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

[Alfred R Jones]

A reminder of the post that I was replying to initially:

Unless you had a reputation and a career to protect of course.  Another issue which bothered me greatly was why the McCanns felt it expedient to have a secrecy clause in their contract with Halligen and Oakley International when they promised total transparency from the outset?

to which I replied:

When did they promise total transparency into their private investigation into Madeleine's disappearance?

Stephen then chipped in with

Now, didn't they promise a full an open investigation ?

To which I requested a cite and an explanation for why a full and open investigation would benefit Madeleine.

Got it now Stephen?

[Brietta]

Now, didn't they promise a full an open investigation ?

I think you may be asking entirely the wrong question there Stephen.

I think the right question is  ...  why on earth were the parents of a missing child having to mount their own private investigation in the first place?

My answer to that one is ... the police weren't.  So if Madeleine McCann's parents hadn't commissioned people to keep on investigating no-one would.

Files from these investigations along with police files formed the basis of the information reviewed ... which led to the reopening of Madeleine's case.

I'm still a bit bemused about the grounds which will be presented in appeal ... I'm even more bemused by the deafening silence coming out of Portugal concerning it.

[Benice]

She did.  Excerpt from the translation below. 

Also the bit highlighted is key in demonstrating that police officers (among other officials) will be held to higher standards, for obvious reasons.

______________

snip
"
In the European Court of Human Rights' jurisprudence, the principle of presumption of innocence imposes a standard of conduct for all agents, public servants and magistrates involved in the administration of criminal justice.

 The presumption of innocence prohibits, according to these decisions, the premature expression of opinions or beliefs of guilt by the courts but also assumptions by public officers involved in procedures which might lead the public to suspect the responsibility of the suspects in the facts under investigation.

 Accordingly in the Karaman vs Germany case, the decision claims that

The Court has previously held in this context that Art 6-2 aims at preventing undermining of a fair criminal trial by prejudicial statements made in close connection with proceedings. It not only prohibits the premature expression by the tribunal itself of the opinion the person «charged with a criminal offence» is guilty before he has been so proved according to the law, but also covers statements made by other public officials about pending criminal investigations which encourage the public to believe the suspect guilty and prejudge an assessment of the facts by the competent judicial authority [HUDOC (  26 )].
[/i][/u]
 

Just as a matter of interest Jean-Pierre.   Do you think the Gofundme Fund could be used as evidence of 'encouraging the public' - ?.    Just curious.

[Eleanor]

TOPIC. PLEASE.

[ferryman]

Topic?

Where is there independent confirmation Amaral has been granted leave to appeal?

[Jean-Pierre]

Just as a matter of interest Jean-Pierre.   Do you think the Gofundme Fund could be used as evidence of 'encouraging the public' - ?.    Just curious.

No - I don't think so.  It is a pretty straightforward effort to raise money to pay for Amaral's appeal.

I think the judge was having a pop at the UK and Portuguese press, and various forums where the view "Arguido = suspect" were promulgated. 

[LagosBen]

The Find Madeleine Fund has complied with the minimum legal requirements with regard to their accounts. This doesn't allow any interested parties to discover how much has been spent on particular items, which is why they have been criticised for not being more transparent.

There is no legal requirement for the PJGA Fund to give any details about what has been donated or spent.

No legal requirements - how convenient for them.

IIRC there have been no statements of how monies have been spent since the PJGA Fund began a few years back. As the amount was tiny I guess it wasn't a problem. However now with the latest GFM figures - surely there will be a moral obligation owed to those multi socked gullibles who donated - to be informed of just how exactly their benefits/ monies have been used to assist Amaral.

[Benice]

No - I don't think so.  It is a pretty straightforward effort to raise money to pay for Amaral's appeal.

I think the judge was having a pop at the UK and Portuguese press, and various forums where the view "Arguido = suspect" were promulgated.

OK.  Thanks for that JP.

[Jean-Pierre]

No legal requirements - how convenient for them.

IIRC there have been no statements of how monies have been spent since the PJGA Fund began a few years back. As the amount was tiny I guess it wasn't a problem. However now with the latest GFM figures - surely there will be a moral obligation owed to those multi socked gullibles who donated - to be informed of just how exactly their benefits/ monies have been used to assist Amaral.

The minimum legal requirement for a small company is:

a ‘balance sheet’, which shows the value of everything the company owns and is owed on the last day of the financial year
a ‘profit and loss account’, which shows the company’s sales, running costs and the profit or loss it has made over the financial year
notes about the accounts
a director’s report

There is no requirement for an auditors report.

The Madeleine Fund is therefore exceeding the minimum standards, and their accounts are in line with the Charity Commission standards for Charities.  If anyone has a specific and reasonable question concerning the accounts I am sure a letter to HaysMac will provide an answer.

G-Unit is correct that there is no legal obligation for PJGA to produce anything at all.  Monies given are by nature gifts. 

[LagosBen]

The minimum legal requirement for a small company is:

a ‘balance sheet’, which shows the value of everything the company owns and is owed on the last day of the financial year
a ‘profit and loss account’, which shows the company’s sales, running costs and the profit or loss it has made over the financial year
notes about the accounts
a director’s report

There is no requirement for an auditors report.

The Madeleine Fund is therefore exceeding the minimum standards, and their accounts are in line with the Charity Commission standards for Charities.  If anyone has a specific and reasonable question concerning the accounts I am sure a letter to HaysMac will provide an answer.

G-Unit is correct that there is no legal obligation for PJGA to produce anything at all.  Monies given are by nature gifts.

Ty JP  ...GFM no legal obligation as you say - but bad manners not to though. All those folks who scraped together their pounds to send, at least deserve the courtesy of knowing (even roughly) how the money is being spent.

[Jean-Pierre]

Ty JP  ...GFM no legal obligation as you say - but bad manners not to though. All those folks who scraped together their pounds to send, at least deserve the courtesy of knowing (even roughly) how the money is being spent.

It does rather weaken their argument that the Find Madeleine fund is not transparent. 

[Alice Purjorick]

It does rather weaken their argument that the Find Madeleine fund is not transparent.

This is like the piped music in a hotel foyer!
The fund isn't transparent in so far that the public can not see how every last penny is spent. It is presented in broad brush terms only, because that is all that is required by law. Where is the problem with that?
OK there is audit so what?  Companies House do not require an audit with the proviso that one has not been requested by a member. An audit could be called for by any member and under the circumstances of "The Fund" it would be pretty daft not to do one.
What Sr Amaral does or does not do will not change that one iota.
It seems to me that neither side wishes to view "what is" and tries to dress it up as something else.

[pegasus]

£33,333..... 33% over-target ... and a third of the way towards £100,000.
But the most important thing is... NW and HM are working hard.

[mercury]

Ty JP  ...GFM no legal obligation as you say - but bad manners not to though. All those folks who scraped together their pounds to send, at least deserve the courtesy of knowing (even roughly) how the money is being spent.

1) was never promised as was....
2) no one queried it as was...
3) it's a legal defence fund, period not an "open cheque" as was...
4) if and when any accounts are released, if they are required to do so, and if any promises have been made,  then would be the time to ask questions
5) what exactly is the problem? is it "bad manners" versus "lack of transparency"? (Please note transparency similar to charities was promised and it never transpired, why not?)


 

6) which one is the worst? bad manners over 30 k or lack of transparency despite promised over at least 5 + million, spare us the outrage lol

[mercury]

It would be most unusual in a missing child case to hire PR companies IMO.

Waste of money...I wonder how much they have spent?
I also wonder in how many issuing child cases the parents have used these kind of agencies, to what end and to what result