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: John on March 25, 2017, 03:38:57 PM
Title: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: John on March 25, 2017, 03:38:57 PM
So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
So here we are many years after this all began and the highest Court in Portugal has provided its final decision in the McCanns v Gonçalo Amaral and Others defamation case. For anyone who might have missed recent events, a short résumé.
27 April 2015 - First instance Court finds for the McCanns. Awards damages against Gonçalo Amaral. 19 April 2016 - Appeal Court overturns judgement of lower court. Damages award dismissed. 31 January 2017 - Supreme Court upholds Appeal Court decision. 21 March 2017 - Supreme Court dismisses Application by McCanns to have SC decision annulled.
So what now given this is effectively the end of the road?
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: Alice Purjorick on March 25, 2017, 04:05:20 PM
So here we are many years after this all began and the highest Court in Portugal has provided its final decision in the McCanns v Gonçalo Amaral and Others defamation case. For anyone who might have missed recent events, a short résumé.
27 April 2015 - First instance Court finds for the McCanns. Awards damages against Gonçalo Amaral. 19 April 2016 - Appeal Court overturns judgement of lower court. Damages award dismissed. 31 January 2017 - Supreme Court upholds Appeal Court decision. 21 March 2017 - Supreme Court dismisses Application by McCanns to have SC decision annulled.
So what now given this is effectively the end of the road?
Maintain a "hull down" position ? or make an application to the ECHR, which effectively kicks it into the long grass for 10 years, and make Mitchell earn his corn spinning the tale to best advantage. Whatever you say about him he is good at it. Always assuming there is enough money in the pot to cover it. I suppose a lot will depend on what, if anything, OG and the PJ turn up.
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: Alfie on March 25, 2017, 04:08:03 PM
So here we are many years after this all began and the highest Court in Portugal has provided its final decision in the McCanns v Gonçalo Amaral and Others defamation case. For anyone who might have missed recent events, a short résumé.
27 April 2015 - First instance Court finds for the McCanns. Awards damages against Gonçalo Amaral. 19 April 2016 - Appeal Court overturns judgement of lower court. Damages award dismissed. 31 January 2017 - Supreme Court upholds Appeal Court decision. 21 March 2017 - Supreme Court dismisses Application by McCanns to have SC decision annulled.
So what now given this is effectively the end of the road?
McCanns bankrupted and Amaral can afford another diamond earring, Madeleine remains missing, "sceptics" happy, that's about it really.
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: G-Unit on March 25, 2017, 04:15:37 PM
I expect that question is occupying the McCanns at the moment, hence the deafening silence. I think the 'complaint' may have been a delaying tactic, given the normal speed of the Portuguese Courts. It froze the payments and stopped the reporting of the 'not cleared' surprise. Perhaps the hope was that the anniversary would arrive before the SC answered. Will anyone agree to interview them now without discussing the defeat, their 'uncleared' status and the cost of the litigation?
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: jassi on March 25, 2017, 04:17:35 PM
I suppose we need to see how the legal costs are funded, and how the tabloids treat the McCanns over the next few months
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: Alfie on March 25, 2017, 04:20:40 PM
I expect that question is occupying the McCanns at the moment, hence the deafening silence. I think the 'complaint' may have been a delaying tactic, given the normal speed of the Portuguese Courts. It froze the payments and stopped the reporting of the 'not cleared' surprise. Perhaps the hope was that the anniversary would arrive before the SC answered. Will anyone agree to interview them now without discussing the defeat, their 'uncleared' status and the cost of the litigation?
What makes you think the McCanns have made that a stipulation of any future interview?
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: Alice Purjorick on March 25, 2017, 04:22:50 PM
I expect that question is occupying the McCanns at the moment, hence the deafening silence. I think the 'complaint' may have been a delaying tactic, given the normal speed of the Portuguese Courts. It froze the payments and stopped the reporting of the 'not cleared' surprise. Perhaps the hope was that the anniversary would arrive before the SC answered. Will anyone agree to interview them now without discussing the defeat, their 'uncleared' status and the cost of the litigation?
It's a bit of a bummer it now comes into FY 2016/2017... &%+((£
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: G-Unit on March 25, 2017, 05:06:48 PM
What makes you think the McCanns have made that a stipulation of any future interview?
What makes you think they want to talk about their defeat, their misunderstanding of the archiving dispatch, and the cost and source of the wherewithal to pay it? Will they finally admit that the courts found the book didn't damage the investigation into Madeleine's disappearance or affect their other children? That's what Kate said it was all about, but the courts rejected those claims. It would be very interesting to hear them explain all that, but I don't think they will.
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: Alfie on March 25, 2017, 06:11:49 PM
What makes you think they want to talk about their defeat, their misunderstanding of the archiving dispatch, and the cost and source of the wherewithal to pay it? Will they finally admit that the courts found the book didn't damage the investigation into Madeleine's disappearance or affect their other children? That's what Kate said it was all about, but the courts rejected those claims. It would be very interesting to hear them explain all that, but I don't think they will.
I should think they'd be only too eager to talk about how they've been the victims of a gross miscarriage of justice, in their position I certainly would.
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: Robittybob1 on March 25, 2017, 06:16:35 PM
I should think they'd be only too eager to talk about how they've been the victims of a gross miscarriage of justice, in their position I certainly would.
Would too much publicity be a bad thing if they want to advance with an ECHR case?
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: John on March 25, 2017, 06:43:00 PM
Clearly the recent comments emanating from a McCann source warning that any attempt to defame them in the UK will be vigorously met with court action could be an indicator of things to come. However, there are limits to what can or cannot be pursued in an English Court, I cannot see anyone being brave enough to do it on a pro bono basis.
It will also be interesting to see what Gonçalo puts in his new book and in particular will he be prepared to push the envelope any further by expanding on his thesis.
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: slartibartfast on March 25, 2017, 08:18:01 PM
Clearly the recent comments emanating from a McCann source warning that any attempt to defame them in the UK will be vigorously met with court action could be an indicator of things to come. However, there are limits to what can or cannot be pursued in an English Court, I cannot see anyone being brave enough to do it on a pro bono basis.
It will also be interesting to see what Gonçalo puts in his new book and in particular will he be prepared to push the envelope any further by expanding on his thesis.
I suppose it's a question of what he knows that isn't in the public domain.
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: Brietta on March 25, 2017, 10:30:13 PM
I suppose it's a question of what he knows that isn't in the public domain.
You do realise that if he does have information on Madeleine McCann's case which he has been sitting on for coming up on ten years he will face criminal charges if he decides to reveals that in a book?
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: Robittybob1 on March 25, 2017, 10:37:40 PM
You do realise that if he does have information on Madeleine McCann's case which he has been sitting on for coming up on ten years he will face criminal charges if he decides to reveals that in a book?
It would be safe if he could prove the whole investigation team are sitting on the same information.
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: slartibartfast on March 26, 2017, 08:26:25 AM
As it hasn't been released, we don't know what it is.
If you really do believe that this man holds the key to Madeleine McCann's case, and knows the who and the why of it, have you never wondered why he didn't use it to solve the case back in the day when that was his day job?
Is there a conspiracy theory he hasn't used yet ... or is he just going to dust down one of the old ones and hope no-one notices?
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: Eleanor on March 26, 2017, 08:55:10 AM
If you really do believe that this man holds the key to Madeleine McCann's case, and knows the who and the why of it, have you never wondered why he didn't use it to solve the case back in the day when that was his day job?
Is there a conspiracy theory he hasn't used yet ... or is he just going to dust down one of the old ones and hope no-one notices?
He may have peripheral details. but not much more.
More probably on the background of the UK Police involvement , and why they shifted from investigating the McCann's to 'abduction' , and the undeniable political intervention in the case.
Anyway, we shall see shortly.
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: Angelo222 on March 26, 2017, 06:02:47 PM
He may have peripheral details. but not much more.
More probably on the background of the UK Police involvement , and why they shifted from investigating the McCann's to 'abduction' , and the undeniable political intervention in the case.
Anyway, we shall see shortly.
Amaral will be in possession of much more information than has ever been released to the public. He was central to the initial enquiry and would have been privy to everything which came their way. Having that information and proving that a crime was committed are two entirely different things.
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: Eleanor on March 26, 2017, 06:08:36 PM
Amaral will be in possession of much more information than has ever been released to the public. He was central to the initial enquiry and would have been privy to everything which came their way. Having that information and proving that a crime was committed are two entirely different things.
And then used it to write a money making book. While totally failing to prove anything.. What a dick head. No use to man or beast.
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: stephen25000 on March 26, 2017, 06:13:11 PM
...the result of the court case was ?
What the book did do, through the Mccann's stupidity in taking him to court, was to bring more attention around the world, his theories as regards what happened.
A lack of corroborating evidence is not his responsibility.
There is always circumstantial evidence.
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: stephen25000 on March 26, 2017, 06:15:41 PM
Amaral will be in possession of much more information than has ever been released to the public. He was central to the initial enquiry and would have been privy to everything which came their way. Having that information and proving that a crime was committed are two entirely different things.
I am interested to see what the book reveals.
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: Eleanor on March 26, 2017, 06:29:15 PM
What the book did do, through the Mccann's stupidity in taking him to court, was to bring more attention around the world, his theories as regards what happened.
A lack of corroborating evidence is not his responsibility.
There is always circumstantial evidence.
You mean he failed. He might have won the battle, but he lost the war. The McCanns have never even been arrested. But he has. Arrested, Indicted, and found guilty.
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: stephen25000 on March 26, 2017, 06:55:28 PM
You mean he failed. He might have won the battle, but he lost the war. The McCanns have never even been arrested. But he has. Arrested, Indicted, and found guilty.
The 'war' as you call it is not over.
His arrest was nothing to do with this case.
The Mccann's have never been arrested, and an abductor has never been found.
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: Eleanor on March 26, 2017, 07:31:47 PM
Ask Correia, Metodo3 and those who paid both of them.
Funny you should say that ... I have just come across the judges ruling about that one ... they put on record some unsavoury facts concerning Amaral ... I may post them for you at some stage.
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: slartibartfast on March 26, 2017, 07:59:13 PM
Funny you should say that ... I have just come across the judges ruling about that one ... they put on record some unsavoury facts concerning Amaral ... I may post them for you at some stage.
Why not now?
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: jassi on March 26, 2017, 08:04:37 PM
Funny you should say that ... I have just come across the judges ruling about that one ... they put on record some unsavoury facts concerning Amaral ... I may post them for you at some stage.
Will it make any difference?
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: Eleanor on March 26, 2017, 08:18:22 PM
Amaral was arrested and convicted. There is no Libel in that statement.
What's that got to do with anything. Brietta said she had been looking at the ruling and they put on record some unsavoury facts about GA, the logical time to share them would have been at that point, otherwise it is just another uncited statement and should be treated as such.
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: Alice Purjorick on March 26, 2017, 09:14:42 PM
What's that got to do with anything. Brietta said she had been looking at the ruling and they put on record some unsavoury facts about GA, the logical time to share them would have been at that point, otherwise it is just another uncited statement and should be treated as such.
Who put on record some unsavoury facts about GA? Is this sour grapes?
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: slartibartfast on March 26, 2017, 09:25:32 PM
Who put on record some unsavoury facts about GA? Is this sour grapes?
That's what we are trying to find out.
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: kizzy on March 26, 2017, 09:29:30 PM
The first thing to point out is that the McCanns made such a fuss about getting access to these files, and when they do, Gerry is speechless on his blog for 3 whole weeks! Secondly, the investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine has not been closed. It has been shelved until new information becomes available. Thirdly, I lost count the amount of times the McCanns and Clarence Mitchell told reporters they could not go into details because of the judicial secrecy. This has now been lifted for a month and still the Mccanns and Clarence Mitchell refuse to go into detail. There can only be one explanation for this continued silence, they have got something to hide. It is time that the Mainstream Media started putting leading questions to the McCanns, or asking them to now provide the details which they said before they were prevented from so doing.
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: Alice Purjorick on March 26, 2017, 09:37:58 PM
The first thing to point out is that the McCanns made such a fuss about getting access to these files, and when they do, Gerry is speechless on his blog for 3 whole weeks! Secondly, the investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine has not been closed. It has been shelved until new information becomes available. Thirdly, I lost count the amount of times the McCanns and Clarence Mitchell told reporters they could not go into details because of the judicial secrecy. This has now been lifted for a month and still the Mccanns and Clarence Mitchell refuse to go into detail. There can only be one explanation for this continued silence, they have got something to hide. It is time that the Mainstream Media started putting leading questions to the McCanns, or asking them to now provide the details which they said before they were prevented from so doing.
Erm, I think that you might not be with the rest of us.
Have a read around, and then come back. This is 2017, and not 2008.
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: Brietta on March 26, 2017, 10:13:27 PM
The first thing to point out is that the McCanns made such a fuss about getting access to these files, and when they do, Gerry is speechless on his blog for 3 whole weeks! Secondly, the investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine has not been closed. It has been shelved until new information becomes available. Thirdly, I lost count the amount of times the McCanns and Clarence Mitchell told reporters they could not go into details because of the judicial secrecy. This has now been lifted for a month and still the Mccanns and Clarence Mitchell refuse to go into detail. There can only be one explanation for this continued silence, they have got something to hide. It is time that the Mainstream Media started putting leading questions to the McCanns, or asking them to now provide the details which they said before they were prevented from so doing.
Strange thing is that 3 persons liked this post.
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: stephen25000 on March 27, 2017, 11:09:46 AM
Have they ever explained what they couldn't talk about then. because of the judicial secrecy.
No, all they have done is gone after G. Ameral
And that has backfired big time. There was a time not that very long ago when the vast majority of the press and media were extremely supportive of the parents but that has changed recently with a significant number of them now questioning things they wouldn't have dared do previously. The very full report by both the court of appeal and more recently the Supreme Court has done much more damage to reputations than Amaral ever could have. Where they go from here is anyone's guess?
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: John on March 27, 2017, 12:47:06 PM
Members are again reminded that posts should be constructive and add to the debate. Members are allowed to express their own opinions but comments should not include attacks on other members. If this continues temporary bans will ensue.
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: Benice on March 27, 2017, 12:54:12 PM
Have they ever explained what they couldn't talk about then. because of the judicial secrecy.
No, all they have done is gone after G. Ameral
In case you haven't noticed there are two live investigations in operation at the moment one in Portugal and one in SY. The Oporto team warned at the beginning that press speculation could cause them to stop their enquiry. As a result of that the McCanns appealed to the press to report responsibly.
Both SY and the McCanns have said they will not be giving a running commentary on these ongoing investigations. IOW they will not be talking about the case.
I'm surprised that you appear to have no knowledge of any of those facts.
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: Robittybob1 on March 27, 2017, 02:46:15 PM
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: G-Unit on March 27, 2017, 03:20:04 PM
Now that the Supreme Court has dismissed in full the McCann's claim (s) against Amaral I see no point in rehashing opinions about his book, documentary and interview (s). The matter is closed and the McCanns must now pay the monetary and reputational price for their failed litigation.
I'm surprised that Madeleine's Fund directors didn't look into and take account of reputational risk when they (it seems) agreed to back the venture into the Portuguese Courts.
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: Robittybob1 on March 27, 2017, 03:24:24 PM
Now that the Supreme Court has dismissed in full the McCann's claim (s) against Amaral I see no point in rehashing opinions about his book, documentary and interview (s). The matter is closed and the McCanns must now pay the monetary and reputational price for their failed litigation.
I'm surprised that Madeleine's Fund directors didn't look into and take account of reputational risk when they (it seems) agreed to back the venture into the Portuguese Courts.
I don't think it will ever stop.
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: Alfie on March 27, 2017, 03:32:41 PM
Now that the Supreme Court has dismissed in full the McCann's claim (s) against Amaral I see no point in rehashing opinions about his book, documentary and interview (s). The matter is closed and the McCanns must now pay the monetary and reputational price for their failed litigation.
I'm surprised that Madeleine's Fund directors didn't look into and take account of reputational risk when they (it seems) agreed to back the venture into the Portuguese Courts.
Who is that addressed to (bit in bold)?
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: Benice on March 27, 2017, 04:36:19 PM
Now that the Supreme Court has dismissed in full the McCann's claim (s) against Amaral I see no point in rehashing opinions about his book, documentary and interview (s). The matter is closed and the McCanns must now pay the monetary and reputational price for their failed litigation.
I'm surprised that Madeleine's Fund directors didn't look into and take account of reputational risk when they (it seems) agreed to back the venture into the Portuguese Courts.
It could just as easily be said that now that SY have specifically ruled out the McCanns and their friends as either suspects or persons of interest - there is no point in anyone continuing to go over and over the files in the vain hope of finding proof that they are guilty - because if it existed then SY would have found it. But I'm sure you would not agree with that.
The SC did not pass judgement on whether Amaral's book was libellous or not - although I can only presume they had their tongues firmly in their cheeks when they claimed that it was mostly based on the official files. (words to that effect).
It is a fact IMO that if the case had been brought in the UK then the McCanns would have won it hands down. I consider myself fortunate to live in a country where if a person decides to publicly destroy your reputation and ruin your life then they had better be damn sure that what they claim about you is actually true before they put it into print. It would appear that the opposite is the case in Portugal.
I find it hard to believe that anyone would prefer or even condone the Portuguese legal approach in preference to ours.
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: Mr Gray on March 27, 2017, 04:44:53 PM
Now that the Supreme Court has dismissed in full the McCann's claim (s) against Amaral I see no point in rehashing opinions about his book, documentary and interview (s). The matter is closed and the McCanns must now pay the monetary and reputational price for their failed litigation.
I'm surprised that Madeleine's Fund directors didn't look into and take account of reputational risk when they (it seems) agreed to back the venture into the Portuguese Courts.
Absolutely not it is important to emphasise that amaral has zero evidence for his claims
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: stephen25000 on March 27, 2017, 04:51:09 PM
It could just as easily be said that now that SY have specifically ruled out the McCanns and their friends as either suspects or persons of interest - there is no point in anyone continuing to go over and over the files in the vain hope of finding proof that they are guilty - because if it existed then SY would have found it. But I'm sure you would not agree with that.
The SC did not pass judgement on whether Amaral's book was libellous or not - although I can only presume they had their tongues firmly in their cheeks when they claimed that it was mostly based on the official files. (words to that effect).
It is a fact IMO that if the case had been brought in the UK then the McCanns would have won it hands down. I consider myself fortunate to live in a country where if a person decides to publicly destroy your reputation and ruin your life then they had better be damn sure that what they claim about you is actually true before they put it into print. It would appear that the opposite is the case in Portugal.
I find it hard to believe that anyone would prefer or even condone the Portuguese legal approach in preference to ours.
If there was a way of bringing it under UK law then bringing it under Portuguese law was a particularly poor decision. And if there wasn't, it is another example of speculation that fails to further the search for Madeleine one jot
Its the type of 'what if' that joins all the other redundant 'what ifs'. What if the McCanns had holidayed in the UK? What if the McCanns had eaten in their apartment? What if the McCanns had locked the patio doors? What if the McCanns had hired a baby-sitter? What if the McCanns arranged the Tapas 9 seating so they were visually monitoring the rear entrance to 5A. What if the McCanns had bought a baby-monitor? What if the T9 etc had not initiated a media scrum?
The list of what ifs must be very large indeed and they don't help because things went differently.
Feel free to opine that you prefer the English legal system. Personally, I am happy that our 6 adults and 2 children are better off here. And since we are law-abiding citizens enjoying our right to freedom of speech, I don't see any of us being subjected to attempted muzzling.
