UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
Disappeared and Abducted Children and Young Adults => Madeleine McCann (3) disappeared from her parent's holiday apartment at Ocean Club, Praia da Luz, Portugal on 3 May 2007. No trace of her has ever been found. => Topic started by: stephen25000 on September 15, 2013, 09:01:22 AM
-
Is it moral to make money from something you have done wrong and are responsible for ?
Feel free to discuss.
-
Of course it isn't, thats why criminals can't profit from it, however in this case one side believes they did nothing wrong despite the evidence and persue everyone else (which is a lot of people/organisations) who tell them different and I find it offensive that Goncalo Amaral is being sued for writing a book when the otherside did exactly the same. In the end the twins are going to find out, or be told what happened and will make their own minds up, they cannot expect to limit the 'damage' here.
-
No it's not moral, maybe Amaral wouldn't be in court if he had any.
-
Of course it isn't, thats why criminals can't profit from it, however in this case one side believes they did nothing wrong despite the evidence and persue everyone else (which is a lot of people/organisations) who tell them different and I find it offensive that Goncalo Amaral is being sued for writing a book when the otherside did exactly the same. In the end the twins are going to find out, or be told what happened and will make their own minds up, they cannot expect to limit the 'damage' here.
Well said Joanne.
You have put it very succinctly.
8@??)(
-
No it's not moral, maybe Amaral wouldn't be in court if he had any.
What of the Mccanns ?
Making money from their elder daughters disappearance, which they were the catalyst for.
-
The Mccann's didn't benefit financially, proceeds went to the fund.
-
Is it moral to make money from something you have done wrong and are responsible for ?
Feel free to discuss.
Of course not!
That's part of the reason why Amaral is in court facing an action for defamation.
-
The Mccann's didn't benefit financially, proceeds went to the fund.
The fund overseen by the McCann's.
-
There's already a thread discussing the fund/book.
-
The basic and most important point is very simple.
The Mccanns have made money from their inexcusable behaviour, as they claim Amaral has done.
The 'fund' is controlled by the Mccanns, and associates. effectively I believe a private company.
They have failed as promised to give a full accounting of where the money has gone.
So pot calling kettle black applies to those, including the Mccanns in criticizing Amaral.
-
The basic and most important point is very simple.
The Mccanns have made money from their inexcusable behaviour, as they claim Amaral has done.
The 'fund' is controlled by the Mccanns, and associates. effectively I believe a private company.
They have failed as promised to give a full accounting of where the money has gone.
So pot calling kettle black applies to those, including the Mccanns in criticizing Amaral.
I disagree.
- The family was trying to find a child.
- They established a structure to receive the money from well-wishers. That fund is overseen by various people (including family members, but not only) and audited. There was an explanation as to what money had been spent on in the year involving most donations from well-wishers. Since then, the main revenue has been from libel suits and Kate's book. Some people would like to nitpick over details.
- Where are the audited accounts of Amaral's income from his book, documentary, interviews and defence fund?
-
The Mccanns have benefitted from the fund, it made mortgage payments for them, it paid for other stuff related to the disappearance of THEIR daughter, the one THEY lost, to say they haven't benefited is rubbish.
-
The Mccanns have benefitted from the fund, it made mortgage payments for them, it paid for other stuff related to the disappearance of THEIR daughter, the one THEY lost, to say they haven't benefited is rubbish.
2 mortgage payments, that were paid back. Amaral didn't pay his mortgage, taxes, or his brother from his millions, did he? But he bought a Jag, earring, face lift, started a business, and had his big birthday bash!
-
2 mortgage payments, that were paid back. Amaral didn't pay his mortgage, taxes, or his brother from his millions, did he? But he bought a Jag, earring, face lift, started a business, and had his big birthday bash!
Amaral's 'millions' ?
Precisely how much has he earned ?
Cliches such as 'millions ' are irrelevant.
The Mccanns clearly had financial troubles, otherwise why did they need their mortgage paying twice ?
Without the fund, paid for by the donations of others, who would have paid the mortgage ?
As to the rest, the money was supposed to have been used on the search. That clearly hasn't, but we have seen legal expenses galore. >@@(*&)
-
Precisely how much has he earned ?
Nothing!
But ill-gotten gains, quite a bit.
How much of his ill-gotten-gains will he keep hold of?
Remains to be seen.
The real question of morality ...
-
Precisely how much has he earned ?
Nothing!
But ill-gotten gains, quite a bit.
How much of his ill-gotten-gains will he keep hold of?
Remains to be seen.
The real question of morality ...
Please quantify, if you are able, 'ill gotten gains' .
At this point in time, the Mccanns by their own admission are not 'searching'.
So what is happening with the money ?
Why haven't the proceeds been donated to the SY investigation ?
Before Madeline disappeared they were both working, now only he is, so how do they manage financially ?
Likewise, Amaral isn't working, so how is he managing financially ?
and since he doesn't appear to have any money, how can he pay anything to the Mccanns even if they win the case ?
and there is no guarantee they will win, bearing in mind Duarte's 'case' so far ?
-
Amaral's 'millions' ?
Precisely how much has he earned ?
Cliches such as 'millions ' are irrelevant.
The Mccanns clearly had financial troubles, otherwise why did they need their mortgage paying twice ?
Without the fund, paid for by the donations of others, who would have paid the mortgage ?
As to the rest, the money was supposed to have been used on the search. That clearly hasn't, but we have seen legal expenses galore. >@@(*&)
Don't lie Steve, they had no financial troubles, they were having to pay for the villa, and living expenses. If they had been at home, they would have both been in work. You seem to forget Gerry didn't get paid for some of those months.
And what have we seen of Amarals accounts/expenses? Zilch cos he spent his on booze and fancy women. He's had financial troubles since 1998, is that the McCann's fault too?
Just think of the shite he'd be in if he hadn't wrote his book.
-
Don't lie Steve, they had no financial troubles, they were having to pay for the villa, and living expenses. If they had been at home, they would have both been in work. You seem to forget Gerry didn't get paid for some of those months.
And what have we seen of Amarals accounts/expenses? Zilch cos he spent his on booze and fancy women. He's had financial troubles since 1998, is that the McCann's fault too?
Just think of the shite he'd be in if he hadn't wrote his book.
I'm not lying DCI.
Try and get perspective on the situation.
Whose fault is it they had to stay on in Portugal ?
Ah yes, them.
Why was a fund arranged so quickly ?
Other people would have had to put their home up for sale, rather than rely on donations from other peoples hard earned money.
The fact remains, she is no longer working.
Meanwhile can you prove Amaral spends his money on 'booze and fancy women' ?
Why do you so clearly hate Amaral ?
-
I'm not lying DCI.
Try and get perspective on the situation.
Yes you are, unless you saw their finances before Madeleine was abducted?
Whose fault is it they had to stay on in Portugal ?
The abductors
Ah yes, them.
Why was a fund arranged so quickly ?
Why did Amaral write a book so soon?
Other people would have had to put their home up for sale, rather than rely on donations from other peoples hard earned money.
So Gerry's job is a doddle, can you do it? Nobody had to donate, did you?
The fact remains, she is no longer working.
So
Meanwhile can you prove Amaral spends his money on 'booze and fancy women' ?
One of them, yes. Sofia was also knocking her husband off. I take it you haven't heard about the golden bullet, Amaral threatened to put between this mans eyes? Or Sofia throwing his clothes in a bar doorway, where the manager asked him to leave?
Why do you so clearly hate Amaral ?
I probably hate Amaral as much as you hate all the McCann's
Keep it up Steve, you are helping Amaral, no end 8((()*/
-
Keep it up Steve, you are helping Amaral, no end 8((()*/
Yet again, your magical mystery abduction with no proof 8((()*/
Why shouldn't anyone write a book on the case ?
Others have.
Have the Mccanns sued them ?
How many other consultants are there in the world ?
Didn't you know people donated thinking it was helping a search ?
Not helping the Mccanns personal finances.
'One of them, yes. Sofia was also knocking her husband off. I take it you haven't heard about the golden bullet, Amaral threatened to put between this mans eyes? Or Sofia throwing his clothes in a bar doorway, where the manager asked him to leave?'
Can you provide proof of all of this, and more poignantly, what does it have to do with his book or this case ?
P.S. I don't hate the Mccanns, though obviously you hate Amaral....A bit player in this case.
However, I have contempt for parents who place their children in needless danger, and who placed their socializing above childcare, and a mother who said she would FORGIVE a made up abductor, but pursues a VENDETTA over one of the people who tried to solve Madeleine's disappearance.
Note, one of the people.
-
Yet again, your magical mystery abduction with no proof 8((()*/
'One of them, yes. Sofia was also knocking her husband off. I take it you haven't heard about the golden bullet, Amaral threatened to put between this mans eyes? Or Sofia throwing his clothes in a bar doorway, where the manager asked him to leave?'
Scandal of Summer - wife of Gonçalo who she said she Loved! (former.inspector of PJ) it put his suitcases at the door !
Dates Mon, 17 Aug 2009 20:54:25 +0100
Due to the fact that Mr. Gonçalo Amaral (disgraced former inspector of the PJ of Portimão) arrived at his house, several times, late at night and in the early hours of the morning, his wife («known as the best fellatio of Faro») suspected that he had an affair with another woman, because he came home reeking of another woman's perfume. Sofia, Amaral's wife, packed all his clothes and shoes up and threw them in the door of a cafe', along with a letter she had written, explaining the worse things about her husband, for everybody who wanted to read it.
Sofia was still not satisfied with that, the following night, in the absence of her husband Goncalo, she went to have dinner in a well known restaurant in Portimão, with the husband of the woman she believed had an affair with her husband. After dinner, the two "lovers" went for the night to the Praia da Rocha, hand in hand, kissing and showing a fondness and a very strong intimacy for each other, but, because she was still not satisfied with that, she took that gentleman back to her house, the marital home, in the late hours of the night.
It was the biggest scandal of so well-known public figures among residents in Portimão. But this history does not end here. From that day 2 months ago, the couple (Gonçalo Amaral and his wife) do not rest, their relationship is in turmoil and at an all time low, their marriage is under great strain.
They reached the point that Dr. Gonçalo Amaral, inside a well-known bar at Praia da Rocha,got up approximately 4 times from his table and approached the table of the other couple. Goncalo Amaral, made several threats to the man that went out with his wife Sofia, and 3 or 4 times he violently put his hands around the neck of the same man, insulting the couple numerous times, kicking and punching, until Mr. Gonçalo Amaral was finally asked to leave, by the persons present in the bar who were there to have fun, not to see violent discussions, insults, threats and beatings, just because Mr. Gonçalo Amaral and his wife decided to do a big scandal and scene at the place.
It was a shame! How is it possible that so well-educated people, supposedly with "distinction" and an high professional status, behave in such a derogatory fashion and become embroiled in these kind of scandals! And they cannot leave each others husbands and wives alone... Still have more to come!!.
http://justice4mccannfam.5forum.biz/t1796-oh-dear-gonc-has-been-caught-at-it-again-or-gonc-in-public-brawl-after-husband-of-lover-kos-him-in-bar
This is the one Joanna Morais tried to get removed, but then had to admit it was true.
http://justice4mccannfam.5forum.biz/t2106-amarals-been-a-naughty-boy-again
-
Scandal of Summer - wife of Gonçalo who she said she Loved! (former.inspector of PJ) it put his suitcases at the door !
Dates Mon, 17 Aug 2009 20:54:25 +0100
Due to the fact that Mr. Gonçalo Amaral (disgraced former inspector of the PJ of Portimão) arrived at his house, several times, late at night and in the early hours of the morning, his wife («known as the best fellatio of Faro») suspected that he had an affair with another woman, because he came home reeking of another woman's perfume. Sofia, Amaral's wife, packed all his clothes and shoes up and threw them in the door of a cafe', along with a letter she had written, explaining the worse things about her husband, for everybody who wanted to read it.
Sofia was still not satisfied with that, the following night, in the absence of her husband Goncalo, she went to have dinner in a well known restaurant in Portimão, with the husband of the woman she believed had an affair with her husband. After dinner, the two "lovers" went for the night to the Praia da Rocha, hand in hand, kissing and showing a fondness and a very strong intimacy for each other, but, because she was still not satisfied with that, she took that gentleman back to her house, the marital home, in the late hours of the night.
It was the biggest scandal of so well-known public figures among residents in Portimão. But this history does not end here. From that day 2 months ago, the couple (Gonçalo Amaral and his wife) do not rest, their relationship is in turmoil and at an all time low, their marriage is under great strain.
They reached the point that Dr. Gonçalo Amaral, inside a well-known bar at Praia da Rocha,got up approximately 4 times from his table and approached the table of the other couple. Goncalo Amaral, made several threats to the man that went out with his wife Sofia, and 3 or 4 times he violently put his hands around the neck of the same man, insulting the couple numerous times, kicking and punching, until Mr. Gonçalo Amaral was finally asked to leave, by the persons present in the bar who were there to have fun, not to see violent discussions, insults, threats and beatings, just because Mr. Gonçalo Amaral and his wife decided to do a big scandal and scene at the place.
It was a shame! How is it possible that so well-educated people, supposedly with "distinction" and an high professional status, behave in such a derogatory fashion and become embroiled in these kind of scandals! And they cannot leave each others husbands and wives alone... Still have more to come!!.
http://justice4mccannfam.5forum.biz/t1796-oh-dear-gonc-has-been-caught-at-it-again-or-gonc-in-public-brawl-after-husband-of-lover-kos-him-in-bar
This is the one Joanna Morais tried to get removed, but then had to admit it was true.
http://justice4mccannfam.5forum.biz/t2106-amarals-been-a-naughty-boy-again
LET'S TRY AGAIN.
