BURGLARS, PAEDOPHILES AND SUGGESTIVE PHOTOGRAPHS

Just a collection of facts regarding paedophilia, curious photos and the McCanns ' apparent belief in kind and caring, although practising, paedophiles.

3rd May 2007:

23.00 hrs, OC guest G. McK. approached the McCann’s apartment from the bushes at the rear of the apartment Mr McCann was looking our over the swimming pool and did not see Mr McKenzie. Mr McCann was absolutely distraught telling the person receiving the call that he feared “she had been taken by paedophiles” . He said something along the lines of there being Paedophile gangs in Portugal and that they had abducted Madeleine. I was so shocked by this, having originally thought that she had just wandered off.” unquote

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

12^th May 2007 -Madeleine's fourth birthday.

Her parents mark the day by calling for people to redouble their efforts to find her. After spending most of the day away from Praia da Luz, the couple attend a special birthday mass in the village where Mr McCann speaks about the impact of the abduction on the family. He also says for the first time that the couple are convinced Madeleine is alive.
The total reward being offered by business figures, celebrities and a national newspaper for information leading to Madeleine's safe return reaches £2.5 million.

May 14th May 2007
Mr McCann says that "until there is concrete evidence to the contrary, we believe Madeleine is safe and is being looked after".  (mccannfiles.com)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In view of the the fact that Gerry McCann said within an hour of the  disappearance that this was the work of a gang of paedophiles, and has since frequently stated that there is no evidence that she been harmed  it is surprising that the images posted below were ever  published.
The make-up photo was taken only  weeks before their holiday according to reports.


From the snippets collected here we have:
1. Taken by paedophiles  - this is one hour after she is found missing and this is a child who often wakes up during the night and walks around the house - so how did  GM know?  
2. Convinced she is alive - as from the 12th of May.
3. 2.5 million pledged  if she is found safe - money coming in for the search- 12th of May onwards
4.  Following on from this: Maddie almost definitely alive since evidence to the contrary (a body) not found.
5. Not only alive but being 'looked after'  - this started new theories of  bereft parents kidnapping a child for themselves - Maddie's 'aliveness' is then rather more credible, in addition her findability has now rocketed to near 100%.
6. And by the 17th/18th May the Fund - the 'Fighting Fund'  is operational for a living and findable child even if she has been abducted by a gang of paedophiles. In which case survival would be close to zero.

THIS FUND IS NOT A CHARITY - IT IS A LTD. COMPANY. 
The McCanns tell the public that there will be detailed accounts to show the public what they are doing to find Madeleine. The only detailed account is the first one and was analysed by a forensic accountant. It container numberous 'expenses' such as over £ 30.000,-- for the creation of a website.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Oprah  Winfrey Interview : 4/5/2009 (from Dr. Roberts, McCannfiles.com)

The 'Oprah' dialogue, for example, exposes an alarming self-contradiction by Kate McCann:
 KM: "...there's no evidence at all to suggest that Madeleine's come to any harm."

Yet later we hear a very curious sentence:
KM: "I mean the last thing I want obviously is to cause any extra further harm to Madeleine..." unquote

 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Irish Independent:  McCann family reverse story over break-in 'evidence'
By Shane Hickey   - Thursday October 25 2007
The spokesman for the family of Madeleine McCann has reversed a statement made in the early days of the search for the missing child.
Speaking to RTE's 'Prime Time', Clarence Mitchell said she could "easily" have been kidnapped by an abductor who did not leave the trail of a break-in. [..] "There was no evidence of a break-in," said Mr Mitchell. unquote
Clarence Mitchell, the McCanns spokesman was interviewed by RTE in early October 2007  In the interview Clarence Mitchell was challenged by the reporter about the McCann's version of events with regards the window being used as an entry or escape route at apartment G5A.

