McCanns seek to have Supreme Court judgement annulled in libel damages case.

[Robittybob1]

Give them their day in court, to be jugded guilty or innocent.  Best all round.


Thanks to Anne for great work!

What would the charge be?

[Robittybob1]

Have you forgotten, the crime, if one occurred of course, remains unsolved.

No other person has been found to,be involved.

No person has been found to,be involved not "no other person has been found to,be involved".  Nobody at all.

[Robittybob1]

The link provided does not work.  Do you have one that does?

In an effort to find your link I came across this article in the same paper. http://portugalresident.com/someone-knows-madeleine-mccann%E2%80%99s-abductor

[stephen25000]

No person has been found to,be involved not "no other person has been found to,be involved".  Nobody at all.

Oh Rob, try again.

The McCann's were the last known people to have seen Madeleine.

No other person has been found to have been in there, other than known parties.

[Robittybob1]

Oh Rob, try again.

The McCann's were the last known people to have seen Madeleine.

No other person has been found to have been in there, other than known parties.

You said "involved" in your original quote not "last known people to have seen".

[stephen25000]

You said "involved" in your original quote not "last known people to have seen".

Who is responsible for events initiating this case Rob ?

The tooth fairy ?   

[Robittybob1]

Who is responsible for events initiating this case Rob ?

The tooth fairy ?   

Was that "tooth fairy" scenario examined by Goncalo?  Or was he too busy munching sardines?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8M0Cc1OmdSw  - pretty scary be warned!

[stephen25000]

Was that scenario examine by Goncalo?  Or was he too busy munching sardines?

Pathetic Rob.

[Robittybob1]

Pathetic Rob.

Look at the edited post please.

[stephen25000]

What for ?

You exhibited the Tony Parsons school of thought.

[Robittybob1]

What for ?

You exhibited the Tony Parsons school of thought.

I don't know that reference at all.

When did I "exhibit the Tony Parsons school of thought"?

[Montclair]

If the trial was only about freedom of expression, why was so much emphasis placed by the SC on the contents of the archiving report, which had not even been written at the time Amaral's book was published? The SC decision used the report as a tool against presumption of innocence but failed to consider the facts which were clearly at odds with certain allegations made in Amaral's book. They also referred to his lack of intent to defame yet the book is all about the case against the McCanns, with insinuations & false allegations in virtually every chapter.

The SC only answered the arguments made by the McCanns lawyer and she is the one who brought up the idea that the parents had been exonerated in the archiving report.

[barrier]

The SC only answered the arguments made by the McCanns lawyer and she is the one who brought up the idea that the parents had been exonerated in the archiving report.

So in affect the McCann lawyer is now arguing against their own argument.

[Robittybob1]

Misty were the McCanns still arguidos when the book came out?  I thought the archiving report was what took away their arguido status.  I must admit I am confused as to this timeline and whether it is that important.

So in affect the McCann lawyer is now arguing against their own argument.

It reads like a pretty substantial argument formulated with help no doubt. (I was thinking of Carter Ruck but have no proof.)

[slartibartfast]

Misty were the McCanns still arguidos when the book came out?  I thought the archiving report was what took away their arguido status.  I must admit I am confused as to this timeline and whether it is that important.
It reads like a pretty substantial argument formulated with help no doubt. (I was thinking of Carter Ruck but have no proof.)

The argument appears to be in summary...

"But we thought we were cleared?"