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

[Eleanor]

That all sounds very simple and straightforward G - so why the decision NOT to publish what must be the equally 'simple and straightforward' accounts?   Maybe there is a good reason - but I for one can't think what it could be.

It seems discourteous to the donators to keep them completely in the dark - and even more discourteous not to even offer an explanation for that decision.

I don't think they actually want an explanation.  They are much more interested in demanding explanations from The McCanns.

[G-Unit]

That all sounds very simple and straightforward G - so why the decision NOT to publish what must be the equally 'simple and straightforward' accounts?   Maybe there is a good reason - but I for one can't think what it could be.

It seems discourteous to the donators to keep them completely in the dark - and even more discourteous not to even offer an explanation for that decision.

I know more about it than I do about a certain other fund. Impressive to see someone say they have enough, I think;

Since it was started on April 29, 2015, by Leanne Baulch, the gofundme page dedicated to Gonçalo Amaral's defence has collected donations in excess of 50 thousand pounds. These funds have been transferred to the bank account that is held by Dr Paulo Sargento and other friends of Mr Amaral. Less than half of this amount has been spent on legal expenses for the defence of Gonçalo Amaral.

The Paypal account that is associated to the bank account has received over 6 thousand euro during the same period. Donations totaling a smaller amount have also been made directly to the bank account.

We believe that it is time to close the gofundme page, as the bank account currently stands at an amount that seems largely sufficient to face eventual future expenses.

As we await the verdict of the Appellate Court of Lisbon on the appeal that has been filed by Mr Amaral's lawyer, the remaining funds will be kept in the bank account. They will be used if necessary in the future. Any unused funds will, as we stated in 2009, be donated to a Portuguese children's charity.
 

[Mr Gray]

I know more about it than I do about a certain other fund. Impressive to see someone say they have enough, I think;

Since it was started on April 29, 2015, by Leanne Baulch, the gofundme page dedicated to Gonçalo Amaral's defence has collected donations in excess of 50 thousand pounds. These funds have been transferred to the bank account that is held by Dr Paulo Sargento and other friends of Mr Amaral. Less than half of this amount has been spent on legal expenses for the defence of Gonçalo Amaral.

The Paypal account that is associated to the bank account has received over 6 thousand euro during the same period. Donations totaling a smaller amount have also been made directly to the bank account.

We believe that it is time to close the gofundme page, as the bank account currently stands at an amount that seems largely sufficient to face eventual future expenses.

As we await the verdict of the Appellate Court of Lisbon on the appeal that has been filed by Mr Amaral's lawyer, the remaining funds will be kept in the bank account. They will be used if necessary in the future. Any unused funds will, as we stated in 2009, be donated to a Portuguese children's charity.

It rather looks a though they think the case is over

[Benice]

I know more about it than I do about a certain other fund. Impressive to see someone say they have enough, I think;

Since it was started on April 29, 2015, by Leanne Baulch, the gofundme page dedicated to Gonçalo Amaral's defence has collected donations in excess of 50 thousand pounds. These funds have been transferred to the bank account that is held by Dr Paulo Sargento and other friends of Mr Amaral. Less than half of this amount has been spent on legal expenses for the defence of Gonçalo Amaral.

The Paypal account that is associated to the bank account has received over 6 thousand euro during the same period. Donations totaling a smaller amount have also been made directly to the bank account.

We believe that it is time to close the gofundme page, as the bank account currently stands at an amount that seems largely sufficient to face eventual future expenses.

As we await the verdict of the Appellate Court of Lisbon on the appeal that has been filed by Mr Amaral's lawyer, the remaining funds will be kept in the bank account. They will be used if necessary in the future. Any unused funds will, as we stated in 2009, be donated to a Portuguese children's charity.

I don't know who made that statement but without being able to see into the future how can anyone predict that the fund is now adequate to cover Amaral's ''future expenses'' ?

Sorry doesn't work for me G - because it still doesn't explain why they have decided not to publish the accounts.

It's not as if that would be a complicated exercise IMO.

I'm surprised  that you apparently have no problem at all in fully trusting the statement you posted.    What happened to ''Assume nothing, Believe nobody, Check everything'' ?   If ever there was a situation to justify that 'philosophy'  I would have thought this was it?