The question was provoked as it was now apparent to all through photographic evidence the blinds to the window of the McCanns apartment had not 'smashed' 'jemmied' or 'broken into' in any way as had earlier been described. Jill Renwick, a family friend along with Philomena McCann and Jon Corner and Norah Paul had all publicly insisted that the blinds had been forced and used as an entry point to the McCanns apartment.

Mitchell's response to the question was: "There was no evidence of a break-in... but I am not going to go into the detail. I can tell you off camera, but I am not going to go into the detail on camera."

unquote

Daily Mail: Maddie plays dressing-up, weeks before she vanished: McCanns fly back to Portugal in bid to reopen case - and release new picture  10:12 PM on 1st May 2010
Kate and Gerry McCann have released a new picture of their daughter Madeleine as they prepare to commemorate tomorrow’s third anniversary of her disappearance.
The photo shows her when she was three after a raid on the dressing-up box – she has a pink bow in her hair and a gold bead necklace and is wearing blue eyeshadow.
It was taken weeks before the fateful family holiday to the Portuguese resort of Praia da Luz when Madeleine vanished. She had been left sleeping with her younger twin siblings, Sean and Amelie, on May 3, 2007.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/madeleine-mccann-a-new-film-to-remind-us-of-her-disappearance-1960386.html

[..] She is a little girl once more, her eyelids glistening with blue eyeshadow, a pink ribbon holding her blonde bob in place and a gold necklace hanging from her neck. Or at least that is how Madeleine McCann appears in a new video released today to mark a bitter anniversary, as her desperate parents attempt to refocus the world's attention on their missing daughter.

The still pictures of Madeleine messing around with her mother's make-up and jewelry at her home punctuate a poignant video, shot by a family friend to commemorate the 1,000th day since her disappearance, and which is being made available for all to watch and remember the anguish of those first few painful days. unquote (see photographs below)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Photograph published in: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ghIWyEdEB00 (at 1 minute).

Suggestive photo-shopped image - arm is disconnected, there is no way the elbow can connect upper and lower arm. Maddie is  apparently having an icecream (melting)  and an ice lolly at the same time. The make-up photo has been extensively discussed on forums.

The point of this collection of facts is mainly to draw attention to the Freud/Murdoch  link. Elizabeth Murdoch and Matthew Freud link to Rebekah Brooks and politicians - all of these have close connections to the McCann case.
The photographs above are merely question marks - how on earth could parents publish these images when they themselves have frequently stated that this 4 - year old was abducted by paedophiles?
As for Freud, he died in 2009, by that time, if not before, it would certainly be known in certain quarters that his sexual preferences weren't exactly legal. Why did it take another 7 years before this came out?

DARK ARTS AND MASTERS OF SPIN

To be fair to the press:  this article is of interest- especially the connection between Hacked Off and the last paragraph.

The people who know best: Dark arts and links with the Masters of Spin...

By RICHARD PENDLEBURY  http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2233716/Dark-arts-links-Masters-Spin-.html

PUBLISHED: 00:37 GMT, 16 November 2012 | UPDATED: 08:09 GMT, 16 November 2012

          Beyond Authority, the book written by Common Purpose and Media Standard Trust founder Julia Middleton setting out her leadership ethos, contains several instructive passages about the 'long games' and other strategies she advocates for success. 

In a chapter which begins 'So what of conspiring? The "dark arts"?', Middleton quotes approvingly and at length one Doug Miller. He tells her: 'You start with clear and defined objectives … Then you establish what the obstacles are … they are usually people. So you have to establish what motivates them, and then decide if you can win them over by the power of the idea …

'Sometimes, if it gets messy, you might have to run over them, undermine them, go around them or discredit them. As a last resort, you consider bullying them, or buying them off.'

Middleton and Sir David Bell, respectively chief executive and a trustee and former chairman of Common Purpose, state they are simply striving for a more accountable press. More transparency. More truth.

