A Dissection of the EBook about the McCanns

And no one pulled her up over it!! Press etc.

wjk wrote:And no one pulled her up over it!! Press etc.

 
I do wonder now what games the Press are playing wjk. They still slavishly print what Clarence tells them, are they waiting for the big bang (like the McCanns losing the Libel Trial?)

Let's hope, Panda  

If the McCanns lose the libel trial which I think they will. It will either be ignored by our press or put down to those dastardly foreigners being completely biased and 'got it in for them' imo.

fuzeta wrote:If the McCanns lose the libel trial which I think they will. It will either be ignored by our press or put down to those dastardly foreigners being completely biased and 'got it in for them' imo.  

I think there may be one or two, who, below a headline about poor distraught Kate McCann, tell the readers a few facts!

Yes, like AnnaEsse I think the Press will turn on them if they lose the case. This is not just about whether Amaral's book and video affected the search for Madeleine. The Fund will close down because no one will contribute, if that happens , what is the point of the Press pretending Madeleine was kidnapped and findable? Clarence Mitchell will not be affordable so the McCanns won't have a spokesman to protect them and the McCanns will become insignificant, just any other couple whose missing child has never been found.

Panda I wish that would happen but I doubt it. The press just might drop a few hints that will be hidden under the headlines like Anna suggested but fully turn on them I don't think they dare and not because of the fear of being sued.

fuzeta wrote:Panda I wish that would happen but I doubt it. The press just might drop a few hints that will be hidden under the  headlines like Anna suggested but fully turn on them I don't think they dare and not because of the fear of being sued.

Hi Fuzeta, Iv'e mentioned this before but worth another mention . A long time ago Matther Parris Editor of the Spectator said if ever it was found that the McCanns had not been truthful the Press would turn on them . It was a two way contract the Mccanns had with the Press, the McCanns got the publicity and the Press were guaranteed more Sales . If Amaral wins, the PJ report suggesting Madeleine died in 5a will come to the fore , especially since after 6 years , despite numerous sightings, Madeleine has not been foun Now if there has been a cover up by the British Government hiding the fact that Madeleine was a test tube baby , that's different. 

If they loose, they will sell their hard done by story to the highest bidder.

If the McCanns win it will be splashed on the front page of every paper and be the lead on every news channel. If they lose I doubt it will even be reported. Like the time when the book ban was overturned. Nobody hardly reported it.

mossman wrote:If they loose, they will sell their hard done by story to the highest bidder.  

Hi mossman, I don't think so, they will moan "the Portugese Police shelved the case too early", "those nasty internet members who criticised us so often hindered our search for Madeleine." "We were very unlucky in our choice of Investigators " "trying to stem the negative comments by some individuals has meant taking legal action which has resulted in the Fund now very low and we will have to close the Fund reluctantly" etc etc:grin: 

fuzeta wrote:Panda I wish that would happen but I doubt it. The press just might drop a few hints that will be hidden under the  headlines like Anna suggested but fully turn on them I don't think they dare and not because of the fear of being sued.

I agree. For whatever reason, and I doubt we will ever know, the Mccanns have some very powerful people keeping their rear ends shining brightly.

Whatever the outcome they will find somebody to blame. They always do. It's never ever them.

Panda wrote:

mossman wrote:If they loose, they will sell their hard done by story to the highest bidder.  

Hi mossman, I don't think so, they will moan "the Portugese Police shelved the case too early", "those nasty internet members who criticised us so often hindered our search for Madeleine."  "We were very unlucky in our choice of Investigators " "trying to stem the negative comments by some individuals has meant taking legal action which has resulted in the Fund now very low and we will have to close the Fund reluctantly"  etc etc:grin: 

Hi Panda, that is what I mean. We will be bombardd with sad Kate headlines, blaming everybody, but they will get paid for "exclusives". The fact gat Amaral won will be secondary. Of course if they win, we will be bombarded anyway.

It's all about money. Win or loose they will do their utmost to make money from the story.

The biggest fear of loosing though is that Amaral knows more than he has said. A loose cannon in their minds and up to know this is all part of keeping him quiet, IMO.

MaryB wrote:If the McCanns win it will be splashed on the front page of every paper and be the lead on every news channel.  If they lose I doubt it will even be reported.  Like the time when the book  ban was overturned.  Nobody hardly reported it.  