The courts balanced the right of the McCanns against differing rights of Amaral, and found in favour of Amaral.
Unless we see the McCanns v Portugal at the ECHR, and the McCanns win, then it's game over.
The real impact for me is that it is likely to wipe out, financially, a future search for Madeleine.
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: Alice Purjorick on March 27, 2017, 06:16:48 PM
It could just as easily be said that now that SY have specifically ruled out the McCanns and their friends as either suspects or persons of interest - there is no point in anyone continuing to go over and over the files in the vain hope of finding proof that they are guilty - because if it existed then SY would have found it. But I'm sure you would not agree with that.
The SC did not pass judgement on whether Amaral's book was libellous or not - although I can only presume they had their tongues firmly in their cheeks when they claimed that it was mostly based on the official files. (words to that effect).
It is a fact IMO that if the case had been brought in the UK then the McCanns would have won it hands down. I consider myself fortunate to live in a country where if a person decides to publicly destroy your reputation and ruin your life then they had better be damn sure that what they claim about you is actually true before they put it into print. It would appear that the opposite is the case in Portugal.
I find it hard to believe that anyone would prefer or even condone the Portuguese legal approach in preference to ours.
The choice is a Common Law(English Law) based system or a Civil Law(European Law) based system. Most countries in the world have chosen the latter.
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: ferryman on March 27, 2017, 09:01:59 PM
Post the Supreme Court Decision?
Raise awkward anomalies (of that decision) such as explaining what, if they correctly surmised that Kate and Gerry are culpable in Madeleine's disappearance, Kate and Gerry are supposed to have done with 'the body' for 3 weeks between 'seeing her off' and hiring a car to take her somewhere?
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: G-Unit on March 27, 2017, 09:21:31 PM
Raise awkward anomalies (of that decision) such as explaining what, if they correctly surmised that Kate and Gerry are culpable in Madeleine's disappearance, Kate and Gerry are supposed to have done with 'the body' for 3 weeks between 'seeing her off' and hiring a car to take her somewhere?
I think you misunderstand. The Supreme Court judges were very clear that they were not making any claims about the McCann's guilt or innocence, they surmised nothing;
Page 69 It must be reminded that, in the present case, the issue isn't the appellants' penal liability, in other words their innocence or their guilt concerning the facts leading to the disappearance of her daughter doesn't have to be appreciated here.
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: kizzy on March 28, 2017, 09:19:16 AM
IMO I think Goncalo Amaral came to a sensible conclusion at that time in the investigation. As he has said numerous times, the investigation was not allowed to run it's course and test certain theories to the end. His hypothesis may have changed had other information come to light.
How is that so hard to understand? I think he was close with his theory and allowed to carry on his investigation unhindered, would have uncovered more detail of what happened.
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: carlymichelle on March 28, 2017, 10:07:39 AM
IMO I think Goncalo Amaral came to a sensible conclusion at that time in the investigation. As he has said numerous times, the investigation was not allowed to run it's course and test certain theories to the end. His hypothesis may have changed had other information come to light.
How is that so hard to understand? I think he was close with his theory and allowed to carry on his investigation unhindered, would have uncovered more detail of what happened.
mcann supporters dont accept that they believe everything the media tells them
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: Alfie on March 28, 2017, 10:28:19 AM
mcann supporters dont accept that they believe everything the media tells them
What was that about lumping all sceptics into one group with the exact same thoughts and opinions? Oh dear.... @)(++(*
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: Mr Gray on March 28, 2017, 01:19:34 PM
Getting back on track I hope the McCanns become more forthright bin defending themselves re all the lies told about them and the case
I certainly would
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: Brietta on March 28, 2017, 01:52:17 PM
Please post ON TOPIC, thank you.
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: stephen25000 on March 28, 2017, 01:54:54 PM
That's straightforward.
Time for the Mccann's to pay up
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: stephen25000 on March 28, 2017, 03:07:36 PM
Are you agreeing that Madeleine's disappearance can be accounted for by several scenarios, including accidental death, and there is no evidence to raise one theory above any other ?
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: ferryman on March 28, 2017, 03:32:34 PM
Trouble is that on-topic posts (at least by me) tend to be removed. Post the Supreme Court decision there ought to be an inquest into how two judgements (superseding the first-instance judgment) both were passed by judges clearly stuck where most McCann-detractors have been stuck for the best part of the last 10 years, the (now dubbed 'interim' report) of convicted torture Tavares Almeida; when both the PJ Final report and (particularly) the prosecutors' archiving dispatch supersede it.
Most surprising.
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: ferryman on March 28, 2017, 03:42:19 PM
Are you agreeing that Madeleine's disappearance can be accounted for by several scenarios, including accidental death, and there is no evidence to raise one theory above any other ?
Why would anyone agree with that?
When the PJ ruled out woke and wandered.
And when the prosecutors made plain Madeleine was abducted?
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: stephen25000 on March 28, 2017, 04:07:18 PM
Trouble is that on-topic posts (at least by me) tend to be removed. Post the Supreme Court decision there ought to be an inquest into how two judgements (superseding the first-instance judgment) both were passed by judges clearly stuck where most McCann-detractors have been stuck for the best part of the last 10 years, the (now dubbed 'interim' report) of convicted torture Tavares Almeida; when both the PJ Final report and (particularly) the prosecutors' archiving dispatch supersede it.
Most surprising.
If you read the Supreme Court decision you will realise that they paid quite a bit of attention to the archiving dispatch.
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: Mr Gray on March 28, 2017, 05:03:38 PM
Trouble is that on-topic posts (at least by me) tend to be removed. Post the Supreme Court decision there ought to be an inquest into how two judgements (superseding the first-instance judgment) both were passed by judges clearly stuck where most McCann-detractors have been stuck for the best part of the last 10 years, the (now dubbed 'interim' report) of convicted torture Tavares Almeida; when both the PJ Final report and (particularly) the prosecutors' archiving dispatch supersede it.
Most surprising.
One needs a "coroner" and witnesses for that. Who do you suggest and how do you suggest it is aproached?
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: Robittybob1 on March 28, 2017, 08:11:18 PM
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: stephen25000 on March 29, 2017, 06:11:41 PM
You just beat me to it. 8((()*/
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: ferryman on March 29, 2017, 06:15:44 PM
The Supreme-Court judges have interpreted the archiving dispatch through the prism of the report of convicted torturer Tavares Almeidas, rather than through the prism of the final PJ report, written by Inspector Carlos.
[ moderated ]
(That is, the Supreme Court judges).
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: stephen25000 on March 29, 2017, 06:20:57 PM
Here is part of the document translated.
' Our translation from page 9, onwards:
The applicants alluded to the “ostensible contradiction of grounds”, because in the acórdão it was considered that the archiving of the crime process was determined because it was not possible for the Public Ministry to obtain sufficient evidence of the practice of crimes by the applicants, while in the archiving dispatch what is said is that it occurred "because there existed no indicia that they have committed any crime, in terms of the provisions of Article 277 no. 1 of the CPP."
It will be stated, immediately, that the nullity invoked consists in there being contradiction between the grounds and the decision and not between the grounds.
In any case, it will always be said that the invoked contradiction doesn’t exist because, in our view, although the archiving dispatch alludes to the provisions of Article 277 nº1 (note that point 15 of the proven factual matter does not include the reference to that article), what is relevant is the content of the dispatch and not the citation of the legal provision.
Now, what stands out, manifestly, from that dispatch is that it was not issued because the Public Ministry had acquired the conviction that the applicants did not commit any crime, but because it was not possible for the Public Ministry to obtain sufficient indicia of the practice of crime by the applicants.
That is, the archiving will have been determined under Article 277 nº2 of the CPP, and not under nº1, of that article, although the latter is the article quoted in the dispatch.
Because of that it was understood, in the acórdão, that it would not seem acceptable to consider that the referred dispatch should be equated as evidence of inocentation [inocentação].
In fact, it is not said anywhere in that dispatch, that there was collected enough proof that no crime was committed or that the then defendants (now applicants) did not practice it in any way. (as per Art. 277, nº. 1).
The fact that the "Note for the Media” issued by the PGR on the same day the archiving dispatch was issued informs that the inquiry could be reopened "if new elements of proof appeared which would originate to serious, pertinent and consequential diligences", points out, precisely, to the conclusion that the dispatch was issued under the provisions of article 277, nº2 of the CPP.
In fact, if the inquiry had been closed under the provisions of nº2 of the same article, it could not be reopened (as per CPP, commented, 2016, 2nd edition, by Henriques Gaspar, Santos Cabral, Maia Costa, Oliveira Mendes, Pereeira Madeira e Henriques da Graça, pgs 929, 932 and 933).
In any event, it was only intended to counter the applicants' assertion that, with the alluded dispatch, had been made proof of the inocentation.
Thus, in one way or another, whatever the grounds for the archiving of the inquiry and the preclusive effects of the respective decision (the latter has no "judged case" strength, which reports exclusively to decisions of a jurisdictional nature, but that of a "decided case" or "almost judged case" ” – as per the quoted pgs 929 e 932), we would always understand that public criticism and public scrutiny of the functioning of justice, as stated in the acórdão, were not impeded.
That is, we would always conclude that the principle of presumption of innocence would not be relevant for the decision on the question that was to be decided.
It will therefore be concluded that the acórdão doesn’t suffer with the nullities of b) and c) of the nº1 of artº 616º of the CPC, applicable ex vi of the combined provisions of arts 666º, nº1 and 685º of the same Code.
By what was said, the argumentation of nullities of pgs 2793 and following is rejected, sentencing the applicants in the costs of the incident that caused them. '
This can be seen at the bottom of the comments section on this link
The Supreme-Court judges have interpreted the archiving dispatch through the prism of the report of convicted torturer Tavares Almeidas, rather than through the prism of the final PJ report, written by Inspector Carlos.
[ moderated ]
(That is, the Supreme Court judges).
The honourable Supreme Court judges interpreted the archiving dispatch through the prism of law of the land and not according to what the McCanns demanded!
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: G-Unit on March 29, 2017, 06:44:58 PM
The Supreme-Court judges have interpreted the archiving dispatch through the prism of the report of convicted torturer Tavares Almeidas, rather than through the prism of the final PJ report, written by Inspector Carlos.
[ moderated ]
(That is, the Supreme Court judges).
The Supreme Court judges aren't the i....s. The i....s are the ones who think they know better than the judges in my opinion.
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: Mr Gray on March 29, 2017, 07:12:56 PM
They may not be i.....s but they have given a very unfair and unjust decision as has been shown in the past by the ECHR
The McCanns believed they had been found innocent because the archiving dispatch quoted article 277 number 1 of the Penal Process Code, which states that the archival is determined when it is concluded that the defendants did not commit the crimes.
Article 277 number 1 can only be used, however, when it is concluded that there is no crime or when it is concluded that the crime was not practised by the arguido, but by another person.
These conditions were not fulfilled. In addition, the reasoning of the archive dispatch didn't support the use of this article. The Supreme Court agreed with the Appeal Court that the archival was actually due to 'insufficiency of evidence' and the Prosecutors should have quoted Article 277 number 2.
The McCanns believed they had been found innocent because the archiving dispatch quoted article 277 number 1 of the Penal Process Code, which states that the archival is determined when it is concluded that the defendants did not commit the crimes.
Article 277 number 1 can only be used, however, when it is concluded that there is no crime or when it is concluded that the crime was not practised by the arguido, but by another person.
These conditions were not fulfilled. In addition, the reasoning of the archive dispatch didn't support the use of this article. The Supreme Court agreed with the Appeal Court that the archival was actually due to 'insufficiency of evidence' and the Prosecutors should have quoted Article 277 number 2.
The McCanns believed they had been found innocent because the archiving dispatch quoted article 277 number 1 of the Penal Process Code, which states that the archival is determined when it is concluded that the defendants did not commit the crimes.
Article 277 number 1 can only be used, however, when it is concluded that there is no crime or when it is concluded that the crime was not practised by the arguido, but by another person.
These conditions were not fulfilled. In addition, the reasoning of the archive dispatch didn't support the use of this article. The Supreme Court agreed with the Appeal Court that the archival was actually due to 'insufficiency of evidence' and the Prosecutors should have quoted Article 277 number 2.
The McCanns were not 'found innocent' because they were never in need of being 'found innocent'.
Rather, they were unjustly accused, as the PJ final report (rather than the interim report) makes plain.
The McCanns were quite properly and legally made arguidos. The case was archived due to insufficient evidence. What you think is completely irrelevant.
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: misty on March 29, 2017, 09:26:04 PM
The McCanns were quite properly and legally made arguidos. The case was archived due to insufficient evidence. What you think is completely irrelevant.
They were also released from their arguido status so were as innocent as anyone else who had been investigated during the course of the investigation - something the SC had no right to pass judgement on yet chose to do so.
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: Alice Purjorick on March 29, 2017, 09:37:16 PM
They were also released from their arguido status so were as innocent as anyone else who had been investigated during the course of the investigation - something the SC had no right to pass judgement on yet chose to do so.
Did they pass judgement on it? Surely they merely clarified a point of law. Let's call it German Civil Law fro that's what it is, to avoid bias; unless the Luftwaffe bombed you local chippy of course.
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: Mr Gray on March 29, 2017, 09:48:37 PM
The McCanns believed they had been found innocent because the archiving dispatch quoted article 277 number 1 of the Penal Process Code, which states that the archival is determined when it is concluded that the defendants did not commit the crimes.
Article 277 number 1 can only be used, however, when it is concluded that there is no crime or when it is concluded that the crime was not practised by the arguido, but by another person.
These conditions were not fulfilled. In addition, the reasoning of the archive dispatch didn't support the use of this article. The Supreme Court agreed with the Appeal Court that the archival was actually due to 'insufficiency of evidence' and the Prosecutors should have quoted Article 277 number 2.
They were also released from their arguido status so were as innocent as anyone else who had been investigated during the course of the investigation - something the SC had no right to pass judgement on yet chose to do so.
They claimed in their appeal to the SC that the archiving dispatch cleared them. Did you expect the SC to ignore what they said? They had no option but to answer.
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: misty on March 29, 2017, 10:34:33 PM
Did they pass judgement on it? Surely they merely clarified a point of law. Let's call it German Civil Law fro that's what it is, to avoid bias; unless the Luftwaffe bombed you local chippy of course.
Please explain exactly what point of law the SC clarified and why they chose to decide what was meant in the archiving report rather than what the AG had actually written.
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: misty on March 29, 2017, 10:41:21 PM
They claimed in their appeal to the SC that the archiving dispatch cleared them. Did you expect the SC to ignore what they said? They had no option but to answer.
So although the Appeal Court said that the presumption of innocence was not relevant in a civil court, the McCanns status was not equal to Amaral's because they had not been proven to be innocent in a criminal case which had never been tested? Where is the issue of Civil Law addressed?
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: Alice Purjorick on March 29, 2017, 11:08:20 PM
Please explain exactly what point of law the SC clarified and why they chose to decide what was meant in the archiving report rather than what the AG had actually written.
1 I am not clever enough to be able to answer that. My expertise lies in a different branch of law. I am however clever enough to know that courts at that level mostly deal in points of law not fact. The assertions of many on here notwithstanding. 2 Because it is within their remit and they can ?
You have three options: a. The case of the plaintiffs was weak and was therefore kicked out. b. The Germanic system of law is crap. c. The Portuguese administration the Germanic system is incompetent/corrupt => the SC were wrong and the punters on here were right.
Whatever the highest court in Portugal has ruled: end of the line.
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: misty on March 29, 2017, 11:18:35 PM
1 I am not clever enough to be able to answer that. My expertise lies in a different branch of law. I am however clever enough to know that courts at that level mostly deal in points of law not fact. The assertions of many on here notwithstanding. 2 Because it is within their remit and they can ?
You have three options: a. The case of the plaintiffs was weak and was therefore kicked out. b. The Germanic system of law is crap. c. The Portuguese administration the Germanic system is incompetent/corrupt => the SC were wrong and the punters on here were right.
Whatever the highest court in Portugal has ruled: end of the line.
Yes, I know that. Big raspberries to anyone who dares to sue one of the judiciary's own.
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: Alfie on March 29, 2017, 11:24:52 PM
Yes, I know that. Big raspberries to anyone who dares to sue one of the judiciary's own.
Funnily enough I was just reading an interview with Amaral from 2008 in which he is asked if he wants the McCanns to sue him and he answers most bullishly "yes!" so he must have had a shrewd hunch that the law would be on his side even back then.
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: misty on March 29, 2017, 11:39:12 PM
Funnily enough I was just reading an interview with Amaral from 2008 in which he is asked if he wants the McCanns to sue him and he answers most bullishly "yes!" so he must have had a shrewd hunch that the law would be on his side even back then.
He'd already been on the losing end of 2 claims for defamation he'd made so he knew full well how the law worked. It's the part about breaching his reserve duty about which I find the SC's ruling so difficult to understand.
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: Robittybob1 on March 30, 2017, 12:19:57 AM
The duty of reserve was clearly breached.
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: barrier on March 30, 2017, 07:22:03 AM
So although the Appeal Court said that the presumption of innocence was not relevant in a civil court, the McCanns status was not equal to Amaral's because they had not been proven to be innocent in a criminal case which had never been tested? Where is the issue of Civil Law addressed?
Did they say 'the McCanns status was not equal to Amaral's because they had not been proven to be innocent in a criminal case'?
What issue of Civil Law?
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: ferryman on March 30, 2017, 08:44:27 AM
The McCanns believed they had been found innocent because the archiving dispatch quoted article 277 number 1 of the Penal Process Code, which states that the archival is determined when it is concluded that the defendants did not commit the crimes.
Article 277 number 1 can only be used, however, when it is concluded that there is no crime or when it is concluded that the crime was not practised by the arguido, but by another person.
These conditions were not fulfilled. In addition, the reasoning of the archive dispatch didn't support the use of this article. The Supreme Court agreed with the Appeal Court that the archival was actually due to 'insufficiency of evidence' and the Prosecutors should have quoted Article 277 number 2.
Please explain exactly what point of law the SC clarified and why they chose to decide what was meant in the archiving report rather than what the AG had actually written.
It all rested on CPP Article 277. The Prosecutors quoted Article 277 number 1. According to the SC they should have used Article 277 number 2.
PS The Attorney General wrote nothing, it was the Public Prosecutors who wrote the archiving dispatch. That myth just goes on and on, doesn't it?
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: Robittybob1 on March 30, 2017, 11:26:47 AM
I wonder if this could effect the Mccanns. %£&)**# &%&£(+
oh dear stephen ...not very on the ball are you......the European repeal bill is to remove european law from the UKstatutes....nothing to do with the ECHR
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: stephen25000 on March 30, 2017, 04:21:44 PM
Different court, I think. ECHR covers more than EU members. Of course, we may be withdrawing from that as well as ECJ
It won't surprise me Jassi.
Likewise the Europeans will not be kindly disposed to a couple with their record with their record in court, and the mere presumption that the McCann's can take the State of Portugal to Court is beyond ridicule.
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: Mr Gray on March 30, 2017, 04:30:07 PM
Likewise the Europeans will not be kindly disposed to a couple with their record with their record in court, and the mere presumption that the McCann's can take the State of Portugal to Court is beyond ridicule.
of course the mcccanns can take portugal to the ECHR....thats how it works
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: stephen25000 on March 30, 2017, 04:31:19 PM
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: ShiningInLuz on March 30, 2017, 04:59:25 PM
The relevance is what happens in the interim.
The disappearance happened in Portugal.
If the next stage is McCanns v Portugal is lodged, it is hardly going to increase their influence with those best placed to find what happened to Madeleine.
