The Fund

[Clutchbag]

awareness campaign fabgod, snortle

 

[SapphireSteel]

There's probably a whole generation of kids who don't even know who Madeleine is.

Yet they're still attempting to get Amaral's book censored.

:waitasec:

 

[brit1981]

Amaral ha snothign to worry about so ;long as he has not written anythign that is untrue. If for instance he has written that the material in the car is most likely madeleine's dna then he is in trouble as this can be disproved. If he has written the material likely came from a body then he is again in trouble as this can be disproved.
But if he has only written the truth then he has not a thing to worry about.

all rpyalties from kate's book belong to the fund.

No evidence form companies house has been provided. I have looked at companies house and there is no mention of the fund being used for legal expenses to sue. Carter ruck work on a condictional fee arrangement.

 

[Clutchbag]

Amaral ha snothign to worry about so ;long as he has not written anythign that is untrue. If for instance he has written that the material in the car is most likely madeleine's dna then he is in trouble as this can be disproved. If he has written the material likely came from a body then he is again in trouble as this can be disproved.
But if he has only written the truth then he has not a thing to worry about.

all rpyalties from kate's book belong to the fund.

No evidence form companies house has been provided. I have looked at companies house and there is no mention of the fund being used for legal expenses to sue. Carter ruck work on a condictional fee arrangement.

How would you know if they have used it to pay lawyers for their libel action if the accounts are not broken down?

In any case, companies house documents confirm for the year to 2009 as linked to above in my previous posg, and here for 2010 that the fund was used to represent the mccanns legally in portugal to get his book banned. See chairmans statement on page 2.

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id352.html

PS Again, Carter Ruck have nothing at all to do with the mccanns current libel action in Portugal against Mr Amaral. The lawyer responsible is called Isabel Duarte.

 

[brit1981]

But you have not posted links to companies house, only to documents you have found on a website which has nothing to do with companies house.

 

[SapphireSteel]

Have the royalties from Kates book appeared on their accounts at all yet?

What about the advance? When did she receive that, and what year was it accounted for?

 

[Clutchbag]

But you have not posted links to companies house, only to documents you have found on a website which has nothing to do with companies house.

The links i provided show copies of the accounts purchased fromcompanies house, the accounts appear on several other websites as well, all identical, unless you are suggesting these documents have been forged by said websites. The bar code of the documents is there, if you think they are fake, report them. they are crown copyrighted, I doubt it very very much that anyone would do this, rather silly to suggest it.

There is no such thing as a link to companies house directly to show the accounts as you would have to pay to see them, something others generously have done for us.

hopefully that is the end of the matter unless you can prove that they have not as their chairman in his signed statement confirmed the fund has been used for legal expenses. Anyone else here they are not copies of the real accounts??
:banghead:

Eta out of curiosity do you have q problem with any other part of the accounts or just the sentence that says we have contined to pay for legal representation in portugal to stop mr amaral.....

 

[brit1981]

All charities and companies have legal expenses. yes, even charities have to spend a lot on legal expenses if they get given a lot of money. So no-one is saying the fund has not spent money on legal expenses. they are just saying that legal expenses do not have to have anything to do with libel.

personally I have no problem with them using the fund to sue Amaral as those who support him and his theories are proof that he is harming the search for madeleine, since if people belive she is dead they will not report anything suspicious, help the search etc. Plus if the fund sues it means that the fund gets any compensation if they win, plus all their costs back.

 

[Clutchbag]

All charities and companies have legal expenses. yes, even charities have to spend a lot on legal expenses if they get given a lot of money. So no-one is saying the fund has not spent money on legal expenses. they are just saying that legal expenses do not have to have anything to do with libel.

personally I have no problem with them using the fund to sue Amaral as those who support him and his theories are proof that he is harming the search for madeleine, since if people belive she is dead they will not report anything suspicious, help the search etc. Plus if the fund sues it means that the fund gets any compensation if they win, plus all their costs back.

The fund is not a charity.
The legal expenses they incurred for setting up the private limited company of around 180,000 £ are not the issue under discussion so your first paragraph is null. Legal expenses and fees spent in portuguese courts to bring an injunction and ban on a book is what is, an action which ultimately failed thus incurring more costs out of the fund. The two neednt be confused at all really. Glad to see you are not contesting the documented fact.

As for your second para, just a matter of opinion, no facts or proof that the book did any such thing. Seeing as the injunction was the basis for the current libel trial, and failed also, upheld by the supreme court, it is part and parcel of the libel case and all fees that will be forthcoming from that, plus costs if they are as likely to fail there too.

 

[brit1981]

No the fund is not a charity, as this would be illegal. But all companies, and charities require legal expenses when they are being set up, especially those that have to manage a lot of money.

We can see on this forum that people belive madeleine is dead and the parents involved based on amarals writings, so in fact those supporting amaral are proving the point of the mccanns.
There has of yet been no libel trial for the book, amaral has not proven a thing. The injunction ruling made a point of saying they were not ruling on the factuality of the book. So if it turns out that anything amarel wrote is both defamatory and untrue then he is liable for libel, can be ordered to pay compensation and costs, as can anyone who publishes the book either partially via quotes or in full whether that be in traditionaly print or on the internet. But unless amaral has written lies, like he did in the ciapriano case, he doe snot have anything to worry about.

