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 didnt give any money - nothing to do anything - just dont give much of my hard earned to anybody - i donate to one charity monthly and that is that - bit of a scrooge at heart - charity starts at home
To me the fund didnt really bother me - they managed to raise a stack of cash - well that is up to them - all I really was bothered about was - did they do it , if they didnt who did and how - sure I was as upset as anyone that a small girl was missing - but my interest in this case has always been from the mechanics the who duninit angle - if it was them - why - what was the motive etc etc looking at the evidence and timelines .That is my main interest
If they have been thieving from the fund as many people think - then they will get caught in the end . too many people have been involved
It always depends from what angle you come from - of course those who think they did it from the outset will be horrified that they are taking money from the public as well
For me I am coming form the other angle - untikl proved otherwise - so the fund was immaterial - it might have worked .
IF they turn out to be innocent of the charges - then at least I suppose they had a go - did more than most - If they turn out to be guilty - then they will go down as the most cold blooded killers in history
Raising money that is not necessary to such an investigation is insulting, imo. Guilty or not this fund was and is in my opinion a red-herring. The idea that finding a child, who is in the global spotlight somehow depends on financial aid from sympathetic people and not the abilities of LE, media, organizations already in place and the good human nature of people as a whole is crass.
The simple fact that all the money and media hoggish attention they have garnered has not brought her home hits the nail on the head. To continue to ask for donations is a slap in the face. This is not some charity to aid the society for lost children or for counceling or to bring awareness to the plight of bad parenting skills. The idea that any of that money went to pay the salary of CM and the like with the pretense that it is about finding Madelein is sickening. - jmho.
ETA: I've been thinking about what Rino said, and the more I do, the more ticked I get... You know, if CM was in PDL organising search teams, paying for ATV and boat rentals and fuel costs for said searches, buying feed for search animals and making sandwiches and ice tea for the search teams, I would be more sympathetic, but nothing of the sort has happened. It really would be embarrassing to tell anyone you donated to such a farce.
I voted NO also and after reading this, I am glad I didn't.
Date of incorporation of 'Madeleine's Fund: Leaving No Stone Unturned Limited' with Companies House as a private, limited by guarantee, no share capital company.
It is thought the original idea was to set the fund up as a charity but this was rejected when it became clear that a charity cannot be operated for the sole benefit of one person.
One of the things that distinguish a limited company from a charity is that it does not have all the rules and regulations which govern the conduct of the fundraising and which controls the proportion of the charities funds that are spent on overheads, expenses and wages etc.
It was reported at the time that the Charity Commission was extremely disturbed at the way the Fund was being advertised as it gave people the impression that they were donating to a charity - not a private limited company.
The reality is, however unpalatable, that Madeleine's Fund is a private limited company and can therefore spend the money donated in any way it so chooses.
I'm really surprised that more supporters haven't voted that they sent money. I thought it was all about "doing something" to help in the search. At least I've read that comment over and over since September.
But the way I have always felt about it is that the Police in Europe and Britain are already paid to search for this child. She also has legions of people talking about her, documentaries, and her parents are on YouTube for free. Yes, free.
The Internet doesn't cost anything, and neither does YouTube. The media gave the parents interview after interview - for free.
Our discussion here may seem pointless and dull sometimes, but it is free publicity, and we have kept cases alive here longer than anywhere else. We are searchable on the "free" Internet, and that helps anyone who wants to look up a fact about this case.
So again, what did they need all the money for?
Having a fund set up to search and asking for donations might have been planned in order to make the McCanns look less guilty. Maybe that's along with wanting to go ahead and raise some defense money just in case and make up for lost wages are the reasons.
I don't have a problem saying that I didn't contribute.
I wouldn't have a problem saying publicly that I did.
O/T, but FWIW: The things I support with my hard earned (!) cash, I support publicly, they are: Compassion International (we have a child we have supported for over ten years now) our church, Red Cross, Habitat for Humanity, Salvation Army, "Shared Dreams" clothing drive at DD's school, the nonprofit 501-C organization that supports the ballet company my daughters dance in.
Are we all sleeping now? Seriously, if I gave to the McCann fund, I would be happy to say as the idiom goes, "put my money where my mouth is."
Although, as a correction, there's no record or proof that J.K. Rowing ever gave to the Fund itself. She volunteered a reward to anyone who helped find Madeleine, but that money is separate from the Fund.
I'm a stay-at-home Mom on a limited budget. We give to local charities and support the schools, and that's it. If I had more, I might have been tempted to send something in the early days.
However, I don't think any of that money has done any good to find Madeleine. Where's the proof? Most of the evidence has been found by official police searches, and not by these so-called detectives.
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......
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.