If McCanns v Portugal is accepted for consideration, that too will impact negatively with those best placed to help.
It matters not a jot whether they eventually win or lose. It is simply another PR disaster, one they would be wise to avoid.
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: Mr Gray on March 30, 2017, 05:01:32 PM
If the next stage is McCanns v Portugal is lodged, it is hardly going to increase their influence with those best placed to find what happened to Madeleine.
If McCanns v Portugal is accepted for consideration, that too will impact negatively with those best placed to help.
It matters not a jot whether they eventually win or lose. It is simply another PR disaster, one they would be wise to avoid.
so what have these best placed been doing for the last ten years....absolutely nothing?.....they simply couldnt manage without them....could they
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: ShiningInLuz on March 30, 2017, 05:44:00 PM
so what have these best placed been doing for the last ten years....absolutely nothing?.....they simply couldnt manage without them....could they
That's a completely inaccurate description of what happened, but portray it that way if you choose.
The McCanns were not vilified in the early months by the people of Luz, were they? I have no idea how many times or when they appeared on Portuguese TV, but it was hardly hearts and minds stuff, was it?
You have claimed to be a practitioner of PR, but I am not seeing anything to assure me that you understand the basics.
The McCanns chose to keep Luz and Portugal at arms length. It was a glaring mistake.
The McCanns may decide to go for McCanns v Portugal That would be another glaring mistake, even if they eventually 'won' a pyrrhic victory. It wouldn't help Madeleine and would simply increase discontent against the McCanns.
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: Brietta on March 30, 2017, 05:48:03 PM
If the next stage is McCanns v Portugal is lodged, it is hardly going to increase their influence with those best placed to find what happened to Madeleine.
If McCanns v Portugal is accepted for consideration, that too will impact negatively with those best placed to help.
It matters not a jot whether they eventually win or lose. It is simply another PR disaster, one they would be wise to avoid.
The biggest 'PR disaster' possible was created within the pages of Goncalo Amaral's book excusing his side part in Madeleine's case ... there is absolutely nothing that Madeleine's parents could ever do that would surpass that outrage.
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: Brietta on March 30, 2017, 05:54:45 PM
That's a completely inaccurate description of what happened, but portray it that way if you choose.
The McCanns were not vilified in the early months by the people of Luz, were they? I have no idea how many times or when they appeared on Portuguese TV, but it was hardly hearts and minds stuff, was it?
You have claimed to be a practitioner of PR, but I am not seeing anything to assure me that you understand the basics.
The McCanns chose to keep Luz and Portugal at arms length. It was a glaring mistake.
The McCanns may decide to go for McCanns v Portugal That would be another glaring mistake, even if they eventually 'won' a pyrrhic victory. It wouldn't help Madeleine and would simply increase discontent against the McCanns.
For the first months the McCanns were 'gagged' by official secrecy during a period when the Portuguese press was rife with stories from 'a source close to the investigation' which was setting the agenda against them and their friends.
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: ShiningInLuz on March 30, 2017, 06:01:10 PM
The biggest 'PR disaster' possible was created within the pages of Goncalo Amaral's book excusing his side part in Madeleine's case ... there is absolutely nothing that Madeleine's parents could ever do that would surpass that outrage.
It became a PR disaster when the McCanns chose not to demolish Amaral's book based on the PJ Files.
Anyone reading the archiving report can demolish Amaral's theory, using Portuguese police work to do so. Guess what? The McCanns did not select that route. Another disastrous decision.
You may not be aware of the fact that most of those 'following' the case do not know the archival report cleared the McCanns of neglect. The prevailing view is that they should have been prosecuted, but it is not based on a reading of the archiving report.
A PR disaster of monumental proportions. Gerald Ratner could not have matched this.
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: G-Unit on March 30, 2017, 06:28:14 PM
That's a completely inaccurate description of what happened, but portray it that way if you choose.
The McCanns were not vilified in the early months by the people of Luz, were they? I have no idea how many times or when they appeared on Portuguese TV, but it was hardly hearts and minds stuff, was it?
You have claimed to be a practitioner of PR, but I am not seeing anything to assure me that you understand the basics.
The McCanns chose to keep Luz and Portugal at arms length. It was a glaring mistake.
The McCanns may decide to go for McCanns v Portugal That would be another glaring mistake, even if they eventually 'won' a pyrrhic victory. It wouldn't help Madeleine and would simply increase discontent against the McCanns.
I have never worked out why the group thought that telling Sky and the BBC was the sensible thing to do. Madeleine disappeared in Portugal, they had Portuguese speakers available, why not approach the Portuguese media? An appeal in the Portuguese media was far more likely to unearth useful witnesses than an appeal in the UK. They weren't just looking in the wrong place, they were looking in the wrong country.
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: ferryman on March 30, 2017, 06:32:21 PM
I have never worked out why the group thought that telling Sky and the BBC was the sensible thing to do. Madeleine disappeared in Portugal, they had Portuguese speakers available, why not approach the Portuguese media? An appeal in the Portuguese media was far more likely to unearth useful witnesses than an appeal in the UK. They weren't just looking in the wrong place, they were looking in the wrong country.
By Portuguese secrecy laws, that would have been an eminently sensible thing to do.
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: Alfie on March 30, 2017, 06:37:23 PM
It became a PR disaster when the McCanns chose not to demolish Amaral's book based on the PJ Files.
Anyone reading the archiving report can demolish Amaral's theory, using Portuguese police work to do so. Guess what? The McCanns did not select that route. Another disastrous decision.
You may not be aware of the fact that most of those 'following' the case do not know the archival report cleared the McCanns of neglect. The prevailing view is that they should have been prosecuted, but it is not based on a reading of the archiving report.
A PR disaster of monumental proportions. Gerald Ratner could not have matched this.
I thought the court case was never about challenging the specific contents of Amaral's book but only the damage it did to the McCanns' reputation...? &%+((£
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: jassi on March 30, 2017, 06:45:58 PM
All that matters is the end result.
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: stephen25000 on March 30, 2017, 06:47:27 PM
The Portuguese legal action is over.
The Mccanns need to move on, and do what they have claimed to have been doing.
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: Robittybob1 on March 30, 2017, 06:55:47 PM
I thought the court case was never about challenging the specific contents of Amaral's book but only the damage it did to the McCanns' reputation...? &%+((£
Going the court route was a very poor decision.
And I thought the McCanns have claimed it was to prevent Amaral's book/TV deal from hindering the search for Madeleine?
Alfie, the McCanns had 100% of what they needed to ridicule Amaral's theory. For some reason they chose not to. Did that help or hinder the search for Madeleine?
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: Eleanor on March 30, 2017, 07:16:54 PM
Madeleine's name is still out there and very much in the eye of The Media. I don't much care how The McCanns have done this.
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: stephen25000 on March 30, 2017, 07:21:07 PM
And I thought the McCanns have claimed it was to prevent Amaral's book/TV deal from hindering the search for Madeleine?
Alfie, the McCanns had 100% of what they needed to ridicule Amaral's theory. For some reason they chose not to. Did that help or hinder the search for Madeleine?
Considering that the highly respected PT Judiciary ruled that amaral's book did not harm the search for Madeleine I don't see what difference it would have made if the McCanns had held it up to ridicule in court. If the book is ridiculous then the PT judges surely wouldn't need help in coming to this conclusion?
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: ShiningInLuz on March 30, 2017, 10:36:54 PM
Considering that the highly respected PT Judiciary ruled that amaral's book did not harm the search for Madeleine I don't see what difference it would have made if the McCanns had held it up to ridicule in court. If the book is ridiculous then the PT judges surely wouldn't need help in coming to this conclusion?
Once more around the mulberry bush.
The civil trial was not about the accuracy of the criminal system. It was about whether McCann propaganda could be broadcast at will, while Amaral was prevented from expressing his right to freedom of speech.
What the civil case tells us about the criminal case is, AFAIK, nothing.
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: Alfie on March 30, 2017, 10:51:34 PM
The civil trial was not about the accuracy of the criminal system. It was about whether McCann propaganda could be broadcast at will, while Amaral was prevented from expressing his right to freedom of speech.
What the civil case tells us about the criminal case is, AFAIK, nothing.
Could you point me to the judges references to McCann propaganda and whether it could be broadcast at will and then could you explain where you think think the McCanns ridiculing Amaral's theory fits in with what you've just written, ta.
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: ShiningInLuz on March 30, 2017, 11:20:09 PM
Could you point me to the judges references to McCann propaganda and whether it could be broadcast at will and then could you explain where you think think the McCanns ridiculing Amaral's theory fits in with what you've just written, ta.
Read the court decisions.
Ta.
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: Alfie on March 30, 2017, 11:26:21 PM
The civil trial was not about the accuracy of the criminal system. It was about whether McCann propaganda could be broadcast at will, while Amaral was prevented from expressing his right to freedom of speech.
What the civil case tells us about the criminal case is, AFAIK, nothing.
Did the McCann propaganda harm Amaral or just present an alternative hypothesis? I'm sure Amaral presented his hypothesis as being the truth. In other words it is no longer an hypothesis but presented as fact, but it could not be proven as a fact, so in other words it was libellous for it damaged the good name of the McCanns. Had it been made clear it was just an alternative hypothesis, the McCanns would have had nothing to complain about.
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: Mr Gray on March 31, 2017, 07:29:53 AM
It's very very easy to be wise after the event and that is exactly what you are doing. The court action was exactly the right route to take at the time as the first judgement shows I don't think anyone could have predicted such an unjust final result The McCanns have to decide where they go from here but they will take their time A new book answering all their critics would raise an absolute fortune and that's what I would like to see But it's not my decision
I don't think the McCanns can allow this torrent of abuse to continue unanswered
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: G-Unit on March 31, 2017, 08:26:49 AM
It's very very easy to be wise after the event and that is exactly what you are doing. The court action was exactly the right route to take at the time as the first judgement shows I don't think anyone could have predicted such an unjust final result The McCanns have to decide where they go from here but they will take their time A new book answering all their critics would raise an absolute fortune and that's what I would like to see But it's not my decision
I don't think the McCanns can allow this torrent of abuse to continue unanswered
The first judgement was legally incorrect, otherwise it would not have been overturned. After Amaral's successful appeal Duarte made this extraordinary statement;
This decision was an appreciation of the law and not the facts. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/19/madeleine-mccann-portuguese-detective-wins-appeal-against-order/
I'm not sure what she expected the Appeal Court judges to examine, if not the legal basis on which the first instance judge reached her decision.
I would like to see the McCanns give answers to their critics but I don't expect they will.
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: Mr Gray on March 31, 2017, 08:36:08 AM
The first judgement was legally incorrect, otherwise it would not have been overturned. After Amaral's successful appeal Duarte made this extraordinary statement;
This decision was an appreciation of the law and not the facts. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/19/madeleine-mccann-portuguese-detective-wins-appeal-against-order/
I'm not sure what she expected the Appeal Court judges to examine, if not the legal basis on which the first instance judge reached her decision.
I would like to see the McCanns give answers to their critics but I don't expect they will.
which should have the greater value...the mccanns reputation or amarals right to free speech
that is no point of law an opinion...a judgement
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: Brietta on March 31, 2017, 08:46:16 AM
It's very very easy to be wise after the event and that is exactly what you are doing. The court action was exactly the right route to take at the time as the first judgement shows I don't think anyone could have predicted such an unjust final result The McCanns have to decide where they go from here but they will take their time A new book answering all their critics would raise an absolute fortune and that's what I would like to see But it's not my decision
I don't think the McCanns can allow this torrent of abuse to continue unanswered
I like the idea of a new book, Davel. Or even a series of books, they certainly must have enough material for that.
The internet is polluted with propaganda against Madeleine and her family which I don't think could ever be sanitised off it ... and the cesspits of British propaganda pale into insignificance against the real masters of the practice pulling the strings from Portugal.
I think the truth will combat that in some measure. I think they have been constrained from being proactive by consideration of the effect that might have had on their ten year journey to getting help for Madeleine.
I do not believe there is another family in the world who would not have buckled under what has been thrown at them over the years and I don't think there is another family who could have accomplished what they did in succeeding in having Madeleine's case reopened. Despite lip service to the contrary, the actions of those in resisting the reopening of Madeleine's case actually does their speaking for them and reveals them in their true colours.
Post judgement perhaps the constraints on Madeleine McCann's parents will have lessened to the extent of allowing them to take her case to the ECHR as a precursor to other action.
As you say, entirely their decision.
I agree also the torrent of abuse has to stop ... it demeans those perpetrating it and it demeans those allowing it to continue unabated ... from internet providers to law enforcement.
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: stephen25000 on March 31, 2017, 09:01:48 AM
which should have the greater value...the mccanns reputation or amarals right to free speech
that is no point of law an opinion...a judgement
Neither dominates legally, the rights are equally important. The first instance judge developed an opinion, but it had to be based on the law. It was that legal basis that the Appeal judges ruled on, and they decided it didn't support her opinion, so her judgement was overturned.
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: Alfie on March 31, 2017, 10:00:23 AM
Neither dominates legally, the rights are equally important. The first instance judge developed an opinion, but it had to be based on the law. It was that legal basis that the Appeal judges ruled on, and they decided it didn't support her opinion, so her judgement was overturned.
The judgement decreed that Amaral's right to free speech was more important than the McCanns' right to a good name, I'm fairly certain words to that effect were written in the judgement (one of them, I lose track which tbh).
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: ferryman on March 31, 2017, 10:24:25 AM
The judgement decreed that Amaral's right to free speech was more important than the McCanns' right to a good name, I'm fairly certain words to that effect were written in the judgement (one of them, I lose track which tbh).
The first-instance judge viewed the archiving dispatch through the prism of Inspector Carlos' (excellent!) final PJ report.
The two appeal-court judges judged the archiving dispatch through the prism of Almeida's (dire) interim report.
Simple as that.
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: Mr Gray on March 31, 2017, 10:31:09 AM
Neither dominates legally, the rights are equally important. The first instance judge developed an opinion, but it had to be based on the law. It was that legal basis that the Appeal judges ruled on, and they decided it didn't support her opinion, so her judgement was overturned.
So they didn't support her opinion And replaced it with their opinion
That's all it is
If both free speech and reputation are important how do the judges decide which should prevail It's their opinion
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: stephen25000 on March 31, 2017, 10:34:47 AM
So they didn't support her opinion And replaced it with their opinion
That's all it is
If both free speech and reputation are important how do the judges decide which should prevail It's their opinion
Not quite. The appeal judges' task was not to decide between those two rights. Their task was to examine the legal basis of the first judge's ruling. They decided the law did not support her judgement so they overturned it. Duarte told us so herself;
This decision was an appreciation of the law and not the facts. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/19/madeleine-mccann-portuguese-detective-wins-appeal-against-order/
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: Mr Gray on March 31, 2017, 11:57:25 AM
Not quite. The appeal judges' task was not to decide between those two rights. Their task was to examine the legal basis of the first judge's ruling. They decided the law did not support her judgement so they overturned it. Duarte told us so herself;
This decision was an appreciation of the law and not the facts. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/19/madeleine-mccann-portuguese-detective-wins-appeal-against-order/
So their judgement.... that's opinion..was that her judgement was wrong
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: G-Unit on March 31, 2017, 01:46:38 PM
So their judgement.... that's opinion..was that her judgement was wrong
Their superior knowledge of the law upon which she erroneously based her judgement meant they had to overturn her ruling. If she had based it on different legal points her ruling may have been upheld.
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: Mr Gray on March 31, 2017, 01:50:34 PM
Their superior knowledge of the law upon which she erroneously based her judgement meant they had to overturn her ruling. If she had based it on different legal points her ruling may have been upheld.
It seems the ECHR have overturned another of the SCs judgements in a defamation case so that would indicate the SC can make a mistake in their judgement
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: stephen25000 on March 31, 2017, 01:52:18 PM
It seems the ECHR have overturned another of the SCs judgements in a defamation case so that would indicate the SC can make a mistake in their judgement
Keep dreaming.
For someone who protests not to care, you seem very concerned for the Mccann's.
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: Alice Purjorick on March 31, 2017, 03:03:28 PM
It seems the ECHR have overturned another of the SCs judgements in a defamation case so that would indicate the SC can make a mistake in their judgement
Considering the ECHR have no powers to overturn judgements made by the judiciaries of member states, that was very clever of them.
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: stephen25000 on March 31, 2017, 03:05:07 PM
It seems the ECHR have overturned another of the SCs judgements in a defamation case so that would indicate the SC can make a mistake in their judgement
Cite please.
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: jassi on March 31, 2017, 03:35:31 PM
I don't think the ECHR can actually overturn a judgement, merely award financial compensation against a country if it deems a person's human rights have been violated.
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: stephen25000 on March 31, 2017, 03:46:42 PM
The court judgements are crystal clear.
Court action in Portugal has finished.
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: Mr Gray on March 31, 2017, 04:05:05 PM
interesting case where a jornalist was found guilty of defaming a prtuguese judge.....surprisingly the SC came down against free speech in this case and took the judges side....the ECHR disagreed and ordered the state of portugal to pay compensation to the journalist
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: Eleanor on March 31, 2017, 04:06:05 PM
interesting case where a jornalist was found guilty of defaming a prtuguese judge.....surprisingly the SC came down against free speech in this case and took the judges side....the ECHR disagreed and ordered the state of portugal to pay compensation to the journalist
So they didn't overturn the verdict then.
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: Mr Gray on March 31, 2017, 04:11:33 PM
Please note: "The Court is not empowered to overrule national decisions or annul national laws."
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: Angelo222 on March 31, 2017, 07:55:27 PM
In my view the SC has sent out a very clear message to both the PJ and SY that nobody is beyond suspicion in this case. Will they take the hint though??
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: Mr Gray on March 31, 2017, 08:13:40 PM
In my view the SC has sent out a very clear message to both the PJ and SY that nobody is beyond suspicion in this case. Will they take the hint though??
read the judgement...the SC say they have not ruled on guilt.......the mccanns are not under suspicion and the SC have no kowledge of the present investigation
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: Robittybob1 on March 31, 2017, 08:30:15 PM
read the judgement...the SC say they have not ruled on guilt.......the mccanns are not under suspicion and the SC have no kowledge of the present investigation
True on the surface, but hidden underneath, is the veil of suspicion, and the McCanns were not found to be innocent but just that there was insufficient evidence to prosecute them (in fact there was no evidence at all, but it sounds so much more sinister if that is described as "insufficient").
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: ferryman on April 02, 2017, 10:07:28 AM
True on the surface, but hidden underneath, is the veil of suspicion, and the McCanns were not found to be innocent but just that there was insufficient evidence to prosecute them (in fact there was no evidence at all, but it sounds so much more sinister if that is described as "insufficient").
Especially in the light of all this:
Quote
It seems evident to us and because the files contain enough elements for such, that the crime of exposure or abandonment according to article 138 of the Penal Code can be eliminated from that range:
"1 - Whoever places another person's life in danger, a) By exposing her in a location where she is subject to a situation from which she, on her own, cannot defend herself against; or b) Abandoning her without defence, whenever the agent had the duty to guard her, to watch over her or to assist her;"
This legal type of crime is only fulfilled with intent, and this intent has to cover the creation of danger to the victim's life, as well as the absence of a capacity to defend herself, on the victim's behalf. In the case of the files and facing the elements that were collected it is evident that none of the arguidos Gerald or Kate acted with intent. The parents could not foresee that in the resort that they chose to spend a brief holiday, they could place the life of any of their children in danger, nor was that demanded from them: it was located in a peaceful area, where most of the residents are foreign citizens of the same nationality and without any known history of this type of criminality.
