UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
Disappeared and Abducted Children and Young Adults => Madeleine McCann (3) disappeared from her parent's holiday apartment at Ocean Club, Praia da Luz, Portugal on 3 May 2007. No trace of her has ever been found. => Topic started by: G-Unit on September 23, 2022, 12:22:18 PM
-
The costs of bringing this case against Amaral have never been publicised. We don't know how much they were or whether they have been paid. I think it will be interesting to see just how this develops.
-
The costs of bringing this case against Amaral have never been publicised. We don't know how much they were or whether they have been paid. I think it will be interesting to see just how this develops.
of course it will be...it will be interesting if the mccanns appeal and find a lawyer who has a proven track record at theECHR
-
The costs of bringing this case against Amaral have never been publicised. We don't know how much they were or whether they have been paid. I think it will be interesting to see just how this develops.
I'm confident none of it will be paid for out of McCann family income.
-
Yes. Next they'll be bleating that they can't afford to search for Maddie due to having to pay legal fees and can anybody help, etc, balloons, wrist bands, GoFundMe, Titsmarsh, etc.
-
I'm confident none of it will be paid for out of McCann family income.
I am certain that you are right about that.
-
Yes. Next they'll be bleating that they can't afford to search for Maddie due to having to pay legal fees and can anybody help, etc, balloons, wrist bands, GoFundMe, Titsmarsh, etc.
I suspect that a lot of people will.
-
I'm confident none of it will be paid for out of McCann family income.
No chance. Unless it's a payment scheme akin to those arranged for dole fiddlers, paying 70p a week ad infinitum.
-
I suspect that a lot of people will.
Buy a balloon off the McCann's at one of their jumble sales? Probably.
-
Yes. Next they'll be bleating that they can't afford to search for Maddie due to having to pay legal fees and can anybody help, etc, balloons, wrist bands, GoFundMe, Titsmarsh, etc.
Im sure they accept Maddie is dead as theyve voiced support for the German investigation
-
I'm confident none of it will be paid for out of McCann family income.
As at 31/03/2021 Madeleine's Fund had £ 270,000 in it's unrestricted funds. If there are claims for compensation and interest arising in Portugal it could get very expensive imo.
-
As at 31/03/2021 Madeleine's Fund had £ 270,000 in it's unrestricted funds. If there are claims for compensation and interest arising in Portugal it could get very expensive imo.
Isn't the fund a limited company?
-
The McCanns seemed quite relaxed about the jusgement in their press statement so I don't think people should count on them or the fund being wiped out and destroyed ( much as they might wish this to be the case).
-
The McCanns seemed quite relaxed about the jusgement in their press statement so I don't think people should count on them or the fund being wiped out and destroyed ( much as they might wish this to be the case).
This case achieved its purpose at the time.
-
The costs of bringing this case against Amaral have never been publicised. We don't know how much they were or whether they have been paid. I think it will be interesting to see just how this develops.
It is extraordinary the way in which "costs" run the sceptic agenda and their great cause for grievance that there was actually money in place for her parents to deal with the expense of keeping the search for Madeleine a live one at a time when THEIRS WAS THE ONLY INVESTIGATION LOOKING FOR HER.
One could almost be led to believe that there are those who believe missing children should be written off and their disappearance not investigated because of expense.
A real abductors' charter indeed.
Such was the genesis of the recent ECHR judgement
-
As at 31/03/2021 Madeleine's Fund had £ 270,000 in it's unrestricted funds. If there are claims for compensation and interest arising in Portugal it could get very expensive imo.
And what a joy that would be for some imo.
There are further ramifications than apportioning money ultimately reserved for charities directed for the missing which Misty has pointed out on another thread.
And to which like the elephant in the room is studiously ignored because it is put in terms which are irrefutable.
I'm late to the wake, having taken time out to buy a new dummy and put my toys back in the pram.
Sometimes the law is an ass. I think this is one of those occasions, whereby the judgement sends a chilling message to families of any child who happens to go missing or be abducted. Should such families choose to engage with the media proactively in attempts to locate their child they run the risk of being deemed public figures and subsequently receive little protection against an accusations levelled at them, regardless of innocence or guilt.
Whilst the ruling may be legally correct based on the ECHR's interpretation of the Portuguese SC's ruling, and only the SC ruling not the case as a whole, imo it is both unethical and unjust. However, it has no bearing on the ongoing investigations into Madeleine's abduction and murder, despite Amaral's gleeful pronouncement to the contrary. Madeleine's murderer hasn't yet been charged.
The ECHR can be at odds with itself on occasions, with profound effects on the culture of an entire nation.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10456956
The appeal by Italy was successful.
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2011/mar/18/european-court-human-rights-crucifixes-allowed
https://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=12414.msg691732#msg691732
The Cipriano case is one example. The McCann another. It would seem it is not politic for parents to publicise a missing child particularly if the police aren't bothering to do so.
-
Could Portugal sue The McCanns. Any ideas on how they could go about this?
-
And what a joy that would be for some imo.
There are further ramifications than apportioning money ultimately reserved for charities directed for the missing which Misty has pointed out on another thread.
And to which like the elephant in the room is studiously ignored because it is put in terms which are irrefutable.
I'm late to the wake, having taken time out to buy a new dummy and put my toys back in the pram.
Sometimes the law is an ass. I think this is one of those occasions, whereby the judgement sends a chilling message to families of any child who happens to go missing or be abducted. Should such families choose to engage with the media proactively in attempts to locate their child they run the risk of being deemed public figures and subsequently receive little protection against an accusations levelled at them, regardless of innocence or guilt.
Whilst the ruling may be legally correct based on the ECHR's interpretation of the Portuguese SC's ruling, and only the SC ruling not the case as a whole, imo it is both unethical and unjust. However, it has no bearing on the ongoing investigations into Madeleine's abduction and murder, despite Amaral's gleeful pronouncement to the contrary. Madeleine's murderer hasn't yet been charged.
The ECHR can be at odds with itself on occasions, with profound effects on the culture of an entire nation.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10456956
The appeal by Italy was successful.
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2011/mar/18/european-court-human-rights-crucifixes-allowed
https://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=12414.msg691732#msg691732
The Cipriano case is one example. The McCann another. It would seem it is not politic for parents to publicise a missing child particularly if the police aren't bothering to do so.
Very true.
It hasn't even been established that she was murdered.
-
It is extraordinary the way in which "costs" run the sceptic agenda and their great cause for grievance that there was actually money in place for her parents to deal with the expense of keeping the search for Madeleine a live one at a time when THEIRS WAS THE ONLY INVESTIGATION LOOKING FOR HER.
One could almost be led to believe that there are those who believe missing children should be written off and their disappearance not investigated because of expense.
A real abductors' charter indeed.
Such was the genesis of the recent ECHR judgement
I wouldn't worry too much. Child abductions in Luz ceased abruptly after Maddie, weirdly enough.
-
Could Portugal sue The McCanns. Any ideas on how they could go about this?
On what grounds?
-
Very true.
It hasn't even been established that she was murdered.
Just as it hasn't been established that the dogs alerted to cadaver odour
-
Just as it hasn't been established that the dogs alerted to cadaver odour
I don' remember bringing that subject up, as it doesn't concern me - unlike you it would seem.
-
I wouldn't worry too much. Child abductions in Luz ceased abruptly after Maddie, weirdly enough.
I wonder if that was because someone scuttled back to Germany.
-
I wonder if that was because someone scuttled back to Germany.
Not before he scuttled some sort in the back of his camper. I reckon poor Maddie was trussed up in his basement while he did that.
-
Just as it hasn't been established that the dogs alerted to cadaver odour
Not by you maybe, but it's obvious to the rest of us.
-
Very true.
It hasn't even been established that she was murdered.
Well I haven't ruled that possibility out.
-
Well I haven't ruled that possibility out.
Neither have I but there are other causes of death - accident - misadventure - manslaughter etc.
It doesn't have to be murder.
-
I wouldn't worry too much. Child abductions in Luz ceased abruptly after Maddie, weirdly enough.
There's a best seller there for CB in how to get away with it.
-
There's a best seller there for CB in how to get away with it.
He evades justice for 15 years for abduction and murder, despite being regularly arrested for many other variously terrible crimes in the interim, yet the one that they still can't pin on him is the one that was most heinous of all, despite having evidence and him being in custody. This, on the back of a global appeal for information 2 years ago that still hasn't resulted in sufficient evidence to charge.
You can sort of see why people are sceptical as to the veraicty of the claims.
....watch me get pinged for off-topic posting.
-
On what grounds?
I don't know. Amaral's Court Costs perhaps. Although Amaral might have to do that himself.
-
I wonder if that was because someone scuttled back to Germany.
As if anyone would be daft enough to try it on again.
-
I don't know. Amaral's Court Costs perhaps. Although Amaral might have to do that himself.
If they were court costs then I think they would be chased by the relevant Court. If they were Amaral's legal costs, then they would likely be chased by the lawyer who wasn't getting paid.
Ultimately, whatever costs are outstanding will need to be paid.
-
If they were court costs then I think they would be chased by the relevant Court. If they were Amaral's legal costs, then they would likely be chased by the lawyer who wasn't getting paid.
Ultimately, whatever costs are outstanding will need to be paid.
Didn't all cost's have to paid prior to the ECHR, all domestic remedies needed sorting was the wording.
-
If they were court costs then I think they would be chased by the relevant Court. If they were Amaral's legal costs, then they would likely be chased by the lawyer who wasn't getting paid.
Ultimately, whatever costs are outstanding will need to be paid.
Court Costs are paid up front by the individual. Lawyers Costs maybe later. I don't actually know. But the original costs were the responsibility of Amaral.
-
Didn't all cost's have to paid prior to the ECHR, all domestic remedies needed sorting was the wording.
According to the media there are substantial outstanding costs, unless they are being mislead in order to boost Mcann victim-hood.
-
Neither have I but there are other causes of death - accident - misadventure - manslaughter etc.
It doesn't have to be murder.
All of which leave traces, perhaps even human remains.
-
All of which leave traces, perhaps even human remains.
....such as traces of blood or cadaverine. Glad we got that sorted finally.
-
....such as traces of blood or cadaverine. Glad we got that sorted finally.
What traces were those? You don't half talk a load of rubbish at times.
-
What traces were those? You don't half talk a load of rubbish at times.
Where she fell and the McCann's tried to cover it all up. You'vre read the bestseller as have I.
-
Where she fell and the McCann's tried to cover it all up. You'vre read the bestseller as have I.
No I haven't read the best seller. Where did Madeleine fall?
-
No I haven't read the best seller. Where did Madeleine fall?
In the apartment 5a of the Ocean Club (Mark Warner).
Seems there was an accident.
You should read it. It's like Columbo, where the perp is outed during the openng credits and first scenes. Riveting.
-
Where she fell and the McCann's tried to cover it all up. You'vre read the bestseller as have I.
She fell on the aircrafts steps and grazed her knees.
Please do not forget that her grandpa died and his pjays and also his ashes would have been brought back there.
Please do not make something of nothing.
-
She fell on the aircrafts steps and grazed her knees.
Please do not forget that her grandpa died and his pjays and also his ashes would have been brought back there.
Please do not make something of nothing.
Not my words, kid, it's in the book.
-
No I haven't read the best seller. Where did Madeleine fall?
She plummeted to almost certain instant death from the sofa remember? Happens all the time apparently. I’m amazed the EU hasn’t banned the deadly things. Massive danger to young kids, sofas.
-
In the apartment 5a of the Ocean Club (Mark Warner).
Seems there was an accident.
You should read it. It's like Columbo, where the perp is outed during the openng credits and first scenes. Riveting.
Where about in the appartment? And what did they find?
-
Where about in the appartment? And what did they find?
Not sure. I'll have to watch it again. He brained her with a paperweight. Columbo noticed it missing.
-
I don't know. Amaral's Court Costs perhaps. Although Amaral might have to do that himself.
Either of them can apply for a county court judgement to be issued against the McCanns.
-
Either of them can apply for a county court judgement to be issued against the McCanns.
I look forward to seeing that happen.
-
She plummeted to almost certain instant death from the sofa remember? Happens all the time apparently. I’m amazed the EU hasn’t banned the deadly things. Massive danger to young kids, sofas.
Not massively dangerous but a child, falling from a balcony on to hard, impacted earth could be. An impact like that on a child’s head or neck could do calamitous damage.
-
Not massively dangerous but a child, falling from a balcony on to hard, impacted earth could be. An impact like that on a child’s head or neck could do calamitous damage.
That wasn’t Amaral’s theory. He claimed she od’ed on Calpol and fell to her death off a sofa, was stuffed in a freezer and transported in the hire car 23 days later by her parents, and the ECHR reckon that’s fair comment.
-
All of which leave traces, perhaps even human remains.
If Maddie choked to death, what trace would there be?
I can't think of anything.
-
That wasn’t Amaral’s theory. He claimed she od’ed on Calpol and fell to her death off a sofa, was stuffed in a freezer and transported in the hire car 23 days later by her parents, and the ECHR reckon that’s fair comment.
I don't know whether to laugh or cry sometimes.
-
That wasn’t Amaral’s theory. He claimed she od’ed on Calpol and fell to her death off a sofa, was stuffed in a freezer and transported in the hire car 23 days later by her parents, and the ECHR reckon that’s fair comment.
Seems fair enough to me.
What's your problem with It?
-
That wasn’t Amaral’s theory. He claimed she od’ed on Calpol and fell to her death off a sofa, was stuffed in a freezer and transported in the hire car 23 days later by her parents, and the ECHR reckon that’s fair comment.
I really don’t care what Amaral’s theory was.
