Did the Mcanns refuse to alow the twins to be tested for drugs in their system

[SapphireSteel]

I for one would love an examination of the accounts to see exactly what has been spent, on what.

I will bet my house that the bulk of donations have gone to legal costs, another chunk directly into the McCann bank account, and less than one quarter will be spent on actually "searching".

In fact, I think all searches have now ceased...they aren't even pretending to look any more.

<modsnip>.

I wonder at which point <modsnip> acknowledge the fund is no longer used as it was intended to be used, instead is a major source of profiteering and finance for those involved?

<modsnip>

:banghead:

My opinion only.

:cow:

 

[brit1981]

Yes private companies in the UK do share their financial accounts annually, it is the law. Here is some mor einfo on Uk company law http://www.companieshouse.gov.uk/about/gbhtml/gp2.shtml

The point in setting up a private company is nto to hide the accounts. There is no law int he UK which make sindividuels put their own personal accoutn sup for public scrutiny, so if the mccanns had wanted to hide the accoutns they coudl quite legally have kept the money in their own accoutn or set up an account in madeleine's name. The point of setting up a company is thta i this case it provides publicly available accounts, transparency and accountability. This is not provided by keeping the money in your own account.

If one looks at the accoutn sit only talks about the funds legal costs, not personal legal costs. because it is a company it means money cannot just be taken out for a court case in someone else's name. It woudl have to be the company sueing not the mccanns. The fund has its own legal costs related to administration. The mccanns own legal costs have been taken care of by a conditional fee agreement which means the mccanns do not have to spend a penny on court fees. If they win the loser pays the fees, if they lose the lawyer's insurance covers the fees. So far no-one has come up with any evidence that the fund has paid for anythign other than its own legal costs. Nor has anyone come up with a shred of proff that the fund ever paid the mccanns anythign other than two mortgage payments which allowed them to stay in Portugal. Not one shred of proof has ever been demonstrated thta the fund was used to pay for cars, clothes, or holidays.

 

[SapphireSteel]

As a private company they can elect their board of directors.

It is this board of Directors who signs off on expenditure.

The board is made up of McCann family and friends.

There is no requirement for transparency, as a private company the BOD spends what it likes, how it likes, on whom it likes, as is its legal right.

Which is the entire point of setting up a private company. They are not legally required to supply anything more than a profit and loss statement.

 

[Clutchbag]

exactly

 

[SapphireSteel]

The silence is deafening.

Those darn facts...always get in the way of a good story.

:cow:

 

[Chewy]

Please don't get me wrong, I didn't come on here to have an argument with you but I thought that other posters may have been under certain misapprehensions. However I did get it wrong about Kate's mother when it was her father who said that they may have given her Calpol, which the Mc's confirmed they took with them. Like I say this is not unusual, we probably did the same. I did not say it is a sedative.

Re the shutters, here is a transcript from a televised interview with Gerry's sister (BBC East Midlands 4/4/07)

Trish Cameron: They last checked at half past nine; they were all sound asleep, sleeping; windows shut; shutters shut. Kate went back at ten o'clock to check; the front door was lying open; the window had been tampered with; the shutters had been jammied open... or whatever you call it, and Madeleine was missing.


So I don't think that can be "claiming" to be an interview. I agree it's still only a second hand version.

I wasn't there obviously and don't know what happened.

If this is true, I don't see how the mother's first instinct would be a kidnapping unless she knew the child couldn't have opened the door. Her reaction is what cinches it to me that she had drugged her.

 

[SapphireSteel]

If this is true, I don't see how the mother's first instinct would be a kidnapping unless she knew the child couldn't have opened the door. Her reaction is what cinches it to me that she had drugged her.

Add in the fact that she ran back to the restaurant, leaving the apartment wide open and her remaining babies alone again.

Please.

:sick:

 

[Chewy]

Yep, the fact that she ran all the way back to the Tapas bar instead of screaming for help from the room, is suspect as well. But panic perhaps.

I don't think they killed her. I think they know she's dead though.

 

[Donjeta]

Yep, the fact that she ran all the way back to the Tapas bar instead of screaming for help from the room, is suspect as well. But panic perhaps.

I don't think they killed her. I think they know she's dead though.

The third alternative is to take the children with you. Fourth, use a phone if there is one.

 

[SapphireSteel]

The third alternative is to take the children with you. Fourth, use a phone if there is one.

Those apartments all had phones, direct to reception. She could've (should've) picked up the phone and alerted everyone right then with one call, including 911.

That would be what a normal person would do.

You would think someone with medical training would manage to think of it.

:banghead:

 

[gord]

having a go at Kate for running back towards the restaurant and somehow linking this to she must be guilty is just wriong IMO

Noone knows how they would react when the panic and realisation that their child is missing sets in - unless you are actualy in the situation then who knows - I certainly will not crticisize anyone for actions as stress panic, horror can do strange things

 

[brit1981]

her reaction that they must have been kidnapped is not abnormal. Firstly, she had seen that the patio door was closed, and that the two gates leading from the patio to the road were both shut and latched. A todddler is unlikely to not only open all three, but shut them and latch them behind them.
Secondly, if you know a toddler could nto have opened and shut the door and gate sin this manner, and they are not there, and you see a window open that you left closed, anyones first instinct in that moment is going to be "oh god, someones taken them". That is a natural reaction, and I have seen plenty of people who cannot find their children panic and starting screaming they have been abducted within minutes. Its fear.
And thirdly, so what if she panicked and left the flat, again panic and fear does not make for immediate logic. Very few people woudl be calm enough in this situation to sit down, and dial out to the local police (especially given that the number for the police is different in Portugal, and most people in the UK do not think of 112 when calling emergency services). Unless someone has been in that situation it is wrong to sit back in judgement and state as a fact that this is how people behave when their child has been abducted. No two people are the same, so no two reactions are exactly the same. This goes for all emergency situations.