What has Amaral's private life got to do with this case ?
If you make it so, then the Mccanns private life is fair game too. 8)-)))
-
LET'S TRY AGAIN.
What has Amaral's private life got to do with this case ?
If you make it so, then the Mccanns private life is fair game too. 8)-)))
You started the thread, The title is MORALS, those are Amarals Morals.
Come off it, the Mccanns private life has been pulled to shreds by you and others.
Here's some more of the Amaral Morals. Do check all the dates
Portuguese newspaper 24horas today:
Mon Nov 16, 2009
The judge who ordered the seizure of the house and jaguar of former PJ inspector, rated a trail of debts, in a action of anticipation of the eventual sentence of compensation to Madeleine´s parents. The assets of Gonçalo Amaral was already precarious before the decision of the Civil Court of Lisbon, who last October ordered the arrest of the proceeds fom the rights of copyright related with the sales of the book "Maddie - the truth of lie". Until May 19, 2008, hung over Gonçalo Amaral, two measures of attachment, an attachment of seize and tax / debts, which together amounted to 468, 4 thousand euros.
According with a certificate signed by the 3rd Land Registry of Lisbon, with the date of 21st September of 2009, which 24horas had access - the former PJ inspector was noticed in those three actions by A.S. Amaral, by the National Treasury and also from the Bank of Espírito Santo. The first of those three actions, a seizure of the order of 129, 6 thousand euros, was brought at February 9th of 2005, referring to a "fact" verified in December 16th previous year.
A.S. Amaral, and the applicant of the action was at the time, resident in na 3rd floor of Quinta da Mata, in Corroios (Seixal). 24horas could not locate him.
At September 14th of 2006, new "nightmare to Gonçalo Amaral with the National Treasury to move forward with seize action of 16.996 euros. The day of May 19th of 2008 was a date of an even worst news. An action - another one - the seize by the Bank Espírito Santo (which belongs to BIC) against Gonçalo Amaral reaches the sum of 294.405 euros, plus with other 14,7 thousand as payment of expenses of the executive process, judged and ordered by a judge of Olhão´s Court.
The Civil Court of Lisbon understood, once evaluated the financial situation of Gonçalo Amaral, that if he becomes to be condemned as a result of the application of indemnization requested by Madeleine´s parents, does not offer guarantees of match it´s payment. It´s from that assessment that comes the decision of... arrest the house, the jaguar, the share of Amaral in the company Gonçalo Amaral Unipessoal Lda, and a third part of his salary as manager of the firm.
House arrested:
Amaral and his wife, Alexandra, had bought a house with 240 square metres on a land with a total area of 1145 square metres at Urbanização Cerro Azul, in Quelfes, Olhão - with 2 floors, 2 terraces, a pool and a garage - at October 25 of 2002.
The house was registered only in Alexandra´s name, but, the registration communion marriage of acquired in which the married, dictated their arrest due to actions taxes against her husband. The couple payed for the house 204, 3 thousand euros, form which they move forward with na voluntary mortgage, as a loan title, hired in that same day and near BIC, with the total value of 292,9 thousand euros. At october 31st of 2003, they demand another loan at the same bank, with the top value of 64, 5 mil euros.
Retirement pension also under "pillage":
That same house would be the target of a seize of 129,9 thousand euros demanded by A.S. Amaral in 2005 and would work with the same purpose on the next seize, the one at 2006, as a guarantee of payment of 16.996 euros to the National Treasury.
But, there is more. Retired since June 2008, Gonçalo Amaral receives a pension by early retirement - after 26 years of service - of 2039 euros, but the Retirement Administration Office forces him to discount a sixth part of that value every month, until the value of that debt reaches the 10.505 euros. The former inspector payed five of those benefits until the beginning of October. He has yet 26 to pay. And yet... a certificate of debts of October 16th of 2009 at Finantial Service from Olhão which proves that Amaral owes to the Tax payer office a total of 13.426.7 euros. The debts (of 2006, 2007, 2009) has origin in fines, IRS, stamp duty and transfer tax. In a statement released in October 21, Amaral told that he feared to "be prevented of defending his reasons in court" due to the "higher costs of money" by the judicial action requested by the couple McCann. 24horas tried to get in touch with Amaral and his wife to clarify this situation. None of them answered the phone. Also none of them answered the written messages sent by 24horas.
80 thousand for tv interview:
At the end of april 2009, a correspondent of Five News requested an interview to Amaral. According to information gathered by 24horas, the British journalist received Amaral´s answer, but the interview, if granted, would have to be payed. Amaral issued that he would charge 80 thousand euros, also the same with other broadcasts including Portuguese tv channel TVI.
-
You started the thread, The title is MORALS, those are Amarals Morals.
Come off it, the Mccanns private life has been pulled to shreds by you and others.
Here's some more of the Amaral Morals. Do check all the dates
Portuguese newspaper 24horas today:
Mon Nov 16, 2009
The judge who ordered the seizure of the house and jaguar of former PJ inspector, rated a trail of debts, in a action of anticipation of the eventual sentence of compensation to Madeleine´s parents. The assets of Gonçalo Amaral was already precarious before the decision of the Civil Court of Lisbon, who last October ordered the arrest of the proceeds fom the rights of copyright related with the sales of the book "Maddie - the truth of lie". Until May 19, 2008, hung over Gonçalo Amaral, two measures of attachment, an attachment of seize and tax / debts, which together amounted to 468, 4 thousand euros.
According with a certificate signed by the 3rd Land Registry of Lisbon, with the date of 21st September of 2009, which 24horas had access - the former PJ inspector was noticed in those three actions by A.S. Amaral, by the National Treasury and also from the Bank of Espírito Santo. The first of those three actions, a seizure of the order of 129, 6 thousand euros, was brought at February 9th of 2005, referring to a "fact" verified in December 16th previous year.
A.S. Amaral, and the applicant of the action was at the time, resident in na 3rd floor of Quinta da Mata, in Corroios (Seixal). 24horas could not locate him.
At September 14th of 2006, new "nightmare to Gonçalo Amaral with the National Treasury to move forward with seize action of 16.996 euros. The day of May 19th of 2008 was a date of an even worst news. An action - another one - the seize by the Bank Espírito Santo (which belongs to BIC) against Gonçalo Amaral reaches the sum of 294.405 euros, plus with other 14,7 thousand as payment of expenses of the executive process, judged and ordered by a judge of Olhão´s Court.
The Civil Court of Lisbon understood, once evaluated the financial situation of Gonçalo Amaral, that if he becomes to be condemned as a result of the application of indemnization requested by Madeleine´s parents, does not offer guarantees of match it´s payment. It´s from that assessment that comes the decision of... arrest the house, the jaguar, the share of Amaral in the company Gonçalo Amaral Unipessoal Lda, and a third part of his salary as manager of the firm.
House arrested:
Amaral and his wife, Alexandra, had bought a house with 240 square metres on a land with a total area of 1145 square metres at Urbanização Cerro Azul, in Quelfes, Olhão - with 2 floors, 2 terraces, a pool and a garage - at October 25 of 2002.
The house was registered only in Alexandra´s name, but, the registration communion marriage of acquired in which the married, dictated their arrest due to actions taxes against her husband. The couple payed for the house 204, 3 thousand euros, form which they move forward with na voluntary mortgage, as a loan title, hired in that same day and near BIC, with the total value of 292,9 thousand euros. At october 31st of 2003, they demand another loan at the same bank, with the top value of 64, 5 mil euros.
Retirement pension also under "pillage":
That same house would be the target of a seize of 129,9 thousand euros demanded by A.S. Amaral in 2005 and would work with the same purpose on the next seize, the one at 2006, as a guarantee of payment of 16.996 euros to the National Treasury.
But, there is more. Retired since June 2008, Gonçalo Amaral receives a pension by early retirement - after 26 years of service - of 2039 euros, but the Retirement Administration Office forces him to discount a sixth part of that value every month, until the value of that debt reaches the 10.505 euros. The former inspector payed five of those benefits until the beginning of October. He has yet 26 to pay. And yet... a certificate of debts of October 16th of 2009 at Finantial Service from Olhão which proves that Amaral owes to the Tax payer office a total of 13.426.7 euros. The debts (of 2006, 2007, 2009) has origin in fines, IRS, stamp duty and transfer tax. In a statement released in October 21, Amaral told that he feared to "be prevented of defending his reasons in court" due to the "higher costs of money" by the judicial action requested by the couple McCann. 24horas tried to get in touch with Amaral and his wife to clarify this situation. None of them answered the phone. Also none of them answered the written messages sent by 24horas.
80 thousand for tv interview:
At the end of april 2009, a correspondent of Five News requested an interview to Amaral. According to information gathered by 24horas, the British journalist received Amaral´s answer, but the interview, if granted, would have to be payed. Amaral issued that he would charge 80 thousand euros, also the same with other broadcasts including Portuguese tv channel TVI.
You really are obsessed in your hate of Amaral.
In fact so obsessed, it would seem quite likely you have some connection with them.
Would you care to comment on that ?
and as for money grabbing.
That's what the Mccanns are perceived to be having done from the start.
P.S. The only reference I have made to the Mccanns 'private life' is the argument they had which led to them sleeping in separate bedrooms.
Also, if you care to remember, it was km who in the 'Sun' referred to her 'not making love to her husband'.
Speaking personally, I don't give a monkey's about that.
How about you ?
-
You really are obsessed in your hate of Amaral.
In fact so obsessed, it would seem quite likely you have some connection with them.
Would you care to comment on that ?
and as for money grabbing.
That's what the Mccanns are perceived to be having done from the start.
P.S. The only reference I have made to the Mccanns 'private life' is the argument they had which led to them sleeping in separate bedrooms.
Also, if you care to remember, it was km who in the 'Sun' referred to her 'not making love to her husband'.
Speaking personally, I don't give a monkey's about that.
How about you ?
It always comes down to having to have some connection with the McCann's doesn't it?
No I don't but have read the files properly, not got a mate to write my posts for me.
Do you have some connection with the Amaral's you are so obsessed with?, it would seem quite likely you have.
Would you care to comment on that ?
The McCann's haven't flaunted their sex lives, or had fights in bars for all the world to see.
Seems everything Amaral has accused others of, he's done himself 8(>((
-
It always comes down to having to have some connection with the McCann's doesn't it?
No I don't but have read the files properly, not got a mate to write my posts for me.
Do you have some connection with the Amaral's you are so obsessed with?, it would seem quite likely you have.
Would you care to comment on that ?
The McCann's haven't flaunted their sex lives, or had fights in bars for all the world to see.
Seems everything Amaral has accused others of, he's done himself 8(>((
'The McCann's haven't flaunted their sex lives, or had fights in bars for all the world to see.'
Apart from those obsessed with Amaral like yourself, who actually gives a monkey's about his private life ?
Pray tell.
As to their private lives, well km put that into the public arena, courtesy of the 'sun'.
Personally, like I said, I don't care about it and I'm not interested what they did in the past.
I've said repeatedly, Amaral is a bit player in this case, but people like you focus you're hatred on him, and that is very sad.
-
Don't lie Steve, they had no financial troubles, they were having to pay for the villa, and living expenses. If they had been at home, they would have both been in work. You seem to forget Gerry didn't get paid for some of those months.
And what have we seen of Amarals accounts/expenses? Zilch cos he spent his on booze and fancy women. He's had financial troubles since 1998, is that the McCann's fault too?
Just think of the shite he'd be in if he hadn't wrote his book.
The fund set up just a couple weeks after the disappearance paid for their villa and living expenses! That was one of the tenets of it! To support the family financially, before that Mark Warner let them stay for free in one of their apartments. You dont seriously believe they used any savings they may have had when money was being thrown at them? The fact they used the fund to pay their mortgage in July and August should give you a clue. Naive.
Gerry Mccanns sister is on record saying money has always been tight.......and thats even after the millions in the fund! hello? Giving the inpression they were using their own money for detectives and what not!
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/madeleine-mccanns-aunt-explains-why-she-has-joined-1079005
!
The point of is thread I think, is that the Mccanns garnered millions and despite saying most of it was spent directly on search fees when it patently wasnt......thats ok with some people, not ok for others
And the dissecting Amarals *personal* financial history or love life has sod all to do with anything, its stalkerish
-
'The McCann's haven't flaunted their sex lives, or had fights in bars for all the world to see.'
Apart from those obsessed with Amaral like yourself, who actually gives a monkey's about his private life ?
Pray tell.
As to their private lives, well km put that into the public arena, courtesy of the 'sun'.
Personally, like I said, I don't care about it and I'm not interested what they did in the past.
I've said repeatedly, Amaral is a bit player in this case, but people like you focus you're hatred on him, and that is very sad.
Awful, but if it brought in the million why not...correction, maybe half a million brookes said
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3571775/Kate-McCann-I-couldnt-make-love-to-Gerry.html
Like anyone wanted to know or cared
-
The fund set up just a couple weeks after the disappearance paid for their villa and living expenses! That was one of the tenets of it! To support the family financially, before that Mark Warner let them stay for free in one of their apartments. You dont seriously believe they used any savings they may have had when money was being thrown at them? The fact they used the fund to pay their mortgage in July and August should give you a clue. Naive.
Gerry Mccanns sister is on record saying money has always been tight.......and thats even after the millions in the fund! hello? Giving the inpression they were using their own money for detectives and what not!
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/madeleine-mccanns-aunt-explains-why-she-has-joined-1079005
!
The point of is thread I think, is that the Mccanns garnered millions and despite saying most of it was spent directly on search fees when it patently wasnt......thats ok with some people, not ok for others
And the dissecting Amarals *personal* financial history or love life has sod all to do with anything, its stalkerish
8@??)( 8@??)(
-
Awful, but if it brought in the million why not...correction, maybe half a million brookes said
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3571775/Kate-McCann-I-couldnt-make-love-to-Gerry.html
Like anyone wanted to know or cared
Precisely. 8@??)( 8@??)(
Meanwhile for a good chuckle read Blacksmith's latest @)(++(*
-
Precisely. 8@??)( 8@??)(
Meanwhile for a good chuckle read Blacksmith's latest @)(++(*
Seen it lol, the non existant portuguese poster pedro who when asked urgently for a translation of a portuguese news report had to resort...hours and hours later to google trannslate hahahahaha!!
Pillocks
And the german eddie and keela piece was a hooot!!!!!
@)(++(*
As for the general theme of morals, lets not get started with metodo 3 now......and how they the mccanns and clarence mitchell and some other agents used derided libelled, cast aspersions on and in some cases victimised and harrassed totally innocent people, and some witnesses,pretty dire stuff! The list is long and wide ranging
Laters
-
It is quite obvious that the McCanns have spent plenty of money over the years, trying to find Madeleine.
So, whether you regard their fund raising as being immoral or not, you know that they have at least spent a considerable amount, where it should have been spent.
I would be surprised if they haven't, at some stage, had to account for all transactions, in and out of the fund.
As for Amaral, why should he be obliged to declare where his few quid went? It would be nice to think that he had given all profit to a good cause, after all, he achieved his objective, that being, giving his side of the story.
I certainly wouldn't be putting any of my money on him having done so, however!
If he has indeed given all the proceeds to good causes, I would expect him to use this opportunity to shout it from the roof tops. After all, it is quite apparent, that he very much dislikes being misrepresented.
-
It is quite obvious that the McCanns have spent plenty of money over the years, trying to find Madeleine.
So, whether you regard their fund raising as being immoral or not, you know that they have at least spent a considerable amount, where it should have been spent.
I would be surprised if they haven't, at some stage, had to account for all transactions, in and out of the fund.
As for Amaral, why should he be obliged to declare where his few quid went? It would be nice to think that he had given all profit to a good cause, after all, he achieved his objective, that being, giving his side of the story.
I certainly wouldn't be putting any of my money on him having done so, however!
If he has indeed given all the proceeds to good causes, I would expect him to use this opportunity to shout it from the roof tops. After all, it is quite apparent, that he very much dislikes being misrepresented.
I already know what proportion of the fund has been spent, past tense, on the 'search'.
That is well known.
Question is what's happened to the rest, not counting legal expenses, which have far outweighed, anything spent on the 'search' ?
-
The basic and most important point is very simple.
The Mccanns have made money from their inexcusable behaviour, as they claim Amaral has done.
The 'fund' is controlled by the Mccanns, and associates. effectively I believe a private company.
They have failed as promised to give a full accounting of where the money has gone.
So pot calling kettle black applies to those, including the Mccanns in criticizing Amaral.
A basic and most important point is very simple; it's the McCann's child that is missing not Amarals.
The McCann's have the right to try and raise funds to fund the search for her. Amaral has no right to financial gain because of her.
-
I already know what proportion of the fund has been spent, past tense, on the 'search'.
That is well known.
Question is what's happened to the rest, not counting legal expenses, which have far outweighed, anything spent on the 'search' ?
I think the McCanns would give back every penny raised if they could have Maddie back ...do you agree
-
In the end the twins are going to find out, or be told what happened and will make their own minds up, they cannot expect to limit the 'damage' here.
This is the actual crucial issue, imo.
-
2 mortgage payments, that were paid back. Amaral didn't pay his mortgage, taxes, or his brother from his millions, did he? But he bought a Jag, earring, face lift, started a business, and had his big birthday bash!
Come on, DCI, the diamond was a zircon his little daughter forced him to wear as talisman. He must have lost it, he hasn't it any more. Bad presage ?
-
Come on, DCI, the diamond was a zircon his little daughter forced him to wear as talisman. He must have lost it, he hasn't it any more. Bad presage ?
Anne
Why do you think Amaral didn't pay his debts? What do you think Amaral did with the money he got from the book and documentary and interviews?
-
I think the McCanns would give back every penny raised if they could have Maddie back ...do you agree
So why haven't they given the funds to the so called SY investigation ?
-
A basic and most important point is very simple; it's the McCann's child that is missing not Amarals.
The McCann's have the right to try and raise funds to fund the search for her. Amaral has no right to financial gain because of her.
Only a small percentage of the funds have been used on the so called 'search'.
So your point fails at the first hurdle.
-
I think the McCanns would give back every penny raised if they could have Maddie back ...do you agree
Stephen, as you are online and you started this thread, could you answer this question
-
Stephen, as you are online and you started this thread, could you answer this question
Well let's play fair.
I started this thread, so answer my points first.
Why haven't they given the funds to SY ?
A failure to reply to that, or diversion, will say everything.
8((()*/
-
Well let's play fair.
I started this thread, so answer my points first.
Why haven't they given the funds to SY ?
A failure to reply to that, or diversion, will say everything.
8((()*/
I have no idea. You would have to ask the McCanns. I asked the question first ...are you prepared to answer it. I have answered yours
-
Don't be absurd, Stephen. Scotland Yard is a statutory institution set up to investigate crimes committed by or to citizens of the United Kingdom. They are funded through the government by our taxes. No one,including the McCanns, is required to give them private money to do their job.
-
I have no idea. You would have to ask the McCanns. I asked the question first ...are you prepared to answer it. I have answered yours
Interesting answer............
'I have no idea'.
i.e. A cop out
Well here's mine.
They might want her back, but how could they pay money back which they no longer have, and have spent primarily on legal proceedings
WOULD THERE BE ANOTHER BOOK ?
-
Interesting answer............
'I have no idea'.
i.e. A cop out
Well here's mine.
They might want her back, but how could they pay money back which they no longer have, and have spent primarily on legal proceedings
WOULD THERE BE ANOTHER BOOK ?
there is money in the fund now,
-
Don't be absurd, Stephen. Scotland Yard is a statutory institution set up to investigate crimes committed by or to citizens of the United Kingdom. They are funded through the government by our taxes. No one,including the McCanns, is required to give them private money to do their job.
It isn't absurd.
The crime did not take place in this country.
The tax payer, should not be paying for the incompetence of two parents.
They also PROMISED to use the money raised on the 'search', and that has been to date, a very small percentage.
-
The tax payer, should not be paying for the incompetence of two parents.
Therefore, by your reasoning, Madeleine should remain missing and no one should be trying to find her, or at least try to determine what happened to her because YOU deem her parents to have been incompetent.
If this is your idea of morals, then I hold grave fears for what you may be putting into the minds of the children you purport to "teach."
-
The tax payer, should not be paying for the incompetence of two parents.
Therefore, by your reasoning, Madeleine should remain missing and no one should be trying to find her, or at least try to determine what happened to her because YOU deem her parents to have been incompetent.
If this is your idea of morals, then I hold grave fears for what you may be putting into the minds of the children you purport to "teach."
You really don't get it, do you ?
There was a search and no evidence was found of an abduction.
What of the MORALS of two parents who left their children unprotected whilst they drank and ate ?
So don't preach to me on morals.
You have nothing to base that on after what they did.
-
Neither was evidence found to confirm her death.
You still won't acknowledge the immorality of condemning Madeleine to remain lost (whether dead or alive) because YOU blame the parents for leaving her for short periods.
-
Neither was evidence found to confirm her death.
You still won't acknowledge the immorality of condemning Madeleine to remain lost (whether dead or alive) because YOU blame the parents for leaving her for short periods.
Fascinating.
You ignore my question as to the parents behaviour.
You also ignore what I have said many times, if people want to search they are free to.
Have you 'searched', other than on a keyboard ?
Why should a tax payer, which I am help to pay for AN INVESTIGATION into a crime which took place in another country ?
I would like to know how much has been spent by the Portuguese taxpayers on this case.
It is your position which is IMMORAL, in failing to condemn parents for leaving their children unprotected whilst they drank and ate.
Personally, with your attitude and those of your kindred, I would never leave my children with any of you in a million years.
'short periods.'
No they weren't, they were infrequent checks which have not been independently corroborated.
-
If you want to discuss morals, then neither side is morally fruitful.
One side left their children at home, then went on a media circus when one of them went missing and no matter how you put it, they made money based upon their bad decisions and because no-one believed Goncalo Amaral (I do, I think he's hit the nail on the head with the hammer), well no-one who mattered, he wrote a book too.
If the Mccanns didn't want to 'benefit' from the money, they should have left the job to the police and missing persons charity. We live in a digital age, they could have sorted their own searches out from the back of a computer. Just remind me, who was looking for Madeleine when KM was writing her book (to profit from her loss) and while GM was working?
There are plenty of cases where people have had to sort their own searches out, Amy Bradley, Johnny Gosch, Natalee Holloway, in fact I can't from the top of my head think of anyone else who has taken this route to find a missing person, especially when it was their own bad judgement that caused it and how people can symphathise with the parents is beyond me. I'd put my house on the next post being "Its not about the parents, we want to find the child".
-
If you want to discuss morals, then neither side is morally fruitful.
One side left their children at home, then went on a media circus when one of them went missing and no matter how you put it, they made money based upon their bad decisions and because no-one believed Goncalo Amaral (I do, I think he's hit the nail on the head with the hammer), well no-one who mattered, he wrote a book too.
If the Mccanns didn't want to 'benefit' from the money, they should have left the job to the police and missing persons charity. We live in a digital age, they could have sorted their own searches out from the back of a computer. Just remind me, who was looking for Madeleine when KM was writing her book (to profit from her loss) and while GM was working?
There are plenty of cases where people have had to sort their own searches out, Amy Bradley, Johnny Gosch, Natalee Holloway, in fact I can't from the top of my head think of anyone else who has taken this route to find a missing person, especially when it was their own bad judgement that caused it and how people can symphathise with the parents is beyond me. I'd put my house on the next post being "Its not about the parents, we want to find the child".
On what I underlined, I agree in part.
- Sometimes the media will latch onto the story of a missing person, sometimes the issue will receive scant attention.
In my view:
- People shouldn't be left on their own to find ways of keeping the profile of their missing loved one high in the public's consciousness. Many have been.
- Neither should they be left alone to deal with the intrusion of privacy when their campaign is successful, nor with trials by media based on irresponsible reporting, with myths regurgitated ad nauseum, sometimes by people who genuinely question the issues or who didn't realise that their recollection of "facts"... were media inventions to fill the space required for deadlines, or sometimes by those who believe that they're judges in a reality show.
The double-edged sword doesn't go away, it just takes different forms.
I just hope that all future unfortunate families will have more support and resources.
-
I disagree.
- The family was trying to find a child.
- They established a structure to receive the money from well-wishers. That fund is overseen by various people (including family members, but not only) and audited. There was an explanation as to what money had been spent on in the year involving most donations from well-wishers. Since then, the main revenue has been from libel suits and Kate's book. Some people would like to nitpick over details.
- Where are the audited accounts of Amaral's income from his book, documentary, interviews and defence fund?
Amaral didn't receive donations to write the book. Nevertheless he made donations, as he did all his life, to charities - that's why Isabel Duarte is so mad that she can't find any money to arrest for the McCann. Every year he is "audited" by the portuguese government, as we all are, when we submit our IRS statement.
The McCann created a Fund that is a private enterprise based solely on donations from the public with the pretense that it was to search for the child. However when you analyse their financial reports it's quite clear that the amount of money directly put into that alleged search is less than 15%.
-
Amaral didn't receive donations to write the book. Nevertheless he made donations, as he did all his life, to charities - that's why Isabel Duarte is so mad that she can't find any money to arrest for the McCann. Every year he is "audited" by the portuguese government, as we all are, when we submit our IRS statement.
The McCann created a Fund that is a private enterprise based solely on donations from the public with the pretense that it was to search for the child. However when you analyse their financial reports it's quite clear that the amount of money directly put into that alleged search is less than 15%.
In an earlier post you'd said:
I've stated earlier that Amaral had given most of the money by the book to charity, and I maintain that.
Which charity was that?
-
In an earlier post you'd said:
I've stated earlier that Amaral had given most of the money by the book to charity, and I maintain that.
Which charity was that?
Why should I tell you? Why should I reveal something that he wanted to keep private? He doesn't have a Fund, Ltd company to have to publish whatever he does with his work earned money.
-
Why should I tell you? Why should I reveal something that he wanted to keep private? He doesn't have a Fund, Ltd company to have to publish whatever he does with his work earned money.
If he wanted it kept private why did he tell you?
-
If he wanted it kept private why did he tell you?
He didn't, I had the means to find out.
-
Why should I tell you? Why should I reveal something that he wanted to keep private? He doesn't have a Fund, Ltd company to have to publish whatever he does with his work earned money.
Most laudable, I must say.
However, maybe it would have been better to use the money to pay his mortgage and stop the house being repossesed, to keep a roof over the head of his family, and pay his back taxes to the state, and his brother the money he owed him.
And be a little less brash with the earring and the Jag, and parties and fireworks.
But of course he can do what he wants with the money. None of our business.
-
Most laudable, I must say.
However, maybe it would have been better to use the money to pay his mortgage and stop the house being repossesed, to keep a roof over the head of his family, and pay his back taxes to the state, and his brother the money he owed him.
And be a little less brash with the earring and the Jag, and parties and fireworks.
But of course he can do what he wants with the money. None of our business.
Exactly, none of your business.
The same thing can't be said about Madeleine's Fund - that is our business because it was created under an assumption that the donations were to be used to support the search for a missing child and not to pay mortgages or idle mums or lazy uncles.
Just to conclude the idea about Madeleine's Fund accounts, this extract says it all:
«As in my report on the earlier accounts, review of these long awaited 2012 accounts raises many questions to which the answers, to say the least, are not obvious. Transparent is not a word I would use to describe the 2012 accounts.»
© Enid O'Dowd 29 January 2013, in http://www.mccannfiles.com/id429.html
-
Amaral didn't receive donations to write the book. Nevertheless he made donations, as he did all his life, to charities - that's why Isabel Duarte is so mad that she can't find any money to arrest for the McCann. Every year he is "audited" by the portuguese government, as we all are, when we submit our IRS statement.
The McCann created a Fund that is a private enterprise based solely on donations from the public with the pretense that it was to search for the child. However when you analyse their financial reports it's quite clear that the amount of money directly put into that alleged search is less than 15%.
How do you know he didn't get donations for writing the book? He might not have go donations for writing the book but he definitely got donations after he wrote the book. The then chairman of the Madeleine Foundation, Mr Tony Bennett, publicly announced the amount they donated to Amaral. Where did that money go?
You mention the Portuguese government - revenue/tax - are you aware Amaral owed the government tax money long before Madeleine went missing?
-
There is a saying in English: "Charity begins at home." This means that familial obligations should be met before any outside causes.
Luz would have us believe that some (all??) of the royalties from Amaral's book have been donated to a charity. No matter how worthy this charity, commonsense indicates that it would have been far better (and more honest) for him to have used that money to secure the roof over his family's heads, to mitigate his debt to his brother, and to pay his back taxes.
However, one remains sceptical about this so-called donation to charity, given that Luz refuses to state her source for this claim. Far more likely,IMO, that any such "donation" is merely a scam to hide funds from various creditors, and an attempt to avoid a possible damages payout at the end of the libel trial.
One has to wonder why Luz has publicly revealed this possible donation, given that she herself has stated: "Why should I reveal something that he wanted to keep private?" If she knows he wanted this matter kept private, why has she ignored his wishes, and then refused to reveal her source for her claim? All she has achieved is to further diminish his already tarnished reputation for fiscal responsibility.
-
There is a saying in English: "Charity begins at home." This means that familial obligations should be met before any outside causes.
Luz would have us believe that some (all??) of the royalties from Amaral's book have been donated to a charity. No matter how worthy this charity, commonsense indicates that it would have been far better (and more honest) for him to have used that money to secure the roof over his family's heads, to mitigate his debt to his brother, and to pay his back taxes.
However, one remains sceptical about this so-called donation to charity, given that Luz refuses to state her source for this claim. Far more likely,IMO, that any such "donation" is merely a scam to hide funds from various creditors, and an attempt to avoid a possible damages payout at the end of the libel trial.
One has to wonder why Luz has publicly revealed this possible donation, given that she herself has stated: "Why should I reveal something that he wanted to keep private?" If she knows he wanted this matter kept private, why has she ignored his wishes, and then refused to reveal her source for her claim? All she has achieved is to further diminish his already tarnished reputation for fiscal responsibility.
There are times when you make posts that appear so compassionate that I am moved by the sentiment I imagine is behind it
... then you make a petty, spiteful, partisan post like this ... and I feel I have been blagged
-
There is a saying in English: "Charity begins at home." This means that familial obligations should be met before any outside causes.
Luz would have us believe that some (all??) of the royalties from Amaral's book have been donated to a charity. No matter how worthy this charity, commonsense indicates that it would have been far better (and more honest) for him to have used that money to secure the roof over his family's heads, to mitigate his debt to his brother, and to pay his back taxes.
However, one remains sceptical about this so-called donation to charity, given that Luz refuses to state her source for this claim. Far more likely,IMO, that any such "donation" is merely a scam to hide funds from various creditors, and an attempt to avoid a possible damages payout at the end of the libel trial.
One has to wonder why Luz has publicly revealed this possible donation, given that she herself has stated: "Why should I reveal something that he wanted to keep private?" If she knows he wanted this matter kept private, why has she ignored his wishes, and then refused to reveal her source for her claim? All she has achieved is to further diminish his already tarnished reputation for fiscal responsibility.
Now if Amaral has donated the money to charity, where does that put people like you ?
Well I know the answer to that already.
It makes no difference to how you view Amaral.
-
Now if Amaral has donated the money to charity, where does that put people like you ?
Well I know the answer to that already.
It makes no difference to how you view Amaral.
If Amaral has donated a substantial sum to charity then I applaud him. However the information is coming from Luz who has also claimed that Amaral has been cleared of charges in the Cipriano torture case. She also claims to have seen a paper that confirms this. As we know Amaral has not been cleared so Luz has lied and therefore may also be lying on this occasion.
-
Why should I tell you? Why should I reveal something that he wanted to keep private? He doesn't have a Fund, Ltd company to have to publish whatever he does with his work earned money.
On another thread you'd said:
"Half an year after the book he attended a charity event in the north of Portugal promoted by the royalty of Europe, whose minimum was €500, to gather funds for children in Africa (I suspect that's where his book's royalties went to)."
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=1259.msg35746#msg35746
So... you know he did or you suspect he did?
He did indeed go to the gala dinner of the Order of Malta which was a fundraiser for social projects in Portugal and Mozambique.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CMWbxYjcNBs
Round about the time he had hopes of becoming a political candidate for Olhão...
-
The McCann family lawyer at the tribunal in Lisbon Isabel Duarte wasn't shy about making a comment outside court in which she claimed that Amaral had effectively hidden the funds so as to avoid confiscation should he lose the libel case.
-
If Amaral had indeed donated all his money to charity then he could have produced record of such as proof that he can't pay his debts. As no money has been found, I put it to you, that:
-It's a lie. Money wasn't donated to any charity.
-Money was donated, but no record kept. Which would have been very unwise considering the financial situation he is in with Revenue and others he owes money to.
-Money was donated, but he refuses to produce record of such. Which is also unwise as it could be used as proof of his honourable charitable nature. And it would go a long way in helping him come to some sort of financial agreement with the people he owes money to.
Then one also has to ask (as has been asked):
-Why donate ALL the money when he needs it to pay his debts?
-Why is there no record of this money?
-Why does he not want anyone to know where the money went?
-Has Amaral set up a false charity so that he can move the money into it?
-Has Amaral moved (untraceable) the money to an offshore bank account?
-And if so, why go to such lengths keeping transactions untraceable/hidden?
IF Amaral has nothing to hide, why not produce the evidence of the money earned and or donated?
Keep in mind:
-his publishers and the book retailers will have record of sales.
-those who paid him for interviews will have record of their expenditure.
-other companies and or organisations who donated to him will have record of their donations.
-he wouldn't have received large amounts of money in cash, there must be some record of it, but may have been palced under someone else's name.
-people facing divorce have creative ways of hidding money from their soon to be ex's.
It's hidden
-implies that money received might not be in his name. One has to ask why?
-no record of movement of money can be found. One has to ask why?
-Charitable donations can be traced and thus doesn't fall under the category of 'hidden'.
-
I always thought the Madeleine Fund was supposed to be used for searching for Madeleine but in this video granddad Brian Kennedy states it is for legal expenses.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=0z8I04MDfY4&feature=youtube_gdata_player
-
I always thought the Madeleine Fund was supposed to be used for searching for Madeleine but in this video granddad Brian Kennedy states it is for legal expenses.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=0z8I04MDfY4&feature=youtube_gdata_player
I think you meant that Brian Kennedy is the great-uncle, not grandfather. ;)
That video was apparently filmed two weeks after she'd disappeared, so he was speaking in the context of the time: the fund had only just been established as a mechanism to receive donations from well-wishers that were coming in. Of course, legal costs associated with her disappearance were going to be an issue to face.
-
I think you meant that Brian Kennedy is the great-uncle, not grandfather. ;)
That video was apparently filmed two weeks after she'd disappeared, so he was speaking in the context of the time: the fund had only just been established as a mechanism to receive donations from well-wishers that were coming in. Of course, legal costs associated with her disappearance were going to be an issue to face.
Now how many donators thought they would be paying the Mccanns personal expenses ?
-
Round about the time he had hopes of becoming a political candidate for Olhão...
Do you know why his candidature was rejected ?
-
I always thought the Madeleine Fund was supposed to be used for searching for Madeleine but in this video granddad Brian Kennedy states it is for legal expenses.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=0z8I04MDfY4&feature=youtube_gdata_player
Fund Objectives
The full objects of the Fund are:
-To secure the safe return to her family of Madeleine McCann who was abducted in Praia da Luz, Portugal on Thursday 3rd May 2007;
-To procure that Madeleine's abduction is thoroughly investigated and that her abductors, as well as those who played or play any part in assisting them, are identified and brought to justice; and
-To provide support, including financial assistance, to Madeleine's family.
If the above objects are fulfilled then the objects of the Foundation shall be to pursue such purposes in similar cases arising in the United Kingdom, Portugal or elsewhere.
- http://www.findmadeleine.com/about_the_campaign/index.html
The fund continues to come under scrutiny by those who can't comprehend that everything regarding the fund meets all legal requirements. The funds objectives, etc, are on publicly display (nothing to hide). The accounts are available through Company's House and are published to the public domain. All legal requirements met. It is only those who want to see something sinister in the fund that continues to push this agenda. They would love the public to think something is 'hidden' when it is not. The same can't be said for Amaral.
-
Of course, legal costs associated with her disappearance were going to be an issue to face.
Which legal costs associated with Madeleine's disappearance ?
-
Do you know why his candidature was rejected ?
A criminal record perhaps?? 8(0(*
-
Has anyone seen accounts for this Limited Company??
-
A criminal record perhaps?? 8(0(*
I was wondering why Carana suggested politics and gala were related.
-
Which legal costs associated with Madeleine's disappearance ?
Does Ben Needham or Amy Fitzpatrick or even Rene Hasee's family have legal costs??
-
Now how many donators thought they would be paying the Mccanns personal expenses ?
If there are people who felt they were donating under false pretences, it would have been up to them to lodge a complaint and retrieve their donation. I am sure the director of the fund would happily have reimbursed them.
Instead this old argument is raised over and over again as some sort of sinister plot to get people to pay their (the family's) expenses, when in fact the objective of the fund are clearly visible for all to see.
The ones rests on the person donating to make sure what they are donating to.
Fund Objectives
The full objects of the Fund are:
-To secure the safe return to her family of Madeleine McCann who was abducted in Praia da Luz, Portugal on Thursday 3rd May 2007;
-To procure that Madeleine's abduction is thoroughly investigated and that her abductors, as well as those who played or play any part in assisting them, are identified and brought to justice; and
-To provide support, including financial assistance, to Madeleine's family.
If the above objects are fulfilled then the objects of the Foundation shall be to pursue such purposes in similar cases arising in the United Kingdom, Portugal or elsewhere.
- http://www.findmadeleine.com/about_the_campaign/index.html
-
If there are people who felt they were donating under false pretences, it would have been up to them to lodge a complaint and retrieve their donation. I am sure the director of the fund would happily have reimbursed them.
Instead this old argument is raised over and over again as some sort of sinister plot to get people to pay their (the family's) expenses, when in fact the objective of the fund are clearly visible for all to see.
The ones rests on the person donating to make sure what they are donating to.
- http://www.findmadeleine.com/about_the_campaign/index.html
So where does it say one of the aims of the fund is to finance unnecessary litigation in Portugal and elsewhere ?
Don't you think donators have the right to know the money is being used for the above ?
-
Has anyone seen accounts for this Limited Company??
They don't have to be public.
Instead of spending money you earned you give it to a Fund the mission of which is important for you, is it abnegation if part of the Fund's mission is fulfilling your financial needs ?
-
Instead this old argument is raised over and over again as some sort of sinister plot to get people to pay their (the family's) expenses, when in fact the objective of the fund are clearly visible for all to see.
The onus rests on the person donating to make sure what they are donating to.
So is it morally bankrupt to sit there with God knows how many £millions in a bank account while the girl that it was intended to search for endures endless hell? Assuming she isn't dead of course.
-
Has anyone seen accounts for this Limited Company??
Here are the latest accounts.
-
Do you know why his candidature was rejected ?
Nope. Do you?
Do political parties in Portugal normally give reasons as to why?
-
Nope. Do you?
Do political parties in Portugal normally give reasons as to why?
When someone belonging to a party publicly candidates to a public charge (in this case it was a municipality), the party has to justify somehow his rejection. I think it's like this everywhere.
In this case, I googled a bit, the PSD secretary said Mr Amaral's recent past as a police inspector didn't match the internal criteria of strict discrimination between justice and politics.
-
Here are the latest accounts.
Thanks Albertini.
Speaking of moral values, isn't it worthy of note that the auditors are charging £6,300 per annum to audit the accounts. I find that morally reprehensible. Greedy pigs!!
-
When someone belonging to a party publicly candidates to a public charge (in this case it was a municipality), the party has to justify somehow his rejection. I think it's like this everywhere.
In this case, I googled a bit, the PSD secretary said Mr Amaral's recent past as a police inspector didn't match the internal criteria of strict discrimination between justice and politics.
Thanks, Anne.
Is this new, do you think?
Moita Flores, the mayor of Santarem, was ex-PJ, wasn't he?
-
So where does it say one of the aims of the fund is to finance unnecessary litigation in Portugal and elsewhere ?
Don't you think donators have the right to know the money is being used for the above ?
