Is the maddie fund.... now a secret fund

[Mr Gray]

No. If you can point out a case in which they were the defendants then maybe.

No... You should point out who they were meant to attack

[slartibartfast]

No... You should point out who they were meant to attack

In the words of John McEnroe....

Defence lawyers do not instigate proceedings.

[Mr Gray]

In the words of John McEnroe....

Defence lawyers do not instigate proceedings.

You have not answered the, question... Who were they meant to, attack

Your post is, opinion and you should make that clear

[slartibartfast]

You have not answered the, question... Who were they meant to, attack

Your post is, opinion and you should make that clear

They did not spend lots of money on defence lawyers,.

[Mr Gray]

They did not spend lots of money on defence lawyers,.

You said they were attack lawyers... Cite... You should know the rules by now

[slartibartfast]

You said they were attack lawyers... Cite... You should know the uled by now

It’s the opposite of defence, a play on words. Ok rather than attack I will say litigating.

[Mr Gray]

They hired lawyers to defend their reputation and also to defend themeselves from possible action from the Portuguese judiciary...being an arguido means you are being accused and therefore need a DEFENCE lawyer..I cannot see one instance of any attack by the mccanns

[faithlilly]

They hired lawyers to defend their reputation and also to defend themeselves from possible action from the Portuguese judiciary...being an arguido means you are being accused and therefore need a DEFENCE lawyer..I cannot see one instance of any attack by the mccanns

But not to protect the search for Madeleine?

[Angelo222]

They hired lawyers to defend their reputation and also to defend themeselves from possible action from the Portuguese judiciary...being an arguido means you are being accused and therefore need a DEFENCE lawyer..I cannot see one instance of any attack by the mccanns

That didn't turn out too well did it?   In fact I don't know of any innocent parents of missing children who have gone to such lengths. Only somebody with something to hide would need to go down that particular road imo.

[Vertigo Swirl]

It referred to another post.

Then why did you respond to my post with it?

[Vertigo Swirl]

It certainly doesn't come cheap!  how much has the  'fund' spend on legal fees for pursuing Amaral?  Madeleine will never get justice, while people fawn over her parents like they are deities. And refuse to accept that something terrible happened /is happening to her, and that her parents are not the real victims in all this?

It is also difficult for some to appreciate that although they have not been held accountable, they were responsible for her. It would seem that this forum is being used by parent supporters to whitewash them and protect them at any cost. Which to my mind is seriously weird.

Supporters wouldn’t get away with making such risible comments about sceptics, so why has this provocative post been allowed to remain?

[misty]

But not to protect the search for Madeleine?

The self-appointed spokesman for the PJ declared via a book/documentary about the investigation that Madeleine had in 5A & her body disposed of by her parents. Therefore, no-one need bother looking for Madeleine any more or the person/people who removed her from 5A. Did that harm the search? - you judge.
Furthermore, the self-appointed spokesman failed to declare in his book/documentary that the investigation was shelved due to the nature of any crime against Madeleine or its perpetartor(s) never having been ascertained. Did the non-disclosure of those facts harm the search? - you judge.

When the McCanns took action to overturn this negative publicity about their daughter's disappearance, did it harm the search when people chose to financially back the primary source of such negativity rather than the agencies who were privately trying to find her? - you judge.

If finding Madeleine is such a great public concern that people have placed their money, reputations & lives on the line for it, why question the use of money, freely given to the Fund, for the purpose of eliminating the negative influences on the search?

[faithlilly]

The self-appointed spokesman for the PJ declared via a book/documentary about the investigation that Madeleine had in 5A & her body disposed of by her parents. Therefore, no-one need bother looking for Madeleine any more or the person/people who removed her from 5A. Did that harm the search? - you judge.
Furthermore, the self-appointed spokesman failed to declare in his book/documentary that the investigation was shelved due to the nature of any crime against Madeleine or its perpetartor(s) never having been ascertained. Did the non-disclosure of those facts harm the search? - you judge.

When the McCanns took action to overturn this negative publicity about their daughter's disappearance, did it harm the search when people chose to financially back the primary source of such negativity rather than the agencies who were privately trying to find her? - you judge.

If finding Madeleine is such a great public concern that people have placed their money, reputations & lives on the line for it, why question the use of money, freely given to the Fund, for the purpose of eliminating the negative influences on the search?

I was actually asking Davel who seems to have forgotten that the case, allegedly, wasn’t about savin* the parent’s reputations.

But let me ask you this Misty. If the McCanns had needed to use their own money to sure Amaral do you think they would have gone ahead with the litigation?

[Vertigo Swirl]

The self-appointed spokesman for the PJ declared via a book/documentary about the investigation that Madeleine had in 5A & her body disposed of by her parents. Therefore, no-one need bother looking for Madeleine any more or the person/people who removed her from 5A. Did that harm the search? - you judge.
Furthermore, the self-appointed spokesman failed to declare in his book/documentary that the investigation was shelved due to the nature of any crime against Madeleine or its perpetartor(s) never having been ascertained. Did the non-disclosure of those facts harm the search? - you judge.

When the McCanns took action to overturn this negative publicity about their daughter's disappearance, did it harm the search when people chose to financially back the primary source of such negativity rather than the agencies who were privately trying to find her? - you judge.

If finding Madeleine is such a great public concern that people have placed their money, reputations & lives on the line for it, why question the use of money, freely given to the Fund, for the purpose of eliminating the negative influences on the search?

I really wouldn’t encourage Faithlilly to judge, you know what the verdict’s likely to be...

[misty]

I was actually asking Davel who seems to have forgotten that the case, allegedly, wasn’t about savin* the parent’s reputations.

But let me ask you this Misty. If the McCanns had needed to use their own money to sure Amaral do you think they would have gone ahead with the litigation?

Yes.