McCanns application to have Supreme Court judgement annulled dismissed.

[stephen25000]

I haven't followed the ins and outs of this like you have G - but I have to say that:-

I would not expect Judges to promote virtually as an established fact that  'insufficient evidence' always means that other evidence is definitely around to be found - and completely ignore the possibility that the reason 'insuffiicient evidence' was collected was simply because no other evidence existed to be found in the first place.

If you have objections, then take it up with the Portuguese Judiciary.

[G-Unit]

I expect judges to make their rulings according to the law of the land and without bias.  If you are content that applies to the Portuguese appeal court judges that is your privilege.
My right to freedom of speech regarding what I believe an obvious miscarriage of justice is my privilege.

If you an't or won't explain the basis of your accusations that's your prerogative. I can't see how the Portuguese judges flouted either Portuguese or European law.

Stating that they did without explaining how you reached that conclusion renders your opinion meaningless. The same applies to your accusation of 'bias'. Unfounded allegations in my opinion.

[G-Unit]

I haven't followed the ins and outs of this like you have G - but I have to say that:-

I would not expect Judges to promote virtually as an established fact that  'insufficient evidence' always means that other evidence is definitely around to be found - and completely ignore the possibility that the reason 'insuffiicient evidence' was collected was simply because no other evidence existed to be found in the first place.

Did the judges say that though? Please explain how you reached that conclusion?

[Benice]

Did the judges say that though? Please explain how you reached that conclusion?

Have to go out now G - will try to get back to you later on this.

[Brietta]

If you an't or won't explain the basis of your accusations that's your prerogative. I can't see how the Portuguese judges flouted either Portuguese or European law.

Stating that they did without explaining how you reached that conclusion renders your opinion meaningless. The same applies to your accusation of 'bias'. Unfounded allegations in my opinion.

In an earlier post, one of those in which I laid out my opinion of the judgement and all of which you appear to have missed reading, I quoted  " ... none so blind as those who will not see."

Perhaps it is possible you don't recognise yourself in that truism even if others can make their own judgement on that from your posts.
You see. I do you the courtesy of reading the gist of your posts and remember the general content and context ... what a pity you affect not to read mine or if you do without the same retention, if your constant demand for explanation to my train of thought rests on one previous post.

[G-Unit]

It's the courts that will (apparently) never let Kate and Gerry win, even though justice and righteousness is absolutely on their side.

Justice is based on evidence. The McCanns were unable to provide sufficient evidence to support their complaints. The courts can't be blamed for that.

As for 'righteousness', that has no relevance to legal processes.

[Brietta]

Did the judges say that though? Please explain how you reached that conclusion?

I see you don't bother reading Benice's posts with any retention either.  Why would either myself or Benice giving you a detailed explanation of our conclusions, which in my opinion are already there to be read and understood, help your understanding?

One should wonder if you really don't understand or if you really do understand ... I think your comprehension skills are just fine though.

[G-Unit]

In an earlier post, one of those in which I laid out my opinion of the judgement and all of which you appear to have missed reading, I quoted  " ... none so blind as those who will not see."

Perhaps it is possible you don't recognise yourself in that truism even if others can make their own judgement on that from your posts.
You see. I do you the courtesy of reading the gist of your posts and remember the general content and context ... what a pity you affect not to read mine or if you do without the same retention, if your constant demand for explanation to my train of thought rests on one previous post.

I have looked back through your posts to 17th March with no sign of an explanation for your opinions.

[Robittybob1]

If you have objections, then take it up with the Portuguese Judiciary.

Are you trying to be funny Stephen?

[G-Unit]

I see you don't bother reading Benice's posts with any retention either.  Why would either myself or Benice giving you a detailed explanation of our conclusions, which in my opinion are already there to be read and understood, help your understanding?

One should wonder if you really don't understand or if you really do understand ... I think your comprehension skills are just fine though.

If people post assertions the onus is on them to provide cites or links supporting what they say, not on the reader to find the information.

[stephen25000]

Are you trying to be funny Stephen?

Not in the slightest.

If Mccann supporters have a problem with yesterdays rejection, take it to them, rather than typing it on here.

[G-Unit]

The UK media seem to be lagging behind on the latest libel trial news. I wonder when they're going to catch up?

[Robittybob1]

Not in the slightest.

If Mccann supporters have a problem with yesterdays rejection, take it to them, rather than typing it on here.

They don't have to read it so it won't do any good.   

The UK media seem to be lagging behind on the latest libel trial news. I wonder when they're going to catch up?

I'm wondering if that notice was just a joke someone was pulling on us.  It would be rather easy to set up a fake notice like that.

[stephen25000]

They don't have to read it so it won't do any good.   I'm wondering if that notice was just a joke someone was pulling on us.  It would be rather easy to set up a fake notice like that.

Why would anyone do that Rob ?

[Alice Purjorick]

The UK media seem to be lagging behind on the latest libel trial news. I wonder when they're going to catch up?

I think Ye Olde Currant Bun just has.