Is there any transparency with the Gonçalo Amaral fund?

[Alice Purjorick]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_h8Qc3YCaHY

[Anna]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_h8Qc3YCaHY

Is this a different one?
http://youtu.be/ccpO_iVOTSA

[Anna]

We are slipping Off topic. Can we please try and slip back on again. Thank you

[Carana]

I believe the aims where changed sometime later and certainly after the litigation in both the UK and Porugal commenced so why was the use of the fund to bankroll libel itigation included at that time ?

Besides now that it has been proven in a Portuguese court that Amaral's book did not impede the search for Madeleine how can the claim that the fund funded the litigation to stop that harm now be justified ?

Where has it been proven that Amaral's book did not impede the search for Madeleine?

[stephen25000]

I'm glad to see that you accept that if maddie was abducted it was the abductor who is to blame

Why do you keep on with an 'abductor' when you know damn well, no such person has been proven to exist in this case ?

Unless of course you live in La-La Land.

[Benice]

Why do you keep on with an 'abductor' when you know damn well, no such person has been proven to exist in this case ?

Unless of course you live in La-La Land.

Your 'lack of evidence' mantra is ridiculous.   Try telling Kerry Needham that you don't believe Ben was abducted because 'we all know damn well that no abductor has been proven to exist - and we only have the family's word for what happened'.  That IS your repetitive claim about Madeleine's disappearance isn't it?.

Whereas most people would be delighted if SY decided to look into Ben's abduction - no doubt you would be complaining bitterly about the expense to the taxpayer on the grounds that no abductor has been proven to exist.

Anyway we are off topic - so when you have given your usual predictable tit for tat response maybe you could tell us your thoughts on Amaral's apparent reluctance to reveal or confirm how he's spent the money his supporters have so kindly donated to his fund.

[faithlilly]

Where has it been proven that Amaral's book did not impede the search for Madeleine?

11. Because of the statements made by defendant Gonçalo Amaral in the book, in the documentary and in the interview to Correio da Manhã, the Polícia Judiciária stopped collecting information and investigating the disappearance of Madeleine McCann?
Not proved.

[faithlilly]

Your 'lack of evidence' mantra is ridiculous.   Try telling Kerry Needham that you don't believe Ben was abducted because 'we all know damn well that no abductor has been proven to exist - and we only have the family's word for what happened'.  That IS your repetitive claim about Madeleine's disappearance isn't it?.

Whereas most people would be delighted if SY decided to look into Ben's abduction - no doubt you would be complaining bitterly about the expense to the taxpayer on the grounds that no abductor has been proven to exist.

Anyway we are off topic - so when you have given your usual predictable tit for tat response maybe you could tell us your thoughts on Amaral's apparent reluctance to reveal or confirm how he's spent the money his supporters have so kindly donated to his fund.

Is Amaral a director of his fund with the power to do what he likes with it ?

[Carana]

11. Because of the statements made by defendant Gonçalo Amaral in the book, in the documentary and in the interview to Correio da Manhã, the Polícia Judiciária stopped collecting information and investigating the disappearance of Madeleine McCann?
Not proved.

Thanks. That's all I could find as well. However, it doesn't say that it was proven that the book didn't impede the search, but that it hadn't been proven that it had.

There's a difference, don't you think?

[faithlilly]

Thanks. That's all I could find as well. However, it doesn't say that it was proven that the book didn't impede the search, but that it hadn't been proven that it had.

There's a difference, don't you think?

No I don't but I'm sure you'll explain.

[G-Unit]

Thanks. That's all I could find as well. However, it doesn't say that it was proven that the book didn't impede the search, but that it hadn't been proven that it had.

There's a difference, don't you think?

Isn't it up to those making an assertion to produce evidence to support it? If insufficient evidence is produced the assertion is not proven. Had someone asserted that the book didn't impede the search, it would have been up to them to prove that assertion. Two different things.

[Benice]

Is Amaral a director of his fund with the power to do what he likes with it ?

I have no idea Faith - and don't really care what he does with the donations.   What concerns me is the massive hypocracy being displayed by some sceptics who having spent years criticising the McCanns over their fund accounts - (which are in the public domain) -  have no criticism at all re Amarals fund accounts -  which for some unknown reason are being kept out of the public domain.     And AFAIK with not even a hint of an explanation why.    I can't believe those supporters who have taken the trouble to contribute would not be interested to know how their donations have helped him.    That's just human nature.

IMO Not many people would give to charity if they were never told about the difference their donations make. 
 

   

[Carana]

No I don't but I'm sure you'll explain.

If you were unable to provide empirical proof of X to a court's satisfaction, does that mean that the court ruled that X has been proven to be false?

[stephen25000]

I have no idea Faith - and don't really care what he does with the donations.   What concerns me is the massive hypocracy being displayed by some sceptics who having spent years criticising the McCanns over their fund accounts - (which are in the public domain) -  have no criticism at all re Amarals fund accounts -  which for some unknown reason are being kept out of the public domain.     And AFAIK with not even a hint of an explanation why.    I can't believe those supporters who have taken the trouble to contribute would not be interested to know how their donations have helped him.    That's just human nature.

IMO Not many people would give to charity if they were never told about the difference their donations make. 
 

   

benice.

What does full and open disclosure of the utilization of the funds mean ?

[faithlilly]

I have no idea Faith - and don't really care what he does with the donations.   What concerns me is the massive hypocracy being displayed by some sceptics who having spent years criticising the McCanns over their fund accounts - (which are in the public domain) -  have no criticism at all re Amarals fund accounts -  which for some unknown reason are being kept out of the public domain.     And AFAIK with not even a hint of an explanation why.    I can't believe those supporters who have taken the trouble to contribute would not be interested to know how their donations have helped him.    That's just human nature.

IMO Not many people would give to charity if they were never told about the difference their donations make. 

Faith said :

Firstly I think the Madeleine fund is criticised because transparency was promised and that hasn't been the case.

Secondly we do not know legally in Portugal how much information those running the Amaral fund have to make public.

Thirdly Amaral has publicly explained how the money donated him has been used and thanked his donators.

http://www.pjgamaral.info

Have the McCanns ever thanked the public for financially allowing them to pursue litigation in Portugal against Amaral ?