"Madeleine's Fund Loses Key McCann"

.....................................
So the Sunday Express tells us today, but why do they accompany this article with an image of Madeleine McCann that was out of date even at the time she disappeared?



Is the Express getting in subtle hints there that things are not quite as they seem with the McCanns, their fund or their story?

THE brother of Gerry McCann has quit the Madeleine Fund amid a drive to inject new dynamism into the search for the missing seven-year-old.

That could be read as being a comment that it's an odd time for him to be leaving when things are hotting up with the search, or that he's been pushed out in this drive to inject new dynamism.

John McCann has been a dedicated director since the fund was launched more than three years ago and worked tirelessly behind the scenes to do everything he could to find the child.

Well, readers, why would such a tireless worker be leaving?

However, latest company accounts show he left last month along with fellow director Douglas Skehan, a heart specialist and colleague of Gerry McCann who works with him at Leicester’s Glenfield Hospital. Speaking at the launch of the fund two weeks after Madeleine vanished, John said: “This fund will be a vehicle to help our family get our darling, wee niece back.”

Now, there's an expression of love for Madeleine. And we had to find out that this dedicated man had left only through reading the latest accounts.

In an update to their website, neither Kate nor Gerry McCann mentioned the names of the directors who have left.

So, dear readers of this fine journal, why not name and thank this tireless director who has worked so hard behind the scenes for three years?

Instead they focused on the renewed vigour behind the campaign to find their daughter. They believe Madeleine was abducted from their holiday apartment in Praia da Luz on Portugal’s Algarve coast in May 2007.

"They believe Madeleine was abducted.."? The Express is not saying that Madeleine was abducted. It's not even saying her parents know she was abducted, but "they believe." Are readers left to ponder that all there is to suggest abduction is belief, that something happened to Madeleine and her parents don't have a clue what that was and all they have is belief, or is the more subtle suggestion that readers are invited to believe the abduction story with nothing to back it up in reality? Out of all the theories about what happened to Madeleine - she wandered out of the apartment, she was abducted, (Woops! Not many plausible theories, are there?) they choose to "believe," that she was abducted. The Express is being very kind here, or very careful.

“This will include some changes to the board of Madeleine’s Fund, simply to try to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of what we are doing. It has now been three years and four months since Madeleine was taken from us. None of us ever thought we’d still be in the position we are today.

Ah, those departing directors were neither efficient nor effective? But John McCann worked tirelessly: in what ways was he inefficient and ineffective?

“Inevitably there has to be change for a variety of reasons but importantly, this will also allow people to help and support us in different ways."

What are these "different ways" in which people will be allowed to support "us"? Us? Who's that? John McCann was not "us."? He was not supporting us in ways that were efficient and effective? Us and them, eh? The other directors were supporting us as we would have liked them to, but not those two who have quit amid this "drive to inject to dynamism."?

"Regardless of change, everyone’s focus, commitment and desire continues to be that of finding Madeleine.”

Who is "everyone."? Everyone including those two departing directors? The remaining directors? The world and its dog? Woops! I keep mentioning dogs!

New board members, as yet unnamed, have been appointed to the fund, which stands at £450,000 and relies on public donations to pay private investigators to carry on the search.

Not much left folks. Your donations are paying for these private investigators to do the searching, while her parents just, "believe," Madeleine was abducted, but they're not out there themselves getting their hands dirty turning over a few stones.

The unsigned blog continues: “Keeping Madeleine’s image out there greatly increases our chances of finding her.

"The unsigned blog."? Why is no one owning up to writing this crap? As for "keeping Madeleine's image out there," hers is the most recognisable child's face in the world, I imagine, and she's still, well, "out there."? Hasn't achieved much so far.

“It is a reminder to people that she is still missing and to please keep looking for her. In addition, we know that somebody knows where Madeleine is.

That part sounds like something Gerry McCann could have written: does he really think there's a Joe Uk Public out there who is going to read that and bellow, "OH. MY. GOD. Sell the dog Mrs Public, Madeleine McCann's still missing!"

