UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
Disappeared and Abducted Children and Young Adults => Madeleine McCann (3) disappeared from her parent's holiday apartment at Ocean Club, Praia da Luz, Portugal on 3 May 2007. No trace of her has ever been found. => Topic started by: gavdalf on April 10, 2013, 11:04:36 AM
-
What we actually know
3rd May 2007 - A little girl is missing, not with her parents
12/05/07 - Parents set up ltd company 9 days later - to date roughly received £5.79m, company accounts are there for all to see.
Met review - announced that it had agreed to bring its expertise to the case at the request of home secretary 12/05/2011.
I know the above may seem very simplistic, but they are certainly the certainly facts. And can be backed up with the information we can find
Im not pro this or anti that, the entire situation is very sad. Please if there is anything else we actually know as fact. please would you highlight them for me
thanks and pleased to meet you all
-
What we actually know
12/05/07 - Parents set up ltd company 9 days later - to date roughly received £5.79m, company accounts are there for all to see.
The accounts don't show how the money was spent, but, as a LTD, they don't have to.
-
What difference does that really make? Its a honest question? Im not trying to be argumentative, surely they were spent looking for Madeline?
-
Hello Gavdalf !
There's searching and searching. Of course spending money on PI is always a risk, but in this particular case Madeleine's Fund was crooked a bit above any probability.. Isn't it surprising that the Fund wasn't reactive ?
-
Hello Anne
indeed spending money on PI's would be risky, as it will always be in essence as they maynot find anything so in essence you can pay for nothing I suppose, I haven't been able to see all the documents relating to these but haven't some been arrested.
I don't know but it always struck me as a very very fast procedure, I must correct my earlier post myself in which I stated 9 days, it was actually 12 days
so we can assume which is not evidence or fact, that someone somewhere between the night of the 3rd and 15th came up with the idea to set up a ltd company , and of course we all know what to assume can be
first off you would need to apply for it, setup company bank accts which would require a anti money laundering process, submission of documents etc.
The main aspect which sometimes appears to take a back seat to the debating, theorising and really just arguing is that unfortunately a child is missing, which upsets me
-
Perhaps if the Fat Defective didn't just concentrate everything in trying to fit up the McCanns, then maybe, just maybe, the PJ would have looked for Madeleine elsewhere. By trying to blame the parents, and just focusing on that line of enquiry, then he let the person (s) who took Madeleine get away.
Amaral (imho) is as guilty as the abductor
-
Yes, but guilty of what?
-
Wel Amral guilty of letting her down , not doing his duty properly... And possibly, allowing her to come to her fate, whatever it may be
-
Wel Amral guilty of letting her down , not doing his duty properly... And possibly, allowing her to come to her fate, whatever it may be
I believe Amaral, and the Portuguese investigation was incompetent in many ways, but he cannot be accused of being guilty of the fate the little girl suffered
The fateful event had already occured before Amaral was even aware of the McCann's existence
-
Wel Amral guilty of letting her down , not doing his duty properly... And possibly, allowing her to come to her fate, whatever it may be
hello, could the same sentence in your post be applied to the parents? an honest question
I would like to point out Ive never accused them of anything because lets be honest, with the evidence and facts we have, we all know pretty much nothing
-
Hello Gavdalf !
There's searching and searching. Of course spending money on PI is always a risk, but in this particular case Madeleine's Fund was crooked a bit above any probability.. Isn't it surprising that the Fund wasn't reactive ?
Why do you say that and what do you base that opinion on?
-
For the record, does anyone have the details for this Limited Company?
-
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id58.html
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id205.html
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id303.html
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id352.html
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id394.html
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id425.html
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id429.html
They're the annual accounts and other information, year by year and
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id405.html
thats a review and investigation of the accounts.
-
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id58.html
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id205.html
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id303.html
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id352.html
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id394.html
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id425.html
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id429.html
They're the annual accounts and other information, year by year and
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id405.html
thats a review and investigation of the accounts.
