Where has the £266,000 gone?

[G-Unit]

Simple question: does Amaral's book conclude that the parents hid Madeleine's body - yes or no?

Simple? Yes. Related to the passage under discussion? No.

If you wish to discuss a different passage please post the extract you wish to discuss.

[Alfie]

Simple? Yes. Related to the passage under discussion? No.

If you wish to discuss a different passage please post the extract you wish to discuss.

It is somewhat disingenuous IMO to claim that Amaral is NOT accusing the McCanns of setting up a fraudulent fund, when he concludes in his book that they hid their child's body, but there we go.

[carlymichelle]

It is somewhat disingenuous IMO to claim that Amaral is NOT accusing the McCanns of setting up a fraudulent fund, when he concludes in his book that they hid their child's body, but there we go.

and  how  do you know they didnt ( not  saying they  did??)  but   as a police officer GA had the right to think  what he  wanted  he was there not  you

[Alfie]

and  how  do you know they didnt ( not  saying they  did??)  but   as a police officer GA had the right to think  what he  wanted  he was there not  you

What is under dispute here is whether or not Amaral implied the fund was fraudulent.  for some inexplicable reason there are people here claiming he did not!!  It beggars belief really....

[Angelo222]

At least the consensus here is that the fund is not transparent, glad that one was sorted, thanks to alfie lol for saying the fund team were intimidated by a few online posters and uk papers and decided to clam up

So the blame is elsewhere yet again

Have the mccanns ever taken any responsblity in this utter fiasco

or is it always everyone elses fault worldwide

I dont thnk they have

At all

Theres a hilarious mile long list of whose fault it was or could have been

For those who have taken the trouble to read the financial statements associated with No Stone Unturned Limited they must come as a bit of a let down.  They contain the absolute minimum as required by UK law and leave people asking more questions than there are answers.

[slartibartfast]

What is under dispute here is whether or not Amaral implied the fund was fraudulent.  for some inexplicable reason there are people here claiming he did not!!  It beggars belief really....

Considering the book is a hypothesis and not a statement of fact, then the conditional statement SiL presented does not say it is fraudulent.

[Angelo222]

What is under dispute here is whether or not Amaral implied the fund was fraudulent.  for some inexplicable reason there are people here claiming he did not!!  It beggars belief really....

I will agree with you that Amaral thought the fund was set up for reasons other than to search for Madeleine.  Recent events have shown that to be the case surely?

[carlymichelle]

I will agree with you that Amaral thought the fund was set up for reasons other than to search for Madeleine.  Recent events have shown that to be the case surely?

so why is alfie so upset that GA had a opinion about the mcanns??  GA   being a police officer it was his job to have a  opinion was it not?

[John]

I suppose it's natural to ask people you know and trust to be directors, but the drawback is they can later be seen as overly sympathetic.

In certain circumstances yes but the only truly way in which a fund like this, which was created in order to accept the many donations which were being made by the public, was to do what was promised at the outset and that was total transparency.  Nine years on however a cloak of secrecy has descended over the fund giving rise to claims that it has lost its way and is being used to fund activities for which it was never conceived.  Does that about sum it up?

[Angelo222]

so why is alfie so upset that GA had a opinion about the mcanns??  GA   being a police officer it was his job to have a  opinion was it not?

We have to be careful not to confuse what was written in his book as against what he has stated in subsequent press interviews.

[G-Unit]

What is under dispute here is whether or not Amaral implied the fund was fraudulent.  for some inexplicable reason there are people here claiming he did not!!  It beggars belief really....

If you read the passage quoted and you understand the concept of conditional statements he did not. He may have said it elsewhere in his book; a quote showing an unequivocal statement rather than a conditional statement is all that is needed.

[Alice Purjorick]

Goncalo Amaral said so ~ or insinuated, if you prefer ...

The Truth of the Lie
Chapter 18

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

If such a crime exists, Portugal would not have jurisdiction to investigate and try it. The fund being legally registered in England, it would be our English colleagues who would deal with the case. Our English colleagues then realise a hard reality: the strong possibility that they would have a crime to investigate in their own country, with the McCann couple as the main suspects: a prospect that does not seem to appeal to them. I notice a sudden pallor in the faces of those British people present.
http://goncaloamaraltruthofthelie.blogspot.co.uk/2009/06/chapter-18.html

 ... and despite his concerns 'the company' has been and is run well within all lawful parameters ~ unless you know to the contrary.

Being fundamentally polite of nature I did reply to this.
For some inexplicable reason one of Cerberus' heads decided to delete the reply.
That hardly seems a rational response, however cutting to the chase the thrust of my post was that you should try to learn about "the conditional".
All yours Cerberus.............

[Benice]

For those who have taken the trouble to read the financial statements associated with No Stone Unturned Limited they must come as a bit of a let down.  They contain the absolute minimum as required by UK law and leave people asking more questions than there are answers.

IMO the only people who felt 'let down' were those who were gleefully anticipating a whole new McCann bashing fest -  via the annual publication of the accounts - where every syllable would be pored over with the sole aim of finding fault.       The limited amount of information somewhat curtailed their 'fun'.

The shrieks of indignation from some which ensue because of that -  remind me of toddlers having a tantrum because their dummy has been taken away.

AIMHO of course.

[faithlilly]

How do You know they've been allegedly deceived then? 

As for the donate button on their website, yes it's still there and was set up many years ago.  If anyone wants to donate to the Fund that's the means of doing so but it is not making a public appeal for donations, you know damn well what I mean.  In the same way that there is a donate button on the Children In Need website, but there is a public appeal only once a year.  https://www.bbcchildreninneed.co.uk/fundraisinghub

They had however promised that the fund would be transparent and it is clearly not.

As to your second point if they are asking for donations, whether it's a public announcement or via a donate button on their website, they are actively seeking donations. That you fail to acknowledge that face is frankly your problem.

[Alfie]

so why is alfie so upset that GA had a opinion about the mcanns??  GA   being a police officer it was his job to have a  opinion was it not?

I'm not upset about a thing dear Carly, I am simply engaging in an online conversation.  A police officer is paid to have an opinion, but not to publicly accuse without supporting evidence or to make a career out doing so.