as to why mi5 and three prime ministers got involved, just what was going on at the resort?

Property deals?

Chip card ID strategy meetings?

CASA PIA research???

isabeau
17-05-2012, 04:59 PM
Of course I and many others have thought along your lines.

Occam's razor and all that.

So how do you account for the PERSONAL involvement of 3 prime ministers, just to save the arses of 2 neglectful parents?

How do you explain the repeated intervention of mi5?

The withholding of crucial evidence by the Masonic leics police force? I e the Gadpar doctors' statement that Payne made repeated paedophile references about Maddie, at a dinner, to Gerry, with a dozen people listening? Blow job and. Nipple rubbing comments to Gerry? And Gerry did not punch Payne's lights out?

Why didn't Payne sue the gaspars?

Why has Gerry got a record I'd on the child protection register?

Why did the leics police, Gerry's Masonic home town, not give the port police Maddies medical records, Gerry's red flag to the operation ore coverup merchants, the credit card and phone and text records to the port police.

Again

I could list literally HUNDREDS of killer prosecution red flags against these two

But the fix is in

It is patently obvious

The elite treat us like cattle

Like sheep
Man's they get away with it all the time

It is a rigged game

Yes it seems as if Gerry used either his neighbour card or his masonic card with the Prime minister and they backed him thinking he was innocent.
It may just be that too many elite people would be embarrassed such as the Pope if this couple were found to be guilty and this is why they are still being protected.

And one of the 7 doctors - we never had a photo of him - I'm still unsure if there has ever been one - he was protected from the press so well - I wonder why. I don't think there's a government pedophile conspiracy here though - like you say - the most obvious thing - there could be a pedo ring - these people would have to be very influential to prevent that from coming out though.
I don't think a bunch of doctors and surgeons are that important to cover up a pedo ring though.

Gerry is very convinced that no evidence will be found. He really believes that no body will ever be found. This is strange.
Most parents in that situation would accept that there is a possibility that she is dead.
They do not. They know for certain that her body will never be found.

You could see that certainty as a parent that can feel their child is alive - or you could see it as someone that knows there is no evidence to be found as they have seen it destroyed in some way.

If this is the case a confession is the only way we'll hear the truth.
The McCanns, the friends, their partners, the children, the police, the PR man , the vicar etc.....many people are involved....people talk even if they are threatened they talk.
People cheat on each other - with an ego like Gerry's and lets's remember that Kate accused him of flirting with other women before - its highly likely that he'll be caught cheating and their relationship will break down enough for her to speak up. Even Diana spoke out remember.

So if there is a cover up - I'm convinced the truth will come out - whether anyone will believe them is another matter - but the truth will eventually come out.

As for the calpol theory - yes I thought that too -since another child in the group of friends was vomiting that night it is highly likely that they
ate something in the kids club that made them ill.
I am an adult, if I take 2 teaspoons of pirutan (hayfever/allergy medicine for kids and adults) I'm out for the count.
I've heard parents dose kids with pirutan to make them sleep.
A neighbour had complained about Maddie crying for her dad on previous nights
that the children had been left alone so it's possible they upped the dose.
We all know the arrogance of doctors and medicines.
If she vomited while sedated she could have choked on her vomit - or
been drowsy and fallen off the back of the sofa whilst looking out the window in
the darkened room.

An autopsy would have revealed the use of medicine for no reason
other than to make them sleep.
Add to that they abandoned children that got hurt - and they would be looking
at a prison sentence for sure.

anders7777
17-05-2012, 05:07 PM
Yes it seems as if Gerry used either his neighbour card or his masonic card with the Prime minister and they backed him thinking he was innocent.
It may just be that too many elite people would be embarrassed such as the Pope if this couple were found to be guilty and this is why they are still being protected.

And one of the 7 doctors - we never had a photo of him - I'm still unsure if there has ever been one - he was protected from the press so well - I wonder why. I don't think there's a government pedophile conspiracy here though - like you say - the most obvious thing - there could be a pedo ring - these people would have to be very influential to prevent that from coming out though.
I don't think a bunch of doctors and surgeons are that important to cover up a pedo ring though.

Gerry is very convinced that no evidence will be found. He really believes that no body will ever be found. This is strange.
Most parents in that situation would accept that there is a possibility that she is dead.
They do not. They know for certain that her body will never be found.

You could see that certainty as a parent that can feel their child is alive - or you could see it as someone that knows there is no evidence to be found as they have seen it destroyed in some way.

If this is the case a confession is the only way we'll hear the truth.
The McCanns, the friends, their partners, the children, the police, the PR man , the vicar etc.....many people are involved....people talk even if they are threatened they talk.
People cheat on each other - with an ego like Gerry's and lets's remember that Kate accused him of flirting with other women before - its highly likely that he'll be caught cheating and their relationship will break down enough for her to speak up. Even Diana spoke out remember.

So if there is a cover up - I'm convinced the truth will come out - weather anyone will believe them is another matter - but the truth will eventually come out.

Good post. Let's hope so. I still think though that something so heinous was going on that it could have brought down the govt THEN, and still could do so NOW.

anders7777
17-05-2012, 08:07 PM
Essential reading

Pasted as IMHO the original URL is likely to go 404

A review of the background to setting up the limited company Madeleine's Fund: Leaving No Stone Unturned and a forensic examination of the company accounts

by Enid O'Dowd FCA


The case of missing Madeleine McCann is unlike any other missing person case. Her parents Kate and Gerry McCann set up a limited company (Madeleine's Fund) less than two weeks after she went missing, and engaged many, mainly legal, professionals, to further their search for her.

This article looks at the history of the Fund, what the audited accounts reveal and the professionals engaged, using material from the book Madeleine and from independent sources.

Madeleine was reported missing by her parents Kate and Gerry McCann on the evening of Thursday May 3, 2007. On 15 May, just 11 full days later, the limited company Madeleine's Fund: leaving No Stone Unturned was incorporated.

The sad truth is that such Funds, Foundations or whatever one chooses to call them are normally set up after a tragic event as a tribute to the person's memory. Amy Winehouse's father has set up a Foundation to provide support and counselling to those seeking help with drink and drug addictions. In October 2002 at the memorial service of murdered teenager Milly Dowler, her parents announced Milly's Fund. This fund was later subsumed into the Suzy Lamplugh Trust set up in 1986 by the parents of missing estate agent Suzy Lamplugh, whose body has never been found. In 2003, Australian teenager Daniel Morcombe went missing. Two years later, his parents set up a Foundation to continue the search and to educate the public. Daniel's remains were found late last year and a man has been charged with his murder.

The book informs us that the limited company arose out of an offer to help 'from a paralegal based in Leicester, via a colleague of Gerry's.' This man worked for the International Family Law Group (IFLG), a firm based in central London.

Kate says 'it was difficult to know what they could do (and anyone in her position would agree) but we decided it would be worth meeting them to discuss the possibilities.' The paralegal accompanied by an unnamed barrister flew to Portugal on the afternoon of Friday May 11. They met that day and had two further sessions with the lawyers over the course of the weekend.

We are told that the barrister, having inspected the proximity of the Tapas bar to their holiday apartment, assured them that their behaviour (in making periodic checks on their children) could not be deemed negligent and was 'well within the bounds of reasonable parenting.' The lawyers also advised about applying to have Madeleine made a ward of court, such status being helpful as the 'courts could make orders to reveal information not otherwise available that might be relevant in our case.'

In the context of the financial help that was then being offered, Kate says the IFLG paralegal advised them to set up a 'fighting fund'. The IFLG would devise the objectives of the fund and instruct a leading charity law firm Bates Wells Braithwaite (BWB) to draw up Articles of Association. The use of the term 'fighting' is odd. Who were the McCanns fighting? Whether 'fighting' is the paralegal's word or Kate's paraphrase is unclear.

It is perhaps strange that the IFLG paralegal, expert in the complex area of international family abductions, would promote the idea of setting up a limited company so convincingly that the McCanns agreed. At the time of the first meeting between the McCanns and the two legal visitors, Madeleine had been missing for only one week.

And, most significantly, Kate says on p.296 of Chapter 19 entitled 'Action on three fronts' writing about the time period autumn 2007, 'gradually my outlook was growing more positive and I was beginning to get past my early certainty that Madeleine must have been taken by a paedophile and murdered.'

If Kate believed that her daughter had been murdered at the time of meeting the legal pair, why would she agree to setting up a Fund to find Madeleine?

Further, in Chapter 19 she tells us, 'by October...we were able to concentrate on our top priority: finding Madeleine...so far beyond following up the odd piece of information outside Portugal, we had not gone down this road...we had been reassured that after a shaky start, the police were doing everything that could be done.'

So if the Fund, set up in record time and presumably at considerable expense, was to find Madeleine, why did it, as Kate herself tells us, do very little for the first four months of its existence other than to collect money and follow up the odd piece of information outside Portugal?

Interestingly the book doesn't mention the names of the paralegal and the barrister who spent the weekend in Portugal to advise them, presumably at their own expense. Her book names and praises other professionals who helped her at different times after her daughter vanished; for example trauma psychologist Alan Pike and Carter-Ruck lawyers Adam Tudor and Isobel Hudson who she says on p.289 'continue to do a vast amount of work for us, most of it without payment, most of it quietly behind the scenes.'

On Sunday May 13 the IFLG issued a press brief release with Ann Thomas, managing partner as the contact person. It merely said that 'last week' they and barrister Michael Nicholls QC had been instructed to act for the McCanns...and that details of how contributions could be made to help get Madeleine back would be made available 'in the next couple of days.'

Presumably then, Mr Nicholls was the barrister who reassured the McCanns about their 'reasonable' parenting. According to the website maintained by his Chambers his principal areas of practice are:

'International and domestic family law and medical ethics, including jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement, conflicts of law, child abduction, international relocation, private children’s cases, contempts, families and the media (freedom of expression and press injunctions) and disputes about medical treatment.'

It is unclear why his particular expertise warranted instruction in a missing child case where there was no issue of family abduction. Apart from his family law experience he also had expertise in media (freedom of expression and press injunctions) but at that time the media was totally supportive of the McCanns.

The press release announcing the appointment of the IFLG contained four names each with a title, one of which was Richard Jones Family Law Executive. Perhaps he is the persuasive paralegal at the Portugal meetings? Mr Jones is not currently included as a staff member of IFLG on their website.

The IFLG was apparently set up not long before Madeleine went missing. The website does not say when. However, since co-founder David Hodson was, according to his website career details working in Sydney until 2005, the IFLG cannot have been founded until 2005 at the earliest.

BWB could not have been contacted before Monday morning May 14 when their offices opened – they had the company incorporated on Tuesday May 15.

A Freedom of Information (FOI) request to the Charity Commission revealed several emails, telephone calls and a telephone conference between BWB and the Charity Commission about the possibility of charity status, for the then unincorporated company, between Monday afternoon May 14 and Tuesday May 15.

BWB emailed Alice Holt, Head of Legal Services (Status and Advice) at 9.39 pm on Monday evening with draft documents for the company as a charity. The email stated there was to be a press launch of the Foundation on Wednesday May 16 and that they awaited instructions on how the founders proposed to operate.

The minutes of the telephone conference held between BWB and the Charity Commission on the morning of Tuesday May 15 record that Alice Holt would look at revising the draft document to a form more acceptable to the Commission. The minutes also record that Commission official Kenneth Dibble was concerned that the press conference set for the next day might send out confused messages to the public unless it was settled what the fund could and could not be used for.

At 1.10 pm on May 15 the Charity Commission received an email from BWB saying their clients were likely to go the ordinary company route rather than pursue charity status. When that email was received Ms Holt was just finalising her promised revisions to the documents submitted to her the previous day. She sent her revised document anyway at 1.28 pm. To meet the Fund launch date of May 16, the McCanns had obviously decided to abandon the apparently hopeful charity negotiations in order to meet the deadline for same day company incorporation. Documents must be filed by 3pm for the company to be incorporated on that day.

It is odd that the McCanns committed themselves to a launch date, set it would appear, before BWB were engaged. In an email to the Charity Commission, BWB refer to being instructed 'this afternoon' (i.e. Monday May 14). What difference would a couple of days delay have made? And it is clear from the documentation that the Charity Commission officials were helpful, and that it was likely that charity status could have been obtained with only minor delay with a little compromise by the McCanns.

Charity status is valuable because it gives an organisation credibility with the public, grant making bodies and local government, making it easier to obtain funds. It also gives the organisation tax advantages. Individuals, sole traders and companies can also benefit from giving to registered charities. Higher rate tax payers may be able to claim a tax refund. Under the Gift Aid scheme a donation is treated as if standard rate tax (20%) has been deducted and this is equivalent to an extra 25p in the £ for the charity. For donations between 6.4.2008 and 5.4.2011 the government gave an extra 3p in the £ supplement. Individuals can also have charitable donations deducted from their salaries, and this is tax efficient as their income tax is calculated on their salary after the donation. See www.hmrc.gov.uk/charities-donors/ for more information on the benefits to an organisation of charity status.

Charities must give an annual report and accounts to the Charity Commission and make these documents available to the public on request. There are also rules relating to fundraising. The trustees (directors) cannot normally receive salary, fees or contracts from the charity and nor can their spouses or other close family members. These requirements are not onerous or unreasonable. Having hired charity experts BWB on the advice of the paralegal, it is surprising that Kate did not let them have a day or two more to explore charity status. And it is surprising that the McCanns have not apparently revisited this issue.

In Chapter 9 in which Kate describes her activities of May 14 she does not mention any dealings with BWB who must have worked very hard that day. Nor does she mention dealing with the paralegal or anyone else at IFLG. There must have been urgent emails and phone calls that day from her advisors. She just states that charity status would not be forthcoming as it was deemed that the 'public benefit' test would not be met, and adds that it (the Fund) 'was set up with great care and due diligence by experts in their field.'

It would be more accurate to state it was set up with great haste and with no apparent reason for that haste.

Rather than going into detail about the busy day she must have had dealing with her lawyers, and why she made the decision to proceed with incorporation and abandon the negotiations for charity status, she talks of going for a run, her first since Madeleine went missing!

She mentions trying to focus on the imminent launch of Madeleine's fund but doesn't say when it was to be or explain why a limited company was required. A press launch can be called at short notice and given the high profile of the case at that time; it would have got a good media turnout however short the notice was. And again, it probably would not have been a problem to get another celebrity at short notice if the one booked to launch the Fund on May 16, Martin Johnson the rugby player, could not meet a rescheduled date.

And after they incorporated the company in 24 hours, BWB applied for British and European trade marks on 18 May 2007 and was given the reference 2456061. These trademarks protected fundraising, internet and print promotions. Again this action was unprecedented at this very early stage in a missing person case.

Review of the Memorandum of Association and Articles of Association filed in May 2007 reveals in 3.1.3 that one of the three objects of the company is to provide support, including financial assistance to Madeleine's family (my italics). Now this could mean uncles, aunts, parents and any blood relations.

This object was not included in the draft submitted to the Charity Commission on May 14. In fact the draft objects were different to the ones actually used for the company as incorporated. The objects in the draft were general, relating to missing persons and the education of the public and the promotion of sound administration of the law. An accompanying note from BWB headed 'proposed activities' did state that initially practically all the donations received would be used for the search for Madeleine, and that substantial funds would not be forthcoming if donations were not restricted in the first instance to her.

The objects of the company as incorporated are specific to Madeleine McCann, with a final object to pursue other cases when the objects relating to her case are fulfilled.

