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.
