Former Portuguese detective Gonçalo Amaral wins appeal in damages trial.

[Brietta]

And if their appeal to the SC fails ? If they have to pay all court costs. Where do you propose that money comes from ? Surely not the money earmarked to continue the search ?

Not my concern and surely none of yours ... unless you are giving serious thought to organising a Crowdfunding campaign?

[faithlilly]

Not my concern and surely none of yours ... unless you are giving serious thought to organising a Crowdfunding campaign?

Not your concern ? I thought finding the child was all you supporters wanted so surely safeguarding the money needed to do that SHOULD be your concern ?

[stephen25000]

Not my concern and surely none of yours ... unless you are giving serious thought to organising a Crowdfunding campaign?

Here's a novel idea for you.

FOR ONCE, the mccanns paying it out of their own money and nobody else's.

[Jean-Pierre]

Here's a novel idea for you.

FOR ONCE, the mccanns paying it out of their own money and nobody else's.

A question.  They won damages against the Express.  And chose to have this paid to the fund.

So - is that "their own" money? 

[slartibartfast]

A question.  They won damages against the Express.  And chose to have this paid to the fund.

So - is that "their own" money?

No, they gave it away.

[Brietta]

Not your concern ? I thought finding the child was all you supporters wanted so surely safeguarding the money needed to do that SHOULD be your concern ?

Why "SHOULD" something which is entirely none of my business or anyone else's apart from those directly affected for that matter be my concern?

I consider it is not; apart from wishing them every success. 

Nor do I rate those who for nine years have made it their business to attack Madeleine's fund in any which way they can. 

As you have rightly pointed out, finding the child involves "safeguarding the money needed" to carry out exactly that purpose.

Any reason you can think of why people have chosen to attack those "safeguarding the money needed" to search for Madeleine ~ the missing child to whom you refer?

Any reason why there has been a nine year campaign to undermine the Madeleine fund?

[Alfie]

Anyone enjoying the prospect of Amaral sueing the McCanns may have to prepare to have their bubbles burst:

Amaral on the possibility of sueing the McCanns:  "I've to tell you another thing, to sue the McCann couple alone, what for? They're over there in England, I would have to go there, for an eventual thing, that would take years, and then would the sentence be executed there in England? It would have to be done by a number of people".

[slartibartfast]

Why "SHOULD" something which is entirely none of my business or anyone else's apart from those directly affected for that matter be my concern?

I consider it is not; apart from wishing them every success. 

Nor do I rate those who for nine years have made it their business to attack Madeleine's fund in any which way they can. 

As you have rightly pointed out, finding the child involves "safeguarding the money needed" to carry out exactly that purpose.

Any reason you can think of why people have chosen to attack those "safeguarding the money needed" to search for Madeleine ~ the missing child to whom you refer?

Any reason why there has been a nine year campaign to undermine the Madeleine fund?

Maybe because the fund was sold as transparent and had originally intended to be a charity?

[G-Unit]

Like Mr Amaral's book and the subsequent legal action following on from it, all has been a diversion from the search for Madeleine that her parents especially and all who care about finding out what happened to her could well have done without.

It mystifies me why it is failed to be recognised that only because of the superhuman effort of her parents is there any search at all going on for her now.  It was only her parents' efforts since before the archiving of her case until Scotland Yard took up her case that kept that search ongoing.

All that despite every ingenuity known to man employed without let for nine years to put obstacles in the way of their efforts on Madeleine's behalf from social media campaigns spreading lies and misapprehension ~ to petitions ~ to FOI's too numerous to account etcetera, etcetera ...

Mr Amaral's book was the catalyst for all of that so misdirection in the search for the child stems from there.

I believe the judgement in his favour on appeal was an aberration and I applaud the McCanns for continuing to fight on Madeleine's behalf by challenging it.

Even the judge in the lower court rejected the contention that the book harmed the search for Madeleine, so that's an unconfirmed assertion. The damages were awarded to the parents so the Appeal is about the parents not about Madeleine.

[ShiningInLuz]

Anyone enjoying the prospect of Amaral sueing the McCanns may have to prepare to have their bubbles burst:

Amaral on the possibility of sueing the McCanns:  "I've to tell you another thing, to sue the McCann couple alone, what for? They're over there in England, I would have to go there, for an eventual thing, that would take years, and then would the sentence be executed there in England? It would have to be done by a number of people".

It would be interesting to know if there are even any realistic grounds on which Mr Amaral might raise a case.

His assets were frozen by a Portuguese court, so I cannot see an English court permitting an action on that.

His book sale income etc likewise was decided by a Portuguese court.

That seems to leave defamation of character.  As far as I am aware, the McCanns have used litigation, not defamation, so how could that work?

That appears to leave Mr Amaral with the Portuguese courts as a route, and I can't see how he could bring an action in Portugal.  We're back to the sticking points that it was Portuguese courts that froze assets, stopped sale of the book and DVD.

Could Mr Amaral raise an action on the basis that his right to a good name has been infringed?  I can't see that either as it was Portuguese courts accepting the McCann action.

Even if he could raise a case in either country, it would take years, cost a pretty penny, there is no guarantee of a successful outcome, and would a victory amount to much?

I suspect he is smart enough to stand back from that and simply deploy freedom of expression instead.

[ferryman]

Maybe because the fund was sold as transparent and had originally intended to be a charity?

To flesh that out more fully, they were advised by the Charity Commission that the remit (of the appeal, for just one person) was too narrow to qualify as a charity, so they were obliged (by rules and regulations) to set it up as a business.

[slartibartfast]

To flesh that out more fully, they were advised by the Charity Commission that the remit (of the appeal, for just one person) was too narrow to qualify as a charity, so they were obliged (by rules and regulations) to set it up as a business.

...and?

[ferryman]

...and?

Your post was a classic example of libel by inference.

So the need to lay out the full picture was clear.

[Alice Purjorick]

A question.  They won damages against the Express.  And chose to have this paid to the fund.

So - is that "their own" money?

As soon as it shows on the company account it belongs to the company unless it was a loan to the company
in which case the amount and terms of the loan will listed somewhere then should interest be payable on such loan it would show in the accounts.
Come on J-P you know that.

[Brietta]

Maybe because the fund was sold as transparent and had originally intended to be a charity?

That may be your opinion ... it is not mine ... mainly because all the requirements of Madeleine's Fund have been met in every way.

The book in my opinion has been most unhelpful in helping Madeleine's case.

In Faithlilly's opinion the money in Madeleine's Fund warrants safeguarding because it is needed to find her.

The genesis of the "fraudulent fund" myth and the subsequent nine year attacks on what is recognised as a vehicle to assist Madeleine, can be read below and is recognised by the author as an "inopportune" "undiplomatic" and "an ill-judged comment".

The vagaries of the law have allowed character assassination such as this and much worse to  be excused forcing the innocent party into the appeal courts when the toss of a coin and best of three might make as much sense as what we have seen.

FRAUD OR ABUSE OF TRUST?

During a more relaxed moment at one of these meetings, I come out with an ill-judged comment. Inopportune or undiplomatic, but this is my reasoning: thinking about the kinds of crime that may have been committed if the McCanns were involved in their daughter's disappearance, something occurs to me. If they were involved in one way or another, then a crime of fraud or abuse of trust is a possibility concerning the fund that was set up to finance the search for Madeleine. Donations have reached nearly 3 million Euros.

If such a crime exists, Portugal would not have jurisdiction to investigate and try it. The fund being legally registered in England, it would be our English colleagues who would deal with the case. Our English colleagues then realise a hard reality: the strong possibility that they would have a crime to investigate in their own country, with the McCann couple as the main suspects: a prospect that does not seem to appeal to them. I notice a sudden pallor in the faces of those British people present.  Goncalo Amaral