-
I really don’t care what Amaral’s theory was.
Give him his dues.
He managed to work out there wasn't any abductor. He went off on all sorts of tangents explaining the rest, but then the abduction theories tend to do that also.
-
Give him his dues.
He managed to work out there wasn't any abductor. He went off on all sorts of tangents explaining the rest, but then the abduction theories tend to do that also.
Indeed.
It suits some to push the sometimes rather odd theories of Amaral as it fills the space where sensible discussion of less complex, and more believable, accident scenarios could take place.
-
I really don’t care what Amaral’s theory was.
But that is what we were discussing.
-
Indeed.
It suits some to push the sometimes rather odd theories of Amaral as it fills the space where sensible discussion of less complex, and more believable, accident scenarios could take place.
We’ve been over this a thousand times. There isn’t a plausible or logical accidental death that isn’t entirely unprecedented. Children do not as a rule die instantly from a short fall and in the many years we have been discussing the case no one has managed to cite a reasonable example of an actual accidental death that mirrors what you’re suggesting.
-
But that is what we were discussing.
Are we? I thought that it was consequences arising etc.
-
We’ve been over this a thousand times. There isn’t a plausible or logical accidental death that isn’t entirely unprecedented. Children do not as a rule die instantly from a short fall and in the many years we have been discussing the case no one has managed to cite a reasonable example of an actual accidental death that mirrors what you’re suggesting.
Maddie chokes to death on a boiled sweet, let's say.
What's the problem with that scenario? Thousands of people die from choking every year.
Elderly & children in particular.
-
Are we? I thought that it was consequences arising etc.
Supposed to be yes, but every thread seems to drift all over the place.
-
We’ve been over this a thousand times. There isn’t a plausible or logical accidental death that isn’t entirely unprecedented. Children do not as a rule die instantly from a short fall and in the many years we have been discussing the case no one has managed to cite a reasonable example of an actual accidental death that mirrors what you’re suggesting.
Children as a rule don’t die from a short fall, instantly or otherwise. That doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen. Much like children being stolen from their bed in a foreign country while their parents wine and dined but we are assured it happened this time.
-
Children as a rule don’t die from a short fall, instantly or otherwise. That doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen. Much like children being stolen from their bed in a foreign country while their parents wine and dined but we are assured it happened this time.
Just the one abduction for the paedo gang.
Maddie was enough for them. Quite why they only took one child when another two were there available is anyone's guess. Especially after they'd taken the time to sedate them all, as Kate seemed to believe.
-
Give him his dues.
He managed to work out there wasn't any abductor. He went off on all sorts of tangents explaining the rest, but then the abduction theories tend to do that also.
Of course there was an abductor. Sort out those brain cells of yours.
-
Children as a rule don’t die from a short fall, instantly or otherwise. That doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen. Much like children being stolen from their bed in a foreign country while their parents wine and dined but we are assured it happened this time.
Well children have been abducted asleep from their bedrooms (and in foreign countries too!) and we can cite examples so we know that can happen, what we have never seen is any report of that phenomenally rare occurrence of instant or near instant death of a child in a short fall, something that because of its rarity would certainly make a news report somewhere. But it’s pointless arguing about it for the umpteenth time. The police investigating now think Madeleine was taken by a stranger and no amount of wishful thinking by you changes that fact. Back on topic now, eh?
-
Of course there was an abductor. Sort out those brain cells of yours.
If the investigation says there was an abductor its a proven fact
-
Children as a rule don’t die from a short fall, instantly or otherwise. That doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen. Much like children being stolen from their bed in a foreign country while their parents wine and dined but we are assured it happened this time.
How often is it that when parents go on holiday a child goes missing and its been proved the parents covered up a death abroad? Ive personally never heard of that.
-
Well children have been abducted asleep from their bedrooms (and in foreign countries too!) and we can cite examples so we know that can happen, what we have never seen is any report of that phenomenally rare occurrence of instant or near instant death of a child in a short fall, something that because of its rarity would certainly make a news report somewhere. But it’s pointless arguing about it for the umpteenth time. The police investigating now think Madeleine was taken by a stranger and no amount of wishful thinking by you changes that fact. Back on topic now, eh?
It's true that the police are investigating a stranger abduction; what we don't know is why. Did Operation Grange find evidence the PJ missed which proved that it happened? Or is their investigation based on belief rather than evidence?
If OG do have evidence proving stranger abduction then that same evidence proves the McCanns are innocent.
-
If the investigation says there was an abductor its a proven fact
But only in a civil court.
Maybe the McCanns should sue Brueckner, because he won't be facing criminal proceedings.
-
It's true that the police are investigating a stranger abduction; what we don't know is why. Did Operation Grange find evidence the PJ missed which proved that it happened? Or is their investigation based on belief rather than evidence?
If OG do have evidence proving stranger abduction then that same evidence proves the McCanns are innocent.
Strange, OG had about 600 persons of interest though. It seems the abduction evidence can be linked to just about anyone.
-
But only in a civil court.
Maybe the McCanns should sue Brueckner, because he won't be facing criminal proceedings.
They should sue Wolters for stopping the entire German nation and possibly Europe from searching for wee Maddie for 2 years.
-
Strange, OG had about 600 persons of interest though. It seems the abduction evidence can be linked to just about anyone.
Just as long as they are a stranger - all important factor.
Though I suppose everyone is a stranger to someone
-
Just as long as they are a stranger - all important factor.
Though I suppose everyone is a stranger to someone
They don't come much stranger than me.
-
It's true that the police are investigating a stranger abduction; what we don't know is why. Did Operation Grange find evidence the PJ missed which proved that it happened? Or is their investigation based on belief rather than evidence?
If OG do have evidence proving stranger abduction then that same evidence proves the McCanns are innocent.
I wonder if they're relying on some form of deductive reasoning, using the available evidence, even though they're not 'facts' per se?
-
It's true that the police are investigating a stranger abduction; what we don't know is why. Did Operation Grange find evidence the PJ missed which proved that it happened? Or is their investigation based on belief rather than evidence?
If OG do have evidence proving stranger abduction then that same evidence proves the McCanns are innocent.
No manure Miss Marple!
-
But only in a civil court.
Maybe the McCanns should sue Brueckner, because he won't be facing criminal proceedings.
What an incredibly fascinating post
-
Strange, OG had about 600 persons of interest though. It seems the abduction evidence can be linked to just about anyone.
So if they have evidence proving stranger abduction, it included nothing which might identify the perp. They certainly can't prove murder; the Germans are making that claim, not OG.
-
So if they have evidence proving stranger abduction, it included nothing which might identify the perp. They certainly can't prove murder; the Germans are making that claim, not OG.
You don't know they can't prove murder
-
So if they have evidence proving stranger abduction, it included nothing which might identify the perp. They certainly can't prove murder; the Germans are making that claim, not OG.
But isn't it now time for them to officially inform the family, then release a joint statement so we can all stop searching?
-
You don't know they can't prove murder
Technically that's true, but it's apparent they can't even begin to try to prove anything.
-
Technically that's true, but it's apparent they can't even begin to try to prove anything.
They may well be able to prove murder
-
They may well be able to prove murder
They clearly can't, otherwise they would try. They can't even place CB at the scene. Which is not what we want with our new theory.
-
They clearly can't, otherwise they would try. They can't even place CB at the scene. Which is not what we want with our new theory.
They need to gather further evidence from the Behan trial first.
There's a link between the two cases, apparently.
-
They clearly can't, otherwise they would try. They can't even place CB at the scene. Which is not what we want with our new theory.
How many times do sceptics repeat the same question which has already been answered countless times.
Spam made a good post re the McCanns suing CB... As OJ Simpson was. Wouldn't that be fascinating
-
They need to gather further evidence from the Behan trial first.
There's a link between the two cases, apparently.
Where and when was the Murat / CB axis formed? What twist of fate brought them together? Was it just a wheels man was needed? Was Murat the brains, keeping his good eye out? Did CB use his cat burglar skills to remove the package?
I need to unpack all this. I'm going to meditate now the rugby's finished.
-
How many times do sceptics repeat the same question which has already been answered countless times.
Spam made a good post re the McCanns suing CB... As OJ Simpson was. Wouldn't that be fascinating
I'd like to see them sue Wolters. He's responsible for stopping millions of people searching.
-
They need to gather further evidence from the Behan trial first.
There's a link between the two cases, apparently.
They haven't even got around to charging him for that yet, though we're told it should be any week now.
-
They haven't even got around to charging him for that yet, though we're told it should be any week now.
Rubbish. No one has made that claim.
-
They haven't even got around to charging him for that yet, though we're told it should be any week now.
I reckon they might get him for that.
All depends on the evidence.
Jon Clarke claims there's a partial fingerprint match involved.
But I've only seen Clarke claim as much so I'll need a saline drip with that until the trial.
-
Rubbish. No one has made that claim.
Wolters has, he's making an announcement of some kind in the coming weeks regarding multiple CB cases. This was reported a few weeks ago.
P.S, for clarity, I'm not wumming for once.
-
It's true that the police are investigating a stranger abduction; what we don't know is why. Did Operation Grange find evidence the PJ missed which proved that it happened? Or is their investigation based on belief rather than evidence?
If OG do have evidence proving stranger abduction then that same evidence proves the McCanns are innocent.
Grange has all but been wound up because of a lack of evidence and no new leads.
-
Where and when was the Murat / CB axis formed? What twist of fate brought them together? Was it just a wheels man was needed? Was Murat the brains, keeping his good eye out? Did CB use his cat burglar skills to remove the package?
I need to unpack all this. I'm going to meditate now the rugby's finished.
What Rugby have I missed ?
-
I'd like to see them sue Wolters. He's responsible for stopping millions of people searching.
I'd like to see everyone sue everyone.. Its the principle
-
Grange has all but been wound up because of a lack of evidence and no new leads.
Or because Wolters has solved the case.
-
I wonder if they're relying on some form of deductive reasoning, using the available evidence, even though they're not 'facts' per se?
So they deduced that a stranger abduction took place because they were sure that the McCanns and their friends were innocent, perhaps? Without that 'fact' being true other possibilities can't be eliminated. So did OG decide to believe that the McCanns were innocent and based ten or eleven years of investigation upon that belief? Or do they have proof of their innocence but chose not to share it?
-
Or because Wolters has solved the case.
Well done spam.. Spot on
-
Grange has all but been wound up because of a lack of evidence and no new leads.
Grange has served its purpose. A Patsy has finally been found to divert from the real culprit.
Even if Brueckner escapes prosecution, Grange will be able to say that they are longer looking for anyone - case closed.
-
So they deduced that a stranger abduction took place because they were sure that the McCanns and their friends were innocent, perhaps? Without that 'fact' being true other possibilities can't be eliminated. So did OG decide to believe that the McCanns were innocent and based ten or eleven years of investigation upon that belief? Or do they have proof of their innocence but chose not to share it?
What level of proof are you suggesting they need..
-
Grange has served its purpose. A Patsy has finally been found to divert from the real culprit.
Even if Brueckner escapes prosecution, Grange will be able to say that they are longer looking for anyone - case closed.
Yes.. There's a conspiracy of Dan Brown proportions.. Like 911 but much bigger... To protect these two doctors.. What they have on all these govts backing them.. Three police forces backing them.. It must be huge
-
What Rugby have I missed ?
Mate. NZ smashing the Aussies.
It was reminiscent of the McCann / Healy v Portugal seven niller.
-
Wolters has, he's making an announcement of some kind in the coming weeks regarding multiple CB cases. This was reported a few weeks ago.
P.S, for clarity, I'm not wumming for once.
For V.S
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11177297/Madeleine-McCann-suspect-Christian-Brueckner-face-fresh-sex-assault-charges-weeks.html
On reading again I notice he doesn't mention Behan specifically, but this announcement came a few weeks after Brueckner had a thigh inspection (although I still believe he had thigh replacement at the same time he got his teeth done).
-
Mate. NZ smashing the Aussies.
It was reminiscent of the McCann / Healy v Portugal seven niller.
Why Healy and not McCann? Are they not married??
-
Mate. NZ smashing the Aussies.
It was reminiscent of the McCann / Healy v Portugal seven niller.
At least you managed to mention McCann/Healy, that's as close to on topic as anyone has been this morning.
-
Grange has served its purpose. A Patsy has finally been found to divert from the real culprit.
Even if Brueckner escapes prosecution, Grange will be able to say that they are longer looking for anyone - case closed.
***conspiracy alert***
-
What level of proof are you suggesting they need..
Enough to justify the time and expense spent on their investigation into stranger abduction. Imo they should explain how they reached the conclusion that it was the only possible ctime committed.
-
We’ve been over this a thousand times. There isn’t a plausible or logical accidental death that isn’t entirely unprecedented. Children do not as a rule die instantly from a short fall and in the many years we have been discussing the case no one has managed to cite a reasonable example of an actual accidental death that mirrors what you’re suggesting.
What is plausible is usually a parent or someone is there when the accident happened to attend to it straight away.
But when they are on their own in an apartment and no one there how can what you say be logical.
-
What is plausible is usually a parent or someone is there when the accident happened to attend to it straight away.
But when they are on their own in an apartment and no one there how can what you say be logical.
If a child falls and cracks her head in an apartment, and there's no-one around to hear the thud, does she make a sound?
-
If a child falls and cracks her head in an apartment, and there's no-one around to hear the thud, does she make a sound?
The sound of one hand clapping
-
The sound of one hand clapping
Let's keep it clean mate.
-
As at 31/03/2021 Madeleine's Fund had £ 270,000 in it's unrestricted funds. If there are claims for compensation and interest arising in Portugal it could get very expensive imo.
