LS Media - Published On: Mon, Jul 2nd, No, I shan’t look for Maddie in Tallinn.

You mean these ones




I don't know why nobody questions it. Except along with many other lies the mccanns tell, it is covered up or ignored and if you dare try to question it the threat of carter ruck looms

It certainly has been commented upon on Internet forums, along with all the other porkies, but we're all ghouls aren't we and it seems that nobody who is in a position to tackle the McCanns about it has any interest in doing so.

It really shows how gullible a lot of people really are. I was aghast at the bare faced blatancy of it when I first saw the interview where she made light of it. My jaw dropped

wantthetruth wrote:It really shows how gullible a lot of people really are. I was aghast at the bare faced blatancy of it when I first saw the interview where she made light of it. My jaw dropped

Same here, because they`d actually made it into a trademark initially and now its just a fleck. I can`t understand why no one has questioned this. Well, you never know - perhaps they have, fingers crossed.

They are a very powerful couple with a combination of his arrogance and slick talking and her sad victim demeanour, there`s not many people that have the guts to challenge that combination.

jd16 - Cherry, you said something interesting last night about the posters and having to purchase a wristband to get one. I wasn't around at the time so do not know but do you (or anybody else) know if there was an option to download a poster for free to print, or whether you only got one if you purchased something. It would be absolutely astounding if you had to purchase something and there was no option to freely download a poster, and sum everything up


Hi jd, I remember when the shop site was first set up there was a lot of talk on forums that on the site
they were charging people for posters, that you had to buy something else to get a poster, like a bracelet. I do think you can download posters. I have found this.

A4 size poster 0.10p
Please select how many posters you would like with your order. (Maximum 5). This item may only be selected with another purchase.

http://store.bringmadeleinehome.com/acatalog/Posters.html

Thanks Cherry. I find this bizarre, its like ordering merchandise from your favourite pop groups website! order this and get a free poster of them! (or just pay 10p)

When I look at this store I see credit cards, paypal, bank account details all taking up a huge amount of space. For a missing child, how could anyone ever put "This item (poster) may only be selected with another purchase." charge for the poster....There should be a PDF/JPEG version of the poster on all pages which anyone can download for free and print out...not pay for them or have to order something else to 'qualify' for one, just as bad limited to just 5 posters with the order!!....what!!!

Will they autograph the posters before sending them!!

cherry1 wrote:jd16 - Cherry, you said something interesting last night about the posters and having to purchase a wristband to get one. I wasn't around at the time so do not know but do you (or anybody else) know if there was an option to download a poster for free to print, or whether you only got one if you purchased something. It would be absolutely astounding if you had to purchase something and there was no option to freely download a poster, and sum everything up


Hi jd, I remember when the shop site was first set up there was a lot of talk on forums that on the site
they were charging people for posters, that you had to buy something else to get a poster, like a bracelet. I do think you can download posters. I have found this.

A4 size poster 0.10p
Please select how many posters you would like with your order. (Maximum 5). This item may only be selected with another purchase.

http://store.bringmadeleinehome.com/acatalog/Posters.html

Yes that is correct, I bought a wristband and a poster and had the poster copied and posted in the villages around where I live, I had one in the side rear window of our car but someone wrote in marker pen all over the window to disfigure the poster so I removed it.
This was when I believed the parents.

wantthetruth wrote:I've been reading this thread on and off all afternoon!

I'm always genuinely intrigued by McCann supporters and their reasons for believing with such certainty that the couple could not have been involved in whatever happened to Madeleine.

Something which has concerned me a great deal recently is the sudden U Turn regarding Madeleine's eye defect.

How can this be explained, and why did the media not seize on it??

For Kate to state now that they didn't make much of her eye is blatantly untrue. Why does nobody question it?

This is what I cannot make out either. Those who support the Mccanns say they want truth for Madeleine but how can that possibly be achieved by totally ignoring all the downright lies which have come from their own mouths (evidence of these can be seen in their interviews, book, statements etc.), ignoring how the statements of the group as a whole do not add up, some are contradicting each other, the behaviour of the Mccanns like shouting abduction immediately when Madeleine could have wandered off, not physically searching (although K has said in her book she did search!) perhaps she forgot she already admitted on tv she didnt! Not questionning that two professional people are slagging of the well renowned and highly thought of police dogs, ignoring the dogs findings totally, the preplanning of fundraising events in advance when Madeleine could have been discovered at any time, the marketing of Madeleine with shop, the way the Fund has been marketed as a charity on many occasions, the bizarre behaviour like Kate running out of appartment leaving the twins, the first thing you would do is take the twins with you in case anyone was around, the failure to answer Police questions even when told it could hinder the investigation, marketing the eye defect then saying they didnt make a big issue of it etc. etc.