Well well! "..somebody knows where she is." Well, Gerry the odds are that if she had been abducted that somebody would know where she was. Is that just one "somebody."? The abductor? Somebody else? The abductor doesn't know, but somebody else does? Just one somebody else?

“One more reminder of her may be all that it takes for them to finally come forward and let us know.”

Let you know what? That they know where she is? Why not say "return her."? And would this, "One more reminder," suddenly cause that "somebody," to remember that Madeleine was still missing, that they had somehow forgotten that detail and also that they knew where she was? "Goodness," somebody says to himself, "Yes, I remember now! That little blonde girl, whats'ername, better tell them where she is. Now where did I put her?"

The McCanns met Home Secretary Theresa May over the summer to ask for a review of all evidence in the case.

But from Ms May, silence seems to be the reply.

Madeleine McCann: information requested by the Portuguese police and how the FOI Act was used to deny it.

SATELLITE CLUE TO MADDIE KIDNAP

Sunday Express October 18th 2009

By James Murray

"HOME Secretary Alan Johnson is prepared to ask US spy chiefs for satellite images which may show the face of Madeleine McCann’s kidnapper, following intervention by the Sunday Express."

"Hope of new progress came after it emerged Leicestershire Police never made a formal request to the Home Office for views of Praia da Luz on Portugal’s Algarve at the time the little girl vanished in May 2007."

Yet, further on in the Express article, we are told that the Portuguese police had actually asked Leicestershire police to make a formal request for this information. A senior Portuguese police source said:

"We hoped spy images may have captured the kidnapper watching the apartment prior to the event or even on the day itself. Obviously, having a picture would have speeded up the apprehension of the offender.”

"Yet more than two years after Madeleine was snatched no help has been forthcoming, despite early requests from senior Portuguese detectives."

"The Portuguese source explained: “This was fully discussed with Leicestershire Police and officials with the British Government.

“We were confident of getting progress because of Gordon Brown’s interest in the case and this apparent special relationship between Britain and the United States.

“Your ambassador to Portugal even visited our officers soon after the kidnap.

“The bad news for us is that we got nowhere with this avenue of inquiry, which was both frustrating and infuriating.”

For, despite all the talk, nothing appears to have been done officially with the British government and the formal requests were never made."
It seems that if Leicestershire police received the request, they did not pass it on and we need to ask why.

THE INVESTIGATION HAMPERED FROM THE BEGINNING

Early on in the investigation, the Portuguese police asked the British authorities for information about the McCanns and their friends with whom they went on holiday to Praia da Luz. That information never came. Specifically information about bank accounts was requested. This was part of the reply:

""No record of a current bank account is held," said the English about Madeleine's father, adding that "there is no record of credit cards or loans."

The request for this information was repeated in the rogatory letter sent in November 2007 to England. The British authorities refused the request and simply said, as a justification, that they would not provide financial information on the couple. And the information never arrived.

In January this year, when British journalists tried to clarify the situation, this was the response from the Home Office:

"The Home Office (British Ministry of Foreign Affairs) cannot confirm or deny" that the McCanns have had bank accounts between the 25 of April 2007 and 12 September 2008."

The complete Home Office response can be read on the McCann Files web site. This is an extract from that response:

"Your request for information has been considered under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act) and we are now able to provide you with a substantive response to your request.
Section 1 of the Act places two duties on public authorities when handling requests. The first of these duties, provided at s1(1)(a) is to confirm or deny whether the information requested is actually held by that authority. The second duty is for that information to be disclosed where it has been confirmed that it exists. This is provided under s1(1)(b).
The Home Office can neither confirm nor deny that we hold information relevant to your request as our duty under s1(1)(a) does not apply by virtue of the following provisions of the Act:
* Section 27(4) – prejudice to International Relations;
* Section 31(3) – prejudice to Law Enforcement activities; and
* Section 38(2) – endangering Health & Safety.
This letter therefore also serves as a refusal notice under s17(1) of the Act.

(The above information was published by Correio da Manha in February 2009 and translated by Joana Morais.)

YET ANOTHER REFUSAL UNDER THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT

"A Magical Mystery Tour," the McCann Files, October 17th 2009.

