Re: Dramatic Fall in McCann Donations

by aliberte2 01.02.10 16:11

vaguely1 wrote:As far as I can see they haven't used the funds for their defence fund, just for the book, which they consider to be hampering their search.

It seems to fit with what was previously said - I'm not seeing an issue.

The Issue is that Autumn Likes to Exclusively read Headlines and then Make up a Story to go With it.

by Pascal 01.02.10 16:14

I do have an issue with spending the fund to censor the book. I can't see how this book will hamper any search for Madeleine. A firm rebuttal through the media would imo have a more favourable effect than another media circus in Portugal. Apart from highlighting their arrogance, it is costly to the fund. Many people will ask why they are not using it to search for their child.

I am more concerned in how they are going about their search.

by simplyme 01.02.10 16:15

vaguely1 wrote:As far as I can see they haven't used the funds for their defence fund, just for the book, which they consider to be hampering their search.

It seems to fit with what was previously said - I'm not seeing an issue.

Did you donate? I did in the early days and I am totally appalled that they are using the funds which were given to search for the child to take Mr Amaral to court. So because my conscience bothered me I donated double the amount to Mr Amaral's legal defence fund!

I dont know how the McCanns sleep at night, I really dont...................

by Autumn 01.02.10 16:15

vaguely1 wrote:As far as I can see they haven't used the funds for their defence fund, just for the book, which they consider to be hampering their search.

It seems to fit with what was previously said - I'm not seeing an issue.

Well it may well be an issue with well-meaning people who have no say in whether or not they wish to support this legal battle against Mr Amaral.
As for hampering the 'search' , that would not appear to be the case according to Dave Edgar - he recently announced that they have thousands of new leads to follow up.

by aliberte2 01.02.10 16:43

How Do you Know it's your 20 pounds or Whatever that Went to This? That money was Used up Before the Court Case... the Money in the Fund in the last Year came From the Libel cases

by vaguely1 01.02.10 16:45

I think the early days money that was donated is gone now. Everyone who donated post-arguido status donated because, I presume, they support the McCanns.

They still haven't gone against their claim to not use the money for their defence.

by simplyme 01.02.10 16:53

Support the McCann's or have been conned by the McCanns? Lets face it our press in the UK have not exactly told the truth the whole truth. My eyes were opened when I got access to the DVD.

I think there should be a full disclosure of costs and how the money was spent. Pound for pound! It is only in this way that we would know exactly how it is being used.

I would hate to think donations for a missing child were being used to pay for airline tickets and hotel rooms for 2 doctors! Bet they are though.

by vaguely1 01.02.10 16:55

simplyme wrote:Support the McCann's or have been conned by the McCanns? Lets face it our press in the UK have not exactly told the truth the whole truth. My eyes were opened when I got access to the DVD.

I think there should be a full disclosure of costs and how the money was spent. Pound for pound! It is only in this way that we would know exactly how it is being used.

I would hate to think donations for a missing child were being used to pay for airline tickets and hotel rooms for 2 doctors! Bet they are though.

It's interesting the effect that the police evidence being made public had on people. It had the opposite effect on me.

I guess their travel and accommodation, if used in the context of search related activity would be paid out of the fund.

by simplyme 01.02.10 17:00

Really? So what was it in the police evidence that swayed your mind? Was it the fact that Kate McCann would not answer any questions? Was it the fact they (could not agree ) lied about the time checks? Was it when they said they were responsible parents? Maybe it was when they fled Portugal? Maybe it was the pictures of them laughing and joking a few days after their daughter was gone?

by aliberte2 01.02.10 17:02

It was Probably the Fact that the LEad Investigator Couldnt get his Thick Skull around the Lack of Forensic Evidence but Could retire to Write a Book About it.

ETA: Or the fact That the Lead iNvestigator let Out the Apartment a Few More times Before Leisurely getting Aroudn to Checking for Evidecen in August.

Or the Fact that the Lead Investigator still Can't get Gerry McCann's profession Correct.

by vaguely1 01.02.10 17:04

Yes, it was the points that were lacking in the investigation, than you Aliberte. It left me a little taken aback.

Simplyme, I presume you're not after winning hearts and minds today?

by Autumn 01.02.10 17:05

So if the McCanns are winning hearts and minds, how come there has been a dramatic fall in donations?

by aliberte2 01.02.10 17:06

Autumn wrote:So if the McCanns are winning hearts and minds, how come there has been a dramatic fall in donations?

Do you Think the Donations to Haitian Earthquake victims Will be the same in a Year?

ETA: Also, who Said anything about the McCanns winnign Hearts and Minds? We're mindless INternet Forum dwellers, does it Excite you to Believe that Every Person who Doesn't Toe your Lin is a McCann?

by vaguely1 01.02.10 17:07

Autumn wrote:So if the McCanns are winning hearts and minds, how come there has been a dramatic fall in donations?

I think maybe you misread my post, if that's what you're referring to?

by simplyme 01.02.10 17:09

I do not need to win hearts and minds. Then I havent lost a child and then registered a private company to beg for money to 'find' her even though no actual proof of a search has been submitted....

Guess this is what being human is about. Each person has their own beliefs based on what evidence we see. All I ask for is that they are brought to account. Neglect at least!!!

by vaguely1 01.02.10 17:12

simplyme wrote:I do not need to win hearts and minds. Then I havent lost a child and then registered a private company to beg for money to 'find' her even though no actual proof of a search has been submitted....

Guess this is what being human is about. Each person has their own beliefs based on what evidence we see. All I ask for is that they are brought to account. Neglect at least!!!

Then I don't understand your need to be quite so sarcastic in your post to me. I was just making a comment about the way people view the investigation.....tis all.

Dramatic Fall in McCann Donations - Page 2 Icon_flower

by simplyme 01.02.10 17:15

I find I am getting quite annoyed here so I am going to stop. I like to debate but its hard going when no matter what you say it comes down to opposing views. I really would like to know what happened to this poor child. My heart goes out for her little life which I believe was snuffed out way to soon. Im sorry but i dont believe the McCann hype, I think they know far more than they are saying.

I will only say this

LET THE MCCANNS HAVE THEIR DAY IN COURT

if they are found 'innocent' of neglect etc.. then I will shut up forever. At the very least there should be a trial, an inquest or something.

by simplyme 01.02.10 17:16

No sarcasm intended. I am passionate about the child that is all and I believe the parents are guilty, not you!

.

vaguely1 wrote:
simplyme wrote:I do not need to win hearts and minds. Then I havent lost a child and then registered a private company to beg for money to 'find' her even though no actual proof of a search has been submitted....

Guess this is what being human is about. Each person has their own beliefs based on what evidence we see. All I ask for is that they are brought to account. Neglect at least!!!

Then I don't understand your need to be quite so sarcastic in your post to me. I was just making a comment about the way people view the investigation.....tis all.

by aliberte2 01.02.10 17:18

Wasn't the Original Aim of the Foundation to Change the law to Make it Clear that Leaving Small Children Alone at All is Child Neglect?

by Autumn 01.02.10 17:26

We already have laws in place to protect babies and very young children form being left alone - there are parents currently serving jail sentences for doing as the McCanns did. As Simplyme says, at the very least, the McCanns should have been charged with neglect.

by aliberte2 01.02.10 17:32

Autumn wrote:We already have laws in place to protect babies and very young children form being left alone - there are parents currently serving jail sentences for doing as the McCanns did. As Simplyme says, at the very least, the McCanns should have been charged with neglect.

No, there Arent.

There are People in Jail for living Babies for Hours alone, awake, the babies Tryign to Feed Each Other, who are Trash. Then they Left These Children Awake and Went Down to the Pub, pubs far enough away they Couldn't see the house, and Got Annihiliated and Not checking the Children at all for HOURS.

There is no One in an English jail for Sitting 50 yards away from their House the Lines of whcih they Could See having Drinks, While Checking up on those Chidlren Periodically, Even if the Checks were further apart then Claimed. No one Disputes the Checks Were Done, Which Means the McCanns couldn't have Formed the Mental State needed for Neglect.

by Autumn 01.02.10 17:37

You obviously know nothing about children if you can excuse the McCanns neglectful behaviour. Dont trivialize their behaviour, they went out on the lash leaving their babies and toddler alone, crying and frightened.

by aliberte2 01.02.10 17:42

Autumn wrote:You obviously know nothing about children if you can excuse the McCanns neglectful behaviour. Dont trivialize their behaviour, they went out on the lash leaving their babies and toddler alone, crying and frightened.

There. Are. Not. People. In. An. English. Jail. For What The McCanns. Did. Whatever Your Imagination has Come up With, and Whether You think It's Neglect or Not, there Are. Not. People. In. English. Jail. For. It. It's not Trivializing, It's READING THE FILES. You have To NEGLECT Chidlren to be Prosectuted for Neglect, See, You have to THink "I'm Not Going to Take Care of My Children Now" vs. "I am Going to Stupidly Leave Children in Bed and Check up on Them Every Hour or So While I sit 50 Yards Away."

That's Called a FAcutal Accounting of THe Situation. And there Are Not People in Jail For It in England.

by aliberte2 01.02.10 17:42

If It was OBVIOUS LEGALLY it was Neglect, Why Do We Need Madeleine's Law?

by Kololi 01.02.10 18:12

Hi
I am pretty certain that it was Mr Bennett who was trying to put pressure for a law to be introduced after Madeleine went missing not the McCanns and 20/10 for him or whoever it was for trying.

Aliberte I have a feeling that it would depend upon whether an imaginery Joe in the same situation would have done what the McCanns did - the old Clapham omnibus measure.

Take care

by aliberte2 01.02.10 18:26

I am in Support of Madeleine's Law. But the Fact that We need Its Existence is Proof That The Neglect Laws Arent' As Clear as they Should be And are Taken on a Case by Case Basis.

I Do Not Support The McCanns' Portugeuse Arrangements. But the Fact that Checks Were Done In a RELATIVELY small Amount of Time Negates, in My view and the Portugeuse Prosecuttor's View, the Mental State Needed for Neglect.

by aiyoyo 01.02.10 19:08

vaguely1 wrote:As far as I can see they haven't used the funds for their defence fund, just for the book, which they consider to be hampering their search.

It seems to fit with what was previously said - I'm not seeing an issue.

May I ask was tackling the book about clearing their name or the search for Madeleine?

They continue to say that their PIs are still receiving plenty leads.....so how does that hamper the search?

It seems they had also paid for image consultant (Lift it's called I believe) out of the Fund...how is that necessary for the search for Maddie?

by vaguely1 01.02.10 19:25

aiyoyo wrote:
vaguely1 wrote:As far as I can see they haven't used the funds for their defence fund, just for the book, which they consider to be hampering their search.

It seems to fit with what was previously said - I'm not seeing an issue.

May I ask was tackling the book about clearing their name or the search for Madeleine?

They continue to say that their PIs are still receiving plenty leads.....so how does that hamper the search?

It seems they had also paid for image consultant (Lift it's called I believe) out of the Fund...how is that necessary for the search for Maddie?

Tackling the book doesn't clear their name, that's the point. Their name is mud in certain quarters, and stopping the book won't alter that.

I'm against the book because I don't like to see anybody profit out of an unsolved crime, let alone the lead detective on the case. I find the idea repugnant, and an insult to serving officers and families of the victim and more to the point, the victim themselves. It also does nothing to obtain a decent trial for the offender (s)

That's just my opinion, but it's where I come from on the book issue.

As for the image consultant.....I'd say reading through some of the posts on here they probably need one.

by vaguely1 01.02.10 19:32

simplyme wrote:I find I am getting quite annoyed here so I am going to stop. I like to debate but its hard going when no matter what you say it comes down to opposing views. I really would like to know what happened to this poor child. My heart goes out for her little life which I believe was snuffed out way to soon. Im sorry but i dont believe the McCann hype, I think they know far more than they are saying.

I will only say this

LET THE MCCANNS HAVE THEIR DAY IN COURT

if they are found 'innocent' of neglect etc.. then I will shut up forever. At the very least there should be a trial, an inquest or something.

You cannot take a person to court when a crime hasn't been committed, I sense your frustration, but in order to take a case to court there needs to be evidence of neglect. The children were left alone for what appears to be 30 minutes at a time, in a building that was in view of the parents - I think a prosecutor would struggle with securing a neglect charge.....otherwise they would have been charged. All the cases that I've seen prosecuted recently have differed from what seems to have happened that night.

Can I ask why you donated after you knew the children had been left alone if you felt as strongly as you do?

by aiyoyo 01.02.10 21:04

vaguely1 wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:
vaguely1 wrote:As far as I can see they haven't used the funds for their defence fund, just for the book, which they consider to be hampering their search.

It seems to fit with what was previously said - I'm not seeing an issue.

May I ask was tackling the book about clearing their name or the search for Madeleine?

They continue to say that their PIs are still receiving plenty leads.....so how does that hamper the search?

It seems they had also paid for image consultant (Lift it's called I believe) out of the Fund...how is that necessary for the search for Maddie?

Tackling the book doesn't clear their name, that's the point. Their name is mud in certain quarters, and stopping the book won't alter that.

I'm against the book because I don't like to see anybody profit out of an unsolved crime, let alone the lead detective on the case. I find the idea repugnant, and an insult to serving officers and families of the victim and more to the point, the victim themselves. It also does nothing to obtain a decent trial for the offender (s)

That's just my opinion, but it's where I come from on the book issue.

As for the image consultant.....I'd say reading through some of the posts on here they probably need one.

The only people profitting from the crime is her parents - fund, libel money, marketing her. To me her parents are the repungnant ones.

At least Amaral, victim of mccanns curse, is willing to stick his neck out for Justice for Maddie. He is thorn in mccanns eyes. Anyway truly innocent should have no fear and nothing to defend. The fact that mccanns fear his book speaks volume and good on him to bring the process files to a larger public. The mccanns shouldnt be allowed to prohibit free expression and should be allowed suppress process files.

Latest topics