At the launch of Hacked Off, its co-founder Dr Martin Moore, also director of Middleton and Bell's Media Standards Trust, said that without a public inquiry the extent of the so-called 'dark arts' of newspapers would not come to light.

More...

    •      Adviser to Leveson press inquiry is a trustee of the self-styled investigative bureau behind McAlpine Newsnight fiasco

    •      A coup by the Left's old boy network: The Leveson Inquiry has momentous implications for free speech. But this Mail dossier raises disturbing questions about the influence of a quasi-masonic nexus of the 'people who know best'

    •      State controls on Press would be a green light to tyrants, says top MP

    •      Solved, the mystery of the money chest: How David Bell sits on the charity bankrolling how own campaign

    •      State regulation did nothing to prevent this smearing of an innocent man - but a free Press exposed it

    •      What a very small world: Why are so many figures in the Leveson Inquiry connected to New Labour's favourite media quango Ofcom?

    •      How the Left’s old boy network helps appoint the top mandarins 

And yet, as we shall show, Common Purpose, the Media Standards Trust and Hacked Off are all closely linked to or employ lobby PR firms which the free press have frequently exposed as being practitioners of such 'dark arts' as secretive lobbying and spin.

Take Sovereign Strategy, described by The Guardian as 'Labour's favourite lobbyists', which has close links to party grandees David Miliband, Peter Mandelson and Lord Cunningham. It has reportedly donated more than £150,000 to Labour in the past decade.

Lord (Jack) Cunningham, a Sovereign Strategy board member from 2002-07, chaired the inaugural meeting of Hacked Off when it was launched at the House of Lords.

Horatio Mortimer works as a 'strategic consultant' for Sovereign Strategy and has provided free support to the victims of phone hacking and their families.

Mortimer is a childhood friend of former Formula One chief Max Mosley's late son Alex. Max Mosley is a leading light in Hacked Off and a client of Sovereign Strategy.

Another client of Sovereign was Formula One's Bernie Ecclestone, whose £1 million donation to Labour was subsequently returned because of the controversy surrounding sponsorship of the sport by the tobacco industry.

The 'international communications agency', as it calls itself, was founded and is owned by Alan Donnelly, a former chief steward of Formula One. The HQ has the same Trafalgar Square address as Mosley's charitable arm, the FIA Foundation.

Donnelly lives with Peter Power, an ex-spokesman for and close associate of the former Business Secretary Lord Mandelson.

Media Standards Trust boss Martin Moore said last year: 'We met with Lord Cunningham and others, including Alan Donnelly, who said they could help us however we liked.'

Sovereign Strategy has been investigated on a number of occasions by all sections of the press.

In a June 2004 piece about New Labour ministers and corporate consultancies, The Guardian noted: 'One-time Cabinet enforcer Jack Cunningham, the loyalists' loyalist, records three remunerated directorships — Brinkburn Associates, Anderson MacGraw and Sovereign Strategy.' No wonder those behind Sovereign Strategy are no admirers of the press and eager to help rein it in

In 2005, The Mail on Sunday reported that the former Labour Health Secretary Alan Milburn had received a payment of up to £10,000, after ceasing to be a Minister, registered in 2004 from 'Sovereign Strategy, a corporate consultancy firm on Tyneside, of which Labour MP "Junket" Jack Cunningham is an associate director — for a speech and follow-up internal round table'.

In May 2005, The Guardian confirmed this when it returned to the subject of former ministers working for lobby companies. It reported that both Milburn and Lewis Moonie, the former Defence Minister, had been 'fast-tracked by a government appointments watchdog to take up work with a Labour-donating lobbying company which ignores a voluntary code of conduct not to pay or employ politicians'.

The Guardian reported that Sovereign Strategy 'is unusual in not belonging to the lobbyists' professional body, the Association of Professional Political Consultants, which has a code of conduct not to employ or pay any MP, peer or MEP'. The company confirmed it was not a member of the APPC, but said it insisted all paid advice by public officials had to be declared in the relevant registers. (It later claimed to have stopped paying serving politicians in 2007.)