5.2.1 permits payments to directors as beneficiaries and 5.2.4 permits payment of rent where appropriate to directors for premises. Therefore, if the McCanns or family members used a room in their home to work for the Fund, the payment of rent from the Fund would be permitted if they should want it and the Board agreed.

The quorum for Board meetings is one third of the current Board membership. This makes the current quorum two, as there are now six directors. Three directors are family members. The Chairman has a casting vote. John McCann was Chairman until he resigned in July 2010. It is unclear who the current Chairman is. If Brian Kennedy (Kate McCann's uncle) - who was one of the original directors - took over as Chairman, then the McCann family has a majority at board meetings by virtue of the Chairman's casting vote.

The conflict of interest policy (Articles nos 37 and 38) is interesting.

It says (37.1) that directors with a personal interest in an upcoming vote must declare that interest, and (37.2) withdraw from the relevant part of the meeting, and (37.3) not be counted in the quorum for that part of the meeting relating to their personal interest and (37.4) have no vote on the issue affecting them. That is proper governance.

However no 38 states that 'no director shall be regarded as having a conflict of interest solely because he or she is also eligible to receive the support of the Foundation.'

A reasonable person would conclude there is a clear conflict of interest for a family member director if decisions are to be taken on payments of legal fees, rent for part of his/her private house for use as an 'office', and other costs not directly related to the search for Madeleine. The draft documents sent to the Charity Commission only contained no.37 so had those documents been adopted, the McCanns and family members would not have been able to attend or vote on issues regarding certain proposed payments to themselves.

Interestingly a revised Memorandum and Articles of Association was filed in Companies House in December 2011. This deleted the object to provide support including financial assistance to Madeleine's family. This particular object had attracted unfavourable comment in particular from internet bloggers. The motive for deleting this objective more than four years later is unclear. If the Board felt this minority criticism of the object was adversely affecting fundraising, it would presumably have changed it earlier.

On p.138 Kate says there needed to be independent people on the Board as well as John McCann, who is Gerry's brother, and her uncle Brian Kennedy, and at that time she had no idea how important these independent people would be when later there was 'massive scrutiny' of the Fund.

The composition of the Board varied during the first year. At the most there were nine directors meaning the quorum was three. Two were family members; three were friends – Esther McVey, Jon Corner and Dr Peter Hubner. It is not known whether Michael Linnett, a retired accountant based in Leicester or P J Tomlinson (who resigned on 28.12.2007) were friends of the McCanns. Friends can of course be very independent, but the optics of having a majority of family and friends on the Board is not desirable. Gerry and Kate became directors on November 12, 2008. Board numbers were reduced to six, following the resignations of Dr Hubner, Dr Skehan and John McCann in 2010.

Returning to the decision to set up a limited company, nowhere does Kate mention the more logical option of dealing with the donations coming in – to open a new bank account in Madeleine's name, or in the joint names of Madeleine and herself. Such an account could, if desired, have two signatures, her own and an independent signatory such as a solicitor or an accountant.

This could have been done quickly at no cost. Down the line, when the situation was clearer, another structure could have been considered.

In fact it is likely there already was a deposit account in Madeleine's name as many parents open up an account in their child's name as a place for depositing gifts from family and friends, and later to encourage the saving of pocket money. In addition, the Child Trust Fund scheme, introduced in September 2002 by the government and which provided a small amount to kick start these special accounts, could also mean there was an existing bank account in Madeleine's name.

Perhaps, the McCanns, who at the time of the meetings with the lawyers, must have been very distressed, meekly accepted the advice of the persuasive paralegal, and gave him the go-ahead. But the McCanns are clearly intelligent professionals and even given the sad situation, it is hard to understand why they accepted the advice.

The cost of getting a top legal firm to set up a limited company would surely have been of concern to them as the donations coming in were for finding Madeleine and not for lawyers. The legal pair would presumably have informed them of the ongoing compliance costs of operating a limited company such as the audit fee. The audit fees for the four years for which accounts are available total £31,585. You would have expected some comment from Kate in Chapter 9 after the lawyers had left, wondering if she was doing the right thing in spending the public's donations to set up a limited company.

The money already coming in would have been in cash, or cheques made out to the McCanns so there would have been no problem using the money to fund the search. By May 17 a bank account in the company name was open and, most surprisingly, auditors to the company had been appointed.

The Charity Commission in its FOI reply supplied a printout of the official Madeleine website (http://www.findmadeleine.com/) at 17 May 2007 giving information on the Fund including auditor details. Now the directors of a company appoint the auditors. At that date there were three directors, two family members John McCann and Brian Kennedy, and Gerry McCann's immediate boss Dr Doug Skehan. It is quite possible that IFLG or BWB recommended these auditors to the directors but that does not explain the rush to appoint them. It is normal for a company to meet with proposed auditors to agree exactly what they are to do (sometimes auditors may provide other services to the company), to agree fees and to draw up a letter of engagement. It is very unlikely in the time that any meeting with the auditors took place. The first meeting of the board according to Kate was due sometime in the week beginning May 20 which would appear to be the earliest time this non urgent matter could have been discussed.

The auditors appointed were haysmacintyre in London WC1, a 24 partner firm with 150 staff. It is perhaps surprising that the McCanns did not choose a local firm. It is usually more convenient to have a local firm and can be cheaper as a local firm normally has lower overheads than a central London firm. Keeping audit costs down means more money for the search so even though the firm haysmacintyre was possibly highly recommended by the lawyers, one would have thought that this decision did not need to be rushed. Auditing the accounts of a company like Madeleine's Fund would not particularly challenge any qualified person, so there would be no need to take on a large firm with special expertise.

Kate does not mention this firm in the book or the reason why they were chosen and why so quickly. Many new companies would not appoint auditors until later in the financial year though it is good practice to appoint at an early stage to have advice on setting up accounting systems with proper internal controls. But two days after incorporation is fast by any criteria. If an existing business decided to change its status to that of limited company then the accountants to the unincorporated business would normally become auditors to the limited company and would probably have set it up as part of their role. But this wasn’t the case here.

The official Madeleine McCann website says in the section about the Madeleine Fund:

'The majority of the fund money has been and continues to be spent on investigative work to help find Madeleine. Additionally money continues to be spent on the wider awareness campaign – reminding people that Madeleine is still missing and to remain vigilant. None of the directors have taken any money from the fund as remuneration.

Anyone who wishes further information with regards to the financial details of Madeleine's Fund and its professional advisors please refer to the accounts filed at Companies House.'

Kate says of the company on p.138 that 'from the outset everyone agreed that, despite the costs involved, it must be run to the highest standards of transparency.'

Fine words but the reality is different.

Looking at the information provided by the audited accounts as the website advises is interesting, but frustrating in the case of the years to March 31 2009, March 31 2010 and March 31 2011. The first accounts were made up from incorporation May 15 2007 to March 31 2008 and show an operating surplus of £1,031,065.

A page of analysis of expenditure was filed for the accounts to March 2008 which is not a statutory requirement but is good practice for such a company which is a 'not for profit company' according to the official website http://www.findmadeleine.com/.

I put the following question to the Press office at HMRC (Her Majesty Revenue & Customs)
'Has the term 'not for profit' any statutory meaning? It seems to be a catch all phrase used by organisations that may (or may not!) have very worthy aims and objectives.'

And the reply –

'It has no meaning for HMRC, only charities and CASCs (Community Amateur Sports Clubs) benefit from tax beneficial arrangements.'
So this term 'not for profit' which is widely used by companies/organisations that are not normal trading companies has no meaning for the UK tax authorities. While the term is generally used with no intention to mislead, it clearly is a term that should not automatically be taken at face value.

anders7777
17-05-2012, 08:10 PM
Anyone who wishes further information with regards to the financial details of Madeleine's Fund and its professional advisors please refer to the accounts filed at Companies House.'

Kate says of the company on p.138 that 'from the outset everyone agreed that, despite the costs involved, it must be run to the highest standards of transparency.'

Fine words but the reality is different.

Looking at the information provided by the audited accounts as the website advises is interesting, but frustrating in the case of the years to March 31 2009, March 31 2010 and March 31 2011. The first accounts were made up from incorporation May 15 2007 to March 31 2008 and show an operating surplus of £1,031,065.

A page of analysis of expenditure was filed for the accounts to March 2008 which is not a statutory requirement but is good practice for such a company which is a 'not for profit company' according to the official website http://www.findmadeleine.com/.

I put the following question to the Press office at HMRC (Her Majesty Revenue & Customs)
'Has the term 'not for profit' any statutory meaning? It seems to be a catch all phrase used by organisations that may (or may not!) have very worthy aims and objectives.'

And the reply –

'It has no meaning for HMRC, only charities and CASCs (Community Amateur Sports Clubs) benefit from tax beneficial arrangements.'
So this term 'not for profit' which is widely used by companies/organisations that are not normal trading companies has no meaning for the UK tax authorities. While the term is generally used with no intention to mislead, it clearly is a term that should not automatically be taken at face value.

The additional page of expenditure information raised more questions than it answered. I put the questions and comments below to auditors haysmacintyre. When I raised these issues with the auditors, the March 2011 accounts were not yet available and hence the questions only relate to the accounts for 2008, 2009 and 2010.
Accounts period to March 31, 2008

Campaign Management £123,573

What exactly does this cover? Does it include, for example, fees paid for PR services? If it does, is this for all PR services or only those that relate to promoting the Fund as opposed to dealing with media comment critical of the McCanns?

Legal Fees

A total of £180,321 has been paid (£111,522 under Merchandising and Campaign costs and £68,799 under Fund legal fees).

The cost of setting up the limited company (which did not involve acquiring charity status) could not have been more than £5,000 leaving £175,321 spent on other legal services.

What legal activities did this expenditure cover?

The Directors' Report is confusing in regard to legal fees. It states that the Fund 'has covered legal fees associated with Madeleine's abduction and the search for her...the Fund has not been used for any fees relating to their (Gerry and Kate's) legal defence.'

Why are there such apparently large legal fees associated with Madeleine's abduction? The only legal fees relating to this would be those involved with having her made a ward of court but this would not cost £175,321.

There would have been legal fees relating to the arguido status but the Directors' Report specifically states it did not pay fees relating to the McCanns' legal defence.

Director Brian Kennedy (uncle of Kate McCann) in an interview on a video made in May 2007 and available on the Internet states that the Fund money 'can be used for all sorts of reasons but probably mainly (will be used) for legal expenditure.' This seems to contradict the Directors' Report.

Thus there is great public confusion about the payment of legal costs which should be cleared up.

Fund professional fees £36,070

What exactly does this cover since legal, audit and accountancy fees are separately charged?

Website £37,071

Was a website person employed all through the period? This cost seems very high?

Percentage of money received spent on search for Madeleine

It has been stated in the media, probably inaccurately, that only 13% of expenditure for this period related to searching for Madeleine. However, it is not clear what this percentage actually is because some of the cost headings require clarification, in particular legal and professional fees.

Accounts year ended 31 March 2009 and 31 March 2010

No Schedule to the Detailed Accounts was filed for either year as it was for the period to 31 March 2008. Why was this?

The contents page of the accounts filed refers to Detailed income and expenditure account and summaries p.9-10 so this information is available but for some reason, which is not obvious to me, was not filed.

To file such a schedule is not a statutory requirement but is obviously good practice. In the case of this high profile company that was committed to 'transparency,' it is odd to say the least that pages 9 and 10 of the accounts were not filed when they had been filed before.

The 2009 and 2010 accounts give no breakdown of income. Expenditure is given as below:
 
31.3.2010
31.3.2009
     
Merchandising and Campaign Costs
421,236
974,786
Administrative Expenses
29,868
30,865

It is impossible to know from this what percentage of expenditure went on searching for Madeleine because there is no analysis of Merchandising and Campaign costs. From the analysis filed relating to 2008, it is likely that substantial costs and in particular legal fees are included here that may have no direct relationship to the search for Madeleine.

How do these summarised accounts provide the transparency that Mrs McCann wrote about?

The Directors' Report for both these years states that money was spent on legal costs for the McCanns in their action against Mr Amaral's book which they felt was libellous. You signed off the 2010 accounts as auditor on 9 November 2010. In Oct 2010 the Portuguese Appeal Court upheld Mr Amaral's appeal – surely this warranted a note to the accounts as a post balance sheet event with financial implications for the company?

Alternatively, the court ruling could have been – but wasn't - mentioned in the Directors' Report.

The McCanns appealed the October 2010 decision but lost in the Supreme Court in March 2011. Surely the substantial money spent on this case should be clear in the filed accounts so that prospective donors can make informed decisions.

Mr John McCann

Mr John McCann was one of the first directors and resigned on 23 July 2010. According to media reports he resigned his fulltime job very shortly after his niece disappeared to work full-time for the Fund. The official McCann website states that 'none of the directors have taken any money from the fund as remuneration.' Can you confirm that no salary or fees were paid to Mr John McCann for the period he was a director.

Presumably he was paid by a benefactor whose money did not go into the Fund?

The auditors passed the questions to Clarence Mitchell, the McCanns official spokesman. I exchanged emails with him and finally received the following email:

I have now been authorised to issue the following brief statement from Madeleine's Fund in response to your approach:

"Madeleine's Fund - Leaving No Stone Unturned Limited" fulfils all of its legal requirements through the filing and public declaration of all the information that is legally required of it. It exists to support the search for Madeleine and remains entirely dedicated to finding her through everything that it does, fully in line with its published objectives."

I appreciate that this does not directly address your specific questions but this is all that the Fund wishes, or needs, to state at present. I hope it is helpful nonetheless.

Kind regards,

Clarence
So I am none the wiser, but more puzzled as to why the official spokesman is not facilitating what his clients claim they want – the ‘highest standards of transparency.'

In fact the official statement 'covers' three additional questions I put directly to Mr Mitchell.

1) Why does the official Madeleine website not provide actual and up-to-date financial information re the Fund - ie income analysis and details of expenditure?

2) Is all book income going to the Fund? The book cover says 'all royalties to the Madeleine's Fund'. Royalties are only paid after an advance is cleared. Will/has the book advance been paid to the Fund?

3) The official website states that 'an experienced Fund Administrator has been appointed to ensure the highest standards of transparency and accountability'. What is the name of the Fund Administrator and when and how was he/she recruited - was the job advertised?
Mr Mitchell referred me to Alison Barrow, at Transworld regarding the question about whether all book income is going to the Fund. I emailed her this question and also asked about sales to date in England and Ireland – but I only received a read receipt, and no subsequent reply.

I was surprised that Clarence Mitchell referred me to the publishers Transworld. Their obligation is to pay the contractual advance to their author. It is not their concern where the cheque ultimately ends up, and nor would they normally know.

I also addressed the questions below to BWB:


1. Did the McCanns approach you directly about setting up the company or was the approach made by the IFLG (International Family Law Group) or by some other intermediary?

2. On what date were you contacted and asked to set up the company?

3. In drafting the documents and getting agreement thereto, did you deal with the McCanns in Portugal (by email and telephone) or did you deal with an intermediary in the UK such as the IFLG?

4. Did you act pro bono or at a reduced fee given the circumstances of this case?

5. When the Charity Commission told you that charity status would not be an option as the draft Articles of Association related to one child rather than to missing children generally, did you suggest to your clients that they might consider a compromise so that charity status might be obtained?

It appears to me that charity status would have helped the company both in the short and medium term, and that with compromise and the expertise of your company, it could have been obtained by amending the draft Articles of Association so that while the main thrust of the work involved searching for Madeleine, some resources would be devoted to other missing children cases.

Your clients clearly wanted the company set up quickly but I have never understood why speed outweighed the issue of charity status which would have been hugely beneficial to the company.