Read again what I posted earlier. The objectives are clearly stated. The ones rests on the person donating to know what they donating towards. Donors are welcome to contact the fund directors before they donate to make sure what the money will be used for. If assurances can't be given that money will not be used for legal costs, then don't donate! Donors who have already donated and feel that they have given towards something they don't agree with/have not understood the objectives of the fund, can ask for a reimbursement.
Litigation is only unnecessary if there is no purpose to it. In the McCann's vs Amaral litigation as well as McCann's vs Tony Bennett, it was and is clearly demonstrated why legal action is necessary.
-
Read again what I posted earlier. The objectives are clearly stated. The ones rests on the person donating to know what they donating towards. Donors are welcome to contact the fund directors before they donate to make sure what the money will be used for. If assurances can't be given that money will not be used for legal costs, then don't donate! Donors who have already donated and feel that they have given towards something they don't agree with/have not understood the objectives of the fund, can ask for a reimbursement.
Litigation is only unnecessary if there is no purpose to it. In the McCann's vs Amaral litigation as well as McCann's vs Tony Bennett, it was and is clearly demonstrated why legal action is necessary.
The objectives are not clearly stated and that is the problem.
-
The objectives are not clearly stated and that is the problem.
If they not clearly stated don't donate. Simples!
-
Thanks, Anne.
Is this new, do you think?
Moita Flores, the mayor of Santarem, was ex-PJ, wasn't he?
I find it a healthy principle. Do you know for how long Moita Flores had left the PJ when he assumed the municipality of Santarem ? And do you know which is his party ?
-
Litigation is only unnecessary if there is no purpose to it. In the McCann's vs Amaral litigation as well as McCann's vs Tony Bennett, it was and is clearly demonstrated why legal action is necessary.
Do you know whether TB paid all the money of the condemnation ?
-
Do you know whether TB paid all the money of the condemnation ?
I am not sure what you mean by "condemnation", could you please clarify?
-
Here's a question specifically aimed at the supporters of the Mccanns on here.
If I had left my children in my house whilst I popped down the rod for a quick pint at the local, and I'd left the door unlocked, would any of you contribute to a fund that was set up, if one of my kids went missing ?
-
Worth a read, or a re-read...
The McCanns knew that I was going to catch them - TvGuia
21 October 2008 | Posted by astro Leave a Comment
Moita Flores interviews Gonçalo Amaral
TvGuia invited me to interview my former companion in the PJ, and former coordinator of the Maddie case.
He tells why he was the target of lies and how the little girl’s parents concealed the truth.
Moita Flores (MF) - Anyone who reads this conversation on these pages will say: there it is! This guy went to tv to say what the other one told him and it’s going to be difficult to convince the gossipers that we had not spoken to each other for years.
Gonçalo Amaral (GA) - True. The last time that we chatted before I left the PJ, I was stationed in the Azores.
MF - And how are things now? The book that you wrote, “Truth of the Lie”, is out there. You have retired and people are calling for you from all sides…
GA - Don’t even mention it. I’m exhausted. I came to have lunch with you because I had made you a promise, and I’m on my way to Vigo. I know that there are hundreds of persons waiting for me.
MF - Vigo, Madrid…
GA - I also presented the book in Seville and Barcelona, in front of hundreds of readers and the full force of the media.
MF - I read it in El País and I saw you on one or two Spanish tv channels.
GA - Eight tv stations! Can you imagine what that’s like? The whole of the press. I didn’t know where to turn to anymore. Even Hola!…
MF - What about sales? In Portugal, I know it’s selling well. At least in the bookshops where I usually go, I see it listed high in the best-seller lists.
GA - Here we have sold 180 000 copies and we’re rapidly reaching the 200 000 mark. From Spain I have no figures yet, but I know it’s been selling well.
MF - And in England?
GA [laughs] - You’re joking…
MF – I’m serious. It was where your life was most ruined, where you were insulted and defamed…
GA [laughs] - It’s over now… The book will get there, you’ll see…
MF - What about other countries?
GA - It will be published in Italy, in the Netherlands and in Denmark. I’m going over there soon, because the Danish editor has mentioned the possibility of distributing it into Norway and Sweden. We’ll see…
MF - Your determination is to get even with those who worked for the McCanns. They’ve mistreated you.
GA - Believe me, I feel no rage, I’m not even angry. I have understood their game and you also know how this game works. The lies about me, the manipulation is not exactly against the citizen Gonçalo Amaral. They were against the investigator who knew their weaknesses and was going to catch them sooner or later. It was all a matter of time. The McCanns knew that I was going to get them. As you could see, all it took was for the process to be archived in order for everything to be finished. At this moment in time, I’m convinced that they don’t even remember my name anymore. So the game is always the same. We want to catch them, they want to escape, and that’s it. Sometimes the bandits win, sometimes the policemen do. This time around, and concerning this case, it was how it was. They stopped insulting me, they stopped the campaigns to find their daughter, it’s over. They got what they wanted and therefore, peace is back.
MF – And you launch a “grenade” that is called The Truth of the Lie into the midst of that peace. Whoever reads your testimony is left with few doubts about the little girl’s destiny. She died in the apartment.
GA – Do you doubt it?
MF – No. Neither I nor the older people who used to work with me. When this happened, I was in Greece and I heard the news through an English channel. The story was so badly told, that only an ingénue, or a silly person, would believe it. As a matter of fact, when I arrived, I had dinner with several already retired colleagues that worked in homicides, and their opinion was the same. The detail about the window killed the version. Nobody passes through that narrow window space carrying a child.
GA – The window made me doubt. And not only that.
MF – But I do insist on the window. The mother said that she never touched it.
GA – That she never even opened it.
MF – Now, when I read the process, I realized that her fingerprints were on it. And positioned in a manner that coincides with an opening movement.
GA – It was with that, with Kate’s fingerprints on the window that I wanted to catch them.
MF – That’s the truth of the lie.
GA – Among other things. It was one of the best games that I ever saw played out, to divert attention from what really happened in the apartment. The manner in which they “worked” for the Smith was brilliant.
MF – The couple that recognized the father carrying the little girl.
GA – Exactly. It was done in such a manner that at one point in time, it was Gerry himself who informed that someone had witnessed the situation, as if the person that was recognized had been someone else.
MF – Wearing the clothes that the friend mentioned for the photofit.
GA – Precisely.
MF – Do you still drink beer, or did you stop drinking red wine after the news in the English press?
GA [laughs] – I never drank wine. I don’t like red wine.
MF – What really made them mad was being made arguidos.
GA – Now that you know the process, tell me… Under the old Penal Process, how do I ask Kate: “Are you lying when you say you didn’t touch the window? As a matter of fact, it was you who opened the window. We have material evidence of that.” A question like this forces the constitution of arguido because it invades her sphere of constitutional rights. I have to give her the right not to reply, instead of lying. The only solution was to make her an arguida.
MF – Things were different in my time. She would have been under such an attack that before she realized anything, she’d be in jail.
GA – Right, but in your time, in our old times, investigation was made with fuel. Now we all move on honey. Apart from that, this is a process that is uncomfortable for everyone. Nicely archived, nice and quiet, that’s how it looks better. Everyone was happy.
MF – And nobody was tried.
GA – Not yet…
MF – Do you still believe?
GA – It’s too big and too serious a burden to be concealed by so many people for their entire lives.
MF – I also agree with you. Now, tell me. Do we eat grilled squid or do we play the premier league? There is bean and piglet casserole.
GA – You’re crazy. Grilled squid.
MF – I definitely looks like things now move on honey.
GA – We’re too old for such a bean casserole. Today is my birthday and I don’t want to die of overstuffing.
MF – You’re 49 and you say you’re old? What am I then, I’m six “minutes” ahead of you on the scoreboard?! I’m 55, and on the 23rd of February I receive another free one.
GA – Get sensible and order the squid.
MF [speaking to the waiter] – Squid for both of us. Now it’s like in the movies. Bean casseroles are for under 40s only.
source: TvGuia, 17.10.2008, printed edition
http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2008/10/mccanns-knew-that-i-was-going-to-catch.html
-
Here's a question specifically aimed at the supporters of the Mccanns on here.
If I had left my children in my house whilst I popped down the rod for a quick pint at the local, and I'd left the door unlocked, would any of you contribute to a fund that was set up, if one of my kids went missing ?
Is your second name McCann and do you live in Portugal ? @)(++(*
-
Here's a question specifically aimed at the supporters of the Mccanns on here.
If I had left my children in my house whilst I popped down the rod for a quick pint at the local, and I'd left the door unlocked, would any of you contribute to a fund that was set up, if one of my kids went missing ?
Our perspectives are so different, Stephen.
Yes, I probably would have done. My concern would still have been about trying to help find your child, hopefully alive.
-
Is your second name McCann and do you live in Portugal ? @)(++(*
Close.
McMoney. 8)--))
-
Here's a question specifically aimed at the supporters of the Mccanns on here.
If I had left my children in my house whilst I popped down the rod for a quick pint at the local, and I'd left the door unlocked, would any of you contribute to a fund that was set up, if one of my kids went missing ?
How would one know ? No evidence of intrusion, of abduction... no interest for the media which likely would keep quiet, not wanting to blame you with the unlocked door fact.
-
That video was apparently filmed two weeks after she'd disappeared ... Of course, legal costs associated with her disappearance were going to be an issue to face.
Why 'of course' ?
Why would they be expecting to face 'legal fees' at all at that point ?
As it happens, they were perfectly correct ... they did, indeed, incur massive legal costs ... but how could they have known they would right at the begining ?
-
Please, Carana, do answer, I wondered this too, above.
-
Why 'of course' ?
Why would they be expecting to face 'legal fees' at all at that point ?
As it happens, they were perfectly correct ... they did, indeed, incur massive legal costs ... but how could they have known they would right at the begining ?
I haven't been able to post for some reason.
I'll try again.
I'm not privy to any more information than you are. Off the top of my head:
- Setting up a mechanism to receive funds would have entailed legal costs by that point, don't you think? Particularly in view of the charity / not-charity argument. Or would all this have been free?
- Some kind of protection would have been needed to pre-empt and take action against fund-raising scams... unless all that would have been free as well.
- Lawyers from the International Family Group went over to PdL to help... they weren't a charity as far as I'm aware, unless they were paid by Mark Warner, but I've never read that this was the case. Plus the costs of any offshoots, e.g., getting the ball rolling concerning the WoC status; their own legal situation in a foreign country...
-
Why 'of course' ?
Why would they be expecting to face 'legal fees' at all at that point ?
As it happens, they were perfectly correct ... they did, indeed, incur massive legal costs ... but how could they have known they would right at the begining ?
I think that video with Brian Kennedy in it was made just as the fund had been launched, same day or a day or so later, around 15-17 May 07, they would have been advised of potential costs of setting up and running the fund, as you say was a hrrendous amount of money
what between professional fees for the fund, admin of the fund, and legal fees connected with running the campaign....makes you wonder how they knew the donations would continue to fly in, at the time the fund was set up they had around 115k in the bank and that didnt cover it all let alone anythng else
pic of first yr accounts with itemised expenditure, source daily mail
http://www.mccannfiles.com/imagelib/sitebuilder/misc/show_image.html?linkedwidth=actual&linkpath=http://www.mccannfiles.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/madeleinesfundgraphic.jpg&target=tlx_picamk1
General backround to the fund history
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id58.html
-
If they thought that she could have been found in Spain or wherever in the following weeks, there would be legal costs in possibly having to fight to get her back, wouldn't there? Who would have footed the bill?
-
If they thought that she could have been found in Spain or wherever in the following weeks, there would be legal costs in possibly having to fight to get her back, wouldn't there? Who would have footed the bill?
Since when did parents of stranger abducted children have to pay to get them back if found? thats the job of the police/other authorities. Only in familial abductions/custody battles lawyers might be involved....??
-
Since when did parents of stranger abducted children have to pay to get them back if found? thats the job of the police/other authorities. Only in familial abductions/custody battles lawyers might be involved....??
I'm asking a question. They might not have known either what to expect.
-
I'm asking a question. They might not have known either what to expect.
Why ask the question or suggest they may wonder if they need their own lawyers and pay to get back a stolen child by a stranger? I dont get it.
-
No it's not moral, maybe Amaral wouldn't be in court if he had any.
8@??)( 8@??)( 8@??)( 8@??)(
-
8@??)( 8@??)( 8@??)( 8@??)(
Neither would the Mccanns, if they had any. After what they did leaving the children all by themselves and unprotected.
-
I'm asking a question. They might not have known either what to expect.
Come on, Carana. What do you think consulates are made for ? When you've lost all your documents and credit cards in a foreign country they assist you even financially.
-
If you want to discuss morals, then neither side is morally fruitful.
One side left their children at home, then went on a media circus when one of them went missing and no matter how you put it, they made money based upon their bad decisions and because no-one believed Goncalo Amaral (I do, I think he's hit the nail on the head with the hammer), well no-one who mattered, he wrote a book too.
If the Mccanns didn't want to 'benefit' from the money, they should have left the job to the police and missing persons charity. We live in a digital age, they could have sorted their own searches out from the back of a computer. Just remind me, who was looking for Madeleine when KM was writing her book (to profit from her loss) and while GM was working?
There are plenty of cases where people have had to sort their own searches out, Amy Bradley, Johnny Gosch, Natalee Holloway, in fact I can't from the top of my head think of anyone else who has taken this route to find a missing person, especially when it was their own bad judgement that caused it and how people can symphathise with the parents is beyond me. I'd put my house on the next post being "Its not about the parents, we want to find the child".
First of all the McCann's were given money by the public for the search for Madeleine, they had to open a fund in her name because of all the money they had been given.