Hi MaryB, I think it will be reported, and the cost of the investigattion by SY highlighted because of the cost to Taxpayers . The Press are not stupid and the fact that the McCanns hotfooted it to Portugal when they saw how ineffectual their Witnesses were won't have been lost on them.

mossman wrote:

Panda wrote:

mossman wrote:If they loose, they will sell their hard done by story to the highest bidder.  

Hi mossman, I don't think so, they will moan "the Portugese Police shelved the case too early", "those nasty internet members who criticised us so often hindered our search for Madeleine."  "We were very unlucky in our choice of Investigators " "trying to stem the negative comments by some individuals has meant taking legal action which has resulted in the Fund now very low and we will have to close the Fund reluctantly"  etc etc:grin: 

Hi Panda, that is what I mean.  We will be bombardd with sad Kate headlines, blaming everybody, but they will get paid for "exclusives".  The fact gat Amaral won will be secondary.  Of course if they win, we will be bombarded anyway.

It's all about money.  Win or loose they will do their utmost to make money from the story.  

The biggest fear of loosing though is that Amaral knows more than he has said.  A loose cannon in their minds and up to know this is all part of keeping him quiet, IMO.  

One thing bothers me mossman. What if Amaral is producing information from the Files to support his case but it is denied on the basis that there is an ongoing investigation?

MaryB wrote:If the McCanns win it will be splashed on the front page of every paper and be the lead on every news channel.  If they lose I doubt it will even be reported.  Like the time when the book  ban was overturned.  Nobody hardly reported it.  

Agreed Mary

mossman wrote:If they loose, they will sell their hard done by story to the highest bidder.  

Hi mossman, I don't think so, all along they have gone for the hard done by story, "the Portugese are not searching for Madeleine any more", "we have been villified by these horrible internet people," there has been too much invasion of our privacy" we have had such bad luck in our choice of private investigators" etc etc etc  

Their best bet to get money would appear to be via another bewk, about themselves (for a change) publishing it in the Murdoch cesspool in installments, and suing newspapers for libel.

I don't think the Fund would need to exist to take donations to look for Maddie - that's been there done that, probably not much coming in especially since they are now dipping into the public tax fund for that - but to sue people and have somewhere to put it that looks legitimate (and probably has better tax shelter than personal income) and then use it for more lawyers, paying off the house or whatever they want.

widowan wrote:Their best bet to get money would appear to be via another bewk, about themselves (for a change) publishing it in the Murdoch cesspool in installments, and suing newspapers for libel.

I don't think the Fund would need to exist to take donations to look for Maddie - that's been there done that, probably not much coming in especially since they are now dipping into the public tax fund for that - but to sue people and have somewhere to put it that looks legitimate (and probably has better tax shelter than personal income) and then use it for more lawyers, paying off the house or whatever they want.

 
UUM, , widowan, I believe a lot of money has been "laundered" already. Last Year a clause was brought into the Private Company that money would be spent on producing CDs about .....wait for it .....teaching people how to search for Missing people. There is also an intention to purchase property, arranging Seminars. There is a tax liability on the Company because it is not a charity.

Panda wrote:

widowan wrote:Their best bet to get money would appear to be via another bewk, about themselves (for a change) publishing it in the Murdoch cesspool in installments, and suing newspapers for libel.

I don't think the Fund would need to exist to take donations to look for Maddie - that's been there done that, probably not much coming in especially since they are now dipping into the public tax fund for that - but to sue people and have somewhere to put it that looks legitimate (and probably has better tax shelter than personal income) and then use it for more lawyers, paying off the house or whatever they want.

 
UUM, , widowan, I believe a lot of money has been "laundered" already. Last Year a clause was brought into the Private Company that money would be spent on producing CDs about .....wait for it .....teaching people how to search for Missing people. There is also an intention to purchase property, arranging Seminars. There  is a tax liability on the Company because it is not a charity.

OMG, so they are going to try to milk this for more money? Do they never stop and take stock of themselves? ICK!

widowan wrote:

Panda wrote:

widowan wrote:Their best bet to get money would appear to be via another bewk, about themselves (for a change) publishing it in the Murdoch cesspool in installments, and suing newspapers for libel.