 

[SapphireSteel]

Perhaps those supporters so intimately familiar with the Fund accounts, can point out to me exactly where the McCann account for Kate's book advance?

TIA.

 

[Clutchbag]

:

Thats quite a bold assumption, rather statement to make, why people voting here or posting anywhere else think as they do. Most people had formed opinions a year plus before Mr Amarals book ever appeared on the shelves and even so, theres no way of knowing if and how it influeneced anybodys thoughts and opinions whether they read it or not. And lets not forget and be clear that despite the demonising of him as the only one responsible for the theories, he was the coordinator of two police forces investigating, it was their conclusions, which *they* reported to him, he was not some lone rogue cop with his own ideas, anyway.....

As for the injunction ruling I think you may be confused, the three court judges deemed it to be based solidly and logically on the police files.

That was to your post number 26 Brit1981

 

[Clutchbag]

Perhaps those supporters so intimately familiar with the Fund accounts, can point out to me exactly where the McCann account for Kate's book advance?

TIA.

I doubt anyone here is intimately familiar anymore than the rest of us, which is zero, with the devil of the detail of the mccanns income and expenditure, so it seems we just have to take the word for it, its all gone in and every single penny spent directly on the search for madeleine.

 

[SapphireSteel]

So much of the McCann defence is

"because we said so".

ullhair:

 

[Clutchbag]

So much of the McCann defence is

"because we said so".

ullhair:

But of course,the message from kate mccann is directly or indirectly if you dont believe them or suspect them for any reason you are not a good person



Lets not forget what she wrote in her boom, Mr Amaral deserves to feel fear and be miserable, but .she forgives the abductor, go figure

 

[SapphireSteel]

Well they've certainly gone out of their way to make him feel miserable.

He's lost his career, his family, his reputation, and is threatened with his freedom.

He has lost his right to free speech too, apparently.

:banghead:

Kate mentions fear quite a lot in the book, doesn't she? For example she speaks of Madeleine's "fear of pain".

How does she know Madeleine is frightened of pain? Has she hurt her before, or threatened to?

My 3 year olds had no idea of pain...they were too young to remember their needles and they most certainly never got smacked or hit.

So how does the coddled and adored child of two wonderful parents come to know and fear pain? And how does her mother come to witness and speak of that fear?

So many questions, so few answers.

 

[Clutchbag]

Yes its pretty disgraceful how they have destroyed him but he who laughs last laughs hardest

 

[brit1981]

Amaral destroyed himself - he has no-one to blame but himself for the fact he was convicted for his criminal act. Exactly why should he be given immunity from criminal prosecution?
Amaral is a convicted criminal, with a record for falsifying evidence in a case related to yet another missing child. That is nothing to do with the mccanns.

And I have not seen anywhere in the court ruling where it ruled that the book was factual, so if anyone can provide a link to where the courts said this please can they post it.

 

[Gem2626]

Well they've certainly gone out of their way to make him feel miserable.

He's lost his career, his family, his reputation, and is threatened with his freedom.

He has lost his right to free speech too, apparently.

:banghead:

Kate mentions fear quite a lot in the book, doesn't she? For example she speaks of Madeleine's "fear of pain".

How does she know Madeleine is frightened of pain? Has she hurt her before, or threatened to?

My 3 year olds had no idea of pain...they were too young to remember their needles and they most certainly never got smacked or hit.

So how does the coddled and adored child of two wonderful parents come to know and fear pain? And how does her mother come to witness and speak of that fear?

So many questions, so few answers.

3 year olds are often falling over or trapping fingers in doors or getting stung by wasps or falling off their bikes/skates/scooters.

Maybe she was scared to skate because she might fall over and hurt herself? To this day I am still scared of lift doors closing on me (even though now that is much more unlikely to happen) because when I was younger my fingers got trapped in one. Hurt like hell.

Kids tend to be much braver than adults because they are so often hurting themselves I guess Madeleine was just more sensitive and cautious. It's not unusual.

 

[Clutchbag]

Amaral destroyed himself - he has no-one to blame but himself for the fact he was convicted for his criminal act. Exactly why should he be given immunity from criminal prosecution?
Amaral is a convicted criminal, with a record for falsifying evidence in a case related to yet another missing child. That is nothing to do with the mccanns.

And I have not seen anywhere in the court ruling where it ruled that the book was factual, so if anyone can provide a link to where the courts said this please can they post it.

Exactly it has nothing to do with the mccann case whatsoever,youre right about that

As for the child murderer cipriano you keep supporting whose case was heard five times and thrown out, no court ruled that police beat her, only that she was beaten, there is no proof it was not her inmates, as for mr amaral signing off his police officers reports,hardly crime of the century,he wasnt there let alone involved in torture as you want people to believe with no substance whatsoever to this allegation and the laughable thing is that she made a confession in the presence of her lawyer, i guess her lawyer had nothing to say about her being beaten, fact is she made her confession the day before she was beaten, all very murky, and all irrelevant as it is distracting from the facts of the case under discussion,the mccanns actions behaviours and words, clever