 

[Donjeta]

I think what may strike some people as odd is that despite all that fear and panic there seems to have been no instinct to protect the remaining children. Maybe she thought that the abductor had gone and was not likely not come back for the other children and was right but if one is not sure one might not want to take the risk and leave the rest of the kids out of their sights for a moment.

Why would she assume that Madeleine would have had to latch the gates behind her if she wandered off on her own? There were no gates at the front door, were there?

 

[gord]

I think what may strike some people as odd is that despite all that fear and panic there seems to have been no instinct to protect the remaining children. Maybe she thought that the abductor had gone and was not likely not come back for the other children and was right but if one is not sure one might not want to take the risk and leave the rest of the kids out of their sights for a moment.

Why would she assume that Madeleine would have had to latch the gates behind her if she wandered off on her own? There were no gates at the front door, were there?

I think that there is a lot about this case that is odd - that is why we are still discussing it 5 years later as one thing that is for certain and something we can all agree on - it is a mystery !!

who knows what thought process goes through your head when a little one goes missing - we were in the park the other day - a big park and this Mum came running towards in panic almost hysterical shouting for her kid - just running looking - no sense of calm - the little one had just wandered off towards some other kids and was safety on her arms in minutes - but I saw the fear and panic beginning to rise in her voice and eyes - and this was after 3 minutes of not seeing

 

[brit1981]

I think panic sets in and people do not think straight at first. people do all sorts of illogical stuff when they are first hit by fear and panic. I have heard of people stood by open windows during a fire refusing to jump out even though others have because they are too scared, and instead get burnt to death, i have heard of people finding their child injured at home and running out in the streets carrying them screaming instead of calming performing first aid, and dialing 112. I was in a shopping centre the other day and a person could not find their child, instead of calling security he just ran around screaming (I actually called security, and child was found safe and well, just lost). Logic does not go well with immediate fear and panic.

The front door was too big for a child of that age to open, and close (and again would a toddler close a door like that behind them), so the route woudl have been via the patio door, but that meant she had to open and then close and latch two gates as well as the patio doors. Plus the window was open, something a child of that size was unlikely to do.

 

[Donjeta]

Does opening the front door from the inside require having a key? Otherwise I'm not a big believer on children being unable to open doors. All my three year olds have been able to open doors that didn't require a key. (I learned it the hard way, I found the door open and the child was nowhere to be seen but luckily he didn't get hit by a car.) If they can't reach they find something to climb on. Sometimes we underestimate what children are able to do. And if there was something wrong with the lock and it didn't even lock properly..?

I don't think a three year old is likely to close and latch several gates behind her but pushing one door shut is certainly possible imo.

 

[Chewy]

Once again, I don't think the mother killed the child, I think she drugged her and that is why she immediately knew she had been taken. Her panic in running back may have been to get the instant help she knew was a minute away. So that's ok in my mind.

But that she immediately knew she'd been kidnapped doesn't fly with me unless she knew it was impossible for Madeline to get up. If she had drugged her, this would make sense.

 

[brit1981]

Donjeta,
thats the point you found the door open. The front door was closed as were all the other doors. Is it really so surprising that Kate did not think madeleine opened the window and shutter herself, opened either the front door and closed it fully behind her, or opened the patio door and two gates and closed them fully behind her. It is not so much the opening of doors, but the fact a toddler would not close them properly behind them.
Kate did say her immediate reaction was to look in the flat to see if she was hiding or something, and only when she realised she was not anywhere in the flat did she run out screaming so i do not think that indicates she knew madeleine could not move. I would do the same, just be filled with panic and fear. So it could be that madeleine did leave of her own accord (but that leaves the window issue), but i do not think kate is suspicious by panicking that she was abducted.

 

[Donjeta]

Donjeta,
thats the point you found the door open. The front door was closed as were all the other doors. Is it really so surprising that Kate did not think madeleine opened the window and shutter herself, opened either the front door and closed it fully behind her, or opened the patio door and two gates and closed them fully behind her. It is not so much the opening of doors, but the fact a toddler would not close them properly behind them.
Kate did say her immediate reaction was to look in the flat to see if she was hiding or something, and only when she realised she was not anywhere in the flat did she run out screaming so i do not think that indicates she knew madeleine could not move. I would do the same, just be filled with panic and fear. So it could be that madeleine did leave of her own accord (but that leaves the window issue), but i do not think kate is suspicious by panicking that she was abducted.

Madeleine wasn't the only one in the apartment though. How did she know that Gerry or that other guy who had been in the apartment hadn't opened the window? If they didn't see Madeleine she could have been gone by the time they got there. Matt could have unthinkingly closed the gates that Madeleine left open behind her and it might not have registered with him if he didn't know how they were left.

People are different but I think if I had left my children alone at night and knew that they had been awake before, asking for me, I would panic that they have woken up again and gone looking for me, and ohmygodthereisthepoolshecan'tswim...

Perhaps the window looked obviously tampered with criminal intent, I don't know.

Sometimes the draft will close doors automatically. It happens at our home sometimes if there is a window open at the other end of the house.

 

[SapphireSteel]

The McCann stories changed as the evidence changed.

The window shutter was jemmied, then it was not.

The doors were locked, then they were not.

The windows had recently been cleaned and there was only one fingerprint found - Kate's.

If this isn't proof of deception, I don't know what is.

:dunno: