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

[Carana]

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

Has Enid O'Something donated? If so, when would this have been?

[stephen25000]

You.

The McCanns' fund is transparent.

Just as it says on the tin.

Really, since when has it been transparent ?

Cite.

Next, another question I have asked before, where did the money from the serialization rights of the book in the sun go to ?

[ferryman]

Has Enid O'Something donated? If so, when would this have been?

It would be interesting to see Ms O'Dowd carry out a forensic analysis of the Amaral account.

She has of the McCann ....

[Alice Purjorick]

You.

The McCanns' fund is transparent.

Just as it says on the tin.

What was the income and expenditure last FY then?

[ferryman]

I'm (slowly) getting the hang of this, I think.

If it's in the file and Amaral states it, the McCanns can't touch him: hence the mantra of Amaral (and those who support him), it's all in the files.

But is it?

And what about stuff in the files, but contradicted by other stuff also in the files?

And what about half-truths?

It's in the files that Eddie scented death all over the place.

It's also in the files (both Grime and Harrison) that no evidential reliability can be placed on the reactions of the dogs.

What's the status of that one?

Amaral says Harrison turned the investigation into one for a little girl assumed dead.

That is a blatant lie (more pertinently, not in the files).  Amaral should lose the libel case outright on that point alone.

We can't definitively judge, but we can confidently predict that Amaral did not contradict and correct Prior on the forensic results.  If he (Amaral) did not, that is an assertion of Amaral's not in the files.

Amaral makes reference to the STU 100 and there is also reference to it in the files.  But Grime's reference makes plain he is not talking about the PdL investigation at all, while Amaral claims it was (used in the investigation).

And since Amaral's claim of its use is at variance with its actual use, we can be sure Amaral was lying.  Still, the key point; reference in the file, context bogus.

Does Amaral get away with that one?

So far as I am aware, there is no reference (at all!) in the file to the McCanns' fund.

Yet Amaral says it is fraudulent. 

What on earth is the basis of Amaral's appeal?

[ferryman]

What was the income and expenditure last FY then?

I'm not an accountant and I don't know how to read accounts.

But those who can (and whose opinions I trust) tell me it's all in apple-pie order.

Perhaps Jean-Pierre would be a better one to answer that (for example, there are doubtless several others).

[Alice Purjorick]

I'm not an accountant and I don't know how to read accounts.

But those who can (and whose opinions I trust) tell me it's all in apple-pie order.

Perhaps Jean-Pierre would be a better one to answer that (for example, there are doubtless several others).

The only way they can do that is look at the P & L. It wasn't filed at companies house so the only way to know what is in it is to be on the inside as it were. Are you saying you know someone in "The Fund's" organisation or suggesting that J-P is part of "The Fund" or knows someone who is?.
I rather think not.

One bit of transparency is that up to FY 2014/2015 "The Fund had spent £3.3MM and come up empty handed.

[G-Unit]

I'm not an accountant and I don't know how to read accounts.

But those who can (and whose opinions I trust) tell me it's all in apple-pie order.

Perhaps Jean-Pierre would be a better one to answer that (for example, there are doubtless several others).

The balance sheet shows a slightly smaller total than the previous year. Can we assume they have spent a very small amount during the year? No we can't. They could have taken in thousands and spent it all plus a little bit. The accounts filed comply with the legal minimum requirements. They are not transparent by any stretch of the imagination.

[slartibartfast]

You.

The McCanns' fund is transparent.

Just as it says on the tin.

No it isn't.

[pegasus]

I'm not an accountant and I don't know how to read accounts.

But those who can (and whose opinions I trust) tell me it's all in apple-pie order.

Perhaps Jean-Pierre would be a better one to answer that (for example, there are doubtless several others).

It's the smallest apple-pie I ever saw Ferryman :)
Basically it contains just one number.

[Carana]

I'm (slowly) getting the hang of this, I think.

If it's in the file and Amaral states it, the McCanns can't touch him: hence the mantra of Amaral (and those who support him), it's all in the files.

But is it?

And what about stuff in the files, but contradicted by other stuff also in the files?

And what about half-truths?

It's in the files that Eddie scented death all over the place.