6. In general, when there are no disputed issues with the Charity Commission, how long does it take to achieve charity status after a company has been incorporated?

The FOI documents subsequently supplied by the Charity Commission partly answered these questions. As Kate has not said in the book or elsewhere that BWB acted pro bono or for a reduced fee, it is reasonable to assume they charged a commercial fee for the work they did under huge time pressure - a fee paid for by the many people who sent in money to help find Madeleine.

BWB sent me a brief emailed letter from partner Rosamund McCarthy on July 18 2011 referring me to Clarence Mitchell and saying that BWB 'no longer acts for the company.' However, a Current Appointments Report obtained from Company House on July 20, 2011 gave BWB Secretarial Ltd (the company secretarial wing of BWB) as the company secretary of the Fund. I asked Company House to clarify whether this was accurate in case a recent resignation had not been reflected in the Report – but was informed the Report was correct. I then raised this inconsistency with Ms McCarthy by email; I received a read receipt but no actual reply.

BWB are but one of a number of UK legal firms who have acted for the McCanns in the past four years, as the attached table shows. Limited company accounts normally contain a page of company information listing the company solicitors, bankers etc. For each of the four years for which accounts are available two firms of solicitors are listed. BWB are listed for each year including 2011 so presumably the date they parted company with the McCanns was after March 2011.

In the accounts for the period 15 May 2007 to 31 March 2008 the second named firm is Hayes Percival. This is a large firm with offices in 6 UK centres, but this firm is not mentioned in the book and it is unclear what legal services they provided. The accounts to March 2009, March 2010 and March 2011 name Stephenson Harwood, a large international firm with 100 partners, in addition to BWB. Other legal firms retained by the McCanns include Carter-Ruck, specialists in libel law and criminal law firm Kingsley Napley. Then there are the Portuguese lawyers.

How many other parents of missing children have needed so many lawyers?

The first lawyers retained were the IFLG and Kate has explained she met them as there was a connection with a colleague of Gerry's. But it's odd that they were retained given their expertise is in the area of family abductions resulting from marriage breakdown, a tricky area involving knowledge of family law in different countries. Madeleine's disappearance clearly wasn’t the result of a family abduction. If there was an abduction, then it was a straight forward criminal abduction with no legal issues once the police located the kidnapper. So why were the IFLG retained? According to the official website printout on May 17 2007, postal donations were to be sent c/o IFLG at their central London office.

Returning to the speed of setting up the company – while it is clear from the independent evidence of the Charity Commission that the process was started on May 14 and incorporation took place on May 15 – this was not the usual time span for a company being set up from scratch to the client's specification.

I contacted the Charities Section of BWB by email posing as a voluntary organisation that might need to incorporate quickly in connection with funding that would be dependent on incorporation, and which also needed charity status. I was quoted a fee of £3,500 – £5,000 and after an exchange of emails to tease out what was required, BWB agreed that while a timeline for speedy incorporation of Monday am (instructions taken) to Thursday (incorporation day) was possible, it would be better to allow a week.

Why did BWB agree to rush incorporation the way they did, given that a couple of days extra would not have in any way hampered the search for Madeleine? At that stage, the child could have been found at any time, dead or alive. Obviously their clients, the McCanns, instructed them to incorporate on May 15 because getting charity status was less important than not having to change the date of a press launch.

In the questions to the auditors I asked about the lack of expenditure detail after March 2008. There used to be information on donations in the early days of the official website. Now there is no financial information at all. Why not put up the audited accounts on the website? Is referring people to Companies House the transparency that Kate pledged?

I noted that the accounts were always lodged close to the filing deadline. Why not file the accounts as soon after the balance sheet date as practical? Good practice demands early filing before the information becomes to some extent irrelevant. The Fund's accounts were filed as below:
Accounts year ending
Date approved by Board
Latest date for filing to avoid fines
Company office date stamp on filed accounts
No of days before fines would have applied
31.03.2008
12.11.2008
31.01.2009
23.01.2009
8
31.03.2009
06.01.2010
31.01.2010
27.01.2010
4
31.03.2010
09.11.2010
31.01.2011
14.12.2010
48
31.03.2011
22.12.2011
31.12.2011
30.12.2011
1
Note: The statutory filing date was 10 months after the accounting year end but was changed to 9 months for 2011 and subsequent years.


Why was the equivalent expenditure schedule, filed relating to March 2008, not filed for March 2009, March 2010 and March 2011?

Clearly the directors decided to discontinue providing an analysis of expenditure in the filed accounts and instructed the auditors accordingly. A possible reason for the Board's decision is the public criticism that only 13% of expenditure appeared to go on searching for Madeleine in that year. That percentage may well have been inaccurate either way because the detail published in the filed accounts for 2008 in itself raised issues requiring further clarification. I could not get any clarification from the auditors or Clarence Mitchell so cannot throw any light on the accuracy or otherwise of the 13%.

It is quite reasonable that an ordinary trading company would not reveal more information than legally required in its filed accounts because some information could be commercially sensitive and of use to a trade competitor. However, this argument would not apply to a company such as Madeleine's Fund where it would be to its advantage for the public to see where the money was going. But apart from 2008, the only information available on its income and expenditure from the filed Accounts is as below:
Extract from audited Fund Accounts
Mar-11
Mar-10

Mar-09

Mar-08

         
Income
177,534
233,099
629,181
1,846,178
Interest receivable
101
373
21,585
33,424
 
177,635
233,472
650,766
1,879,602
Expenditure
       
Merchandising and campaign costs
487,193
421,236
974,786
673,366
Administration expenses
26,930
29,868
30,865
141,747
 
514,123
451,104
1,005,651
815,113
         
(Deficit)/Surplus for the year
(336,488)
(217,632)
(354,885)
1,064,489
         
Audit*
6,300
6,169
5,750
13,366

* Company law dictates that the audit fee must be disclosed in a note to the accounts

Another question I could not answer is the name of the 'experienced Fund Administrator appointed to ensure the highest standard of transparency and accountability' to quote the website. Clarence Mitchell would not disclose it, or rather it would appear his clients the McCanns, would not let him disclose it when I asked. It is common for company websites (whether normal trading companies or NGOs and charities) to give at least the name of their most senior person and his/her email address.

If the company had achieved charity status, the name of this person would have had to be revealed in the Annual Report that must be submitted to the Charity Commission. Reporting requirements for charities involve naming the CEO or other senior staff members to whom the day to day staff management is delegated by the trustees (directors).

And, as a charity, the accounts would have to be available to the public on request. As an ordinary limited company, a member of the public must know how to access the accounts at Company House and pay a small fee to obtain them.

Was Mr John McCann the Fund Administrator until he resigned from the Board in July 2010?

Both the Times (22.5.2007) and the Guardian (20.9.2007) reported that he was on indefinite leave of absence from his job as a medical representative with AstraZeneca. Other papers stated that he had actually resigned his job to look for his niece. The Guardian article said he had taken the leave 'to administrate the £1million fund.'

The official website states that 'none of the directors have taken any money from the fund as remuneration.'

But does that just mean money as payment for their work as directors specifically – or does it refer to all work they may have done for the Fund and for any services they provided which are unrelated to being a director?

If John McCann was the Fund Administrator or whether he fulfilled some other role for the Fund and did not receive payment from the Fund for his work, how did he meet his financial commitments? He returned to his company in the summer of 2010 after a three year break. It is unlikely that his company would have paid him while he was on this three year break. In general, career breaks for whatever reason, are not paid. According to his LinkedIn page Mr McCann left AstraZeneca in May 2011 for a position with Bayer.

The accounts for the year to March 2010 reveal in note 2 on p.8 that 'there were no employees in the year (2009 - none)'. This seems to contradict the statement in the Directors' Report for both 2009 and 2010 that the Fund 'provided some administrative support to Madeleine's family in maintaining the impetus of the investigation'. The March 2011 accounts do not have this note so we don't know if there were any employees or not in this year – though it appears from the Directors' Report that there was an employee because the Report states that the Fund has 'provided part-time administrative support to aid the investigation and campaign to find Madeleine (campaign co-ordinator and media liaison).'

'Curiouser and curiouser,' to quote from Alice in Wonderland.

The first year's accounts, where expenditure detail was filed, do not mention salaries; so it would appear there was no Fund Administrator or other employee unless he/she was paid by a benefactor outside of the Fund. However, there would be no reason to do this because this was the year with the biggest income, and the website had been (and still is) specific about hiring this most necessary employee.

And wasn't the whole point of using a company to have a formal structure through which all income and expenditure went?

Another indication that there were no employees is the apparent lack of an office. The company information given in the audited accounts gives the registered address as 2-6 Cannon Street, London EC4, which is the address of solicitors BWB. There is only a PO Box address in Leicester on the official website. In the 2008 accounts, where detail was provided, there is no item rent or rates under Administrative Expenses. For the subsequent years, as no expenditure breakdown is given we cannot know for sure, but as the note in the 2010 account states there were no employees for 2009 or 2010, there was no need of an office. If there was no office with the related costs of rates, heat and light, this raises the question as to what is included under Administrative Expenses in 2009, 2010 and 2011 other than the audit fee which we know as it has to be disclosed by law.

anders7777
17-05-2012, 08:13 PM
         
Income
177,534
233,099
629,181
1,846,178
Interest receivable
101
373
21,585
33,424
 
177,635
233,472
650,766
1,879,602
Expenditure
       
Merchandising and campaign costs
487,193
421,236
974,786
673,366
Administration expenses
26,930
29,868
30,865
141,747
 
514,123
451,104
1,005,651
815,113
         
(Deficit)/Surplus for the year
(336,488)
(217,632)
(354,885)
1,064,489
         
Audit*
6,300
6,169
5,750
13,366

* Company law dictates that the audit fee must be disclosed in a note to the accounts

Another question I could not answer is the name of the 'experienced Fund Administrator appointed to ensure the highest standard of transparency and accountability' to quote the website. Clarence Mitchell would not disclose it, or rather it would appear his clients the McCanns, would not let him disclose it when I asked. It is common for company websites (whether normal trading companies or NGOs and charities) to give at least the name of their most senior person and his/her email address.

If the company had achieved charity status, the name of this person would have had to be revealed in the Annual Report that must be submitted to the Charity Commission. Reporting requirements for charities involve naming the CEO or other senior staff members to whom the day to day staff management is delegated by the trustees (directors).

And, as a charity, the accounts would have to be available to the public on request. As an ordinary limited company, a member of the public must know how to access the accounts at Company House and pay a small fee to obtain them.

Was Mr John McCann the Fund Administrator until he resigned from the Board in July 2010?

Both the Times (22.5.2007) and the Guardian (20.9.2007) reported that he was on indefinite leave of absence from his job as a medical representative with AstraZeneca. Other papers stated that he had actually resigned his job to look for his niece. The Guardian article said he had taken the leave 'to administrate the £1million fund.'

The official website states that 'none of the directors have taken any money from the fund as remuneration.'

But does that just mean money as payment for their work as directors specifically – or does it refer to all work they may have done for the Fund and for any services they provided which are unrelated to being a director?

If John McCann was the Fund Administrator or whether he fulfilled some other role for the Fund and did not receive payment from the Fund for his work, how did he meet his financial commitments? He returned to his company in the summer of 2010 after a three year break. It is unlikely that his company would have paid him while he was on this three year break. In general, career breaks for whatever reason, are not paid. According to his LinkedIn page Mr McCann left AstraZeneca in May 2011 for a position with Bayer.

The accounts for the year to March 2010 reveal in note 2 on p.8 that 'there were no employees in the year (2009 - none)'. This seems to contradict the statement in the Directors' Report for both 2009 and 2010 that the Fund 'provided some administrative support to Madeleine's family in maintaining the impetus of the investigation'. The March 2011 accounts do not have this note so we don't know if there were any employees or not in this year – though it appears from the Directors' Report that there was an employee because the Report states that the Fund has 'provided part-time administrative support to aid the investigation and campaign to find Madeleine (campaign co-ordinator and media liaison).'

'Curiouser and curiouser,' to quote from Alice in Wonderland.

The first year's accounts, where expenditure detail was filed, do not mention salaries; so it would appear there was no Fund Administrator or other employee unless he/she was paid by a benefactor outside of the Fund. However, there would be no reason to do this because this was the year with the biggest income, and the website had been (and still is) specific about hiring this most necessary employee.

And wasn't the whole point of using a company to have a formal structure through which all income and expenditure went?

Another indication that there were no employees is the apparent lack of an office. The company information given in the audited accounts gives the registered address as 2-6 Cannon Street, London EC4, which is the address of solicitors BWB. There is only a PO Box address in Leicester on the official website. In the 2008 accounts, where detail was provided, there is no item rent or rates under Administrative Expenses. For the subsequent years, as no expenditure breakdown is given we cannot know for sure, but as the note in the 2010 account states there were no employees for 2009 or 2010, there was no need of an office. If there was no office with the related costs of rates, heat and light, this raises the question as to what is included under Administrative Expenses in 2009, 2010 and 2011 other than the audit fee which we know as it has to be disclosed by law.
 
(£) 2011
(£) 2010
(£) 2009
Administrative expenses per audited accounts
26,930
29,868
30,865
Less: Audit included therein
6,300
6,169
5,750
       
Giving other administrative costs
20,630
23,699
25,115

Could these 'other administrative costs' all relate to costs incurred by Kate McCann for using a room in her house for her work for the Fund. Clearly she would have costs like telephone, printer cartridges, postage, stationery and heating the room but these would hardly come to more than £20,000 pa? She might have to pay rates for the partial 'business use' of her house but even so, its hard to see how the administrative costs are so high in the context of this organisation. Costs relating to dispatching merchandise and campaign material would presumably be charged under Merchandising and Campaign costs and not under Administrative Expenses.

None of the four sets of accounts filed include any fixed assets. If there was an employee you would expect basic equipment for him or her: a desk and chair, a PC and printer and a filing cabinet.

Note 3 in the accounts for 2008 and 2009 shows a prepayment of £19,795 at both March 31 2008 and at March 31, 2009. Now prepayments normally relate to costs which have to be paid in advance like insurance, subscriptions or rent and rates. Most costs are paid when or after the goods or services are received. Now as it appears from earlier parts of this article that the Fund had no employees and no office, then employers' liability insurance, rent and rates would not apply. There could have been prepayments on a media monitoring subscription and possibly on a travel insurance policy relating to the directors who might be travelling abroad in connection with the search. However, any prepayments on such a subscription or on travel insurance could not possible equal almost £20,000!

For what could the Fund have paid such a substantial amount in advance? The major costs itemised in the 2008 accounts were legal fees and search fees. Could any of the companies involved have demanded significant money upfront as the audited accounts indicate? The Board would have had to agree to this. It is unwise to say the least to pay any company in advance for goods and services not received – unless there is a very good reason for doing so, perhaps because it is the only way to retain the services of a company essential to the aims of the organisation.

Examination of the accounts for the year ended 31 March 2011 lodged on December 30 2011, a day before the deadline for filing, throws up the question 'what happened to the advance for the book Madeleine which would have been paid in late 2010?'

The huge (unquantified) advance reported in the media in October 2010 does not appear to be in the accounts. If it was, it would either be included in the income figure in the Income and Expenditure Account or shown on the Balance Sheet with an accounting note to explain the payment had been received in the year and would be included in the Income and Expenditure Account for the year ending March 2012, the year in which the book was published. There is no balance sheet entry or note.

Could it be in the Income figure?