"On March 19 this year the FOI News reported thus:

'Sensitive e-mails concerning the hunt for missing child Madeleine McCann will remain secret for fear of offending the Portuguese authorities who were tasked with finding her.

'A request for the disclosure of 13 e-mails and one letter, which were written in the two months after Madeleine went missing, was refused by the Information Commissioner.'...........

............"'He went on to say: "...even now, to disclose full information about the then ambassador's communications with the Portuguese authorities then, on a balance of probabilities, substantial damage to the international relationship would result."

Read the full text of the article here: The McCann Files

So, there appears to be quite a lot of evidence here that the British authorities did not wish to assist the police of another EU sovereign state in their investigation into the disappearance of a British child.

* Information on bank accounts - not forthcoming.
* Request for communication between the British ambassador and the Portuguese authorities under the FOI Act, refused.
* Request for satellite imaging information: never formally passed on by the Leicestershire police.

Further, an early request to the British authorities for Madeleine McCann's medical records was refused. Why?

Putting all these requests together with these facts: that there were 48 questions Kate McCann refused to answer when questioned by the Portuguese police; the McCanns did a quick flit from Portugal immediately after being made arguidos and later refused to return to participate in a reconstruction of the events; the many inconsistencies and contradictions in the witness statements from the "Tapas Nine," it is no wonder the Portuguese police decided to archive this case. When banging one's head against a brick wall, it must be wonderful when you stop!

The Sunday Express has made significant moves towards the re-opening of the Madeleine McCann case. Perhaps it's time for other UK newspapers to take up the baton.

After the Carter Ruck/Trafigura fiasco, perhaps a few journalists need to be asking why Madeleine's parents needed to use Carter Ruck to attempt to silence the Madeleine Foundation, who were publishing information already in the public domain. Letters from Carter Ruck to the Madeleine Foundation can be viewed here.
The Madeleine Foundation: the site the McCanns want to ban. (With the heavyweight help of Messrs Carter Ruck.)

Whoosh....cluck! Gone!

On the right is an image of the front page of the Sunday Express, which I have just bought from my local newsagent's. I managed to bag the last copy from the rack at, "Lee's News And Booze," though I think the sell-out may have more to do with the free plants and Alan Titchmarsh book offers than with, "MADDY: 60 FACE QUIZ BY POLICE."

The Maddy story was available in the online edition ot the Sunday Express in the wee hours, or should that be hour after midnight. By 1.02am, a poster on the 3A forum was reporting that the article had gone...whoosh clucked! Still, those intrepid investigators at the 3A have saved the original!

The Three Arguidos Forum See Ines at 9.36pm

"As arguidos, or official suspects, the couple have the right to demand that certain individuals be seen by police if they are believed to hold relevant information. Despite plans for the Portuguese investigators to return home on Friday, British police will mount a full-scale operation in which more than 50 more witnesses will be interviewed. These will include other guests who were staying at the resort, Ocean Club apartments staff and holidaymakers staying nearby."

Later in the morning, another article appeared on the Sunday Express site, "TAPAS SEVEN FACE NEW MADELEINE QUIZ" but a search later found this message, " ARTICLE MISSING The article you are looking for does not exist. It may have been deleted." Whoosh cluck! Another one gone! I didn't read anything in either of those articles, which could be construed as libel and the comments posted by the Express all seemed rather circumspect to me, but hey, when that mighy whoosher gets going, things disappear! (Disclaimer: I am not intending to identify any person as the, "mighty whoosher.)

I see that the article published in The People is still online. KATE AND GERRY MCCANN TO BE CLEARED

That's the headline, and it looks very definite. Reading further, though, we encounter some rather more conditional words, like, "may well be."

"A highly-placed Portuguese legal source told The People last night: "I can confirm a review of the case will be concluded next month. It may well be the case that Kate and Gerry's arguido status is about to be dropped."

I wonder why the People's article didn't get whoosh clucked!

You can still find, "Sunday's National Front Pages," at Sky News

Now, for those who don't know the origin of the, "Whoosh cluck!" expression, here is a short video for your entertainment!