It's also in the files (both Grime and Harrison) that no evidential reliability can be placed on the reactions of the dogs.

What's the status of that one?

Amaral says Harrison turned the investigation into one for a little girl assumed dead.

That is a blatant lie (more pertinently, not in the files).  Amaral should lose the libel case outright on that point alone.

We can't definitively judge, but we can confidently predict that Amaral did not contradict and correct Prior on the forensic results.  If he (Amaral) did not, that is an assertion of Amaral's not in the files.

Amaral makes reference to the STU 100 and there is also reference to it in the files.  But Grime's reference makes plain he is not talking about the PdL investigation at all, while Amaral claims it was (used in the investigation).

And since Amaral's claim of its use is at variance with its actual use, we can be sure Amaral was lying.  Still, the key point; reference in the file, context bogus.

Does Amaral get away with that one?

So far as I am aware, there is no reference (at all!) in the file to the McCanns' fund.

Yet Amaral says it is fraudulent. 

What on earth is the basis of Amaral's appeal?

     
Proven Facts in the Civil Trial: English Translation, 21 January 2015

Articles 27 and 28 – The answer to the question faces, firstly, the problem of dichotomy between "facts that have been ascertained in the inquiry" and "facts that are equally part of the inquiry". If one understood as facts that have been ascertained in the investigation those that, with rigour and according to procedural-penal dogmatism, resulted from the investigation, it is believed that only one would deserve that qualification – the disappearance of Madeleine MacCann. Everything that is part of the investigation, apart from that fact, is indicia, means of evidence, means of obtaining evidence and theses or hypotheses of fact, which is normal for an inquiry that has been archived due to a lack of evidence. Thus it is understood that, when one places side by side "facts that have been ascertained in the inquiry" and those that "are part of the inquiry" one is referring to the means of obtaining evidence, the means of evidence and indicia that make up the investigation itself and that are documented in the inquiry. Thus, from the reading of the book and the viewing of the documentary it is concluded that defendant Gonçalo Amaral uses, in his affirmations, mostly facts that did indeed take place and are documented in the inquiry (in the version that is available in this process). Some of the facts that were used are not complete (for example, from the report about Martin Smith's deposition – in the inquiry, page 1606 of Volume 6) – the part where the witness states that the person that he saw carrying a child in his arms did not do it "in a comfortable manner, showing a lack of habitude") and others that are contained in the book and in the documentary have not been included in the inquiry (v.g. the instructions that he gave to the picket when he heard about the disappearance – page 37 of the book; the statement attributed to the parents that the apartment showed break-in signs – page 44 of the book; Kate MacCann's discomfort over the speed of the car – page 55 of the book; the hypothesis of a reconstruction of events discussed in mid-May – page 94 of the book; the "informal" identification of Robert Murat by Jane Tanner – page 108).
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id505.html

[Carana]

I find this fascinating:


Lisbon Appeals Court Ruling 19 Oct 2010

PORTUGUESE COURT  PAGES 11 TO 20
 II - Legal basis and Reasons
The following facts were proved:


(...)

25 - Curricular articles were divulged on the Internet relating to the First Defendant, that spoke of him as a correct, structured, sociably adept man, namely to perform political roles.


 http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/court_docs.htm

Technically true, as some pro-Amaral sites have posters whose avatars involve a halo around his head and make numerous comments as to what a hero he is.... oh and GASP day and whatever else is invented.


However, that doesn't take into account the broader reality of his suspended criminal sentence over his involvement in the Cipriano torture trial.

[pegasus]

These accounts are the finest in the district.

[mercury]

These accounts are the finest in the district.

*chortles*

and *chortles also* at the hubris or something not even close to  half magnanimous in thinking their last remaining 750k is going to make a difference.....and as IF any sane person would believe that in the first place......sad

They even had their own sister blabbing to the press that they were so hard up money  wise because they had to fund the search as well as run  their household....LooooooL ...i guess dear pat forgot the millions donated, bless



http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/madeleine-mccanns-aunt-explains-why-she-has-joined-1079005

[misty]

These accounts are the finest in the district.

LOL, You've just lost all credibility as a serious poster!