The parents didn't even represent the realisation of the fact, they trusted that everything would go well, as it had gone on the previous evenings, thus not equating, nor was it demanded from them, the possibility of the occurrence of an abduction of any of the children that were in their respective apartments.
Reinforcing what was said is also the fact that despite leaving their daughter alone with her siblings in the apartment during more or less dilated moments, it is certain that in any case they checked on them. Without any pretension or compensatory effect, we must also recognise that the parents already expiate a heavy penalty - the disappearance of Madeleine - due to their lack of caution in the surveillance and protection of their children.
Concerning the other indicated crimes, they are no more than that and despite our perception that, due to its high degree of probability, the occurrence of a homicide cannot be discarded, such cannot be more than a mere supposition, due to the lack of sustaining elements in the files.
The non involvement of the arguidos parents of Madeleine in any penally relevant action seems to result from the objective circumstances of them not being inside the apartment when she disappeared, from the normal behaviour that they adopted until said disappearance and afterwards, as can be amply concluded from the witness statements, from the telephone communications analysis and also from the forensics' conclusions, namely the Reports from the FSS and from the National Institute for Legal Medicine.
How much clearer could, or should, the prosecutors have had to make it that they consider, not so much that the McCanns were 'cleared'; more that they had/have no case to answer, in terms of anything concerning Madeleine's disappearance.
That the appeal court judges should have interpreted the archiving dispatch through the prism of the report of convicted torturer (from another case) Tavares Almeidas raises an eye brow.
The much more relevant PJ report was the one written by Joao Carlos.
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: stephen25000 on April 02, 2017, 01:44:23 PM
How much clearer could, or should, the prosecutors have had to make it that they consider, not so much that the McCanns were 'cleared'; more that they had/have no case to answer, in terms of anything concerning Madeleine's disappearance.
That the appeal court judges should have interpreted the archiving dispatch through the prism of the report of convicted torturer (from another case) Tavares Almeidas raises an eye brow.
The much more relevant PJ report was the one written by Joao Carlos.
Case over ferryman.
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: Robittybob1 on April 02, 2017, 08:47:35 PM
Quite so. As it doesn't personally affect you I'm sure you'll learn to live with it in time.
Well it does personally affect me. I want to solve this case and at the moment I have a theory that clashes with Amaral's one, so any perception change that makes it look that he is right, makes my theory somewhat harder to sell.
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: G-Unit on April 03, 2017, 06:04:19 AM
Well it does personally affect me. I want to solve this case and at the moment I have a theory that clashes with Amaral's one, so any perception change that makes it look that he is right, makes my theory somewhat harder to sell.
No-one has judged Amaral's theory 'right'. They have ruled that he has as much right to tell people about his theory as the McCanns have to spread theirs.
No-one has mentioned Robert Murat in all this. If the archiving dispatch didn't clear the McCanns of suspicion, what is his position I wonder?
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: Robittybob1 on April 03, 2017, 06:38:34 AM
No-one has judged Amaral's theory 'right'. They have ruled that he has as much right to tell people about his theory as the McCanns have to spread theirs.
No-one has mentioned Robert Murat in all this. If the archiving dispatch didn't clear the McCanns of suspicion, what is his position I wonder?
I think it would be the same as for the McCanns. You or anyone could write a book suggesting that R.... M....abducted and murdered Madeleine as long as it was presented as a thesis.
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: G-Unit on April 03, 2017, 07:49:23 AM
I think it would be the same as for the McCanns. You or anyone could write a book suggesting that R.... M..... abducted and murdered Madeleine as long as it was presented as a thesis.
The SC judges highlighted the passages in the Legal Summary where unanswered questions remained concerning the parents. There were no such questions hanging over him, so his position is rather different. I think writing about him would be quite a different matter because he has never sought publicity or suggested a theory of his own. His right to privacy is therefore much stronger.
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: stephen25000 on April 03, 2017, 07:55:16 AM
Well it does personally affect me. I want to solve this case and at the moment I have a theory that clashes with Amaral's one, so any perception change that makes it look that he is right, makes my theory somewhat harder to sell.
What experience do you have with Police Work Rob ?
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: Robittybob1 on April 03, 2017, 09:17:28 AM
What experience do you have with Police Work Rob ?
Not much, but in the case I was describing I had the police file on the case.
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: ferryman on April 03, 2017, 01:27:48 PM
If the second (joint!) Anglo/Portuguese probe solves the case and brings to book culprits not remotely Kate, Gerry or any of their friends, that would, of course, be welcome.
It also, at least ought, to leave certain Supreme-Court judges at least red-faced and embarrassed.
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: Brietta on April 03, 2017, 02:29:27 PM
The SC judges highlighted the passages in the Legal Summary where unanswered questions remained concerning the parents. There were no such questions hanging over him, so his position is rather different. I think writing about him would be quite a different matter because he has never sought publicity or suggested a theory of his own. His right to privacy is therefore much stronger.
Were these judges making a ruling on a defamation appeal or investigating, naming and deciding on the guilt or innocence of every arguido not brought to trial because there was no evidence to do so, in every unsolved police case in Portugal?
In effect if precedent is admissible in Portuguese courts their ruling has effectively besmirched the character of all arguidos ... including R.... M....
Their ruling also highlights that those whose arguido status has been converted to a criminal conviction through the court and appeal process ... appear to have a higher standing than those without a blemish on their name as far as appeal court judges are concerned.
It will indeed be interesting to see where it goes from there.
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: Alfie on April 03, 2017, 02:44:33 PM
The SC judges highlighted the passages in the Legal Summary where unanswered questions remained concerning the parents. There were no such questions hanging over him, so his position is rather different. I think writing about him would be quite a different matter because he has never sought publicity or suggested a theory of his own. His right to privacy is therefore much stronger.
Define "never sought publicity" please. As far as I can recall M.... has given interviews both for print media and TV, he has also appeared at some live event to speak in public, details of which elude me at present.
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: ferryman on April 03, 2017, 03:51:56 PM
Were these judges making a ruling on a defamation appeal or investigating, naming and deciding on the guilt or innocence of every arguido not brought to trial because there was no evidence to do so, in every unsolved police case in Portugal?
In effect if precedent is admissible in Portuguese courts their ruling has effectively besmirched the character of all arguidos ... including R.... M.....
Their ruling also highlights that those whose arguido status has been converted to a criminal conviction through the court and appeal process ... appear to have a higher standing than those without a blemish on their name as far as appeal court judges are concerned.
It will indeed be interesting to see where it goes from there.
Hadn't thought of that. But yes. Amaral had his arguido status (in separate proceedings) converted to a criminal conviction.
Kate and Gerry had their arguido status revoked because there was no evidence of culpability (with their arguido status rushed in just before a change in Portuguese law that would have required the Portuguese authorities to justify their decision).
And the chap with the criminal conviction (from separate proceedings) is found, in the civil matter, to be allowed 'free speech' (to besmirch the innocent couple, who merely want their daughter back).
Most rum.
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: stephen25000 on April 03, 2017, 04:07:41 PM
Hadn't thought of that. But yes. Amaral had his arguido status (in separate proceedings) converted to a criminal conviction.
Kate and Gerry had their arguido status revoked because there was no evidence of culpability (with their arguido status rushed in just before a change in Portuguese law that would have required the Portuguese authorities to justify their decision).
And the chap with the criminal conviction (from separate proceedings) is found, in the civil matter, to be allowed 'free speech' (to besmirch the innocent couple, who merely want their daughter back).
Most rum.
A brief reminder ferryman. It isn't known yet, if it ever is, who or whom is responsible for Madeleine's disappearance.
[ removed unnecessary comment ]
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: ferryman on April 03, 2017, 04:11:17 PM
A brief reminder ferryman. It isn't known yet, if it ever is, who or whom is responsible for Madeleine's disappearance.
[ removed unnecessary comment ]
Why has Amaral scrapped plans for a new book?
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: ferryman on April 03, 2017, 05:10:03 PM
In respect of the McCanns, Inspector Carlos surmised that, at the time of Kate's alert, Gerry was at the table.
If Inspector Carlos was wrong about that, it is remarkable that no one commented on his absence; still more remarkable that there is no commentary in the files on efforts to find Gerry to tell him what had happened, including where he was when found and who found him.
My money is on Inspector Carlos being bang-on right ....
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: Miss Taken Identity on April 03, 2017, 10:29:39 PM
Well just a reminder that the SC have not changed their minds still. I mean can you believe that? The UK press and the McCann familiy and lawyers, can't get a sympathetic court to call them innocent of anything. Tsk Me thnks a full stop should be right bout here . for this thread. case closed- nuff said- good night. ?>)()<
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: Alice Purjorick on April 03, 2017, 11:06:13 PM
Well just a reminder that the SC have not changed their minds still. I mean can you believe that? The UK press and the McCann familiy and lawyers, can't get a sympathetic court to call them innocent of anything. Tsk Me thnks a full stop should be right bout here . for this thread. case closed- nuff said- good night. ?>)()<
Agreed 8((()*/
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: Robittybob1 on April 05, 2017, 12:10:33 PM
Not by their words ("said") but by their standard (effect).
I have no idea what "standard (effect) means. The only people who ever claimed they were cleared was the McCanns. When the SC referred to insufficient evidence they were talking about the reason for archiving the case.
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: Robittybob1 on April 05, 2017, 12:44:54 PM
How do you work out who is a suspect if the crime is unknown?
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: John on April 05, 2017, 12:49:51 PM
With all due respect that was said some time a go by an ex DCI,what the present line of inquiry is no one knows.
The last report ....oct 15 .....does not consider the mccanns as suspects
your argumnet is someahat falwed in as much that if OG said last week they were not suspects then you could claim taht they may now bwe suspectcs. apart from that statement we have seen no indication the mccanns are considered suspects
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: Alfie on April 05, 2017, 06:23:40 PM
With all due respect that was said some time a go by an ex DCI,what the present line of inquiry is no one knows.
So all the newspaper reports worldwide for the last 3 years are all complete bollocks are they?
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 05, 2017, 06:37:30 PM
october 15.. Assistant Commissioner Mark Rowley, from the MPS said: "The Met investigation has been painstaking and thorough and has for the first time brought together in one place what was disparate information across the world.
"This work has enabled us to better understand events in Praia da Luz the night Madeleine McCann went missing and ensure every possible measure is being taken to find out what happened to her.
"We still have very definite lines to pursue which is why we are keeping a dedicated team of officers working on the case. We have given this assurance to Madeleine's parents, Kate and Gerry McCann.
"The Portuguese police remain the lead investigators and our team will continue to support their inquiry. They have extended every courtesy to Operation Grange and we maintain a close working relationship. I know they remain fully committed to investigating Madeleine's disappearance with support from the Metropolitan Police.
"The Met was asked to take on this exceptional case as one of national interest. We were happy to bring our expertise to bear only on the basis that it would not detract from the policing of London; and the Home Office have additionally funded the investigation above normal grants to the Met. That will continue at the reduced level.
"I have overseen this investigation since 2012 and am very grateful for the enormous assistance of the media and public so far which, through the appeals, have generated new information and lines of Inquiry. "
Our decision and rationale has been discussed with Mr and Mrs McCann.
discussions with k and G.....doesnt sound like suspects to me
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: Alfie on April 05, 2017, 06:43:59 PM
october 15.. Assistant Commissioner Mark Rowley, from the MPS said: "The Met investigation has been painstaking and thorough and has for the first time brought together in one place what was disparate information across the world.
"This work has enabled us to better understand events in Praia da Luz the night Madeleine McCann went missing and ensure every possible measure is being taken to find out what happened to her.
"We still have very definite lines to pursue which is why we are keeping a dedicated team of officers working on the case. We have given this assurance to Madeleine's parents, Kate and Gerry McCann.
"The Portuguese police remain the lead investigators and our team will continue to support their inquiry. They have extended every courtesy to Operation Grange and we maintain a close working relationship. I know they remain fully committed to investigating Madeleine's disappearance with support from the Metropolitan Police.
"The Met was asked to take on this exceptional case as one of national interest. We were happy to bring our expertise to bear only on the basis that it would not detract from the policing of London; and the Home Office have additionally funded the investigation above normal grants to the Met. That will continue at the reduced level.
"I have overseen this investigation since 2012 and am very grateful for the enormous assistance of the media and public so far which, through the appeals, have generated new information and lines of Inquiry. "
Our decision and rationale has been discussed with Mr and Mrs McCann.
discussions with k and G.....doesnt sound like suspects to me
Not only that, but we have been told that the only interviews that the McCanns will give to tie in with Madeleine's disappearance will be with the co-operation and backing of the Met. Again, not the sort of thing you'd expect if they were the police's top suspects....
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: barrier on April 05, 2017, 06:58:30 PM
october 15.. Assistant Commissioner Mark Rowley, from the MPS said: "The Met investigation has been painstaking and thorough and has for the first time brought together in one place what was disparate information across the world.
"This work has enabled us to better understand events in Praia da Luz the night Madeleine McCann went missing and ensure every possible measure is being taken to find out what happened to her.
"We still have very definite lines to pursue which is why we are keeping a dedicated team of officers working on the case. We have given this assurance to Madeleine's parents, Kate and Gerry McCann.
"The Portuguese police remain the lead investigators and our team will continue to support their inquiry. They have extended every courtesy to Operation Grange and we maintain a close working relationship. I know they remain fully committed to investigating Madeleine's disappearance with support from the Metropolitan Police.
"The Met was asked to take on this exceptional case as one of national interest. We were happy to bring our expertise to bear only on the basis that it would not detract from the policing of London; and the Home Office have additionally funded the investigation above normal grants to the Met. That will continue at the reduced level.
"I have overseen this investigation since 2012 and am very grateful for the enormous assistance of the media and public so far which, through the appeals, have generated new information and lines of Inquiry. "
Our decision and rationale has been discussed with Mr and Mrs McCann.
discussions with k and G.....doesnt sound like suspects to me
Strange lack of quotation marks.
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 05, 2017, 07:49:00 PM
Mr and Mrs McCann said: "We would like to thank all the staff from Operation Grange for the meticulous and painstaking work that they have carried out over the last four and a half years. The scale and difficulty of their task has never been in doubt.
"We are reassured that the investigation to find Madeleine has been significantly progressed and the MPS has a much clearer picture of the events in Praia da Luz leading up to Madeleine's abduction in 2007.
"Given that the review phase of the investigation is essentially completed, we fully understand the reasons why the team is being reduced.
"We would also like to thank the Home Office for continuing to support the investigation.
"Whilst we do not know what happened to Madeleine, we remain hopeful that she may still be found given the ongoing lines of enquiry. "
The remaining Operation Grange officers will be deployed to other enquiries within Specialist Crime and Operations.
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: Alice Purjorick on April 05, 2017, 10:28:20 PM
Mr and Mrs McCann said: "We would like to thank all the staff from Operation Grange for the meticulous and painstaking work that they have carried out over the last four and a half years. The scale and difficulty of their task has never been in doubt.
"We are reassured that the investigation to find Madeleine has been significantly progressed and the MPS has a much clearer picture of the events in Praia da Luz leading up to Madeleine's abduction in 2007.
"Given that the review phase of the investigation is essentially completed, we fully understand the reasons why the team is being reduced.
"We would also like to thank the Home Office for continuing to support the investigation.
"Whilst we do not know what happened to Madeleine, we remain hopeful that she may still be found given the ongoing lines of enquiry. "
The remaining Operation Grange officers will be deployed to other enquiries within Specialist Crime and Operations.
Update on the investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann News • Oct 28, 2015 14:49 GMT
Eighteen months ago.
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: barrier on April 06, 2017, 01:08:38 PM
And you base that on what? For example, what media reports in the last 3 years about this case have turned out to be completely false?
How about imminent arrest for starters,since when as one article printed any where concerning the actual search for Madeleine proven to be correct.European snatch squads? the latest in the last throw of the dice again this time a supposed worker or ex worker or maybe not but some one needs to be questioned, where from the offices at SY yard,its all made up since DCI Wall took over there has been silence from her,OG aren't telling any one diddly squat.
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: Alfie on April 06, 2017, 01:19:42 PM
How about imminent arrest for starters,since when as one article printed any where concerning the actual search for Madeleine proven to be correct.European snatch squads? the latest in the last throw of the dice again this time a supposed worker or ex worker or maybe not but some one needs to be questioned, where from the offices at SY yard,its all made up since DCI Wall took over there has been silence from her,OG aren't telling any one diddly squat.
Sorry, hard to read and understand that post above. The papers reported imminent arrests shortly prior to a number of people being made arguidos did they not? So - apart from the terminology ("arrests" is more attention grabbing than "made arguidos" in UK paper headlines) what did they get wrong?
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: barrier on April 06, 2017, 01:27:05 PM
Sorry, hard to read and understand that post above. The papers reported imminent arrests shortly prior to a number of people being made arguidos did they not? So - apart from the terminology ("arrests" is more attention grabbing than "made arguidos" in UK paper headlines) what did they get wrong?
So is being made arguido an arrest?
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: barrier on April 06, 2017, 01:33:52 PM
Sorry, hard to read and understand that post above. The papers reported imminent arrests shortly prior to a number of people being made arguidos did they not? So - apart from the terminology ("arrests" is more attention grabbing than "made arguidos" in UK paper headlines) what did they get wrong?
What have they got right in the search for Madeleine in the last three years? there is nothing but silence from OG,the last words were attributed to one DCI Duthie where he told us that they still did not have a full understanding of what happened,April 2016.This last supposed throw of the dice,have Grange called for any help from the public like with the supposed Smithman e-fits? no is the answer he's/she's out in Portugal twiddling their thumbs waiting,believe that and you'll believe any thing.
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: Alfie on April 06, 2017, 02:23:30 PM
What have they got right in the search for Madeleine in the last three years? there is nothing but silence from OG,the last words were attributed to one DCI Duthie where he told us that they still did not have a full understanding of what happened,April 2016.This last supposed throw of the dice,have Grange called for any help from the public like with the supposed Smithman e-fits? no is the answer he's/she's out in Portugal twiddling their thumbs waiting,believe that and you'll believe any thing.
I'm looking for evidence of patently false reporting - got any?
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: barrier on April 06, 2017, 02:31:58 PM
What have they got right in the search for Madeleine in the last three years? there is nothing but silence from OG,the last words were attributed to one DCI Duthie where he told us that they still did not have a full understanding of what happened,April 2016.This last supposed throw of the dice,have Grange called for any help from the public like with the supposed Smithman e-fits? no is the answer he's/she's out in Portugal twiddling their thumbs waiting,believe that and you'll believe any thing.
the Portuguese have asked them to be silent
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: Robittybob1 on April 06, 2017, 05:12:42 PM
b....r! Looks like I should have saved some posts.
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: Alfie on April 06, 2017, 07:04:23 PM
So following that logic the McCann left Portugal whilst still being under arrest?
They left while still official suspects yes. But you know as well as I do that there is no British equivalent to "arguido" status so in order to make things simple for the GBP the article was written in simplified terms for idiots to understand, but they got the essence bang on - people were made official suspects and questioned.
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: Alfie on April 06, 2017, 07:06:50 PM
If there is no truth to be corroborated form the stories what else are they?
??? Have you got any examples of completely false stories in the papers or not? Because according to some on here, virtually everything that appears in the press about this case is a lie that originates from the mouth of Clarence Mitchell or another member of Team McCann - should be easy for you to prove all these lies, so still waiting for the evidence.
