The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™
Hi,

A very warm welcome to The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™ forum.

Please log in, or register to view all the forums, then settle in and start chatting with us!

Enjoy your day,

Jill Havern
Forum owner

FRAUDULENT FUND

Page 8 of 9 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: FRAUDULENT FUND

Post by ultimaThule on 02.04.14 16:34

Following uncle Brian Kennedy's reference to the proceeds of the 'fund' being used to pay the McCanns' legal costs, a verbal assurance was given that none of the monies donated would be used for this purpose, aiyoyo

While I suspect it was Clarence Mitchell who verbally assured the public that their hard-earned cash wouldn't be spent on lawyers, I can't say with any certainty who lead the public to believe that the McCanns' legal costs were being met by individuals such as non-uncle Brian Kennedy but I have no doubt other members will be able to provide the necessary information.  smilie

ultimaThule

Posts : 3355
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2013-09-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: FRAUDULENT FUND

Post by Nina on 02.04.14 17:09

I wonder how much of the cash donated, not via Paypal but in coinage and notes, actually went into the bank to be accounted for? Not it all I would wager.

____________________
Not one more cent from me.

Nina

Posts : 2627
Reputation : 215
Join date : 2011-06-16

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: FRAUDULENT FUND

Post by tigger on 02.04.14 17:17

@Nina wrote:I wonder how much of the cash donated, not via Paypal but in coinage and notes, actually went into the bank to be accounted for? Not it all I would wager.

Well, there were all those enveloppes sent to Kate and Gerry in Rothley ( cash in enveloppes making it to a destination x nr of times for the first time in the history of the Royal Mail imo). There were allthose boxes in the OC.

There were people pressing banknotes on Uncle Brian and no doubt other members of the McCann family.

It all adds up.. big grin 

____________________
Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate.

tigger

Posts : 8112
Reputation : 24
Join date : 2011-07-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: FRAUDULENT FUND

Post by Guest on 02.04.14 17:37

IIRC and in the right order, Uncle Brian said [pretty early] the money would be used mainly for legal costs, the board of the "Fund" [at the time no McCanns on "board"] denied the Fund to be used for legal costs, Gerry said [just before or after] that the money would be used for their own investigators AFTER the PJ investigation had stopped ... At the time Richard Branson offered GBP 100,000 for a separate "fighting" fund, in case the McCs would be innocent, yet find themselves in court and Brian Kennedy [him of the double glazing, rugby teams and uncountable number of companies, which were "incestuous" IMO]  pledges all of his fortune to assist them.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: FRAUDULENT FUND

Post by Cristobell on 02.04.14 17:55

I don't think the McCanns have had any financial backers for a long time.  If they had, there would have been no need for those rather degrading appeals for cash in 2010.  If someone else were paying for the costs of the libel trial then why are the witness expenses listed in the Fund's accounts?  Witness expenses would form a substantial part of the costs, particularly as the trial is overseas, and Angus McBride might charge by the hour. 

According to the accounts the Fund had less than £500,000 at this time last year.  Their legal fees in the intervening months must have been horrendous, due to the longevity of this case, and possibly Isabel and all of their other lawyers may have insisted on being paid retainers.  

It Carter Ruck are still acting on their behalf, then it must be in their interests to keep an eye on the Fund's accounts, particularly if a huge bill is mounting.  When this case goes belly up, the McCanns will be faced with the costs of at least half a dozen firms of solicitors here in the UK, and several in Portugal too.    

I don't claim to be a legal expert, but the Writ was issued in the names of the family personally, that is, The Fund was not named as Plaintiff/Claimant, therefor, as I see it, The Fund would not be libel for the costs incurred by Gerry and Kate.  Do they personally have the reserves to pay for them, or indeed would their house be at risk?  I wonder if their house is now owned by The Fund, and therefore untouchable?  And whilst we are looking at this subject, would a Court Order made in Portugal, be enforceable in the UK?

Cristobell

Posts : 2436
Reputation : 3
Join date : 2011-10-12

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: FRAUDULENT FUND

Post by Guest on 02.04.14 18:09

@Nina wrote:I wonder how much of the cash donated, not via Paypal but in coinage and notes, actually went into the bank to be accounted for? Not it all I would wager.

That is a very good point Nina. Remember also Clarence telling people just to send money to Kate and Gerry in Leicester and it would get there. Wonder how many sent cheques too on such a basis rather than payable to the Fund..

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: FRAUDULENT FUND

Post by aiyoyo on 02.04.14 18:32

@Doug D wrote:Aiyoyo:
 
‘I should think the defendants are likely to be awarded damages’

I should think so too!
However, it is not a given that damages (as in costs) will be awarded by default of a win, as is the case in UK.
Under Portuguese system, if team Amaral wins they will have to apply to Court for their costs to be reimbursed by the other side, and this will be subjected to appreciation by the Judge who has to approve it first.  It's likely such costs reimbursement application will be approved to be borne by losing party mccanns.
Just saying as far I understand it, it is not automatically defaulted by a win.  It needs to be addressed with the Court first.


‘Costs’ rather than ‘damages’ presumably.
 

Amaral would then have to go after the Mc’s for damages for loss of earnings, libel, slander etc
 

Yeap, that's a separate matter altogether, which in my view Amaral won't pursue if it has to be pursued in the UK Court.
Not unless SY's review leads to a prosecution of the pair, it would be extremely difficult for Amaral to get a UK lawyer willing to represent him to start with.


As for an appeal, in spite of any legal advice they may receive not to, they are almost compelled to appeal if it goes against them, however vexatious, in order to keep the litigation going for a few more years, otherwise the whole house of cards will come tumbling down even faster around them.
 

Unlike the overturn of injunction where appeal was made impossible by the Judgement, ID went ahead regardless using an unorthodox method (again) I heard, and got nowhere - as expected ? - despite her attempt at unorthodox method.
In that instance they had had to try non-withstanding understandably because that appeal matters in the scheme of things because of its co-relation to the impending libel trial.  In the case of libel, once the ruling is against them it is game over for them, finished for them.
I'm inclined to believe they won't appeal not so much because of involving cost but more likely they are not stupid to waste money going against flow of tide that is against them.  They will first have to exhaust the highest court in the land of Portugal before they can take it to the European Court, but I doubt they will, because Amaral's basic human right is the crux of the matter here.  They won't stand a chance, not after the Appeal Court overturned their temporary injunction citing Amaral's right to freedom of expression.

If they lose, they must be desperate to get rid the serial loser, ie their midget lawyer who lost their case.
I can't see any lawyer in Portugal would want to take on their case just to file appeal for them, but because of who they are.
They would be left with a sore loser (out of no choice) to do their appeal or give her up and forget about appeal.
If they should stay with the loser ID to do the appeal against all odds, it's a double negative, not a vantage position to start an appeal, far from it.
I don't doubt the Mccanns even for their narcissism and greediness would be that stupid not to recognize a crashing defeat when it dares them in the face.

ID had mis-read their chance, promised them a pot of gold, used unorthodox method to file their case, only to beget a series of defeats, so say even if ID is arrogant enough to promise them appeal chances, the Mccanns would be wary of being lead down the same garden path, a case of once bitten twice shy.
Bearing in mind also that their fund will be running on empty after the defeat, can they still afford to let their lawyer plays russian roulette with their case, err IMO I doubt they will continue to pursue a lost cause.    


Other than that, the best I see that they can hope for is that the judge says something in her final judgement which can be CM’d to show that as individuals, they never stood a chance up against the might of the ‘sardine munching’ institution and a story could be released that the only way forward is to leave things be, as any appeal is only going to come up against the same intractable brick wall, with no regard for their ‘truth’.
 
The trouble with this though, is that even our ‘led’ MSM must be chomping at the bit waiting for the verdict that will open the flood gates for real stories & serialisations, in order to boost their sales for months or even years to come.
 

So long as they are still feeding that pink creature, the UK MSM will be led to a large degree as to what they can print.
While it is not C-R-able to print Court's process and judgement I doubt there will be full flood gates either.  If anything be prepared for scathing pieces about how the Portuguese system let down the couple, painting them as victims of a foreign system.