No wonder those behind Sovereign Strategy are no admirers of the press and eager to help rein it in. Mark Linder is a Common Purpose trustee. He is also an executive at the leading lobby and PR firm Bell Pottinger. Linder's responsibility is 'sector reputation'. Common Purpose CEO Julia Middleton blogged about a Common Purpose meeting at which Linder had spoken, eulogising: 'Mark was … a man who knows his stuff and knows how to communicate it. It was a privilege to be there. A reminder of what drivel — what amateur drivel — we all talk most of the time.'

The people at Bell Pottinger are the supreme international lobbyists and image makers. In the past, they have worked for supporters of the Chilean tyrant General Pinochet, Alexander Lukashenko of Belarus (known as 'Europe's last dictator') and the protest-unfriendly leadership of Bahrain. They even 'advised' Asma Assad, Syrian's first lady. Such activity, one would have thought, hardly fits in with the Bell/Middleton ethical approach to business activity. 

Well-connected: Chief executive and founder of the charity Common Purpose Julia MiddletonSue Stapely is a trustee of the Media Standards Trust (MST) and appears on the Common Purpose website. She appeared on the panel of an MST-organised debate on the media as someone who 'represents the general public'.

In fact, she worked closely with the London lobbying firm Quiller Consultants. As such, she was the spin doctor brought in at great cost by Newcastle Council to handle public relations following a home care scandal. Here is how the local newspaper reported this in 2006:Council chiefs were involved in a new row today over using taxpayers' money to recruit image consultants. Crisis management expert Sue Stapely has helped Newcastle City Council on three occasions in the past 18 months … Last year a row erupted after Ms Stapely, working with London-based Quiller Consultants, was recruited to advise council officers on dealing with the media at a cost of nearly £23,000 following an independent inquiry into the killing of Olive Garvie, 93, in a Newcastle care home by fellow resident May Thrower, 83 …

Deputy Labour leader, Councillor Nick Forbes, who quizzed the Lib Dems about the use of Ms Stapely and Quiller Consultants, said: 'If something has gone wrong, why do the Lib Dems think it is more important to spin a positive reputation for the council than identify the problem and put it right? That is a serious misjudgement.'  But the Lib Dems say the council's former Labour administration also used Quiller Consultants and paid the firm more than £70,000 for advice following a legal case.

In response to questions about her working for large corporations, Sue Stapely said: 'I have always undertaken some work on an unpaid basis for ordinary members of the public who either cannot access or afford professional assistance. 'I have also sat on a number of boards as a non-executive director, usually unremunerated, and have always attempted to represent the views of typical consumers.' She said of the Newcastle affair: 'It was some time ago. I do not think it would serve any useful purpose to revisit this issue. I do recall the council was strongly divided.'

On its website, Quiller boasts: 'We believe our team has an unrivalled insight into the Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties and the inner workings of the Coalition Government.'

Quite. One might find irony in the fact that those lobby groups whose dark arts undermine the democratic process are closely connected to the Media Standards Trust/Hacked Off campaign for further regulation of the press.

FOOTNOTE: One of the recommendations of Common Purpose's Media Standards Trust is that any new press regulation body should consider co-ordinated 'third party' complaints. Reluctant to become embroiled in political, ideological or commercial disputes, the PCC usually only dealt with complaints by individuals — not third party organisations. The Media Standards Trust recommendation would, if acted upon, clearly be a huge boost to the lobbyists and 'dark arts' practitioners.

unquote

To add:  'The Sun Vault - the death star of British journalism' 

https://www.byline.com/column/2/article/925  is well worth a read.

https://pinkindustry.wordpress.com/editorial-intelligence/
this blog is also of interest - a critical look at PR.

