Author Topic: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.  (Read 205140 times)

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

stephen25000

  • Guest
Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #2130 on: March 07, 2017, 08:01:50 AM »
it is not implied
Is that what you meant


IMHO, The Mccann's have had delusions of grandeur for some time.

e.g. Watch Mccann's interview with Paxman.

stephen25000

  • Guest
Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #2131 on: March 07, 2017, 08:40:30 AM »
All they did Alfie, is give Amaral more publicity.

Otherwise, he would have disappeared into retirement and nobody would have heard of him again.


Alfie

  • Guest
Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #2132 on: March 07, 2017, 09:13:04 AM »
All they did Alfie, is give Amaral more publicity.

Otherwise, he would have disappeared into retirement and nobody would have heard of him again.
Ain't hindsight a wonderful thing though?  Personally I understand why they did what they did and despite how it turned out for them I'd probably do exactly the same if I ever found myself in their shoes.  If I felt I had been publicly wronged and libelled and that it serioudly hurt my family, yes I would do the same.  If that makes me smug and arrogant in the eyes of my detractors, well I couldn't care less.

Offline John

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #2133 on: March 08, 2017, 10:20:25 AM »
Please stay on topic. TY
« Last Edit: April 30, 2017, 04:13:46 PM by John »
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.