Could Madeleine's Review by SY be pulled??

I can see it now. Kate in a new dress Smug gerry by her side.
We have decided to withdraw our request for the case review as we know there are others in similar situations who are not being offered the same level of help and we feel it is unfair.After all this time we are coming to the conclusion that the shelving of the case was probably the right thing to do as there was no concrete evidence for the police to go on. We kept the intensity up as like any parents we didn;t want to accept the truth. We will continue our private search but don't feel that we can expect the govt to fund this when the country is in such difficulties.
This will get them off the hook and keep the money coming in! And make them look like decent people.What do you think?

mummy45

Oh I do hope not - but you're right now is the one and only time that this would be the perfect excuse. But I can hardly believe that having organised a Petition asking for this very thing, a Review, continually requested one from the Home Secretary and a letter to DC, that they would think to refuse it now would look ok.

Angelique wrote:mummy45

Oh I do hope not - but you're right now is the one and only time that this would be the perfect excuse. But I can hardly believe that having organised a Petition asking for this very thing, a Review, continually requested one from the Home Secretary and a letter to DC, that they would think to refuse it now would look ok.

I don't think a U-turn would work at all, as it would be like wearing a giant guilty sign around their necks.

They've certainly painted themselves into a tight corner, and I reckon they're in dire straights as to what there next move will be. If I were in their dirty shoes, I'd be desperately contacting Oldfield, et al, by stealth - to lay down some more plans for the inevitable exposure of their past blundering lies, which as we all know are mountainous. This is no time to sit back and wait... they haven't got that luxury any more.... imo

I still think they will go on lorraine kelly and kate will break down and say gerry had accepted it ages ago but she just couldn't etc etc. They have to do something to try and stop this and they have done some pretty ridiculous things with dodgy explanations in the past so I think they have the gall for it.

Well, I suppose there"s no harm in me telling you now, 2 days ago I phoned SY , there is a number on their site the Public can ring and my call was dealt with by a young Woman. I asked if the review would include investigation of the accounts and first of all she got a bit shirty . Then I said, as a donor to the fund I was concerned at the way over £3 million had been spent on Legal Fees, etc etc and as a person who has worked in Banks and Accountancy
Firms I resented her tone.

She immediately changed her attitude and said she would pass on my concern, gave me a reference number and assured me the review would include all
aspects of the case.

Panda wrote:
Well, I suppose there"s no harm in me telling you now, 2 days ago I phoned SY , there is a number on their site the Public can ring and my call was dealt with by a young Woman. I asked if the review would include investigation of the accounts and first of all she got a bit shirty . Then I said, as a donor to the fund I was concerned at the way over £3 million had been spent on Legal Fees, etc etc and as a person who has worked in Banks and Accountancy
Firms I resented her tone.

She immediately changed her attitude and said she would pass on my concern, gave me a reference number and assured me the review would include all
aspects of the case.

Well done, Panda
Please let us know if you hear anything back from them xx

Panda

Wow! So you got a reference number - which is good. But why would she be shirty - its perfectly reasonable for anyone to enquire since we are paying for it.

Well done Panda

Angelique wrote:Panda

Wow! So you got a reference number - which is good. But why would she be shirty - its perfectly reasonable for anyone to enquire since we are paying for it.

Well done Panda

I think she thought I was going to be a busybody, or maybe they have had lots of calls from the General Public about the cost " You make sure you do a good job" kind of call. I din"t want her to think I was part of a forum, it is true that I have woeked in Accountancy Firms and one well known Bank.

mummy45 wrote:I can see it now. Kate in a new dress Smug gerry by her side.
We have decided to withdraw our request for the case review as we know there are others in similar situations who are not being offered the same level of help and we feel it is unfair.After all this time we are coming to the conclusion that the shelving of the case was probably the right thing to do as there was no concrete evidence for the police to go on. We kept the intensity up as like any parents we didn;t want to accept the truth. We will continue our private search but don't feel that we can expect the govt to fund this when the country is in such difficulties.
This will get them off the hook and keep the money coming in! And make them look like decent people.What do you think?