Unlikely as the accounts show total income of only £177,534 and no breakdown thereof. In this accounting year (year to March 2011) the official McCann website refers to four official fundraising events, three 'Bags of Hope' events - in the National Space Centre Leicester, in the Crypt in the Liverpool Metropolitan Cathedral and in the Crowne Plaza Hotel Glasgow - and an 81 mile sponsored cycle ride undertaken by Gerry, the Etape Caledonia, in Scotland. In addition to these official fundraisers there would presumably have been fundraising income from supporters around the country and profits from the sale of merchandise. Usually 'good causes' will indicate on their website or in their Annual Report or other publications how successful a fundraising event was. It might give the specific sum raised or alternatively indicate the kind of amount raised. The McCanns' website only gives basic information on the events held including where they were held. There is no mention of the amounts raised; the only comment is that the events were 'very positive.'

The Bags of Hope events featured an auction of donated bags, some from some very high profile celebrities. The Loughborough Echo (11.3.2011) said the three events hoped to raise 'tens of thousands of pounds.' Attendees, according to the News of the World (6.3.2011), paid £50 per head to attend. The venues used had substantial capacity. Kylie Minogue, Coleen Rooney, Fearne Cotton, Carol Vorderman, Chris Tarrant and Lorraine Kelly were among the celebrities who donated bags. Given the celebrities involved and the professional team behind the McCanns these events must have raised tens of thousands of pounds as the organisers hoped.

If the advance money is included in the income figure in the Income and Expenditure Account it must have been less than £100,000. Even allowing for media exaggeration about the advance, it is not credible that the Christopher Little Literary Agency who acted for Kate McCann would have accepted such an advance for a book that had such huge sales potential. This long established agency until recently acted for J K Rowling.

The other possible explanation, that there was no advance paid on signing the contract as is usual, is not credible either. No literary agent with a client with a 'hot' book would permit that.

So the likely explanation is that the advance was not paid into the Fund.

Its whereabouts is a mystery to me.

HMRC confirmed to me that there is no special income tax treatment for the income from writing a book, as for example there used to be in Ireland for certain writers and artists. Thus assuming the contract for the book was between Kate McCann and the publishers, then the money she received under that contract would be subject to income tax at current rates. The rates for the UK tax year 2010/2011 in which the initial advance on signing the contract would appear to have been received were : basic rate 20% applying to taxable income from zero to £37,400, higher rate 40% applying to taxable income from £37,401 - £150,000 and additional rate 50% on taxable income over £150,000. These income tax rates would take a sizable chunk of the advance, especially given that Dr Gerry McCann has a salary as a fulltime medical consultant and Kate's book earnings would attract income tax at 40% and 50%. Kate would need to file a tax return for 2010/2011 disclosing her book earnings (and any other earnings she might have had in that year) by 31 October 2011 if filing by hard copy, or by 31 January 2012 if filing online.

In addition to paying income tax on the book earnings Kate would have to pay commission to her literary agent. Her agent's website states that the agency's commission charge is 15%. Of course, a lower figure could have been negotiated as the book was to raise money for the search for Madeleine.

If the book contract was between the publishers and the Fund, then the advance clearly should be in the Fund accounts for the year to March 2011.

When I looked at the audited accounts to see what they said about taxation I found a note 1.3 Taxation as part of the Notes to the Financial Statements in accounts 2008, 2009 and 2010 which read:

'The company remains accountable for taxation liabilities arising from capital gains, interest, trading activities and any other surplus other than from donations received' (my italics).

In the accounts to 31 March 2008, there is a surplus of £1,064,489 before taxation but the corporation tax payable per the accounts is only £12,462. This is because most of the income for that period was from donations . According to the detailed schedule filed for this period - £1,390,360 donations were received through the bank and £391,740 donations were received via the website.

There is no note about taxation in the 2011 accounts, and I cannot understand why it has been removed. The taxation charge in the 2011 accounts is £8,371.

Another question I have about corporation tax arises from the 2010 accounts. The charge for corporation tax for the year in the Income and Expenditure Account is £2,598 but the figure for the corporation tax due in the analysis of creditors per the balance sheet (note 4) gives the corporation tax creditor as £4,666 rather than £2,598. However Note 3 which analyses the debtors figure on the balance sheet includes £2,068 'corporation tax debtor.' Deduct the corporation tax creditor from the corporation tax debtor and you have the corporation tax charge in the Income and Expenditure Account. The likely explanation of this is that the corporation tax debtor relates to a S.419 charge (ICTA 1988) on a director's loan not repaid within the prescribed time limits. In summary, where a director of a limited company takes a loan from the company and does not repay it within nine months of the end of the accounting period in which the loan was taken, a charge of 25% of the loan is payable to HMRC. This charge can be reclaimed when the director's loan is repaid. Thus it would appear that a director of the Fund took a loan of £8,272 from the company. Review of the 2011 accounts indicates that the director's loan had been repaid and that HMRC had repaid the £2,068 (25% x £8,272) to the company. For more information on S.419 see http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/ Corporation tax home page – 'Directors Loan Accounts and Corporation Tax explained.'

If there was a director's loan taken from the Fund, and obviously it would have been approved by the Board, it would be interesting to know the rationale for approving it because money, albeit temporarily, borrowed from the Fund reduces the funds available to search for Madeleine.

However, if there was a director's loan this would have to be included on the balance sheet as a debit, or the accounts wouldn't balance! Looking at the years involved, the balance sheets record 2008 – debtors total £585,369, 2009 debtors total £19,795 and 2010 – debtors total £3,718. In the notes to the accounts these totals are analysed except in the case of 2010. From the analysis the only place the 'loan' could be included is in the 'prepayments' £19,795 which has been queried earlier in this article. A director's loan is not a 'prepayment' but possibly has been misanalysed under this heading. If there was no director's loan then the corporation tax charge in 2010 is indeed a mystery.

As well as the taxation note changing, I see a change in Note 1.2 Income. The 2008, 2009 and 2010 accounts all state –

'Income comprises donations received by the company along with revenue recognised in respect of merchandise supplied, exclusive of VAT.'

But in the 2011 accounts the heading Income changes to Turnover and the note reads –

'Turnover comprises revenue recognised by the company in respect of goods and services supplied by the company, exclusive of Value Added Tax and trade discounts.'

Why has the word donations been deleted?

The website seeks donations and in interviews the McCanns always stress the need for money to continue their search. While donations to the Fund have obviously declined and the Directors' Report states this, there must have been some donations including money from small fund raising events held by the many supporters of the McCann family around the country.

Back to the 'missing' advance.

Of course you could argue that the book cover's promise of 'all royalties to the Fund' did not include the advance because this is a separate part of the payment for the book. However an advance is surely 'advance royalties' and should have been lodged to the Fund's bank account. It is pure semantics to argue that the advance is separate to the royalties, which would not be paid until after the book had been published and after the advance had been cleared by sales.

All the above makes me sceptical about Madeleine's Fund. Even the name is misleading because the usual connotation of Fund is that some charitable purpose is involved. The Fund or should I say the limited company is merely an ordinary private company filing the minimum accounting details to comply with the law, and filing close to the latest legal filing date.

The official website states that the Fund does not have charity status. Despite that, there is great public confusion as to the status of the Fund, which has not been helped by consistently sloppy journalism. As mentioned, the term 'not for profit' which is used by the company has no meaning to the HMRC, and given the lack of financial information, it is impossible to say whether the Fund would meet a reasonable person's interpretation of that term.

In the accounting year to March 31 2011, the McCanns lost two appeals in their case against Sr Amaral for his book 'The Truth of the Lie.' The Directors' Report does not mention this though it has financial implications for the company. In both the 2009 and 2010 Directors' Reports reference was made to paying for legal representation for the family in Portugal in connection with the Amaral case. Thus, it is reasonable to assume that these Portuguese legal costs were met in the year to March 2011 and will be met in the future. A further appeal by the McCanns is set for April 2012. Surely some mention of these ongoing legal costs should have been made in these accounts?

My final comment on the accounts is that the accounts for the year to 31 March 2009 have not been properly checked by the Board and by the auditors.

There was a DEFICIT for the year of £354,885.

Yet
 

The auditors report (p.5) refers to the SURPLUS for the year
 

The Income and Expenditure Account (p.6) consistently uses the word SURPLUS when the correct word is DEFICIT
 

In note 2 on p.8 the heading should be Operating Deficit and not Surplus and the text should use deficit and not surplus
 

In note 3 on p.8 the comparative year should read 2008 and not 2009

Director Brian Kennedy (Kate's uncle) approved these accounts on behalf of the Board on 6.1.2010 and signed them on p.7. The auditors then filed these accounts at Companies House.

On July 14 2011 I emailed the Find Madeleine campaign (using another name) suggesting that financial information including the audited accounts be put on the website. I also referred to difficulties ordering a holiday pack. On July 18 I received an email from 'Karen' telling me the accounts were available in Companies House and that she would pass my suggestion 'on to the team and see what they think.' She said there had been difficulties with the online ordering store and I could order via the general email while the problem was being solved. There was no follow up email telling me what the team thought of my suggestion and no change in the lack of financial information on the website!

After reviewing the background to the setting up of the Fund and its published accounts, and getting such information from independent sources as was available, as a chartered accountant who has also worked both in a paid and voluntary capacity for charities and for 'not for profit' organisations, I am unable to understand why in the context of a missing child -
 

the Fund (limited company) was set up only days after Madeleine vanished
 

the accounts, apart from 2008, are so uninformative
 

what has happened to the advance for the book Madeleine which does not appear to have been put into the Fund as people expected
 

whether the Fund ever had any paid staff and in particular whether there ever was a Fund Administrator as the official Madeleine website states
 

the reluctance to provide meaningful financial information
 

the need for so many professional advisors, mainly lawyers and whether their fees were paid fully or in part from the Fund
 

why the issue of charity status has apparently not been revisited given the obvious benefits to the search for Madeleine
People everywhere have been touched by the story of this missing child. Many have sent in money they could perhaps ill afford. These people deserve to be treated with respect; and that means publishing detailed and up-to-date information as to what the money has been spent on.

Respect also means answering reasonable questions from the press or from the general public. My observations are based on the evidence available and my professional experience. If some observations are a little wide of the mark it is due to the lack of transparency I have experienced. Some genuine transparency from the McCanns and their advisors would hopefully sort out my concerns.

I quote again what Kate says in her book on p.138:

'From the outset, everyone agreed that, despite the costs involved, it (the Fund) must be run to the highest standards of transparency.'

You would think that with the PR expertise at the McCanns' disposal, this would be the case.

It is not.

Why?



©  Enid O'Dowd   February 2012

Note: the numerical references to the Memorandum and Articles of Association quoted in this report relate to the documents filed on 15 May 2007.
Enid O'Dowd is a chartered accountant living in Ireland.

She is an NUJ member (Dublin Freelance Branch).

She reviewed the book Madeleine in local paper Town&Village http://www.townandvillage.ie/ June 2011 issue.

In November 2010 she published Cancer in a Cold Climate: the Shafting of St Luke's Hospital, an examination of the real reasons for the then Irish government's attempt to close a hospital that was (and still is) a national institution.

 
The McCann professional advisors needed in the search for Madeleine, 22 February 2012
 

THE MCCANN PROFESSIONAL ADVISORS NEEDED IN
THE SEARCH FOR MADELEINE

Lawyers - UK
Name of firm
Location
Staff involved
Areas of expertise
Work done
Bates Wells & Braithwaite
London EC4
Rosamund McCarthy, Tom Pratt, Company Secretarial Department staff
Department for Charities and NGOs
Set up company, Obtain trademark, ongoing company secretarial work
International Family Law Group
London WC2
Ann Thomas, David Hodson, unnamed paralegal – probably Richard Jones
Family law especially re international abductions
Convinced McCanns of need to set up limited company, assisted in its formation. Initially cheques sent c/o their office.
Michael Nicholls QC
London EC4
n/a
Family law
Advised on 'reasonable parenting', limited company
Geoffrey Robinson QC
London WC1
n/a
Human rights lawyer
Declaration re EU child rescue alert
Timothy Scott QC
London WC1
n/a
Family law
Advised McCanns in 2008
Kingsley Napley
EC1
Michael Caplan, Angus McBride
Criminal lawyers
Advice on arguido status
Howes Percival
Milton Keynes
Unclear
Commercial law firm – 6 offices
Unclear
Stephenson Harwood
London EC4
Unclear
International firm
Unclear
Carter-Ruck
London EC4
Isobel Hudson, Adam Tudor
Media law
A number of libel actions re UK media, Sr. Amaral and now Pat Brown
Edward Smethurst
   
Commercial lawyer acting for businessman Brian Kennedy
Made director of Madeleine's Fund. Co-odinator of McCann legal teams
Lawyers - Portugal

Lawyer
Background
Services
Carlos Pinto de Arbreu
Human rights lawyer recommended to them and described as 'our criminal lawyer' p.271
Acted for Gerry
Rogerio Alves
President of the Portuguese bar and suggested by Brian Kennedy to provide additional legal support in Portugal
Acted for Kate
Isabel Duarte
Libel lawyer
Sued Sr Amaral

PR Consultants
Name
   
Sheree Dodd
Foreign office arranged for this independent PR consultant to come in PDL on May 16, 2007
 
Justine McGuinness
From June 22 2007 to mid Sept 2007
 
Alex Woolfall
Mark Warner Group
 
Hanover
Crisis Management Sept-Nov 2007
Per Daily Star 6/12/07 charged £30,000 for 2 months work, one third of normal fee
Clarence Mitchell
Started May 23, 2007 for 3 weeks. Returned later and still spokesman
Apparently paid by Brian Kennedy
The above lists do not necessarily include all the professionals engaged by the McCanns in the 'search' for Madeleine.

mushroomhead
17-05-2012, 08:21 PM
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/4316621/TV-psychic-Derek-Acorah-in-sick-Maddie-dead-claim.html

Sorry it's a Sun link.

Derek Acorah who has some popularity as a Psychic in the UK Television media, has caused anger and upset to the parents of missing child Madeleine McCann, by saying that he believes her to be dead.

The tragic case of Maddie, as she is known goes back to 2007 when she went missing from her parents holiday home on The Portuguese Algarve, this has resulted in one of the most infamous missing persons cases in UK history.

never trust a Psychic `s morals ;)

mushroomhead
17-05-2012, 08:27 PM
All of the time. He is a con man and a disgrace to real mediums/psychics.


yeah he lets the side down .

mushroomhead
17-05-2012, 08:29 PM
Not the half of it when it comes to these two ghouls...Look into it.

spill the beans zeph :cool:

anders7777
17-05-2012, 08:37 PM
http://steelmagnolia-steelmagnolia.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/mccann-brooks-insight-into-police.html?m=1

This brooks salem gal sure gets around!
Thursday, May 17, 2012

#McCann #Brooks #Leveson : An Insight Into Police Corruption And Why The McCann Quasi Review Arranged By Brooks Is Going Nowhere. Key Word - It Was 'ARRANGED' By Brooks!
C4 Dispatches Preview : City Of London Police Corruption


  http://www.ianpuddick.com

SteelMagnolia at 11:48 AM
Share

talktalk
17-05-2012, 09:29 PM
tbh i have seen some really pathetic stuff from acora and found the haunting thing fake and boring.
we all know its fake with strings attached moving stuff etc and made to look more scary using the infra cameras to make the eyes look scary....boo!

Derek acora the fake saying that maddeline is dead must mean the opposite.

this is why i am convinced madeline is alive because although i have thought she is alive in the past to be used as a reason to chip us all, derek acora the fake scouser confirms to me that this is part of a set up.

anders7777
17-05-2012, 09:49 PM
tbh i have seen some really pathetic stuff from acora and found the haunting thing fake and boring.
we all know its fake with strings attached moving stuff etc and made to look more scary using the infra cameras to make the eyes look scary....boo!

