The Madeleine Fund beginnings.

[Brietta]

Documenting what has happened as a result of the McCann's efforts says nothing about the motives driving those efforts.

What do you think their motives are for being instrumental in achieving the launching full scale police investigations in two countries into Madeleine's disappearance?

[Robittybob1]

The Fund directors at the moment are;

Family members;
Gerry McCann
Kate McCann
Brian Kennedy

Family friends;
Jon Corner

Other;
Edward Smethurst
John Griffin

The McCann family could be said to have a majority on the board at present.

That would make it a bit easier to have funds spent on legal costs and liabilities.

[G-Unit]

What do you think their motives are for being instrumental in achieving the launching full scale police investigations in two countries into Madeleine's disappearance?

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.

[G-Unit]

That would make it a bit easier to have funds spent on legal costs and liabilities.

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.

[Sunny]

Rubbish,  the fund was set up as so many people wanted to help find Madeleine,  where were they supposed to put all the money donated?   The hospital where Gerry worked donated £10,000.

Richard Branson and others give a lot of money to meet lawyers fees.

Where does it say they paid court costs out of the fund?

They were given the £10,000 from the hospital but why did they feel the need to put the begging bucket out in PDL, create a new Ltd company and call it a fund, and launch it in a blaze of publicity.  Why did they need to keep the running total on the front page of their website and ask for donations on the same page.

This wasn't just a response to some money being given it was a huge request for more IMO.

[Venturi Swirl]

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.

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?

[Brietta]

They were given the £10,000 from the hospital but why did they feel the need to put the begging bucket out in PDL, create a new Ltd company and call it a fund, and launch it in a blaze of publicity.  Why did they need to keep the running total on the front page of their website and ask for donations on the same page.

This wasn't just a response to some money being given it was a huge request for more IMO.

The larger the target audience the more probability there is of receiving the desired result ... as the Amaral donation request sites have proved.

As we have seen financing investigation into a missing child case most certainly does not come cheap and the McCanns were tasked with financing their own when no-one else was bothered ... right from the archiving in 2008 until Madeleine's case was officially opened by Scotland Yard in 2013.

No mean feat for two private individuals in keeping Madeleine's case going for six years on the strength of fund raising.

Exactly what is it you resent about their success in keeping Madeleine's case in the public eye over that period?  How do you suggest they might have achieved that without money to do it with?

[Brietta]

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?

I didn't bother to respond to that one (I think) even although it was addressed to me because in my opinion it is too self evident to be bothered with.

[xtina]

The larger the target audience the more probability there is of receiving the desired result ... as the Amaral donation request sites have proved.

As we have seen financing investigation into a missing child case most certainly does not come cheap and the McCanns were tasked with financing their own when no-one else was bothered ... right from the archiving in 2008 until Madeleine's case was officially opened by Scotland Yard in 2013.

No mean feat for two private individuals in keeping Madeleine's case going for six years on the strength of fund raising.

Exactly what is it you resent about their success in keeping Madeleine's case in the public eye over that period?  How do you suggest they might have achieved that without money to do it with?

we are not discussing GA fund ....isn't that off topic.....

so that is all they were doing for six years.....appealing for money....

and starting a libel case .....out of the funds....

still not actually looking for maddie it seems....imo

[Sunny]

The larger the target audience the more probability there is of receiving the desired result ... as the Amaral donation request sites have proved.

As we have seen financing investigation into a missing child case most certainly does not come cheap and the McCanns were tasked with financing their own when no-one else was bothered ... right from the archiving in 2008 until Madeleine's case was officially opened by Scotland Yard in 2013.

No mean feat for two private individuals in keeping Madeleine's case going for six years on the strength of fund raising.

Exactly what is it you resent about their success in keeping Madeleine's case in the public eye over that period?  How do you suggest they might have achieved that without money to do it with?

I don't resent their success in keeping Madeleine's case in the public eye but question why they thought it necessary to create and publicise the fund and keep the fund totals on the front of the website whilst asking for more money.

Did they know whether Madeleine would be found dead or alive on the 12th May 2007.   No they didn't and police in the UK and Portugal were working on the case so why the immediate need for £millions.  Perhaps you can explain that as that was the point of my post.

Goncalo Amaral's fund was to help him fight (and win) his case against the McCanns.   Any money was given soley for that use and it enabled him to do it.     This was of course whilst the McCanns had ensured his assets were frozen for years.

[Brietta]

I don't resent their success in keeping Madeleine's case in the public eye but question why they thought it necessary to create and publicise the fund and keep the fund totals on the front of the website whilst asking for more money.

Did they know whether Madeleine would be found dead or alive on the 12th May 2007.   No they didn't and police in the UK and Portugal were working on the case so why the immediate need for £millions.  Perhaps you can explain that as that was the point of my post.

Goncalo Amaral's fund was to help him fight (and win) his case against the McCanns.   Any money was given soley for that use and it enabled him to do it.     This was of course whilst the McCanns had ensured his assets were frozen for years.

You have not answered the question as to how the parents of a missing child can keep an investigation going without the enabling resource of finance.

The rest of your post is easily explained with reference to the first of many headlines on May 5th of "The Badly Told Story" which in my opinion flags up the forthcoming storm of the mismanagement of Madeleine's case.

[Sunny]

You have not answered the question as to how the parents of a missing child can keep an investigation going without the enabling resource of finance.

The rest of your post is easily explained with reference to the first of many headlines on May 5th of "The Badly Told Story" which in my opinion flags up the forthcoming storm of the mismanagement of Madeleine's case.

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.

[Brietta]

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.

The fund paid for "feet on the ground" such as no doubt invoiced by Halligen's company which actually may have carried out some valuable work.

There has been constant furore about the cost of Operation Grange since inception.

Therefore logic dictates that conducting a missing child investigation costs a great deal more than buttons and in my opinion the constant complaints about financing such a venture shows a side of human nature which I find most unappealing. 

Contributions to Madeleine's fund were voluntary ... contributions to Amaral's fund were voluntary ... to criticise one while condemning the other is in my opinion ... illogical.

[Venturi Swirl]

I didn't bother to respond to that one (I think) even although it was addressed to me because in my opinion it is too self evident to be bothered with.

Actually my post was addressed to G-Unit, though I'm not expecting an answer as she tends not to like questions like that from me.

[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 would correct you.. The directors ate responsible for making decisions that benefit the aims of the company... The McCann's believed the court case  would... Which is reasonable IMO... They could not predict the court would come up with such an unreasonable  decision.. Imo