They couldn't call it a charity as it was only for Madeleine, as the people who had given them the money wanted it to go for the search of Madeleine.
Now I don't know what you mean by 'made money' if you mean by selling things for the public to purchase to add to the fund, then yes, just as many charities sell different things to make money for the cause that they are supporting.
Amaral wrote a book on what he 'believed happened' to Madeleine. It was his own thesis of what happened to Madeleine. Nothing had been proven when he wrote his book, so he couldn't say for definite if what he perceived to be true actually was true.
He blackened the McCann's name, turned a lot of the public against them and halted the search for Madeleine.
You mention children who are missing where the parents have had to do their own search. Well the McCann's conducted their own search when the case was shelved. They have people answering the phone from members of the public who think they have spotted Madeleine, these sightings are then acted upon, the fund for Madeleine is used for this purpose.
They had a petition for the case to be reviewed, thousands of people signed the petition. They wrote to the Prime Minister David Cameron and he decided that the case needed to reviewed.
Now you may think this decision is unfair, but how many of the parents of the other missing children have been accused of faking an abduction and hiding their child's body?
How many of the parents of the other missing children have had the senior co-ordinator of the case write a book and accuse the parents of faking an abduction and hiding their child's body?
Now what would you do if you were in the McCann's shoes?
-
Amaral wrote a book on what he 'believed happened' to Madeleine. It was his own thesis of what happened to Madeleine. Nothing had been proven when he wrote his book, so he couldn't say for definite if what he perceived to be true actually was true.
He blackened the McCann's name, turned a lot of the public against them and halted the search for Madeleine.
Actually Mr Amaral never thought of writing a novel blackening the parents of a missing child in order to make money. As well he didn't write what he believed, but gave an account of the first 5 months of investigation.
5 months after, and the investigation far from being terminated, the elements his team managed to gather "pointed to a fatal accident in the flat". This hypothesis wasn't discarded by the 9 following months of investigation. The AG report observes it could have been but, if it wasn't, it was certainly not Mr Amaral's responsibility.
-
Actually Mr Amaral never thought of writing a novel blackening the parents of a missing child in order to make money. As well he didn't write what he believed, but gave an account of the first 5 months of investigation.
5 months after, and the investigation far from being terminated, the elements his team managed to gather "pointed to a fatal accident in the flat". This hypothesis wasn't discarded by the 9 following months of investigation. The AG report observes it could have been but, if it wasn't, it was certainly not Mr Amaral's responsibility.
Have you watched his video Anne? He gives the impression it was he who came to the decision about what happened to Madeleine.
He is there explaining all that he believes happened.
-
Neither would the Mccanns, if they had any. After what they did leaving the children all by themselves and unprotected.
They did the wrong thing there, as subsequent events proved. However, it is Amaral who failed to do his job and wrote a book claiming he failed because a child was dead and therefore not worth looking for, and her parents caused it. It was his job to prove they did or find the child, he did neither so he wrote a work of fiction and tried to profit from it. If they were responsible he failed in his duty to prove it, if they weren't, he failed to find her. Not exactly a professional triumph, was it. His solution? Write a book and make a shed load of money and then it won't matter.
-
. As well he didn't write what he believed, but gave an account of the first 5 months of investigation.
The conclusions my team and I have arrived at are the following:
1. The minor, Madeleine McCann died inside apartment 5A of the Ocean Club in Vila da Luz, on the night of May 3rd 2007;
2. There was simulation of abduction.
3. Kate Healy and Gerald McCann were probably involved in the concealment of their daughter's body.
Just wondered if there are any members of, "His team," about to give evidence in court?
-
. As well he didn't write what he believed, but gave an account of the first 5 months of investigation.
The conclusions my team and I have arrived at are the following:
1. The minor, Madeleine McCann died inside apartment 5A of the Ocean Club in Vila da Luz, on the night of May 3rd 2007;
2. There was simulation of abduction.
3. Kate Healy and Gerald McCann were probably involved in the concealment of their daughter's body.
Just wondered if there are any members of, "His team," about to give evidence in court?
I would think it is almost certain that other police professionals, probably senior officials who shared Amaral's opinion, will be called as witnesses
Will it make a difference, do you think, if it is established that far from being a 'rogue cop' Amaral was merely expressing a conclusion drawn by the Portuguese police in general ?
-
I would think it is almost certain that other police professionals, probably senior officials who shared Amaral's opinion, will be called as witnesses
Will it make a difference, do you think, if it is established that far from being a 'rogue cop' Amaral was merely expressing a conclusion drawn by the Portuguese police in general ?
Most of the senior police professionals seem to be arguidos themselves, or have criminal records, or be dead.
-
Most of the senior police professionals seem to be arguidos themselves, or have criminal records, or be dead.
I think you should wait to see who is called to give evidence before using the rather contemptible propaganda technique of delegitimizing opponents
-
I think you should wait to see who is called to give evidence before using the rather contemptible propaganda technique of delegitimizing opponents
Propaganda technique, telling the truth? Get real Icabod.
Contemptable to ignore the fact that so many officers have black marks,against their names.
Some being convicted criminals. ..... and you prefer their evidence to that of innocent people ?
-
Propaganda technique, telling the truth? Get real Icabod.
Contemptable to ignore the fact that so many officers have black marks,against their names.
Some being convicted criminals. ..... and you prefer their evidence to that of innocent people ?
Not a preference, exactly, it's just I recall something davel said last week about civil cases ( as this one is ) being determined by 'preponderance' of evidence
Where preponderance of evidence is relied on, one clearly knowledgeable witness is of more value than any number of witnesses with hazy testimony based on little knowledge
By that measure, testimony by senior police officers will almost certainly be deemed of more substance than the witnesses who have appeared so far
-
BUMPED: A very well thought out and presented post by Mo Stache which seems to have been overlooked
.......................
If Amaral had indeed donated all his money to charity then he could have produced record of such as proof that he can't pay his debts. As no money has been found, I put it to you, that:
-It's a lie. Money wasn't donated to any charity.
-Money was donated, but no record kept. Which would have been very unwise considering the financial situation he is in with Revenue and others he owes money to.
-Money was donated, but he refuses to produce record of such. Which is also unwise as it could be used as proof of his honourable charitable nature. And it would go a long way in helping him come to some sort of financial agreement with the people he owes money to.
Then one also has to ask (as has been asked):
-Why donate ALL the money when he needs it to pay his debts?
-Why is there no record of this money?
-Why does he not want anyone to know where the money went?
-Has Amaral set up a false charity so that he can move the money into it?
-Has Amaral moved (untraceable) the money to an offshore bank account?
-And if so, why go to such lengths keeping transactions untraceable/hidden?
IF Amaral has nothing to hide, why not produce the evidence of the money earned and or donated?
Keep in mind:
-his publishers and the book retailers will have record of sales.
-those who paid him for interviews will have record of their expenditure.
-other companies and or organisations who donated to him will have record of their donations.
-he wouldn't have received large amounts of money in cash, there must be some record of it, but may have been palced under someone else's name.
-people facing divorce have creative ways of hidding money from their soon to be ex's.
It's hidden
-implies that money received might not be in his name. One has to ask why?
-no record of movement of money can be found. One has to ask why?
-Charitable donations can be traced and thus doesn't fall under the category of 'hidden'.
Come on guys, let's have the evcidence of Amarals Charitable giving
.... and of money earned
-
BUMPED: A very well thought out and presented post by Mo Stache which seems to have been overlooked
.......................
If Amaral had indeed donated all his money to charity then he could have produced record of such as proof that he can't pay his debts. As no money has been found, I put it to you, that:
-It's a lie. Money wasn't donated to any charity.
-Money was donated, but no record kept. Which would have been very unwise considering the financial situation he is in with Revenue and others he owes money to.
-Money was donated, but he refuses to produce record of such. Which is also unwise as it could be used as proof of his honourable charitable nature. And it would go a long way in helping him come to some sort of financial agreement with the people he owes money to.
Then one also has to ask (as has been asked):
-Why donate ALL the money when he needs it to pay his debts?
-Why is there no record of this money?
-Why does he not want anyone to know where the money went?
-Has Amaral set up a false charity so that he can move the money into it?
-Has Amaral moved (untraceable) the money to an offshore bank account?
-And if so, why go to such lengths keeping transactions untraceable/hidden?
IF Amaral has nothing to hide, why not produce the evidence of the money earned and or donated?
Keep in mind:
-his publishers and the book retailers will have record of sales.
-those who paid him for interviews will have record of their expenditure.
-other companies and or organisations who donated to him will have record of their donations.
-he wouldn't have received large amounts of money in cash, there must be some record of it, but may have been palced under someone else's name.
-people facing divorce have creative ways of hidding money from their soon to be ex's.
It's hidden
-implies that money received might not be in his name. One has to ask why?
-no record of movement of money can be found. One has to ask why?
-Charitable donations can be traced and thus doesn't fall under the category of 'hidden'.
Come on guys, let's have the evcidence of Amarals Charitable giving
.... and of money earned
Until Amaral is found guilty of libel I really don't see that his personal finances are anyone's concern but his own. 'Tracing' the money of an innocent man is preposterous ... and he IS at this moment, innocent of libel against the McCanns ( in the eyes of the law )
What if he wins this case sadie ? .... you understand that is a possibility, don't you ?
-
Until Amaral is found guilty of libel I really don't see that his personal finances are anyone's concern but his own. 'Tracing' the money of an innocent man is preposterous ... and he IS at this moment, innocent of libel against the McCanns ( in the eyes of the law )
What if he wins this case sadie ? .... you understand that is a possibility, don't you ?
Anything is possible under PT jurisdiction....
The Michael Cook
Leonor Cipriano
Joao Cipriano
... and Leonor Cipriano Case number 2
... and the Jacintha Rees case take a bit of beating! She walked thru her home axing herself in the head as she walked. Four times she axed herself, until she died !!
... They all prove that !
-
Anything is possible under PT jurisdiction....
The Michael Cook
Leonor Cipriano
Joao Cipriano
... and Leonor Cipriano Case number 2
... and the Jacintha Rees case take a bit of beating! She walked thru her home axing herself in the head as she walked. Four times she axed herself, until she died !!
... They all prove that !
ah, then you have already decided that should Amaral win this libel trial it will inevitably be a case of perverse and corrupt Portuguese justice
I'm afraid your entrenched, and frankly, obsessional bias, precludes any rational debate
-
ah, then you have already decided that should Amaral win this libel trial it will inevitably be a case of perverse and corrupt Portuguese justice
I'm afraid your entrenched, and frankly, obsessional bias, precludes any rational debate
100 per cent well said
8((()*/
-
Anything is possible under PT jurisdiction....
The Michael Cook
Leonor Cipriano
Joao Cipriano
... and Leonor Cipriano Case number 2
... and the Jacintha Rees case take a bit of beating! She walked thru her home axing herself in the head as she walked. Four times she axed herself, until she died !!
... They all prove that !
Why do you ignore these pointers Icabod ?
Do you not believe in Justice, fair Justice ?
-
Until Amaral is found guilty of libel I really don't see that his personal finances are anyone's concern but his own. 'Tracing' the money of an innocent man is preposterous ... and he IS at this moment, innocent of libel against the McCanns ( in the eyes of the law )
What if he wins this case sadie ? .... you understand that is a possibility, don't you ?
His "personal finance" is relevant and of great concern to the case. He has gained financially, because of the McCann case. He has sold misinformation and has libelled the McCanns in the material he sold.
People win and lose cases on technicalities, but it doesn't mean they innocent. Like wise people who are innocent have been found guilty. Look where you are. On the Justice forum, where people have posted on how injustice has been done to them or others they know of. The law doesn't always work the way it should, because there are so many different aspects to consider and then there are 'loopholes' in the law that as yet haven't been closed.
For example. Many see the overturning of the book ban in Portugal as a right to spread the information in the book, but forget that the case was about freedom of expression. Amarals freedom of expression was upheld and the ban was lifted, but that does not equate to the information/the expression being correct. That is a different aspect of the case. Amaral has the right to his freedom of expression/speech, but there are certain responsibilities (it's not an exclusive right) that go along with that right (well in the UK there is!). Within the right to freedom of speech and expression you still have to uphold the rights of others not to be libelled. Now I am not sure how that translates in Portuguese law and, Amaral might well win the libel case, because the rights of others in Portuguese law is not seen as important or carries more weight than the right of freedom of expression. It depends greatly on which legal system is at play.
Amaral has allegedly libelled the McCann's. In the UK he would never win the case here, but in Portugal he might just, but that doesn't change the fact that he has libelled them and that he has financially gained from it.
It's a mixed up world we live in, ask those who have ended up at the wrong end of the Portuguese legal system.
... added allegedly since libel has not been proven....
-
His "personal finance" is relevant and of great concern to the case. He has gained financially, because of the McCann case. He has sold misinformation and has libelled the McCanns in the material he sold.
People win and lose cases on technicalities, but it doesn't mean they innocent. Like wise people who are innocent have been found guilty. Look where you are. On the Justice forum, where people have posted on how injustice has been done to them or others they know of. The law doesn't always work the way it should, because there are so many different aspects to consider and then there are 'loopholes' in the law that as yet haven't been closed.
For example. Many see the overturning of the book ban in Portugal as a right to spread the information in the book, but forget that the case was about freedom of expression. Amarals freedom of expression was upheld and the ban was lifted, but that does not equate to the information/the expression being correct. That is a different aspect of the case. Amaral has the right to his freedom of expression/speech, but there are certain responsibilities (it's not an exclusive right) that go along with that right (well in the UK there is!). Within the right to freedom of speech and expression you still have to uphold the rights of others not to be libelled. Now I am not sure how that translates in Portuguese law and, Amaral might well win the libel case, because the rights of others in Portuguese law is not seen as important or carries more weight than the right of freedom of expression. It depends greatly on which legal system is at play.