If CB is guilty.. Which is a proven fact... The McCanns will have no use for the fund and it will be charities that miss out
-
If CB is guilty.. Which is a proven fact... The McCanns will have no use for the fund and it will be charities that miss out
CB is looking less like the perp every day. It's up to the directors how they spend the Fund's assets and if they choose to throw good money after bad then that's their choice.
-
Yes.. There's a conspiracy of Dan Brown proportions.. Like 911 but much bigger... To protect these two doctors.. What they have on all these govts backing them.. Three police forces backing them.. It must be huge
Ye but, OH imagine the embarrassment and millions spent if the mccs were proved not innocent after all.
I think they would have to do their utmost to cover it up....rather than be an embarrassment to the world.
-
Enough to justify the time and expense spent on their investigation into stranger abduction. Imo they should explain how they reached the conclusion that it was the only possible ctime committed.
Operation Grange are not obliged to explain anything to you.
However, one or all of them might write a book one day, although you are not obliged to believe them.
-
Ye but, OH imagine the embarrassment and millions spent if the mccs were proved not innocent after all.
I think they would have to do their utmost to cover it up....rather than be an embarrassment to the world.
The beauty of a conspiracy is that no one is willing to accept that it could be happening right under their noses
-
Ye but, OH imagine the embarrassment and millions spent if the mccs were proved not innocent after all.
I think they would have to do their utmost to cover it up....rather than be an embarrassment to the world.
Following the ruling by the first court, their chance of proving that GA's book harmed the search for Madeleine was gone. It then became about their own reputations, but that ship has now sailed. They're back where they were when the PJ investigation was shelved, except we now know that they can't claim that the archiving dispatch cleared them. I assume that having the arguido status revoked doesn't achieve that.
-
Operation Grange are not obliged to explain anything to you.
However, one or all of them might write a book one day, although you are not obliged to believe them.
Not to me, no. It is, however, a matter of public interest and if our Prime Minister has to justify his actions to the public The Met can also be required to do the same.
-
Ye but, OH imagine the embarrassment and millions spent if the mccs were proved not innocent after all.
I think they would have to do their utmost to cover it up....rather than be an embarrassment to the world.
The Met has been severely embarrassed by a number of events in the last 20 or so years which it has failed to cover up so why would this case above all be the one they had to keep covered up? Would the Met be embarrassed or would it be covered in glory if it announced that they had discovered proof that the McCanns dunnit for example? You'd be handing them medals wouldn't you?
-
Following the ruling by the first court, their chance of proving that GA's book harmed the search for Madeleine was gone. It then became about their own reputations, but that ship has now sailed. They're back where they were when the PJ investigation was shelved, except we now know that they can't claim that the archiving dispatch cleared them. I assume that having the arguido status revoked doesn't achieve that.
If Amaral can claim they bundled a frozen corpse into a hire car, I think the McCanns can claim they were cleared, no one's going to stop them, just like nothing is going to stop Murat or the other ex-arguidos from making the same claim.
-
CB is looking less like the perp every day. It's up to the directors how they spend the Fund's assets and if they choose to throw good money after bad then that's their choice.
I don't see CB looking less guilty everyday.. You have avoided the question.... Whar proof do you think SY could have that would prove innocence
-
CB is looking less like the perp every day. It's up to the directors how they spend the Fund's assets and if they choose to throw good money after bad then that's their choice.
If the passage of time without being charged makes a suspect look less like the perp every day where does that leave the McCanns? Innocent as driven snow, obviously!
-
Not to me, no. It is, however, a matter of public interest and if our Prime Minister has to justify his actions to the public The Met can also be required to do the same.
Which Prime Minister?
-
If the passage of time without being charged makes a suspect look less like the perp every day where does that leave the McCanns? Innocent as driven snow, obviously!
But the McCanns aren't suspects.
Redwood & Wolters said so.
-
Let's keep it clean mate.
Its a J
Japanese Koan ... I spent several years in solitary isolation in a remote Japanese monastery working on the answer
-
I don't see CB looking less guilty everyday.. You have avoided the question.... Whar proof do you think SY could have that would prove innocence
What do you think they have?
You're among those who believe they actually have something.
-
Its a J
Japanese Koan ... I spent several years in solitary isolation in a remote Japanese monastery working on the answer
Johnny English spent time in a monastery, look how he turned out.
-
What do you think they have?
You're among those who believe they actually have something.
We know with 100% certainty what he doesn't have - forensics.
I think he has:
- A cache of child porn on various digital formats
- A record of a phone call from a known number to a phone that was registerd to CB
- Decanter and glasses
- An Occassional Table
- A collection of statements of dubious origin
- Two tickets to Les Miserable in the West End, all expenses paid
- His and hers bathrobes
- A 3ft Sword
-
We know with 100% certainty what he doesn't have - forensics.
I think he has:
- A cache of child porn on various digital formats
- A record of a phone call from a known number to a phone that was registerd to CB
- Decanter and glasses
- An Occassional Table
- A collection of statements of dubious origin
- Two tickets to Les Miserable in the West End, all expenses paid
- His and hers bathrobes
Cuddly toy.
-
Cuddly toy.
Now if he had Cuddlecat, the case would be closed.
-
Now if he had Cuddlecat, the case would be closed.
Well the press invented some fibres, so it's not such of a quantum leap for them to conjure a Cuddlecat*
*Conspiracy Theory - Update: Cuddlecat was not what was purported. It was a construct of the McCann's; a device presented as Maddie's favourite toy for reasons unknown, but the working theory is that it would be seen to lend the appearance of developmental and parental normality and to generate sympathetic gravitas (sympitas**) in the general public.
In reality it was, in all likelihood, a facsimile of at least two that were shared amongst all 3 children, to be picked up and discarded randomly along with other toys.
**'Sympitas' was not a word, but it is now. Feel free to use it in the appropriate context.
-
The beauty of a conspiracy is that no one is willing to accept that it could be happening right under their noses
Hillsborough being a classic example.
-
Cuddly toy.
Teas-maid.
-
3 foot sword
As described by the American.. Behan.. And the one in the video they have of Maddie
-
Hillsborough being a classic example.
So you've changed your tune. You think the authorities are involved in a cover up in the McCann case now? Incredible.
-
3 foot sword
As described by the American.. Behan.. And the one in the video they have of Maddie
3ft? Could be a cutlass or falchion.
The term sword invokes a particular type, so not a Golok or machete type, otherwise generally people use the generic term 'machete', or more commonly 'knife'.
Seems an odd choice of weapon and not easily concealed, particularly not in Bermuda shorts and a tank top. Also notoriously difficult to wield at close quarters.
I'd go for something shorter - a hunting knife, such as a puukko or Bowie.
-
So you've changed your tune. You think the authorities are involved in a cover up in the McCann case now? Incredible.
Hillsborough was a conspiracy that happened under the public’s noses.
I do not believe that government agencies of any description conspired to protect the parents.
-
3ft? Could be a cutlass or falchion.
The term sword invokes a particular type, so not a Golok or machete type, otherwise generally people use the generic term 'machete', or more commonly 'knife'.
Seems an odd choice of weapon and not easily concealed, particularly not in Bermuda shorts and a tank top. Also notoriously difficult to wield at close quarters.
I'd go for something shorter - a hunting knife, such as a puukko or Bowie.
Not a weapon... But an instrument of torture.... I have one upstairs in my special room
-
Hillsborough was a conspiracy that happened under the public’s noses.
I do not believe that government agencies of any description conspired to protect the parents.
Then why are you encouraging conspiracy talk by bringing up Hillsborough if you don't think it has anything whatsoever to do with this case? And do you have to be so rude?
-
Then why are you encouraging conspiracy talk by bringing up Hillsborough if you don't think it has anything whatsoever to do with this case? And do you have to be so rude? You seem obsessed with crayons and pencils. Are you still at school?
Encouraging conspiracy talk? In what way?
-
Encouraging conspiracy talk? In what way?
Jassi posted her conspiracy theory in post #95, then rather than say “what rubbish, I don’t believe there is any such conspiracy “ you cited Hillsborough when she attempted to justify her beliefs in post #112. Hope that’s clear now.
-
Jassi posted her conspiracy theory in post #95, then rather than say “what rubbish, I don’t believe there is any such conspiracy “ you cited Hillsborough when she attempted to justify her beliefs in post #112. Hope that’s clear now.
Jassi posted :
‘ The beauty of a conspiracy is that no one is willing to accept that it could be happening right under their noses’
I posted that Hillsborough was one such conspiracy. Not once did I refer to the McCann case.
Hope that clears things up.
-
Jassi posted :
‘ The beauty of a conspiracy is that no one is willing to accept that it could be happening right under their noses’
I posted that Hillsborough was one such conspiracy. Not once did I refer to the McCann case.
Hope that clears things up.
Did you not read Jassi’s earlier post #95? Do you not think she was referencing the McCann case? I mean that’s what this thread is about isn’t it? Not conspiracies generally and not Hillsborough in particular.
-
So Amaral is not guilty. During his trial other information emerged. Revoking a suspect's arguido status, for example, doesn't equate in law to clearing them of suspicion.
-
So Amaral is not guilty. During his trial other information emerged. Revoking a suspect's arguido status, for example, doesn't equate in law to clearing them of suspicion.
Murat must be delighted to know this.
-
So Amaral is not guilty. During his trial other information emerged. Revoking a suspect's arguido status, for example, doesn't equate in law to clearing them of suspicion.
So how can someone be officially cleared.. If CB isn't charged.... Is he cleared
-
So how can someone be officially cleared.. If CB isn't charged.... Is he cleared
Nope. That's Brueckner stitched up forever.
-
So how can someone be officially cleared.. If CB isn't charged.... Is he cleared
I think you need to be tried to be cleared. Hence the attempts to equate the archiving dispatch to a judicial ruling.
-
I think you need to be tried to be cleared. Hence the attempts to equate the archiving dispatch to a judicial ruling.
So if there is enough evidence to charge.. But not enough to convict... You are cleared... Would that be declared innocent in your view
But if there's not enough evidence to charge. You are not cleared..
So in your view you need a serious amount of evidence against someone to clear them.. If there's very little.. They aren't cleared..
Typical daft sceptic logic
-
I think you need to be tried to be cleared. Hence the attempts to equate the archiving dispatch to a judicial ruling.
If you are cleared do you think that equates to innocent... According to the Portuguese if the McCanns had taken part in a recon.. They could have proved their innocence.... Would that be a judicial decision..
-
What if Maddie turned up alive?
No one has suggested that yet.
People here seem to have given up on Maddie, preferring she'd fallen off the sofa or been murdered by paedos instead. I find that rather sad. Poor Maddie.
-
I think you need to be tried to be cleared. Hence the attempts to equate the archiving dispatch to a judicial ruling.
So having proved their incompetence in the Portuguese court the mccanns decided to go with the same lawyers at the ECHR.. It beggars belief
-
If only the PJ had had some decent evidence against the McCanns they may well have been cleared
-
If only the PJ had had some decent evidence against the McCanns they may well have been cleared
But would that mean Brueckner & Murat would be cleared as well?
I'm finding this all slightly confusing now.
I hope I've been cleared.
-
Topic Please.
-
Did you not read Jassi’s earlier post #95? Do you not think she was referencing the McCann case? I mean that’s what this thread is about isn’t it? Not conspiracies generally and not Hillsborough in particular.
Have you really got nothing better to do than flog this particular deceased nag?
I was not referring to the McCann case but crack on if you must. I suppose it keeps you out of the way of the traffick.
-
Have you really got nothing better to do than flog this particular deceased nag?
I was not referring to the McCann but crack on if you must. I suppose it keeps you out of the way of the traffick.
It seems a moot point. But we must ensure the context is maintained.
-
Yes. Almost certainly.
Consequences? Most likely they will be subtle to begin with, in my humble, moderated opinion.
-
What if Maddie turned up alive?
No one has suggested that yet.
People here seem to have given up on Maddie, preferring she'd fallen off the sofa or been murdered by paedos instead. I find that rather sad. Poor Maddie.
I have continually, but nobody believes .... and as the evidence has gone to OG there is no way that I can divulge it sadly.
Madeleine still lives unless she has died in the past 6 months.
-
Have you really got nothing better to do than flog this particular deceased nag?
I was not referring to the McCann case but crack on if you must. I suppose it keeps you out of the way of the traffick.
Not really, I make my posts from the Central reservation of the M1, usually after a quick game of Chicken (and believe you me it’s a quick game). Now haud yer wheesht, wee one.
-
So having proved their incompetence in the Portuguese court the mccanns decided to go with the same lawyers at the ECHR.. It beggars belief
I see you are still beating this dead cat on another thread. Does losing make you inept automatically?
You have no knowledge if the lawyers hired outside expertise to help with the submission or even if Me R. Correia Afonso, has had success previously in any other cases before the ECHR against the state of Portugal.
What if I told you Me R. Correia Afonso, previously won at least two cases at the ECHR against the state of Portugal. In fact I can't find any record of Me R. Correia Afonso losing before. 2 wins no loses found, perhaps a 100% record at the ECHR.
Just give up this charade and admit you were wrong, take it like a man.
-
I see you are still beating this dead cat on another thread. Does losing make you inept automatically?
You have no knowledge if the lawyers hired outside expertise to help with the submission or even if Me R. Correia Afonso, has had success previously in any other cases before the ECHR against the state of Portugal.
What if I told you Me R. Correia Afonso, previously won at least two cases at the ECHR against the state of Portugal. In fact I can't find any record of Me R. Correia Afonso losing before. 2 wins no loses found, perhaps a 100% record at the ECHR.