Not a chance. They are not in charge of this happening or not. They don't control the government or NSY. They can whine and pressure and use the papers to dig at the Home Secretary and the PM but for them to do this about face as soon as the cops are on them, they would appear to be extremely guilty and trying to wriggle out of the investigation, now they know it's going to be a proper one. They would be stupid to try it because not only will it fail it will make them look guilty.

Thirty police on this - whatever Cameron's sympathies are, I think the chances are good it's hard to get 30 people to lie to help cover up a child's abuse (neglect included) or death.

Panda wrote:

Angelique wrote:Panda

Wow! So you got a reference number - which is good. But why would she be shirty - its perfectly reasonable for anyone to enquire since we are paying for it.

Well done Panda

I think she thought I was going to be a busybody, or maybe they have had lots of calls from the General Public about the cost " You make sure you do a good job" kind of call. I din"t want her to think I was part of a forum, it is true that I have woeked in Accountancy Firms and one well known Bank.

Fantastic initiative, Panda.



I'm not convinced SY would reveal the truthful answer though...... I can't see them letting on if they weren't covering all bases in this investigation.

Panda wrote:

Angelique wrote:Panda

Wow! So you got a reference number - which is good. But why would she be shirty - its perfectly reasonable for anyone to enquire since we are paying for it.

Well done Panda

I think she thought I was going to be a busybody, or maybe they have had lots of calls from the General Public about the cost " You make sure you do a good job" kind of call. I din"t want her to think I was part of a forum, it is true that I have woeked in Accountancy Firms and one well known Bank.

I think they have probably had a lot of nuisance calls. The police already had to make a statement that this will be a full review - covering everything - probably in response to the phones ringing off the hook (we still say that tho phones no longer have hooks!) about "dont start in 2008, start with THEM, look in to the Fund...

They have to find the money laundering if that was done with the Fund and detectives. But since it's their money to use any way they want I am not sure what they would be doing - why launder it? You can use it however you like, that was the whole point.

If they want to be seen to be innocent a risky manuever might be to go out and say "All we ever wanted was this search for Madeleine and now we have it, we will donate the remainder of the Fund to the Center for Missing Children" or something but of course they can't because they need it for their law suits. their lawyers are going to be incredibly busy right now, $$$ they will need every dime. And of course they can say they will need it as they will still continue the search even if SY doesn't find her...

Good stuff, Panda.

It would be interesting to know just what the level of calls to SY is - and to get an idea how many are sincere bona fide concerns being expressed or information being passed and how many are "not helpful". I suspect the vast majority are at the very least appropriate, if not of direct value. There are "nutters" around, of course, but they are by no means as prolific and widespread as some would have us believe. What well equipped bedrooms we all have, what with computer screens and now telephones!

"We'll check into everything" is a stock kind of answer. What can they say? We'll do a full and impartial review. They are not going to say they will do a sketchy, politically motivated job.

But I hope they do look at it, I am curious as to how Haligen got his mitts on 300,000 and where Clarrie got the idea or TM did that he was the "big boys." Boy, did they get ripped off.

Hi Pennylane, I don"t think she would have committed herself by saying all aspects of the case will be investigated and the reference number is for
assurance that my call would be sent to the relevant dept and I could quote that number on any future calls.

I sent an excellent letter to Stuart Prior on 23/8/08 about how Madeleiene had become a cas Cow for so many people, why was Kennedy allowed to interfere, why was his Corporate Lawyer on the Board of MM , how Clarence Mitchell in an interview with TimesonLine he says the new Investigators
David Edgar and his partner would be paid £166,000 a MONTH, can you believe it. !!1 If it wasn2t such a long letter I would type it here but with my two
fingered style it would take forever. Needless to say he didn2t reply , but I might sentd it to SY.

Halligen is still languishing in the nick pending appeal.
I wonder if he and the cops have been having any mutually beneficial convos?

Maybe they'll pass on any interesting stuff to the Serious Fraud guys so that they can concentrate on the other crimes.

ETA - well done Panda!

The End Is Nigh wrote:Good stuff, Panda.