Thanks for bringing us those Joanne
The last link makes for a very interesting read ( is Enid O'Dowd a journalist ? )
-
Enid O'Dowd is a chartered accountant.
-
Enid O'Dowd is a chartered accountant.
Yes. A seriously biased Chartered Accountant acting on partial evidence.
-
Enid O'Dowd is a chartered accountant.
Yes. A seriously biased Chartered Accountant acting on partial evidence.
Is there an inaccuracy in her analysis of the accounts that you can bring our attention to ?
-
What information beyond the accounts that we can all examine did she have access to upon which to make a forensic examination?
-
Enid O'Dowd is a chartered accountant.
Yes. A seriously biased Chartered Accountant acting on partial evidence.
Is there an inaccuracy in her analysis of the accounts that you can bring our attention to ?
Absence of any indication of impartiality.
-
Wel Amral guilty of letting her down , not doing his duty properly... And possibly, allowing her to come to her fate, whatever it may be
Are you talking about Amaral or her parents ?
-
Enid O'Dowd is a chartered accountant.
Yes. A seriously biased Chartered Accountant acting on partial evidence.
Is there an inaccuracy in her analysis of the accounts that you can bring our attention to ?
Absence of any indication of impartiality.
Can you point out where her conclusions haven't been backed by solid evidence ?
-
Enid O'Dowd is a chartered accountant.
Yes. A seriously biased Chartered Accountant acting on partial evidence.
Is there an inaccuracy in her analysis of the accounts that you can bring our attention to ?
Absence of any indication of impartiality.
Can you point out where her conclusions haven't been backed by solid evidence ?
What conclusions? The Fund is a Fraud? How did she work that one out? The Accountants and The Inland Revenue don't seem to agree.
-
Enid O'Dowd is a chartered accountant.
Yes. A seriously biased Chartered Accountant acting on partial evidence.
Is there an inaccuracy in her analysis of the accounts that you can bring our attention to ?
Absence of any indication of impartiality.
Can you point out where her conclusions haven't been backed by solid evidence ?
Can you point out anywhere where she does not make the most biased interpretation possible. She is a Bennett shill.
-
Read her analysis. It's a mish mash of conjecture. Such a pity that Judge Tugendhat didn't want to comment on it during Bennett's Trial. I would have loved to see what he thought of it.
Oh, sorry, I forgot. Judge Tugendhat is innit.
-
Enid O'Dowd is a chartered accountant.
Not a forensic accountant then.
Enid O'Dowd is a chartered accountant living in Ireland.
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id405.html
-
Enid O'Dowd is a chartered accountant.
Not a forensic accountant then.
Enid O'Dowd is a chartered accountant living in Ireland.
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id405.html
EnidO'Dowd is a biased [ censored word ] and lives in cloud cuckoo land.
-
Can you point out where her conclusions haven't been backed by solid evidence ?
It's amazing, isn't it? Well no, not really. Basically the response you'll get on this (and you have) is to question her credentials (even though she's an accountant, she's apparently the wrong sort of accountant or something.)
I contacted the Institute of chartered accountants about her and got a response from Lisa McNeela who is the principal assessor for professional conduct:
I write further to your email received via the Information Centre on 23 November 2012.
Your correspondence is currently held in the Assessment Section of the Professional Conduct Department
where it is my task to consider whether or not the conduct of our member gives rise to a potential liability to
disciplinary action and, if so, whether that conduct is capable of being evidenced. No attempt is made to
contact the subject of a complaint until these two criteria are met.
I understand you to have concerns about the article published on the internet written by Mrs O’Dowd. The
article questions the use of financial information and funds held in the Madeleine Fund: leaving no stone
unturned donated by members of the public and appears to suggest that questions have been asked of other
parties where some of the money has been spent.
You ask:
1) whether Mrs O’Dowd has exceeded her authority or in any way displayed a lack of
independence/impartiality in the article she's written
2) whether Mrs O’Dowd is within our jurisdiction.
