It would be interesting to see how many people here at WS have actually donated to the Find Madeleine Fund.
NO- Never have, and never will
Yes- I gave at the beginning, but will not give again
Yes- I gave, and will continue to give until she is found
NO- I would, but I can't afford to
It would be interesting to see how many people here at WS have actually donated to the Find Madeleine Fund.
Nope. I have thought from the beginning that the parents were at fault. At the very least the endangered their children by leaving them alone, but I think it went much further than that.
No - by the time I heard about the fund, they already had wealthy doners like Richard Branson and J. K. Rowling.
I didn't understand then, and really don't understand now, where all that money went. Posters don't cost millions of dollars.
Both of them have good jobs (well did).
I don't think they are hurting for cash.
Sounds like Drew Peterson, then everyone finds out he gave a ton of money to his grown son....
Nope, no way I would...
Money is the root of all evil.
I would look for a missing child, a campaign is not necessary.
Maddie's face was broadcast all over the world. I can think of other ways of making sure people don't forget about her without taking people's money to pay my mortgage.
Never have....never will.
I'm loving this money discussion! This has always been one of the most bizarre aspects of this case in my mind.
The Madeline fund was incorporated on May 17th IIRC. Barely 15 days after Maddie went missing -- boggled my mind. The truth of the matter is that I have no problem giving even when the money I give goes to support the parents while they are off work searching for their child. I don't have a lost child, but if I did, I think I would find it very difficult to go to work every day and try to act normal. I would appreciate any money I received that would allow me to skip work and concentrate on finding my child. So I can understand needing money to support yourself after any vacation or sick pay runs out.
HOWEVER - setting up a fund? With managers? TWO WEEKs after your child disappears? And you know it takes time to get that done, so they were working on this fund within a weeks time. That makes no sense to me. I can not figure out how the people in Maddie's family thought it was more important to set up some "limited liability company" to receive donations than it was to find her.
Then there is the cost of a Campaign Manager. Not an inexpensive employee. Did the Ramseys have press agents? Again - boggled my mind. WHY, WHY, WHY, do the parents of a missing child need a publicity manager? WHY? I don't get it. You go on TV, you talk to any media outlet you can - you tell the truth, over and over again and you send loving messages to your child in the hopes that he/she will hear them. How does that take a "spokesperson"?
I don't get it......
"Don't flinch, don't foul, and hit the line hard." -- Theodore Roosevelt .
First of all, it is true that many months after the disappearance, Sky News reporter Ian Woods denied that the McCanns called them directly on the night of the disappearance.
But what Ian Woods does say is that a "friend" of the McCanns called GMTV to set up an interview for the next morning by 8 a.m. That "friend" was Jill Renwick, and what she said to GMTV is in this article:
Notice that even though the search for Maddie had barely begun, the McCanns were already feeling "let down" by the police, as if it was the fault of the police that their daughter was missing. So they had Jill Renwick ranting to both GMTV and the BBC by 7:45 the next morning that the police weren't doing enough. I find that odd in the extreme.Jill Renwick, a family friend, told GMTV at 7:45am, on the morning of 04 May, that the distraught parents were certain that Madeline had been abducted. "They were just watching the hotel room and going back every half-hour."
She said the parents went out about 8pm, checked on the children at 9pm and then when they "went back in at 10pm she was gone".
Ms Renwick said: "Poor Kate and Gerry don't know where to turn. She's obviously been taken as she couldn't have gone out on her own and the shutters had been forced open."
"The shutters had been broken open and they've gone into the room and taken her."
Speaking to the BBC later, Ms Renwick said the McCanns, who had been holidaying with three other British families, had felt let down by police in Portugal. "I spoke to them this morning and they said the police had done nothing overnight and they felt as if they'd been left on their own. They just don't know where to turn."
However, the manager at the Mark Warner resort, John Hill said the police had been doing all they could. He said around 60 staff and guests at the complex had searched until 4.30am while police notified border police, Spanish police and airports.
So supposedly, according to Ian Woods, those interviews by Renwick were the "first time" that Sky News heard about Maddie. However they apparently didn't check Google News . . .
A blogger named "Joana Morais" noticed that a newspaper article appeared overnight in the British Press - the Telegraph - talking about Madeleine. Who called them with specific information? No one knows for sure, but the Telegraph story was supposedly in the paper by 12 a.m., just two hours after Maddie disappeared.
Check the time and date:
So that report comes from the Foreign Office just two hours after Maddie went missing - that's not alot of time for a report to get out.Three year-old feared abducted in Portugal
By staff and agencies
Last Updated: 12:01am BST 04/05/2007
A three-year-old British girl has gone missing while on a family holiday in Portugal, the Foreign Office said today.
Portuguese police are investigating the disappearance from a holiday complex in Praia da Luz in the western Algarve.
A Foreign Office spokesman said that he understood the girl's parents had gone to have dinner once their children were asleep last night, but returned to check on them only to find the girl had gone missing.
The blogger made the point of noticing that Portugal and Britain are in the same time zone, and I think that's significant.
Okay - another point:
We have three different articles from that first week that mention John Corner, the godfather of the Twins. Kate called him immediately on the night Maddie went missing, and he has been highly involved in everything. He owns a Media company. He is quoted in three early articles saying that he talked to Kate immediately after Madeleine disappeared:
Jon Corner, founder of Liverpool-based River Media, is godfather to the McCann’s twins and his wife has known Mrs McCann since they were both three. The co-founder of city centre-based River Media, and a father-of-three himself, said: “Kate phoned me in the early hours totally devastated."