The Mc’s must so regret ever having started down this road, but then I suppose their previous experiences had been that ‘everyone will just pay up without getting to court’ and Amaral's effective insistence that ‘black was white’ as far as their story went, in their eyes just had to be challenged.

They took on more than they can chew out of greediness and if greediness should bring them down they truly deserved what's coming.  
So long as they are free to spin they will spin it any which way they can so I doubt they will be further damaged by the limited reporting of the libel.  There had been scant reports of the details of their claims and of their witnesses testimonies, I doubt the Judgement against them will get much detailed coverage, at most scant.  



aiyoyo

Posts : 9611
Reputation : 318
Join date : 2009-11-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: FRAUDULENT FUND

Post by ultimaThule on 02.04.14 18:35

@tigger wrote:
@Nina wrote:I wonder how much of the cash donated, not via Paypal but in coinage and notes, actually went into the bank to be accounted for? Not it all I would wager.

Well, there were all those enveloppes sent to Kate and Gerry in Rothley ( cash in enveloppes making it to a destination x nr of times for the first time in the history of the Royal Mail  imo). There were allthose boxes in the OC.

There were people pressing banknotes on Uncle Brian and no doubt other members of  the McCann family.

It all adds up.. big grin 
Plus the contents of the buckets passed round at football matches and other large scale public events, the cake sales at schools, the collections made by pensioners' groups around the country, the taxi fares which were foregone in order that relatives could donate the sums to the limited company.  

As far as I'm aware, in addition to being downloaded to the receiver's bank account, any sums available in a PayPal account can also be sent to other accounts and used to purchase goods on the internet

However, if £1.8 million is the sum total of every penny received from donations made in cash/PayPal/bank transfer, it seems to me that the amount raised is disproportionately low in relation to the number of visitors to the company's website in its first year of trading. .

ultimaThule

Posts : 3355
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2013-09-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: FRAUDULENT FUND

Post by Cristobell on 02.04.14 18:46

@ultimaThule wrote:
@tigger wrote:
@Nina wrote:I wonder how much of the cash donated, not via Paypal but in coinage and notes, actually went into the bank to be accounted for? Not it all I would wager.

Well, there were all those enveloppes sent to Kate and Gerry in Rothley ( cash in enveloppes making it to a destination x nr of times for the first time in the history of the Royal Mail  imo). There were allthose boxes in the OC.

There were people pressing banknotes on Uncle Brian and no doubt other members of  the McCann family.

It all adds up.. big grin 
Plus the contents of the buckets passed round at football matches and other large scale public events, the cake sales at schools, the collections made by pensioners' groups around the country, the taxi fares which were foregone in order that relatives could donate the sums to the limited company.  

As far as I'm aware, in addition to being downloaded to the receiver's bank account, any sums available in a PayPal account can also be sent to other accounts and used to purchase goods on the internet

However, if £1.8 million is the sum total of every penny received from donations made in cash/PayPal/bank transfer, it seems to me that the amount raised is disproportionately low in relation to the number of visitors to the company's website in its first year of trading. .
Enid O'Dowd's reports show that overall the Fund received nearly £4m, which would probably include the libel payouts from Express Group and News International and the proceeds from exhibit 'KH1'.  The McCanns are big, big spenders.

Cristobell

Posts : 2436
Reputation : 3
Join date : 2011-10-12

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: FRAUDULENT FUND

Post by aiyoyo on 02.04.14 18:48

@ultimaThule wrote:
@tigger wrote:
@Nina wrote:I wonder how much of the cash donated, not via Paypal but in coinage and notes, actually went into the bank to be accounted for? Not it all I would wager.

Well, there were all those enveloppes sent to Kate and Gerry in Rothley ( cash in enveloppes making it to a destination x nr of times for the first time in the history of the Royal Mail  imo). There were allthose boxes in the OC.

There were people pressing banknotes on Uncle Brian and no doubt other members of  the McCann family.