Amaral has allegedly libelled the McCann's. In the UK he would never win the case here, but in Portugal he might just, but that doesn't change the fact that he has libelled them and that he has financially gained from it.
It's a mixed up world we live in, ask those who have ended up at the wrong end of the Portuguese legal system.
.... added allegedly since libel has not been proved ...
Libel has yet to be proved in the Portuguese Court.
-
Posters must not make claims that Gonçalo Amaral libelled anyone until such time as the issue has been determined in court. Please add the word 'allegedly' when posting such comments.
-
Posters must not make claims that Gonçalo Amaral libelled anyone until such time as the issue has been determined in court.
By those standards, I presume posters may not intimate that The Mccanns are Criminally guilty of anything either?
A level playing field please.
-
Did Amaral pay back his brother and settle his other debts before he donated this money to charity?
And if not, why not?
-
Did Amaral pay back his brother and settle his other debts before he donated this money to charity?
And if not, why not?
None of your business is it? Peoples personal financial situations
have YOU done all your tax returns always, delayed paying HMG or reneged on a debt with any friends or family? or cheated the system at any time for x y z reasons? Exactly, none of my business.
8((()*/
-
Posters must not make claims that Gonçalo Amaral libelled anyone until such time as the issue has been determined in court. Please add the word 'allegedly' when posting such comments.
Can we have the libels and smears against Kate and Gerry McCann on this site treated in the same way then?
-
Carter Ruck
It is important to bear in mind that a person can sue for the repetition of a defamatory statement made by somebody else. However if it is made absolutely clear, when the words are read as a whole, that there is no truth in a rumour then this may be sufficient to remove the defamatory 'sting'. Be aware however that it is often considered that there is 'no smoke without fire' and it is possible that the publication even of rumour can be defamatory. Simply to make an allegation and add 'allegedly' or 'it has been alleged' will not in itself protect someone from a libel complaint, as readers will usually still understand there to be some truth in the allegation being made.
Welcome to the forum, Sheila. Thanks for the CR quote - it makes great sense!
-
His "personal finance" is relevant and of great concern to the case. He has gained financially, because of the McCann case. He has sold misinformation and has libelled the McCanns in the material he sold.
At this moment Amaral is innocent of the accusations you make above ( in the eyes of the law )
Should he be found guilty of libel then his finances would become of concern to the McCanns ... should he found innocent then the situation will remain as it is at present ... that is to say, Amaral's personal finances are nobody's business but his own
-
Carter Ruck
It is important to bear in mind that a person can sue for the repetition of a defamatory statement made by somebody else. However if it is made absolutely clear, when the words are read as a whole, that there is no truth in a rumour then this may be sufficient to remove the defamatory 'sting'. Be aware however that it is often considered that there is 'no smoke without fire' and it is possible that the publication even of rumour can be defamatory. Simply to make an allegation and add 'allegedly' or 'it has been alleged' will not in itself protect someone from a libel complaint, as readers will usually still understand there to be some truth in the allegation being made.
Welcome Shiela and thanks for copyng and pasting something off the carter ruck site
http://www.carter-ruck.com/Media%20Law/Questions_And_Answers.asp
Did you have a specific point to make? And about anythng in particular? Apart from copyng and pasting this? In generalum and nonspecificadum? Forgive the harry potteresque language just came to me lol for some reason
Just wondering without wading back ten pages of this thread to see what it might refer to
-
He has sold misinformation and has libelled the McCanns in the material he sold.
the rights of others in Portuguese law is not seen as important or carries more weight than the right of freedom of expression.
You forgot to add "allegedly" to a "sold misinformation" for which there's no evidence whatsoever. Could you please provide a source about the right to freedom of speech overruling the right to good name ?
-
Posters must not make claims that Gonçalo Amaral libelled anyone until such time as the issue has been determined in court. Please add the word 'allegedly' when posting such comments.
Can we have a statement from Admin affording Kate and Gerry McCann the same thing please?
-
Can we have a statement from Admin affording Kate and Gerry McCann the same thing please?
Who have they libelled then?
Oh I know.... 8((()*/
Eta remove the THEY to ONE
-
Carter Ruck's intimidations are 'has been' as we say in French.
But it seems that as long as you can prove your claims you're safe, if
you're not too subtle grammatically, the average reader isn't.
you're subtle in choosing your words, especially adjectives.
you take care past events don't suggest future ones.
instead of contradicting rumours, which would be repeating it, you limit to facts.
you forget "allege" and the conditional mode, old tricks.
you avoid being objective presenting all aspects of an argument, it's no defence.
Ah What a marvellous world !
-
Carter Ruck's intimidations are 'has been' as we say in French.
But it seems that as long as you can prove your claims you're safe, if
you're not too subtle grammatically, the average reader isn't.
you're subtle in choosing your words, especially adjectives.
you take care past events don't suggest future ones.
instead of contradicting rumours, which would be repeating it, you limit to facts.
you forget "allege" and the conditional mode, old tricks.
you avoid being objective presenting all aspects of an argument, it's no defence.
Ah What a marvellous world !
For a company who charges hundreds of pounds an hour they sure are very unprofessional when it comes to it..at best.....bullyies and liars at worst..... their bullying pamalam site and saying judgement in portugal to ban mr amarals book was enough to ask her to take her site down.....
http://www.justpamalam.co.uk/gmb/Carter-Ruck.htm
planks
-
For a company who charges hundreds of pounds an hour they sure are very unprofessional when it comes to it..at best.....bullyies and liars at worst..... their bullying pamalam site and saying judgement in portugal to ban mr amarals book was enough to ask her to take her site down.....
http://www.justpamalam.co.uk/gmb/Carter-Ruck.htm
planks
Is it why Pamalam's site is in the US ?
-
Is it why Pamalam's site is in the US ?
No
Its always been in the usa
-
Can we have a statement from Admin affording Kate and Gerry McCann the same thing please?
Or an explanation as to why the courtesy extends only to a disgraced incompetent ex police officer.
-
Jazzy quote
Or an explanation as to why the courtesy extends only to a disgraced incompetent ex police officer.
I endorse that. A level playing field, please.
-
Can we have the libels and smears against Kate and Gerry McCann on this site treated in the same way then?
The claim which admin refers to is specific in that someone posted that Dr Amaral libelled the McCanns. What he or she should have posted was that he allegedly libelled the McCanns since this allegation is currently the subject of a defamation trial in Lisbon.
If the McCanns win the case it will then be in order to state that he libelled them. Its as simple as that.
-
But it's still alright to say the Mccanns killed their daughter then, or sold her to a sex ring?
-
But it's still alright to say the Mccanns killed their daughter then, or sold her to a sex ring?
Indeed it isn't alright Jazzy and furthermore never has been. Such claims do not exist on this forum to my knowledge but feel free to report any you may find.
-
But it's still alright to say the Mccanns killed their daughter then, or sold her to a sex ring?
Why do you bring stuff from other places here? NO ONE HERE has said either of those two things, definitely not the first by any stretch and disgusting of you to SUGGEST the second, so why dont you challenge those people on what they say WHERE they say it??? And seeing as you have made an accusation perhaps you can quote the relevant posts here where either was said, if you can, wont hold my breath, obviously
I wonder! I wonder!
Need a *rolley eyes* smiley on this board pleae.
-
But it's still alright to say the Mccanns killed their daughter then, or sold her to a sex ring?
I wonder if this is how Mr. Wright got the idea that his allegations were the object of discussion in Forae.
Considering the quality of research of the journalists that published the last articles about the case, if they came in here, they could easily get a wrong idea from the quoted post. Is this a strategy or mere carelessness?
-
Why do you bring stuff from other places here? NO ONE HERE has said either of those two things, definitely not the first by any stretch and disgusting of you to SUGGEST the second, so why dont you challenge those people on what they say WHERE they say it??? And seeing as you have made an accusation perhaps you can quote the relevant posts here where either was said, if you can, wont hold my breath, obviously
I wonder! I wonder!
Need a *rolley eyes* smiley on this board pleae.
Odd isn't it? Is your "ignore" button not working?
I'll check mine.
-
I wonder if this is how Mr. Wright got the idea that his allegations were the object of discussion in Forae.
Considering the quality of research of the journalists that published the last articles about the case, if they came in here, they could easily get a wrong idea from the quoted post. Is this a strategy or mere carelessness?
Pardon?
-
Indeed it isn't alright Jazzy and furthermore never has been. Such claims do not exist on this forum to my knowledge but feel free to report any you may find.
I'll be honest with you John, I barely post here anymore, I can hardly bear to read the theories, the intimations, the "dogs don't lie" and the "evidence", if within any of that there was the slightest chance the Mccanns would be arrested and convicted, they would be. There isn't. That book constitutes libel because it is not backed up by any fact a court of law is presently able to establish.
If that were not the case I wouldn't hold the views I do.
The overwhelming majority of posts on here are aimed at denigrating the parents of a missing child, undermining their position and anyone disagreeing is abused.
It's here alright.
-
I'll be honest with you John, I barely post here anymore, I can hardly bear to read the theories, the intimations, the "dogs don't lie" and the "evidence", if within any of that there was the slightest chance the Mccanns would be arrested and convicted, they would be. There isn't. That book constitutes libel because it is not backed up by any fact a court of law is presently able to establish.
If that were not the case I wouldn't hold the views I do.
The overwhelming majority of posts on here are aimed at denigrating the parents of a missing child, undermining their position and anyone disagreeing is abused.
It's here alright.
The Courts haven't decided as such:
«The book at stake in this process – "Maddie – the Truth of the Lie" – which was written by the defendant Dr. Gonçalo Amaral, has the main motivation of defending his personal and professional honour, as the author points out right away in the preface and throughout his text.
The contents of the book does not offend any of the applicants' fundamental rights.
The exercise of its writing and publication is included in the constitutional rights that are secured to everyone by the European Convention on Human Rights and by the Portuguese Republic’s Constitution, namely in its articles 37º and 38º.
As we arrive at this point, we conclude that the decision that was made by the Court a quo must be revoked, and the analysis of the other issues that are placed under appeal are not justified, as they are considered prejudiced.
The appeal by defendant Dr. Gonçalo Amaral is sustained.
The other appeals are not taken into consideration, as it is understood that their appreciation is prejudiced – article 660º, no 2, of the Civil Process Code.
III – Decision
In harmony with what is written above, under the terms of the cited dispositions, the Judges at this Appeals Court declare the validity of the appeal filed by defendant Dr. Gonçalo Amaral, and the sentence of the Court a quo is revoked, its disposition replaced by the following:
The injunction is deemed not valid because it was not proved.
Furthermore we deliberate that we do not acknowledge the rest of the appeals.
Costs to be paid by the appellants*.»
Lisbon and Appeals Court, 14.10.2010
The Appellate Court Judges,
Francisco Bruto da Costa
Catarina Arelo Manso
António Valente
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id344.html (http://www.mccannfiles.com/id344.html)
In the same document:
« Finally, concerning the damage to the right to usufruct ['Usufruct' is the legal right to use and derive profit or benefit from property that belongs to another person] from the penal process' guarantees, namely the right to a fair investigation and the right to freedom and safety, we still cannot understand how it is possible for said rights to be offended by the contents of a book that describes facts from the investigation, although it parts from the interpretation that the Public Ministry's Magistrates made of those facts, yet offering based, solidly built and logical interpretations.»
and
«those very same facts, seen through another prism and with another base, may lead to a different conclusion from that which was attained by those same Magistrates – those are indications that were deemed to be insufficient in terms of evidence in a criminal investigation, but they can be appreciated in a different way, in an interpretation that is legitimate to be published as a literary work, as long as said interpretation does not offend any fundamental rights of anyone involved – and we have written above already why we understand that said interpretation does not offend the applicants' rights.»
-
No they didn't decide as such and he's back in court again. Clearly there was room for further action by the Mccanns.
He might have been defending his honour or whatever he used to justify it, but in so doing he destroyed the honour of the parents of a missing child. Parents who simply asked him to find their daughter.
-
No they didn't decide as such and he's back in court again. Clearly there was room for further action by the Mccanns.
He might have been defending his honour or whatever he used to justify it, but in so doing he destroyed the honour of the parents of a missing child. Parents who simply asked him to find their daughter.
' destroyed the honour of the parents of a missing child. '
Cobblers.
They did that themselves when they left their children undefended to wine and dine.
-
No they didn't decide as such and he's back in court again. Clearly there was room for further action by the Mccanns.
He might have been defending his honour or whatever he used to justify it, but in so doing he destroyed the honour of the parents of a missing child. Parents who simply asked him to find their daughter.
That was a decision made after an appeal against the first sentence on a "CRIME of defamation". Since the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the appeal, the book was considered legitimate and legal, not defamatory.
Now they are on a civil trial requesting for a civil compensation. Two different things.
-
' destroyed the honour of the parents of a missing child. '
Cobblers.
They did that themselves when they left their children undefended to wine and dine.
Not with people with a sense of proportion and compassion.
-
Not with people with a sense of proportion and compassion.
Pray tell, what excuse under the sun is there for putting your children at risk unnecessarily ?
Especially when they have put up a thesis with no proof whatsoever, and have not cooperated with the authorities in Portugal, including the failure to re-enact a reconstruction.
-
That was a decision made after an appeal against the first sentence on a "CRIME of defamation". Since the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the appeal, the book was considered legitimate and legal, not defamatory.