Derek acora the fake saying that maddeline is dead must mean the opposite.

this is why i am convinced madeline is alive because although i have thought she is alive in the past to be used as a reason to chip us all, derek acora the fake scouser confirms to me that this is part of a set up.


Lol, excellent reasoning. I really hope and pray she is alive. As for the ham house of horrors fakir, the hubcap stealing parasitical git is a thorough embarrassment to all white haired sweaty men of a certain age everywhere! Even a stopped clock is right twice a day - perhaps a 12 to 1 ratio is about right for this greedy troughing chancer.

velma
17-05-2012, 10:23 PM
Published TODAY


WEDNESDAY, 16 MAY 2012

It won't go away Part Two – the detailed evidence

 



The Madeleine Three

Throughout the summer and autumn of 2007 The Three, that is the McCanns and the spokesman who retailed their views, maintained time and again that they wanted to go back and help with an officially mooted  police  reconstruction of May3. From November onwards the idea of such a reconstruction, the format of which was fixed and which, of course, had nothing to do with Crimewatch – type  badly acted re-creations, began to turn into reality.

In April the McCanns were informed that there was an end of the month deadline for their decision and at that point the tenor of the Three's public statements began to change. As late as  January 2008, however,  they were still repeating their four month old mantra of full-hearted support for the Portuguese investigation.

Clarence Mitchell, December  5 2007: 

"If Kate and Gerry, or indeed any of their friends, are required to go back to Portugal they will be more than happy to comply.They will do anything necessary if it helps them move on and be eliminated as suspects."'

Clarence Mitchell, December 13:

"We are well aware of what the papers are saying but we have heard nothing official from the Portuguese police. If it does happen, no-one has anything to hide and they will happily tell the police what they want to hear over timings and anything else they are not sure about."

Clarence Mitchell, January 4 2008:

"Kate and Gerry, and their friends particularly, are very keen to talk to the Portuguese police again because they want to be able to clarify any inconsistencies to do with the timeline of events on May 3, or whenever the police put forward."

Clarence Mitchell, January 29:

"For some months now we have actively offered to assist this process, to get it underway as soon as possible. Kate and Gerry's friends are keen that it should happen soon and want any bureaucracy - whether it's in Portugal or England - to be cleared quickly.

Any inconsistencies the police believe exist in their evidence can be cleared up very quickly and then we hope Kate and Gerry's names will be cleared. As far as we are concerned this cannot happen soon enough."

There followed a lengthy period of relative silence while the groundwork was being laid for the UK rogatory interviews in early April. The Portuguese saw the reconstruction and the interviews as a unity: the Tapas 7 could have their full say and then the reconstruction would test their considered versions.

The reconstruction was therefore suddenly becoming a reality rather than a possibility and the McCanns had until the end of the month at the latest to inform the Portuguese of their intentions – so it was now time for the parents to put their "keenness" to co-operate with such an exercise into action. On April 7 the PJ arrived in the UK for the interviews.

Clarence Mitchell, April 4:

'Kate and Gerry are currently deciding whether to return to Portugal. [again, clearly demonstrating that they had a choice]. It is being discussed.Going to Portugal would send out the strongest possible message that Madeleine could still be alive and the search for her should continue. The family feel the focus should be on finding Madeleine.

Next week's interviews will help in gauging the police attitude. In an ideal world they would not be arguidos and their lawyers have always warned them not to return while they have that status."

Clarence Mitchell had let the cat out of the bag, hadn't he? And two days later he explicitly confirmed that under legal advice they were not going back to Portugal until they were no longer arguidos, even though all the reasons and reservations they were to come up as their "reasons" hadn't arisen yet!

Clarence Mitchell, April 6:

"If they returned now to Portugal it would be a distraction and would put pressure on police.Their lawyers would block it anyway.But once their arguido status has been lifted, they will feel differently."

And a day after that they began to spin in the new direction. What had happened to the repeated promises to participate with enthusiasm?  After being quoted anonymously as saying that Kate McCann might be too traumatised to take part in a reconstruction Mitchell made another statement.

He put forward the complete invention that a PJ reconstruction, an official measure of the Portuguese criminal code, its status and format fixed and known, a part of the investigative process and not for public consumption, was actually a televised Crimewatch episode.

Clarence Mitchell, April 8:

"There are loads of questions still to be addressed such as whether the twins, Sean and Amelie, will be required and what the actual re-enactment will be used for.

No-one knows whether it will be done behind closed doors or whether it will be a Crimewatch-style reconstruction used to try and generate new leads. All these types of things need to be ironed out before a decision is made." [But, as you have just seen, the lawyers had already made the decision].

And then in an another interview at the same he and the parents made their  second invention of the week. That the idea of the reconstruction was not part of the Portuguese penal code at all – but a suggestion of the McCanns!

Clarence Mitchell:

"Gerry and Kate suggested months ago that a reconstruction [here the three deliberately conflate the idea of a television appeal with the Portuguese penal code provision] should take place but were told by the police that they didn't do it.We want to be sure that no confusion or contradiction comes out of this [!] and that it doesn't in any way make matters worse.

They are happy to assist the police in anything that might help them generate new leads but there are genuine considerations to be discussed."

And now Kate appears to have had one of her convenient mental collapses.

Clarence Mitchell:

"Kate is upset. There's been no sense of concern for her feelings or the anguish it will cause her. On an emotional level she is not sure she can go through with it.The family will consider it. If it's felt that there's a chance of it helping to find Madeleine then, of course, they will do it. But given it is a year on, you have to wonder about the value of it."[Again, free to choose, and in the process of choosing, not compelled]

Clarence Mitchell:

"However, Kate and Gerry would very much welcome a Crimewatch-style reconstruction which is properly broadcast for millions of people to see and could generate important new leads and fresh information.

"It's untrue to say that Kate and Gerry have been called back or summoned back. Their lawyers are very much continuing discussions with the Portuguese police and if any such decision is taken to take part, an announcement will be made at the appropriate time."

So yet again he is confirming that their presence was a matter for decision by them and their lawyer team, not the Portuguese. And, with the deadline for telling the Portuguese of their decision only days away, Gerry finally came in to speak himself on the BBC.

Gerry McCann, April 24:

"We want to work with the Portuguese authorities,  we have co-operated with them since day one and we have been completely open and transparent. We’ve told them every single bit of information that we have had at our disposal and answered all their questions, so of course we can see a scenario by which we continue to work with them."

Fine. But near the end of the programme the interviewer asked him if going back to Portugal for the reconstruction was "risky", given that they might be still be charged with child neglect.

Gerry McCann:

"Well we talked about this early on. We were given legal advice that what we did was well within the bounds of reasonable parenting and of course, at the time, we thought what we did was perfectly reasonable.

However hindsight has proven that we made a mistake. Clearly we would never leave the children again. We are paying more for that than anyone could possibly ever imagine, but, you know, clearly I think such a charge one has to ask why are people talking about that now when we’re almost a year down the line and Madeleine hasn’t been found? They have no more information now than was available to them on the 4th of May, so why are we talking about such a charge now?"

Did you get all that? He was asked the simple question "was it 'risky' to return to Portugal now?" Yes or no? Where's his answer in all that self-serving junk? Why isn't it there?

The answer is missing from the transcript. Readers may wonder – although the reason is really obvious given the terms that the pair and their lawyers impose on their interviewers – why that is so and why music is played instead. After the music ends the interviewer seems to have been in no doubt that he had replied and what the answer to his question was.


Interviewer:

"So the McCann’s continue to campaign and to travel, but for now Portugal remains off limits. The crime of ‘abandoning’ children carries a jail term of up to 5 years, and the couple simply won’t risk another confrontation with the police."

The McCanns were given a transcript of the programme before it was broadcast.



It won't go away  Part Three, the invented alibi

So the decision had been taken, just under a week before the Portuguese deadline was up; clearly it had not been dependent on any decisions the Tapas 7 had taken. Since it was the first Madeleine Memorial Birthday Carnival & Jamboree  the two dozen or so interviews that the pair gave that week concentrated on the gooey stuff, not the highly significant decision they had taken, which – surprise, surprise – was drowned out by the noise.

It remained for Mitchell to try and package the whole affair up on behalf of all three of them, insert the alibi about it being the T7's decision and not the parents', since the latter had no choice, and hope that it would all be forgotten. Bad luck, Clarence!  On May 9 he was interviewed in Ireland in front of an audience and was given a most helpfully phrased take-off point for discussion of the reconstruction by a production team and  interviewer with rather odd standards of background research. Just what Clarence wanted, in fact.



Mitchell's Irish interviewer

Note the limited neural area.That's why Mitchell was there

Interviewer: "Now, the.. the last err, thing is quite amazing. It's an astonishing development in the sense that it's about a cancellation of a reconstruction of what happened on that night. Wh... the reconstruction wasn't going to be televised, so what was the point of it?"

Clarence Mitchell: [Having, of course, had the details of Portuguese investigative reconstructions explained to him in detail by the couple's lawyers for months but apparently totally ignorant of them now] "Well, that's exactly the question that Gerry, Kate and their friends were asking. Err, there were a whole host of reasons that they had very strong concerns about what this would actually achieve, what they've all said consistently and continue to do so, will do anything to help find Madeleine."

And then, sounding rather like Aunty Phil, as he often does on the rare occasions he speaks extempore, he  gave the compelling reasons that had somehow overridden those months of promises to return and co-operate. Note again how an official action under the penal code had somehow been turned into a kind of showbiz "proposal" with no investigative or legal basis.

Clarence Mitchell: "This particular proposal, the way it was phrased and the way it was being put forward, then [sic]  felt not in any shape or form help to find her. [no, we don't know what the twat meant by that either.] As you say, it wouldn't have been televised, there would be no new leads coming in... Err, why, what good would it have done well over a year after the event. Erm, nobody seemed to have given any consideration to Kate's mental well being. You know, was she expected to see a child playing Madeleine in front of her? All sorts of other questions. "

Interviewer: Now, they, they were going to use erm, the McCann's and the people who were there actually that night rather than actors.
Clarence Mitchell: Well exactly, and how many reconstructions have you heard of, erm, in Ireland, Britain, or anywhere else, where the original people involved in a case, actually take part. It is virtually unheard of.And so again, that made us, made our Lawyers wonder what, you know, what is going on here? [our italics] And on top of that the Portuguese as a norm, do not do reconstructions.

Finally, the new line emerged in all its glory, the one the supporters have fallen for ever since, that – despite all the evidence you have read above that the McCanns were not going back come what may – the parents couldn't refuse because they were helpless law-abiding arguidos but the Tapas 7 were free to choose and unfortunately…

Anyway, read, and treasure this climatic example of Mitchell-junk at its uncomplicated worst.

Clarence Mitchell: "Last year, just after Madeleine was taken, BBC Crimewatch [ah, not Gerry or Kate then] proposed just such a reconstruction with actors, and the police said no, no, we don't do that here, we don't do reconstructions. And yet suddenly they turn round over a year later to say we will do one on our terms. And, erm, you know, there was some debate within the group. Now Gerry and Kate, as arguidos, as... as suspects, err, I... [remembers his lines] would have had to go back if they were forced back, legally to go.

There was no question of them saying 'no we couldn't go'. But the friends are not, erm, suspected of anything, or not involved directly in that sense, err, that degree. And as a result they have freedom of choice. And they discussed it themselves at length, and decided to let the police know that no, thank you for this offer on this occasion, but we don't feel it would be helpful.

An... and that's what happened and the Police made it clear as well, they wanted everybody or it wouldn't happen. And as soon as one or two of the friends said no, then it simply, erm, fell away. And... "

Yes Clarence. Yes, Kate & Gerry.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


john blacksmith at 16:27

Mitchell's anonymous and mysterious benefactor, who paid his wages as the McCann's official PR man, seems to have been the Murdoch moguls, the same cut-throat cabal whose newspaper sanctifies Kate & Gerry. The 'elite' only go to these lengths, enlisting the support of the entire Masonic fraternity, when their precious paedophile network is in danger of public exposure.

Update:

London, 30 April, 2012 - Clarence Mitchell has been appointed to head Burson-Marsteller’s Public Affairs practice following the departure of George Hutchinson. Mitchell has been working at B-M as a Managing Director since September 2011 providing strategic counsel to corporate and public affairs clients.

Clarence Mitchell joined Burson-Marsteller from Lewis PR where he was Director of Media Strategy and Public Affairs, offering clients strategic counsel across the issues and crisis management and public affairs practices, a role he combined with his ongoing duties as official media spokesman for Kate and Gerry McCann. Previously, he was a consultant with Freud Communications.

Prior to that, he was Director of the UK Government’s Media Monitoring Unit leading a team that advised No 10 and all of the major Departments of State on how best to respond to the daily news agenda. Before moving into Government Comms and PR, he was an on-air News Correspondent and Presenter with BBC News.

maxine
17-05-2012, 10:38 PM
The spirit world can be a powerful tool - when finding out the true whereabouts of a person! The spirit world sees, more than any human being on the planet! They also share this information between themselves! A good psychic, who has a good rapport with the spirit world - will relay truthful information! Needless to say - there are fraudsters out there!

anders7777
17-05-2012, 10:48 PM
Mitchell's anonymous and mysterious benefactor, who paid his wages as the McCann's official PR man, seems to have been the Murdoch moguls, the same cut-throat cabal whose newspaper sanctifies Kate & Gerry. The 'elite' only go to these lengths, enlisting the support of the entire Masonic fraternity, when their precious paedophile network is in danger of public exposure.

Update:

London, 30 April, 2012 - Clarence Mitchell has been appointed to head Burson-Marsteller’s Public Affairs practice following the departure of George Hutchinson. Mitchell has been working at B-M as a Managing Director since September 2011 providing strategic counsel to corporate and public affairs clients.

Clarence Mitchell joined Burson-Marsteller from Lewis PR where he was Director of Media Strategy and Public Affairs, offering clients strategic counsel across the issues and crisis management and public affairs practices, a role he combined with his ongoing duties as official media spokesman for Kate and Gerry McCann. Previously, he was a consultant with Freud Communications.

Prior to that, he was Director of the UK Government’s Media Monitoring Unit leading a team that advised No 10 and all of the major Departments of State on how best to respond to the daily news agenda. Before moving into Government Comms and PR, he was an on-air News Correspondent and Presenter with BBC News.

Hey Velma! Long time no see. I could not agree more with everything you say. Old candyfloss at jillhavern has banned me several times for daring to mention CASA PIA and the paedophile angle. Do some research on broon as it seems he is that way inclined. It all fits. Remember the sweaty git making a happenstance visit to see the wee kiddies at a school near Rothley, shortly after the two arguidos scuttled back to their lair? Then he though, oh, I might as well meet with them! They all have the dirt on each other. Sooner or later the dam will crack and unleash a torrent of merde on all of the bastards. One day. One day.

stillwakingup
17-05-2012, 10:50 PM
I never heard of the curtains being washed, and dumping the fridge is just mad.
Have the mc canns ever been asked about this on film? Has their body language ever been examined? Its usually pretty accurate-not to mention lie detector tests??

anders7777
17-05-2012, 11:17 PM
Hey Velma! Long time no see. I could not agree more with everything you say. Old candyfloss at jillhavern has banned me several times for daring to mention CASA PIA and the paedophile angle. Do some research on broon as it seems he is that way inclined. It all fits. Remember the sweaty git making a happenstance visit to see the wee kiddies at a school near Rothley, shortly after the two arguidos scuttled back to their lair? Then he though, oh, I might as well meet with them! They all have the dirt on each other. Sooner or later the dam will crack and unleash a torrent of merde on all of the bastards. One day. One day.

