Here is the message to the site;

Hi from Germany!

I paid 5 GBP by PayPal. At this point of time I really thought, they were actually interested in searching for Madeleine and not just to collect money and hoard it for a good life to fourth. It is their moral obligation to all donors, to open the expenditure of funds.

This is the PayPal proof of payment. It is not much but it came from the heart and unfortunately landed directly in their wallets.

So, if you need my help to get them, tell me what I can do.

The person responsible for “wheres-madeleine.info” is clearly miffed at the lack of replies to his messages to the official Madeleine Fund. No wonder – the fund is a scam, fraud and the administrators have no intention of responding to legitimate requests for information. Even the “McCann Supporters” are being duped. Here follows the article:

IT APPEARS THAT THE McCann’s CAN’T BE BOTHERED

Hello and thank you for taking the time to read this article.

This web site is paid for, designed and updated by me to aid awareness of little Maddie, I do this because I want to help in her search.

All this takes up a lot of time and of course I need to be factual in what I put on my site.

This of course can only be done by checking the information I have obtained, this then means I need verification about the information I intend to place on my site from the McCann’s themselves.

Well since my site went live on the internet it has been a constant battle to get the McCann’s web site to answer any of my mails. I have even sent a letter to there home address (No reply to this either). This lack of cooperation with me is not unique to my site; other sites that I am constantly in contact with say they do not have replies either.

Time and time again I have to send mails that go un-answered. Occasionally they do reply with the briefest as possible reply they can get away with, though this does not happen very often at all.

As my site supports them I would have thought that they would be eager to give me information that is not going to hinder there investigations ect, clearly I accept that there will be information that they could not give me but the information that I ask for is things like Photos of Maddie, or if they have any new information that might help.

Well here we go again, I found such an article on the internet and mailed them for conformation and yet again I have been greeted by utter silence, below are the dates I sent the mails of this most recent request…sent to there investigation@findmadeleine.com address…

14 December 2008, 05 December 2008, 02 December 2008

I even told them that I was thinking of closing my site down because of it, which made no difference, still nothing.

I wonder if their financial backer knows how they treat their supporters! if he does not perhaps if he was to find out he might not be so eager to help.

If it was my child and people were trying to help, I would go out of my way to help provide them with as much information as I could, but this does not seem to be the way they are looking at it.

A friend of mine keeps saying to me “I do not know why you even bother, they are not interested, he then states a few reasons why he says this, but I will not state what they are here”.

So I ask you for your views, do you think I should close the site down or not, or do I carry on regardless and possibly put inaccurate information on my site as a result of it.

Please take the time to visit my guestbook and let me know your views.

Processos, Volume 12, Page 226:

Snippets from Statement made by José Maria Batista Roque, GNR Officer about the events of the night of the 3rd May.

During the search he did not find anything strange apart from the bedclothes on Madeleine’s bed, which were too tidy, it appeared that she had been picked up of had left the bed with great care. There was a mark on the sheet that appeared to be made by a child’s body.

After the search, he noticed a situation that seemed unusual to him, when at a determined moment, the girl’s parents kneeled down on the floor of their bedroom and placed their heads on the bed, crying. He did not notice any comments or expression from them, just crying. Upon leaving from the main reception the father also knelt down, placing his head on the floor and crying. He did not hear the father say anything.

He never heard the parents ask to see a priest.

He found the parents to be nervous and anxious, he did not see any tears from either of them although they produced noises identical to crying. He did not feel that this was an abduction, although this was the line indicated by the father.

Processos, Volume 12, Page 231

Snippet From the Statement by Nelson Filipe Pacheco de Costa about the events of the night of 3rd May.

GNR Officer

One of the group contacted Sky News and the Embassy that night. He does not know if the parents made the call.

Upon leaving the apartment he saw various photographs of the little girl printed on normal A4 paper which had been printed at the reception as well as other photos printed on 10 x 15 photographic poster paper which could not have printed at the reception. This seemed unusual to him and he later confirmed that they could not have been printed at the reception.