It all adds up.. big grin 
Plus the contents of the buckets passed round at football matches and other large scale public events, the cake sales at schools, the collections made by pensioners' groups around the country, the taxi fares which were foregone in order that relatives could donate the sums to the limited company.  

As far as I'm aware, in addition to being downloaded to the receiver's bank account, any sums available in a PayPal account can also be sent to other accounts and used to purchase goods on the internet

However, if £1.8 million is the sum total of every penny received from donations made in cash/PayPal/bank transfer, it seems to me that the amount raised is disproportionately low in relation to the number of visitors to the company's website in its first year of trading. .

To be factual, stat counter nr. does not equal to nr of visitors.
Likely their family members, friends, pros, and maybe even the kate herself were pushing up stat counters by repeated visits.
Say for example if Kate were to visit her own site to read, check for donations etc @ the rate of 100 times/day, the stat counter will incline accordingly.
Her 100 times visit/day does not equal to 100 visitors.
Stat Counter is not an accurate reflection of visitors but rather an accurate reflection of nr. of visits.

aiyoyo

Posts : 9611
Reputation : 318
Join date : 2009-11-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: FRAUDULENT FUND

Post by PeterMac on 02.04.14 19:25

@Cristobell wrote:
Plus the contents of the buckets passed round at football matches and other large scale public events, the cake sales at schools, the collections made by pensioners' groups around the country, the taxi fares which were foregone in order that relatives could donate the sums to the limited company.  
And let us never forget the bucket passed round at the evening "do" which was counted up in Rothley, and a note of thanks for the thousand pounds or so sent, only for it to have to be hurriedly "re-counted" when it was miraculously discovered that there were in fact 4,000.
I suspect because one donor had himself given more than the stated total !
Can't find the reference at the moment but I recall it was Liverpool - probably - an evening do,

____________________


PeterMac
Researcher

Posts : 10170
Reputation : 143
Join date : 2010-12-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: FRAUDULENT FUND

Post by Nina on 02.04.14 19:56

@PeterMac wrote:
@Cristobell wrote:
Plus the contents of the buckets passed round at football matches and other large scale public events, the cake sales at schools, the collections made by pensioners' groups around the country, the taxi fares which were foregone in order that relatives could donate the sums to the limited company.  
And let us never forget the bucket passed round at the evening "do" which was counted up in Rothley, and a note of thanks for the thousand pounds or so sent, only for it to have to be hurriedly "re-counted" when it was miraculously discovered that there were in fact 4,000.  
I suspect because one donor had himself given more than the stated total !
Can't find the reference at the moment but I recall it was Liverpool - probably - an evening do,
I remember that PeterMac, how very embarrassing. Not. There are, or were, collecting tins around the hospital where GM works. Who counts and logs all this money and ensures it is paid into a bank with a paying in slip.
On a similar note, well kind of. Is it possible to pay large amounts of cash into a bank? Don't you have to account where it has come from. Isn't it open to the accusation of money laundering?

____________________
Not one more cent from me.

Nina

Posts : 2627
Reputation : 215
Join date : 2011-06-16

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: FRAUDULENT FUND

Post by Guest on 02.04.14 20:27

I have never heard that about the €4,000 before! Unbelievable.Not a surprise though!

Would love a link if possible to share.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: FRAUDULENT FUND

Post by lj on 02.04.14 20:30

Châtelaine wrote:IIRC and in the right order, Uncle Brian said [pretty early] the money would be used mainly for legal costs, the board of the "Fund" [at the time no McCanns on "board"] denied the Fund to be used for legal costs, Gerry said [just before or after] that the money would be used for their own investigators AFTER the PJ investigation had stopped ... At the time Richard Branson offered GBP 100,000 for a separate "fighting" fund, in case the McCs would be innocent, yet find themselves in court and Brian Kennedy [him of the double glazing, rugby teams and uncountable number of companies, which were "incestuous" IMO]  pledges all of his fortune to assist them.


Also IIRC the pink one said, after the fund was filled up with the proceeds of the BEWK, that the original donations were all used, and the money that was in the fund was "made" by Kate and Gerry. Therefore they were free to choose how to use the money.

I am still trying to find a post about that, but somehow all my searches and up with "no results". Any one else remember this and maybe have a link?

