Where has the £266,000 gone?

[faithlilly]

Are you claiming they never got another public donation from the time they were made arguidos?  If so then then problem solved.  No public donations were spent on private litigation.  Happy now?

Donations  certainly slowed down.

[Alfie]

I think the members of the general public who did contribute to the fund were stupid, disinterested or blind steeple. I think they did it in good faith to help a suffering family. That their kindness was abused is no reflection on them.

I personally know many supporters none of whom feel their kindness was abused. How do you account for this?

[Alfie]

Donations  certainly slowed down.

From what to what?

[G-Unit]

You have usually beat me to the request.

Now please accede to my request ... or amend your post.  Thank you.

You need to be a bit quicker, perhaps? I don't have any problem providing cites because I don't usually say things unless I know they're documented.

[faithlilly]

I personally know many supporters none of whom feel their kindness was abused. How do you account for this?

I'd hazard a guess that they are diehard supporters such as yourself.

[faithlilly]

From what to what?

No idea. Perhaps you should asked John McCann as he made the claim.

[G-Unit]

I think you were being asked for a cite? A reasonable request on the forum.

I'll second that.

[John]

So where is your evidence to prove what 'MOST' of the people who donated would have done?   You can have no way of knowing that unless you know everyone who did donate and their reasons for doing so.    Wishful thinking doesn't count.

For all anyone knows, people may have donated when they found out that the policemen in charge of the case was an arguido accused  - and later proven to be implicated in the torture of the mother of his previous and only other 'missing child' case.   Who knows?
 

I agree, the public tend to donate first and ask questions later.  It is human nature to have regrets later on when the circumstances change.  I think most people would donate if they knew for sure that their donation would be used constructively in the search for Madeleine and not on face saving exercises.  In fact it would have been better if people wholly independent of the case were in charge of the funds.  I can see a new thread about to sprout.

[Alfie]

No idea. Perhaps you should asked John McCann as he made the claim.

I don't have his number sorry, can you provide a cite?  Do the accounts each year not give a figure for incoming funds?  If they made a million in the first year and virtually none in the second then that would support the idea that once they'd been made arguidos the public deserted them in droves.  It does also however mean that actual public donations only represent a fraction of the overall Fund receipts and it should therefore be possible to work out how much, if any, actual public donations have been spent on litigation costs.

[stephen25000]

Why do McCann supporters and the McCanns etc., think they had an entitlement for using donated money to pay 'legal fees and other expenses, including travel' ?

Namely, yet again why should others pay for the mistakes of the McCanns,  when there is no evidence whatsoever they have contributed to them from their salaried work ?

[faithlilly]

I don't have his number sorry, can you provide a cite?  Do the accounts each year not give a figure for incoming funds?  If they made a million in the first year and virtually none in the second then that would support the idea that once they'd been made arguidos the public deserted them in droves.  It does also however mean that actual public donations only represent a fraction of the overall Fund receipts and it should therefore be possible to work out how much, if any, actual public donations have been spent on litigation costs.

http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/press/02-12-2007-Mail-MaddiesUncleInFundFury.JPG

Further even if they public donations were a couple of hundred pounds if they donated while unaware that the money would be used for libel litigation they are still unable to make an informed choice.

[Alfie]

http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/press/02-12-2007-Mail-MaddiesUncleInFundFury.JPG

Further even if they public donations were a couple of hundred pounds if they donated while unaware that the money would be used for libel litigation they are still unable to make an informed choice.

At the time of this article, Dec 2007 £700k of £1.1m had already been spent on detectives.  There were then receiving about £10k a month and paying out £50k a month on detectives.  Given that it is unlikely they sustained £10k a month public donations for many more months after this article appeared, I don't really see what your beef is, particularly as litigation costs didn't begin until the majority of public donations had already been spent on detectives and other (non litigation) costs.

[faithlilly]

At the time of this article, Dec 2007 £700k of £1.1m had already been spent on detectives.  There were then receiving about £10k a month and paying out £50k a month on detectives.  Given that it is unlikely they sustained £10k a month public donations for many more months after this article appeared, I don't really see what your beef is, particularly as litigation costs didn't begin until the majority of public donations had already been spent on detectives and other (non litigation) costs.

Let's reel this discussion in. My claim was that the public could not make an informed choice when donating to the fund as they were unaware that it was being used to pay for libel litigation. I posted that the McCanns had never openly informed the public that they were using the fund for libel litigation. You agreed. Therefore I don't see your problem.

[Alfie]

Let's reel this discussion in. My claim was that the public could not make an informed choice when donating to the fund as they were unaware that it was being used to pay for libel litigation. I posted that the McCanns had never openly informed the public that they were using the fund for libel litigation. You agreed. Therefore I don't see your problem.

As the public don't really make donations now, nor have they in any significant amount since 2008 and since no money was spent on litigation til years later it's a non-issue, but you're still determined to make something out of nothing.  That's what I take issue with.

[G-Unit]

From what to what?

Nothing is completely clear, but donation/web sales are very small over the years ending 2013, 2014 and 2015.

Income;

Year 1 £1,846,178    litigation £550,000
Year 2    £629,181       "         £375,000     
Year 3    £233,099
Year 4    £177,534   
Year 5    £856,303     Book      £738,487
Year 6      £70,250     NotW       £21,257
Year 7    £421,264     Book      £400,000
Year 8    Undisclosed

Total   £4,233,899        Total £2.084,744

From parents, friends, litigation £2,084,744

Total from Kate Mccann £1,138,487 Years; 2012 [£738,487] and 2014 [£400,000]

The couple, from Rothley, Leicestershire, both doctors, also hope sales of the book will raise £1million to continue funding the worldwide hunt.

Mrs McCann said: 'Every penny we raise through its sales will be spent on our search for Madeleine. Nothing is more important to us than finding our little girl.'
Daily Mail By SAM GREENHILL
Last updated at 11:07 PM on 6th May 2011

From litigation;

Express Newspaper Group £550.000 March 2008

T7 £375,000 Oct 2008

News of the World reward money [donations] £21,257.32 April 2011

All from http://www.mccannfiles.com/id502.html