Limited Company and Private Investigators

[C.Edwards]

I refer you to your earlier post. Hypocrite.

 

Sorry - what are we laughing at?  Ah, smilies. Where would we be without them?

[Eleanor]

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.

[icabodcrane]

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

[Redblossom]

Does anyone know in which account returns it shows Kevin Halligen being paid 300 or 500k, depending on which paper you read

[C.Edwards]

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.

[debunker]

How to put it.

It is a private company.

It is none of her effing business.

She is obviously biased.

[DCI]

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?..

[Eleanor]

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.

[C.Edwards]

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?

[DCI]

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?..

[icabodcrane]

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 ?   >@@(*&)

[Eleanor]

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.

[icabodcrane]

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

[icabodcrane]

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

 

[debunker]

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?