Processos, Volume 11, Pages 190 – 191

Miguel Goncalves Da Costa Palma

Date/Time: 2007/05/07 18H45

G.N.R. Military Personnel

• Concerning the issue of the process said;
• In the sequence of facts, he was with the patrol of the GNR that went to the Ocean Club Gardens establishment (situated in Para da Luz) on night of May 03, 2007, with the goal of investigating the circumstances that surrounded the disappearance of a minor, of British nationality, that was installed there temporarily, together with the rest of her more direct family – knowing these to be, the respective parents, and two siblings, twins, minors, whose name do not need to be clarified;
• Clarifies that the occurrence in question was transmitted to the above referenced patrol via radio, at time when they were located in Odiaxere;
• The patrol of which he took part, and now as a witness, went immediately to the principal reception of the aforementioned establishment, where there was encountered the father of the missing child;
• Following, this patrol went to the residence where the family of said minor was staying in the ‘Ocean Garden’ together with the father;
• At reaching the location, the two elements that made up the patrol , the current witness and his colleague, Nelson Costas, proceeded into the interior of the apartment, with the goal of investigating the contours which eventually surrounded the disappearance of that minor;
• In this sentiment, the deponent states that they searched al the dependencies of the residence and all the pieces of furniture, in order to confirm the disappearance — effectively confirming that that she was not in the interior;
• The questioned made, the deponent states that the access to interior of the residence was accessed through a principal door- this is, a wood door which is placed facing north;
• Inside, the deponent encountered the mother and two siblings of the missing minor;
• The deponent stats that he is unable to specify if that entrance door was found open or closed when he reached the apartment during which he was taking in the facts with the witness is now clarifying;
• In the sequence of confirming the facts of the effective disappearance of that minor, he states that this has been communicated prior, for the reason of helping the Policia Judiciara;
• Urged to reveal other details that may be considered relevant to the investigation, the deponent reveals that he has no other knowledge of any elements that may help contribute to that end;
• And nothing more said, having read the statement, finds it in conformity and signs it;

The document is duly signed by me …

Pedro Varanda, an Inspector with this Polícia Judiciária.

Processos, Volume II, Pages 192 – 194

Nelson Filipe Pacheco da Costa

Date/Time: 2007/05/07 18H45

G.N.R. Military Personnel

• Concerning the issue of the process said;
• In the sequence of facts, he was with the patrol of the GNR that went to the Ocean Club Gardens establishment (situated in Para da Luz) on night of May 03, 2007, with the goal of investigating the circumstances that surrounded the disappearance of a minor, of British nationality, that was installed there temporarily, together with the rest of her more direct family – knowing these to be, the respective parents, and two siblings, twins, minors, whose name do not need to be clarified;
• Clarifies that the occurrence in question was transmitted to the above referenced patrol via radio, at time when they were located in Odiaxere;
• The patrol of which he took part, and now as a witness, went immediately to the principal reception of the aforementioned establishment, where there was encountered the father of the missing child;
• Following, this patrol went to the residence where the family of said minor was staying in the ‘Ocean Garden’ together with the father;
• At reaching the location, the two elements that made up the patrol , the current witness and his colleague, Jose Roque, proceeded into the interior of the apartment, with the goal of investigating the contours which eventually surrounded the disappearance of that minor;
• In this sentiment, the deponent states that they searched al the dependencies of the residence and all the pieces of furniture, in order to confirm the disappearance — effectively confirming that that she was not in the interior;
• The question made, the deponent states that the access to interior of the residence was accessed through a principal door- that is, a wood door which is placed facing north;
• Inside, the deponent encountered the mother and two siblings of the missing minor;
• The deponent stats that he is unable to specify if that entrance door was found open or closed when he reached the apartment during which he was taking in the facts with the witness is now clarifying;
• In the sequence of confirming the facts of the effective disappearance of that minor, he states that this has been communicated prior, for the reason of helping the Policia Judiciara;
• States that other details that may be relevant to the investigation concerns that they were directed to a citizen, of British nationality, who made up the group of tourists together with the family, name of Jane Tanner, and who detected the presence of a suspicious movement of an individual in the immediate area above identified, in the discourse of which was seen transporting a child of an early age;
• And nothing more said, having read the statement, finds it in conformity and signs it;
• The document is duly signed by me …

Pedro Varanda, an Inspector with this Polícia Judiciária.

Her email details are being withheld for privacy.

Here is her message;

Hi, I paid by PayPal on 21st May 2007. On news reports the Fund had been described as a charity. Also in the event of Madeleine being found alive or otherwise, the money would help other missing children.

I would not have donated if I had had any thoughts that Fund money would be used towards mortgage payments or private investigaters, in view of the fact the McC’s have not fully co-operated with the PJ/police.

£10.00 was not a lot but I had intended to give monthly that ammount. Luckily I became aware of Sky and Mirror forums where I learnt there was more to the Case than first thought….