____________________
"And if Madeleine had hurt herself inside the apartment, why would that be our fault?"  Gerry

http://pjga.blogspot.co.uk/?m=0

http://whatreallyhappenedtomadeleinemccann.blogspot.co.uk/

lj

Posts : 3275
Reputation : 148
Join date : 2009-12-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: FRAUDULENT FUND

Post by aiyoyo on 02.04.14 20:49

@Nina wrote:
@PeterMac wrote:
@Cristobell wrote:
Plus the contents of the buckets passed round at football matches and other large scale public events, the cake sales at schools, the collections made by pensioners' groups around the country, the taxi fares which were foregone in order that relatives could donate the sums to the limited company.  
And let us never forget the bucket passed round at the evening "do" which was counted up in Rothley, and a note of thanks for the thousand pounds or so sent, only for it to have to be hurriedly "re-counted" when it was miraculously discovered that there were in fact 4,000.  
I suspect because one donor had himself given more than the stated total !
Can't find the reference at the moment but I recall it was Liverpool - probably - an evening do,
I remember that PeterMac, how very embarrassing. Not. There are, or were, collecting tins around the hospital where GM works. Who counts and logs all this money and ensures it is paid into a bank with a paying in slip.
On a similar note, well kind of. Is it possible to pay large amounts of cash into a bank? Don't you have to account where it has come from. Isn't it open to the accusation of money laundering?


In their sort of circumstance where it is well known they are collecting for the Fund (Pte Ltd Co) I doubt the bank would be too unduly concerned about money laundering.
Rather if the cash rolling in were not properly accounted for in the books, that should be the real concern.
If Kate or Gerry suddenly deposit large amount of cash into their personal accounts during active collection for Fund period then that would be red flag.
If the fund is under investigation then it goes without saying Kate and Gerry account may become open books and in due time they may have to explain the sudden wind fall and also explain who were responsible for counting and accounting for the cash donations.

aiyoyo

Posts : 9611
Reputation : 318
Join date : 2009-11-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: FRAUDULENT FUND

Post by plebgate on 02.04.14 21:46

Bellisa wrote:I have never heard that about the €4,000 before! Unbelievable.Not a surprise though!

Would love a link if possible to share.
Here's a link:

http://steelmagnolia-steelmagnolia.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/mccann-liverpool.html

The amount raised was first queried on 3A's and lo and behold the next day, after re-calculation, the final total came to pass IIRC.

plebgate

Posts : 5447
Reputation : 1162
Join date : 2013-02-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: FRAUDULENT FUND

Post by Guest on 02.04.14 21:52

@lj wrote:
Châtelaine wrote:IIRC and in the right order, Uncle Brian said [pretty early] the money would be used mainly for legal costs, the board of the "Fund" [at the time no McCanns on "board"] denied the Fund to be used for legal costs, Gerry said [just before or after] that the money would be used for their own investigators AFTER the PJ investigation had stopped ... At the time Richard Branson offered GBP 100,000 for a separate "fighting" fund, in case the McCs would be innocent, yet find themselves in court and Brian Kennedy [him of the double glazing, rugby teams and uncountable number of companies, which were "incestuous" IMO]  pledges all of his fortune to assist them.


Also IIRC the pink one said, after the fund was filled up with the proceeds of the BEWK, that the original donations were all used, and the money that was in the fund was "made" by Kate and Gerry. Therefore they were free to choose how to use the money.

I am still trying to find a post about that, but somehow all my searches and up with "no results". Any one else remember this and maybe have a link?



He says it here in this video lj....towards the very end - shame about the bad hair day  big grin


Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: FRAUDULENT FUND

Post by lj on 03.04.14 0:02

candyfloss wrote:
@lj wrote:
Châtelaine wrote:IIRC and in the right order, Uncle Brian said [pretty early] the money would be used mainly for legal costs, the board of the "Fund" [at the time no McCanns on "board"] denied the Fund to be used for legal costs, Gerry said [just before or after] that the money would be used for their own investigators AFTER the PJ investigation had stopped ... At the time Richard Branson offered GBP 100,000 for a separate "fighting" fund, in case the McCs would be innocent, yet find themselves in court and Brian Kennedy [him of the double glazing, rugby teams and uncountable number of companies, which were "incestuous" IMO]  pledges all of his fortune to assist them.