Edit to add

I always thought Kennedy was at least a partial bankroller

But then of course we have the absolutely wonderful wagging dog clement FREUD sticking his oar in

How curious he has a pad in PDL

And Kennedy too?

And plenty of other dodgy bastards

Old Sigmund, do some digging on that globalist eugenicist placeman

Folks - trace the clement FREUD links all the way back to Cameroon and chipping norton and mordor, oops I mean murder, sorry Murdoch

Damned iPhone has a spelling mind of its own!

As an aside my old fiancé, her father tragically died when she was 12

He was a middling Freemason

She is traumatised to this very day

When the man died, burst stomach ulcer, the Freemasons took over, immediately

Her life was ruined, frankly

She was forbidden to go to his funeral

She was parted from her grieving mother and 14 year old brother

She was shipped off to the royal Freemason school in herts, a boarder, until she got away at 18

These are true verminous scum

They look after their own

They have to swear to do that at the first initiation bullshit

Which is why Gerry is being protected

Broon

All
Of
Them

The spooks are almost all masons

The police

The judiciary

Journalists in many cases, lol!

I, _________, of my own free will and accord, in the presence of Almighty God, and this Worshipful Lodge, erected to Him and dedicated to the holy St. John, do hereby and hereon most solemnly and sincerely promise and swear, that I will hail, ever conceal, and never reveal any of the secrets, arts, parts, point or points, of the Master Mason's Degree, to any person or persons whomsoever, except that it be a true and lawful brother of this Degree, or in a regularly constituted Lodge of Master Masons, nor unto him, or them, until by strict trial, due examination, or lawful information, I shall have found him, or them, as lawfully entitled to the same as I am myself. I furthermore promise and swear, that I will stand to and abide by all laws, rules, and regulations of the Master Masons Degree, and of the Lodge of which I may hereafter become a member, as far as the same shall come to my knowledge; and that I will ever maintain and support the Constitution, laws, and edicts of the Grand Lodge under which the same shall be holden. Further, that I will acknowledge and obey all due signs and summons sent to me from a Master Masons' Lodge, or given me by a brother of that Degree, if within the length of my cable tow. Further, that I will always aid and assist all poor, distressed, worthy Master Masons, their widows and orphans, knowing them to be such, as far as their necessities may require, and my ability permit, without material injury to myself and family. Further, that I will keep a worthy brother Master Mason's secrets inviolable, when communicated to and received by me as such, murder and treason included. Further, that I will not aid, nor be present at, the initiation, passing, or raising of a woman, an old man in his dotage, a young man in his nonage, an atheist, a madman, or fool, knowing them to be such. Further, that I will not sit in a Lodge of Clandestine-made Masons, nor converse on the subject of Masonry with a clandestine-made Mason, nor one who has been expelled or suspended from a Lodge, while under that sentence, knowing him or them to be such. Further, I will not cheat, wrong, nor defraud a Master Masons' Lodge, nor a brother of this Degree, knowingly, nor supplant him in any of his laudable undertakings, but will give him due and timely notice, that he may ward off all danger. Further, that I will not knowingly strike a brother Master Mason, or otherwise do him personal violence in anger, except in the necessary defense of my family or property. Further, that I will not have illegal carnal intercourse with a Master Mason's wife, his mother, sister, or daughter knowing them to be such, nor suffer the same to be done by others, if in my power to prevent. Further, that I will not give the Grand Masonic word, in any other manner or form than that in which I shall receive it, and then in a low breath. Further, that I will not give the Grand Hailing Sign of distress except in case of the most imminent danger, in a just and lawful Lodge, or for the benefit of instruction; and if ever I should see it given, or hear the words accompanying it, by a worthy brother in distress, I will fly to his relief, if there is a greater probability of saving his life than losing my own. All this I most solemnly, sincerely promise and swear, with a firm and steady resolution to perform the same, without any hesitation, myself, under no less penalty than that of having my body severed in two, my bowels taken from thence and burned to ashes, the ashes scattered before the four winds of heaven, that no more remembrance might be had of so vile and wicked a wretch as I would be, should I ever, knowingly, violate this my Master Mason's obligation. So help me God, and keep me steadfast in the due performance of the same.

anders7777
17-05-2012, 11:19 PM
I never heard of the curtains being washed, and dumping the fridge is just mad.
Have the mc canns ever been asked about this on film? Has their body language ever been examined? Its usually pretty accurate-not to mention lie detector tests??

Yes take a look at you tube for expert criminologist analyses of body language and speech patterns etc.

There is only one conclusion.

stelios
17-05-2012, 11:23 PM
tbh i have seen some really pathetic stuff from acora and found the haunting thing fake and boring.
we all know its fake with strings attached moving stuff etc and made to look more scary using the infra cameras to make the eyes look scary....boo!

Derek acora the fake saying that maddeline is dead must mean the opposite.

this is why i am convinced madeline is alive because although i have thought she is alive in the past to be used as a reason to chip us all, derek acora the fake scouser confirms to me that this is part of a set up.
Dont shoot the messenger.
Madeline is long dead.
Ask yourself why isnt anyone asking the Police to reopen the case?
It is a closed case at the moment.
The Portuguese police know that the McCanns did it and "are not looking for any more suspects"
The fact that the lead investigator was sacked and propsecuted is damning.
The McCanns are very powerful and ruthless people who need to be punished.

Facts;
The McCanns used to sedate their kids.
Cruel or what?
The McCanns used a number of nannies who stated the mother was very short tempered and unloving towards Maddie.
Gerald McCann was not the biological father of Maddie.
The McCanns copyrighted the image and sue everyone who raises any questions.
They have made Millions from the death of Maddie.
Money is a huge motive for all sorts of things.

Ask yourself this:
Madeline McCann went 'missing' on the night of Thursday, 3rd May 2007.
On the 10th May 2007 a website was launched called www.FINDMADELEINE.COM
On the 11th May 2007 a website with flash graphics and a voice over by Hollywood star Zoe Wanamaker was launched.
www.bringmadeleinehome.com
The company which controlled these websites was registered on 15th May 2007 but application to register would have been applied some days beforehand.
Madeleine's Fund Leaving No Stone Unturned Limited
2-6 Cannon Street
London, London EC4M 6YH

To me this high level of organisation and professionalism is strange given the fact that these were two distrait and desperate parents frantically looking for their child.
In reality they were cold and ruthless and calculating and made time to organise.
Anyone who sets up websites and runs a company knows these take time and effort to organise.

anders7777
17-05-2012, 11:31 PM
Dont shoot the messenger.
Madeline is long dead.
Ask yourself why isnt anyone asking the Police to reopen the case?
It is a closed case at the moment.
The Portuguese police know that the McCanns did it and "are not looking for any more suspects"
The fact that the lead investigator was sacked and propsecuted is damning.
The McCanns are very powerful and ruthless people who need to be punished.

Facts;
The McCanns used to sedate their kids.
Cruel or what?
The McCanns used a number of nannies who stated the mother was very short tempered and unloving towards Maddie.
Gerald McCann was not the biological father of Maddie.
The McCanns copyrighted the image and sue everyone who raises any questions.
They have made Millions from the death of Maddie.
Money is a huge motive for all sorts of things.

Ask yourself this:
Madeline McCann went 'missing' on the night of Thursday, 3rd May 2007.
On the 10th May 2007 a website was launched called www.FINDMADELEINE.COM
On the 11th May 2007 a website with flash graphics and a voice over by Hollywood star Zoe Wanamaker was launched.
www.bringmadeleinehome.com
The company which controlled these websites was registered on 15th May 2007 but application to register would have been applied some days beforehand.
Madeleine's Fund Leaving No Stone Unturned Limited
2-6 Cannon Street
London, London EC4M 6YH

To me this high level of organisation and professionalism is strange given the fact that these were two distrait and desperate parents frantically looking for their child.
In reality they were cold and ruthless and calculating and made time to organise.
Anyone who sets up websites and runs a company knows these take time and effort to organise.

Truly excellent post Stelios. I hope it opens some eyes. I have long wondered if this whole case is just some massive Tavistock psyop, all a fiction, and we are all being played. It wouldn't surprise me, as this case over the years has furthered many many NWO agendas. I've heard talk of cloning, that Maddie was actually a twin, she was borderline autistic with Turner's syndrome, common with test tube babies

And on and on it goes.

oonalu
17-05-2012, 11:35 PM
Absolutely correct Stelios.

Further, Gerry McCann was setting himself up to be a Labour MP - just another fecker in the endless line of Scottish masons whose aim is to trough and trough and trough at the pig swill that is Westminster - his mentor was the disgraced paedophile coverup merchant Gordon Brown. Linked to Tony Blair. Linked to David Cameron.

They have the big guns out to cover this all up

We shall see

I predict war crime tribunals, assassinations, the truth will out.

God i hope so i really do

kennybhoy67
17-05-2012, 11:58 PM
No doubt been pointed out,but Acorah is a fraud,that man is a chancer and should remain a total irrelevance.

guuna
18-05-2012, 12:45 AM
No doubt been pointed out,but Acorah is a fraud,that man is a chancer and should remain a total irrelevance.

Acorah may well be a fraud, so may the McCann's.

Let's hope the truth will out, either Madeleine is alive and well somewhere,( as of 17/5/2012) lets hope so ( all well thinking people )

Otherwise....what Acorah said may have some ring of truth to it. If you like him or not.

anders7777
18-05-2012, 07:26 PM
No doubt been pointed out,but Acorah is a fraud,that man is a chancer and should remain a total irrelevance.

It's all publicity for the McCann money making machine.

Their fund is NOT a charity.

It is a private ltd company.

Read the accountant's expose I published here yesterday.

A 19 year old close relative paid £39,000 to set up a mickey mouse website that independents would provide for £400 to £800 max.

I smell troughing pig swill,

johnfb
18-05-2012, 07:41 PM
Acorah is a c*nt....a fake and a bad one at that...like all psychics...Acorah is one of the worse but after being debunked on TV, anyone...ANYONE, who believes a single word out of that scumbag's mouth deserves whatever they get.

Psychics are a dreadful, hideous, bunch of people..he just happens to be the worst one....although that c*nt Sylvia Browne possibly outdoes him.

scottishryan
18-05-2012, 11:23 PM
Acorah is a c*nt....a fake and a bad one at that...like all psychics...Acorah is one of the worse but after being debunked on TV, anyone...ANYONE, who believes a single word out of that scumbag's mouth deserves whatever they get.

Psychics are a dreadful, hideous, bunch of people..he just happens to be the worst one....although that c*nt Sylvia Browne possibly outdoes him.

All of them?

peabrain
19-05-2012, 12:19 AM
All of them?

Good question.

peabrain
19-05-2012, 12:22 AM
Looks like he's got a tour planned.

http://www.swindontowncentre.co.uk/index.asp?m=235&s=0&month=7&year=2012&c=2598


Should attract a good crowd, given his latest revelation.

godner
19-05-2012, 06:18 AM
Just a minor point, but a relevant one I think, Anders' post above shows that Dr Gerald McCann uses the term 'clearly' more than once, the only other people I know to do that so regularly in supposedly 'normal' conversation are politicians.

I know that this on its own means little. But ordinary people don't tend to use that term so often.
I wonder how long it will be before the McScamms use a similar phrase so beloved of politicians, "this will send out a clear message to..... (whoever they wish to mislead)...."

It is the seemingly minor details that I pick up on with these types, I always have.
And Gerald McCann often appears to use the same sort of language, I wonder why that might be.

anders7777
19-05-2012, 06:56 AM
Just a minor point, but a relevant one I think, Anders' post above shows that Dr Gerald McCann uses the term 'clearly' more than once, the only other people I know to do that so regularly in supposedly 'normal' conversation are politicians.

I know that this on its own means little. But ordinary people don't tend to use that term so often.
I wonder how long it will be before the McScamms use a similar phrase so beloved of politicians, "this will send out a clear message to..... (whoever they wish to mislead)...."

It is the seemingly minor details that I pick up on with these types, I always have.
And Gerald McCann often appears to use the same sort of language, I wonder why that might be.

Clearly, this is well-spotted, and sends out a message to similar fake abductors everywhere - remember, scams like ours only work with total MI5, Prime Ministerial and Bruce Springsteen - Born In The U.S.A. - YouTube backing.

Boaz.

velma
19-05-2012, 10:46 AM
Just a minor point, but a relevant one I think, Anders' post above shows that Dr Gerald McCann uses the term 'clearly' more than once, the only other people I know to do that so regularly in supposedly 'normal' conversation are politicians.

I know that this on its own means little. But ordinary people don't tend to use that term so often.
I wonder how long it will be before the McScamms use a similar phrase so beloved of politicians, "this will send out a clear message to..... (whoever they wish to mislead)...."

It is the seemingly minor details that I pick up on with these types, I always have.
And Gerald McCann often appears to use the same sort of language, I wonder why that might be.

It's a good point, he discusses his daughter's demise like it's a political strategy, another favourite phrase is; "the key thing is..." as he outlines his campaign. The McCann's have also put themselves at the forefront, (as figureheads) for all the families of missing persons, galvanised under their banner.

Look at this slick (sick) promotion of the Kate & Gerry show:
http://www.helpingtofindmadeleine.org/

johnfb
19-05-2012, 01:33 PM
All of them?

Yes ALL of them!

johnfb
19-05-2012, 01:34 PM
Good question.

And ALL of them is the answer

herbes
19-05-2012, 01:41 PM
Justice for Maddie will only come the day they arrest her parents for her murder.
Derek Acorah might be a scam artist but he is right on this one.
Madeline McCann is dead and died on that night in the villa.
Exactly how the Portugese police investigation showed

the truth will out , they can only lie for so long

stelios
19-05-2012, 05:44 PM
It's a good point, he discusses his daughter's demise like it's a political strategy, another favourite phrase is; "the key thing is..." as he outlines his campaign. The McCann's have also put themselves at the forefront, (as figureheads) for all the families of missing persons, galvanised under their banner.

Look at this slick (sick) promotion of the Kate & Gerry show:
http://www.helpingtofindmadeleine.org/
Very true.
McCann is so cold and calculating and organised you cant imagine he is talking about a missing child.
In the real world parents would be frantic and very disorganised.

decode reality
19-05-2012, 05:50 PM
Psychics seem to do very well financially, even in this day and age.

johnfb
19-05-2012, 05:51 PM
Psychics seem to do very well financially, even in this day and age.

That's becasue there's always a willing sucker

decode reality
19-05-2012, 05:54 PM
That's becasue there's always a willing sucker

http://img577.imageshack.us/img577/2239/psyr.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/577/psyr.jpg/)

johnfb
19-05-2012, 06:13 PM
http://img577.imageshack.us/img577/2239/psyr.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/577/psyr.jpg/)

PMSL.....classic

velma
19-05-2012, 07:35 PM
Very true.
McCann is so cold and calculating and organised you cant imagine he is talking about a missing child.
In the real world parents would be frantic and very disorganised.

"It’s hard to define succinctly how it feels to have reached five years without Madeleine. Impossible, heart-breaking, frightening, exasperating, incomprehensible." - Kate & Gerry McCann

Fine words, none of which describe this couple...

http://img801.imageshack.us/img801/8431/milesformissing2012.png (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/801/milesformissing2012.png/)

March 17th 2012 at a fun-run in Regent's Park, doing what Kate calls 'the Madeleine work.'

wisdomgirl
19-05-2012, 08:47 PM
tbh i have seen some really pathetic stuff from acora and found the haunting thing fake and boring.
we all know its fake with strings attached moving stuff etc and made to look more scary using the infra cameras to make the eyes look scary....boo!