I will do whatever I can to help towards justice for Madeleine or to show up thie Charade for what it is

It has been very difficult to leave Sean and Amelie but it is only for one nght and we will be back to see them before bedtime tomorrow. Trish and Sandy (Madeleine’s Godparents) who have been with us in Portugal since Day 2 are looking after them and we were surprised to hear they were tucked up in bed by 7.30pm- they must like their new beds!

1. It seems reasonable to assume from this description that 7:30pm was not the normal bedtime for the children.
2. It seems reasonable to assume that the children normally went to bed later than 7:30pm.

Sandra Felgueiras interviewed the McCanns around the one year anniversary of her disappearance. Listen to the audio with the player below. At around 3:00 minutes, Gerry McCann says;

…our children were asleep by 7:30 and that’s normal. We were dining…7:30 and that’s normal for us…and Madeleine was exhausted…Our children would go to bed seven…seven thirty.

Gerry emphasises that 7 or 7:30pm is the normal bedtime. Why then did Gerry comment in his blog that he was surprised to hear the twins went to bed by this time?

Liars need to be consistent with their stories. Clearly in this case, Mr McCann was not consistent.

Straight and to the Point – The Irresponsible McCanns

My Madeleine McCann Opinion

Hypocrites in Rothley – Doctors Should Show an Example

ADVANTAGES & DISADVANTAGES OF A COMPANY LIMITED BY GUARANTEE. INCORPORATE NON-PROFIT COMPANY IN THE UNITED KINGDOM

A company limited by guarantee is normally registered for non-profit making functions. The company has no share capital. A company limited by guarantee has members, rather than shareholders, the members of the company guarantee/undertake to contribute a predetermined sum to the liabilities of the company which becomes due in the event of the company being wound up. It cannot distribute its profits to its members, and is therefore eligible to apply for charitable status if necessary. Guarantee companies are useful for non-profit organisations that require corporate status. This means that its profits are not distributed to its members but are retained to be used for the purposes of the guarantee company.

Of course this does not mean that the guarantee company cannot make a profit, as indeed it is almost paramount that it can and does so. These companies are normally used for non profit making or charitable causes, the memorandum and articles of association state the general objects of the company, prohibit the payment of dividends to members and if the company is wound up all assets must be transferred to another organisation with similar objects or to a charity.

In British company law, a company limited by guarantee is an alternative type of corporation used primarily for non-profit organisations that require legal personality. A guarantee company does not have a share capital, but has members who are guarantors instead of shareholders. The guarantors give an undertaking to contribute a nominal amount (typically £1.00) towards the winding up of the company in the event of a shortfall upon cessation of business.

It cannot distribute its profits to its members, and is therefore eligible to apply for charitable status if necessary.

Common uses of guarantee companies include clubs, membership organisations (including students’ unions, sports associations, workers’ co-operatives, other social enterprises, non-governmental organizations and charities.

Because the company form features a participating membership, it is suitable for representative organisations such as tenants’ associations, pressure groups and federations, where it is necessary for the governing body to be accountable to the people the organisation claims to represent. In such a company the directors will normally be elected by and from the membership.

However, it is possible to design a company where the only members are also the directors, who are thus only constitutionally accountable to one another. Such a structure may be preferred where greater stability is required without the potential for power blocs to develop within a larger membership. In this case, how the directors get to be appointed will be laid down in the articles. In some cases, directors are effectively self-perpetuating, with future directors appointed by the present ones.

In other cases, the articles will specify organisations or agencies which are entitled to nominate one or more directors, or detail some other procedure by which directors are identified ands appointed.

When incorporating multi-stakeholder organisations, this form is sometimes preferred over the industrial and provident society because company law allows multiple classes of member with separate voting constituencies.

A company limited by guarantee is a legal entity which exists in its own right in the eyes of the law, separate and distinct from the individuals who are involved in it. A company is like a person in law. It can sue, or to be sued, in its own name; it can enter into contracts, and can own property all in its own name. The company limited by guarantee and having shares can be structured as a private family foundation.

These type of companies (private companies limited by guarantee) are used by charities and for not for profit promotion of education, commerce, art science and sport, or for promoting the interests of a particular section of society, or for a particular policy.

Management / Governance Structure

Essentially two-tier, with a board of directors accountable to a wider membership (sometimes referred to as a “participating membership”). Members will typically hold voting rights at general meetings and will elect all or some of the directors.