In my personal opinion:
1) I do not believe she has exceeded her authority. Mrs O'Dowd is entitled to her own opinions and
views and freedom of speech. Mrs O'Dowd appears to have taken some time to research the
accounts and made enquiries of a number of parties associated with the fund. If Mrs O’Dowd has
been defamatory or has misrepresented the facts then, ultimately, that is a matter for the courts to
consider and impose the appropriate sanction. To that extent, unless you have documentary evidence of wrongdoing,
and on the face of it it would appear not to raise our disciplinary interest.
2) Mrs O'Dowd is a member of this Institute.
If you disagree with my assessment and/or have additional evidence you wish to bring to my attention
regarding your complaint, then | would be grateful it you could respond to this letter within 30 days. Since I
do not believe that there is a potential liability to disciplinary action, should I not hear from you within those
30 days then I will close my file on this matter accordingly.
Some interesting points she makes. "Mrs O'Dowd is entitled to her own opinions and views and freedom of speech" and "Mrs O'Dowd appears to have taken some time to research the accounts and made enquiries of a number of parties associated with the fund".
You see, the reason the pros dislike this piece so much is that it's been well written by a professional. To give it any credence is to call into question their beliefs about the McCann saga and, ultimately, to give unwanted credibility to someone making non-worshipping noises about the McCanns. Therefore the usual operation swings into place... discredit, rubbish, attack, complain, moan - basically anything that calls into question the morals/knowledge/professionalism or, failing that, empathy of the person concerned.
Here we have independent and I would assume unbiased (I'm sure the usual suspects will question this) professional opinion that a considerable amount of research has been done by a well-qualified professional. This will, of course, be nothing near good enough for the angry mob to accept as any kind of evidence of questionable practises by the McCanns but those of us that are able to hold an open mind on such things will no doubt be fascinated to see the pat responses that are evident in this thread.
The next responses will be "so what? what does it prove", etc. What it proves, my little minions of mccannism, is that the McCanns and their team are being less than open and arguably dishonest about their representations surrounding the fund.
Isn't it interesting that no-one like this ever writes things in support of the McCanns? Several erudite and intelligent people around the world have plenty to say against the McCanns and yet very few, if any, to speak out in their favour. No, "Pedro Silva" (give me strength) does not count.
Oh - as an aside as it's not worth a separate post, I can thoroughly recommend completely ignoring debunker, Eleanor and Sadie's posts on here for sanity and wellbeing. It's amazing how much one's blood pressure drops when you don't get dragged into ridiculous arguments with those that are purely disruptive. In my opinion, of course. 8((()*/
-
Charming as ever CEdwards! Why am I not on your list of people to avoid for the sake of your sanity? Miffed now. 8(8-))
And that would be the classic "attack the poster and not the post" response. No doubt the response to that will be "well there's nothing worth talking about in your post" or something similar?
I'll ignore you when I'm good and ready, thanks. You've displayed intelligence on here and the STM forum but you're very, very blinkered. I can accept that though and I don't have any need to try and convert you.
-
Don't be dense Martha. You completely failed to address the information in my posts and instead took faux umbrage at me making a suggestion to ignore three particular posters as I have done. It's irrelevant to you.
Now, in your style, "anything to say about my post?" I won't add the "thought not" bit just yet though.
-
Charming as ever CEdwards! Why am I not on your list of people to avoid for the sake of your sanity? Miffed now. 8(8-))
And that would be the classic "attack the poster and not the post" response. No doubt the response to that will be "well there's nothing worth talking about in your post" or something similar?
I'll ignore you when I'm good and ready, thanks. You've displayed intelligence on here and the STM forum but you're very, very blinkered. I can accept that though and I don't have any need to try and convert you.
I refer you to your earlier post. Hypocrite. @)(++(*
-
I refer you to your earlier post. Hypocrite. @)(++(*
@)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*
Sorry - what are we laughing at? Ah, smilies. Where would we be without them?