[slartibartfast]

One fund claiming to be transparent isn't, another making no such claims isn't. Now which one has a problem?

[Benice]

One fund claiming to be transparent isn't, another making no such claims isn't. Now which one has a problem?

IMO Starti your post is off topic - as this isn't a comparison between two unrelated funds. 

Can you think of a reason WHY a decision has been taken by Amaral and his friends NOT to publish their accounts?

I can't.

[stephen25000]

IMO Starti your post is off topic - as this isn't a comparison between two unrelated funds. 

Can you think of a reason WHY a decision has been taken by Amaral and his friends NOT to publish their accounts?

I can't.

Why do you need to know about a fund used for Amaral's legal needs ?

[Benice]

Why do you need to know about a fund used for Amaral's legal needs ?

I don't.

I'm trying to think of a reason why a decision NOT to publish simple accounts was taken - and a statement issued instead.    Can you think of one?

[stephen25000]

I don't.

I'm trying to think of a reason why a decision NOT to publish simple accounts was taken - and a statement issued instead.    Can you think of one?

Is the registered in the UK ?

[Alice Purjorick]

I don't.

I'm trying to think of a reason why a decision NOT to publish simple accounts was taken - and a statement issued instead.    Can you think of one?

If there is no legal requirement to publish the accounts I wouldn't. That simple.
From the statement posted one can reasonably interpolate that the value of the "beer and baccy" fund is ca 60k Euros, the fund organiser has decided that is enough to meet the objective and has closed the inlet valve. Any surplus will be given to charity. What more do you need to know until the fund is closed?

[G-Unit]

I don't.

I'm trying to think of a reason why a decision NOT to publish simple accounts was taken - and a statement issued instead.    Can you think of one?

You first have to demonstrate that the idea of publishing accounts was discussed and rejected.

[Benice]

You first have to demonstrate that the idea of publishing accounts was discussed and rejected.

I find it hard to believe that such a natural course of action as publishing simple and straightforward accounts for the benefit of those people who have donated -  would not have occurred to the people managing the accounts.   It seems the courteous thing to do IMO and also would have the added advantage of there being no room left for criticism.

If it was a difficult/expensive exercise to achieve - then I could at least understand that thinking to some extent -  but IMO that's not the case.    TBH I'm surprised that Amaral has not insisted that the accounts be published.  And I still can't think of a reason why they haven't been.  Can you?

IIRC the only reason given so far is that there is no legal requirement to do so.  That seems rather churlish to me.  (from memory so am happy to be corrected if necessary),

[Brietta]

I find it hard to believe that such a natural course of action as publishing simple and straightforward accounts for the benefit of those people who have donated -  would not have occurred to the people managing the accounts.   It seems the courteous thing to do IMO and also would have the added advantage of there being no room left for criticism.

If it was a difficult/expensive exercise to achieve - then I could at least understand that thinking to some extent -  but IMO that's not the case.    TBH I'm surprised that Amaral has not insisted that the accounts be published.  And I still can't think of a reason why they haven't been.  Can you?

IIRC the only reason given so far is that there is no legal requirement to do so.  That seems rather churlish to me.  (from memory so am happy to be corrected if necessary),

I think it would be simplicity itself.  Particularly as we are told the money has been sought for one reason and one reason only ... the payment of legal fees.

[G-Unit]

I find it hard to believe that such a natural course of action as publishing simple and straightforward accounts for the benefit of those people who have donated -  would not have occurred to the people managing the accounts.   It seems the courteous thing to do IMO and also would have the added advantage of there being no room left for criticism.

If it was a difficult/expensive exercise to achieve - then I could at least understand that thinking to some extent -  but IMO that's not the case.    TBH I'm surprised that Amaral has not insisted that the accounts be published.  And I still can't think of a reason why they haven't been.  Can you?

IIRC the only reason given so far is that there is no legal requirement to do so.  That seems rather churlish to me.  (from memory so am happy to be corrected if necessary),

AFAIK none the people who donated have expressed a desire to see details of what has been paid out.

[ferryman]

One fund claiming to be transparent isn't, another making no such claims isn't. Now which one has a problem?

You.

The McCanns' fund is transparent.

Just as it says on the tin.