We can all have theories and opinions but these are Facts which anyone can see for themselves with the most basic research. Surely anyone wanting to find out the truth for Madeleine would be having very real concerns and asking questions about this but those (or those that I have come into contact with or read their postings) who support the Mccanns, never seem to question any of these issues. They seem to get ignored, just like the Gaspar Statements, Yvonne Martin's testimony etc.

to get to the truth you have to ask questions, you have to query things that dont add up, so I fail to see how anyone who wants to get to the truth for Madeleine and is genuine and sincere in that and knows about the lies, contradictions etc, and ignores all this - how on earth is that in any way going to help in getting to the truth.

I am not saying that all those who support the Mccanns are not genuine, I think some may be niave, may not wish to look into things they may not like so would rather turn a blind eye, some people in the general public are not aware of a lot of what we know from being on the internet, but those who are on the internet and do know about the lies etc., never seem to question if they dont know anything at all why have the Mccanns lied then, why do they consistently contradict themselves and say one thing and then something completely different? why isnt this being questionned by those who support them.

I have mentioned before about the case of Sarah Payne, I dont remember people having major concerns about the parents, we saw them co-operating with the Police, we saw them being consistent in what they said, people who question the Mccanns dont do so to be nasty but because it is the Mccanns OWN behaviour which has led to people suspecting them of some involvement (whatever that may be). If they were consistent in what they said, told the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth and co-operated with the Police I dont think there would be all these concerns.

I am also sick and tired of some of the Mccann supporters labelling everyone as ghouls, paedos, sickos or whatever else they call people who merely question what has gone on. Most of those who doubt the Mccanns do so politely, and I think most of us dont believe that those who are rude and abusive are doing the cause any good at all because then everyone gets labelled like that and it is also stooping to the level of the vast majority of Mccann supporters who use those tactics when posting. I am also fed up with their supporters repeatedly accusing people of saying something they have never said, they are so busy trying to defend the Mccanns that invariably they dont actually read properly what has been said.

It made me extremely sad just looking at their 'shop', how parents can market their daughter in this way to me is abhorrent and to market a child in the way they have marketed Madeleine to me is quite sickening.

The posters should not have been charged for at all! The posters should all have been
given away free and as many as people wanted if you wanted to get the information out there.

You really really do not charge people for posters of a missing child.

Bobsy -Yes that is correct, I bought a wristband and a poster and had the poster copied and posted in the villages around where I live, I had one in the side rear window of our car but someone wrote in marker pen all over the window to disfigure the poster so I removed it.
This was when I believed the parents. .


Hi Bobsy, are you saying that you believed the parents were not involved in any way due to the fact
that someone defaced a poster? I am confused as to how would defacing a poster make make you believe the parents?

cherry1 wrote:The posters should not have been charged for at all! The posters should all have been
given away free and as many as people wanted if you wanted to get the information out there.

You really really do not charge people for posters of a missing child.

Or have a tacky web store featuring "Best selling items."

wantthetruth wrote:I've been reading this thread on and off all afternoon!

I'm always genuinely intrigued by McCann supporters and their reasons for believing with such certainty that the couple could not have been involved in whatever happened to Madeleine.

Something which has concerned me a great deal recently is the sudden U Turn regarding Madeleine's eye defect.

How can this be explained, and why did the media not seize on it??

For Kate to state now that they didn't make much of her eye is blatantly untrue. Why does nobody question it?

The reason that the eye defect which was initially a very "good marketing ploy" according to Gerry is lately being described as just a mere fleck, is because the McCanns wider agenda has changed. At first, they wanted as much money coming in as possible, and advertising the coloboma worked to that effect. They did not even care about police advice to not advertise the defect because it would put Madeleine's life at risk. Right from the beginning, it was always about them and money, and never about Madeleine, nor her safety, IMO because they both knew she was already dead. Nothing else could explain taking this huge risk with Madeleine's life against police advice.

Recently their agenda has changed, it is no longer marketing Madeleine to the fullest extent, but trying to promote the idea that Madeleine is still alive (note the crazy article by Ian Bollocks). The existence of the coloboma (such an obvious and recognizable defect) and the fact that it was so extensively advertised to the point of trademarking the defect, point to whatever happened to Madeleine that she would not be able to lead any normal life and was most likely to have been killed.

Ian's conclusion "That Madeleine was taken by a person or couple with the intention of keeping her, and raising her" fails to mention the likelihood that Madeleine would be alive or dead if this were the case. The sad fact is that if we are to believe that Madeleine was selected because she was just so gorgeous that the couple would prefer her over both of her younger siblings, that the couple would soon realize that they would have no normal life with the most highly publicized missing child on the face of the planet, especially given the blatant eye defect. Thus, even if taken by a childless couple, there would still be a high probability that she would be dead, as there would with the theory of being taken by a paedophile.