It would be interesting to know just what the level of calls to SY is - and to get an idea how many are sincere bona fide concerns being expressed or information being passed and how many are "not helpful". I suspect the vast majority are at the very least appropriate, if not of direct value. There are "nutters" around, of course, but they are by no means as prolific and widespread as some would have us believe. What well equipped bedrooms we all have, what with computer screens and now telephones!

trying to think of what I'd say to alert NSY to the facts, you'd sound like an idiot though. "Check their statements from May 3rd, check the timelines" - "Did you know they werent checking, Madeleine was alone for 75 minutes May 1st, there's this lady named Mrs Fenn," - they know all that and how to do their job. I doubt there is any real information we could be offering them - I am hoping they have more info than us, rather than needing tips.

almostgothic wrote:Halligen is still languishing in the nick pending appeal.
I wonder if he and the cops have been having any mutually beneficial convos?

Maybe they'll pass on any interesting stuff to the Serious Fraud guys so that they can concentrate on the other crimes.

Something dodgy about them selecting Haligen, as he had no real references - and was a con artist - but then what is curious to me is why they don't say anything about that, I mean that is 300k of Madeleine's money they threw at this crook. A lot of people's hard earned money- is it a case of, easy come easy go since they didnt have to earn it? Or why haven't they said about getting it back? What was it spent on? That is a very large amount compared to how they nickel and dimed poor M3. That seems more like money laundering or buying influence. I wonder how well Kennedy's going to look at the end of this. Has he come out publicly to say anything about supporting them in the past year?

almostgothic wrote:Halligen is still languishing in the nick pending appeal.
I wonder if he and the cops have been having any mutually beneficial convos?

Maybe they'll pass on any interesting stuff to the Serious Fraud guys so that they can concentrate on the other crimes.

ETA - well done Panda!

Wouldn't it be interesting if it opened a whole can of worms, as to Kennedy's involvement and how he found these people? They can save the 3.5M to investigate this case and let the Fraud guys investigate that. They will probably need another 3.5M to go through all the helpful letters they get. The pros must be going bananas at the idea their parenting heroes will be looked into. They'll be telling them to investigate Amaral...and that pedo ring the PJ set up that was uncovered by, The Angolan Bouncer with the Gold Tooth

Hi widowan


They have to find the money laundering if that was done with the Fund and detectives. But since it's their money to use any way they want I am not sure what they would be doing - why launder it? You can use it however you like, that was the whole point.

Astually, it isnt their money, it was donated by the public to search for Madeleine. They took out 2 months Mortgage payments and were told they had to return it. Also, they were trying to claim for Legal Fees but Esther McVey, a Director of NSU gave a televised statement to say the Board of Directors
had voted not to pay for Legal Fees, she left not long after. They have wasted the near £3million and if the Fund is investigated they could go to jail. The
£300,000 paid to Halligen with checking his credentials suggests that money was laundered.

almostgothic wrote:Halligen is still languishing in the nick pending appeal.
I wonder if he and the cops have been having any mutually beneficial convos?

Maybe they'll pass on any interesting stuff to the Serious Fraud guys so that they can concentrate on the other crimes.

ETA - well done Panda!

Thanks almostgothic.

when all this emerged about Halligen Clarence was interviewed and said "the matter is closed". The reason the fund could not sue Halligen for Fraud was
because Kennedy held the contracts for all these Investigatorsand I presume Ed Smethurst his InHouse Lawyer was made a director of NSU to draw up the contracts. Ergo, the fund pays Kennedy £300,000, he pays Halligen a Fee for Laundering and recieves a Fee himself so maybe £200,000 goes into
an offshore bank account in the name of the McCanns. The same thing happened with Metodo 3, they claimed they got nowhere near the amount the
British Press said, only E16,000 plus E4,000 for expenses for six months work.

The End Is Nigh wrote:Good stuff, Panda.

It would be interesting to know just what the level of calls to SY is - and to get an idea how many are sincere bona fide concerns being expressed or information being passed and how many are "not helpful". I suspect the vast majority are at the very least appropriate, if not of direct value. There are "nutters" around, of course, but they are by no means as prolific and widespread as some would have us believe. What well equipped bedrooms we all have, what with computer screens and now telephones!

Thanks The end is Nigh, maybe your user name will be found to be apt.

