Author Topic: Gonçalo Amaral confirms he will appeal the damages decision to higher Court.  (Read 844055 times)

0 Members and 4 Guests are viewing this topic.

stephen25000

  • Guest
Even having a bank account in a capital city is now questioned.

It is getting ridiculous.

It has become a total obsession by some mccann supporters to attack Amaral at every turn.

Offline pegasus

So Sargento no longer administers the fund?
Mr Sargento is a strong supporter of Mr Amaral and therefore I assume he is still very much involved in PJGA.
I doubt that anyone has disembarked from this ship since it was launched.

Offline Brietta

Even having a bank account in a capital city is now questioned.

There seems to be a bit of a blind spot here, Pegasus.  Madeleine's Fund which is audited and published is scrutinised and criticised to the nth degree.  Whereas Mr Amaral's fund is not subject to the same criteria or any criteria at all.  To a disinterested observer that would appear to be double standards.

It would be very simple to issue a statement of money in ... and without prejudice to the minutia of the way in which Mr Amaral chooses to spend it on his legal appeal ~ a note of his outgoings.

Apart from any other consideration ... when the fund runs low, his backers would know it was time to dig deep yet again.
"All I'm going to say is that we've conducted a very serious investigation and there's no indication that Madeleine McCann's parents are connected to her disappearance. On the other hand, we have a lot of evidence pointing out that Christian killed her," Wolter told the "Friday at 9"....

stephen25000

  • Guest
There seems to be a bit of a blind spot here, Pegasus.  Madeleine's Fund which is audited and published is scrutinised and criticised to the nth degree.  Whereas Mr Amaral's fund is not subject to the same criteria or any criteria at all.  To a disinterested observer that would appear to be double standards.

It would be very simple to issue a statement of money in ... and without prejudice to the minutia of the way in which Mr Amaral chooses to spend it on his legal appeal ~ a note of his outgoings.

Apart from any other consideration ... when the fund runs low, his backers would know it was time to dig deep yet again.

The mccanns accounts are from open and give base details.

Amaral's fund is there solely for legal expenses, and excess from which I believe will be donated to charity.

ferryman

  • Guest
There seems to be a bit of a blind spot here, Pegasus.  Madeleine's Fund which is audited and published is scrutinised and criticised to the nth degree.  Whereas Mr Amaral's fund is not subject to the same criteria or any criteria at all.  To a disinterested observer that would appear to be double standards.

It would be very simple to issue a statement of money in ... and without prejudice to the minutia of the way in which Mr Amaral chooses to spend it on his legal appeal ~ a note of his outgoings.

Apart from any other consideration ... when the fund runs low, his backers would know it was time to dig deep yet again.

In context, Brietta's use of the word disinterested is absolutely semantically correct, meaning, impartial, or free of bias.

Offline pegasus

In context, Brietta's use of the word disinterested is absolutely semantically correct, meaning, impartial, or free of bias.
The remit of the auditors is only to confirm that the accounts meet the legal requirements

Offline Brietta

The mccanns accounts are from open and give base details.

Amaral's fund is there solely for legal expenses, and excess from which I believe will be donated to charity.


You are a fair minded person, Stephen.

Reverse the situation.

fund (a) ... publishes accounts and is audited. It is criticised and scrutinised (forensically?)
fund (b) ... neither publishes or audits. It is not scrutinised forensically, it is not scrutinised at all neither is it criticised.

Now if fund (b) were Madeleine's and fund (a) were Amaral's ~ how fair would you consider it to malign fund (a) while being relaxed about fund (b)?
"All I'm going to say is that we've conducted a very serious investigation and there's no indication that Madeleine McCann's parents are connected to her disappearance. On the other hand, we have a lot of evidence pointing out that Christian killed her," Wolter told the "Friday at 9"....

Offline Mr Gray

It is getting ridiculous.

It has become a total obsession by some mccann supporters to attack Amaral at every turn.

no one on here is obsessed.....stop the insults

stephen25000

  • Guest

You are a fair minded person, Stephen.

Reverse the situation.

fund (a) ... publishes accounts and is audited. It is criticised and scrutinised (forensically?)
fund (b) ... neither publishes or audits. It is not scrutinised forensically, it is not scrutinised at all neither is it criticised.

Now if fund (b) were Madeleine's and fund (a) were Amaral's ~ how fair would you consider it to malign fund (a) while being relaxed about fund (b)?

When was Amaral's fund set up ?

What was Amaral's fund set up for, and of course it wasn't done by him?

Who set up the Madeleine fund, and for what purpose ?
« Last Edit: April 17, 2016, 07:11:34 PM by stephen25000 »

ferryman

  • Guest
The mccanns accounts are from open and give base details.

Amaral's fund is there solely for legal expenses, and excess from which I believe will be donated to charity.

It is rather curious that the very same people who denigrate the McCanns at every turn grumble against just criticism of the person who has (principally) persecuted them for having the temerity to stand up against injustice, defend their reputation against calumny and (above all) try to find their daughter ....

stephen25000

  • Guest
It is rather curious that the very same people who denigrate the McCanns at every turn grumble against just criticism of the person who has (principally) persecuted them for having the temerity to stand up against injustice, defend their reputation against calumny and (above all) try to find their daughter ....

I'm afraid typing cliches won't help you ferryman.

Most people have seen through that act along time ago.

The injustice was against Madeleine, and many hold the mccanns responsible for that.


Offline Mr Gray

I'm afraid typing cliches won't help you ferryman.

Most people have seen through that act along time ago.

The injustice was against Madeleine, and many hold the mccanns responsible for that.

and many don't

stephen25000

  • Guest
and many don't


Many, in the land of never. 8(0(*

Offline Mr Gray


Many, in the land of never. 8(0(*

try to remember your opinion is not fact...the McCanns have a lot of support...imo

stephen25000

  • Guest
try to remember your opinion is not fact...the McCanns have a lot of support...imo

Where ?