If it’s information which could lead to the culprit(s) being arrested, then it should have been disclosed (to the police) a long time ago. That’s just my opinion.

It’s difficult to imagine when the “right time” could be, if not when the police were spending huge resources on the investigation and before they archived the case for lack of evidence.

However, if you are right (and you possibly have private information which the general public is not privy to), and he HAS chosen to keep essential information secret, it’s to be hoped, for everyone’s sake, including his own, that he had very good reason for doing so. Presumably we will see arrests quite soon, when he decides to reveal his evidence. It will be interesting to see what it is. One can only assume that the Mcs know nothing about it or else they would hardly be bringing a libel charge against him. They’re in for a shock then?

Who gave them advice? How do you know what advice they were given and by whom? If we’re just going by media reports, never reliable, the American and UK authorities seem to have advised relentless and clear publicity (as in the Soham case) as their best hope, even though the Portuguese police favoured the opposite under their secrecy laws.

My worry is that a few people are still publicly trying and judging the Mcs while, in reality knowing very little. How can we know?

If, as you suggest, they have been simply running a worldwide financial scam from the beginning, then the police have been unaccountably slow in discovering it, haven’t they? They have added obtaining money by fraudulent means to whatever crime you assume they committed in the first place, connected with the disappearance of their daughter.

My opinion is that, if you are sure of this, you should be informing the ignorant police of the evidence you have. If you are not, surely the decent thing is not to publish such accusations without proof?

If the Mcs are innocent of any criminal activity, how would you feel about how the hate campaigners (now few and far between, admittedly) have added to their suffering and attempted to destroy their lives even further?

If they are guilty of any criminal activity, then surely it is for the police, and only the police, to pursue the matter? You should give any evidence you have of fraud to the police, privately.

IMHO it is distasteful enough when people lead public hate campaigns even against people who have been found guilty of some terrible crime in a court of law, but to do this when there are no charges in the case, and nobody can really be sure of anything, is a disgrace.

By the way, you didn’t answer my question. Do you believe, as your earlier post suggests, that GA has deliberately failed to disclose evidence? If he has done this, surely the consequences for him will be serious, maybe as serious as his alleged failure to deal properly with evidence in the Cipriano case? That led to his conviction for perjury. If he’s done what you suggest, it’s a very dangerous course of action on his part, I would think.

I have read the small print of the Fund but I assume that “support” for the family is interpreted as being acceptable only insofar as it directly supports the search, not to buy them luxuries or pay for ordinary living expenses.

I said your words “made it sound” more than just two payments, not that you actually said that! You can’t compare two mortgage payments with the massive sums GA has made out of his book for his personal use, ie. for anything he wants to spend the money on, like any author.

You seem to suggest that I shouldn’t believe what the Mcs say but also that I ought to read Gerry’s blog to verify the truth?!

“Holidays”? Surely those who went out to Portugal did so to support the family and help the campaign, rather than for sun, sand and sea? Do you really have a “holiday” when you go to stay with grief-stricken and desperate friends who have lost their child? I don’t think so!

The Mcs would be crazy to misspend the money; any fraud could be exposed in a trice, as were those two mortgage payments. And apart from that, do you suppose that all the trustees are crooks?!

Like anyone else, I have no idea what happened to Madeleine. My points are :
(1) The assumption of innocence is an essential principle to be defended at all cost for our own safety.
(2) Hate campaigns are particularly foul. Again, we’ve seen how they were well on the way to destroying Murat and the McCanns.

Rebelo’s thorough investigation found no evidence against anyone of any crime connected with Madeleine’s disappearance. Yes, he asked for a reconstruction….perhaps too late. The Mcs asked for it when Madeleine disappeared, when someone’s memory could well have been jogged over something or someone they’d seen that night………including the parents or their friends, of course, if any of THEM had done anything suspicious! They were refused because of the Portuguese secrecy laws. Even the recon Rebelo finally wanted was not to be televised. I believe I read that the Mcs implied that they would still seriously consider it if the intention was to televise it. It wasn’t!

I read as much as I could take of GA’s book on the net. I saw his TV programme.

lyn
To criticise over the presentation of the eye defect is bizarre. The poor child’s medical records must be there. Any misrepresentation could be readily exposed.

By the way, are you suggesting that GA has failed to disclose vital information?

Mummy and daddy went out to dinner that evening (does anyone know if it was the only one ?), leaving three children on their own.

In my view they were lucky to come back from their holidays with two.

Anyone got any popcorn?

Moderator- Its been blissful on here today, so far, thanks for the heads up.
Do you want butter/salt or choccy or toffee on your popcorn?

Are you having an identity crisis? I like the original.

They did not quite “pay their mortgage” as you put it, somewhat misleadingly. That makes it sound as if it was a regular thing, or even as if they paid off their mortgage. They paid TWO months mortgage in order to allow them to stay on in Portugal when their savings had been spent on the house they chose to rent there. Admittedly it would have looked much better if the rent in Portugal had been paid from the Fund in order to allow them to remain close to the investigation, rather than even two months mortgage.
—————–

The Times wrote that the fund had paid for the McCann’s living costs in Portugal as well! Not only for their two mortgages.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article2771369.ece

Wouldn’t that be the ONE way to get results, instead of this endless messing about with half-baked private investigators and “uodated” photos??

Do the McCanns not realise how everything they do (and fail to do) leads to more people becoming suspicious of them? They rely on a silenced press - they forget the (laregely) unsilenced public.

Now it’s just a fleck, and her eye colours are the interesting thing about her eyes.

Strange.

What are they up to now?

They did not quite “pay their mortgage” as you put it, somewhat misleadingly. That makes it sound as if it was a regular thing, or even as if they paid off their mortgage. They paid TWO months mortgage in order to allow them to stay on in Portugal when their savings had been spent on the house they chose to rent there. Admittedly it would have looked much better if the rent in Portugal had been paid from the Fund in order to allow them to remain close to the investigation, rather than even two months mortgage. They could then have used their savings for the mortgage payments. By then they were no longer getting their salaries, I would guess.

I do NOT think it was wise of the trustees to allow them to make these two payments (although it was perfectly legal) but the way you express it gives a totally false impression. I have always thought the family should have clubbed together to pay those two payments as they probably were in a position to have done so. Alternatively, the mortgage company could have suspended payments for a time, but maybe they had already done that for some months. Who knows? We don’t even know if they paid the money back into the Fund once Gerry started working again.

In any case, they are NOT in the same position as Amaral! With the exception of those two payments, the Fund is used for the search, whether or not you think they’ve found good searchers, NOT to line their own pockets. (Do you think they would even be daft enough to use it for personal gain?!) Not quite the same as Amaral! And let’s not forget that his ideas are in defiance of his own country’s police force’s conclusions, which is why, presumably, his own country’s courts have forbidden further publication, at least until the libel case is dealt with.