-
Mrs. O'Dowd hasn't done anything illegal. She hasn't outright said that The McCanns are committing a Fraud. That's the whole point. It's just a mish mash of innuendo without a scrap of proof, which she well knows.
-
I have just read through Enid O'Dowd's analysis of the Madeleine Fund accounts again
It is a thoroughly researched and factual presentation, and I really don't see how anyone can argue otherwise
Some very specific and straight forward questions are posed and there isn't a single reason, I can think of, that they shouldn't be answered
-
Does anyone know in which account returns it shows Kevin Halligen being paid 300 or 500k, depending on which paper you read
-
I have just read through Enid O'Dowd's analysis of the Madeleine Fund accounts again
It is a thoroughly researched and factual presentation, and I really don't see how anyone can argue otherwise
Some very specific and straight forward questions are posed and there isn't a single reason, I can think of, that they shouldn't be answered
I completely agree icabod. The thing is that all those calling her unprofessional or biased or, ha, a "[ censored word ]" are being blind to the obvious. She's a professional accountant. She is bound by the rules of her profession to be competent in her work. She has PUBLISHED her work after a lot of research and has she been sued or even been threatened with it? Nope. If so, we'd have heard about it. The McCann modus operandi is to release media stories (usually "sources close to...") that attempt to debunk or rebut unhelpful, ludicrous or vile things said about them... has that happened in this case. Nope. The reason for that? They can't. Quite simply they know darned well that Enid O'Dowd has done a professional job with her research and they simply cannot rebut any of it. Therefore silence is the only option.
-
How to put it.
It is a private company.
It is none of her effing business.
She is obviously biased.
-
Mrs. O'Dowd hasn't done anything illegal. She hasn't outright said that The McCanns are committing a Fraud. That's the whole point. It's just a mish mash of innuendo without a scrap of proof, which she well knows.
Bennett tried to use her in court, didn't he?.
And got this,
TB: I will move on then to my third application. I have one witness, Ms Enid O’Dowd. She is a qualified accountant and professional auditor in Ireland and relevance of her evidence is that she has produced a report on the Claimants’ fund-raising activity through the Find Madeleine Fund.
J: What has that got to do with your Undertaking and these proceedings?
TB: Many aspects of the way that Fund has been run are not in accordance with good accountancy practice and throw up major question marks about the use of public money…
J: You are asking me to hear things as if this were a libel action…what has Ms O’Dowd got to say that is relevant to the issues in this case?..
-
Mrs. O'Dowd hasn't done anything illegal. She hasn't outright said that The McCanns are committing a Fraud. That's the whole point. It's just a mish mash of innuendo without a scrap of proof, which she well knows.
Bennett tried to use her in court, didn't he?.
And got this,
TB: I will move on then to my third application. I have one witness, Ms Enid O’Dowd. She is a qualified accountant and professional auditor in Ireland and relevance of her evidence is that she has produced a report on the Claimants’ fund-raising activity through the Find Madeleine Fund.
J: What has that got to do with your Undertaking and these proceedings?
TB: Many aspects of the way that Fund has been run are not in accordance with good accountancy practice and throw up major question marks about the use of public money…
J: You are asking me to hear things as if this were a libel action…what has Ms O’Dowd got to say that is relevant to the issues in this case?..
And this was the only reason for why she wrote her so called report. Mr. Bennett.
Has she sent it to The Inland Revenue? And if so, what did they have to say about it? If not, then she should have done.
-
Mrs. O'Dowd hasn't done anything illegal. She hasn't outright said that The McCanns are committing a Fraud. That's the whole point. It's just a mish mash of innuendo without a scrap of proof, which she well knows.
Bennett tried to use her in court, didn't he?.
And got this,
TB: I will move on then to my third application. I have one witness, Ms Enid O’Dowd. She is a qualified accountant and professional auditor in Ireland and relevance of her evidence is that she has produced a report on the Claimants’ fund-raising activity through the Find Madeleine Fund.
