Gonçalo Amaral confirms he will appeal the damages decision to higher Court.

[pathfinder73]

There is more of a basis for Amaral's theory than there is for the McCann's. The McCanns may be able to prove that their fund is in apple-pie order but they haven't. Mr Smith was 60-80% certain that he saw Gerald McCann. They did say that Gerald McCann was in the restaurant, because they believed that the alarm was raised at 10pm. The witness statements cast doubt upon the exact time, so unless the PJ have evidence other than the witness statements they could have been mistaken.

Matt and Russ said they left 9:25 not 9:30. And Gerry said he checked at 9:15 on his timeline. That's not 30 minute checks. They had all finished their dinner by the time Russell received his steak. He was the only one eating when Kate raised the alarm. Russ said he got back to the table at 9:45 not 9:55 as on the timeline and Matt is missing from that one. What a shambles so you have to investigate it.

[mercury]

There  is never going to be an accurate timeline....if people quote various times in different statements, both those directly involved and onlookers..if Portugal had cctv on every corner, oh, maybe this crime could have been solved in weeks

[pegasus]

"38. No Director shall be regarded as having a conflict of interest solely because he or she is also eligible to receive the support of the Foundation."

Is this a standard clause for all not-for-profit limited companies, or a clause added only by FMF?

[mercury]

"38. No Director shall be regarded as having a conflict of interest solely because he or she is also eligible to receive the support of the Foundation."

Is this a standard clause for all not-for-profit limited companies, or a clause added only by FMF?

Sounds like a clause invented (ie not a standard charity clause) to replace the "financial support" missing clause

[misty]

"38. No Director shall be regarded as having a conflict of interest solely because he or she is also eligible to receive the support of the Foundation."

Is this a standard clause for all not-for-profit limited companies, or a clause added only by FMF?

All companies have to identify areas where there may be conflicts of interest. Below is the best explanation I can find and I would guess that the wording in the clause pertained mainly to the interests of Smethurst, Corner & Kennedy.

http://www.blueavocado.org/node/545
"Conflict of interest" or "benefit from interest"?

In practice, what makes something a conflict of interest can also end up being a benefit from interest, or a good arrangement for the nonprofit. For instance, the board member who owns a building may reduce the rent for the nonprofit. Or the nonprofit may benefit from working with the law firm of a board member, because that board member will ensure that the firm will do excellent work and will charge fairly or even at a discount.

Community organizations are based in their constituencies, and hold themselves accountable to their constituencies. Accordingly, we believe it's important to have parents on preschool boards, social service clients on the boards of providers, and artists on the boards of arts councils. But consider the potential conflicts that can arise: In a nonprofit preschool where many of the board members are also parents, these individuals might feel pulled in two directions about whether the preschool should raise tuition in order to replace the roof. And what about the board member/client who utilizes a service of the agency that isn't used by many other people, and as a result, has a personal stake in the service that the staff is recommending be discontinued?

Such situations are not infrequent in nonprofits. They are important reminders for nonprofit boards to recognize the twin aspects of benefit and detriment that can result from a potential conflict-of-interest situation.

[mercury]

Sadie claims to have talked with Correia and he denied everything of course. 

Lawyer John Grade knows what they were up to though!

if course he did, he was a normal and honest human being

[mercury]

The McCanns were not in Portugal when they hired Metado3, therefore it was none of the Portuguese State's business.

The case was still open, and wherever the Mccanns lived at the time, it was illegal to hire PIs, very much so the PJs business, the Mccanns were lucky their illegality was not acted upon dear Misty

[pegasus]

Thanks for that information.
Another clause:
"2D.1 The income and property of the Foundation shall be applied solely towards the promotion of its objects"

IMO the word "solely" is important.

The objects are:
"2B.1.1 To secure the safe return to her family of Madeleine McCann who was abducted in Praia da Luz, Portugal on Thursday 3rd May 2007; and
2B.1.2 To procure that Madeleine's abduction is thoroughly investigated and that her abductors, as well as those who played or play any part in assisting them, are identified and brought to Justice."

IMO the legal costs of this prolonged private civil court case are not directly covered by either of those two objects.

Are civil case legal expenses to sue Mr Amaral "shoehorned" into clause 2B.1.2?
Or is some other fund paying?
I am sure it is all above board, but the Good Governance Code asks for clear communications.

[mercury]

Not sure why you are bothering Pegasus.
Its all "legal and explainable"
That's why expensive lawyers are employed.
Not far different to govt spin either.

[misty]

Thanks for that information.
Another clause:
"2D.1 The income and property of the Foundation shall be applied solely towards the promotion of its objects"

IMO the word "solely" is important.

The objects are:
"2B.1.1 To secure the safe return to her family of Madeleine McCann who was abducted in Praia da Luz, Portugal on Thursday 3rd May 2007; and
2B.1.2 To procure that Madeleine's abduction is thoroughly investigated and that her abductors, as well as those who played or play any part in assisting them, are identified and brought to Justice."

IMO the legal costs of this prolonged private civil court case are not directly covered by either of those two objects.

Are civil case legal expenses to sue Mr Amaral "shoehorned" into clause 2B.1.2?
Or is some other fund paying?
I am sure it is all above board, but the Good Governance Code asks for clear communications.

IMO clause 2B.1.2 could cover the civil legal expenses, certainly at the time action commenced - but I'm not a lawyer so it's not a definite.
Kennedy bankrolled some of the early private investigative work, so perhaps he is the man behind any separate legal defence fund. As long as the British taxpayers aren't footing the bill, it's not really that important.

[pegasus]

Not sure why you are bothering Pegasus.
Its all "legal and explainable"
That's why expensive lawyers are employed.
Not far different to govt spin either.

IMO that side is not very powerful or skilled. Yes they have lots of money and top lawyers, but they make mistakes IMO, just one example being IMO their rather unfortunate timing of taking Leics Police to the High Court (if they'd waited a few weeks they would have won). A single mum could run rings around them.

[misty]

IMO that side is not very powerful or skilled. Yes they have lots of money and top lawyers, but they make mistakes IMO, just one example being IMO their rather unfortunate timing of taking Leics Police to the High Court (if they'd waited a few weeks they would have won). A single mum could run rings around them.

I'm sure she could, if she was operating outside their jurisdiction.

[pegasus]

IMO clause 2B.1.2 could cover the civil legal expenses, certainly at the time action commenced - but I'm not a lawyer so it's not a definite.
Kennedy bankrolled some of the early private investigative work, so perhaps he is the man behind any separate legal defence fund. As long as the British taxpayers aren't footing the bill, it's not really that important.

Yes you could shoehorn almost any expenditure into clause 2B.1.2. by saying oh but it indirectly in the long run might end up helping increase searches.

The fact is that initiating libel cases is not directly and solely searching.
What we (and the Good Governance Code) demand is clarity and straight-talking.
Not clever interpretations of wording by expensive lawyers.

[pegasus]

I'm sure she could, if she was operating outside their jurisdiction.

I meant a single mum beats all the expensive clever lawyers and accountants on the other side.
Because she manages to state clearly (so that Joe Public can understand) what the money will be solely used for.

[misty]

Yes you could shoehorn almost any expenditure into clause 2B.1.2. by saying oh but it indirectly in the long run might end up helping increase searches.

The fact is that initiating libel cases is not directly and solely searching.
What we (and the Good Governance Code) demand is clarity and straight-talking.
Not clever interpretations of wording by expensive lawyers.

If Madeleine is ever found alive & it is proven she was abducted, do you not believe that Amaral & his book played a part in allowing the offender(s) to escape justice?