Just give up this charade and admit you were wrong, take it like a man.
A can of worms has been opened which is of much more importance to me.
I think that Amaral was involved in this. And even more so after his current behaviour with dreadlocks and cartoons.
-
A can of worms has been opened which is of much more importance to me.
I think that Amaral was involved in this. And even more so after his current behaviour with dreadlocks and cartoons.
Current? Wasn't that a couple of years ago or more?
-
A can of worms has been opened which is of much more importance to me.
I think that Amaral was involved in this. And even more so after his current behaviour with dreadlocks and cartoons.
I think Amaral is free and clear to live his life, different though this case has made it. If it hasn't already happened he will have had payments through the courts to restore his finances and, if he so wishes, take any other steps he wishes to take.
-
I think Amaral is free and clear to live his life, different though this case has made it. If it hasn't already happened he will have had payments through the courts to restore his finances and, if he so wishes, take any other steps he wishes to take.
Amaral has paid his many debts has he? Has The Court forced him to do that? I don't know and seriously don't care. He is a liar and a thief and welcome to his reputation.
-
I see you are still beating this dead cat on another thread. Does losing make you inept automatically?
You have no knowledge if the lawyers hired outside expertise to help with the submission or even if Me R. Correia Afonso, has had success previously in any other cases before the ECHR against the state of Portugal.
What if I told you Me R. Correia Afonso, previously won at least two cases at the ECHR against the state of Portugal. In fact I can't find any record of Me R. Correia Afonso losing before. 2 wins no loses found, perhaps a 100% record at the ECHR.
Just give up this charade and admit you were wrong, take it like a man.
Do you have a cite... Do you think 2 cases equals experience...lets have a look at them. I'm not wrong until its shown how the non facts became proven facts
-
Amaral has paid his many debts has he? Has The Court forced him to do that? I don't know and seriously don't care. He is a liar and a thief and welcome to his reputation.
You obviously do care or you would't keep rabbiting on about it .
-
A can of worms has been opened which is of much more importance to me.
I think that Amaral was involved in this. And even more so after his current behaviour with dreadlocks and cartoons.
His behaviour is tantamount to interfering in a criminal investigation. And since Britain - Germany - Portugal are all cooperating, how is this sitting with Portugal? Particularly since there are those who I have seen and heard make the claim that is illegal in Portugal.
-
Here we go again, banging on about Amaral & dreadlocks.
Why not write to the PJ with your grave concerns because moaning about it here isn't getting you anywhere.
That's 2 jobs for the believers now.
Davel can write to the McCanns lawyers & the echr. You write to the PJ & then anyone left over can go out & search for Maddie while you wait for a response.
-
I see you are still beating this dead cat on another thread. Does losing make you inept automatically?
You have no knowledge if the lawyers hired outside expertise to help with the submission or even if Me R. Correia Afonso, has had success previously in any other cases before the ECHR against the state of Portugal.
What if I told you Me R. Correia Afonso, previously won at least two cases at the ECHR against the state of Portugal. In fact I can't find any record of Me R. Correia Afonso losing before. 2 wins no loses found, perhaps a 100% record at the ECHR.
Just give up this charade and admit you were wrong, take it like a man.
You've reminded me.. I've won two civil cases against a Barrister.. Both in front of a judge... Does that impress you and make me a competent advocate
-
Do you have a cite... Do you think 2 cases equals experience...lets have a look at them. I'm not wrong until its shown how the non facts became proven facts
Since 2021 there have only been 11 judgments against Portugal, Me R. Correia Afonso, has represented at least 2 cases, maybe more, most don't detail the lawyer.
So he has represented at least 18% of all cases and up until now he had a 100% success rate.
But you don't have anything to base your ill founded accusation of incompetence apart from they lost in a case that your non existent legal expertise were convinced they would win.
-
You've reminded me.. I've won two civil cases against a Barrister.. Both in front of a judge... Does that impress you and make me a competent advocate
Judging by what you have posted here I am not sure I even believe it. Do you have cites? Any local press items about it?
-
I see you are still beating this dead cat on another thread. Does losing make you inept automatically?
You have no knowledge if the lawyers hired outside expertise to help with the submission or even if Me R. Correia Afonso, has had success previously in any other cases before the ECHR against the state of Portugal.
What if I told you Me R. Correia Afonso, previously won at least two cases at the ECHR against the state of Portugal. In fact I can't find any record of Me R. Correia Afonso losing before. 2 wins no loses found, perhaps a 100% record at the ECHR.
Just give up this charade and admit you were wrong, take it like a man.
If he is a great and experienced lawyer he must surely have believed there were relevant grounds for an appeal no? And yet we are also being to,d by the experts on this forum that the McCanns were on a hiding to nothing from the outset. So either he was good and there were relevant grounds or he was completely wrong and therefore not very good at his job. Which is most likely in your view?
-
If he is a great and experienced lawyer he must surely have believed there were relevant grounds for an appeal no? And yet we are also being to,d by the experts on this forum that the McCanns were on a hiding to nothing from the outset. So either he was good and there were relevant grounds or he was completely wrong and therefore not very good at his job. Which is most likely in your view?
How does it work, who appoints the lawyer ? not every case that goes to any court is won, not every case that goes to court is lost, the lawyers presenting the cases don't give a rat's arse about the clients their job is to argue on points of law as they see them.
-
You've reminded me.. I've won two civil cases against a Barrister.. Both in front of a judge... Does that impress you and make me a competent advocate
No that makes you an individual who makes unprovable claims on a little known forum. Your posts however on that forum reveal a startling lack of legal knowledge.
-
You obviously do care or you would't keep rabbiting on about it .
I don't keep on rabbiting on about itl. Unless you want to trawl through my past Posts to find one. Gunit is good at that so perhaps she can help you. She found one of mine from 2013 only a couple of months ago.
-
How does it work, who appoints the lawyer ? not every case that goes to any court is won, not every case that goes to court is lost, the lawyers presenting the cases don't give a rat's arse about the clients their job is to argue on points of law as they see them.
Then they must have believed there were points to argue and an argument to be won don’t you think?
-
Since 2021 there have only been 11 judgments against Portugal, Me R. Correia Afonso, has represented at least 2 cases, maybe more, most don't detail the lawyer.
So he has represented at least 18% of all cases and up until now he had a 100% success rate.
But you don't have anything to base your ill founded accusation of incompetence apart from they lost in a case that your non existent legal expertise were convinced they would win.
Why shouldn’t someone be convinced they would win? This must have been a possibility that even the lawyers considered achievable so why are you continuing to give Davel a hard time over holding such an opinion? Do you just enjoying being nasty and aggressive towards him? Are you simply revelling in the gloat factor? What does that make you?
-
Judging by what you have posted here I am not sure I even believe it. Do you have cites? Any local press items about it?
First... I asked you for a cite for your claim
-
First... I asked you for a cite for your claim
https://www.stradalex.com/en/sl_src_publ_jur_int/document/echr_29856-13
https://www.stradalex.com/en/sl_src_publ_jur_int/document/echr_78873-13
I am also curious, what specifically did the lawyer do wrong in this case in your esteemed opinion.
-
I see you are still beating this dead cat on another thread. Does losing make you inept automatically?
You have no knowledge if the lawyers hired outside expertise to help with the submission or even if Me R. Correia Afonso, has had success previously in any other cases before the ECHR against the state of Portugal.
What if I told you Me R. Correia Afonso, previously won at least two cases at the ECHR against the state of Portugal. In fact I can't find any record of Me R. Correia Afonso losing before. 2 wins no loses found, perhaps a 100% record at the ECHR.
Just give up this charade and admit you were wrong, take it like a man.
So 2 cases in a 20 career...total novice... And based on you previous posts I don't think I believe you
-
I don't understand why we are doing this. Nothing has been proven against anyone.
-
I don't understand why we are doing this. Nothing has been proven against anyone.
Eleanor, I am just pointing out davels fallacy. He claims the lawyers incompetence was the only reason the McCaans lost the case. There is no evidence of incompetence, infact the lawyer went in with a 100% win record.
Davel is not secure enough to admit he was wrong and I am trying to help him out of this.
I agree nothing had been proven against anyone.
-
https://www.stradalex.com/en/sl_src_publ_jur_int/document/echr_29856-13
https://www.stradalex.com/en/sl_src_publ_jur_int/document/echr_78873-13
I am also curious, what specifically did the lawyer do wrong in this case in your esteemed opinion.
Knowingly agreeing to take on a completely unwinnable appeal at the ECHR?
-
So 2 cases in a 20 career...total novice... And based on you previous posts I don't think I believe you
I gave you the cites, and you don't believe them. Do you think I faked the webpages?
-
Eleanor, I am just pointing out davels fallacy. He claims the lawyers incompetence was the only reason the McCaans lost the case. There is no evidence of incompetence, infact the lawyer went in with a 100% win record.
Davel is not secure enough to admit he was wrong and I am trying to help him out of this.
I agree nothing had been proven against anyone.
And yet you think Davel is an idiot for believing the McCanns had a strong chance of winning the appeal, but think the lawyer who represented them was competent and professional? Did he represent the McCanns knowing they stood no chance of winning then?
-
Eleanor, I am just pointing out davels fallacy. He claims the lawyers incompetence was the only reason the McCaans lost the case. There is no evidence of incompetence, infact the lawyer went in with a 100% win record.
Davel is not secure enough to admit he was wrong and I am trying to help him out of this.
I agree nothing had been proven against anyone.
I'm secure enough to think I may well be right. Did the ECHR judges know the proven facts were neither facts nor proven... That is the question.. Until its answered I'm not wrong
Look at para 93 of the judge ment... Its says the valued judgement had sufficient factual basis.. That's the point im challenging
-
I'm secure enough to think I may well be right. Did the ECHR judges know the proven facts were neither facts nor proven... That is the question.. Until its answered I'm not wrong
OK, which proven facts are you referring to? Lets see if I can help you understand.
-
I'm secure enough to think I may well be right. Did the ECHR judges know the proven facts were neither facts nor proven... That is the question.. Until its answered I'm not wrong
Look at para 93 of the judge ment... Its says the valued judgement had sufficient factual basis.. That's the point im challenging
I don't know why you don't understand this. The word sufficient means enough or adequate not absolute or empirical. Sufficient means it was enough for the seven judges to decide there was enough of a factual basis to uphold the SC ruling.
Also they decreed that GAs book amounted to "value judgements" not "statements of fact".
Its very basic.
-
OK, which proven facts are you referring to? Lets see if I can help you understand.
The cadaver dog alerting to cadaver odour..
-
The cadaver dog alerting to cadaver odour..
We have been through this.
You do understand the different standards in a criminal case and in a civil case.
Criminal Case - Beyond reasonable doubt
Civil case - Balance of probabilities
The civil case judge in the court of the first instance ruled that in the balance of probabilities the dog alerted to cadaver odour.
In a criminal case I don't believe the judge would have ruled in this way, but that is just my opinion.
Is that cleared up for you, or do you have any more proven facts that you are questioning?
-
We have been through this.
You do understand the different standards in a criminal case and in a civil case.
Criminal Case - Beyond reasonable doubt
Civil case - Balance of probabilities
The civil case judge in the court of the first instance ruled that in the balance of probabilities the dog alerted to cadaver odour.
In a criminal case I don't believe the judge would have ruled in this way, but that is just my opinion.
Is that cleared up for you, or do you have any more proven facts that you are questioning?
Just to point out you are talking complete rubbish.. The judge in the court of the first instance told Gerry they were e not there to decide if the dogs were right or wrong
We have transcriptd of the first trial... Dogs not mentioned.
You are making things up
-
Just to point out you are talking complete rubbish.. The judge in the court of the first instance told Gerry they were e not there to decide if the dogs were right or wrong
We have transcriptd of the first trial... Dogs not mentioned.
You are making things up
Do you know what the court of the first instance means.
Clue: Its not the Supreme Court, The clue is in the name "first".
-
Do you know what the court of the first instance means.
Clue: Its not the Supreme Court, The clue is in the name "first".
Not sure what you are confused about.. Gerry spoke at the court of the first instance
-
Not sure what you are confused about.. Gerry spoke at the court of the first instance
Well take it up with the ECHR as point 40 states
40. With regard to the facts, referring to the evidence which had been submitted by the parties, the Lisbon Court found the following established:
“...
6. The British police dogs “Eddie” and “Keela detected odor marks of human blood and corpse inside the Ocean Club's 5-A apartment.
7. British police dogs 'Eddie' and 'Keela' detected odor marks of human blood and cadaver inside the vehicle rented by the applicants ... after Madeleine disappeared.
(...)
Explain what the above means.
-
Not sure what you are confused about.. Gerry spoke at the court of the first instance
Have you got a cite for Gerry speaking at the court of first instance, you know this is the case that the McCaans won
April 27, 2015
-
Well take it up with the ECHR as point 40 states
40. With regard to the facts, referring to the evidence which had been submitted by the parties, the Lisbon Court found the following established:
“...
6. The British police dogs “Eddie” and “Keela detected odor marks of human blood and corpse inside the Ocean Club's 5-A apartment.
7. British police dogs 'Eddie' and 'Keela' detected odor marks of human blood and cadaver inside the vehicle rented by the applicants ... after Madeleine disappeared.
(...)
Explain what the above means.
My question is how did the court decide the proven facts.
We know in the Cipriano trial the court claimed in the proven facts that joanna blood was found in the fridge. The blood was never tested. It seems Portugal accepts proven facts on some strange basis. This ha all been discussed before....
So why were facts accepted as being proven when there is no record of the proof
-
Have you got a cite for Gerry speaking at the court of first instance, you know this is the case that the McCaans won
April 27, 2015
You seem to be posting from a position of pure ignorance
-
I gave you the cites, and you don't believe them. Do you think I faked the webpages?
I was responding to your sarcasm... You seem to want to lower the level of debate
-
You seem to be posting from a position of pure ignorance
I don't know which trial the judge said they were not there to decide if the dogs were right or wrong. You claim it was the originaL trial in 2015. Then just supply a cite so we can settle it.
-
You seem to be posting from a position of pure ignorance
You seem to be posting from a position of pure stupidity
-
I don't know which trial the judge said they were not there to decide if the dogs were right or wrong. You claim it was the originaL trial in 2015. Then just supply a cite so we can settle it.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=12011.msg653937#msg653937
-
I don't know which trial the judge said they were not there to decide if the dogs were right or wrong. You claim it was the originaL trial in 2015. Then just supply a cite so we can settle it.
Settled.. I'm right... You're wrong
-
Just to point out you are talking complete rubbish.. The judge in the court of the first instance told Gerry they were e not there to decide if the dogs were right or wrong
We have transcriptd of the first trial... Dogs not mentioned.
You are making things up
This from the final judgement of the first trial
PROVED FACTS
Taking into account the matter considered undisputed in the selection of facts and the decision handed down in due course after producing the matter of evidence and discussing the case, the following facts are demonstrated :
1. The claimants KM and GM are married to each other
2. The claimant Madeleine Beth McCann was born on the 12.05.2003 and is the daughter of the claimants Kate and Gerry McCann
3. The claimant Sean McCann was born on the 01.02.2005 and is the son of the claimants Kate and Gerry McCann
4. The claimant Amelie McCann was born on the 01.02.2005 and is the daughter of the claimants Kate and Gerry McCann
5. The claimant Madeleine Beth McCann has been missing since the 3rd of May of 2007, and the criminal investigation n. 201/07.0GALGS was open by the Public Prosecutor of the Republic for the Portimao District.
6. The British police dogs “Eddie” and “Keela” detected human blood and cadaver in the apartment 5A, Ocean Club [alínea AR) of the undisputed facts].
7. The British police dogs “Eddie” and “Keela” detected human blood and cadaver in a vehicle rented by the claimants after the disappearance of MMC [alínea AS) of the undisputed facts].
[/b]
I don't know why you think this wasn't covered in the first trial. Why did you think the dogs weren't mentioned?
-
Settled.. I'm right... You're wrong
I think your comprehension is a bit off
I posted
I don't know which trial the judge said they were not there to decide if the dogs were right or wrong
That is not an assertion of knowing when Gerry said anything.
you stated the dogs weren't mentioned in the original trial. Seems you may be wrong on that one.
-
This from the final judgement of the first trial
PROVED FACTS
Taking into account the matter considered undisputed in the selection of facts and the decision handed down in due course after producing the matter of evidence and discussing the case, the following facts are demonstrated :
1. The claimants KM and GM are married to each other
2. The claimant Madeleine Beth McCann was born on the 12.05.2003 and is the daughter of the claimants Kate and Gerry McCann
3. The claimant Sean McCann was born on the 01.02.2005 and is the son of the claimants Kate and Gerry McCann
4. The claimant Amelie McCann was born on the 01.02.2005 and is the daughter of the claimants Kate and Gerry McCann
5. The claimant Madeleine Beth McCann has been missing since the 3rd of May of 2007, and the criminal investigation n. 201/07.0GALGS was open by the Public Prosecutor of the Republic for the Portimao District.
6. The British police dogs “Eddie” and “Keela” detected human blood and cadaver in the apartment 5A, Ocean Club [alínea AR) of the undisputed facts].
7. The British police dogs “Eddie” and “Keela” detected human blood and cadaver in a vehicle rented by the claimants after the disappearance of MMC [alínea AS) of the undisputed facts].
[/b]
I don't know why you think this wasn't covered in the first trial. Why did you think the dogs weren't mentioned?
Im saying there was no debate at the trial re the dogs.. They just seem to be accepted as fact.. Why
In the Cipriano trial.. The blood was never tested.. But the proven facts include the joanna blood being found in the fridge
Portugal seems to accept facts as proven.. When there's no proof
-
I think your comprehension is a bit off
I posted
I don't know which trial the judge said they were not there to decide if the dogs were right or wrong
That is not an assertion of knowing when Gerry said anything.
you stated the dogs weren't mentioned in the original trial. Seems you may be wrong on that one.
The dogs were not mentioned in the original trial.. Apart from Gerry question... There were depositions but no mention in the actual triak
-
Im saying there was no debate at the trial re the dogs.. They just seem to be accepted as fact.. Why
In the Cipriano trial.. The blood was never tested.. But the proven facts include the joanna blood being found in the fridge
Portugal seems to accept facts as proven.. When there's no proof
Please understand, it was a civil case. they are not trying to find guilty or not guilty just if someone is liable or not.
The judge decides the facts of the case on the basis of balance of probabilities.
-
Given that the dogs alerting to the scent of death was described as an “undisputed fact” I’m surprised the case wasn’t thrown out before it even got to the first stage frankly.
-
Please understand, it was a civil case. they are not trying to find guilty or not guilty just if someone is liable or not.
The judge decides the facts of the case on the basis of balance of probabilities.
I think you are making things up.... In fact I'm sure you are.
On what basis... On what evidence...are expert witnesses called..
You don't have a clue what you are talking sbout
-
My question is how did the court decide the proven facts.
We know in the Cipriano trial the court claimed in the proven facts that joanna blood was found in the fridge. The blood was never tested. It seems Portugal accepts proven facts on some strange basis. This ha all been discussed before....
So why were facts accepted as being proven when there is no record of the proof
I'm linking to this again;
The Matter of Proof – Final determinations concerning facts
https://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/v02.htm
It contains an explanation about 'the problem of the dichotomy between "facts ascertained during the investigating process" and "facts that also are part of the investigating process"'. 'pages 10/11
I'm sure you are capable of reading it, understanding it and explaining it.
-
I'm linking to this again;
The Matter of Proof – Final determinations concerning facts
https://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/v02.htm
It contains an explanation about 'the problem of the dichotomy between "facts ascertained during the investigating process" and "facts that also are part of the investigating process"'. 'pages 10/11
I'm sure you are capable of reading it, understanding it and explaining it.
Doesn't mention the alerts or why something that hasn't been proved should be considered proven
-
Doesn't mention the alerts or why something that hasn't been proved should be considered proven
I understand it so why can't you?
-
I understand it so why can't you?
Because he's an obtuse individual who cannot accept that he could ever be wrong.
-
Because he's an obtuse individual who cannot accept that he could ever be wrong.
Well we've all accepted it.
-
Well we've all accepted it.
Of course - what alternative is there ? The ECHR has spoken.
-
I understand it so why can't you?
You might think you do so explain why the alerts are a proven fact
-
Aparently Amaral has his new book out on line.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1cSWCnOaJGamIHXfE23w_P_UpOmf9mbfJ/view?fbclid=IwAR2o27ucevFkt4qgz2HGv_AvdY0g_K1WLa50HSxjbc9fcZ2I8ST99yPScto
I've only skimmed the first few pages, but can see its going to be immensely unpopular among a certain faction on here.
-
I think you are making things up.... In fact I'm sure you are.
On what basis... On what evidence...are expert witnesses called..
You don't have a clue what you are talking sbout
I don’t think you have been anywhere near a court case, civil or criminal.
I make 2 claims in my post, criminal case = guilty civil case = liable
this is a fact that can’t be disputed, Google it,.
Who do you think decides the facts of the case if there is no jury.
The judge does, as she did in the first case.
Stop embarrassing yourself.
-
You might think you do so explain why the alerts are a proven fact
Because they appeared in the PJ files.
-
As this new book of Amarals is freely available on line, could excerpts be published in a tabloid without fear of legal action ?
-
I don’t think you have been anywhere near a court case, civil or criminal.
I make 2 claims in my post, criminal case = guilty civil case = liable
this is a fact that can’t be disputed, Google it,.
Who do you think decides the facts of the case if there is no jury.
The judge does, as she did in the first case.
Stop embarrassing yourself.
The judge decides on the evidence...what zi don't understand.. But hopefully will find out... On what basis are the proven facts decided .. Despite all your waffle.. And gunits.. No one has been able to explain.. Similar to the Cipriano case..
As regards court.. Apart from the two cases I've mentioned.
I'm acting as prosecutor in a private criminal prosecution... Which the CPS wouldn't take on.. That will be in the press I would think so I will post the link. I've done most of my homework
What
-
Because they appeared in the PJ files.
Thank you... So they are not proven facts in the true sense of the word.. But you have shown ICHTT is wrong
-
The judge decides on the evidence...what zi don't understand.. But hopefully will find out... On what basis are the proven facts decided .. Despite all your waffle.. And gunits.. No one has been able to explain.. Similar to the Cipriano case..
As regards court.. Apart from the two cases I've mentioned.
I'm acting as prosecutor in a private criminal prosecution... Which the CPS wouldn't take on.. That will be in the press I would think so I will post the link. I've done most of my homework
We have tried to explain multiple times, but for some reason you just can't understand it.
-
Aparently Amaral has his new book out on line.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1cSWCnOaJGamIHXfE23w_P_UpOmf9mbfJ/view?fbclid=IwAR2o27ucevFkt4qgz2HGv_AvdY0g_K1WLa50HSxjbc9fcZ2I8ST99yPScto
I've only skimmed the first few pages, but can see its going to be immensely unpopular among a certain faction on here.
I'm really looking forward to it
-
Members are reminded to keep posts relevant and above all, respectful to your fellow members. Please continue to report forum rules breaches in the usual way as reports are always dealt with by our magnificent team of moderators. No report is ever ignored.
Thank you everyone.
-
Thank you... So they are not proven facts in the true sense of the word.. But you have shown ICHTT is wrong
You couldn't be more wrong.
I am sure the judge used the PJ files in the course of fact finding.
Then showed in the judgement that the court accepted it as a proven fact.
You really are lost with this whole concept.
-
We have tried to explain multiple times, but for some reason you just can't understand it.
Gunit has explained... The answer I expected... Have a read of her post... Your explanation that the judge decided on the balance of probabilities is laughable and ridiculously wrong.
Gunits explanation also explains the false proven facts in the Cipriano case
-
You couldn't be more wrong.
I am sure the judge used the PJ files in the course of fact finding.
Then showed in the judgement that the court accepted it as a proven fact.
You really are lost with this whole concept.
LOL... Abdolute junk
-
LOL... Abdolute junk
What is?
-
What is?
Your thoughts that the judge read the files and came up with the proven facts.. Absolute junk
-
Gunit has explained... The answer I expected... Have a read of her post... Your explanation that the judge decided on the balance of probabilities is laughable and ridiculously wrong.
Gunits explanation also explains the false proven facts in the Cipriano case
Do the PJ files state the alerts to cadaver were a proven fact.
Or did the judge examine the evidence and use judgment and reasoning to arrive at her verdict.
What is the burden of proof in a civil case
the balance of..........
Fill in the blank.
-
Your thoughts that the judge read the files and came up with the proven facts.. Absolute junk
So how did she arrive at the proven facts?
-
Do the PJ files state the alerts to cadaver were a proven fact.
Or did the judge examine the evidence and use judgment and reasoning to arrive at her verdict.
What is the burden of proof in a civil case
the balance of..........
Fill in the blank.
More junk.. Do you think the judge read all the files and picked out the dogs.... Lol
-
More junk.. Do you think the judge read all the files and picked out the dogs.... Lol
Its like talking to a brick wall.
Please take the CPS advice and go nowhere near a courtroom.
-
Its like talking to a brick wall.
Please take the CPS advice and go nowhere near a courtroom.
I know 100 % the accused is guilty... The problem is proving it.. I think I can
-
I know 100 % the accused is guilty... The problem is proving it.. I think I can
Well if you lose it won't be a lawyer's fault.
-
Well if you lose it won't be a lawyer's fault.
Too True.
-
Well if you lose it won't be a lawyer's fault.
According to the professionals.. CPS.. I don't have enough evidence.. I do
-
Too True.
If you knew the evidence I had... You would agree with me
And I'm 100 % certain she's guilty.. I sound like Wolters
-
If you knew the evidence I had... You would agree with me
Well the CPS didn't.
-
Do the PJ files state the alerts to cadaver were a proven fact.
Or did the judge examine the evidence and use judgment and reasoning to arrive at her verdict.
What is the burden of proof in a civil case
the balance of..........
Fill in the blank.
It is a proven fact that the PJ thinking was that the dog alerted to cadaver. That and the allegation that Kate McCann had a dream appeared to be sufficient to declare the parents suspects with no other 'evidence'. That is in the files. Although why I cannot fathom. Because it had nothing at all to do with the missing child.
It is a proven fact that after proper investigation that train of thought was proved to be a nonsense. It is a proven fact that the forensic evidence categorically proved that to be the case. This is also in the files. Which leaves the choice between dismissed speculation as recorded in the files. Or forensic confirmation of the evidence as recorded in the files.
If the legacy of the ECHR judgement is the precedent of the lie defeating the truth I think we have witnessed a sad day for the blindfolded lady with the sword and the scales.
-
Well the CPS didn't.
They almost certainly did not look at the evidence properly..
-
It is a proven fact that the PJ thinking was that the dog alerted to cadaver. That and the allegation that Kate McCann had a dream appeared to be sufficient to declare the parents suspects with no other 'evidence'. That is in the files. Although why I cannot fathom. Because it had nothing at all to do with the missing child.
