Madeleine Fund - End of Year Accounts 2016-2017.

[Brietta]

Where them = supporters being unable to raise a cogent simple argument to defend the accounts then yes.
[which is what my first post somewhat controversially suggested].

What's to "defend"?

The accusers have been whistling in the wind for over ten years now and  < in my opinion>  they have never produced a case to answer. Plenty of vitriol, but nothing of substance and boring in the extreme.

[Alice Purjorick]

It seems the new guy has been put to work. Do they know he's giving us information, I wonder? Funding libel trials don't come cheap and we now know where the office containing those paper clips is. An interesting donation, too. The gift that keeps on giving.

51k owed by The Fondation to Isabel ?
Not to mention donations now being openly listed as "restricted funds".
Comments on the ECHR for some reason.

[Brietta]

Yes, petulant little comment. Not what you expect in a statement of accounts

In my opinion they are very healthy though ... and interesting that Kate's book is still being sold and making profit to boost Madeleine's fund.

[slartibartfast]

In my opinion they are very healthy though ... and interesting that Kate's book is still being sold and making profit to boost Madeleine's fund.

Interesting conclusion?

[Eleanor]

Look at the accounts.

Why?

[Eleanor]

Where them = supporters being unable to raise a cogent simple argument to defend the accounts then yes.
[which is what my first post somewhat controversially suggested].

I have no need to defend the accounts.  Should I?

[Alice Purjorick]

What's to "defend"?

The accusers have been whistling in the wind for over ten years now and  < in my opinion>  they have never produced a case to answer. Plenty of vitriol, but nothing of substance and boring in the extreme.

But always countered with the same stupidity from supporters [there is no other way of describing it].
Were you all as good as you say then you would have done a proper job on it. quote .....The fact you didn't tells me all I need to know...unquote 

[Eleanor]

51k owed by The Fondation to Isabel ?
Not to mention donations now being openly listed as "restricted funds".
Comments on the ECHR for some reason.

Is this illegal?

[Alice Purjorick]

I clocked the "discredited Portuguese detective G Amaral" bit.  Any other reference escapes me.

You should have read a bit further in the same paragraph to where it says the judgement was made against Kate & Gerry.

[Eleanor]

Sorry luv I am not into silly syntax ping pong.
I'll write it all slowly in monosyllables if helps you understand it.

Oh. I see.   Okay.  And we all know where thesis going.

[Brietta]

You should have read a bit further in the same paragraph to where it says the judgement was made against Kate & Gerry.

Nope ... I saw that too ... just before I jumped to the bit concerning the ECHR.

[Robittybob1]

I don't suppose that we could have a Cite, could we?  Not that I would insist, of course.

https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/document-api-images-prod/docs/0Irp3UzkoDKD1M9-5c_x54VMWHl8ADKCyM4gBfTvy2A/application-pdf

[Mr Gray]

The accounts include several interesting claims about Amaral and an abduction.

They refer to amaral as.. Discredited... He can't sue because  it's true it seems... And confirms the ECHR application... Interesting

[Alice Purjorick]

Nope ... I saw that too ... just before I jumped to the bit concerning the ECHR.

Yeah I passed comment on that in post #170.

[Eleanor]

https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/document-api-images-prod/docs/0Irp3UzkoDKD1M9-5c_x54VMWHl8ADKCyM4gBfTvy2A/application-pdf

These aren't Claims, of course.  So let's not be silly about this.