Derek acora the fake saying that maddeline is dead must mean the opposite.

this is why i am convinced madeline is alive because although i have thought she is alive in the past to be used as a reason to chip us all, derek acora the fake scouser confirms to me that this is part of a set up.

Acorah isn't a 'Fake Scouser' he's from Liverpool which means he's a Scouser! If you mean a fake medium then yes he's not being truthful.

scottishryan
19-05-2012, 09:56 PM
Yes ALL of them!

Interesting conclusion, you must have done a lot of study, research, interviewing of alleged gifted people and have a good hypothesis built up then?

I have been probing this area among others for some time (maybe 8 years) and not so far forward as you...how long have you been studying and investigating such claims?

oonalu
19-05-2012, 10:16 PM
"It’s hard to define succinctly how it feels to have reached five years without Madeleine. Impossible, heart-breaking, frightening, exasperating, incomprehensible." - Kate & Gerry McCann

Fine words, none of which describe this couple...

http://img801.imageshack.us/img801/8431/milesformissing2012.png (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/801/milesformissing2012.png/)

March 17th 2012 at a fun-run in Regent's Park, doing what Kate calls 'the Madeleine work.'

There has always seemed something about the night about him, Kate always looks like a rabbit caught in the headlights.
I can never forget the footage of him a few days after Maddie had gone missing outside on a balcony in Portugal laughing and joking, made my blood run cold :(
The fact also they have never cooperated with the police in Portugal speaks volumes, if you aint got nothing to hide ???

stillwakingup
20-05-2012, 12:40 AM
There has always seemed something about the night about him, Kate always looks like a rabbit caught in the headlights.
I can never forget the footage of him a few days after Maddie had gone missing outside on a balcony in Portugal laughing and joking, made my blood run cold :(
The fact also they have never cooperated with the police in Portugal speaks volumes, if you aint got nothing to hide ???

Ia it true they were jogging a ahort time after maddie went missing?

oonalu
20-05-2012, 01:50 AM
Ia it true they were jogging a ahort time after maddie went missing?

Yes quite a few times all in full view of the mickey mouse media

johnfb
20-05-2012, 02:14 PM
Interesting conclusion, you must have done a lot of study, research, interviewing of alleged gifted people and have a good hypothesis built up then?

I have been probing this area among others for some time (maybe 8 years) and not so far forward as you...how long have you been studying and investigating such claims?

Long enough that I have yet to see a single shred of provavble evidence that it can be done under controlled conditions.
The million dollars still lays unclaimed.
There's a sucker born every minute...DA loves them

If anyone on this or any other site, claims to be psychic etc...then I openly challange you to do it for me via skype to prove your ability.....wont hold my breath though......

talktalk
21-05-2012, 01:33 PM
ALL supposed psychics are fallen dark angels these psychics are all DEMONS in disguise created to decieve.

bernard
21-05-2012, 02:27 PM
Devils Advocate

Can i just ask, if you were a doctor and you had 3 children and you ACCIDENTLY over medicated 1 of them and found them dead when you returned would you.......

1) Own up, get struck off the medical register get your other 2 children PUT INTO CARE and get jailed for 3 - 4 years (in a foriegn prison). Ruining 5 lives of everybody you love.

Or

2) Make up an elaborate abduction story, Heartbreaking, cold , callus Yes defanatly but your still there for your remaining Kids??

THERE ISNT A PARENT ON HERE THAT WOULD ANSWER NUMBER 1, I dont think there are many who would be cold enuf to see it through thoe.

bit simplistic but i think they are happy to answer to god. noone else.

cadenza
21-05-2012, 03:22 PM
If I were a doctor I would know better than to leave 3 under 5s alone in a strange place while I went on a jolly!

But I am just an ordinary housewife with an average education, so what would I know. :rolleyes:

bernard
21-05-2012, 03:48 PM
I know, mine are NEVER out of my sight, better safe than to be very sorry. And iam sure they are very very sorry,

A little part of me wants to believe WHATEVER they did, they did it for LOVE and Not a belgian pedo gang or what ever the latest 'guess' is.

isabeau
21-05-2012, 04:04 PM
Devils Advocate

Can i just ask, if you were a doctor and you had 3 children and you ACCIDENTLY over medicated 1 of them and found them dead when you returned would you.......

1) Own up, get struck off the medical register get your other 2 children PUT INTO CARE and get jailed for 3 - 4 years (in a foriegn prison). Ruining 5 lives of everybody you love.

Or

2) Make up an elaborate abduction story, Heartbreaking, cold , callus Yes defanatly but your still there for your remaining Kids??

THERE ISNT A PARENT ON HERE THAT WOULD ANSWER NUMBER 1, I dont think there are many who would be cold enuf to see it through thoe.

bit simplistic but i think they are happy to answer to god. noone else.

You don't accidentally overmedicate a child with a drug that is used purely to make them sleep soundly so that you can drink alcohol with your friends.

This was premeditated use of a sleeping drug if this is the case and they deserve to be struck off.

You don't medicate a child with anything and leave it unattended for any amount of time. The child could vomit in their sleep - as doctors they should know this better than anyone else.

You certainly don't medicate 3 small children and leave them all unattended.

If you overmedicate your child on holiday I should hope the first thing you do is call an ambulance.

If you overmedicate them and didn't realise and leave the room and are a doctor - you should be struck off.

Accidental medication? Medication for what purpose?
A sick child needs constant supervision.
A sleepless child needs constant supervision.

You are already breaking the law by
1. Medicating a child that isn't ill
2. Medicating a child and leaving it unattended
3. Leaving 3 kids unattended

This is no accident - this is a pattern over the whole holiday that they left their kids and maybe medicated them each night.
If the dose was upped because the neighbour complained that is even worse.

The answer is that if you are a doctor you don't medicate kids for no reason, you don't leave sick kids and if you cause a death you tell the authorities what happened and would have family and friends to back your story up.

If you are a criminal you would cover it up - you would care only about yourself and you wouldn't care that you destroyed your wife, children and friends lives in the process.

Devil's advocate or not - this is a fail!

stelios
22-05-2012, 01:10 AM
Certainly looking guilty here

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-PaYlf03NIjk/Tcm4UbXRRII/AAAAAAAAIKk/rgyxlDGyvaQ/s1600/maddie_19-157n60e.jpg

anders7777
22-05-2012, 01:37 AM
You don't accidentally overmedicate a child with a drug that is used purely to make them sleep soundly so that you can drink alcohol with your friends.

This was premeditated use of a sleeping drug if this is the case and they deserve to be struck off.

You don't medicate a child with anything and leave it unattended for any amount of time. The child could vomit in their sleep - as doctors they should know this better than anyone else.

You certainly don't medicate 3 small children and leave them all unattended.

If you overmedicate your child on holiday I should hope the first thing you do is call an ambulance.

If you overmedicate them and didn't realise and leave the room and are a doctor - you should be struck off.

Accidental medication? Medication for what purpose?
A sick child needs constant supervision.
A sleepless child needs constant supervision.

You are already breaking the law by
1. Medicating a child that isn't ill
2. Medicating a child and leaving it unattended
3. Leaving 3 kids unattended

This is no accident - this is a pattern over the whole holiday that they left their kids and maybe medicated them each night.
If the dose was upped because the neighbour complained that is even worse.

The answer is that if you are a doctor you don't medicate kids for no reason, you don't leave sick kids and if you cause a death you tell the authorities what happened and would have family and friends to back your story up.

If you are a criminal you would cover it up - you would care only about yourself and you wouldn't care that you destroyed your wife, children and friends lives in the process.

Devil's advocate or not - this is a fail!

Absolutely superb post! Thank you for spelling it out for the newbies.

Check this out:

DEY DO DOUGH DON'T DEY DOUGH!

("Grieving" donator??? A day or three after his daughter went AWOL ... Says it all, end of)

Gerry McCann is happy - YouTube

anders7777
23-05-2012, 12:44 AM
The Blacksmith Bureau

FRIDAY, 18 MAY 2012

Lest we forget…
It won't make the Bureau popular but before we all start getting hung up on a version of events going, more or less, the Sun and the News of the World, both owned by Murdoch,  immediately "adopted"   the McCanns – for whatever reason – and set in train the crazily uncritical media support that drowned out factual analysis of the case,  we need to pause. However attractive such an Answer To It All may be we could be kidding ourselves.

The Bureau has always contrasted the performance of the "overground" media in the case with that of the Internet where, we felt, among the clamour of different voices it was possible to read another side of the story. That, certainly, was not the case on the overground: while readers' comments carried some telling criticisms there was the well known similarity of view about almost all the writing and television reportage of the case.

At least, that was so in late June/July 2007 when the original Bureau first took an interest in the case and neutral sites such as the Mirror forum provided an invaluable research tool for those interested in the affair.

But what about before that? We know that the overground had gone slightly mad from about two days after the disappearance onwards. What was the Net, which wasn't under the control of anyone,  doing then to keep it honest?

Well let's have a look with someone who knows, Emma Brockes of the London Guardian, writing on May 19 2007. Here are some excerpts from an article we hadn't seen before.

"…if you went online yesterday, seeking an outlet for your sympathy, you would have been confronted by a confusing and in some quarters horrifying array of options… dozens of sites and subsites that have sprung up in the last fortnight - findmaddie.com, help_find_madeleine_mccann.com, givemaddieback.com …of such breadth and randomness that by yesterday morning, the appeal set up by the McCann family… was forced to identify itself as The Official Website".

And:

"There are 90 different Madeleine-related groups on Facebook alone, circulating her photo to user communities of between six and 76,000 members….the official website has registered 60m hits and posters of her have been seen in campsites as far away as Bulgaria, translated into local languages via appeals put out by bloggers…"

And:

"When…Sarah Payne and James Bulger disappeared, there weren't the online communities available to power this kind of grassroots response, and for that response to have a knock-on effect in loftier quarters. But that doesn't quite explain the tone of the outpourings….homemade video tributes to Madeleine, posted on YouTube to soundtracks by Christina Aguilera and N Sync, and indistinguishable in tone and relish from the regular pop-star fan tributes… mutterings that this is a post-Diana thing…but much of the response seemed to have more to do with the News of the World's erstwhile anti-paedophile campaign, and the general hysteria that governs "right" versus "wrong" parenting.

"On the parenting websites, so riven along sectarian lines, here at least was something everyone could get solidly behind…No wonder the stampede to share the McCanns' pain has been so thunderous - although before the family's impeccable credentials became clear, one imagines there was a conflict in some tabloid newsrooms over Parents who left their kids alone while they had dinner, versus Evil Paedophile Under the Bed, he's coming for your kids next."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2007/may/19/crime.uknews

Not much about the Net being full of  "haters", is there?

In fact it seems that  there was much more pro-McCann bedlam on the Net early on, both in word-count and in readership ("60 million hits") than there was in the wicked overground media! And if you check the EMM news explorer site you will see that the really hefty propaganda for the McCanns on the overground hadn't yet begun: the outpourings on the Net were not triggered by Rebekah Brooks-type  manipulation but based on the reasonably factual early agency reports and, most significantly, the claims, exhaustively described in the Cracked Mirror,  of the parents themselves using their Team amplifiers.

The Bureau has always described the affair as a "psychological" phenomenon. That means roughly – because of course we're still learning –  that the answer to the mystery underlying the Madeleine McCann Affair – as against the mystery of the child's fate itself – lies in the much deeper mystery of the way ordinary people perceive and behave. In this case that means the way that the great majority of the  public reacted to the news that they read and accepted at the beginning, and  not in any Sheepgate machinations of individuals, be they Brooks, Brown, Mitchell or Murdoch, all of whom, it now appears, were following that public mood, not creating it.

As we've suggested before, however unpalatable it is to accept, nobody but the  people created the invulnerability of the McCanns, just as nobody but the people created the flower-strewn martyrdom of Princess Diana. As in that sad case a large section of the British public – including editors and ministers, who are human beings as well  – spontaneously poured out immeasurable torrents of  emotion, or some as-yet-unidentified variant of emotion, onto the couple, and instead of  scattering flowers,  they followed up by hurling trunk-loads of money that the parents  –  Oh horrible irony – have used against us ever since.

As things stand the broader situation is now extremely hopeful: the interrupted investigation has finally resumed and the absurd media birthday jamboree is unlikely to have had the slightest effect on police activity, despite Redwood's inexperience with the media and  Third Man Mitchell's rather tired gimmicks. In tandem we are watching the gradual destruction of the UK media players who, though they didn't initiate the lies – the McCanns and their Woolfall-taught team did that –  treated  us as mere counters in the various Great Games they were playing at our expense. Even the Portuguese, with more excuse than most to fear a whitewash, must have had some of their fears alleviated recently  as the legal system has ground on, slowly but finely.

But if we're really interested in where the truth lies  we should surely be cautious in pinning the blame for the origins of the affair on such easy targets as M/S Brooks or her senile employer. Time has brought  the shadowy Master Manipulators of the Universe, one by one, starting with Gordon Brown, into the light, revealing them – disappointingly? – as rich but otherwise very ordinary people without the power to protect even their own reputations, let alone those of others. The Bureau could, of course, be completely wrong  but we still think it does no harm to consider the role of  the British public – Us –  in making the McCanns  so invulnerable.

Temporarily.

 

 

 


john blacksmith at 17:23

stillwakingup
23-05-2012, 12:50 AM
Absolutely superb post! Thank you for spelling it out for the newbies.

Check this out:

DEY DO DOUGH DON'T DEY DOUGH!

("Grieving" donator??? A day or three after his daughter went AWOL ... Says it all, end of)

Gerry McCann is happy - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9VlS-gO5Ask&feature=youtube_gdata_player)
Is this seriously within a few days of the abduction?Why havent I seen this before anywhere?This just gets odder and odder................

bulletproofheart
23-05-2012, 02:24 AM
McCanns...unusual people or liars? - YouTube

Look at fuckface Gerrys face at 1.50,he actually finds it amusing.
re Gerry, sociopathic is bang on the money, he comes across as a despicably cold human being.,

The only hope we have is that one of the Tapas swingers splits up with a new partner and they dish the dirt or secretlytape them or something.

I have never met a single person who believes they are not the culprits..

anders7777
23-05-2012, 04:07 AM
Is this seriously within a few days of the abduction?Why havent I seen this before anywhere?This just gets odder and odder................

Yes from memory it was six days after the faked abduction. He was joking apparently with fellow leics masons, oops, I mean cops.

Do some digging on his holiday reading materials.

A specific novel about a child murder and cover up.

Unobtainacke CEOPS training manuals about hiding dead bodies

Body language

Polygraph machines

That sort of thing.

Nothing to see here, move along now!





Very peculiar reading, hey???!:eek:

anders7777
23-05-2012, 04:10 AM
McCanns...unusual people or liars? - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ly8AMyCpfjg&feature=fvwrel)

Look at fuckface Gerrys face at 1.50,he actually finds it amusing.
re Gerry, sociopathic is bang on the money, he comes across as a despicably cold human being.,

The only hope we have is that one of the Tapas swingers splits up with a new partner and they dish the dirt or secretlytape them or something.

I have never met a single person who believes they are not the culprits..



High fives m8!

I could not agree more.