J: What has that got to do with your Undertaking and these proceedings?
TB: Many aspects of the way that Fund has been run are not in accordance with good accountancy practice and throw up major question marks about the use of public money…
J: You are asking me to hear things as if this were a libel action…what has Ms O’Dowd got to say that is relevant to the issues in this case?..
Your point is? Enid O'Dowd's piece is utterly irrelevant to a case to resolve whether TB broke his undertakings, yes. I fully agree. TB was thoroughly misguided to attempt to do this and I told him something along these lines on the Havern forum and got kicked off.
Did't Tugendhat say at some point it could/would be relevant if/when TB attempts to vary his undertakings?
-
Mrs. O'Dowd hasn't done anything illegal. She hasn't outright said that The McCanns are committing a Fraud. That's the whole point. It's just a mish mash of innuendo without a scrap of proof, which she well knows.
Bennett tried to use her in court, didn't he?.
And got this,
TB: I will move on then to my third application. I have one witness, Ms Enid O’Dowd. She is a qualified accountant and professional auditor in Ireland and relevance of her evidence is that she has produced a report on the Claimants’ fund-raising activity through the Find Madeleine Fund.
J: What has that got to do with your Undertaking and these proceedings?
TB: Many aspects of the way that Fund has been run are not in accordance with good accountancy practice and throw up major question marks about the use of public money…
J: You are asking me to hear things as if this were a libel action…what has Ms O’Dowd got to say that is relevant to the issues in this case?..
Your point is? Enid O'Dowd's piece is utterly irrelevant to a case to resolve whether TB broke his undertakings, yes. I fully agree. TB was thoroughly misguided to attempt to do this and I told him something along these lines on the Havern forum and got kicked off.
Did't Tugendhat say at some point it could/would be relevant if/when TB attempts to vary his undertakings?
No, He said.
J: You are asking me to hear things as if this were a libel action…what has Ms O’Dowd got to say that is relevant to the issues in this case?..
-
Mrs. O'Dowd hasn't done anything illegal. She hasn't outright said that The McCanns are committing a Fraud. That's the whole point. It's just a mish mash of innuendo without a scrap of proof, which she well knows.
Bennett tried to use her in court, didn't he?.
And got this,
TB: I will move on then to my third application. I have one witness, Ms Enid O’Dowd. She is a qualified accountant and professional auditor in Ireland and relevance of her evidence is that she has produced a report on the Claimants’ fund-raising activity through the Find Madeleine Fund.
J: What has that got to do with your Undertaking and these proceedings?
TB: Many aspects of the way that Fund has been run are not in accordance with good accountancy practice and throw up major question marks about the use of public money…
J: You are asking me to hear things as if this were a libel action…what has Ms O’Dowd got to say that is relevant to the issues in this case?..
Your point is? Enid O'Dowd's piece is utterly irrelevant to a case to resolve whether TB broke his undertakings, yes. I fully agree. TB was thoroughly misguided to attempt to do this and I told him something along these lines on the Havern forum and got kicked off.
Did't Tugendhat say at some point it could/would be relevant if/when TB attempts to vary his undertakings?
No, He said.
J: You are asking me to hear things as if this were a libel action…what has Ms O’Dowd got to say that is relevant to the issues in this case?..
That implies that Enid O'Dowd's analysis of the Madeleine Fund accounds would be relevent in a full on libel trial
in what way though ? >@@(*&)
-
What ever she might have to say about The Fund, it wouldn't prove that The McCanns had anything to do with the disappearance of their daughter. So I can't see what relevance her opinion has to anything.
-
What ever she might have to say about The Fund, it wouldn't prove that The McCanns had anything to do with the disappearance of their daughter. So I can't see what relevance her opinion has to anything.
It seems Judge Tugendhat thought it might
-
What ever she might have to say about The Fund, it wouldn't prove that The McCanns had anything to do with the disappearance of their daughter. So I can't see what relevance her opinion has to anything.