Also IIRC the pink one said, after the fund was filled up with the proceeds of the BEWK, that the original donations were all used, and the money that was in the fund was "made" by Kate and Gerry. Therefore they were free to choose how to use the money.

I am still trying to find a post about that, but somehow all my searches and up with "no results". Any one else remember this and maybe have a link?



He says it here in this video lj....towards the very end - shame about the bad hair day  big grin



Thanks Candy!! You're a miracle worker.

Yes that hair, maybe he's trying to cover his face??

He should have covered his mouth!

____________________
"And if Madeleine had hurt herself inside the apartment, why would that be our fault?"  Gerry

http://pjga.blogspot.co.uk/?m=0

http://whatreallyhappenedtomadeleinemccann.blogspot.co.uk/

lj

Posts : 3275
Reputation : 148
Join date : 2009-12-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: FRAUDULENT FUND

Post by Guest on 03.04.14 1:00

Thanks plebgate that's sickening!
That would have been small bucks to the fund at that time,I wonder if faulty calculators have been used ever since.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: FRAUDULENT FUND

Post by ultimaThule on 03.04.14 1:43

@aiyoyo wrote:
@ultimaThule wrote:
@tigger wrote:
@Nina wrote:I wonder how much of the cash donated, not via Paypal but in coinage and notes, actually went into the bank to be accounted for? Not it all I would wager.

Well, there were all those enveloppes sent to Kate and Gerry in Rothley ( cash in enveloppes making it to a destination x nr of times for the first time in the history of the Royal Mail  imo). There were allthose boxes in the OC.

There were people pressing banknotes on Uncle Brian and no doubt other members of  the McCann family.

It all adds up.. big grin 
Plus the contents of the buckets passed round at football matches and other large scale public events, the cake sales at schools, the collections made by pensioners' groups around the country, the taxi fares which were foregone in order that relatives could donate the sums to the limited company.  

As far as I'm aware, in addition to being downloaded to the receiver's bank account, any sums available in a PayPal account can also be sent to other accounts and used to purchase goods on the internet

However, if £1.8 million is the sum total of every penny received from donations made in cash/PayPal/bank transfer, it seems to me that the amount raised is disproportionately low in relation to the number of visitors to the company's website in its first year of trading. .

To be factual, stat counter nr. does not equal to nr of visitors.
Likely their family members, friends, pros, and maybe even the kate herself were pushing up stat counters by repeated visits.
Say for example if Kate were to visit her own site to read, check for donations etc @ the rate of 100 times/day, the stat counter will incline accordingly.
Her 100 times visit/day does not equal to 100 visitors.
Stat Counter is not an accurate reflection of visitors but rather an accurate reflection of nr. of visits.
Thank you for explaining the 'stat counter', aiyoyo.  Although it's not a pretty sight, I can clearly visualise the look of glee on the faces of the McCanns and certain members of their respective families as they checked every hour on the hour to see how much more money had been given to the limited company by those who were gullible enough to believe the lies.

ultimaThule

Posts : 3355
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2013-09-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: FRAUDULENT FUND

Post by tigger on 03.04.14 6:45

Re Clarrie's foot in mouth : he's wrong as usual.

Any money in the account made from the book HAS to go to pay for the SEARCH.

Every single penny, otherwise the statement on the cover of the book is fraudulent.

____________________
Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate.

tigger

Posts : 8112
Reputation : 24
Join date : 2011-07-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: FRAUDULENT FUND

Post by Gillyspot on 03.04.14 8:06

@tigger wrote:Re Clarrie's  foot in mouth :  he's wrong as usual.

Any money in the account made from the book HAS to go to pay for the SEARCH.

Every single penny, otherwise the statement on the cover of the book is fraudulent.
In my opinion that is why the Ltd Co now has "restricted funds" - These are book sales & the accountants would have insisted this money must be ring fenced for "search".

Few points

1) I wonder how Clarrie "knew" that all the initial donated funds were spent on "search" 
2)  MSM shared that the out of court settlements went into the "fund" yet they didn't (couldn't) share that it was not to be spent in the same manner as the original donations & WHAT were these further ££s spent on?
3)  Clarrie seems to think this latest fundraiser & it's ££s raised was purely given by "supporters" who wouldn't mind what K & G (& WIDER family) spent the money on. How would (could) he know that ALL donors from the pub auction agreed?
4) Did (does) he CARE?

____________________
Kate McCann "I know that what happened is not due to the fact of us leaving the children asleep. I know it happened under other circumstances"

Gillyspot

Posts : 1470
Reputation : 3
Join date : 2011-06-13

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: FRAUDULENT FUND

Post by aiyoyo on 03.04.14 15:03

@tigger wrote:Re Clarrie's  foot in mouth :  he's wrong as usual.

Any money in the account made from the book HAS to go to pay for the SEARCH.

Every single penny, otherwise the statement on the cover of the book is fraudulent.


Exactly, the money from the book more so should pay for the Search.
It's not reasonable to expect people to donate money for the search, while wanting to keep blood money from bewk for private use.
The book is written on the back of Maddie's disappearance so it's blood money.
Not digging into their own pockets to pay for the search is bad enough, not wanting to use profit from the bewk is unpardonable.

P.S.  I tried to listen to him but couldn't put myself to suffer him so abandoned it less than half way through.
He was just bloody awful to listen to - all that  bare face lying through his teeth without a care in the world of the consequences.

aiyoyo

Posts : 9611
Reputation : 318
Join date : 2009-11-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: FRAUDULENT FUND

Post by HelenMeg on 08.04.14 10:19

candyfloss wrote:
@lj wrote:
Châtelaine wrote:IIRC and in the right order, Uncle Brian said [pretty early] the money would be used mainly for legal costs, the board of the "Fund" [at the time no McCanns on "board"] denied the Fund to be used for legal costs, Gerry said [just before or after] that the money would be used for their own investigators AFTER the PJ investigation had stopped ... At the time Richard Branson offered GBP 100,000 for a separate "fighting" fund, in case the McCs would be innocent, yet find themselves in court and Brian Kennedy [him of the double glazing, rugby teams and uncountable number of companies, which were "incestuous" IMO]  pledges all of his fortune to assist them.


Also IIRC the pink one said, after the fund was filled up with the proceeds of the BEWK, that the original donations were all used, and the money that was in the fund was "made" by Kate and Gerry. Therefore they were free to choose how to use the money.

I am still trying to find a post about that, but somehow all my searches and up with "no results". Any one else remember this and maybe have a link?



He says it here in this video lj....towards the very end - shame about the bad hair day  big grin

I just find it hard to take seriously that this man is anything other than a buffoon. I know that Tony has had it claimed to him that CM is high up in MI5 but I just cant see it. It may well be true though and if it is, then the buffoon act is deliberate and very well done

HelenMeg

Posts : 1782
Reputation : 192
Join date : 2014-01-08

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: FRAUDULENT FUND

Post by PeterMac on 08.04.14 10:29

@plebgate wrote:
Bellisa wrote:I have never heard that about the €4,000 before! Unbelievable.Not a surprise though!
Would love a link if possible to share.
Here's a link:
http://steelmagnolia-steelmagnolia.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/mccann-liverpool.html
The amount raised was first queried on 3A's and lo and behold the next day, after re-calculation, the final total came to pass IIRC.
My guess is that one donor had given £ 2000, anonymously,

and they got found out.
Also interesting that the amount goes from
"around £ 2,000"
to
"After adding all the money up the total raised at the race night was actually £5000 !
EXACTLY £5,000 ?
On a race night, donations, raffle, betting ,
EXACTLY £ 5,000 ?

They really have no sense.
If they had said £ 4,948 someone would have coughed up another 52 !

____________________


PeterMac
Researcher

Posts : 10170
Reputation : 143
Join date : 2010-12-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Page 8 of 9 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum