Gonçalo Amaral Legal Defence fund to be closed on 28 October 2015

[pegasus]

(snip)... Equally, there is no evidence the Fund directors did not see the report containing details of the calls.

If the parents or their spokesman or directors did see the "report with a summary of the calls" wouldn't you expect them to enquire further and ask to listen to some of them? But the call-centre operator says no-one asked.

It is rather cheeky to insinuate there is anything improper at all with PJGA, when there are dozens of questions about the fund which financed the libel case against Mr Amaral. All PJGA does is pay Mr Amaral's lawyer in a libel case which MFLNSUL paid to launch even though its documents at company house say they can spend money only on search.

[Mr Gray]

If the parents or their spokesman or directors did see the "report with a summary of the calls" wouldn't you expect them to enquire further and ask to listen to some of them? But the call-centre operator says no-one asked.

Not if they were told none of the calls had provided any leads

[pegasus]

Not if they were told none of the calls had provided any leads

Well I suggest you read the ch docs Davel and the good practice code too - I don't see anything there like
"Clause 42: Oh BTW if someone says everything's fine there's no need to check".

[misty]

If the parents or their spokesman or directors did see the "report with a summary of the calls" wouldn't you expect them to enquire further and ask to listen to some of them? But the call-centre operator says no-one asked.

It is rather cheeky to insinuate there is anything improper at all with PJGA, when there are dozens of questions about the fund which financed the libel case against Mr Amaral. All PJGA does is pay Mr Amaral's lawyer in a libel case which MFLNSUL paid to launch even though its documents at company house say they can spend money only on search.

Not cheeky - just asking for transparency in light of the GFM account set up to add funds to an existing account containing an unspecified amount accessed by unspecified people for purposes stated only on the internet.

[slartibartfast]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1231757/Madeleine-McCann-investigator-didnt-listen-ANY-tip-offs-given-hotline--squandered-500-000.html

*snip*
"Mr Selle said his operators, in Annapolis, Virginia, had answered 'hundreds of calls', but the information seemed wasted - possibly squandering valuable leads.

He said: 'We delivered Oakley a report with a summary of the calls and said if they wanted to come back they could listen to the recording, but nobody did.



'For someone with an understanding of the case it would be very easy for some to say that maybe 80 or 90 per cent of the calls were hogwash, but there may be a percentage where one would say maybe we should listen to this one or listen to that one. But our understanding is that this never took place.

'We are not sure whether Halligen provided our report to the family or to the trust or to those working with them or to the teams working after him, because no one came back to us."

                                           ------------------------------------------------------------

Equally, there is no evidence the Fund directors did not see the report containing details of the calls.

From the people who defend the £10+ million spent on OG to investigate the myriad of spurious leads...

[faithlilly]

http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/full-letter-written-gerry-mccann-3389405

There you go.

So Gerry was sending out begging letters at a time Kate was writing her book to raise funds. Is that correct ?

[pegasus]

Not cheeky - just asking for transparency in light of the GFM account set up to add funds to an existing account containing an unspecified amount accessed by unspecified people for purposes stated only on the internet.

But there is not any hint of PJGA using funds for anything other than its one stated purpose. Please show us the MFLNSU Ltd's figures for how much it spent financing a very expensive libel action which BTW is nowhere in its stated aims and never has been.

[misty]

So Gerry was sending out begging letters at a time Kate was writing her book to raise funds. Is that correct ?

It was an open letter to sign a petition to get the investigation reviewed - you remember, the one that the PJ shelved despite not following up on Smithman/Crecheman & a multitude of other irrelevant points.
Gerry's letter included details of the FMF & what it had already paid for - it did not include the words "Thirty people who are able to if they donated £10,000 would have it all sorted, it is guaranteed all money raised is going into his friends account so the McCann's will not be able to touch it."

[misty]

But there is not any hint of PJGA using funds for anything other than its one stated purpose. Please show us the MFLNSU Ltd's figures for how much it spent financing a very expensive libel action which BTW is nowhere in its stated aims and never has been.

There is not a hint of anything PJGA paid for. Not a single item.

[Alice Purjorick]

So Gerry was sending out begging letters at a time Kate was writing her book to raise funds. Is that correct ?

If you look at how MF:LNSU Ltd performed through FYs 2009;2010 & 2011 it would not be surprising.

[Brietta]

But there is not any hint of PJGA using funds for anything other than its one stated purpose. Please show us the MFLNSU Ltd's figures for how much it spent financing a very expensive libel action which BTW is nowhere in its stated aims and never has been.

We don't really know that though, do we?  Since we never have sight of accounts we are expected to take on trust what we are told??  Strange coming from a quarter which demands accountability for the spending on every staple used by Madeleine's account.

[Alice Purjorick]

We don't really know that though, do we?  Since we never have sight of accounts we are expected to take on trust what we are told??  Strange coming from a quarter which demands accountability for the spending on every staple used by Madeleine's account.

Will you be kind enough to show the post where that was suggested.

[Mr Gray]

Well I suggest you read the ch docs Davel and the good practice code too - I don't see anything there like
"Clause 42: Oh BTW if someone says everything's fine there's no need to check".

details of all phone calls were passed to halligens outfit.....would you be surprised if none of the phone calls produced any valuable information...I wouldn't. there may well have been nothing worth listening to

[Brietta]

Will you be kind enough to show the post where that was suggested.

Why are you unable to contribute to a discussion ... sorry ... forgot.  Didn't you once post that was not the object of your presence here?

[pegasus]

details of all phone calls were passed to halligens outfit.....would you be surprised if none of the phone calls produced any valuable information...I wouldn't. there may well have been nothing worth listening to

I wonder whether the thousands of donators and the hundreds of callers would be impressed Davel.
I have checked at CH and no the name has not been changed to MFLAPUT Ltd - maybe you could suggest it?