Further embellishments may be added to this basic structure, e.g. an executive committee (smaller than the governing body, perhaps made up of honorary officers and senior staff), or a members’ council, which may meet more frequently than the full membership and supervise the work of the directors. However, it is possible (and quite common) to create a single-tier structure by simply stating that only directors may be members and vice-versa. Thus although these two roles will still exist within the company, the same people will perform both.

All companies are required to have a secretary, usually described as the senior administrator. This person may also be a member or director, but need not be. In funded community and voluntary organisations, the post of secretary will often form part of the job description of a member of staff.

A company limited by guarantee is a registered company having the liability of its members limited by the memorandum to such amounts as the members may respectively undertake to contribute to the assets of the company in the event of its being wound up. Such companies are widely used for schools, professional and trade associations, clubs and management companies for blocks of flats (check our special property management package.)

Guarantee Company: its Differences

The main differences between a guarantee company and a company with shares are:

• Its members do not receive share certificates and whilst they control the guarantee company, through decisions taken by them at General Meetings, they do each not “own” a proportionate part of the guarantee company.
• Its members cannot receive any dividend, profit or other income from the guarantee company, nor can they receive a share of its assets if it comes to an end.
• Its members enjoy limited liability, but usually have to pay an annual subscription (at a rate set annually by themselves at General Meeting) and, if the guarantee company is forced to come to an end through a liquidation, they are obliged to pay a final sum of £1.00 each to the Liquidator.
• The members (in most cases) elect the Board of Directors (usually called Trustees or Governors to avoid connotations of salaries and bonuses) which is responsible for setting and overseeing the policy of the guarantee company.
• The Directors also enjoy limited liability, provided that they have not acted negligently, or fraudulently, or have not permitted the guarantee company to continue trading when it was insolvent (this is known as “wrongful trading”).

Guarantee Company: Advantages

• Members’ liability is restricted (usually to £1.00 each);
• The guarantee company can hold property and borrow money in its own name;
• The guarantee company is subject to the democratic control of members – both in relation to fundamental decisions (e.g. a change in its constitution) and in relation to election/re-election of the Board;
• It is relatively easy to set up a wholly-owned subsidiary company, with a share capital owned by the guarantee company, which is particularly useful where the guarantee company is a charity and the subsidiary company is to be used for non-charitable trading (often called “a trading subsidiary”).

Interestingly, and never challenged at the time, John went into elaborate detail about the car hired by brother Gerry and said;

“…but some of the, some of the stuff that’s being speculated on just isn’t plausible. Like information appearing about samples in a car which Gerry and Kate only got 5 weeks after Madeleine disappeared.  Are you trying to tell me that Madeleine was hidden for 5 weeks and then was suddenly reappeared in this hire car. It…does not make sense.”

John McCann, the uncle of missing girl Madeleine speaks to the media in Glasgow after her mother Kate was made a formal suspect by police in Portugal.

Listen to this blatant lie here:

Did John make an amazing Freudian Slip? Why did John mention “5 weeks” when he was talking in September 2007 – months after Madeleine had disappeared?

The facts are that the car had been hired on May 27 – 24 days after Madeleine was reported missing. 24 days is a significantly shorter time than 5 weeks.

So, what could be significant about something happening 5 weeks after Madeleine’s demise?

5 weeks after Madeleine disappeared was the weekend commencing Friday June 8, 2007. When we look closely at that weekend, there are several interesting things to note:

The McCann family flew in to the Algarve or were already there for that weekend. Susan and Brian Healy – Kate’s parents – were there. Trish and Sandy Cameron – Gerry’s sister and his brother in-law were there. Philomena flew in to Lisbon and Kate’s long time friend Anne-Marie Wright and her husband Michael had flown in to Faro.

Michael told the police that he and his wife flew in with the specific job of looking after Sean and Amelie while Kate and Gerry went to Morocco on Sunday June 10. Given the large number of close family relatives in town, Michael’s statement to the police is flawed.

On Saturday June 9, 2007, the entire family is supposed to have spent a day at the southwestern tip of Portugal – a town called Sagres.

On the Sunday afternoon, Kate, Gerry and Clarence Mitchell all went up to Lisbon to catch a small private plane laid on especially for them to go to Casablanca in Morocco. Their ultimate destination was Rabat, where a press conference with Sky’s Martin Brunt was held.

North Africa in June is a very hot place to be. Why then was Martin Brunt wearing a white suit, children were wearing t-shirts, but they chose to wear the worst attire possible – black suits more befitting a funeral?

Was Madeleine disposed of during the weekend of June 8? Did John McCann inadvertently let it slip that this was the weekend when Madeleine was finally laid to rest or disposed of?