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 06, 2017, 07:37:49 PM
They left while still official suspects yes. But you know as well as I do that there is no British equivalent to "arguido" status so in order to make things simple for the GBP the article was written in simplified terms for idiots to understand, but they got the essence bang on - people were made official suspects and questioned.
arguido is equivalent to being interviewed under caution....so despite their efforts it looks like all the idiots didnt undersatnd
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: barrier on April 06, 2017, 07:42:55 PM
??? Have you got any examples of completely false stories in the papers or not? Because according to some on here, virtually everything that appears in the press about this case is a lie that originates from the mouth of Clarence Mitchell or another member of Team McCann - should be easy for you to prove all these lies, so still waiting for the evidence.
A simple read of all related supposed search stories will reveal they contain nothing.
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: barrier on April 06, 2017, 07:45:56 PM
They left while still official suspects yes. But you know as well as I do that there is no British equivalent to "arguido" status so in order to make things simple for the GBP the article was written in simplified terms for idiots to understand, but they got the essence bang on - people were made official suspects and questioned.
Are you describing the McCanns as idiots,bit strong for a supporter after all they would be the ones to need explaining to.
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: barrier on April 06, 2017, 07:53:06 PM
They left while still official suspects yes. But you know as well as I do that there is no British equivalent to "arguido" status so in order to make things simple for the GBP the article was written in simplified terms for idiots to understand, but they got the essence bang on - people were made official suspects and questioned.
According to this you are not a formal suspect so where did the shit about iminent arrest come from.
Wki.
Quote
(law) Under the Portuguese legal system, a person kept for questioning as a witness to a crime, who is not a formal suspect. (Arrests can only be made after police have designated an individual as an arguido. A person can also request this status for the rights it gives, such as the right to a legal representative and the right to remain silent.)
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 06, 2017, 07:56:37 PM
According to this you are not a formal suspect so where did the shit about iminent arrest come from.
Wki.
A lack of understanding regarding the portuguese legal system and the meaning of the term arguido I should think, or if not that a decision to use terms that were snappier and more comprehensible to lowest common denominator readership. Fact is - individuals were brought in for questioning as predicted by the papers.
A lack of understanding regarding the portuguese legal system and the meaning of the term arguido I should think, or if not that a decision to use terms that were snappier and more comprehensible to lowest common denominator readership. Fact is - individuals were brought in for questioning as predicted by the papers.
In essence nothing patently false in that article IMO.
Arrest's are patently false if they were just brought in as witness's,it was talk to try and big something up out of nothing,what ever the line of questioning was it clearly never furthered the case,DSI Duthie,we still do not have a "full understanding" of what happened,April 2016.
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: Brietta on April 07, 2017, 09:16:01 AM
Arrest's are patently false if they were just brought in as witness's,it was talk to try and big something up out of nothing,what ever the line of questioning was it clearly never furthered the case,DSI Duthie,we still do not have a "full understanding" of what happened,April 2016.
Individuals were interviewed as witnesses.
Individuals were interviewed as arguidos.
Madeleine's case has funding until at least autumn, and should there be justification for it, probably beyond that.
One wonders at the negativity of some to the fact her case is active and being investigated.
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: Alfie on April 07, 2017, 09:36:28 AM
Arrest's are patently false if they were just brought in as witness's,it was talk to try and big something up out of nothing,what ever the line of questioning was it clearly never furthered the case,DSI Duthie,we still do not have a "full understanding" of what happened,April 2016.
So an arguido is nothing more than a witness now is it?
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: Robittybob1 on April 07, 2017, 09:50:28 AM
So an arguido is nothing more than a witness now is it?
Wikipedia on the arguido status: "A person who has arguido status has not been formally accused of a crime, arrested or charged,[10] and not all arguidos are subsequently charged. The police may ask a court to restrict an arguido's movement and oblige them to not leave the country. Arguidos cannot change their place of residence, without permission from a court. There is no time limit on the status."
So clearly from that the McCanns had permission to leave Portugal.
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: barrier on April 07, 2017, 09:54:35 AM
So an arguido is nothing more than a witness now is it?
They can be a witness as you know full well,in likely hood this is what they were back in 2014,did interviewing them further the case,not according to DSI Duthie speaking in 2016.
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: Robittybob1 on April 07, 2017, 09:58:20 AM
They can be a witness as you know full well,in likely hood this is what they were back in 2014,did interviewing them further the case,not according to DSI Duthie speaking in 2016.
Are you talking about the McCanns? Why do you group them together as if they are making a joint statement? There are two of them and they are acting independently.
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: barrier on April 07, 2017, 10:04:20 AM
Are you talking about the McCanns? Why do you group them together as if they are making a joint statement? There are two of them and they are acting independently.
Catch up Rob,its about the crap reporting of imminent arrest's back in 2014,which in reality was just about OG wanting to question a few folks,it obviously was a blind alley.
But back to topic,what now post SC decision,just waiting for OG to wind up,person/or persons unknown removed Madeleine from 5a.
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: Robittybob1 on April 07, 2017, 10:19:24 AM
Catch up Rob,its about the crap reporting of imminent arrest's back in 2014,which in reality was just about OG wanting to question a few folks,it obviously was a blind alley.
....
Help me out then instead of saying "they" tell me who "they" are please?
"They can be a witness as you know full well,in likely hood this is what they were back in 2014,did interviewing them further the case,not according to DSI Duthie speaking in 2016."
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: barrier on April 07, 2017, 10:39:13 AM
Help me out then instead of saying "they" tell me who "they" are please?
"They can be a witness as you know full well,in likely hood this is what they were back in 2014,did interviewing them further the case,not according to DSI Duthie speaking in 2016."
The ones OG had questioned in 2014 including R Murat.
ETA,also 4 earlier in the year,June or July if I recall.
Thanks for clarifying that. RM was questioned as a witness but had a lawyer present. How does that work for witnesses has to answer all questions truthfully. When they are being interviewed by Operation Grange officers in Portugal are they following the Portuguese or the British codes?
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: barrier on April 07, 2017, 10:57:09 AM
Thanks for clarifying that. RM was questioned as a witness but had a lawyer present. How does that work for witnesses has to answer all questions truthfully. When they are being interviewed by Operation Grange officers in Portugal are they following the Portuguese or the British codes?
Because as a witness he can claim arguido status allowing him representation.The Portuguese I would think it being their case would have their code followed.
Wiki.
Quote
(law) Under the Portuguese legal system, a person kept for questioning as a witness to a crime, who is not a formal suspect. (Arrests can only be made after police have designated an individual as an arguido. A person can also request this status for the rights it gives, such as the right to a legal representative and the right to remain silent.)
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: slartibartfast on April 07, 2017, 11:08:33 AM
Thanks for clarifying that. RM was questioned as a witness but had a lawyer present. How does that work for witnesses has to answer all questions truthfully. When they are being interviewed by Operation Grange officers in Portugal are they following the Portuguese or the British codes?
A witness cannot be asked incriminating questions.
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: Eleanor on April 07, 2017, 11:13:51 AM
They can be a witness as you know full well,in likely hood this is what they were back in 2014,did interviewing them further the case,not according to DSI Duthie speaking in 2016.
But back in 2014 they interviewed some people as witnesses and some people as arguidos - so you tell me, what's the difference now?
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: Robittybob1 on April 07, 2017, 12:18:13 PM
So Robert Murat is not proven innocent either then using the SC criteria. There is still a cloud hanging over him even if he is not a suspect.
This has been covered several times and it is getting boring repeating it.
The case was civil, not criminal.
The judge in the first instance judged the McCanns civil rights had been breached, not any criminal responsibility whatsoever.
The appeal court overturned this civil decision, not any criminal responsibility.
The SC essentially sided with the appeal court.
The only need to point out the McCanns had not been cleared was that Duarte claimed they had, but the archiving report does not say this. It says it stopped because it was not able to perform further diligences.
Murat cooperated with the police to their satisfaction. He did not prevent them from carrying out further diligences, so his position is not identical.
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 07, 2017, 03:23:55 PM
This has been covered several times and it is getting boring repeating it.
The case was civil, not criminal.
The judge in the first instance judged the McCanns civil rights had been breached, not any criminal responsibility whatsoever.
The appeal court overturned this civil decision, not any criminal responsibility.
The SC essentially sided with the appeal court.
The only need to point out the McCanns had not been cleared was that Duarte claimed they had, but the archiving report does not say this. It says it stopped because it was not able to perform further diligences.
Murat cooperated with the police to their satisfaction. He did not prevent them from carrying out further diligences, so his position is not identical.
.the mccanns are not under any suspicion in the present investigation.....Murat has not been cleared...because he too has never been charged
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: ShiningInLuz on April 07, 2017, 03:34:38 PM
I have - it does not state "the parents are off limits" anywhere in the remit, so unless you have another version of the remit I have not seen you must clearly be mistaken.
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 07, 2017, 06:28:18 PM
does it say the tapas group are off limits too....it doesnt does it
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: Robittybob1 on April 07, 2017, 06:44:32 PM
Where does one get to see the Operation Grange remit? It seems we all need to read it again.
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: Alfie on April 07, 2017, 06:56:34 PM
"Op Grange Remit
The support and expertise proffered by the Commissioner will be provided by the Homicide & Serious Crime Command - SCD1.
The activity, in the first instance, will be that of an ‘investigative review’. This will entail a review of the whole of the investigation(s) which have been conducted in to the circumstances of Madeleine McCann’s disappearance.
The focus of the review will be of the material held by three main stakeholders (and in the following order of primacy);
The Portuguese Law Enforcement agencies. UK Law Enforcement agencies, Other private investigative agencies/staff and organisations.
The investigative review is intended to collate, record and analyse what has gone before.
It is to examine the case and seek to determine, (as if the abduction occurred in the UK) what additional, new investigative approaches we would take and which can assist the Portuguese authorities in progressing the matter. Whilst ordinarily a review has no investigative remit whatsoever- the scale and extent of this enquiry cannot permit for such an approach. It will take too long to progress to any “action stage” if activity is given wholly and solely to a review process.
The ‘investigative review’ will be conducted with transparency, openness and thoroughness.
The work will be overseen through the Gold Group management structure, which will also manage the central relationships with other key stakeholders and provide continuing oversight and direction to the investigative remit.
End "
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: ShiningInLuz on April 07, 2017, 07:06:00 PM
The support and expertise proffered by the Commissioner will be provided by the Homicide & Serious Crime Command - SCD1.
The activity, in the first instance, will be that of an ‘investigative review’. This will entail a review of the whole of the investigation(s) which have been conducted in to the circumstances of Madeleine McCann’s disappearance.
The focus of the review will be of the material held by three main stakeholders (and in the following order of primacy);
The Portuguese Law Enforcement agencies. UK Law Enforcement agencies, Other private investigative agencies/staff and organisations.
The investigative review is intended to collate, record and analyse what has gone before.
It is to examine the case and seek to determine, (as if the abduction occurred in the UK) what additional, new investigative approaches we would take and which can assist the Portuguese authorities in progressing the matter. Whilst ordinarily a review has no investigative remit whatsoever- the scale and extent of this enquiry cannot permit for such an approach. It will take too long to progress to any “action stage” if activity is given wholly and solely to a review process.
The ‘investigative review’ will be conducted with transparency, openness and thoroughness.
The work will be overseen through the Gold Group management structure, which will also manage the central relationships with other key stakeholders and provide continuing oversight and direction to the investigative remit.
End "
As I said, the McCanns are off limits.
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: barrier on April 07, 2017, 07:07:14 PM
What rubbish. They also use the word 'disappearance' in the remit, a word that brings joy and happiness to sceptics because it is not the terrifying A word. So....where does that leave us? One for, one against. Nowhere does it say the parents are off-limits, that's YOUR interpretation only.
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: faithlilly on April 07, 2017, 07:19:56 PM
What rubbish. They also use the word 'disappearance' in the remit, a word that brings joy and happiness to sceptics because it is not the terrifying A word. So....where does that leave us? One for, one against. Nowhere does it say the parents are off-limits, that's YOUR interpretation only.
Are you reading from the remit? How long is it? If you are reading it Alfie could you type a significant from phrase it in a post that would enable us to search for it via Google please?
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: ShiningInLuz on April 07, 2017, 07:36:14 PM
What rubbish. They also use the word 'disappearance' in the remit, a word that brings joy and happiness to sceptics because it is not the terrifying A word. So....where does that leave us? One for, one against. Nowhere does it say the parents are off-limits, that's YOUR interpretation only.
She disappeared so why should disappearance not be used?
But they are clear they are investigating 'the abduction'.
The parents are off limits. There is no other interpretation.
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: Alice Purjorick on April 07, 2017, 07:52:52 PM
Are you reading from the remit? How long is it? If you are reading it Alfie could you type a significant from phrase it in a post that would enable us to search for it via Google please?
I really hate to say this 8(0(* but what Alfie has posted is the remit.
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: ShiningInLuz on April 07, 2017, 07:53:23 PM
Alfie posted the remit on reply 289.
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: Alice Purjorick on April 07, 2017, 07:57:01 PM
While looking for the above I found this:
From PJ Archiving Document
The investigation, during more than 13 months, followed all the credible indices related to different hypotheses and, in an impartial manner, continued to analyse, correlate and synthesize them, looking for an explanation for the happenings of the night of 3 May 2007.
Assuming that the minor's disappearance was due to the acts of third parties, the PJ explored various lines of investigation, not excluding any hypothesis considered plausible or hypothetically acceptable.
From the documentation, you will observe that during the investigation various possibilities were contemplated.
As such, consider:
1. abduction, for sexual exploration or other (e.g, later adoption, child trafficking, organ trafficking), without homicide;
2. abduction, followed by homicide with (or without) hiding of the corpse;
3. accidental death, with later hiding of the corpse; [/i]
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: Robittybob1 on April 07, 2017, 07:59:36 PM
She disappeared so why should disappearance not be used?
But they are clear they are investigating 'the abduction'.
The parents are off limits. There is no other interpretation.
So are you telling me that if when reviewing all the information or if when re-interviewing witnesses, or if someone "cracked" and divulged some incriminating information about the parents, that the Met would not investigate these leads any further as the parents are "off limits"? Do you actually believe this?
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 07, 2017, 08:20:20 PM
that isnt what you said....you said....The remit says the McCanns are off limits.
The remit says no such thing and you are wrong. You are stating your biased interpretation as fact...it isnt.
SY are investigating an abduction......do you really believe that if during this investigation evidence came to light that implicated the McCanns that they would not be investigated and regarded as "off limits". That is plainly ridiculous
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: ShiningInLuz on April 07, 2017, 08:22:18 PM
So are you telling me that if when reviewing all the information or if when re-interviewing witnesses, or if someone "cracked" and divulged some incriminating information about the parents, that the Met would not investigate these leads any further as the parents are "off limits"? Do you actually believe this?
Yes.
There is no reason to believe that with the parents off limits they are permitted to be investigated. They are off limits, as per the remit.
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 07, 2017, 08:25:47 PM
There is no reason to believe that with the parents off limits they are permitted to be investigated. They are off limits, as per the remit.
mis read your post...you are not back pedalling you actually believe this..
so what do you think SY would do if evidence came to light that implicated the mccanns....do you think they would ignore it....or hide it....absolutely barmy
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: Robittybob1 on April 07, 2017, 08:38:40 PM
mis read your post...you are not back pedalling you actually believe this..
so what do you think SY would do if evidence came to light that implicated the mccanns....do you think they would ignore it....or hide it....absolutely barmy
You're pretty quick at that sport as well!
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 07, 2017, 08:43:41 PM
you would have to back that up...and i would say youre not much good at that...prove me wrong..
sils idea is bonkers
and dont steal my jokes...you are allowed to use them...and you will...but not on this forum
Look up at the posts above. One post you accuse SIL of saying one thing, and 2 posts later you back track. I'm not picking on you, I just found it ironic that that sequence happened.
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 07, 2017, 08:56:25 PM
Look up at the posts above. One post you accuse SIL of saying one thing, and 2 posts later you back track. I'm not picking on you, I just found it ironic that that sequence happened.
you are wrong...
sil originally said the remit said the mccanns are off limits...she then changed it to ...she said the mcccanns are off limits.....thats backtracking and sloppy....something you cannot accuse me of
so which is it
the remit says the mccanns are off limits...no it doesnt
or sil says the mccanns are off limits...yes she does...and shes wrong
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: Alfie on April 07, 2017, 10:01:15 PM
I never figured you as something that be good in rabbit pie.
Hmmm....so do tell me why you think the Met would be prepared to "look the other way" in the event of incriminating material surfacing on the McCanns? Please?
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: ShiningInLuz on April 08, 2017, 02:56:27 AM
Hmmm....so do tell me why you think the Met would be prepared to "look the other way" in the event of incriminating material surfacing on the McCanns? Please?
What incriminating evidence would surface about anyone that OG was not investigating?
The McCanns are off limits, as certain supporters are keen to repeatedly tell us.
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: Robittybob1 on April 08, 2017, 06:04:05 AM
What incriminating evidence would surface about anyone that OG was not investigating?
The McCanns are off limits, as certain supporters are keen to repeatedly tell us.
who knows? It could be anything. A new witness coming forward for example. Someone who was part of the group " coming clean". But you're telling us that the Met would simply send them packing because the parents are off limits?
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 08, 2017, 07:29:19 AM
SIL believes the McCanns are exempt from the Met's attentions which points to a massive conspiracy on the partnof Operation Grange to protect the parents no matter what. It would be interesting to hear SILs rationale for this blatant abuse of the law on the part of the police.
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 08, 2017, 08:28:11 AM
More rubbish No supporters have said the McCanns are off limits.....provide a cite You seem to be making things up as you go along
A search for the phrase "McCanns are off limits" is only attributed to SIL so you are definitely right as far as this forum is concerned.
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: Robittybob1 on April 08, 2017, 10:16:25 AM
A search on Google for the same phrase brought up a few more hits. One bizarre post wrote "Don't forget the cocktail and dinner parties that these people (the ones who have a say in the affairs of this country) attend, where the same old crowd mingle time after time.
The Saintly McCanns are off limits at the moment because they have friends in high places, who have friends in high places, who have friends in high place and so it goes on.
To all intents and purposes the McCanns are part of the 'in crowd' because of their connections and are therefore worthy of protection, and those nasty old PJ and the rest of the people who dare to say anything detrimental about Saint Gerry and Saint Kate must be silenced by whatever means available."
That sound very Portuguese to me. Maybe SIL has been influenced by the culture of the country she lives in.
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: stephen25000 on April 08, 2017, 10:44:21 AM
A search on Google for the same phrase brought up a few more hits. One bizarre post wrote "Don't forget the cocktail and dinner parties that these people (the ones who have a say in the affairs of this country) attend, where the same old crowd mingle time after time.
The Saintly McCanns are off limits at the moment because they have friends in high places, who have friends in high places, who have friends in high place and so it goes on.
To all intents and purposes the McCanns are part of the 'in crowd' because of their connections and are therefore worthy of protection, and those nasty old PJ and the rest of the people who dare to say anything detrimental about Saint Gerry and Saint Kate must be silenced by whatever means available."
That sound very Portuguese to me. Maybe SIL has been influenced by the culture of the country she lives in.
Or perhaps you might prefer this Rob.
Nudge, nudge, wink, wink, say no more. 8(0(*
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: Alfie on April 08, 2017, 10:49:34 AM
A search on Google for the same phrase brought up a few more hits. One bizarre post wrote "Don't forget the cocktail and dinner parties that these people (the ones who have a say in the affairs of this country) attend, where the same old crowd mingle time after time.
The Saintly McCanns are off limits at the moment because they have friends in high places, who have friends in high places, who have friends in high place and so it goes on.