It seems Judge Tugendhat thought it might
Actually, he simply asked what relevance it had to Bennett's contempt of court trial, nothing more. YOu are choosing to infer that the Judge thought there might be some validity to her report when actually he said nothing of the kind.
I'm not infering anything ... I have no interest at all in anything to do with that Bennet fellow
I was simply picking up on what was posted above ... that Judge Tugendhat apparently implied that Enid O'Dowd's analysis might be of value in a libel trial
-
What ever she might have to say about The Fund, it wouldn't prove that The McCanns had anything to do with the disappearance of their daughter. So I can't see what relevance her opinion has to anything.
It seems Judge Tugendhat thought it might
Actually, he simply asked what relevance it had to Bennett's contempt of court trial, nothing more. YOu are choosing to infer that the Judge thought there might be some validity to her report when actually he said nothing of the kind.
I'm not infering anything ... I have no interest at all in anything to do with that Bennet fellow
I was simply picking up on what was posted above ... that Judge Tugendhat apparently implied that Enid O'Dowd's analysis might be of value in a libel trial
What were his exact words?
-
Ah, of course. Mr. Bennett has accused The Mccanns of running a Fraudulent Fund, so I suppose he might try to prove that this is true if they sue. But I think he will have to do a bit better than Mrs. O'Dowd. Especially since The Inland Revenue do not seem to agree.
And surely, if Mrs. O'Dowd has information that The Inland Revenue do not have, she is legally obliged to inform them. All Accountants owe their allegiance to The Inland Revenue. They do not work for their clients. They are only engaged to assist them in complying with The Law.
-
O'Dowd look at the accts had nothing to do with the Bennett case at all, but in the future in may become relevant to other trials and actions that maybe bought.
im hypothesizing here and really hope its not what happens, what if Maddy isn't found for more than 10 years or so, what will happen to the company. Should the company only be operational until she would turn 18? I really do not know
Its all just very sad, and we don't even have the first piece of evidence to go from.
-
Are the McCanns still using the Maddy Fund to pay their own mortgage?
-
Are the McCanns still using the Maddy Fund to pay their own mortgage?
When did you stop beating your wife?
-
What a disgusting reply, firstly it implies the poster has in fact done that, secondly we know that the Mccanns have in the past used it to pay the mortgage, and the question relates to if they are now using it
If this is the level of childish behaviour on these boards, good bye
-
What a disgusting reply, firstly it implies the poster has in fact done that, secondly we know that the Mccanns have in the past used it to pay the mortgage, and the question relates to if they are now using it
If this is the level of childish behaviour on these boards, good bye
Goodbye.
But if you see this post, note that his original question was of the same biased form as my satirical response.
-
Im fully aware of what it is thanks Martha, and the fact that it is totally irrelevant to the question posed? he requests answers over and over again yet he doesn't appear to have answered any of the questions I posed to him on his empathy thread.
The question which he deems biased is not.
Fact - they did use it to make mortgage payments.
Question - are they still using the fund for mortgage payments - the answers are - yes, No, or don't know
I honestly thought this forum would be a place for sensible debate, not a forum for wind up merchants and trolls.
As my last post - I would wish that maddy is found safe & well
-
Two mortgage payments when neither of them were working, and were faced with additional expenses, not least of maintaining two households. This doesn't sound very bad to me, especially as aiding them to stay in Portugal is written into the articles of The Fund.
This is such a pathetic thing to keep on about. People were sending them money to help them from day one, and the donors were not attaching conditions to their donations.
-
TimInvictus asked:
"Are the McCanns still using the Maddy Fund to pay their own mortgage?"
Using the continuing present tense, possibly implying that they had been doing so for six years. Hence the wife beating response.
Had he asked a straight question:
"Have the McCanns had more thantheadmitted two mortgage payments"
there would have been no assum ing the conclusion in the question.
Grow up!