So, now the agenda is to downplay the eye defect because admitting to the defect would be admitting that Madeleine is more likely dead than alive. Right now the McCanns are just pushing the idea that Madeleine is still alive, and the existence of eye defect does not promote that theory.

Madeleine will likely be declared dead in a couple of years, and perhaps then the PJ will be able to pursue their case.

cherry1 wrote:Bobsy -Yes that is correct, I bought a wristband and a poster and had the poster copied and posted in the villages around where I live, I had one in the side rear window of our car but someone wrote in marker pen all over the window to disfigure the poster so I removed it.
This was when I believed the parents. .


Hi Bobsy, are you saying that you believed the parents were not involved in any way due to the fact
that someone defaced a poster? I am confused as to how would defacing a poster make make you believe the parents?

No The defacing of the window annoyed me because they had defaced the face of a child through a window glass, so that sickened me and I was also annoyed that someone has used marker pen all over the window.
No it wasn't that at all that made me start to ask questions, and through those questions being banned from a forum, along with others who were also asking questions.

I can see how you must have been sickened by someone defacing the poster and the window, I think
I would have been too.

How could being banned from a forum mean that the Mccanns can be believed?

I am curious as to why you believe the Mccanns. just a couple of examples, Kate admitted on TV she didnt physically search, then in her book went into detail how she did search, the Mccanns made a massive big deal about Madeleine's eye defect then stated that they hadnt, on a number of forums I believe are listed over 100 Factual lies, these are not peoples opinions or theories, but Facts. I find it hard to see then when all these lies have been highlighted how on earth you could believe a word that comes out of their mouths? To me that doesnt make sense.

cherry1 wrote:I can see how you must have been sickened by someone defacing the poster and the window, I think
I would have been too.

How could being banned from a forum mean that the Mccanns can be believed?

I am curious as to why you believe the Mccanns. just a couple of examples, Kate admitted on TV she didnt physically search, then in her book went into detail how she did search, the Mccanns made a massive big deal about Madeleine's eye defect then stated that they hadnt, on a number of forums I believe are listed over 100 Factual lies, these are not peoples opinions or theories, but Facts. I find it hard to see then when all these lies have been highlighted how on earth you could believe a word that comes out of their mouths? To me that doesnt make sense.

I think what Bobsy means is that she originally believed the parents and then started having doubts. That lead to her asking questions on a pro forum and got her banned

thank you Angelina, I thought she was saying she believed the parents now, thanks
for clearing that one up. x

cherry1 wrote:I can see how you must have been sickened by someone defacing the poster and the window, I think
I would have been too.

How could being banned from a forum mean that the Mccanns can be believed?

I am curious as to why you believe the Mccanns. just a couple of examples, Kate admitted on TV she didnt physically search, then in her book went into detail how she did search, the Mccanns made a massive big deal about Madeleine's eye defect then stated that they hadnt, on a number of forums I believe are listed over 100 Factual lies, these are not peoples opinions or theories, but Facts. I find it hard to see then when all these lies have been highlighted how on earth you could believe a word that comes out of their mouths? To me that doesnt make sense.

Cherry1, I am speaking here of early 2007. I was new to a computer and only went onto one forum, don't even know if it still around. I was also a volunteer of ForeverSearching through someone I met on the forum and sent out hundreds of emails each day about many other missing children. And these two outlets for me were the only outlets apart from the UK television news. And almost daily it was the first thing that I watched each morning to see if she had been found. Over the weeks I became distraught and was puzzled as to why I was but her parents never seemed to be. And these were the sorts of questions I started to ask on the forum. Once banned I looked further and really had my eyes opened. I wasn't the only person banned at this time, there were others, and you know who you are

Thanks Bobsy, apologies for misunderstanding your post, I thought you were saying you
believed the Mccanns now which I couldnt for the life of me understand the reasoning, but
understand now that you didnt mean you believe them now.


That is another good point about why the Mccanns didnt seem distraught, I think their
body language is something the Police will most certainly have picked up on, why you dont
seem distraught when your daughter is missing.

cherry1 wrote:The posters should not have been charged for at all! The posters should all have been
given away free and as many as people wanted if you wanted to get the information out there.

You really really do not charge people for posters of a missing child.

Exactly. They did want to find their missing child didn't they? Instead of spending 100s of thousands suing people for purporting theories based on the facts, this money should be spent on getting posters out for free

You can easily add a PDF of the poster that shows on every web page of the site that a user can click to download and print it off themselves. The mccanns never do anything that any normal parent whose child has gone missing would do....quite astounding really

My understanding is that the poster can be downloaded for free but the Posters in my view
should not be charged for. It is totally wrong to charge for posters of a missing child, you could even
I am sure get printers to print them off for free, many printers would do that for nothing! It is just
totally wrong to charge people for missing posters -

is this about finding Madeleine or is this about making Money!