River Media Company
Products and Services
TV and Film - Production and Post Production
Now - he may not be a famous newsman, and he may not be a journalist, but he is a Media Specialist who deals with "TV and Film," and he is probably the person who alerted some of the media. So we don't have to be Sherlock Holmes to think that Kate might have known good and well that this man might give their story to the media right away.
John Corner also shot a video diary of the McCanns for a Panorama Special about the "predator" who stole Maddie:
He is not an objective journalist at all, but someone involved with the spin due to his connection with the family from the very first night.
The McCanns seemed to be on the phone all night long to many, many people. None of us here can know for sure that they didn't call some media. We know they called a Corner. We know that Jill Renwick had an interview by the next morning. So what is the difference? The story was out really fast, and Kate was already spinning it her own way, with broken shutters and abductors and police who weren't doing anything. And that's why I don't trust what she said that night.
WOW, T-Fox, that is some pretty interesting stuff you posted. I think it is pretty fair to say the McCanns had a plan in place rather quickly. It is strange that Kate was calling friends in a different country that night rather than out searching and knocking on doors. In such a frenzy, and at the though of your child being in the arms of an abductor, it is quite remarkable that she could even FIND the PHONE NUMBERS of these people, let alone call them and relay information on where they were at, their checking habits, and details of the "abduction".
For the information to be published in a British Newspaper in as little as 2 hours is pretty damning evidence.
Last edited by iNTERESTEDWOMAN; 01-12-2008 at 09:12 PM. Reason: spelling
Nice work, Thoughtfox, excellent post.
There's three conclusions we can draw from those facts:
The McCanns (regardless of personal guilt in Madeleine's disappearance) are a well-connected couple with influential friends. Every resource available and then some was used from the early hours--at their direction.
The McCanns were able to stay focused in efforts to call friends and those connections in the early hours. Those efforts focused on the media.
The result of the McCanns' efforts was that immediately, the "facts" were presented that a little British girl had been abducted. Instead of "a little girl is missing, what happened to her" the focus of all news reports was immediately "abducted." This, with no evidence other than the "broken shutters" whose exact condition still remains uncertain.
What the McCanns (and the Tapas 9) were actually doing from the late evening into the early hours of the next day is very different than the general picture presented by reporters and sympathetic friends/family. They were making phone calls and then went to bed (or at least back to their apartment alone with the twins.) They were not walking the beaches and the streets of the town, distraught, calling Madeleine's name, for hours. This is not of course evidence in itself of any personal involvement, but it is a discrepancy they have never publicly made clear.
The image of them walking the beaches, calling Maddie's name is much more sympathetic than the image of them on cellphones calling their media connections.
Thanks, Texana and Interested Woman.
Yes, the McCanns immediately called everyone they knew - whom they must have had on speed dial - and told them they were "disappointed in the police." So immediately, the police became the problem and the parents victims, and even though the police made some mistakes, the idea that Maddie was abducted did not come from the cops, but clearly from the parents and straight to the British Media. So I think you can definitely make a case that it was the McCanns who alerted the media to an "abduction."
Whether it really was an abduction is still unsolved.
Thought Fox--great posts! Thanks for all the research you put into this.
Those horrible McCanns...their baby's body isn't even cold yet, and they are on the phone getting the spin out to all their media chums. Horrid, horrid people!
There's nothing wrong with them calling their friends and family for support, but while they were doing that they were not out looking. And that just seems illogical to me, because why was getting the message out their priority? Had they checked the all the swimming pools in the area? Had they checked all the streets? Why didn't they just think that Maddie had gotten lost? All those apartments look similar - couldn't she just have gotten disoriented and wandered through another unlocked door? It's possibly what happened.
I don't know what happened, but we know now what they actually did all night that night. I don't think either of them actually went back out until the next morning, which is hard to believe.
The official line from them would be of course that the condition of the shutters said she had been abducted--as well as Cuddlecat's position. But even so--(and we still have never had the shutter condition actually verified, there was a lot of discrepancy in that originally they were broken from the inside, which didn't make sense at all--why take the time to break or open the shutters once inside?)
They would not know if their child had been perhaps abandoned on some street somewhere--or worse but still quite possible, had been abused and then killed/dumped.
The immediate was abandoned in favor of alerting the world to a particular story, when the immediate was available to them. They had translators available, both Murat (no matter what his role truly was, he offered to translate) and they had officials from the Consulate--high level officials who could get translators as well--at the ready--so they could do whatever they wanted that night--
And what they wanted to do, apparently, was notify British citizens that a British child had been abducted.
Something I read a while ago was that Robert was a translator for the local Police while living in Norfolk. Maybe that's why he offered his services that night .
I beleive he also sat in as translator during the Tapas interviews ( as such, he will have known most of what was going on at that time regarding the questioning etc). I think that is why most likely his status of 'arguido' hasn't been lifted as yet, it will help protect him. I really don't think that he is involved, just someone who wanted to help, bit of excitement and fame thrown in.
But he also earned £150 a time as a translator for Norfolk police, using his language skills to help their inquiries among the large Portuguese community in the county.
Mr Murat had a reputation, not only in the car trade but in Hockering, as something of a Good Samaritan.
Angelmom - the date 4/5/2007 is read 4th of May, 2007 unlike in the States where we would read it April 5, 2007.
I knew ThoughtFox wouldn't make an obvious mistake like that but I just couldn't see it. Just goes to show how ingrained certain things are in our brains, even after we've discussed that in previous threads.
ETA: The fact that this hit the news in 2 hours is nothing short of amazing. How could they rule out "wandering off" in that time? They couldn't.