To all intents and purposes the McCanns are part of the 'in crowd' because of their connections and are therefore worthy of protection, and those nasty old PJ and the rest of the people who dare to say anything detrimental about Saint Gerry and Saint Kate must be silenced by whatever means available."
That sound very Portuguese to me. Maybe SIL has been influenced by the culture of the country she lives in.
Kool-Aid Kraziness!
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 08, 2017, 11:15:58 AM
looks like sil has morphed not suspects into off limits......bit like the jemmied shutters
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: Robittybob1 on April 08, 2017, 01:19:43 PM
SIL believes the McCanns are exempt from the Met's attentions which points to a massive conspiracy on the partnof Operation Grange to protect the parents no matter what. It would be interesting to hear SILs rationale for this blatant abuse of the law on the part of the police.
The remit.
Kindly stop asking the same question over and over. It's boring.
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 08, 2017, 02:09:03 PM
Kindly stop asking the same question over and over. It's boring.
so you claim the remit says the Mccanns are off limits....and supporters repeatedly claim the mccanns are off limits...
neither is true
The remit does not say off limits...that is merely your interpretation......just your interpretation. You should not post your opinion as fact...it isnt
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: stephen25000 on April 08, 2017, 03:03:46 PM
Perhaps someone can tell us, with a cite, of course, when the McCann's and co., we're questioned by the OG team.
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 08, 2017, 03:06:38 PM
Kindly stop asking the same question over and over. It's boring.
What is boring is your failure to offer any sort of explanation beyond "the remit" as to why the Metropolitan Police would (according to you) turn a blind eye to any potentially incriminating evidence against the McCanns. Why does the remit specifically exempt the McCanns from investigation - is it a conspiracy to protect the McCanns, if not what is it that you think puts the McCanns above the law?
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: Alfie on April 08, 2017, 03:54:27 PM
so "if" and "could".....but sil is stating her interpretation as fact.......it isnt
so tell me...are the mccanns off limits...
If SIL is correct and the McCanns are "off limits" because it's written (in stone?) in the Remit then there must be a very good reason for it - either because the Met had already established beyond any reasonable doubt that the McCanns were not involved or because the Met is intent on ensuring that the McCanns are not subjected to close investigation again because....? What reason could there be I wonder...? Or could it be that the word "abduction" in the remit was just used somewhat carelessly, or unthinkingly, and that whoever wrote it didn't intend for the word "abduction" to be seized upon as a sign to be interpreted that the McCanns are "off limits"?
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: ShiningInLuz on April 08, 2017, 04:14:44 PM
What is boring is your failure to offer any sort of explanation beyond "the remit" as to why the Metropolitan Police would (according to you) turn a blind eye to any potentially incriminating evidence against the McCanns. Why does the remit specifically exempt the McCanns from investigation - is it a conspiracy to protect the McCanns, if not what is it that you think puts the McCanns above the law?
The remit. I don't need to offer more. The remit says it all in plain, simple English.
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: Alfie on April 08, 2017, 04:33:55 PM
The remit. I don't need to offer more. The remit says it all in plain, simple English.
No it does not. All you have done is given us your opinion of the remit. It does not say the McCanns are "off limits", nor does it say why, if incriminating information about the McCanns were unearthed, the McCanns would not be investigated, something which you say you believe to be the case. *&*%£
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: ShiningInLuz on April 08, 2017, 04:37:09 PM
No it does not. All you have done is given us your opinion of the remit. It does not say the McCanns are "off limits", nor does it say why, if incriminating information about the McCanns were unearthed, the McCanns would not be investigated, something which you say you believe to be the case. *&*%£
You are now claiming I said something that I did not say.
One does not find what one is not looking for in the Madeleine case.
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: Alfie on April 08, 2017, 04:41:44 PM
You are now claiming I said something that I did not say.
One does not find what one is not looking for in the Madeleine case.
Me: So are you telling me that if when reviewing all the information or if when re-interviewing witnesses, or if someone "cracked" and divulged some incriminating information about the parents, that the Met would not investigate these leads any further as the parents are "off limits"? Do you actually believe this?
You: Yes.
Reply #303.
So yes, you did say it.
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 08, 2017, 04:59:57 PM
You are now claiming I said something that I did not say.
One does not find what one is not looking for in the Madeleine case.
You claimed the McCanns are off limits and gave the remit as your cite The remit does not say that it is your interpretation You seem to think your interpretation is fact... it isnt
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: ShiningInLuz on April 08, 2017, 05:25:33 PM
Me: So are you telling me that if when reviewing all the information or if when re-interviewing witnesses, or if someone "cracked" and divulged some incriminating information about the parents, that the Met would not investigate these leads any further as the parents are "off limits"? Do you actually believe this?
You: Yes.
Reply #303.
So yes, you did say it.
They did not review all the information. There is no reason to believe a witness who was re-interviewed lied or suppressed information the first time round. Nobody has cracked.
You have a fantasy scenario, and you seem fond of those. So be it.
The remit puts the parents off limits.
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: Alfie on April 08, 2017, 05:28:52 PM
They did not review all the information. There is no reason to believe a witness who was re-interviewed lied or suppressed information the first time round. Nobody has cracked.
You have a fantasy scenario, and you seem fond of those. So be it.
The remit puts the parents off limits.
Who did not review all the information?? What are you alleging now?
Do you believe it's possible that the McCanns are responsible for Madeleine's disappearance? Yes or No?
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: stephen25000 on April 08, 2017, 05:33:52 PM
They did not review all the information. There is no reason to believe a witness who was re-interviewed lied or suppressed information the first time round. Nobody has cracked.
You have a fantasy scenario, and you seem fond of those. So be it.
The remit puts the parents off limits.
It doesn't You are just stating opinion
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: stephen25000 on April 08, 2017, 05:51:47 PM
All other parties who have been questioned in this investigation, including Murat, we're plastered across the headlines.
Yet nothing about the Mccanns and the rest.
Mmm.
That's because the names of the people questioned in Portugal were leaked at the Portuguese end to someone in the UK & put on the internet. OG have allowed no such leaks.
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: stephen25000 on April 08, 2017, 06:24:20 PM
That's because the names of the people questioned in Portugal were leaked at the Portuguese end to someone in the UK & put on the internet. OG have allowed no such leaks.
So you are saying SY doesn't leak. 8**8:/:
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: Alfie on April 08, 2017, 06:39:03 PM
Who decreed the McCanns should be "off limits" (The Met? MI5? David Cameron? The Masons? The Lizard Queen?) and why?
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: misty on April 08, 2017, 06:49:31 PM
Who decreed the McCanns should be "off limits" (The Met? MI5? David Cameron? The Masons? The Lizard Queen?) and why?
Wasn't the Shannon Matthews case investigated as "an abduction which occurred in the UK"?
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: pathfinder73 on April 08, 2017, 07:01:01 PM
Bringing everything back to zero, accepting nothing, means nothing is off-limits unless DCI Redwood is a liar. If this case was called The Abduction of and not The Disappearance of MM then I would be questioning it.
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: Alfie on April 08, 2017, 07:08:26 PM
All other parties who have been questioned in this investigation, including Murat, we're plastered across the headlines.
Yet nothing about the Mccanns and the rest.
Mmm.
Can you cite where and when 'it was plastered across the headlines' that the parents of the UK children who were sexually assaulted in their own beds whilst on holiday Portugal, had been interviewed regarding this investigation?
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: stephen25000 on April 08, 2017, 07:29:00 PM
Can you cite where and when 'it was plastered across the headlines' that the parents of the UK children who were sexually assaulted in their own beds whilst on holiday Portugal, had been interviewed regarding this investigation?
Ah, diversionary tactics.
I am talking about the McCann case.
NO LINK has been established with any other case.
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: Robittybob1 on April 08, 2017, 07:33:57 PM
Can you cite where and when 'it was plastered across the headlines' that the parents of the UK children who were sexually assaulted in their own beds whilst on holiday Portugal, had been interviewed regarding this investigation?
Does SY give us a running commentary as to what they have done?
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: Benice on April 08, 2017, 07:35:44 PM
SY regarded those parents as relevant to the McCann case, which is why they appealed for people to come forward and not just assume that because they had reported the crime to the GNR - that SY knew about it. More parents did come forward and I think it is reasonable to assume that they were interviewed.
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: stephen25000 on April 08, 2017, 07:39:17 PM
SY regarded those parents as relevant to the McCann case, which is why they appealed for people to come forward and not just assume that because they had reported the crime to the GNR - that SY knew about it. More parents did come forward and I think it is reasonable to assume that they were interviewed.
No link has been established with any other case, has it.
Just, and nothing more than supposition, to imply otherwise.
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 08, 2017, 07:49:58 PM
No link has been established with any other case, has it.
Just, and nothing more than supposition, to imply otherwise.
I was replying to this statement which you made:
Quote All other parties who have been questioned in this investigation, including Murat, we're plastered across the headlines.
Yet nothing about the Mccanns and the rest.
Mmm.
Unquote.
The parents of those UK children were interviewed in connection with Madeleine's case - without anything at all being plastered across the headlines.
Therefore it is incorrect to claim that unless it is made public that a person has been interviewed by SY - then no interview has taken place.
I cannot think of a single reason why anyone would expect a public announcement to be made by SY regarding interviews with the McCanns or any of the many other people - who I have no doubt have been personally spoken to by SY during this investigation.
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: stephen25000 on April 08, 2017, 08:19:58 PM
Quote All other parties who have been questioned in this investigation, including Murat, we're plastered across the headlines.
Yet nothing about the Mccanns and the rest.
Mmm.
Unquote.
The parents of those UK children were interviewed in connection with Madeleine's case - without anything at all being plastered across the headlines.
Therefore it is incorrect to claim that unless it is made public that a person has been interviewed by SY - then no interview has taken place.
I cannot think of a single reason why anyone would expect a public announcement to be made by SY regarding interviews with the McCanns or any of the many other people - who I have no doubt have been personally spoken to by SY during this investigation.
There is not the slightest indication that the McCann's and their associates have been interviewed.
They should be the focal point of the investigation.
Yet, not an apparent murmur from SY.
As to SY not leaking.
Just try some research.
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: Robittybob1 on April 08, 2017, 08:23:02 PM
There is not the slightest indication that the McCann's and their associates have been interviewed.
They should be the focal point of the investigation.
Yet, not an apparent murmur from SY.
As to SY not leaking.
Just try some research.
What has 'leaking got to do with my post? I've given you an example of several people who were interviewed during the investigations without the public being informed which proves that - contrary to your claim - it does happen - so job done AFAIAC.
If you don't want to believe it happens - that is not my problem.
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: stephen25000 on April 08, 2017, 09:12:24 PM
What has 'leaking got to do with my post? I've given you an example of several people who were interviewed during the investigations without the public being informed which proves that - contrary to your claim - it does happen - so job done AFAIAC.
If you don't want to believe it happens - that is not my problem.
You can believe in the tooth fairy if you wish.
However, it doesn't mean there is a link to this case though.
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: Robittybob1 on April 08, 2017, 09:38:03 PM
However, it doesn't mean there is a link to this case though.
Tooth fairy!
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 08, 2017, 09:39:46 PM
and sil has yet to show any evidence that the mccanns are off limits and supporters regularly claim such....its just her opinion and if she cannot support it with a cite she should aknowledge that it is merely an opinion
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: ShiningInLuz on April 08, 2017, 09:44:22 PM
and sil has yet to show any evidence that the mccanns are off limits and supporters regularly claim such....its just her opinion and if she cannot support it with a cite she should aknowledge that it is merely an opinion
Remit.
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 08, 2017, 09:46:03 PM
and sil has yet to show any evidence that the mccanns are off limits and supporters regularly claim such....its just her opinion and if she cannot support it with a cite she should aknowledge that it is merely an opinion
No evidence or even information of them being interviewed, suggests they are. Easy enough for them to mention it.
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 08, 2017, 11:14:00 PM
No evidence or even information of them being interviewed, suggests they are. Easy enough for them to mention it.
sil claimed...The remit says the McCanns are off limits....it doesnt...what she claims is not true....you can believe what you like....but sils claim is untrue
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: Robittybob1 on April 08, 2017, 11:55:53 PM
it seems the members of SY who contributed to amarals fund are also sworn to secrecy
Gosh yes, imagine how much they could make if they sold their story to the tabs - the McCanns being protected by "High Ups" - they could also do it anonymously, but then as the UK MSM is controlled by the McCanns they would have to approach Portuguese papers unstead and perhaps they don't pay as much for such explosive revelations.
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: Eleanor on April 09, 2017, 10:23:43 AM
Gosh yes, imagine how much they could make if they sold their story to the tabs - the McCanns being protected by "High Ups" - they could also do it anonymously, but then as the UK MSM is controlled by the McCanns they would have to approach Portuguese papers unstead and perhaps they don't pay as much for such explosive revelations.
You mean these Met Officers donated anonymously? Very wise.
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 09, 2017, 10:54:10 AM
Gosh yes, imagine how much they could make if they sold their story to the tabs - the McCanns being protected by "High Ups" - they could also do it anonymously, but then as the UK MSM is controlled by the McCanns they would have to approach Portuguese papers unstead and perhaps they don't pay as much for such explosive revelations.
yes...exactly what hold does hot lips healey have on 3 prime ministers...one female prime minister and the entitr SY police force....I just cant work it out...perhaps one of those who believe in this massive conspiracy could help us
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: stephen25000 on April 09, 2017, 10:59:31 AM
yes...exactly what hold does hot lips healey have on 3 prime ministers...one female prime minister and the entitr SY police force....I just cant work it out...perhaps one of those who believe in this massive conspiracy could help us
Here's a clue.
No conspiracy.
Just a certain infamous and irrelevant organization.
Unfortunately dave, I do know how the system works, and how Masons will defend other members.
No conspiracy, just an outdated, and irrelevant organization, where members swear to protect each other.
it would have to be a conspiracy that involved every memeber of the met.........conpsiracy yo pervert the course of justice....if the mccanns really were off limits do you not think someone would expose the scam...of course they would...yet not a word
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: stephen25000 on April 09, 2017, 11:29:25 AM
it would have to be a conspiracy that involved every memeber of the met.........conpsiracy yo pervert the course of justice....if the mccanns really were off limits do you not think someone would expose the scam...of course they would...yet not a word
No dave.
You know as well as I do, how the masons operate. 8**8:/:
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: Miss Taken Identity on April 09, 2017, 12:15:24 PM
The McCanns can't be Masons they are catholics and they are banned from joining! sorry to dissapoint folks..
However, if some paedophiles are masons then they should defend each other... acccording to some. My understanding is they should not defend if someone breaks the law, but well...
*the name calling post is still showing I see.. now who is mods today....um erm ahhhhh
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: ferryman on April 09, 2017, 12:15:50 PM
it would have to be a conspiracy that involved every memeber of the met.........conpsiracy yo pervert the course of justice....if the mccanns really were off limits do you not think someone would expose the scam...of course they would...yet not a word
And Gordon Brown.
How could you forget Gordon Brown?
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: Miss Taken Identity on April 09, 2017, 12:24:55 PM
Police protect each other also... well known fact. And what about the Jimmy S evil. fiasco. well protcted even by those who claimed to 'love ' children and wanted to protect them? BBC PR should get an sparkler from the Queen.
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: Robittybob1 on April 09, 2017, 12:39:50 PM
I'm confused by all that.
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: slartibartfast on April 09, 2017, 12:54:15 PM
The McCanns can't be Masons they are catholics and they are banned from joining! sorry to dissapoint folks..
However, if some paedophiles are masons then they should defend each other... acccording to some. My understanding is they should not defend if someone breaks the law, but well...
*the name calling post is still showing I see.. now who is mods today....um erm ahhhhh
That's a fallacy. I have a friend who is a Catholic and also a mason ( though to be clear I don't think the masons had anything to do with this case.)
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 09, 2017, 01:22:12 PM
That's a fallacy. I have a friend who is a Catholic and also a mason ( though to be clear I don't think the masons had anything to do with this case.)
It isn't a Mason issue who don't want catholics, it was a decree from the Pope that ROMAN Catholics should not join because it took money away from the church. The Masons believe in 'free men'... not tied to a religion.
I am not saying that it is catholics who indulge in paedophilia are not protected by paedophiles in the masons. I think it wrong to assume that Masosn as part of their remit will protect such people as a rule. I am not saying some don't, but I don't believe it is part of their ethos.
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: Robittybob1 on April 09, 2017, 01:32:05 PM
It isn't a Mason issue who don't want catholics, it was a decree from the Pope that ROMAN Catholics should not join because it took money away from the church. The Masons believe in 'free men'... not tied to a religion.
I am not saying that it is catholics who indulge in paedophilia are not protected by paedophiles in the masons. I think it wrong to assume that Masosn as part of their remit will protect such people as a rule. I am not saying some don't, but I don't believe it is part of their ethos.
Are you a mason? You seem to be very careful not accuse anyone, just about consistent with protecting fellow masons in fact.
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: Miss Taken Identity on April 09, 2017, 01:42:01 PM
No I am female. Masons are only for men. The masons go back to biblical times when Wise King Solomon was on the throne. He wanted good quality stone masons, who were held in high esteem, and to honour them he let them become free men- not slaves... The roman catholic church wanted to have a heirerarchy with them at the head, and the masons stood firm and said no- we are free -as in free.
The SC have not changed their mind have they? hmmm
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: Robittybob1 on April 09, 2017, 01:47:58 PM
No I am female. Masons are only for men. The masons go back to biblical times when Wise King Solomon was on the throne. He wanted good quality stone masons, who were held in high esteem, and to honour them he let them become free men- not slaves... The roman catholic church wanted to have a heirerarchy with them at the head, and the masons stood firm and said no- we are free -as in free.
The SC have not changed their mind have they? hmmm
Thanks. Why did you question "The SC have not changed their mind have they?"?
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: slartibartfast on April 09, 2017, 01:53:00 PM
That's a fallacy. I have a friend who is a Catholic and also a mason ( though to be clear I don't think the masons had anything to do with this case.)
The only real Masonic links in the case seem to be Edward Smethurst and a message of support from the Knights Templars (Masonic). No other evidence appears to exist.
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: Robittybob1 on April 09, 2017, 01:59:07 PM
The only real Masonic links in the case seem to be Edward Smethurst and a message of support from the Knights Templars (Masonic). No other evidence appears to exist.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ChoylCoWwAIIEl4.jpg
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: barrier on April 09, 2017, 02:04:38 PM
The only real Masonic links in the case seem to be Edward Smethurst and a message of support from the Knights Templars (Masonic). No other evidence appears to exist.
Being so secretive would there be any expectation to see any involvement? not that I think there is
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 09, 2017, 02:21:13 PM
Being so secretive would there be any expectation to see any involvement? not that I think there is
if the mccanns were being protected then there would ahve to be so many people involved it would not be possible to prevent someone blowing the whistle. According to the sceptics some Met offices contributed to amarals fund yet on e has raised the question about the mccanns being investigated
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: Erngath on April 09, 2017, 02:22:41 PM
That's a fallacy. I have a friend who is a Catholic and also a mason ( though to be clear I don't think the masons had anything to do with this case.)
It is not a fallacy, it is true. Your friend maybe both but he is going against the church ruling which states that freemasonry is incompatible with the Catholic faith, reiterated in 1983. I'd imagine that there are some Catholics in the masons but whether this was the case with G MCcann I have no idea but find the concept of them being protected quite laughable.