 

OPEN LETTER - UPDATE BY SOCRATES

Acknowledgements and replies were received from both companies after the Easter break:

Haysmacintyre explained that 'Client Confidentiality' prevented their making any further comment.

Bates Wells Braithwaite added that the remarks by Julian Peribañez were defamatory of Francisco Marco, which is undoubtedly correct if those allegations are untrue.

They also helpfully suggested that the matter should be referred to the regulatory and disciplinary authorities.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Further update: copied from Twitter:   (apologies for the quality of the copy). 


See further
OPEN LETTER TO Bates Wells Braithwaite AND TO  HaysMacIntyre

THE FUND - CURIOUSER AND CURIOUSER

EUMENIDES IS PLEASED TO PUBLISH  THIS POST BY OUR GUEST ALECTO!

No Stone Unturned Limited - Audited Accounts - 2007 to 2014

Back in 2007 it would have been difficult to imagine that 9 years after its creation the Fund would have been such an enormous success and yet remain such an enigma. There's been much speculation into its many aspects in particular the nature of its incomings and outgoings. Below is one forensic opinion based on the information we've been given. 

As detailed accounts were only available for years 2008, 2013 and 2014 (highlighted in pink in the expenditure tables) it's not possible to tell for certain what income/expenditure fell under the various categories from 2009 to 2012 (highlighted in Blue).  There was some information available from the published accounts which helped and it was also possible to estimate some of the expenditure based on the actual trends.

The values highlighted in blue are one interpretation based on the criteria detailed in each section.  There's insufficient data to analyze 2015 accounts, all we can tell is that the expenditure exceeded the income by approximately £7K.  

FUND INCOME

 

We can deduce possible ratios from 2008, 2013/14 and take information into account - for example we're told that Libel Income of £550K was received in March 2008 from the express, £275K from the Tapas 7 and £125K from News of the World in 2009 accounts. We will assume that the libel donations were lodged net of taxation and legal costs therefore I have deducted 50% of the sum awarded.   Below is an example of how the income breakdown might look. 

We can see as we'd expect - most of the Bank, Internet Donations and T-Shirt sale donations were received in the first year and probably in the first 3 months of Madeleine's disappearance. Roughly 58% of income came from donations via Bank and Internet, the remainder generated from Kate McCann's book, libel payments and T-Shirt Sales. Bank donations dropped from £85,874 to £18,520 between 2013 and 2014.  It's clear that the public's donations have largely been spent and the Fund is operating on the money Kate invested from book sales. Is it fair to assume that the Fund Directors now see No Stone Unturned Limited as Team McCann's private entity?

 * Pink values actual, blue values estimated

This income is relatively straightforward - cash is received through the bank from various sources and reflected as income. Given its simplicity the minus income of £15,796 is a puzzle, how can donors charge the Fund or unpay an internet donation? You can only assume that 2012 Internet donation income was incorrectly overstated - but how could this happen and how did the accounts pass audit? Whatever the situation minus bank receipts are seen as a red flag in any organization.

Similarly it seems odd that T-Shirt sales dropped to £172 in 2013. While the 2012 income of £4,716 is an estimate the 2014 income of £2,744 is actual. It seems  strange that people would buy more T-Shirts in 2014 than the preceding year as it doesn't reflect the overall trend of the Fund.

In 2013 the findmadeleine website migrated from infohost to Domains by Proxy which seemed to result in a change in technology, I recall that shop/donation options were disabled for over a month. As you'd expect this caused a drop in internet donations which ceased completely in 2014. We can deduce that cumulatively internet donations were understated in the accounts to 2012 by at least 16K but this figure could be a lot more like 25K as we don't know how much was received in 2013, only that it netted to a difference in the year of minus £15,796. 

ADMIN COSTS

 

* Pink values actual, blue values estimated

In any company it's understood that admin costs - while necessary - are seen as costs that don't add value to the business. Given that the company doesn't need premises or staff you'd expect Admin costs to be minimal yet they run at 7% of overall income so in real terms £300K has been spent on nothing more than administering the Fund of which £250K approximately was spent on professional services: Legal Fees, Admin, Audit, Accountancy and Professional Fees. 

Much has already been spoken about regarding the £69K legal cost which was paid out in the first year. I've assumed this was a one off charge as the trends indicate it didn't recur. As the cost appears under the Admin category it implies that this was the legal cost of setting the Fund up which is difficult to understand. 

Notes to the accounts state that the Fund provided an Admistrative resource to Madeleine's family from 2009. I've added this line into the accounts (highlighted in green) though the actual figures for 2013/4 suggest this administrative support  was probably charged to the Auditor line as Audit fees were approx £2K more than reflected in the published accounts. 

Working backwards from the actual auditors remuneration from the accounts filed it suggests that the administration support for the family was in the region of £31K. It's difficult to understand the nature of this administrative support. 

Given that No Stone Unturned Ltd is a pretty basic company with few transactions/dynamics  the Audit cost  seems unreasonably high. It's worth noting that HaysMacIntyre had no comment regarding the discrepancy in Internet Donations in 2013. 

As we've already covered the main Professional fee categories of Legal, Audit & Accountancy and part time Admin and 6 directors with varying skill-sets it's very difficult to understand what the remaining £87K of Fund Professional Fees might cover.

Brian Kennedy - Who paid for the Investigators?

 

In September 2007 just a few days after the McCanns arrived home to UK according to reports Brian Kennedy approached them and offered them financial assistance. The nature of this financial assistance is vague  but it's broadly hinted Brian would pay for their legal costs associated with lifting their arguido status and PR difficulties associated with it - ie. Edward Smethurst's legal and Clarence Mitchell's PR services. 

We're told by Kate and Brian Kennedy that they had no previous connection with each other. I don't see any similar statement between the McCanns and Edward Smethurst though reportedly both Gerry and Edward Smethurst had a shared interest in the Nuclear Energy Industry. Given that Edward Smethurst is still a Fund director we could be forgiven for asking if it was he who approached Brian Kennedy and not the other way around.

From October 2007 there were various media reports on the hiring of the private investigation company Metodo 3 and claims as to who liaised with them and who paid them. According to Clarence Mitchell and the Fund Directors and audited reports it was the Fund who paid for Metodo 3. In January 2008 he makes an interesting statement - "We are paying Metodo 3 £50,000 a month so of course it is a subject of debate. The decision is as much with Brian as it is with the fund, which pays for Metodo 3's involvement." 

Reports throughout 2008 and early 2009 continued to emerge regarding Brian Kennedy's underwriting of the Fund's main investigators - Metodo 3, Oakley and Alphaig Ltd. In January 2008 Edward Smethurst became a Director of the Fund thereafter it's not clear whether Edward Smethurst's involvement with the investigators was on Brian Kennedy's or the Fund's behalf.  By early 2009 Brian Kennedy was heavily criticized for his handling of all investigations. 

We must assume that the Fund paid for the investigations because that's what the audited accounts tell us. In the accounting world it's not possible to play the "victim" card and blame Brian Kennedy for mishandling the investigations as it was the Directors who made the agreement and who paid the money over - therefore their mismanagement . 

The question is what really led to Brian Kennedy's termination of support as reported in Feb/March 2009 and why, after supporting their cause financially from September 2007 to February 2009 wasn't he mentioned in the acknowledgement section of Kate McCann's book Madeleine? 

CAMPAIGN COSTS

 

Because each year appears to have a different dynamic it's perhaps easier to analyze these costs by year. Highlighted in green are the items which are more difficult to forecast, they become the "balancing figure" - as we know the Campaign cost totals. 