It is a proven fact that after proper investigation that train of thought was proved to be a nonsense. It is a proven fact that the forensic evidence categorically proved that to be the case. This is also in the files. Which leaves the choice between dismissed speculation as recorded in the files. Or forensic confirmation of the evidence as recorded in the files.
If the legacy of the ECHR judgement is the precedent of the lie defeating the truth I think we have witnessed a sad day for the blindfolded lady with the sword and the scales.
I find the judgement very strange.. But if the judges took the evidence at face value... As a proven fact.. Its the correct judgement
-
They almost certainly did not look at the evidence properly..
But it really is their specific role in the legal system. They assess the evidence and decide to prosecute or not.
What makes you think you know better than the CPS. I would advise caution but feel free to disregard my advice in its entirety.
-
It is a proven fact that the PJ thinking was that the dog alerted to cadaver. That and the allegation that Kate McCann had a dream appeared to be sufficient to declare the parents suspects with no other 'evidence'. That is in the files. Although why I cannot fathom. Because it had nothing at all to do with the missing child.
It is a proven fact that after proper investigation that train of thought was proved to be a nonsense. It is a proven fact that the forensic evidence categorically proved that to be the case. This is also in the files. Which leaves the choice between dismissed speculation as recorded in the files. Or forensic confirmation of the evidence as recorded in the files.
If the legacy of the ECHR judgement is the precedent of the lie defeating the truth I think we have witnessed a sad day for the blindfolded lady with the sword and the scales.
Unless you have read the full judgment and understand the valid reasons that were given by the 7 judges you can't really have an informed opinion on the justice of the judgment. IMO
-
But it really is their specific role in the legal system. They assess the evidence and decide to prosecute or not.
What makes you think you know better than the CPS. I would advise caution but feel free to disregard my advice in its entirety.
I do disregard... How am I 100% certain.
She admitted it and agreed to pay me back
-
Unless you have read the full judgment and understand the valid reasons that were given by the 7 judges you can't really have an informed opinion on the justice of the judgment. IMO
I have an informed opinion and understand exactly why they reached their decision.
If the alerts are factually correct then Amaral has enough facts to justify his claims and the judgement is correct.
If the facts aren't proven.. He doesn't and the judgements wrong
-
But it really is their specific role in the legal system. They assess the evidence and decide to prosecute or not.
What makes you think you know better than the CPS. I would advise caution but feel free to disregard my advice in its entirety.
So you see me as wrong to think I know better than the experts
-
Unless you have read the full judgment and understand the valid reasons that were given by the 7 judges you can't really have an informed opinion on the justice of the judgment. IMO
I post on a discussion forum where the epitome of finesse quite often hits a very, very low bar. Despite neither being a learned judge or council or para legal I am confident that I more than meet the criteria of being able to form a very informed opinion and certainly more informed than any panel unfamiliar with the nuances.
Rather impertinent maybe even disrespectful of you to make assumptions regarding what I may have read or what I may not have read. Particularly when taking into account the sterling efforts Anthro made in keeping the forum (including me) informed.
-
So you see me as wrong to think I know better than the experts
No you go for it if you want.
I have observed that you have a habit of thinking you are better informed than virtually anyone else in any field.
Good luck.
-
I post on a discussion forum where the epitome of finesse quite often hits a very, very low bar. Despite neither being a learned judge or council or para legal I am confident that I more than meet the criteria of being able to form a very informed opinion and certainly more informed than any panel unfamiliar with the nuances.
Rather impertinent maybe even disrespectful of you to make assumptions regarding what I may have read or what I may not have read. Particularly when taking into account the sterling efforts Anthro made in keeping the forum (including me) informed.
So have you read the full judgment?
You don't confirm that in your post. I have no doubt that if you have read the whole judgment and didn't approach it with a dogmatic view you could form a valid opinion.
-
I have an informed opinion and understand exactly why they reached their decision.
If the alerts are factually correct then Amaral has enough facts to justify his claims and the judgement is correct.
If the facts aren't proven.. He doesn't and the judgements wrong
Well I guess its progress but IMO you still have not grasped it. The veracity of the alerts or any other single piece of evidence is not raised as a concern to the judges. The key points are "value judgment" and "sufficient factual basis"
Then it follows the five points.
Just read points 85 to 100, Its all in there.
But your opinion is fixed, as is mine. Who is right. Who knows.
-
Well I guess its progress but IMO you still have not grasped it. The veracity of the alerts or any other single piece of evidence is not raised as a concern to the judges. The key points are "value judgment" and "sufficient factual basis"
Then it follows the five points.
Just read points 85 to 100, Its all in there.
But your opinion is fixed, as is mine. Who is right. Who knows.
It's point 93 that's relavent.. Did the judges realise the proven facts were not proven or facts.... Logically that's the only reason they could have reached the conclusion they did
-
It's point 93 that's relavent.. Did the judges realise the proven facts were not proven or facts.... Logically that's the only reason they could have reached the conclusion they did
All points are relevant, they all combine to make the case but 93 states
Having regard to the context of the case, the Court is also of the opinion that the assertions at issue constituted value judgments based on a sufficient factual basis
Thats pretty clear that the factual basis had enough sufficiency for the judges to rule no breach of law.
We will never agree on this but at least I can hold on to the fact that the judges voted the way I read the judgement and I am not conflicted by the unanimous verdict.
-
All points are relevant, they all combine to make the case but 93 states
Having regard to the context of the case, the Court is also of the opinion that the assertions at issue constituted value judgments based on a sufficient factual basis
Thats pretty clear that the factual basis had enough sufficiency for the judges to rule no breach of law.
We will never agree on this but at least I can hold on to the fact that the judges voted the way I read the judgement and I am not conflicted by the unanimous verdict.
The judgement fits precisely with my opinion that the judges thought the alerts were factual.... Precisely.
Might be about time to accept my legal understanding is far greater than sceptics have given me credit for
-
The judgement fits precisely with my opinion that the judges thought the alerts were factual.... Precisely.
Might be about time to accept my legal understanding is far greater than sceptics have given me credit for
Not really because the implication in your statement is the ECHR judges were mislead by the proven facts as decided by the first Portuguese judge. I am sure they knew the implications of the factual basis but the book was a statement of account not an empirical truth. Thats the crux of the matter.
So no, no skeptics should not accept that.
-
Im saying there was no debate at the trial re the dogs.. They just seem to be accepted as fact.. Why
In the Cipriano trial.. The blood was never tested.. But the proven facts include the joanna blood being found in the fridge
Portugal seems to accept facts as proven.. When there's no proof
Additionally the Courts seemed to accept the claims of Amaral (and I think his mate Cristovao) that Joao and Leonor had murdered Joana because she had caught them, brother and sister, having sex together. Just story telling.
Figments of their imagination. Police Officers making stories up with no evidence. Two liars together. Two criminals colluding to try and entrap a poor couple ... successfully........ All in my opinion.
Some have suggested in the past that it was to get an easy conviction and to get notches on their "guns".
I think it was something far more sinister. They are both from the same ancient fraternities, brotherhoods, as are other names in this case.
-
Not really because the implication in your statement is the ECHR judges were mislead by the proven facts as decided by the first Portuguese judge. I am sure they knew the implications of the factual basis but the book was a statement of account not an empirical truth. Thats the crux of the matter.
So no, no skeptics should not accept that.
you have made many errors ..
You have claimed that the judge decided the statements on the alerts were proven because it was acivil trial...that is complete and utter twaddle. the proven fact was decided by the PJ...as gunit has confirmed...and its not true.
Did the ECHR judges think they were proven facts....i think thtas a real possibility and if so would explain why they made an error in their judgement. Im doing some research behind the scenes to get to the bottom of this.
You and others seem to think im a fool with no legal knowledge...I can only laugh at yours and their powers of deduction.
I actually predicted before the judgement...its all in previous posts...that the verdict would be decided on the veracity of the facts....were they supported by facts... Ive said this for acouple of years...and it was a deciding factor
-
par 92 ECHR judgemnet
the Supreme Court tended to consider them as value judgments based on elements of fact, namely the elements which appeared in the investigation file until October 2, 2007
they were not facts....the ECHR judges agreed with the SC.....they were both wrong
-
par 92 ECHR judgemnet
the Supreme Court tended to consider them as value judgments based on elements of fact, namely the elements which appeared in the investigation file until October 2, 2007
they were not facts....the ECHR judges agreed with the SC.....they were both wrong
You are fundamentally wrong. The Supreme Court is not interested in the facts.
-
You are fundamentally wrong. The Supreme Court is not interested in the facts.
I've quoted the ECHR judgment. They certainly should have been.
The ECHR takes the view on defamation that if it is reasonably supported by facts...then it's not defamation
The judges decided it was.. Based on the evidence presented... The proven facts which are neither facts nor proven
-
I've quoted the ECHR judgment. They certainly should have been.
The ECHR takes the view on defamation that if it is reasonably supported by facts...then it's not defamation
The judges decided it was.. Based on the evidence presented... The proven facts which are neither facts nor proven
Last chance......
-
you have made many errors ..
You have claimed that the judge decided the statements on the alerts were proven because it was acivil trial...that is complete and utter twaddle. the proven fact was decided by the PJ...as gunit has confirmed...and its not true.
Did the ECHR judges think they were proven facts....i think thtas a real possibility and if so would explain why they made an error in their judgement. Im doing some research behind the scenes to get to the bottom of this.
You and others seem to think im a fool with no legal knowledge...I can only laugh at yours and their powers of deduction.
I actually predicted before the judgement...its all in previous posts...that the verdict would be decided on the veracity of the facts....were they supported by facts... Ive said this for acouple of years...and it was a deciding factor
Unfortunately you never understood what constituted a fact in this context and you still haven't grasped it.
-
you have made many errors ..
You have claimed that the judge decided the statements on the alerts were proven because it was acivil trial...that is complete and utter twaddle. the proven fact was decided by the PJ...as gunit has confirmed...and its not true.
Did the ECHR judges think they were proven facts....i think thtas a real possibility and if so would explain why they made an error in their judgement. Im doing some research behind the scenes to get to the bottom of this.
You and others seem to think im a fool with no legal knowledge...I can only laugh at yours and their powers of deduction.
I actually predicted before the judgement...its all in previous posts...that the verdict would be decided on the veracity of the facts....were they supported by facts... Ive said this for acouple of years...and it was a deciding factor
Sorry but your posts remind me of the fable ...don't argue with the donkey.
The worst waste of time is arguing with the fool and fanatic who does not care about truth or reality, but only the victory of his beliefs and illusions. Never waste time on arguments that don't make sense...
There are people who, no matter how much evidence and evidence we present to them, are not in the capacity to understand, and others are blinded by ego, hatred and resentment, and all they want is to be right even if they are not.
When ignorance screams, intelligence is silent. Your peace and quiet are worth more.
-
Because they appeared in the PJ files.
You said this in an answer to my question
You might think you do so explain why the alerts are a proven fact
So is everything in the PJ files a proven fact...if not who decides..
-
Unfortunately you never understood what constituted a fact in this context and you still haven't grasped it.
im sure we all understand what proven facts are...but not what portuguse proven facts are...and are they the same as the ECHR proven facts...which differ from the UK proven facts and just about every other country in the world.
you dont have an answer to this so stop pretending you do.
-
Sorry but your posts remind me of the fable ...don't argue with the donkey.
The worst waste of time is arguing with the fool and fanatic who does not care about truth or reality, but only the victory of his beliefs and illusions. Never waste time on arguments that don't make sense...
There are people who, no matter how much evidence and evidence we present to them, are not in the capacity to understand, and others are blinded by ego, hatred and resentment, and all they want is to be right even if they are not.
When ignorance screams, intelligence is silent. Your peace and quiet are worth more.
Dont be sorry.. I think we should all be able to express our opinions...particularly after the ECHR ruling.
-
Dont be sorry.. I think we should all be able to express our opinions...particularly after the ECHR ruling.
I don't take things personal .. as you do.
The first case judge, yes she voiced against amaral, but she made the dogs a legal instrument for eternity. so yeah, the mccanns have been the ones who did leave the dogs in. it was this judge that named them as facts in this case.
-
I don't take things ppersonal .. as you do.
The first case judge, yes she voiced against amaral, but she made the dogs a legal instrument for eternity. so yeah, the mccanns have been the ones who did leave the dogs in. it was this judge that named them as facts in this case.
But we all know they are not facts
-
Dont be sorry.. I think we should all be able to express our opinions...particularly after the ECHR ruling.
How's yer French mon ami?
La Convention Européenne des Droits de l'Homme. Commentaire article par article, sous la direction de Louis-Edmond Petitti, Emanuel Decaux, PierreHenri Imbert, Edition Economica, Paris, 1995, page 247.
-
How's yer French mon ami?
La Convention Européenne des Droits de l'Homme. Commentaire article par article, sous la direction de Louis-Edmond Petitti, Emanuel Decaux, PierreHenri Imbert, Edition Economica, Paris, 1995, page 247.
Avez vous un link
-
You said this in an answer to my question
You might think you do so explain why the alerts are a proven fact
So is everything in the PJ files a proven fact...if not who decides..
The dogs alerted, and that's a fact.
-
The dogs alerted, and that's a fact.
Its not a fact they alerted to cadaver... Looks like its you who doesn't understand
-
Its not a fact they alerted to cadaver... Looks like its you who doesn't understand
Well there's still no sign of Maddie, unsurprisingly, so maybe it is.
-
The dogs alerted, and that's a fact.
No inference can be made, officially.
Personally I see the dog alerting to all things McCann & add the fatherlike figure carrying an inert Maddie into the equation & the only logical & plausible answer that enters my mind is abduction.