Now they are on a civil trial requesting for a civil compensation. Two different things.
There were two actions carried out by the McCanns. One was an injunction against the book and the documentary and to ban Gonçalo Amaral as well as the other defendants from being able to speak about the case. This action was taken, according to the plaintiffs, in order to prevent any further damages to their personal rights until the libel trial took place. In the meantime the book ban and other decisions were overturned by the Lisbon court of appeals in October 2010 and the book was back on sale (after Isabel Duarte was forced to hand them back by the court) and the defendants were given their freedom of expression and opinion back. The Supreme court upheld this decision when they rejected the McCanns appeal.
Now it is the libel trial in a civil court which is being held whereby the McCanns are asking for monetary compensation.
-
The claim which admin refers to is specific in that someone posted that Dr Amaral libelled the McCanns. What he or she should have posted was that he allegedly libelled the McCanns since this allegation is currently the subject of a defamation trial in Lisbon.
If the McCanns win the case it will then be in order to state that he libelled them. Its as simple as that.
Certainly by UK libel law (Portuguese may be different) addition or absence of the word alleged wouldn't make a scrap of difference (to whether or not a statement of libel had been made)
-
Odd isn't it? Is your "ignore" button not working?
I'll check mine.
Nice but pathetic avoidance of the original question
Which was......
Why do you bring stuff from other places here? NO ONE HERE has said either of those two things, definitely not the first by any stretch and disgusting of you to SUGGEST the second, so why dont you challenge those people on what they say WHERE they say it??? And seeing as you have made an accusation perhaps you can quote the relevant posts here where either was said, if you can, wont hold my breath, obviously
I wonder! I wonder!
Need a *rolley eyes* smiley on this board pleae.
-
Nice but pathetic avoidance of the original question
Which was......
Why do you bring stuff from other places here? NO ONE HERE has said either of those two things, definitely not the first by any stretch and disgusting of you to SUGGEST the second, so why dont you challenge those people on what they say WHERE they say it??? And seeing as you have made an accusation perhaps you can quote the relevant posts here where either was said, if you can, wont hold my breath, obviously
I wonder! I wonder!
Need a *rolley eyes* smiley on this board pleae.
Hold you breath, please, hold your breath!
Yep ignore button works! Back on!
-
Sad that you cant discuss or answer questions to your own posts LooooL
Numpty
I
Post 148 and 149 HERE!!!!
YOU MADE ACCUSATIONS about posts on this foru
Its UP TO YOU to BACK THEM UP and if youcant you should just shut up
Sad that you can't remember I am on your ignore list and therefore immune to your bullying.
I am aware that I am reduced to your tactics, "My Ignore List", so you are now on mine.
Loser (remember that?)
-
Sad that you can't remember I am on your ignore list and therefore immune to your bullying.
I am aware that I am reduced to your tactics, "My Ignore List", so you are now on mine.
Loser (remember that?)
So still in denial and avoiding answering the questions that YOU brought up , ohDEAR oh DEAR, what can one think??? Carry on puffing on the wacky backy or whatver you are on
Then again you always have the option of coming clean and getting your reputation back that you so miraculously LOST in just a few ridiculous posts
@)(++(*
8((()*/
-
Certainly by UK libel law (Portuguese may be different) addition or absence of the word alleged wouldn't make a scrap of difference (to whether or not a statement of libel had been made)
Actually it does. There is a big difference in Law between stating Mr A killed his daughter compared to it is alleged Mr A killed his daughter.
Ever listen to the news reporters...alleged is their favourite word. 8(0(*
-
This forum started out with a balance of views John, it was a credit to you. Now it's a place where obsessed [ censored word ]s can pretty much "allege" anything they choose to about the parents of a missing child.
-
This forum started out with a balance of views John, it was a credit to you. Now it's a place where obsessed [ censored word ]s can pretty much "allege" anything they choose to about the parents of a missing child.
8@??)( 8@??)( 8@??)( 8@??)(
-
This forum started out with a balance of views John, it was a credit to you. Now it's a place where obsessed [ censored word ]s can pretty much "allege" anything they choose to about the parents of a missing child.
No, it started out with a hideously biased view in favour of the mccanns. Read back to the opening exchanges to refresh your memory. Just because the moderators now appear to be less biased towards the McCanns is no reason to start squawking, "unfair!".
I think you'll also find that you're being a bit hysterical about what you're claiming the moderators will allow. Anything abusive and/or truly libellous/potentially libellous (as opposed to what McCann supporters deem libellous - i.e. anything that disagrees with their point of view) is fairly swiftly dealt with.
-
This forum started out with a balance of views John, it was a credit to you. Now it's a place where obsessed [ censored word ]s can pretty much "allege" anything they choose to about the parents of a missing child.
if the mcanns had not been wining and dining with their friends and had been supervising their children none of these forums would have needed to exist but the mcanns are resposible for whatever did happen to that child because as parents tbey should have been with their 3 children who were under 4 and they were not so maddie paid the price not them
-
if the mcanns had not been wining and dining with their friends and had been supervising their children none of these forums would have needed to exist but the mcanns are resposible for whatever did happen to that child because as parents tbey should have been with their 3 children who were under 4 and they were not so maddie paid the price not them
If the McCann case didn't exist forums would have been concentrating on another couple or victim. Forkers can't survive without having their pitchfork sharpened regularly and pointing them at someone.
-
If the McCann case didn't exist forums would have been concentrating on another couple or victim. Forkers can't survive without having their pitchfork sharpened regularly and pointing them at someone.
the intermet is a network to discuss all opinions it was never designed to be all roses and lepricons etc if you dont like something dont read it and bitch about it simple no one forces you to read what we think
-
No, it started out with a hideously biased view in favour of the mccanns. Read back to the opening exchanges to refresh your memory. Just because the moderators now appear to be less biased towards the McCanns is no reason to start squawking, "unfair!".
I think you'll also find that you're being a bit hysterical about what you're claiming the moderators will allow. Anything abusive and/or truly libellous/potentially libellous (as opposed to what McCann supporters deem libellous - i.e. anything that disagrees with their point of view) is fairly swiftly dealt with.
Remind me where I "Squwaked unfair". You are wrong, totally and utterly. What has happened here is what always happens, it's infected with those who have spent the last six years abusing the Mccanns.
-
the intermet is a network to discuss all opinions it was never designed to be all roses and lepricons etc if you dont like something dont read it and bitch about it simple no one forces you to read what we think
There is a big difference in using the internet to network staying within the law and using the internet to break the law; stalk, threaten, troll and campaign against others who in the eyes of the law are still innocent.
-
Remind me where I "Squwaked unfair". You are wrong, totally and utterly. What has happened here is what always happens, it's infected with those who have spent the last six years abusing the Mccanns.
having a opinon isnt abuse being called chucky mispell etc or all the other stuff i and many so called other anti have put up with is abuse
-
Remind me where I "Squwaked unfair". You are wrong, totally and utterly. What has happened here is what always happens, it's infected with those who have spent the last six years abusing the Mccanns.
Your very post was squawking "unfair".
Go and read this thread and then come back and tell me you're right. I will then laugh at you.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=1169.0 (http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=1169.0)
-
if the mcanns had not been wining and dining with their friends and had been supervising their children none of these forums would have needed to exist but the mcanns are resposible for whatever did happen to that child because as parents tbey should have been with their 3 children who were under 4 and they were not so maddie paid the price not them
Thank you. You have completely illustrated the point I was trying to make. I owe you one.
-
do the pros ignore where kate said in her book she wanted to kill both GA and murat? how moral is that?? by their leader
-
This forum started out with a balance of views John, it was a credit to you. Now it's a place where obsessed [ censored word ]s can pretty much "allege" anything they choose to about the parents of a missing child.
There will always be those who go too far and turn evidence into malicious speculation. Such posts will always be expunged as will quotes to such comments. This forum is the only remaining platform where both sides can discuss the issue.
There is a good balance at the moment but I do realise that many have joined over the last few days as a result of the ongoing trial in Lisbon. This has brought renew vigour and sometimes unacceptable language with it. This is unfortunately just one of those things but the mods will always ensure that inappropriate posts are removed as soon as possible.
As always, if any member goes too far they will be banned or have their account including all posts removed instantly.
-
Actually it does. There is a big difference in Law between stating Mr A killed his daughter compared to it is alleged Mr A killed his daughter.
Ever listen to the news reporters...alleged is their favourite word. 8(0(*
No it doesn't. A news reporter reporting on proceedings in court enjoys privilege so long as his reports are fair and accurate.
If it was said in court that A caved in the head of B, the reporter will not be at risk of an action for libel, so long as it was said in court that A caved in the head of B ...
-
No it doesn't. A news reporter reporting on proceedings in court enjoys privilege so long as his reports are fair and accurate.
If it was said in court that A caved in the head of B, the reporter will not be at risk of an action for libel, so long as it was said in court that A caved in the head of B ...
Inferential libel is the same as direct libel as an offence and simply adding "allegedly" does not automatically remove the clear inference of a statement being made. Even posing the statement as a question can be inferential libel.
So to ask in certain circumstances; for example as the last line of a report. "Did Mr. A. kill his daughter?" could well get a person into trouble with the law.
Didn't Bercow merely pose a question?
-
This trial is not about libel, it's about money, no more, no less.
-
It has nothing to do with the trial by the way, not as far as I am concerned, it was questions asked and issues raised.
-
This trial is not about libel, it's about money, no more, no less.
Nonsense.
-
I cannot see how you can put a price on the alleged damage that Gonçalo Amaral's book and documentary caused to the search for Madeleine when we don't even know if she was alive when they were published. If Madeleine was alive and being kept somewhere then there might be a case to answer. If however she was dead then no matter what Amaral did and said would have had little effect.
That means we are back to the original question, How can the Tribunal determine the case when they don't know if she was alive or dead when Amaral published his works? A Court cannot decide a case on the basis of maybes or what ifs.
-
Nonsense.
Nope.
It's all about the dosh.
-
I cannot see how you can put a price on the alleged damage that Gonçalo Amaral's book and documentary caused to the search for Madeleine when we don't even know if she was alive when they were published. If Madeleine was alive and being kept somewhere then there might be a case to answer. If however she was dead then no matter what Amaral did and said would have had little effect.
That means we are back to the original question, How can the Tribunal determine the case when they don't know if she was alive or dead when Amaral published his works? A Court cannot decide a case on the basis of maybes or what ifs.
In a civilised country surely the court must presume her to be living and findable. How can they declare her dead only one year after her disappearance without any proof whatsoever of that death?
-
In a civilised country surely the court must presume her to be living and findable. How can they declare her dead only one year after her disappearance without any proof whatsoever of that death?
Please tell me this.
What would the UK police give as a probability of finding a missing child being found after 24 hours ?
-
In a civilised country surely the court must presume her to be living and findable. How can they declare her dead only one year after her disappearance without any proof whatsoever of that death?
A Court is not entitled to presume anything. It all comes down to evidence. That said however, a Court can make an Order declaring an individual dead after a certain period of time has elapsed.
Someone has already pointed out that there is no precedent in modern times in western civilisation of a three year old child being found alive and well after more than six years.
-
A Court is not entitled to presume anything. It all comes down to evidence. That said however, a Court can make an Order declaring an individual dead after a certain period of time has elapsed.
Someone has already pointed out that there is no precedent in modern times in western civilisation of a three year old child being found alive and well after more than six years.
Even if they had, besides I thnk any such cases would be ones of familial abduction where the mother or father has run off with a child, there is neither no precedent for any police force keeping an active investigation open ad infinitum after its been exhausted...what they do is leave an appeal and details on their websites for any information, sometimes new evidence is found or a new lead and they may either do an appeal on crimewatch eg or reopen a case if the leads are concrete....its happened here in the Uk so many times and cases have been moved forward and people brought to justice
-
A Court is not entitled to presume anything. It all comes down to evidence. That said however, a Court can make an Order declaring an individual dead after a certain period of time has elapsed.
Someone has already pointed out that there is no precedent in modern times in western civilisation of a three year old child being found alive and well after more than six years.
But the period of six years is totally irrelevant to this trial. The book was written just over a year after death.
I don't believe any jurisdiction allows declaration of death after one year without a shred of evidence of that death.
Unless they can pronounce death then a living child has to be presumed, surely. When the book was published there was no evidence of death at all, no record of death and no evidence of death therefore in the eyes of the court she would be alive.
-
But the period of six years is totally irrelevant to this trial. The book was written just over a year after death.
I don't believe any jurisdiction allows declaration of death after one year without a shred of evidence of that death.
Unless they can pronounce death then a living child has to be presumed, surely. When the book was published there was no evidence of death at all, no record of death and no evidence of death therefore in the eyes of the court she would be alive.
There you go again with your "opinion posted as fact" angle. The investigating police force believe they have enough of a shred of evidence of death to declare she's more likely dead than alive. Do you believe you know more than the investigating team then?
-
A Court is not entitled to presume anything. It all comes down to evidence. That said however, a Court can make an Order declaring an individual dead after a certain period of time has elapsed.
Someone has already pointed out that there is no precedent in modern times in western civilisation of a three year old child being found alive and well after more than six years.
So sad
-
There you go again with your "opinion posted as fact" angle. The investigating police force believe they have enough of a shred of evidence of death to declare she's more likely dead than alive. Do you believe you know more than the investigating team then?
"Enough of a shred of evidence"???
What absolute tosh!
Do you really think courts work on "enough of a shred of evidence"?
-
"Enough of a shred of evidence"???
What absolute tosh!
Do you really think courts work on "enough of a shred of evidence"?
Why not? You seem to be functional on a shred of intelligence.