I don't think the Fund would need to exist to take donations to look for Maddie - that's been there done that, probably not much coming in especially since they are now dipping into the public tax fund for that - but to sue people and have somewhere to put it that looks legitimate (and probably has better tax shelter than personal income) and then use it for more lawyers, paying off the house or whatever they want.

 
UUM, , widowan, I believe a lot of money has been "laundered" already. Last Year a clause was brought into the Private Company that money would be spent on producing CDs about .....wait for it .....teaching people how to search for Missing people. There is also an intention to purchase property, arranging Seminars. There  is a tax liability on the Company because it is not a charity.

OMG, so they are going to try to milk this for more money? Do they never stop and take stock of themselves? ICK!

Money seems to be their God widowan. It was said at the beginning that the McCanns were broke, the PJ wrote to the Home Office requesting copies of Bank Statements for the last 6 months , the Home Office said that was too intrusive and asked the Portugese to put in a request again for a lesser period, the PJ never bothered.

Panda wrote:

widowan wrote:Their best bet to get money would appear to be via another bewk, about themselves (for a change) publishing it in the Murdoch cesspool in installments, and suing newspapers for libel.

I don't think the Fund would need to exist to take donations to look for Maddie - that's been there done that, probably not much coming in especially since they are now dipping into the public tax fund for that - but to sue people and have somewhere to put it that looks legitimate (and probably has better tax shelter than personal income) and then use it for more lawyers, paying off the house or whatever they want.

 
UUM, , widowan, I believe a lot of money has been "laundered" already. Last Year a clause was brought into the Private Company that money would be spent on producing CDs about .....wait for it .....teaching people how to search for Missing people. There is also an intention to purchase property, arranging Seminars. There  is a tax liability on the Company because it is not a charity.

That is not the case as has been pointed out before. There were no additional clauses inserted in the amended Articles. They were simply reordered with the family support clause removed. The original articles were widely drawn as is common for any limited company although it is perhaps arguable they didn't need to be so given the specific objects of the fund.

Chris wrote:

Panda wrote:

widowan wrote:Their best bet to get money would appear to be via another bewk, about themselves (for a change) publishing it in the Murdoch cesspool in installments, and suing newspapers for libel.

I don't think the Fund would need to exist to take donations to look for Maddie - that's been there done that, probably not much coming in especially since they are now dipping into the public tax fund for that - but to sue people and have somewhere to put it that looks legitimate (and probably has better tax shelter than personal income) and then use it for more lawyers, paying off the house or whatever they want.

 
UUM, , widowan, I believe a lot of money has been "laundered" already. Last Year a clause was brought into the Private Company that money would be spent on producing CDs about .....wait for it .....teaching people how to search for Missing people. There is also an intention to purchase property, arranging Seminars. There  is a tax liability on the Company because it is not a charity.

That is not the case as has been pointed out before. There were no additional clauses inserted in the amended Articles. They were simply reordered with the family support clause removed. The original articles were widely drawn as is common for any limited company although it is perhaps arguable they didn't need to be so given the specific objects of the fund.

We have discussed this before chris, it might have been in the M & A originally , but I have copies of the "Special Resolution" signed by all the Directors adopting the changes which included Seminars, producing CD's on how to search for missing people and for the Fund to consider the purchase of property.

Another extract from the Book

JOHN HILL Mr Hill said that despite the report by a fmily friend that the shutters to the couple's apartment were broken , there was no sign that anyone had forced their way in while the McCanns ate at the tapas restaurant 200 yds away.

Chief inspector Olegario Sousa , spokesman for the investigation , later confided in British former Chief Inspector ALBERT KIRBY that neither the windows nor their shutters had been tampered with.

Gerald McCann statement 4th May 2007 at 11.15 am

"thus at 9.05pm the deponent entered the club? , using his key , the door being locked ,and went to the children's bedroom and noted that the twins and Madeleine were in perfect condition ."

10th May 2007

"Despite what he said in his previous statements he states now, and with certainty that he left with KATE through the back door but did not lock given that it is only [possible from the inside . Concerning the front door , although he is certain that it was closed , it is unlikely that it was locked , because they left through the back door.

=====================================

The back door being left unlocked because they were too lazy to walk to the front door can be classed as negligence . Why weren't the McCanns charged at the time ??????? Were the Portugese too nervous to charge them? Did the British Government intervene? Why didn't the the Portugese ask for a recon thre and then , maybe the Tapas 9 would have cracked and this case closed a long time ago.