The Madeleine Fund beginnings.

[Mr Gray]

Directors are expected to make decisions which benefit the company. Some might think that directors who were demonstrably unconnected with the case might be more likely to put the company's interests first. The important question is whether the Fund benefited from spending it's assets on the legal costs incurred by the McCann's decision to sue Amaral.

I think you are wrong on two points... Directors should make decisions which benefit the AIMS of the company and no one has shown their decisions were not genuine... The important question is not has, the fund benefitted... It's whether it was a reasonable thing to do... That's, a matter of opinion

[Alice Purjorick]

Director's duties are fairly well defined in The Companies Act 2006.

[Mr Gray]

Director's duties are fairly well defined in The Companies Act 2006.

And without looking the mccanns have not been judged to have contravened the act

[G-Unit]

And without looking the mccanns have not been judged to have contravened the act

Why do you mention the McCanns? They are just two of six directors. You make it sound as if they're in charge. 

[Alice Purjorick]

And without looking the mccanns have not been judged to have contravened the act

Did I say they had? They would need to be charged first would they not?
I posted the CH reference because it defines directors duties properly.

[Montclair]

Why would guilty people ask for an independent, transparent and comprehensive review of their own crimes, knowing full well that this might lead to the investigation into their crimes being reopened?   How exactly do you rationalise that one to yourself and others?

IMO they wanted a review expecting to be given all of the evidence in the original investigation by the police carrying it out. They probably never expected that it would turn into a full investigation. Remember they had already gone to court trying to get the evidence from the Leicestershire police and they failed because the police stated that although one or both could be innocent, there was no evidence which excluded from the case.

[Venturi Swirl]

IMO they wanted a review expecting to be given all of the evidence in the original investigation by the police carrying it out. They probably never expected that it would turn into a full investigation. Remember they had already gone to court trying to get the evidence from the Leicestershire police and they failed because the police stated that although one or both could be innocent, there was no evidence which excluded from the case.

Why would calling for a full and exhaustive review by the police give the McCanns full and exhaustive access to all the evidence?  Sorry that doesn’t really make any sense to me.  Where is the precedent for this?

[jassi]

Where was the precedence in asking Leicester police for information?
There has to be a first time for everything.

[Alice Purjorick]

Where was the precedence in asking Leicester police for information?
There has to be a first time for everything.

Not on this manor!
If it hasn't happened before it can't happen     [remember the old mantra]

[Venturi Swirl]

Where was the precedence in asking Leicester police for information?
There has to be a first time for everything.

I don’t think you quite understand.  We are being asked to believe that the only reason the McCanns asked for a full and exhaustive review of the evidence was so that they could get their grubby mitts on all the evidence.  What gave them the idea that that would happen as a result of a police review?  Where is the precedent for that, which they would have based their hopes on?

[jassi]

I don’t think you quite understand.  We are being asked to believe that the only reason the McCanns asked for a full and exhaustive review of the evidence was so that they could get their grubby mitts on all the evidence.  What gave them the idea that that would happen as a result of a police review? Where is the precedent for that, which they would have based their hopes on?

Smart-arse lawyers probably

[Robittybob1]

How many millions does it take to keep a missing childs story in the public eye, Brietta?  I was barely aware of the case at the time but I was aware of the millions being donated and the requests for more.   As regards the "Badly Told Story" part of your post I don't believe that had any input in their reasons for wanting the fund.

IMO the intention was to use it "mainly for legal expenses" as Brian Kennedy said.

That article was in a Portuguese paper and may not have been read by the McCanns at all.

[Mr Gray]

They asked for an independent, transparent and comprehensive review of the case. I have seen no evidence of them asking for a full scale police investigation in two countries.

They couldn't ask for an investigation  as that would have required new evidence... By asking fir a review it made it possible to look for new evidence... I thought you would have realised that

[Sunny]

They couldn't ask for an investigation  as that would have required new evidence... By asking fir a review it made it possible to look for new evidence... I thought you would have realised that

Perhaps you can explain why the McCanns didn't request the Portuguese police to carry out a review Davel. 

[Venturi Swirl]

Smart-arse lawyers probably

Law is based on precedent isn’t it?  So for lawyers to tell the McCans that a full police review would result in them getting full access to the case files must be based on something more than wishful thinking surely?