This is the Scotsman Report dated 27th

http://www.scotsman.com/news/uk/conman-in-madeleine-mccann-cash-claims-1-3423041

Well this programme is certainly getting media publicity , no doubt the McCanns will try to vet the questions Halligen is asked . 

Panda wrote:http://www.scotsman.com/news/uk/conman-in-madeleine-mccann-cash-claims-1-3423041

Well this programme is certainly getting media publicity , no doubt the McCanns will try to vet the questions Halligen is asked .  

He produced info about Smithman, which mccann buried deep as they could. Who is the conman?

weissnicht wrote:

Panda wrote:http://www.scotsman.com/news/uk/conman-in-madeleine-mccann-cash-claims-1-3423041

Well this programme is certainly getting media publicity , no doubt the McCanns will try to vet the questions Halligen is asked .  

He produced info about Smithman, which mccann buried deep as they could. Who is the conman?

Morning weissnicht , If the interview has already been recoeded I wonder if the McCanns will try to preview ? Halligen is such a fantasist anyway so I suspect his vwesion of events will differ from reality.

weissnicht wrote:

Panda wrote:http://www.scotsman.com/news/uk/conman-in-madeleine-mccann-cash-claims-1-3423041

Well this programme is certainly getting media publicity , no doubt the McCanns will try to vet the questions Halligen is asked .  

He produced info about Smithman, which mccann buried deep as they could. Who is the conman?

Agree completely weissnicht. As far as we know, his company did investigate, just not to the satisfaction of his clients. It says more to me about the McCanns credibility, the fact they employed him and had the means to contact perhaps shady characters.

The world must be full of reputable investigators with proven track records in finding missing people. Strange how they by-passed that list, and on more than one occasion.

Geez, you could be forgiven for thinking they did want their little girl found, ludicrous thought I know.  

mossman wrote:

weissnicht wrote:

Panda wrote:http://www.scotsman.com/news/uk/conman-in-madeleine-mccann-cash-claims-1-3423041

Well this programme is certainly getting media publicity , no doubt the McCanns will try to vet the questions Halligen is asked .  

He produced info about Smithman, which mccann buried deep as they could. Who is the conman?

Agree completely weissnicht. As far as we know, his company did investigate, just not to the satisfaction of his clients.  It says more to me about the McCanns credibility, the fact they employed him and had the means to contact perhaps shady characters.

The world must be full of reputable investigators with proven track records in finding missing people.  Strange how they by-passed that list, and on more than one occasion.

Geez, you could be forgiven for thinking they did want their little girl found, ludicrous thought I know.  

Morning mossman, Halligen boasted of having state of the art technology etc , but , if you were handing over £300,000 wouldn't you check out anyone's credentials? I think Brian Kennedy used Halligen to launder money , that's why the Fund never sued him .The same with the Spanish Firm who denied they received the sum quoted in the British Press. I remember on 3as a Member saying Kennedy had a few holding Companies and the money was put in the holding Company and transferred within 24 hours.

I also believe money was laundered Panda, in both cases.

Totally agree about the laundered Money!

fred wrote:Totally agree about the laundered Money!

Hi fuzeta and fred , I doubt Halligen would admit to money laundering because the Accountant's Client who invested £1.2 million would for appearance sake sue him as would the McCanns, they had their opportunity when he returned to the U.K. after his extradition to the U.S. had been sorted. I.m trying to think therefore what will be discussed on the T.V. ....is it a coup for Channel 5, or did none of the other T.V. Channels want to get involved.  

I think it will be something and nothing. I'd be astonished if anything remotely controversial was raised or spoken about. Or even anything we didn't know before. Still I might be wrong.

MaryB wrote:I think it will be something and nothing.  I'd be astonished if anything remotely controversial was raised or spoken about. Or even anything we didn't know before.  Still I might be wrong.

I agree MaryB

Panda wrote:

Morning mossman, Halligen boasted of having state of the art technology etc , but , if you were handing over £300,000 wouldn't you check out anyone's credentials? I think Brian Kennedy used Halligen to launder money , that's why the Fund never sued him .The same with the Spanish Firm who denied they received the sum quoted in the British Press. I remember on 3as a Member saying Kennedy had a few holding Companies and the money was put in the holding Company and transferred within 24 hours.

