Posts Tagged ‘McCann camp’

It’s the public’s business to scrutinise the McCann business

February 6, 2010

When I first heard that the McCanns intended setting up a “Fighting Fund”, I wondered why and who or what were they fighting against?

Before its launch the fund had already raised £10,000 from medical colleagues of Gerry and Kate McCann and from a bucket of money filled up by visitors to Leicester’s Glenfield Hospital, where Madeleine’s father works“.

There is money to be made out of this.

Madeleine’s Fund created,

Companies House ‘Current Appointments Report’ shows that Madeleine’s Fund – Leaving No Stone Unturned Limited’ was created on this day:

Current Appointments Report for:
MADELEINE’S FUND: LEAVING NO STONE UNTURNED LIMITED
06248215

company was created 12th May 2007

It was initially set up, on behalf of the McCanns, in 48 hours, by the International Family Law Group (IFLG). This does appear to be something of a rush job. When jobs are rushed mistakes can be made.

Business, charity, or scam?

It is thought the original idea was to set the fund up as a charity but this was rejected, according to The Times, when it became clear that a charity cannot be operated for the sole benefit of one person. The Charity Commission later denied this.

One of the things that distinguishes a limited company from a charity is that it does not have all the rules and regulations which govern the conduct of the fundraising and which controls the proportion of the charities funds that are spent on overheads, expenses and wages etc.

It was also reported at the time that the Charity Commission was extremely disturbed at the way the Fund was being advertised as it gave people the impression that they were donating to a charity – not a private limited company.

The reality is, however unpalatable, that Madeleine’s Fund is a private limited company and can therefore spend the money donated in any way it so chooses. The memorandum of association is so wide that practically any expenditure could be approved by the board of directors“.

Not for the first time do we have a dispute with the McCann version of events and that given by someone else or by an organisation. I think it is possible, for example, to set up a charity in aid of a child dying from cancer. If this is the case, then there is no reason why the McCanns could not have registered their cause as a charity. The problem from their end would be the lack of control exercised by the McCanns. So, it was decided to set up a company instead. Nevertheless, some people still labour under the mistaken belief that the Madeleine Fund is a charity. Even allowing for the McCann statements that it is not a charity, I feel that the false impression remains in some people’s minds because of the way that the McCanns keep aligning themselves to charities, and misleading reporting in the media such as this from the recent McCanns fund raising event “The £90,000 raised will be split between the Maddie Fund and two other missing people’s charities“. It implies that the Madeleine Fund is a charity. I have yet to see any demand made by the McCanns to correct this false information. Given that the McCanns have a history for wanting corrections made in the media on stories concerning themselves, why is there silence on their part?

Having established that the Madeleine Fund is not a charity, the focus turns to the question of a business or scam. An indication that the McCanns are in the business to make money, is their distasteful application to brand their missing 3 year old child as a trademark.

Trademark application filed

The campaign to find Madeleine McCann has applied for British and European trademarks to protect its fundraising, internet and print promotions. The applications, which were filed on May 18, seek to protect the name “Madeleine’s Fund: Leaving No Stone Unturned”. The European application also seeks protection for the provision of social services and advice for people affected by missing children.

It appears as though the McCanns are laying claim to be the only persons entitled to earn money out of Madeleine’s disappearance. This does not sit well with the English law principle that criminals should not profit from their crimes. It is accepted that the McCanns have so far not been convicted of any criminal offence in relation to the disappearance of Madeleine. So, they remain innocent until proven guilty.

Bringing the McCanns to account is a long drawn out process. It will help if the Madeliene Fund is attacked successfully in the courts. It is hoped by doing this that rich backers like Brian Kennedy and Richard Branson will have a rethink about keep funding the McCanns.

I noted that it was originally stated that the McCanns would not use the Madeleine Fund in their criminal defence. And yet, the Madeleine Fund has been used to pay for the McCanns legal fight against Mr Amaral. The published accounts do not refer to it being used for this purpose in relation to Madeleine, but the court injunction clearly refers to Madeleine as being one of the claimants in the case. Once again we have an inconsistency from the McCann Camp.

It’s a business we are dealing with. I question the not for profit aspect. Accepting it is a business does not rule out the possibility that it is also a scam. Those conducting scams are in the business of making money. A legitimate business is not a scam, and a scam is not a legitimate business. My suspicion is that what we are really dealing with here is a scam. I do not have enough evidence to support a criminal beyond all reasonable doubt standard of proof, however, the civil standard of balance of probabilities does not look good for the McCanns.