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: stephen25000 on April 09, 2017, 02:46:54 PM
No I am female. Masons are only for men. The masons go back to biblical times when Wise King Solomon was on the throne. He wanted good quality stone masons, who were held in high esteem, and to honour them he let them become free men- not slaves... The roman catholic church wanted to have a heirerarchy with them at the head, and the masons stood firm and said no- we are free -as in free.
The SC have not changed their mind have they? hmmm
Sorry, you're wrong on that.
https://www.owf.org.uk/
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 09, 2017, 02:52:55 PM
So when Alf did OG interview the mccanns and Co. ?
They have never once said they have.
I have no idea but I don't think either party was legally bound to inform the public of the date or content of such an interview assuming it took place. It would be bloody odd for a police force that we know is in regular contact with the McCanns and keeps them updated on progress to not once ask them anything about the events on and leading up to 3rd May 2007. And in the unlikely event that the Met never got round to interviewing the McCanns does that mean they are "off limits" even if new incriminating evidence against them should surface?
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: stephen25000 on April 09, 2017, 03:21:32 PM
I have no idea but I don't think either party was legally bound to inform the public of the date or content of such an interview assuming it took place. It would be bloody odd for a police force that we know is in regular contact with the McCanns and keeps them updated on progress to not once ask them anything about the events on and leading up to 3rd May 2007. And in the unlikely event that the Met never got round to interviewing the McCanns does that mean they are "off limits" even if new incriminating evidence against them should surface?
There is the key.
Keeping in regular contact with the McCann's.
Yet the crime, if one occurred in the apartment, has not been determined. ......................
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: ferryman on April 09, 2017, 03:43:11 PM
It is not a fallacy, it is true. Your friend maybe both but he is going against the church ruling which states that freemasonry is incompatible with the Catholic faith, reiterated in 1983. I'd imagine that there are some Catholics in the masons but whether this was the case with G MCcann I have no idea but find the concept of them being protected quite laughable.
My friend is a catholic and a mason. I have no idea how good a catholic he is. I, however, agree with you that the McCanns are not being protected.
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 09, 2017, 04:09:02 PM
So when Alf did OG interview the mccanns and Co. ?
They have never once said they have.
the mccanns are the last known people to see maddie. the met would have asked them to tell them what happened on the last day. It would be unthinkable that the met would not interview the mccanns
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: Alfie on April 09, 2017, 04:35:23 PM
It was SIL who introduced the phrase claiming it is in the remit. It means the Met won't touch the McCanns with a bargepole, even in the event of the discovery of evidence against them. When asked SIL won't say why the McCanns are so protected and will simply say "remit". It's all nonsense of course.
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: ShiningInLuz on April 09, 2017, 05:05:55 PM
the mccanns are the last known people to see maddie. the met would have asked them to tell them what happened on the last day. It would be unthinkable that the met would not interview the mccanns
Pure speculation. Keywords - would, would be unthinkable. Says it all.
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: ShiningInLuz on April 09, 2017, 05:11:54 PM
It was SIL who introduced the phrase claiming it is in the remit. It means the Met won't touch the McCanns with a bargepole, even in the event of the discovery of evidence against them. When asked SIL won't say why the McCanns are so protected and will simply say "remit". It's all nonsense of course.
I never said the term off limits appears within the remit. I said the remit means the McCanns are off limits, and it does.
I am not going to speculate why the remit is constructed to put the McCanns off limits. The important point is that it is so constructed.
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 09, 2017, 05:41:06 PM
I never said the term off limits appears within the remit. I said the remit means the McCanns are off limits, and it does.
I am not going to speculate why the remit is constructed to put the McCanns off limits. The important point is that it is so constructed.
As with most conspiracy theorists you're seeing only what you want to see and when challenged to come up with any sort of logical or plausible reason to support your conspiracy theory you demur.
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: stephen25000 on April 09, 2017, 06:01:06 PM
Let's have some evidence that OG have actually questioned the McCann's and the rest of the group.
Speculation , not included.
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 09, 2017, 06:02:14 PM
As with most conspiracy theorists you're seeing only what you want to see and when challenged to come up with any sort of logical or plausible reason to support your conspiracy theory you demur.
What conspiracy? Conspiracy between whom?
OG does not have free reign to investigate as if the disappearance occurred in the UK. Check Brietta's sig.
The remit puts the McCanns off limits. As to why, pure speculation.
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: Robittybob1 on April 09, 2017, 06:05:23 PM
The content of the remit is fact, not my opinion. Perhaps you too would wish to chide Brietta for using the relevant part of the remit in her sig?
Interesting! This is what Brietta's signature states "The remit of Operation Grange is to investigate ... "(as if the abduction occurred in the UK)". Are the McCanns involved with the abduction of their own child?
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: Alfie on April 09, 2017, 06:31:24 PM
OG does not have free reign to investigate as if the disappearance occurred in the UK. Check Brietta's sig.
The remit puts the McCanns off limits. As to why, pure speculation.
I asked you this question before and you ignored it - do you think it's possible the McCanns are involved in a cover up involving the hiding of their dead child's body?
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: ferryman on April 09, 2017, 06:34:26 PM
Here is the Operation Grange remit:
Quote
Op Grange Remit
The support and expertise proffered by the Commissioner will be provided by the Homicide & Serious Crime Command - SCD1.
The activity, in the first instance, will be that of an ‘investigative review’. This will entail a review of the whole of the investigation(s) which have been conducted in to the circumstances of Madeleine McCann’s disappearance.
The focus of the review will be of the material held by three main stakeholders (and in the following order of primacy);
• The Portuguese Law Enforcement agencies. • UK Law Enforcement agencies, • Other private investigative agencies/staff and organisations.
The investigative review is intended to collate, record and analyse what has gone before.
It is to examine the case and seek to determine, (as if the abduction occurred in the UK) what additional, new investigative approaches we would take and which can assist the Portuguese authorities in progressing the matter. Whilst ordinarily a review has no investigative remit whatsoever- the scale and extent of this enquiry cannot permit for such an approach. It will take too long to progress to any “action stage” if activity is given wholly and solely to a review process.
The ‘investigative review’ will be conducted with transparency, openness and thoroughness.
The work will be overseen through the Gold Group management structure, which will also manage the central relationships with other key stakeholders and provide continuing oversight and direction to the investigative remit.
End
Which suggests, to me, that both the PJ and Scotland Yard are fully convinced Kate and Gerry have no case to answer, either from a perspective of direct involvement in Madeleine's disappearance, or from the perspective of 'neglect'.
That very much mirrors the conclusion of the Portuguese prosecutors.
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: stephen25000 on April 09, 2017, 06:36:48 PM
Which suggests, to me, that both the PJ and Scotland Yard are fully convinced Kate and Gerry have no case to answer, either from a perspective of direct involvement in Madeleine's disappearance, or from the perspective of 'neglect'.
That very much mirrors the conclusion of the Portuguese prosecutors.
The original case was shelved due to lack of evidence of anything that could result in a prosecution.
It hasn't changed.
The crime, if one occurred remains undetermined.
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: slartibartfast on April 09, 2017, 06:40:12 PM
Friendship is what causes one person to support or protect another and any organisation that facilitates friendship is liable to find itself tainted by any shady dealing associated with friends who are members.
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: stephen25000 on April 09, 2017, 06:45:21 PM
Friendship is what causes one person to support or protect another and any organisation that facilitates friendship is liable to find itself tainted by any shady dealing associated with friends who are members.
We're not talking about friendship here Slarti, it's the freemasons, an organization of people dating back a few hundred years, accompanied by rules, secrecy and protection of fellow members.
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 09, 2017, 06:50:58 PM
Do posters realise that the remit did not appear until 6 months after the review started Time for SY to interview the McCanns and the tapas friends ... rule them out and decide abduction as the most likely scenario Obviously new evidence could come to light which would alter their thinking and rule the McCanns back in
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: slartibartfast on April 09, 2017, 06:54:43 PM
We're not talking about friendship here Slarti, it's the freemasons, an organization of people dating back a few hundred years, accompanied by rules, secrecy and protection of fellow members.
...and it rules specifically against supporting anyone's activities which are against either the law of god or man.
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: stephen25000 on April 09, 2017, 07:13:20 PM
I asked you this question before and you ignored it - do you think it's possible the McCanns are involved in a cover up involving the hiding of their dead child's body?
Yes, because I know the logistics of how they could have done it. It is therefore possible.
Is it possible that the McCanns could have hidden Madeleine's corpse, survived the searching, retrieved the corpse, then disposed of the corpse? Yes, because I know the logistics of how they could have done it. It is therefore possible.
You are posing daft challenges, Alfie. The crunch question is 'do I have any evidence whatsoever that is happened either of these ways'? To which the answer is no - I have not a shred of evidence that either of these options happened.
You are asking daft questions. Hopefully, OG is working to a higher level of scenario. But it should include the McCanns in the remit, not just position them off limits.
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: Miss Taken Identity on April 09, 2017, 07:49:45 PM
Let's have some evidence that OG have actually questioned the McCann's and the rest of the group.
Speculation , not included.
Indeed.
OR let us have proof if the SY discussed any McCann issue with Social Services- it is quite extraordinary they were given a hero welcome after what they had done. I believe the real reasons they left Portugual was to escape the PJ initiating proceedings to have some sort of charge brought against them. I do not think they are being proteced by the Masons, however so many things just don't add up.
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: Miss Taken Identity on April 09, 2017, 07:54:14 PM
I see this as a woman charity organisation. The freemasons are male only. There are many variations of this organisation, there is a catholic version. The original did begin in biblical times. It may have evolved many times since then. It is the same with the Orange Order it is a male and female section. The men to the whatever and the women bake cakes and raise funds...
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: slartibartfast on April 09, 2017, 08:21:29 PM
I see this as a woman charity organisation. The freemasons are male only. There are many variations of this organisation, there is a catholic version. The original did begin in biblical times. It may have evolved many times since then. It is the same with the Orange Order it is a male and female section. The men to the whatever and the women bake cakes and raise funds...
OWF is Freemasons as with all branches Charity is one of the major aims.
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: Alfie on April 09, 2017, 08:42:11 PM
Yes, because I know the logistics of how they could have done it. It is therefore possible.
Is it possible that the McCanns could have hidden Madeleine's corpse, survived the searching, retrieved the corpse, then disposed of the corpse? Yes, because I know the logistics of how they could have done it. It is therefore possible.
You are posing daft challenges, Alfie. The crunch question is 'do I have any evidence whatsoever that is happened either of these ways'? To which the answer is no - I have not a shred of evidence that either of these options happened.
You are asking daft questions. Hopefully, OG is working to a higher level of scenario. But it should include the McCanns in the remit, not just position them off limits.
Thanks for your assessment of my question, and for answering it, despite its alleged daftness. If it is your assessment that the McCanns could have committed this crime then it follows that potentially there may be evidence to uncover which points to their involvement. You however have convinced yourself that the Met have decided that the McCanns are "off limits" meaning any evidence uncovered against them would have to be ignored or suppressed . You have speculated that the McCanns may be involved in hiding their child's body, so what is stopping you from speculating as to why the Met would be protecting the McCanns by declaring them "off limits"?
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 09, 2017, 08:48:38 PM
Yes, because I know the logistics of how they could have done it. It is therefore possible.
Is it possible that the McCanns could have hidden Madeleine's corpse, survived the searching, retrieved the corpse, then disposed of the corpse? Yes, because I know the logistics of how they could have done it. It is therefore possible.
You are posing daft challenges, Alfie. The crunch question is 'do I have any evidence whatsoever that is happened either of these ways'? To which the answer is no - I have not a shred of evidence that either of these options happened.
You are asking daft questions. Hopefully, OG is working to a higher level of scenario. But it should include the McCanns in the remit, not just position them off limits.
it is possible in your opinion....I need to remind you again.
OG obviously is working at a higher level and it is my opinion that they have ruled the aprents out having interviewed them and once the parents are ruled out abduction is most likely. It is also my opinion that the mccanns are not off limits and should evidence arise that implicates them they will be further questioned.
you continue to post your opinion as fact
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: stephen25000 on April 09, 2017, 09:23:37 PM
it is possible in your opinion....I need to remind you again.
OG obviously is working at a higher level and it is my opinion that they have ruled the aprents out having interviewed them and once the parents are ruled out abduction is most likely. It is also my opinion that the mccanns are not off limits and should evidence arise that implicates them they will be further questioned.
you continue to post your opinion as fact
..and your opinion is worth ?
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 09, 2017, 10:15:45 PM
it is possible in your opinion....I need to remind you again.
OG obviously is working at a higher level and it is my opinion that they have ruled the aprents out having interviewed them and once the parents are ruled out abduction is most likely. It is also my opinion that the mccanns are not off limits and should evidence arise that implicates them they will be further questioned.
you continue to post your opinion as fact
That's what I believe in a nutshell.
I also differ from SIL's view that it is even logistically possible that the McCanns could have pulled off a crime of 'body concealment' following some accident.
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: ShiningInLuz on April 09, 2017, 10:29:03 PM
Thanks for your assessment of my question, and for answering it, despite its alleged daftness. If it is your assessment that the McCanns could have committed this crime then it follows that potentially there may be evidence to uncover which points to their involvement. You however have convinced yourself that the Met have decided that the McCanns are "off limits" meaning any evidence uncovered against them would have to be ignored or suppressed . You have speculated that the McCanns may be involved in hiding their child's body, so what is stopping you from speculating as to why the Met would be protecting the McCanns by declaring them "off limits"?
I have not speculated about the involvement of the McCanns.
Please try harder.
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: Robittybob1 on April 09, 2017, 10:33:29 PM
it is possible in your opinion....I need to remind you again.
OG obviously is working at a higher level and it is my opinion that they have ruled the aprents out having interviewed them and once the parents are ruled out abduction is most likely. It is also my opinion that the mccanns are not off limits and should evidence arise that implicates them they will be further questioned.
you continue to post your opinion as fact
OG is obviously working at a higher level? Cite.
May I ask why I should care about your opinion, when you yourself have said your opinion is worthless?
Tough that the remit deems the McCanns off limits. n'est-ce pas?
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: Robittybob1 on April 09, 2017, 10:41:36 PM
May I ask why I should care about your opinion, when you yourself have said your opinion is worthless?
Tough that the remit deems the McCanns off limits. n'est-ce pas?
I think my opinion is actually worth more than yours....at least I realise what is my opinion and what is fact...you seem unable to seperate the two...that shows a serious lack of judgement
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: Alfie on April 09, 2017, 10:44:56 PM
I have not speculated about the involvement of the McCanns.
Please try harder.
You have said it is possible they are involved, you have speculated how they may have done it (if only to yourself) so my point still stands, please try and answer it.
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: ferryman on April 09, 2017, 10:51:05 PM
From Inspector Carlos' final report, we read this:
Quote
On the other hand, the parents of the minor, set out in the most diversified contacts and appeals, with the diffusion of MADELEINE images, whilst, the British authorities opened up a phone-line for permanent and specialized contact, to gather all the information relative to the disappearance, as well as information coming from Interpol and other homologous Police forces.
This activity (diffusion), besides the informative aspects from the media, aimed to acquire, in the shortest period of time, information that could contribute to the investigation in two aspects, the discovery of MADELEINE with life and gather substance that could attest the circumstances of her disappearance and in case of associating to it a criminal action by a third person, having requested for that matter the focused cooperation of the population.
This desire for cooperation had the result that through various sources and using the most diversified means, with special focus on direct communications towards the police, the PJ received the most varied information.
Odd behaviour from a couple hiding some dark secret.
I will add more in an edit.
Quote
Some time later, the witness alleged that, by its stance, the individual who carried the child could be GERALD McCANN, which was concluded when he saw him descending the stairs from an airplane, pages 2871, 3991 and following and 4135 and following. It was established that at the time that was being mentioned, GERALD McCANN was sitting at the table, in the Tapas Restaurant.
]
Just for a moment, entertain the notion that Inspector Carlos might have been mistaken, here.
If Gerry had been anywhere other than at the table, particularly at the moment of Kate's alert, you would have expected his absence to be instantly noted, for obvious reasons.
More than that, you would expect to read detail commentary in the files on efforts to find him, including where he was when found and who found him.
Simply, no such commentary exists.
Far the most obvious and logical explanation of that is that Inspector Carlos had/has! it bang-on right to conclude that, at the moment of Kate's alert, Gerry was at the table.
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 09, 2017, 11:04:04 PM
I think my opinion is actually worth more than yours....at least I realise what is my opinion and what is fact...you seem unable to seperate the two...that shows a serious lack of judgement
The remit is fact.
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 09, 2017, 11:50:02 PM
You have said it is possible they are involved, you have speculated how they may have done it (if only to yourself) so my point still stands, please try and answer it.
Why? I said stupid game umpty posts ago.
The fact that you cannot disparage the remit is not my problem.
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 09, 2017, 11:53:39 PM
The original case was shelved due to lack of evidence of anything that could result in a prosecution.
It hasn't changed.
The crime, if one occurred remains undetermined.
It is beyond understanding that the search for a missing child was in effect, called off, when her case was shelved only months after her disappearance.
The Portuguese authorities found no one they could blame ... so they abandoned the child.
The supreme court decision and the terms in which the judgement was couched in my opinion compounds that outrage against Madeleine McCann who can expect nothing from the medieval attitudes expressed. The only advance from that is the continuation of the Policia Judiciaria and Scotland Yard investigations until a conclusion is reached. However, the years of work both pre and post Madeleine McCann's case being reopened, is proof positive that the initial 'shelving' of her case was premature ... and therein lies an injustice and an outrage.
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 10, 2017, 12:19:49 AM
It is beyond understanding that the search for a missing child was in effect, called off, when her case was shelved only months after her disappearance.
The Portuguese authorities found no one they could blame ... so they abandoned the child.
The supreme court decision and the terms in which the judgement was couched in my opinion compounds that outrage against Madeleine McCann who can expect nothing from the medieval attitudes expressed. The only advance from that is the continuation of the Policia Judiciaria and Scotland Yard investigations until a conclusion is reached. However, the years of work both pre and post Madeleine McCann's case being reopened, is proof positive that the initial 'shelving' of her case was premature ... and therein lies an injustice and an outrage.
so absolutely true
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: ShiningInLuz on April 10, 2017, 12:26:16 AM
It is beyond understanding that the search for a missing child was in effect, called off, when her case was shelved only months after her disappearance.
The Portuguese authorities found no one they could blame ... so they abandoned the child.
The supreme court decision and the terms in which the judgement was couched in my opinion compounds that outrage against Madeleine McCann who can expect nothing from the medieval attitudes expressed. The only advance from that is the continuation of the Policia Judiciaria and Scotland Yard investigations until a conclusion is reached. However, the years of work both pre and post Madeleine McCann's case being reopened, is proof positive that the initial 'shelving' of her case was premature ... and therein lies an injustice and an outrage.
Here we go again, the false outrage with the pro McCann propaganda.
Madeleine disappeared without a trace.
That remains the case.
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 10, 2017, 12:30:33 AM
How does one spell cobblers? You have tried to describe me as confused time and time again, an indication that your debating skills are lacking.
time and time again...absolute rubbish...it seems its not only your reasoning is poor your memeory is too...oh dear you are confirming that you are confused...a simple search if you know how to use it shows what you are posting is absolute rubbish
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: Robittybob1 on April 10, 2017, 12:53:17 AM
time and time again...absolute rubbish...it seems its not only your reasoning is poor your memeory is too...oh dear you are confirming that you are confused...a simple search if you know how to use it shows what you are posting is absolute rubbish
Oh dear, I am supposed to be confused.
Oh dear, my logic is supposed to be poor.
Oh dear, my 'memeory' (sic) is now supposedly poor.
Oh dear, shame about the remit.