Hi Panda. Danny Krugel from South Africa laid claims to having a state of the art machine too, bless him. Actually, did he charge for his services ?

Yes, I agree with the laundering possibility.

I can't see anything contraversial being broadcast and from memory I can't remember Channel 5 ever being interested in reporting on Madeliene. It is a coup for them and Halligen will be paid but I can't see anything of real interest being revealed.

mossman wrote:

Panda wrote:

Morning mossman, Halligen boasted of having state of the art technology etc , but , if you were handing over £300,000 wouldn't you check out anyone's credentials? I think Brian Kennedy used Halligen to launder money , that's why the Fund never sued him .The same with the Spanish Firm who denied they received the sum quoted in the British Press. I remember on 3as a Member saying Kennedy had a few holding Companies and the money was put in the holding Company and transferred within 24 hours.

Hi Panda.  Danny Krugel from South Africa laid claims to having a state of the art machine too, bless him.  Actually, did he charge for his services ?

Yes, I agree with the laundering possibility.

Hi mossman , when you think that from day 12 the Company was set up in May and by Christmas over £2 million donated. The McCanns from day 1 said Madeleine was "abducted" and according to my Dictionary it means being taken by force. ....but "kidnapped " means taken by force for ransom. Spot the way the McCanns were clever enough to use the right word, so there would not be expected that a Ransom Letter or Phone call ?????

They never employed really experienced Detectives and Krugel was a joke.

fuzeta wrote:I also believe money was laundered Panda, in both cases.

I wouldn't be surprised at all.

As I live in Canada, I'm not familiar with "Channel 5". However I looked at the Channel 5 website and noticed the Daily Express and Daily Star are mentioned at the bottom of it. I know both these papers are tabloids but is Channel 5 considered to be in the same category? Possibly under the same ownership? Just wondering since Channel 5 does not 'register' with me like the BBC, Sky and ITV.

All owned by Richard 'Dirty' Desmond.

He ended up paying £550,000 to The Gruesomes in an out-of-court settlement in 2008.

almostgothic wrote:All owned by Richard 'Dirty' Desmond.

He ended up paying £550,000 to The Gruesomes in an out-of-court settlement in 2008.

Don't forget his really classy, upmarket holdings like Television X and Red Hot TV.   

Does anyone think there could possibly be, even the smallest chance, that 'Dirty Desmond' could be getting his own back, for all the money he had to fork out? Probably too worried about CR but you never know, well, we do, but I can hope :-)

wjk wrote:Does anyone think there could possibly be, even the smallest chance, that 'Dirty Desmond' could be getting his own back, for all the money he had to fork out? Probably too worried about CR but you never know, well, we do, but I can hope :-)

Oh, yes. Don't forget, I'm a regular reader of Private Eye, and they are always publishing juicy stories about Mr Desmond - and particularly, what a tight fisted get he is. He does NOT like parting with money. He wants his half million back. And he's probably going to get it, too, one way or another.

interested wrote:As I live in Canada, I'm not familiar with "Channel 5".  However I looked at the Channel 5 website and noticed the Daily Express and Daily Star are mentioned at the bottom of it.  I know both these papers are tabloids but is Channel 5 considered to be in the same category?  Possibly under the same ownership?  Just wondering since Channel 5 does not 'register' with me like the BBC, Sky and ITV.

I think Desmond owns it.

weissnicht wrote:

interested wrote:As I live in Canada, I'm not familiar with "Channel 5".  However I looked at the Channel 5 website and noticed the Daily Express and Daily Star are mentioned at the bottom of it.  I know both these papers are tabloids but is Channel 5 considered to be in the same category?  Possibly under the same ownership?  Just wondering since Channel 5 does not 'register' with me like the BBC, Sky and ITV.

I think Desmond owns it.

But he's put it up for sale, as it's losing too much money. I told you, tight fisted get!