Is the maddie fund.... now a secret fund

[Robittybob1]

If the mccanns were tried ...they would be found not guilty...so would the SC say...that doesnt mean they are innocent.....in fact the SC to my knowledge never said they were not innocent...lets stick to the facts...not myths

off the main topic.

[Mr Gray]

off the main topic.

then you need to speak to John who has introduced the SC  to this thread

[Robittybob1]

then you need to speak to John who has introduced the SC  to this thread

Stop making waves!

[Mr Gray]

Stop making waves!

I like a nice wave...portugal is very famous for them...Johns claims cannot go unchallenged

[Robittybob1]

I like a nice wave...portugal is very famous for them...Johns claims cannot go unchallenged

Here's a new word "self control".

[Mr Gray]

Here's a new word "self control".

thats two words...heres a new word...fairness...if john quotes the SC which i beleive to be incorrect then i have the right to challenge it....

[G-Unit]

I think its up to the McCanns who have raised the money to decide

They did. They decided to donate it to Madeleine's Fund. From that moment on it was no longer theirs and it was not up to them to decide how it was spent. Why would there be a board of directors otherwise?

[Mr Gray]

They did. They decided to donate it to Madeleine's Fund. From that moment on it was no longer theirs and it was not up to them to decide how it was spent. Why would there be a board of directors otherwise?

so im correct in that it was up to the mccanns to decide if it should go to the fund.....from then on it WAS the directors who decide d how the funds were spent

[Mr Gray]

The SC judges stated that the lifting of the arguido status did not mean they were innocent.

this is what the SC judges stated....

Thus, it does not appear acceptable to consider that the alluded dispatch, based on the insufficiency of evidence, should be treated as evidence of innocence.

and if that is a correct transaltion i think it can be strongly argued that they are wrong...the archiving report is evidence of innocence...but not proof

[Sunny]

this is what the SC judges stated....

Thus, it does not appear acceptable to consider that the alluded dispatch, based on the insufficiency of evidence, should be treated as evidence of innocence.

and if that is a correct transaltion i think it can be strongly argued that they are wrong...the archiving report is evidence of innocence...but not proof

I see "insufficiency of evidence" to mean there was not enough evidence to prosecute. Insufficient evidence is not no evidence and is not evidence of innocence either. All IMO

[Mr Gray]

I see "insufficiency of evidence" to mean there was not enough evidence to prosecute. Insufficient evidence is not no evidence and is not evidence of innocence either. All IMO

the archiving report said no evidence.......suspects are cleared everyday due to lack of evidence...we ahve discussed this at length....lack of evidence is evidence of innocence ...but not proof...and I have supplied evidence to support it..

john has raised the SC judgement and the question of innocence in relation to how the fund should be run...suggesting that as they were not proved innocent the mccanns should not ne involved in running the fund...in that respect the post is on topic

[Sunny]

No the archiving report said they lost the chance to prove their innocence that is not the same thing at all. I am not saying they are guilty but in my mind if they donated money - libel payouts, book royalties to the fund then this should not be at their own behest to spend as they will.  Spending of the money must be at the discretion of the directors in their entirety.  Surely that is how a business works. Well one without a managing director anyway

As a matter of the wording on the McCanns website, why don't they simply remove the bit about transparency regarding the fund, from it and then no one will have a reason to complain. All imo.

[Mr Gray]

No the archiving report said they lost the chance to prove their innocence that is not the same thing at all. I am not saying they are guilty but in my mind if they donated money - libel payouts, book royalties to the fund then this should not be at their own behest to spend as they will.  Spending of the money must be at the discretion of the directors in their entirety.  Surely that is how a business works. Well one without a managing director anyway

As a matter of the wording on the McCanns website, why don't they simply remove the bit about transparency regarding the fund, from it and then no one will have a reason to complain. All imo.

The archiving report said there was no evidence of any crime by the Mccanns. Its not up to any person here to tell the McCanns how to run the fund or their website.

[Sunny]

The archiving report said there was no evidence of any crime by the Mccanns. Its not up to any person here to tell the McCanns how to run the fund or their website.

You have already mentioned the word "insufficient". Insufficient evidence is not "no evidence".  Didn't the attorney general say they lost the chance to prove their innocence IIR  With reference to the McCanns fund I was not telling them how to run their fund or website it was just what I would do in the interests of transparency and accountability. All still IMO.

[Angelo222]

We don't know as much about the  financial activity as we did in the beginning.  It is not a secret fund but the behaviour is such that it seems to want to hide the financial activity from the public for some strange reason. This would be the same public they ask for help to find their missing daughter.

There appears to be a secret trend here. Secret E-fits withheld, a secret fund and secret non disclosure agreements with private investigators Oakley and M3 to name but two.  All very peculiar imo for something which is claimed to be just a missing child case?  Just what were the McCanns afraid of??