Sooner or later someone will crack and the worms will be left wriggling.

thentherewere4
23-05-2012, 05:39 PM
http://img706.imageshack.us/img706/7614/habanabeachcam24hrs.jpg

The Portimao cops looked really hard for ALL the evidence. Their 8x10 glossy photos and 50,000 pages say it all. Or so they'd have you believe.

Only noone thought to check out the recordings from this beach cam. Did they?

In 2007 this cam was operational 24hs a day. That means even at 4:00am on the morning of the 4th of May this camera was recordring EVERYTHING and EVERYONE who moved or made their way across the beach.

The camera position is moved from season to season sometimes from day to day. If you can go check out the 2007 sightlines for this cam - you will be shocked - not only by the range and width but by the amazing clarity of the field of view.

anders7777
24-05-2012, 01:41 AM
http://img706.imageshack.us/img706/7614/habanabeachcam24hrs.jpg

The Portimao cops looked really hard for ALL the evidence. Their 8x10 glossy photos and 50,000 pages say it all. Or so they'd have you believe.

Only noone thought to check out the recordings from this beach cam. Did they?

In 2007 this cam was operational 24hs a day. That means even at 4:00am on the morning of the 4th of May this camera was recordring EVERYTHING and EVERYONE who moved or made their way across the beach.

The camera position is moved from season to season sometimes from day to day. If you can go check out the 2007 sightlines for this cam - you will be shocked - not only by the range and width but by the amazing clarity of the field of view.

How truly "shocking" TTW4. Keep up the information tsunami m8!!!:)

bernard
24-05-2012, 11:38 AM
You don't accidentally overmedicate a child with a drug that is used purely to make them sleep soundly so that you can drink alcohol with your friends.

This was premeditated use of a sleeping drug if this is the case and they deserve to be struck off.

You don't medicate a child with anything and leave it unattended for any amount of time. The child could vomit in their sleep - as doctors they should know this better than anyone else.

You certainly don't medicate 3 small children and leave them all unattended.

If you overmedicate your child on holiday I should hope the first thing you do is call an ambulance.

If you overmedicate them and didn't realise and leave the room and are a doctor - you should be struck off.

Accidental medication? Medication for what purpose?
A sick child needs constant supervision.
A sleepless child needs constant supervision.

You are already breaking the law by
1. Medicating a child that isn't ill
2. Medicating a child and leaving it unattended
3. Leaving 3 kids unattended

This is no accident - this is a pattern over the whole holiday that they left their kids and maybe medicated them each night.
If the dose was upped because the neighbour complained that is even worse.

The answer is that if you are a doctor you don't medicate kids for no reason, you don't leave sick kids and if you cause a death you tell the authorities what happened and would have family and friends to back your story up.

If you are a criminal you would cover it up - you would care only about yourself and you wouldn't care that you destroyed your wife, children and friends lives in the process.Devil's advocate or not - this is a fail!

I know, i agree with most of your post. I just tried to imagine a scenario were a situation could of snowballed until it went to far to go back.

I realise they shouldnt of 'medicated' the kids i guess its something they have always done, and they of all people should know the risks.
and i do think your right, it was to keep them quiet due to the previous nights.

Why would they 'call an ambulance'???? They are doctors they know DEAD.

Dont agree with the last paragraph thoe, They are now back to a 'normal' life and nobodies life has been ruined (looking from the outside) Were as if they had held there hands up they would still be in a portuguese prison, with there kids in social care etc etc

Iam not defending them, just trying to look at it as a parent. Even in the best scenario it would take the mind of a psychopath to carry it out.

thentherewere4
24-05-2012, 01:25 PM
Sad to say I can only 100% agree with the opinion of the last quoted poster.

It was a criminal act.

Gerald McCann still practices medicine both privately and in an NHS hospital.

The actions of Kate Healy - as sacrificial lamb - announced to the world she will never work again in the NHS.

zephirop
24-05-2012, 03:15 PM
I know, mine are NEVER out of my sight, better safe than to be very sorry. And iam sure they are very very sorry,

A little part of me wants to believe WHATEVER they did, they did it for LOVE and Not a belgian pedo gang or what ever the latest 'guess' is.

I don't know what you mean by 'for LOVE', would you like to elaborate?

You don't have to. :)

bernard
24-05-2012, 03:32 PM
Devils Advocate

Can i just ask, if you were a doctor and you had 3 children and you ACCIDENTLY over medicated 1 of them and found them dead when you returned would you.......

1) Own up, get struck off the medical register get your other 2 children PUT INTO CARE and get jailed for 3 - 4 years (in a foriegn prison). Ruining 5 lives of everybody you love.

Or

2) Make up an elaborate abduction story, Heartbreaking, cold , callus Yes defanatly but your still there for your remaining Kids??

THERE ISNT A PARENT ON HERE THAT WOULD ANSWER NUMBER 1, I dont think there are many who would be cold enuf to see it through thoe.

bit simplistic but i think they are happy to answer to god. noone else.

Sorry i mean what happened after the 'accident'

For love of there remaining children, wanting to be there for them,not wanting them to grow up in social care and all that entails

Just tired of the 'they sold her to pedo's' etc etc If you look at the evidence (the truth of the lie etc etc) There was some sort of accident. IF you could keep a calm head at a time like that, the abuction 'story' would be your only rational choice for your family and future??

Maybe they are great parents (ok thats over stating it!!) and they have shown the courage of lions for there remaining brood????

If they are devoit cathlics maybe they thnought fuck it no mortal man can judge us, let the big man in the sky judge when the time comes?

What you think??

thentherewere4
25-05-2012, 10:17 AM
Tell you what I think.

http://img41.imageshack.us/img41/8564/liarmitchellrothley.jpg

I think Mitchell really should be a better liar.

That's what I think.

bernard
25-05-2012, 10:35 AM
Tell you what I think.

http://img41.imageshack.us/img41/8564/liarmitchellrothley.jpg

I think Mitchell really should be a better liar.

That's what I think.

Yeah guilty of what thoe? Murder?? kidnap?? or a MISTAKE? Oh what a tangled web we weave etc

A lot of peeps dont like Gerry cause of his arrogant 'attitude' but this can be explained, hes Scottish and hes a doctor, end of.

After all the vitriol these 2 have recieved, it must be hard for people to accept the truth. They made a mistake, due to there years of training they dealt with it in a cool clinical manner(they are doctors)

THE END JUSTIFIES THE MEANS. No one can deny that.

talktalk
25-05-2012, 10:47 AM
well its getting closer to that reveal stage me thinks..

After all this time it is strange how the msm have now all of a sudden brought up ben needham.. In a madeline style article with pictures..


Did missing toddler Ben Needham die in tragic accident after all? Greek police fear body of boy who vanished 21 years ago may be hidden under building site rubble

Greek police decided to officially reopen the decades-old cold case after a JCB driver claimed he had been digging just 50 yards away from where the boy was last seen.
21 years later they have a jcb driver who was 50 yards away digging and they didnt think to look? and he only came forward now?:

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2149277/Ben-Needham-latest-news-Greek-police-fear-missing-toddler-died-tragic-accident.html#ixzz1vsCJz6H8

we are being f*****n played.

valentineomega
25-05-2012, 11:18 AM
Were are all Psychic; that intuition, that gut feeling that pretty much everyone has about this case is all the answer I need. You know "That the McCanns are knee deep in this one." Something went down, be it an accident, murder or abduction (Selling of a child? Given away for ritual reasons or many other depraved unimaginable nastiness.) But the resounding thought is They know more than they are letting on.

As for Achora, I have never met the guy so I can't speak for him...However. I have worked as a Stagehand for 10 years (before being made redundant in a mass culling of our department; along with everyone else who didn't have a funny handshake...How strange.)

And back in 2002/2003 I worked on a show called 6ixth Sense; with Colin Fry which was filmed for LivingTV; and I have to say pretty much everything on that show was staged. The proof of this was seeing Audience members in the Make-Up department before the show started, the same Audience members who he contacted. About 70% of that show used these plants.

The other 30% came from the overhead audience microphones that were switched on as the audience came in and then sat down waiting for the show to start; all of them chatting away about lost loved ones for a good 30mins before the show started, which linked directly to the control room...To this day this experience leads me to belive that those healers/Psychics who want money/fame are fakers or abusers of what little spiritual/Oneness power they have.

bernard
25-05-2012, 02:14 PM
Were are all Psychic; that intuition, that gut feeling that pretty much everyone has about this case is all the answer I need. You know "That the McCanns are knee deep in this one." Something went down, be it an accident, murder or abduction (Selling of a child? Given away for ritual reasons or many other depraved unimaginable nastiness.) But the resounding thought is They know more than they are letting on.

As for Achora, I have never met the guy so I can't speak for him...However. I have worked as a Stagehand for 10 years (before being made redundant in a mass culling of our department; along with everyone else who didn't have a funny handshake...How strange.)

And back in 2002/2003 I worked on a show called 6ixth Sense; with Colin Fry which was filmed for LivingTV; and I have to say pretty much everything on that show was staged. The proof of this was seeing Audience members in the Make-Up department before the show started, the same Audience members who he contacted. About 70% of that show used these plants.

The other 30% came from the overhead audience microphones that were switched on as the audience came in and then sat down waiting for the show to start; all of them chatting away about lost loved ones for a good 30mins before the show started, which linked directly to the control room...To this day this experience leads me to belive that those healers/Psychics who want money/fame are fakers or abusers of what little spiritual/Oneness power they have.

Have to agree 100% They know what happened, On there head be it.

Went to see Colin Fry at the Palace many moon ago with an ex.
Just seemed the crowd was made up of different people all grieving, it was very sad. All looking for answers. Its easier to be manipulated when your in pain i guess?

peabrain
25-05-2012, 02:26 PM
Yeah guilty of what thoe? Murder?? kidnap?? or a MISTAKE? Oh what a tangled web we weave etc

A lot of peeps dont like Gerry cause of his arrogant 'attitude' but this can be explained, hes Scottish and hes a doctor, end of.

After all the vitriol these 2 have recieved, it must be hard for people to accept the truth. They made a mistake, due to there years of training they dealt with it in a cool clinical manner(they are doctors)

THE END JUSTIFIES THE MEANS. No one can deny that.

:confused: What has his ethnicity got to do with it?

bernard
25-05-2012, 02:40 PM
I was being a little flippent, but his dour demeanor does remind me of most Scottish blokes ive met. No offence meant. I love them flat sausages if that helps?? :)

thentherewere4
25-05-2012, 02:45 PM
'THE END JUSTIFIES THE MEANS. No one can deny that'

Cave man. Hit woman on head with stick. Get sex.

Luvin' It.


;)

peabrain
25-05-2012, 02:49 PM
I was being a little flippent, but his dour demeanor does remind me of most Scottish blokes ive met. No offence meant. I love them flat sausages if that helps?? :)

:), our self deprecating humour can sometimes make us seem dour :D

bernard
25-05-2012, 03:11 PM
'THE END JUSTIFIES THE MEANS. No one can deny that'

Cave man. Hit woman on head with stick. Get sex.

Luvin' It.


;)

But thats not the scenario were talkin about??

Iam not here to defend child killers!!! Just trying to make the point everthing in life is not black & white.

In this instance.

The Means

Inventing the kidnap,


The end

They are still there to provide for there kids, and not rotting in a foreign prison with there kids in the British 'care' system.


If it was an ACCIDENT like the foreign old bill think, What would Maddie have wanted them to do??

Rip the family apart? I dont think so.

thentherewere4
25-05-2012, 03:52 PM
Hi Bernard,

In my book killing a 3yr old child is something that can't ever be justified.

To quote Martin Grime (the cadaver dog handler) on the matter of Maddies untimely death in apartment 5A - 'If the McCanns kept a cadaver in their apartment they may not have broken any laws'.

thentherewere4
18-10-2012, 12:17 PM
http://imageshack.us/a/img836/3343/disappearandreappearont.jpg

Frankie Boyle says he's gonna disappear AND then reappear in another form on 'the other side'. Just hope the new Frankie is as good as the old Frankie ever was.

Who the hell am I kidding.

http://imageshack.us/a/img194/2702/lightspeedfrankie.jpg

REMEMBER AT ALL TIMES : THE MCCANNS WILL TAKE YOU DOWN

kiwimaj
18-10-2012, 01:07 PM
Absolutely superb post! Thank you for spelling it out for the newbies.

Check this out:

DEY DO DOUGH DON'T DEY DOUGH!

("Grieving" donator??? A day or three after his daughter went AWOL ... Says it all, end of)

Gerry McCann is happy - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9VlS-gO5Ask&feature=youtube_gdata_player)

..they are total scumbags Anders, as many of us on here know and realise.

If they were council estate residents, they would have been banged up for child abuse and their other kids taken off them...if they didn't have connections, they would be banged up...if they didn't have connections they would have been fired from their jobs...:mad:

gerry mccann, apart from vile, I could not imagine a more nasty piece of work to be in the same room with...and as for his wife...beggars belief she would go along with it all (!!) Or is mega under some form of mind control :cool:

What I think most probably happened could be listed below:

*The child died by accident whilst they left her alone, they covered it up
*The child was involved in some sort of ritual sacrifice...they covered it up..
*The child was killed by gerry or the mother..they covered it up.
*The child died, by accident in the room, and 'the govt and his masonic buddies used it as an ideal opportunity to further the child chipping agenda..

The LEAST plausible explanation is the one that is bandied about by them and the grovelling, sycophantic media...

:mad:

trux newman
18-10-2012, 01:29 PM
I think Derek Acorah is a good example of someone who starts off with a genuine gift but then gets to the point of needing to 'perform' so starts to fake things and then the gift gets taken away.

David saw him back in the day.

As for the McCanns, just read the banned book by the portugese investigator. It's available in full online and it's all in there. They killed her. Accidentally or intentionally who knows, but they did. Then they covered it up, used their contacts and made so many people complicit that there's no going back.

metacomet
19-10-2012, 12:27 AM
Justice for Maddie will only come the day they arrest her parents for her murder.
Derek Acorah might be a scam artist but he is right on this one.
Madeline McCann is dead and died on that night in the villa.
Exactly how the Portugese police investigation showed

http://www.anorak.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/254636_1.jpg

Reptiles. 'Women' like that absolutely give me the creeps.

northernlass
09-11-2012, 01:10 AM
Acorah, is, imho, a shill who is in it purely for the $ - i know a few people who know him (though have never met him) and they all say he is a nice guy but he fakes it all, because it is in his contract to do so.

One person i know was offered the job on most haunted, she said that part of the contract stipulated that there would be a 'taking over' (read trance-channel) in every show and she said she couldn't do a show and fake it if that is what was needed, they then offered to Achorah.

.

I had tickets to one of his shows and he did a big routine asking if there was a Mahhhgrettt in the room (big emphesis when he said it. then went onto a lady called margret. well the chap i know who works in box office gave us all free tickets to the next night, well derek gets on stage and starts doing the margret in exactly the same dragged out voice:( after that i was sure he was a fake, my friend wanted to get his autograph so i stood in queue with friend then he asked me if i wanted his autograph, i said no thankyou...well he had a face like thunder:eek: after that i decided he wasnt a very nice man, i mean tickets were £17 quid each and seating was at least a thousand...its a big money maker:(

as for madeleine, well I never believed any of the stories what the mcanns spouted, its a case that haunts me to this day. i do not believe that any educated mother would leave 3 children alone and go for a night out Off the premises whilst turning down babysitting services:confused:
as a mom of five i know what kids get up to in 5 minutes unattended, leaving three little kids alone would be sheer madness.
allways believed it to be a total coverup:(

as for recent developments, they stopped using the two dectitves on 28th oct? very oddly after all the saville, abuse stuff came out:confused: