Author Topic: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?  (Read 78549 times)

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Angelo222

Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
« Reply #45 on: March 27, 2017, 12:06:44 PM »
well has anything changed since 2008.

Have they ever explained what they couldn't talk about then. because of the judicial secrecy.

No, all they have done is gone after G. Ameral

And that has backfired big time.  There was a time not that very long ago when the vast majority of the press and media were extremely supportive of the parents but that has changed recently with a significant number of them now questioning things they wouldn't have dared do previously.  The very full report by both the court of appeal and more recently the Supreme Court has done much more damage to reputations than Amaral ever could have. Where they go from here is anyone's guess?
« Last Edit: March 27, 2017, 12:09:21 PM by Angelo222 »
De troothe has the annoying habit of coming to the surface just when you least expect it!!

Je ne regrette rien!!

Offline John

Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
« Reply #46 on: March 27, 2017, 12:47:06 PM »
Members are again reminded that posts should be constructive and add to the debate.  Members are allowed to express their own opinions but comments should not include attacks on other members.  If this continues temporary bans will ensue.
A malicious prosecution for a crime which never existed. An exposé of egregious malfeasance by public officials.
Indeed, the truth never changes with the passage of time.

Offline Benice

Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
« Reply #47 on: March 27, 2017, 12:54:12 PM »
well has anything changed since 2008.

Have they ever explained what they couldn't talk about then. because of the judicial secrecy.

No, all they have done is gone after G. Ameral

In case you haven't noticed there are two live investigations in operation at the moment one in Portugal and one in SY.   The Oporto team warned at the beginning that press speculation could cause them to stop their enquiry.  As a result of that the McCanns appealed to the press to report responsibly.

Both SY and the McCanns have said they will not be giving a running commentary on these ongoing investigations. IOW they will not be talking about the case.

I'm surprised that you appear to have no knowledge of any of those facts.
The notion that innocence prevails over guilt – when there is no evidence to the contrary – is what separates civilization from barbarism.    Unfortunately, there are remains of barbarism among us.    Until very recently, it headed the PJ in Portimão. I hope he was the last one.
                                               Henrique Monteiro, chief editor, Expresso, Portugal

Offline Robittybob1

Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
« Reply #48 on: March 27, 2017, 02:46:15 PM »
well has anything changed since 2008.

Have they ever explained what they couldn't talk about then. because of the judicial secrecy.

No, all they have done is gone after G. Ameral
Fair enough, he deserved it IMO.
Moderation
John has instructed all moderators to take a very strong line with posters who constantly breach the rules of this forum.  This sniping, goading, name calling and other various forms of disruption will cease.

Offline kizzy

Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
« Reply #49 on: March 27, 2017, 02:59:02 PM »
Fair enough, he deserved it IMO.

well whatever, but so did the mccanns IMO

Offline G-Unit

Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
« Reply #50 on: March 27, 2017, 03:20:04 PM »
Now that the Supreme Court has dismissed in full the McCann's claim (s) against Amaral I see no point in rehashing opinions about his book, documentary and interview (s). The matter is closed and the McCanns must now pay the monetary and reputational price for their failed litigation.

I'm surprised that Madeleine's Fund directors didn't look into and take account of reputational risk when they (it seems) agreed to back the venture into the Portuguese Courts.
Read and abide by the forum rules.
Result = happy posting.
Ignore and break the rules
Result = edits, deletions and unhappiness
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?board=2.0

Offline Robittybob1

Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
« Reply #51 on: March 27, 2017, 03:24:24 PM »
Now that the Supreme Court has dismissed in full the McCann's claim (s) against Amaral I see no point in rehashing opinions about his book, documentary and interview (s). The matter is closed and the McCanns must now pay the monetary and reputational price for their failed litigation.

I'm surprised that Madeleine's Fund directors didn't look into and take account of reputational risk when they (it seems) agreed to back the venture into the Portuguese Courts.
I don't think it will ever stop.
Moderation
John has instructed all moderators to take a very strong line with posters who constantly breach the rules of this forum.  This sniping, goading, name calling and other various forms of disruption will cease.

Alfie

  • Guest
Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
« Reply #52 on: March 27, 2017, 03:32:41 PM »
Now that the Supreme Court has dismissed in full the McCann's claim (s) against Amaral I see no point in rehashing opinions about his book, documentary and interview (s). The matter is closed and the McCanns must now pay the monetary and reputational price for their failed litigation.

I'm surprised that Madeleine's Fund directors didn't look into and take account of reputational risk when they (it seems) agreed to back the venture into the Portuguese Courts.
Who is that addressed to (bit in bold)?

Offline Benice

Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
« Reply #53 on: March 27, 2017, 04:36:19 PM »
Now that the Supreme Court has dismissed in full the McCann's claim (s) against Amaral I see no point in rehashing opinions about his book, documentary and interview (s). The matter is closed and the McCanns must now pay the monetary and reputational price for their failed litigation.

I'm surprised that Madeleine's Fund directors didn't look into and take account of reputational risk when they (it seems) agreed to back the venture into the Portuguese Courts.

It could just as easily be said that now that SY have  specifically ruled out the McCanns and their friends as either suspects or persons of interest - there is no point in anyone continuing to go over and over the files in the vain hope of finding proof that they are guilty - because if it existed then SY would have found it.  But I'm sure you would not agree with that.

The SC did not pass judgement on whether Amaral's book was libellous or not - although I can only presume they had their tongues firmly in their cheeks when they claimed that it was mostly based on the official files. (words to that effect).

It is a fact IMO that if the case had been brought in the UK then the McCanns would have won it hands down.  I consider myself fortunate to live in a country where if a person decides to publicly destroy your reputation and ruin your life  then they had better be damn sure that what they claim about you is actually true before they put it into print.     It would appear that the opposite is the case in Portugal.

I find it hard to believe that anyone would prefer or even condone the Portuguese legal approach in preference to ours.


The notion that innocence prevails over guilt – when there is no evidence to the contrary – is what separates civilization from barbarism.    Unfortunately, there are remains of barbarism among us.    Until very recently, it headed the PJ in Portimão. I hope he was the last one.
                                               Henrique Monteiro, chief editor, Expresso, Portugal

Offline Mr Gray

Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
« Reply #54 on: March 27, 2017, 04:44:53 PM »
Now that the Supreme Court has dismissed in full the McCann's claim (s) against Amaral I see no point in rehashing opinions about his book, documentary and interview (s). The matter is closed and the McCanns must now pay the monetary and reputational price for their failed litigation.

I'm surprised that Madeleine's Fund directors didn't look into and take account of reputational risk when they (it seems) agreed to back the venture into the Portuguese Courts.

Absolutely not it is important to emphasise that amaral has zero evidence for his claims

stephen25000

  • Guest
Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
« Reply #55 on: March 27, 2017, 04:51:09 PM »
Absolutely not it is important to emphasise that amaral has zero evidence for his claims

Provide your citations to support your posts.

As per forum rules.

Offline G-Unit

Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
« Reply #56 on: March 27, 2017, 04:55:41 PM »
Who is that addressed to (bit in bold)?

Those who are not debating the thread title?
Read and abide by the forum rules.
Result = happy posting.
Ignore and break the rules
Result = edits, deletions and unhappiness
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?board=2.0

Offline ShiningInLuz

Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
« Reply #57 on: March 27, 2017, 05:13:42 PM »
It could just as easily be said that now that SY have  specifically ruled out the McCanns and their friends as either suspects or persons of interest - there is no point in anyone continuing to go over and over the files in the vain hope of finding proof that they are guilty - because if it existed then SY would have found it.  But I'm sure you would not agree with that.

The SC did not pass judgement on whether Amaral's book was libellous or not - although I can only presume they had their tongues firmly in their cheeks when they claimed that it was mostly based on the official files. (words to that effect).

It is a fact IMO that if the case had been brought in the UK then the McCanns would have won it hands down.  I consider myself fortunate to live in a country where if a person decides to publicly destroy your reputation and ruin your life  then they had better be damn sure that what they claim about you is actually true before they put it into print.     It would appear that the opposite is the case in Portugal.

I find it hard to believe that anyone would prefer or even condone the Portuguese legal approach in preference to ours.
If there was a way of bringing it under UK law then bringing it under Portuguese law was a particularly poor decision.  And if there wasn't, it is another example of speculation that fails to further the search for Madeleine one jot

Its the type of 'what if' that joins all the other redundant 'what ifs'.  What if the McCanns had holidayed in the UK?  What if the McCanns had eaten in their apartment?  What if the McCanns had locked the patio doors?  What if the McCanns had hired a baby-sitter?  What if the McCanns arranged the Tapas 9 seating so they were visually monitoring the rear entrance to 5A.  What if the McCanns had bought a baby-monitor?  What if the T9 etc had not initiated a media scrum?

The list of what ifs must be very large indeed and they don't help because things went differently.

Feel free to opine that you prefer the English legal system.  Personally, I am happy that our 6 adults and 2 children are better off here.  And since we are law-abiding citizens enjoying our right to freedom of speech, I don't see any of us being subjected to attempted muzzling.

The courts balanced the right of the McCanns against differing rights of Amaral, and found in favour of Amaral.

Unless we see the McCanns v Portugal at the ECHR, and the McCanns win, then it's game over.

The real impact for me is that it is likely to wipe out, financially, a future search for Madeleine.
What's up, old man?

Offline Alice Purjorick

Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
« Reply #58 on: March 27, 2017, 06:16:48 PM »
It could just as easily be said that now that SY have  specifically ruled out the McCanns and their friends as either suspects or persons of interest - there is no point in anyone continuing to go over and over the files in the vain hope of finding proof that they are guilty - because if it existed then SY would have found it.  But I'm sure you would not agree with that.

The SC did not pass judgement on whether Amaral's book was libellous or not - although I can only presume they had their tongues firmly in their cheeks when they claimed that it was mostly based on the official files. (words to that effect).

It is a fact IMO that if the case had been brought in the UK then the McCanns would have won it hands down.  I consider myself fortunate to live in a country where if a person decides to publicly destroy your reputation and ruin your life  then they had better be damn sure that what they claim about you is actually true before they put it into print.     It would appear that the opposite is the case in Portugal.

I find it hard to believe that anyone would prefer or even condone the Portuguese legal approach in preference to ours.

The choice is a Common Law(English Law) based system or a Civil Law(European Law) based system.
Most countries in the world have chosen the latter.
"Navigating the difference between weird but normal grief and truly suspicious behaviour is the key for any detective worth his salt.". ….Sarah Bailey

ferryman

  • Guest
Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
« Reply #59 on: March 27, 2017, 09:01:59 PM »
Post the Supreme Court Decision?

Raise awkward anomalies (of that decision) such as explaining what, if they correctly surmised that Kate and Gerry are culpable in Madeleine's disappearance, Kate and Gerry are supposed to have done with 'the body' for 3 weeks between 'seeing her off' and hiring a car to take her somewhere? 
« Last Edit: March 27, 2017, 09:09:33 PM by ferryman »