If the priority is finding Madeleine you dont charge for posters! if the priority is making money you do!

Bobsy wrote:

cherry1 wrote:I can see how you must have been sickened by someone defacing the poster and the window, I think
I would have been too.

How could being banned from a forum mean that the Mccanns can be believed?

I am curious as to why you believe the Mccanns. just a couple of examples, Kate admitted on TV she didnt physically search, then in her book went into detail how she did search, the Mccanns made a massive big deal about Madeleine's eye defect then stated that they hadnt, on a number of forums I believe are listed over 100 Factual lies, these are not peoples opinions or theories, but Facts. I find it hard to see then when all these lies have been highlighted how on earth you could believe a word that comes out of their mouths? To me that doesnt make sense.

Cherry1, I am speaking here of early 2007. I was new to a computer and only went onto one forum, don't even know if it still around. I was also a volunteer of ForeverSearching through someone I met on the forum and sent out hundreds of emails each day about many other missing children. And these two outlets for me were the only outlets apart from the UK television news. And almost daily it was the first thing that I watched each morning to see if she had been found. Over the weeks I became distraught and was puzzled as to why I was but her parents never seemed to be. And these were the sorts of questions I started to ask on the forum. Once banned I looked further and really had my eyes opened. I wasn't the only person banned at this time, there were others, and you know who you are

I can flip the coin. When I was posting on the AOL boards a few Madeleine posters including my self, received warnings. I knew some of the McCann supporters had reported us, because they told us. However because we had done nothing but state our views and quote what was on the internet, I thought nothing would come of it.

I decided to have a look at the AOL team, there were photographs of the team and alongside one of the photographs was an article, that went something like this. "Please bring Madeleine home to her mummy and daddy." There were other sycophantic articles well. This showed, that whoever was in charge of sending out warnings, was a McCann supporter.

I sent a stinking email to AOL Customer Services, regarding the warning I received. I told C.C that my warning was obviously from someone who was obvously a McCann supporter and they didn't want me voicing any opinions, that didn't fit in with their opinions. I never had a reply to my emails but more importantly, I never received any more warnings. I carried on making the same posts that I was making before I received the warning. I can't remember if anyone else complained.

One of the posters who said she had reported us to AOL, also said she'd reported us to Carter Ruck. She said she had sent all of our posts to Carter Ruck and we would be taken to court and jailed. I'm still waiting for Carter Ruck to take me to court and have me jailed.

the Police should be investigating all those who have been threatening
posters who dont believe the Mccanns story. Also all those posters who have
been posting up personal information on the net about those who dont believe
the Mccanns story. All these posters are clearly breaking the Malicious Communications
act.

kathybelle wrote:

One of the posters who said she had reported us to AOL, also said she'd reported us to Carter Ruck. She said she had sent all of our posts to Carter Ruck and we would be taken to court and jailed. I'm still waiting for Carter Ruck to take me to court and have me jailed.

That's beyond pathetic - not only are very few people actually incarcerated if found Guilty of Libel, but the grounds for adducing a Case of Libel do not include simply having a different opinion to that of the Plaintiff.

I suspect Carter-Ruck are probably as fed up of these vexatious time-wasters as we are.

The McCanns instructed their lawyer Isabel Duarte, to make an allegation against Goncalo Amaral. The allegation was that Dr Amaral was fraudulently claiming Legal Aid from the Portuguese D.S.S. The allegation was deemed malicious and thrown out of wherever the allegation was made. In my opinion, the McCanns were lucky that Dr Amaral didn't sue them for making that false allegaion.

They're not content with bad mouthing him at every opportunity and in Kate's case, she has made some really nasty comments about him in her book.

The media went to town on Dr Amaral, when a reporter wrongly accused him of saying "F**k the McCanns," but they've made no comment about the foul language Kate McCann has used against Dr Amaral, in her book of sex and lies.

Regarding the Online Shop which has been mentioned I also noticed this -

The Fund is following best practice governance procedures as set out in the Good Governance Code for the Voluntary and Community Sector.


to me again this is misleading and could give the impression that they are a charity, they talk on the site about how if there are surplus funds it could be turned into a charity and the good governance code is for charities. I really think the way the Fund has been marketed is totally dishonest. We have had situations where it was referred to as a charity and their spokesman not corrected that wrong information, frequently the Mccanns in relation to raising funds have mentioned things like - and other charities - to give the impression the Fund is itself a charity. The Fund is a Company and some of its board members have personally profitted from it to pay their mortgage.


Good Governance: a Code for the Voluntary and Community Sector ('the Code') has been written by the sector, for the sector. It is a practical and easy-to-use guide to help charities develop good practice. We support the Code and encourage all charities - from large to small - to use it.