Author Topic: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.  (Read 28156 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline davel

  • Veteran Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 19048
  • oh Lord its hard to be humble
Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #30 on: January 31, 2017, 05:14:44 PM »
Barrage of negative media reports from whom against whom?

One of the parts of the CdM report that caught my eye was how well this news was received in Portugal.  94.2% very pleased.

why does taht surprise you
as experienced investigators...based on the evidence...we believe Madeleine McCann was removed from the apartment by a stranger....DCI Redwood...Scotland Yard

Neither the McCanns nor their friend are persons of interest or suspects

If civil questions are being asked can we have the courtesy to provide civil answers.

Online ShiningInLuz

  • Moderator
  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2874
    • Shining In Luz
Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #31 on: January 31, 2017, 05:26:53 PM »
why does taht surprise you
It doesn't, which is why I asked the question about whom Misty thought was going to be on the receiving end of a barrage of negative reporting, and from whom.

As far as I can tell, the UK press are going to have to tread carefully in reporting this news accurately.

That leaves the Portuguese press.  I cannot foresee the declaration of an open hunting season, but should it occur, I would assume it would be anti-McCann.

It is more likely that Amaral will be doing another round of interviews, whilst the McCanns will say very little.
I'm moving to Portelas!

Offline davel

  • Veteran Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 19048
  • oh Lord its hard to be humble
Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #32 on: January 31, 2017, 05:28:44 PM »
It doesn't, which is why I asked the question about whom Misty thought was going to be on the receiving end of a barrage of negative reporting, and from whom.

As far as I can tell, the UK press are going to have to tread carefully in reporting this news accurately.

That leaves the Portuguese press.  I cannot foresee the declaration of an open hunting season, but should it occur, I would assume it would be anti-McCann.

It is more likely that Amaral will be doing another round of interviews, whilst the McCanns will say very little.

what makes you think the uk press will have to tread carfully....they have descibed him as a ex bungling cop in the past
as experienced investigators...based on the evidence...we believe Madeleine McCann was removed from the apartment by a stranger....DCI Redwood...Scotland Yard

Neither the McCanns nor their friend are persons of interest or suspects

If civil questions are being asked can we have the courtesy to provide civil answers.

Offline misty

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 4813
Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #33 on: January 31, 2017, 05:32:24 PM »
It doesn't, which is why I asked the question about whom Misty thought was going to be on the receiving end of a barrage of negative reporting, and from whom.

As far as I can tell, the UK press are going to have to tread carefully in reporting this news accurately.

That leaves the Portuguese press.  I cannot foresee the declaration of an open hunting season, but should it occur, I would assume it would be anti-McCann.

It is more likely that Amaral will be doing another round of interviews, whilst the McCanns will say very little.

A long time ago it was reported that the UK police had investigated Amaral.
Not so long ago the Sun pulled a story headed "Maddie cop's sick secret".
It will be in the public interest to know what information about Amaral has been withheld pending the outcome of this libel trial. Freedom of speech and all that.

Offline Alice Purjorick

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6258
  • One man's style must not be the rule of another's.
Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #34 on: January 31, 2017, 05:36:13 PM »
I am exceedingly sorry their appeal hasn't been upheld. I had hoped it would be.  However, from the little I have learned about Portuguese process ... I am not in the least surprised at the outcome.


I was running a sweepstake on who would be the first supporter to say that.
I guess I'll have to pay out to whoever drew your name ................................   @)(++(*
Apart from that Mrs Lincoln how did you like the play?

Offline John

  • Global Moderator
  • Executive Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 11879
  • Senior Editor
    • Justice 4 John Lamberton
Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #35 on: January 31, 2017, 05:47:42 PM »
Thinking back now to the original judgement by Judge Emilia Melo e Castro, she obviously got it so very wrong.  Lets hope she undertakes some refresher courses or even retraining before she returns any more bad decisions.

If I were the McCann's I would be looking for a rebate from Dra Isabel Duarte whose advice got them into this shit in the first place.
« Last Edit: January 31, 2017, 05:50:09 PM by John »
A malicious prosecution for a crime which never existed. John Lamberton exposes malfeasance by public officials.
Check out my website >   http://johnlamberton.webs.com/index.htm?no_redirect=true     The truth never changes with the passage of time.

Online Robittybob1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5263
  • Wisdom and understanding please.
Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #36 on: January 31, 2017, 05:52:47 PM »
A long time ago it was reported that the UK police had investigated Amaral.
Not so long ago the Sun pulled a story headed "Maddie cop's sick secret".
It will be in the public interest to know what information about Amaral has been withheld pending the outcome of this libel trial. Freedom of speech and all that.
We should be given a bit more freedom of speech on this forum too now, if Amaral's book is considered fair.
What are you doing to find Madeleine?

Offline John

  • Global Moderator
  • Executive Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 11879
  • Senior Editor
    • Justice 4 John Lamberton
Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #37 on: January 31, 2017, 05:54:20 PM »
We should be given a bit more freedom of speech on this forum too now, if Amaral's book is considered fair.

aye Robbie  @)(++(*  nice try
A malicious prosecution for a crime which never existed. John Lamberton exposes malfeasance by public officials.
Check out my website >   http://johnlamberton.webs.com/index.htm?no_redirect=true     The truth never changes with the passage of time.

Offline davel

  • Veteran Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 19048
  • oh Lord its hard to be humble
Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #38 on: January 31, 2017, 05:55:35 PM »
We should be given a bit more freedom of speech on this forum too now, if Amaral's book is considered fair.

I made a simila post and it was removed
Freedom of speech?
as experienced investigators...based on the evidence...we believe Madeleine McCann was removed from the apartment by a stranger....DCI Redwood...Scotland Yard

Neither the McCanns nor their friend are persons of interest or suspects

If civil questions are being asked can we have the courtesy to provide civil answers.

Offline jassi

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6949
Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #39 on: January 31, 2017, 05:56:43 PM »
Why not as long, as the rules are obeyed.
To all you Amaral campers out there, Hi De Hi

I believe everything. And l believe nothing.
I suspect everyone. And l suspect no one.
I gather the facts, examine the clues... and before   you know it, the case is solved!"

Or maybe not -  Almost 10 years and still no solution.

Offline Angelo222

  • Senior Moderator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4864
  • Post editor
Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #40 on: January 31, 2017, 05:57:09 PM »
I made a simila post and it was removed
Freedom of speech?

Carry on davel, it has never stopped you before.  But then again you live in the UK and not Portugal so the laws are different old bean.
De troothe has the annoying habit of coming to the surface just when you least expect it!!

Offline davel

  • Veteran Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 19048
  • oh Lord its hard to be humble
Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #41 on: January 31, 2017, 06:00:54 PM »
Carry on davel, it has never stopped you before.  But then again you live in the UK and not Portugal so the laws are different old bean.

You are quite wrong
« Last Edit: January 31, 2017, 06:36:14 PM by Angelo222 »
as experienced investigators...based on the evidence...we believe Madeleine McCann was removed from the apartment by a stranger....DCI Redwood...Scotland Yard

Neither the McCanns nor their friend are persons of interest or suspects

If civil questions are being asked can we have the courtesy to provide civil answers.

Offline xtina

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1027
Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #42 on: January 31, 2017, 06:02:22 PM »
G A ......wrote the book ........always stood by it ..now being called lead officer

and lets face it he knows more than us ...about it ...

he was there on the case .......we wasn't


The lead officer in the Madeleine McCann case will not have to pay compensation to her parents over a book he wrote about her disappearance.

http://news.sky.com/story/madeleine-mccann-police-officer-will-not-have-to-pay-compensation-over-book-10750294


All my posts are IMO

Offline davel

  • Veteran Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 19048
  • oh Lord its hard to be humble
Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #43 on: January 31, 2017, 06:04:46 PM »
G A ......wrote the book ........always stood by it ..now being called lead officer

and lets face it he knows more than us ...about it ...

he was there on the case .......we wasn't


The lead officer in the Madeleine McCann case will not have to pay compensation to her parents over a book he wrote about her disappearance.

http://news.sky.com/story/madeleine-mccann-police-officer-will-not-have-to-pay-compensation-over-book-10750294

I don't think he does no more than us
He certainly didn't understand the forensic evidence
as experienced investigators...based on the evidence...we believe Madeleine McCann was removed from the apartment by a stranger....DCI Redwood...Scotland Yard

Neither the McCanns nor their friend are persons of interest or suspects

If civil questions are being asked can we have the courtesy to provide civil answers.

Online Robittybob1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5263
  • Wisdom and understanding please.
Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #44 on: January 31, 2017, 06:09:32 PM »
G A ......wrote the book ........always stood by it ..now being called lead officer

and lets face it he knows more than us ...about it ...

he was there on the case .......we wasn't


The lead officer in the Madeleine McCann case will not have to pay compensation to her parents over a book he wrote about her disappearance.

http://news.sky.com/story/madeleine-mccann-police-officer-will-not-have-to-pay-compensation-over-book-10750294
The quote I picked up "On April 19, 2016, the Court of Appeal of Lisbon recognized Gonçalo Amaral the constitutional right to express his opinion and revoked the decision that forced the former PJ inspector to pay one to the English couple.


"On April 19, 2016, the Court of Appeal of Lisbon recognized Gonçalo Amaral the constitutional right to express his opinion and revoked the decision that forced the former PJ inspector to pay one to the English couple. With the decision then handed down, Relação also revoked the ban on the commercialization of the book written by Gonçalo Amaral, which appeared in the sentence of the first instance."

OK he can sell a few more copies of his book which is available free on the internet.
Sell more DVD which are already on Youtube.

No more interest payments.  OK. 
What are you doing to find Madeleine?