As early as 12 May 2007, the reward for the safe return of Madeleine McCann stood at £2.5 million. If Madeleine was abducted, and if she was still alive just nine days later, why on earth would she still be trafficked when her captors stood to make this kind of money?
All they had to do was leave her in some remote location and simply provide information where she was, and they’d be rich beyond their wildest criminal hopes. If their motive when [if] they abducted her was to make money, make a profit, then what could have been a more profitable outcome than this?
Ultimately, no one ever claimed the reward money, right?
Wrong.
In April 2011, eight years after her disappearance, £1.5 million was donated by News of the World to the Find Madeleine fund. When Gerry McCann was contacted by email at the University of Hospital of Leicester [where he was employed as a Consultant Cardiologist] about these funds he did not admit or deny that he had received them. Instead he referred the inquiry to News International. News of the World were more forthcoming. They confirmed the money had been paid into the “official” Madeleine Fund.
I don’t know which is the most tragic part of this story: what actually happened to precious Madeleine, the McCanns duping well-intentioned people out of millions, their abuse of public sympathies as well as governmental resources, and the sham they continue to perpetuate in their own self interest. It’s all obscene.
Great post! Add to this the fact that they were able to go on parenting their young twins without anyone from CPS or whatever agency or agencies in Great Britain or Portugal investigate families to be sure their children are safe. Anybody else would have been at least investigated, and maybe would have lost their other children, at least temporarily.
I would say that the most tragic part of this saga is that people are /still/ paying into this fund. After 12 years of lies, inconsistencies, complacency and misdirection, (most of which are in the PJ’s files and/or could be seen-through by a ten-year-old), it beggars belief that people are still paying. Some even think it’s a charity. I wonder if it’ll all end when she becomes 18.
I don’t get this. I see a headline which follows with ‘Ultimately, no one claimed the reward, right ?”… Wrong!
Then the post goes on to suggest/claim that a newspaper paid £1.5M to the Find M Fund.
What point is being made here ? What does a newspaper paying £1.5M have to do with someone claiming the reward (which is what the first part of the entry is suggesting). Just because the amounts are the same, how does this imply a claim on the reward? I would, at most, have read it as NI paying into the fund either as a donation, or as safekeeping should the reward ever be claimed.
Anyway, if the reward ever were claimed, don’t you think that News International would want to make a great public display of _themselves_ making the reward payment ?
It may be that my tablet browser is missing something from the page but as it stands, it looks like a non-sequitur to me.
Is English your first language?
Someone claiming a reward in the conventional sense is where the terms of the reward are fulfilled by a third party, and thus the reward is both earned and “claimed”.
Paying the reward money back to the parties supposedly offering it means the terms weren’t fulfilled, and no reward was paid. But the newspaper didn’t keep the money. So where did the money go? And isn’t it strange that this aspect is kept so quiet? £1.5M is rather a large sum of the public’s money not to be acknowledged publicly, either by the newspaper or the recipient.
A non-sequitur refers to an argument that’s not logical. Is it logical now or do you need another more in-depth explanation?