Networld criminal profilers

January 21, 2010

As a criminal profiler, I have also sometimes been criticized for theorizing about a case I have not personally been privy to the actual facts from inside the investigation. As I do a lot of television commentary, this is quite often the case for me; I only can theorize based on the “facts” outlined by the media“.

Isn’t this what most of us do? Either sit in front of the television set and/or computer screen and form a theory based on what we see and hear of the case? We are presented with the “facts” and form a judgement based upon them what the likeliest scenario is or was.

For example, the “fact” that there was a break-in? The “fact” as presented by a spin doctor or in this case a spin cardiologist turns out not to be a fact at all once the spin is unspun and is pure fiction which is the direct opposite position.

That is, a purported truth is a lie. And the teller of this story is a liar. More precisely, a McCannliar. The role of a spin doctor, in this case a spin cardiologist, is to put across a message which favours the teller and when Clarence Mitchell sells out and joins the McCann Camp the teller paints the best picture he can for his client for us all to view. I have seen what I would call art and I have seen what some claim to be art and I see as pure garbage.

What we are talking about here is opinions. Clarence Mitchell is an opinion former. When MPs leave government or even those within it are associated with outside interests which earn them extra money. They are paid for what they know and who they know. Clarence Mitchell left a secure government post to work for the McCanns. That was a risky move if done so voluntarily. Did he jump or was he pushed? The reason I ask is the “fact” that he tipped off the McCanns to police monitoring of their phones. It is “fact” rather than fact purely because I was informed by a reliable source that this is what occured. Remember the mentioned liquid lunches the cops took? Let’s say for example, a crime reporter for a TV station is told to get the inside story. He has expenses. He bumps into a cop or cops, offers to buy their lunch. It’s a freebie. Drink? “Can’t say anything because of the secrecy laws”. Another drink? And after a while the drink loosens the tongue. How do you know this? We have been listening to their mobile phone calls and monitoring texts.

The UK government intelligence departments know this. They brief the Foreign Office, and Clarence Mitchell is briefed on his role to support the McCanns in Public Relations, but he oversteps this assistance and tells them they are being monitored. It is picked up by the police that the McCanns have been tipped off by Clarence Mitchell. The Portuguese government complains to the UK government and Clarence Mitchell must resign or face disciplinary action. He goes away to consider his position, phones the McCanns and they offer him a job.

Why would two totally innocent people enlist the support of some or all of their friends in a cover up if nothing had happened to Madeleine? There would be no point. So, we are dealing with criminals here. What are their individaul and collective crimes? What are their criminal profiles?

The growing army against the McCanns

September 4, 2008

In May of this year I decided to change the title and content of this blog from its previous role of attacking the failed politician Iain Dale, who is not really all that important, to the serious issue of attempting to obtain justice for Madeleine. Yesterday I looked at the stats for readers of this blog since the change of its purpose they are as follows:

May: 1,259

June: 6,395

July: 7,084

August: 10,537

Fairly consistently Joana Morais is the top referrer to this blog, occasionally the top referrer has been wordpress.com (like yesterday, for example) or CNN.com and before I was banned from the forum The Three Arguidos provided much traffic. In spite of the attempt by the 3As to silence me, they have appeared to have lost the plot somewhere down the line, this blog has grown from strength to strength.

There was a shaky moment yesterday when an attempt to censor Kate McCann killed Madeleine was made by someone at wordpress. Obviously some supporter of child killing lodged a complaint and it was probably someone within the McCann camp. Anyone interested in the legal position of blogs and libel may find this Judge and Jury? post illuminating. My view is, if the McCanns, their lawyers or Clarence Mitchell are not happy with the content of this blog they are free to sue me for libel. Getting the McCanns into court has been my main objective since 3 May 2007.

We are fighting the good fight. Should this blog get silenced I will continue the fight on my Jailhouselawyer’s blog until such time as I can arrange for a web host operating from the USA where they are not as afraid of freedom of speech as they are in the UK. Above the interests of the McCanns I place justice for Madeleine. Someone has to care for the memory of Madeleine, because her parents did not care for her when she was alive and have displayed no respect for her since she was so tragically killed on the evening of 3 May 2007. May she rest in peace. However, there will be no peace for the wicked McCanns.