-
Its not a fact they alerted to cadaver... Looks like its you who doesn't understand
It's not a fact that they didn't alert to cadaver odour and blood.
-
It's not a fact that they didn't alert to cadaver odour and blood.
You are showing lack of understanding... The proven facts state that did
-
You are showing lack of understanding... The proven facts state that did
We're back to the question of what proven facts are.
-
We're back to the question of what proven facts are.
we know what proven facts are in Portugal
we know what proven facts are in the UK
we dont know what prven facts are at the ECHR
Im sure no one would be happy if the Germans claimed CBs phone puts him at the OC at 8PM on 3/5 as a proven fact...but thats the sort of thing that might happen in portugal
-
we know what proven facts are in Portugal
we know what proven facts are in the UK
we dont know what prven facts are at the ECHR
Im sure no one would be happy if the Germans claimed CBs phone puts him at the OC at 8PM on 3/5 as a proven fact...but thats the sort of thing that might happen in portugal
The three locals were in Luz, that proved worthy of nothing, should CB be found to have been in Luz living in the area, what do you suppose that would actually prove ?
-
The three locals were in Luz, that proved worthy of nothing, should CB be found to have been in Luz living in the area, what do you suppose that would actually prove ?
That someone is telling fibs.
-
The three locals were in Luz, that proved worthy of nothing, should CB be found to have been in Luz living in the area, what do you suppose that would actually prove ?
as much as the proven facts in this case...as much as the dog alerts
-
It's not a fact that they didn't alert to cadaver odour and blood.
Its not a proven fact thay CB wasnt outside 5a.
What the PJ have done is taken an unproven fact and called it a proven fact....is that justice..i
-
as much as the proven facts in this case...as much as the dog alerts
How I read it is that the evidence produced before the Court is trying to prove the correctness or the incorrectness of the proceedings. The actual facts of the case are a matter that is “delegated” to the national courts and the
Strasbourg Court usually trust their findings, excepting the obvious arbitrary situations.
-
How I read it is that the evidence produced before the Court is trying to prove the correctness or the incorrectness of the proceedings. The actual facts of the case are a matter that is “delegated” to the national courts and the
Strasbourg Court usually trust their findings, excepting the obvious arbitrary situations.
I agree.....the ECHR trusted Portugal...and thats exactly whats happened
-
It's strange that the MSM haven't mentioned the oft repeated fears that the Fund could be wiped out if the McCanns lost their appeal to the ECHR isn't it? A lot was made of it in 2018;
Kate and Gerry are fighting to avoid paying £750K to the ex-detective who claimed in a book they were responsible for their daughter's death
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/7281872/madeline-mcann-fund-750k-case/
Figures show that they is £728,508 left in the pot used to fund the search for Madeleine, which is mostly made up of public donations.
However it could be completely wiped out if the decision stands to award Amaral £430,000 as well as paying costs on top.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6178661/Public-fund-Madeline-McCann-WIPED-upcoming-court-case.html
-
It's strange that the MSM haven't mentioned the oft repeated fears that the Fund could be wiped out if the McCanns lost their appeal to the ECHR isn't it? A lot was made of it in 2018;
Kate and Gerry are fighting to avoid paying £750K to the ex-detective who claimed in a book they were responsible for their daughter's death
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/7281872/madeline-mcann-fund-750k-case/
Figures show that they is £728,508 left in the pot used to fund the search for Madeleine, which is mostly made up of public donations.
However it could be completely wiped out if the decision stands to award Amaral £430,000 as well as paying costs on top.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6178661/Public-fund-Madeline-McCann-WIPED-upcoming-court-case.html
If Amaral receives this money maybe he will mount his own search for Madeleine?
-
If Amaral receives this money maybe he will mount his own search for Madeleine?
He might even know where she is.
-
Sorry but your posts remind me of the fable ...don't argue with the donkey.
The worst waste of time is arguing with the fool and fanatic who does not care about truth or reality, but only the victory of his beliefs and illusions. Never waste time on arguments that don't make sense...
There are people who, no matter how much evidence and evidence we present to them, are not in the capacity to understand, and others are blinded by ego, hatred and resentment, and all they want is to be right even if they are not.
When ignorance screams, intelligence is silent. Your peace and quiet are worth more.
so its ok for kizzy to refer to me as a donkey..faith refers to me as a horrible little man...but when I respond...I get points...whats going on John
-
I agree.....the ECHR trusted Portugal...and thats exactly whats happened
So how are they wrong if they're doing what their remit states?
And why would they deviate from 70 years of process in trusting in the internal judicial process of the state? If they were a dictatorship they wouldn't be considered a member state, therefore would not be covered under their auspices.
I don't know how much clearer I need to make it than that. Unless you're on some colossal wind up....which would be awesome.
-
So how are they wrong if they're doing what their remit states?
And why would they deviate from 70 years of process in trusting in the internal judicial process of the state? If they were a dictatorship they wouldn't be considered a member state, therefore would not be covered under their auspices.
I don't know how much clearer I need to make it than that. Unless you're on some colossal wind up....which would be awesome.
you are asking me how they are wrong when they accept something as a fact when it is not a fact...
as ive said its like the germans claiming their phone evidence is a proven fact when we all know it isnt
-
you are asking me how they are wrong when they accept something as a fact when it is not a fact...
as ive said its like the germans claiming their phone evidence is a proven fact when we all know it isnt
?
They didn't accept anything as fact; it's not their remit. They are presiding over the process.
-
If Amaral receives this money maybe he will mount his own search for Madeleine?
I took those stories with a lot more than a pinch of salt because I could find nothing to support them. Some newspapers confuse rather than inform. As Amaral concluded that Madeleine probably died in 2007, I don't think he'll be searching for her.
-
?
They didn't accept anything as fact; it's not their remit. They are presiding over the process.
And decided that its not their problem if Amaral told whoppers?
-
And decided that its not their problem if Amaral told whoppers?
I think the extent of their remit is being misconstrued.
They take the in country judicial process as being de facto robust. The are not there to adjudicate on the process, but on the specifics of the human rights abuse or otherwise.
If we can't get past this fundamental concept, then we must simply stop the discussion right here until it's resolved.
-
I think the extent of their remit is being misconstrued.
They take the in country judicial process as being de facto robust. The are not there to adjudicate on the process, but on the specifics of the human rights abuse or otherwise.
If we can't get past this fundamental concept, then we must simply stop the discussion right here until it's resolved.
Yes, I think at least one person thought that the ECHR was going to carry out a complete re-trial, going through all the evidence, point by point.
-
I think the extent of their remit is being misconstrued.
They take the in country judicial process as being de facto robust. The are not there to adjudicate on the process, but on the specifics of the human rights abuse or otherwise.
If we can't get past this fundamental concept, then we must simply stop the discussion right here until it's resolved.
they have to balance free speech against reputation......one of the factors is the veracity of the accusations.....they look at the facts on which the accusations ate based...tbh...if you dont realise that truth it is a waste of time discussing it
-
you are asking me how they are wrong when they accept something as a fact when it is not a fact...
as ive said its like the germans claiming their phone evidence is a proven fact when we all know it isnt
I think the simple answer to this in simple terms.
The top and bottom of it are.
The ECHR had to decide if GA book affected or damaged their reputation right to a private life search for Maddie.
Proven fact or non-proven fact....the fact is a unanimous decision found.
Any damage done to the mccs ...they did that all by themselves.....not by GA book written from police files.
-
Yes, I think at least one person thought that the ECHR was going to carry out a complete re-trial, going through all the evidence, point by point.
many...including you simply do not understand the process
-
I think the extent of their remit is being misconstrued.
They take the in country judicial process as being de facto robust. The are not there to adjudicate on the process, but on the specifics of the human rights abuse or otherwise.
If we can't get past this fundamental concept, then we must simply stop the discussion right here until it's resolved.
Who has the right to stop this discussion and who will resolve it?
More than ever we are now entitled to our opinions. That is what The ECHR decision amounts to.
PS. There is nothing de facto robust about the judicial process in Portugal.
-
Yes, I think at least one person thought that the ECHR was going to carry out a complete re-trial, going through all the evidence, point by point.
I didn't actually. But I did think that The ECHR would employ researchers to read the rotten book and check on a few Facts.
-
Who has the right to stop this discussion and who will resolve it?
Me.
More than ever we are now entitled to our opinions. That is what The ECHR decision amounts to.
This isn't about opinion. I'm stating fact. The function of the court and its remit.
PS. There is nothing de facto robust about the judicial process in Portugal.
P.S. Yes there is. They're a signee of the convention on human rights. That's why the process got as far as it did.
-
They must have had their fingers crossed behind their backs at the time.
-
I think the simple answer to this in simple terms.
The top and bottom of it are.
The ECHR had to decide if GA book affected or damaged their reputation right to a private life search for Maddie.
Proven fact or non-proven fact....the fact is a unanimous decision found.
Any damage done to the mccs ...they did that all by themselves.....not by GA book written from police files.
Not surprisingly you're wrong.. The ECHR ruled that the allegations were serious enough to damage the mccanns reputation but as they were based on facts.... They weren't they were based on lies... The judges felt amarals right to free speech should be upheld.. Looks like I'm the only one who understands the law
-
I didn't actually. But I did think that The ECHR would employ researchers to read the rotten book and check on a few Facts.
By that point all the ECHR were interested in was had the SC ignored McCann human rights in upholding the Appeal Court decision. They weren't there to decide on the contents of the book.
They decided that the SC had acted correctly.
-
Not surprisingly you're wrong.. The ECHR ruled that the allegations were serious enough to damage the mccanns reputation but as they were based on facts.... They weren't they were based on lies... The judges felt amarals right to free speech should be upheld.. Looks like I'm the only one who understands the law
Literally every line of that paragraph is incorrect.
-
Literally every line of that paragraph is incorrect.
Explain why... Its absolutely correct
-
Not surprisingly you're wrong.. The ECHR ruled that the allegations were serious enough to damage the mccanns reputation but as they were based on facts.... They weren't they were based on lies... The judges felt amarals right to free speech should be upheld.. Looks like I'm the only one who understands the law
You and I don't think in quite the same way. But then I still retain a modicum of emotion. This not good when it comes to The Law and I do know that. But then none of this of any great importance. It served its purpose at the time. The disappearance of Madeleine McCann is still in the News to this day.
-
Looks like all those who claimed I didn't understand the law believe that because they don't have a clue
-
Looks like all those who claimed I didn't understand the law believe that because they don't have a clue
No matter how true that might be, are we likely to forget that Madeleine is still missing? Yet again it is all over The Media. Sometimes you have to settle for less than you might have wanted.
-
By that point all the ECHR were interested in was had the SC ignored McCann human rights in upholding the Appeal Court decision. They weren't there to decide on the contents of the book.
They decided that the SC had acted correctly.
They did not decide any Portuguese court acted correctly... Far from it.
They decided Amaral right to freedom of speech should prevail because it was supported by sufficient facts.
As far as the ECHR was concerned the dogs proved Maddie died in the apartment
-
It's strange that the MSM haven't mentioned the oft repeated fears that the Fund could be wiped out if the McCanns lost their appeal to the ECHR isn't it? A lot was made of it in 2018;
Kate and Gerry are fighting to avoid paying £750K to the ex-detective who claimed in a book they were responsible for their daughter's death
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/7281872/madeline-mcann-fund-750k-case/
Figures show that they is £728,508 left in the pot used to fund the search for Madeleine, which is mostly made up of public donations.
However it could be completely wiped out if the decision stands to award Amaral £430,000 as well as paying costs on top.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6178661/Public-fund-Madeline-McCann-WIPED-upcoming-court-case.html
The money raised to fund the private search for Madeleine is not required at the moment.
SY - BKA - PJ - are all investigating Madeleine's abduction.
Therefore should the fund be wiped out as a result of the ECHR judgement the only financial losers will be the charities for the Missing and not Madeleine.
-
They did not decide any Portuguese court acted correctly... Far from it.
They decided Amaral right to freedom of speech should prevail because it was supported by sufficient facts.
As far as the ECHR was concerned the dogs proved Maddie died in the apartment
No, the ECHR decided that due process was discharged appropriately in Portugal and that the findings of the investigation, irrespective of their veracity (as they don't preside over that), was robust given several factors - the McCanns 'global profile' for want of a better phrase and their seeking out of media, interviews , the fact that GA was integral in the investigation and was in receipt of exclusive knowledge, the timing of the release of the book in respect to the archiving (it was plain that the book was written contemperaneously) and the nature of the sacrisanct nature of freedom of speech.
-
The money raised to fund the private search for Madeleine is not required at the moment.
SY - BKA - PJ - are all investigating Madeleine's abduction.
Therefore should the fund be wiped out as a result of the ECHR judgement the only financial losers will be the charities for the Missing and not Madeleine.
The fund is a limited company. There are many ways in which the money can be moved / spent and may not have to be touched as it doesn't belong to the McCanns.
-
No matter how true that might be, are we likely to forget that Madeleine is still missing? Yet again it is all over The Media. Sometimes you have to settle for less than you might have wanted.
And the reasons for Kate and Gerry having recourse to the law in the first instance (was it 2010?) no longer exist.
A full and comprehensive investigation has been carried out on Madeleine's behalf with hope of a definitive outcome being more realistic than at any time over the past fifteen years.
-
And the reasons for Kate and Gerry having recourse to the law in the first instance (was it 2010?) no longer exist.
A full and comprehensive investigation has been carried out on Madeleine's behalf with hope of a definitive outcome being more realistic than at any time over the past fifteen years.
I agree, the PJ exhausted all avenues at the time, in spite of extreme external pressure. A splendid job was conducted by all.
-
The money raised to fund the private search for Madeleine is not required at the moment.
SY - BKA - PJ - are all investigating Madeleine's abduction.
Therefore should the fund be wiped out as a result of the ECHR judgement the only financial losers will be the charities for the Missing and not Madeleine.
But surely Amaral will have to set this in motion. He will have to demand whatever he thinks he is entitled to from The McCanns. And to whom will he take this demand?
Gunit seems to think that a County Court Judgement will do. But it won't of course. This is the one area of The Law that I know something about. Having dealt with it for twenty years of my miserable life in England.
So good luck with that one.
-
And the reasons for Kate and Gerry having recourse to the law in the first instance (was it 2010?) no longer exist.
A full and comprehensive investigation has been carried out on Madeleine's behalf with hope of a definitive outcome being more realistic than at any time over the past fifteen years.
I don't know, Love. I truly don't want to think about Madeleine being murdered by anyone, although I might have to one day. But why would anyone want to? This is the mindset that is beyond me. These people are sick.
-
I agree, the PJ exhausted all avenues at the time, in spite of extreme external pressure. A splendid job was conducted by all.
Perhaps The PJ should have considered Streets and Lanes.
-
If he has money owing in frozen accounts, then that money will be released upon application to the court.
I'm not at all sure that he was awarded any costs by Portuguese courts. but if he was and McCann reneges on these then they would be held in contempt of court and the court would take action.
All in all, I think he'll do just fine.
-
I don't know, Love. I truly don't want to think about Madeleine being murdered by anyone, although I might have to one day. But why would anyone want to? This is the mindset that is beyond me. These people are sick.
They most certainly are, but death may have occurred as a result of sexual abuse, rather than deliberate murder - although the outcome is obviously the same.
-
If he has money owing in frozen accounts, then that money will be released upon application to the court.
I'm not at all sure that he was awarded any costs by Portuguese courts. but if he was and McCann reneges on these then they would be held in contempt of court and the court would take action.
All in all, I think he'll do just fine.
One can only fervently hope that Amaral gets all that he deserves.
-
One can only fervently hope that Amaral gets all that he deserves.
Each to their own. I don't actually care about him that much, but I wouldn't want him to lose out on what he is entitled to.
-
If he has money owing in frozen accounts, then that money will be released upon application to the court.
I'm not at all sure that he was awarded any costs by Portuguese courts. but if he was and McCann reneges on these then they would be held in contempt of court and the court would take action.
All in all, I think he'll do just fine.
Amaral and whose army? And Contempt of what Court?
-
They most certainly are, but death may have occurred as a result of sexual abuse, rather than deliberate murder - although the outcome is obviously the same.
Well done you. The first ever smartarsed obtuse comment from you.
I actually like you because you are never really horrid.
-
One can only fervently hope that Amaral gets all that he deserves.
He might actually get Ten Pounds a month in my experience of English Courts and if he is lucky. Presuming that he would dare.
-
Each to their own. I don't actually care about him that much, but I wouldn't want him to lose out on what he is entitled to.
Did The ECHR say that Amaral is entitled to anything?
-
Amaral and whose army? And Contempt of what Court?
Whichever Portuguese Court awarded costs to him - if indeed they did.
I believe the judicial system have a mechanism for retrieval of costs from a foreign national living in another country.
Tortuous and dragged out I imagine.
-
Did The ECHR say that Amaral is entitled to anything?
As he wasn't part of that case,, I shouldn't think so.
Any money owing would be have been awarded by the earlier Portuguese court.
-
Did The ECHR say that Amaral is entitled to anything?
I'm sure we would have heard all about it if they did.
-
Whichever Portuguese Court awarded costs to him - if indeed they did.
I believe the judicial system have a mechanism for retrieval of costs from a foreign national living in another country.
Tortuous and dragged out I imagine.
Try getting the money if you are English in an English Court.
I am not interested in The Fund and never have been, but this would hardly be a claim against The McCanns themselves. It would have to be a claim against another corporate identity which could get very difficult and very expensive for Amaral.
Meanwhile, no chance of claiming against The McCanns personally because they have nothing beyond their own home.
-
As he wasn't part of that case,, I shouldn't think so.
Any money owing would be have been awarded by the earlier Portuguese court.
So no chance then.
-
So no chance then.
No idea. Not something that keeps me awake at night.
-
I'm sure we would have heard all about it if they did.
Just another mess of potage.
-
This is just another precursor to The McCanns being forced to sell their Mansion. Sceptics have been on about this for years and years. It isn't going to happen. So Gunit can forget any County Court Order.
-
One can only fervently hope that Amaral gets all that he deserves.
He probably doesn't need any more money. Some sort of civic honour?
-
So how are they wrong if they're doing what their remit states?
And why would they deviate from 70 years of process in trusting in the internal judicial process of the state? If they were a dictatorship they wouldn't be considered a member state, therefore would not be covered under their auspices.
I don't know how much clearer I need to make it than that. Unless you're on some colossal wind up....which would be awesome.
They are called a democracy now, but act as a dictatorship in areas including Law. Too many of the Salazar dictatorship trained officials still around.
They seem to have such a grip on the country they are still influencing the younger generation, newer officials.
A young internet acquantance of mine, in his early 30's, shocked me by saying that Torture was a good idea; it got results. There can be no future for the common man in PT if that attitude carries on
-
They are called a democracy now, but act as a dictatorship in areas including Law. Too many of the Salazar dictatorship trained officials still around.
They seem to have such a grip on the country they are still influencing the younger generation, newer officials.
A young internet acquantance of mine, in his early 30's, shocked me by saying that Torture was a good idea; it got results. There can be no future for the common man in PT if that attitude carries on
The Salazar trope simply won't wash - that's literally 4 generations ago.
-
I agree, the PJ exhausted all avenues at the time, in spite of extreme external pressure. A splendid job was conducted by all.
Hahaha!
Oh sorry. ............ I would have thought a well bred young man like you would have been more discerning and have higher standards
-
The Salazar trope simply won't wash - that's literally 4 generations ago.
It's still there and being led by an impressive organisation who are experts at saying one thing (appeasing ordinary people) but doing what they wish to cover up their own interests .... and carry on making mega bucks out of the proletariat
-
He probably doesn't need any more money. Some sort of civic honour?
Oh wow. What an honour. The Liar and The Thief. Even his Pension has been seconded to pay his mountainous debts.
-
Try getting the money if you are English in an English Court.
I am not interested in The Fund and never have been, but this would hardly be a claim against The McCanns themselves. It would have to be a claim against another corporate identity which could get very difficult and very expensive for Amaral.
Meanwhile, no chance of claiming against The McCanns personally because they have nothing beyond their own home.
Those who were ordered to pay the costs were those who brought the action; the McCanns. No corporate entities were involved.
-
The Salazar trope simply won't wash - that's literally 4 generations ago.
No it isn't. I was an adult female while Salazar was still around.
-
Those who were ordered to pay the costs were those who brought the action; the McCanns. No corporate entities were involved.
So you think that Amaral can force The McCanns to sell their Mansion. Good luck with that one.
-
Those who were ordered to pay the costs were those who brought the action; the McCanns. No corporate entities were involved.
They can quite rightly use the fund,,,as Kate paid a million pounds from her book into it... I dont see any more private investigations...SY have covered everything and done a great job
-
So you think that Amaral can force The McCanns to sell their Mansion. Good luck with that one.
That would be utterly unthinkable. I doubt any mother would sell absolutely everything to search for their missing daughter. There is a limit.
-
They can quite rightly use the fund,,,as Kate paid a million pounds from her book into it... I dont see any more private investigations...SY have covered everything and done a great job
They can draw down from it, but it will attract income tax at 50%, given their salaries.
-
That would be utterly unthinkable. I doubt any mother would sell absolutely everything to search for their missing daughter. There is a limit.
I shall desist from replying as I might get banned. Ha Ha.
-
They can draw down from it, but it will attract income tax at 50%, given their salaries.
Already done and dusted. You aren't actually very bright, are you.
-
So you think that Amaral can force The McCanns to sell their Mansion. Good luck with that one.
I thought they lived in a house, but if it seems like a mansion to you, fair enough. How they would pay their debts is up to them to arrange. Nothing to do with Amaral, they made choices and must deal with any consequences.
-
Well, this has all been a bit of fun. Tit for tat and go where you may do. The General is just another Wum although a bit better at it than Spammy, although only marginally.
-
I thought they lived in a house, but if it seems like a mansion to you, fair enough. How they would pay their debts is up to them to arrange. Nothing to do with Amaral, they made choices and must deal with any consequences.
What consequences? You don't actually know, do you. Think about it.
Compared to my French Hovel then their house could be a Mansion but I don't suffer from envy.
-
I thought they lived in a house, but if it seems like a mansion to you, fair enough. How they would pay their debts is up to them to arrange. Nothing to do with Amaral, they made choices and must deal with any consequences.
That's been the way since 2007
-
That's been the way since 2007
Dear God I despair.
-
What consequences? You don't actually know, do you. Think about it.
Compared to my French Hovel then their house could be a Mansion but I don't suffer from envy.
The consequences, if any, arising from their decision to get involved in litigation. Large compensation payments according to The Sun.
-
The consequences, if any, arising from their decision to get involved in litigation. Large compensation payments according to The Sun.
Oh well, let's go with The Sun, shall we. Why ever not. Personally, I prefer The Daily Mail.
-
This is just another precursor to The McCanns being forced to sell their Mansion. Sceptics have been on about this for years and years. It isn't going to happen. So Gunit can forget any County Court Order.
I always found there was something very amiss with those who campaigned for two young children to be made homeless and in effect put on the streets.
-
It's still there and being led by an impressive organisation who are experts at saying one thing (appeasing ordinary people) but doing what they wish to cover up their own interests .... and carry on making mega bucks out of the proletariat
Sorry….for half a minute there I thought you were talking about the Tories.
-
I always found there was something very amiss with those who campaigned for two young children to be made homeless and in effect put on the streets.
You didn’t care when it was Amaral’s children.
-
Sorry….for half a minute there I thought you were talking about the Tories.
Snort. I nearly spat out a mouthful of Gin. If I had been drinking Gin. Which I wasn't. Of course.
-
You didn’t care when it was Amaral’s children.
Really? Only Amaral failed to pay his mortgage. Several times.
-
Okay. What could be the consequences and for whom?
Portugal would appear to have won, although not Amaral as you all so frequently pointed out. It wasn't about Amaral so he won nothing.
Portugal did not abuse the human rights of The McCanns. No one else comes into this. There is no way in which Amaral can claim that he was part of this judgement. The McCanns didn't sue him.
But now there is no way in which The McCanns can ever be charged with the murder or even accidental death of their daughter by their hands, due to The Statute of Limitations. It is over and done for The McCanns, if it ever can be.
Amaral will now have to hassle for himself if he so wishes.
-
Okay. What could be the consequences and for whom?
Portugal would appear to have won, although not Amaral as you all so frequently pointed out. It wasn't about Amaral so he won nothing.
Portugal did not abuse the human rights of The McCanns. No one else comes into this. There is no way in which Amaral can claim that he was part of this judgement. The McCanns didn't sue him.
But now there is no way in which The McCanns can ever be charged with the murder or even accidental death of their daughter by their hands, due to The Statute of Limitations. It is over and done for The McCanns, if it ever can be.
Amaral will now have to hassle for himself if he so wishes.
I don't think so Elli.
I believe that there is another suspect that we haven't heard of .... in fact, a few other allied suspects
We shall see.
-
I don't think so Elli.
I believe that there is another suspect that we haven't heard of .... in fact, a few other allied suspects
We shall see.
I am only concerned with the McCanns them selves for the moment, Sadie. And The Consequences. There are none. There is nothing that anyone can do to them anymore.
My own personal opinions are by the by. And probably no more daft than yours. Even in sync sometimes.
I hope that you and your husband are well still. While I stagger on. Just so long as you and I haven't actually lost our marbles then we will be fine.
Much love to you both. Mitch. xx
I am beginning to wonder about The Mitch, but I so loath the name of Maureen. What was my mother thinking of? Hence Eleanor which is only my second name. Although probably a bit to grand for me as I know me to be.
-
I am only concerned with the McCanns them selves for the moment, Sadie. And The Consequences. There are none. There is nothing that anyone can do to them anymore.
My own personal opinions are by the by. And probably no more daft than yours. Even in sync sometimes.
I hope that you and your husband are well still. While I stagger on. Just so long as you and I haven't actually lost our marbles then we will be fine.
Much love to you both. Mitch. xx
I am beginning to wonder about The Mitch, but I so loath the name of Maureen. What was my mother thinking of? Hence Eleanor which is only my second name. Although probably a bit to grand for me as I know me to be.
Thank you Elli
We both stagger on too, but against all the odds still survive (so far) (&^& (&^&. Sadly no possibility of more trips to Brittany, but we have been lucky with more travel than most, so no gripes. It has been one of lifes pleasures meeting you. You are made of the right stuff! Thank you for being you.
Lots of love, sadie xx
-
Thank you Elli
We both stagger on too, but against all the odds still survive (so far) (&^& (&^&. Sadly no possibility of more trips to Brittany, but we have been lucky with more travel than most, so no gripes. It has been one of lifes pleasures meeting you. You are made of the right stuff! Thank you for being you.
Lots of love, sadie xx
Thankyou Sadie. It was such a pleasure to meet both you and your husband. Your aims have always been of the best for The McCanns.
I am not so obsessed with The McCanns, beyond seeing that there is no evidence against them. I only see them as some sort of horror story that is beyond me.
,
,
-
Okey. Rigthey Ho? When'do we ever get The McCanns