 * Pink values actual, blue values estimated

2008 - £673K: From the published accounts awareness is explained as distributing flyers and posters across the Iberian Peninsula. Campaign management includes Justine McGuinness, possibly Control Risks and any other expenses not paid by the home office. It's difficult to understand what constitutes £112K Legal fees as we've already had £69K in admin costs for 2008 though the Fund states it didn't pay for Kate and Gerry's legal defence. Much has already been spoken of the £38K web costs. The £250K search fees is explained in the hiring of Metodo 3 - ie. £50K per month as stated  with a balance of £50K likely due in April. The £673K total doesn't include Clarence Mitchell's or Edward Smethurst's fees which were paid by Brian Kennedy. 

2009 - £975K: Estimated.  Awareness is reduced as the Fund states that the website was the key part. The main activities were searches and  translation of the files. £650K to Search Fees seems reasonable - £50K for Metodo 3, £500K for Oakley and £100K for Alphaig Ltd and £180K for translation of the files. Legal fees of £50 included obtaining an injunction against Goncalo Amaral and various libel actions against the Portuguese newspapers and Tony Bennett. Brian Kennedy continued to pay Clarence Mitchell's fees. It's unknown if he continued to pay Edward Smethurst's fees however likely he funded any legal fees in relation to Madeleine being made a ward of court, the release of the files and the lifting of arguido status. 

2010 - £421K: The estimated £113K for Campaign Management is because while Brian Kennedy was no longer paying for Clarence Mitchell and he reduced his work on behalf of the Fund to part time the Fund mentions that they used a specialist communications agency in Portugal to ensure that their "message is communicated as widely and accurately as possible" The £220K for Search fees may be overestimated. 

2011 - £487K: Estimated. With Clarence Mitchell still part time and the Fund still paying the Portuguese communications agency £100K is an estimate for Campaign management. As Operation Grange was established we can only assume that the Fund didn't pay for a continued investigation - rather the cost was for their investigator's assistance with Operation Grange - therefore 60K seems reasonable, one person to answer questions and provide any information requested. Additionally - given the expertise that Grange brought to the table why would a separate Fund investigation be necessary and would Operation Grange even allow it?

It's not possible to allocate the remaining expenditure therefore £268K is  reflected as unexplained Expenditure which makes up 55% of the overall Campaign costs for that year. The Directors report didn't mention legal action so we can only assume the bulk went on the only other item listed in the reports- the specialist Portuguese communications company. The question is - why in its 4th year and when they were appearing constantly in the press - would the Fund need to pay £368K for Campaign management mainly in Portugal? If it's connected to Kate's suspicion that Madeleine is still in Portugal why did they wait 5 years to reveal this possibility in the media? Could the additional spend be connected with the action against Goncalo Amaral? 

2012 - £477K: Estimated. Campaign costs in 2012 were on a similar trend to 2011. Given the actual detail disclosed for 2013 it's easier to line the expenditure up. This year the legal action against Goncalo Amaral has been mentioned by the Directors therefore it seems reasonable to increase travel/hotel and legal costs though we emerge with the same problem as in 2011 - unexplained costs of £256K. 

2013 & 2014 - £179K: The Fund accounts show similar activities to 2012 except it's visible that activities are winding down significantly. It's still surprising how much was paid in 2014 for Search Fees and Campaign Management. 

As stated previously this is one opinion only on the likely nature of the Fund transactions since it's commencement. It's unclear why detail was only disclosed for 2009 and 2013 to 2014. This opinion concludes that approximately 30% of the Fund may have been spent on the search for Madeleine - most of which went to the unsuccessful investigations reportedly managed by Brian Kennedy who wasn't at any point a Director of the Fund. 

With the added complication of Brian Kennedy's assistance and the myriad of different accounts of who paid for what it's difficult to untangle the truth. Logic tells us that as the investigators, Clarence and the media tell us that Brian Kennedy dealt with all investigations he must have paid the bills - but the published accounts say otherwise. 

I gave her one, they gave him two,

You gave us three or more; 

 They all returned from him to you, 

Though they were mine before...