I"m sure there are Members of the Public who have useful information never told . There are going to be nuisance calls but at least I wasn"t fobbed off,
and given the reference number meant the call would be passed to the relevant dept. Not all 3o POlice Officers will go to Portugal, some will be at
Leicester Police Station and maybe a couple checking the Fund, 3 resignations in the last 9 months is significant IMO and no new Chairman has been appointed.

Hi Panda,

Yes, it seems much is afoot and although we've been told lots in the past, that's no reason at all to suspect we are (or should be) party to everything.

Undoubtedly what we don't know is likely to be at least as significant as what we do (or what we believe we do, or have been led to believe)

The End Is Nigh wrote:Hi Panda,

Yes, it seems much is afoot and although we've been told lots in the past, that's no reason at all to suspect we are (or should be) party to everything.

Undoubtedly what we don't know is likely to be at least as significant as what we do (or what we believe we do, or have been led to believe)

At the very beginning John McCann had a meeting with the Charities Commission who advised him you could not have a Charity for one person so
that is why they set up a Private company.JOHN WAS APPOINTED cHAIRMAN AND VOWED THE fUND WOULD BE RUN UNDER THE GOOD GOVERNANCE
GUIDELINES FOR CHARITIES. and would be transparent. Clearly it hasn"t been, the FindMadeleiene website should have displayed a full set of accounts for all the Donors each year . In Ireland a fund was set up for donations to be paid into Allied Irish Banks. When the Bank realised it was a Private
Company and not a Charity they refused to hand over the E24,000 collected and advised the TV. Company which sponsored the fundraising. The outcome
was the Tv Company invited Donors to choose a suitable Charity which they did. You know that old saying, "Follow the money" I think there is no doubt it will be proved fraudulent. From that premise other information may be revealed about the "abduction.

Panda wrote:
Hi Pennylane, I don"t think she would have committed herself by saying all aspects of the case will be investigated and the reference number is for
assurance that my call would be sent to the relevant dept and I could quote that number on any future calls.

I sent an excellent letter to Stuart Prior on 23/8/08 about how Madeleiene had become a cas Cow for so many people, why was Kennedy allowed to interfere, why was his Corporate Lawyer on the Board of MM , how Clarence Mitchell in an interview with TimesonLine he says the new Investigators
David Edgar and his partner would be paid £166,000 a MONTH, can you believe it. !!1 If it wasn2t such a long letter I would type it here but with my two
fingered style it would take forever. Needless to say he didn2t reply , but I might sentd it to SY.

I hope you are right Panda! Jolly good work, and you also wrote to "call me Stu" Prior too £166,000 a month.... are you kidding me? Very diligent of you for letting him know we are watching!

We both wrote to Theresa May last summer, as I'm sure did others here, when the McCanns were banging on about the review then too. I was so pleased with Ms May's response back then... as she was decidedly unhelpful.... the gruesome twosome couldn't even spin the face-to-face meeting to their own ends... as Theresa May gave them zilch to work with!

pennylane wrote:

Panda wrote:
Hi Pennylane, I don"t think she would have committed herself by saying all aspects of the case will be investigated and the reference number is for
assurance that my call would be sent to the relevant dept and I could quote that number on any future calls.

I sent an excellent letter to Stuart Prior on 23/8/08 about how Madeleiene had become a cas Cow for so many people, why was Kennedy allowed to interfere, why was his Corporate Lawyer on the Board of MM , how Clarence Mitchell in an interview with TimesonLine he says the new Investigators
David Edgar and his partner would be paid £166,000 a MONTH, can you believe it. !!1 If it wasn2t such a long letter I would type it here but with my two
fingered style it would take forever. Needless to say he didn2t reply , but I might sentd it to SY.

I hope you are right Panda! Jolly good work, and you also wrote to "call me Stu" Prior too? Very diligent of you! We both wrote to Theresa May last summer, as I'm sure did others here, when the McCanns were banging on about the review then too. I was so pleased with Ms May's response back then... as she was decidedly unhelpful.... the gruesome twosome couldn't even spin the face-to-face meeting to their own ends... as Theresa May gave them zilch to work with!

David Cameron had a meeting with Theresa May before the decision and she had already agreed the case merited a "scoping" whatever that was.

Who knows , maybe this review is to prove they are guilty as well as innocent.