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 10, 2017, 01:00:57 AM
Oh dear, my 'memeory' (sic) is now supposedly poor.
Oh dear, shame about the remit.
The incident was dealt with by the PJ as a probable abduction after it was established Madeleine could not be located within the Luz vicinity. In drawing everything back to zero SY were effectively commencing an investigation from scratch but treating it in the same manner they would for any similar case which occurred in the UK. I don't understand why this is so difficult for you to grasp.
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: ShiningInLuz on April 10, 2017, 01:16:36 AM
The incident was dealt with by the PJ as a probable abduction after it was established Madeleine could not be located within the Luz vicinity. In drawing everything back to zero SY were effectively commencing an investigation from scratch but treating it in the same manner they would for any similar case which occurred in the UK. I don't understand why this is so difficult for you to grasp.
Read the remit.
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: misty on April 10, 2017, 01:27:02 AM
I have. Nowhere does it say that any specific individual(s) cannot be investigated. A parent can be guilty of abducting his or her own child - it is the most common form of child abduction.
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: ShiningInLuz on April 10, 2017, 01:39:45 AM
I have. Nowhere does it say that any specific individual(s) cannot be investigated. A parent can be guilty of abducting his or her own child - it is the most common form of child abduction.
Go for it.
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: Brietta on April 10, 2017, 01:43:38 AM
Here we go again, the false outrage with the pro McCann propaganda.
Madeleine disappeared without a trace.
That remains the case.
Madeleine McCann is a missing person.
The respect due to her in 2007 was that she should be looked for and recovered whether she had survived the ordeal or had not.
There is not one single solitary indication that she did not survive ... unless you know different.
The concentration on the totally unfounded belief by the investigating authorities of her demise and the determination to blame a culprit distracted from the search for the living breathing child who is Madeleine McCann. In my opinion the exercise undertaken not to follow the evidence but to tailor the evidence to fit the theory may have led to the situation described by you.
My outrage is not faux and your blanket calling of the facts I present as "propaganda" is questionable in the extreme.
Challenge the accuracy of what I say by all means, but please don't demean yourself with sloganizing because you are unable to make that challenge.
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: misty on April 10, 2017, 02:02:04 AM
The respect due to her in 2007 was that she should be looked for and recovered whether she had survived the ordeal or had not.
There is not one single solitary indication that she did not survive ... unless you know different.
The concentration on the totally unfounded belief by the investigating authorities of her demise and the determination to blame a culprit distracted from the search for the living breathing child who is Madeleine McCann. In my opinion the exercise undertaken not to follow the evidence but to tailor the evidence to fit the theory may have led to the situation described by you.
My outrage is not faux and your blanket calling of the facts I present as "propaganda" is questionable in the extreme.
Challenge the accuracy of what I say by all means, but please don't demean yourself with sloganizing because you are unable to make that challenge.
Dear oh dear.
She was looked for extensively by many people.
There is no indication she is alive.
The case has received unparalleled publicity, and nothing to show for it.
As to your opinion, that will surprise no one.
As to why you have never criticized her parents for their failure to ensure their children's safety....?
As to why you 'favour' abduction. Very obvious. Otherwise, all roads lead to the McCann's.
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: G-Unit on April 10, 2017, 06:34:00 AM
I wonder if the McCanns have had the bill from the Portuguese Courts yet?
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: parapono on April 10, 2017, 07:36:07 AM
I also differ from SIL's view that it is even logistically possible that the McCanns could have pulled off a crime of 'body concealment' following some accident.
Whether it's logistically possible or not, there's a big flaw in your reasoning. You are speculating the McCanns "pulled off a crime of 'body concealment'". Wrong. In Portugal 'body concealment' isn't a crime.
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: stephen25000 on April 10, 2017, 07:54:12 AM
Whether it's logistically possible or not, there's a big flaw in your reasoning. You are speculating the McCanns "pulled off a crime of 'body concealment'". Wrong. In Portugal 'body concealment' isn't a crime.
Strange country isn't it? So if Madeleine had died of natural causes and thr McCanns had decided to hide the body then that's not breaking any law?
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: stephen25000 on April 10, 2017, 08:22:57 AM
The question is, where will they get the money from, and if the fund is used, is it taxable.
The justification for using the Fund to pay for the litigation was that Amaral's book etc. caused 'vast damage' to the search for Madeleine in Portugal. (2013 Director's Report)
The directors may have believed that, but it wasn't possible to prove it. After April 2015 the case involved only the parents.
The restricted Funds were said to have been donated just for the direct costs of searching. I assume court costs don't come under that heading.
The parents could take the money as a director's loan and any tax payable depends on when the loan is repaid.
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: G-Unit on April 10, 2017, 08:50:10 AM
I don't think amaral is very honourable so it's a matter of opinion They may well have no choice
I'm discussing the McCanns, who have been held up as respectable, responsible, pious people. Is deliberate avoidance of paying their debts something such people would consider?
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 10, 2017, 10:39:36 AM
I'm discussing the McCanns, who have been held up as respectable, responsible, pious people. Is deliberate avoidance of paying their debts something such people would consider?
If they don't have the money they have no choice They have been treated terribly afaiac Nothing dishonourable about it It's purely opinion
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: carlymichelle on April 10, 2017, 10:39:46 AM
the mcanns may have to reap what they sow they started all this after all
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 10, 2017, 10:41:10 AM
Whether it's logistically possible or not, there's a big flaw in your reasoning. You are speculating the McCanns "pulled off a crime of 'body concealment'". Wrong. In Portugal 'body concealment' isn't a crime.
I'm pretty sure that the "concealment of a cadaver" is a crime in Portugal, as it is in most countries. There was a recent case, here in Portugal, of a German lady who buried her husband on their property after he died of natural causes. Needless to say, she was arrested.
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: Alfie on April 10, 2017, 11:00:55 AM
I'm pretty sure that the "concealment of a cadaver" is a crime in Portugal, as it is in most countries. There was a recent case, here in Portugal, of a German lady who buried her husband on their property after he died of natural causes. Needless to say, she was arrested.
I should think so too!
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: Robittybob1 on April 10, 2017, 11:01:52 AM
I'm pretty sure that the "concealment of a cadaver" is a crime in Portugal, as it is in most countries. There was a recent case, here in Portugal, of a German lady who buried her husband on their property after he died of natural causes. Needless to say, she was arrested.
Probably for not giving sufficient bribes
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: ferryman on April 10, 2017, 11:06:25 AM
I'm pretty sure that the "concealment of a cadaver" is a crime in Portugal, as it is in most countries. There was a recent case, here in Portugal, of a German lady who buried her husband on their property after he died of natural causes. Needless to say, she was arrested.
The 'deal' put to Kate and Gerry was that if Kate admitted to finding and concealing 'a body' she would get only a few years, and Gerry would get off scot-free; OR, that the pair would be charged with murder.
That tends to suggest that concealing a body is, indeed, a crime in Portugal.
I would be surprised if it isn't.
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: Alfie on April 10, 2017, 11:06:31 AM
It is my understanding that Parapono has followed the McCanns v Amaral case and is informed as to how the court will allocate costs.
I have no particular interest in those court cases, nor the way costs are incurred. I am therefore happy to sit and do nothing until this outcome is revealed.
Anyone who wants a heads-up before then might consider a PM to Parapono.
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 10, 2017, 01:47:28 PM
It is my understanding that Parapono has followed the McCanns v Amaral case and is informed as to how the court will allocate costs.
I have no particular interest in those court cases, nor the way costs are incurred. I am therefore happy to sit and do nothing until this outcome is revealed.
Anyone who wants a heads-up before then might consider a PM to Parapono.
So the source is parapono who told us this morning that hiding and disposing a cadaver is not a crime in Portugal No pm I'm happy that this is unconfirmed
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: ShiningInLuz on April 10, 2017, 02:33:16 PM
So the source is parapono who told us this morning that hiding and disposing a cadaver is not a crime in Portugal No pm I'm happy that this is unconfirmed
Why do you feel the need to twist things to 'win' a point? At no time did I say or imply where G-Unit's information came from. I don't know. I made it abundantly clear I don't care.
If you have to resort to such distortion you have lost the argument.
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: Alfie on April 10, 2017, 02:37:40 PM
Why do you feel the need to twist things to 'win' a point? At no time did I say or imply where G-Unit's information came from. I don't know. I made it abundantly clear I don't care.
If you have to resort to such distortion you have lost the plot.
"It is my understanding that Parapono has followed the McCanns v Amaral case and is informed as to how the court will allocate costs".
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 10, 2017, 02:55:31 PM
Why do you feel the need to twist things to 'win' a point? At no time did I say or imply where G-Unit's information came from. I don't know. I made it abundantly clear I don't care.
If you have to resort to such distortion you have lost the plot.
you posted....
"It is my understanding that Parapono has followed the McCanns v Amaral case and is informed as to how the court will allocate costs".
with you making such a glaring error its probably best not to accuse others of losing the plot....
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: parapono on April 10, 2017, 02:55:41 PM
I'm pretty sure that the "concealment of a cadaver" is a crime in Portugal, as it is in most countries. There was a recent case, here in Portugal, of a German lady who buried her husband on their property after he died of natural causes. Needless to say, she was arrested.
Artigo 254° of the Penal Code Profanação de cadáver ou de lugar fúnebre 1 - Quem: a) Sem autorização de quem de direito, subtrair, destruir ou ocultar cadáver ou parte dele, ou cinzas de pessoa falecida; b) Profanar cadáver ou parte dele, ou cinzas de pessoa falecida, praticando actos ofensivos do respeito devido aos mortos; ou c) Profanar lugar onde repousa pessoa falecida ou monumento aí erigido em sua memória, praticando actos ofensivos do respeito devido aos mortos; é punido com pena de prisão até 2 anos ou com pena de multa até 240 dias. 2 - A tentativa é punível.
It’s not a crime but a misdemeanor, an offence, and obviously circumstances are taken in consideration before applying the sanction. One thing is to conceal a cadaver to hide a death, another is to conceal a cadaver to keep it close to you. The sanction is either prison up to 2 years in case the concealer doesn’t pay the fine, that can be X by 240 days.
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 10, 2017, 02:56:05 PM
Why do you feel the need to twist things to 'win' a point? At no time did I say or imply where G-Unit's information came from. I don't know. I made it abundantly clear I don't care.
If you have to resort to such distortion you have lost the plot.
ad hom...reported
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 10, 2017, 02:57:45 PM
Artigo 254° of the Penal Code Profanação de cadáver ou de lugar fúnebre 1 - Quem: a) Sem autorização de quem de direito, subtrair, destruir ou ocultar cadáver ou parte dele, ou cinzas de pessoa falecida; b) Profanar cadáver ou parte dele, ou cinzas de pessoa falecida, praticando actos ofensivos do respeito devido aos mortos; ou c) Profanar lugar onde repousa pessoa falecida ou monumento aí erigido em sua memória, praticando actos ofensivos do respeito devido aos mortos; é punido com pena de prisão até 2 anos ou com pena de multa até 240 dias. 2 - A tentativa é punível.
It’s not a crime but a misdemeanor, an offence, and obviously circumstances are taken in consideration before applying the sanction. One thing is to conceal a cadaver to hide a death, another is to conceal a cadaver to keep it close to you. The sanction is either prison up to 2 years in case the concealer doesn’t pay the fine, that can be X by 240 days.
could you tell us where you got the information from re court costs in the libel case
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: ShiningInLuz on April 10, 2017, 03:04:02 PM
"It is my understanding that Parapono has followed the McCanns v Amaral case and is informed as to how the court will allocate costs".
with you making such a glaring error its probably best not to accuse others of losing the plot....
You've just twisted what happened yet again in a petty point-scoring exercise. At no time did I link this to G-Unit - that was your doing.
If you have to repeatedly twist things to 'score' your latest point, you have lost the plot. On this occasion you are taking one line out of context and trying to make it fit your agenda. My post does not support your agenda, but I'm sure you already knew that.
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 10, 2017, 03:06:37 PM
You've just twisted what happened yet again in a petty point-scoring exercise. At no time did I link this to G-Unit - that was your doing.
If you have to repeatedly twist things to 'score' your latest point, you have lost the plot. On this occasion you are taking one line out of context and trying to make it fit your agenda. My post does not support your agenda, but I'm sure you already knew that.
Question for gunit...was my post
You replied... It is my understanding that Parapono has followed the McCanns v Amaral case and is informed as to how the court will allocate costs.
can you not spot the link to gunit
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: parapono on April 10, 2017, 03:07:17 PM
could you tell us where you got the information from re court costs in the libel case
I'm not aware of giving any information on this forum about the court costs to be paid by the McCanns due to them losing their damages case against Gonçalo Amaral cs. I didn't. Simplest would be to ask the McCanns themselves.
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: ShiningInLuz on April 10, 2017, 03:08:22 PM
It is my understanding Parapono has followed the court case.
It is my understanding Parapono is informed as to how the court will allocate costs.
Is that simple enough? Or do you wish try again.
On what do you base your understanding regarding Paparono's knowledge of how the court will allocate costs? He or she doesn't seem to know from what he or she has just posted.
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: ferryman on April 10, 2017, 03:19:01 PM
First things first. Parapono doesn't seem aware that it wasn't a damages trial, but rather, a libel trial.
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 10, 2017, 03:19:23 PM
On what do you base your understanding regarding Paparono's knowledge of how the court will allocate costs? He or she doesn't seem to know from what he or she has just posted.
May I correct you once again. I posted I didn't inform this forum about how the Portuguese Courts allocate costs. Full stop.
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 10, 2017, 03:23:26 PM
Artigo 254° of the Penal Code Profanação de cadáver ou de lugar fúnebre 1 - Quem: a) Sem autorização de quem de direito, subtrair, destruir ou ocultar cadáver ou parte dele, ou cinzas de pessoa falecida; b) Profanar cadáver ou parte dele, ou cinzas de pessoa falecida, praticando actos ofensivos do respeito devido aos mortos; ou c) Profanar lugar onde repousa pessoa falecida ou monumento aí erigido em sua memória, praticando actos ofensivos do respeito devido aos mortos; é punido com pena de prisão até 2 anos ou com pena de multa até 240 dias. 2 - A tentativa é punível.
It’s not a crime but a misdemeanor, an offence, and obviously circumstances are taken in consideration before applying the sanction. One thing is to conceal a cadaver to hide a death, another is to conceal a cadaver to keep it close to you. The sanction is either prison up to 2 years in case the concealer doesn’t pay the fine, that can be X by 240 days.
mis•de•mean•or (ˌmɪs dɪˈmi nər)
n. 1. a criminal offense less serious than a felony. 2. an instance of bad behavior.
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: ShiningInLuz on April 10, 2017, 03:34:12 PM
Artigo 254° of the Penal Code Profanação de cadáver ou de lugar fúnebre 1 - Quem: a) Sem autorização de quem de direito, subtrair, destruir ou ocultar cadáver ou parte dele, ou cinzas de pessoa falecida; b) Profanar cadáver ou parte dele, ou cinzas de pessoa falecida, praticando actos ofensivos do respeito devido aos mortos; ou c) Profanar lugar onde repousa pessoa falecida ou monumento aí erigido em sua memória, praticando actos ofensivos do respeito devido aos mortos; é punido com pena de prisão até 2 anos ou com pena de multa até 240 dias. 2 - A tentativa é punível.
It’s not a crime but a misdemeanor, an offence, and obviously circumstances are taken in consideration before applying the sanction. One thing is to conceal a cadaver to hide a death, another is to conceal a cadaver to keep it close to you. The sanction is either prison up to 2 years in case the concealer doesn’t pay the fine, that can be X by 240 days.
At least that clarifies whether Kate was offered a deal, or whether the relevant part of the criminal code was explained to her. Bang goes the deal myth.
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 10, 2017, 03:36:57 PM
At least that clarifies whether Kate was offered a deal, or whether the relevant part of the criminal code was explained to her. Bang goes the deal myth.
not at all....the PJ tortured Cipriano....which is illegal.....so telling a few lies to Kate would be nothing for them. police do it all the time to get confessions
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: ShiningInLuz on April 10, 2017, 03:37:57 PM
I have made it clear that I do not know where G-Unit's information came from. Nor do I care.
Kindly stop implying that I know of a link between the two, since I don't. That existed only in your imagination.
You asked for information. I posted a potential way forward.
I will leave to other forum members to decide whether it is wise to try to help you when you request assistance.
asking for a cite is not requiring assistance....its to test how reliable the information is....gunit has failed to support her post and your claim that parapono was the source was just plain wrong
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: ShiningInLuz on April 10, 2017, 03:53:30 PM
On what do you base your understanding regarding Paparono's knowledge of how the court will allocate costs? He or she doesn't seem to know from what he or she has just posted.
Does it matter? I put 'it is my understanding' for a grammatical reason. Parapono has pointed us at the McCanns. Parapono has stated that he or she has not posted a breakdown of costs on this forum. I have no reason to believe this statement is incorrect.
I have also stated, repeatedly, that I am not interested in this, at least until such costs are made public.
Kindly stop flogging a dead horse. Kindly move on.
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: ShiningInLuz on April 10, 2017, 03:57:36 PM
At least that clarifies whether Kate was offered a deal, or whether the relevant part of the criminal code was explained to her. Bang goes the deal myth.
This is the translation of what Parapono quotes:
Quote
Article 254 of the Penal Code Desecration of a corpse or funerary place 1 - Who: A) Without the authorization of the right person to subtract, destroy or hide corpse or part of it, or ashes Of deceased person; B) Desecrating a corpse or part thereof, or ashes of a deceased person, committing offensive acts Respect for the dead; or C) Desecrate a place where a deceased person or monument stands erected in his memory, practicing Offensive acts of respect for the dead; Shall be punished with imprisonment up to 2 years or with a fine of up to 240 days. 2 - The attempt is punishable.
As far as I can tell, that confirms what (I think, most of us) surmised, that moving and hiding a corpse is an offence in Portugal.
It sheds no light whatever on Kate's account (supported in the files) of the 'deal' put to her and Gerry.
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: ShiningInLuz on April 10, 2017, 04:00:39 PM
Does it matter? I put 'it is my understanding' for a grammatical reason. Parapono has pointed us at the McCanns. Parapono has stated that he or she has not posted a breakdown of costs on this forum. I have no reason to believe this statement is incorrect.
I have also stated, repeatedly, that I am not interested in this, at least until such costs are made public.
Kindly stop flogging a dead horse. Kindly move on.
Sometimes you're happy with "your understanding" of another's claim or alleged knowledge of the matter under discussion and sometimes you demand cites - does it very much depend on WHO is making the claim?
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 10, 2017, 04:06:47 PM
not at all....the PJ tortured Cipriano....which is illegal.....so telling a few lies to Kate would be nothing for them. police do it all the time to get confessions
That is libel of both Kate and her lawyer Carlos, and the PJ, so kindly cease and desist.
Page 243 of 'madeleine'. Kate covers that if she admitted to having hidden and disposed of Madeleine, she would get two years. Gerry would go free. This was in discussion with her lawyer after her Sep 2007 interview as a witness. Kate also makes clear the information was not passed directly from the police, but via her lawyer.
Page 252 covers how this alleged deal was leaked by Team McCann to the public, and Kate's reaction to that leaking. It also covers the PJ response of 'no deals', and Kate tries to rubbish this.
Kate fails to mention that her lawyer clarified in the media that this was not a deal.
Parapono's post has clarified the law, and is a somewhat more accurate explanation of Kate's legal position than Kate represents in her book.
It would be helpful if you posted information that has a grain of truth in it. Before you start, the Cipriano case won't wash. You are alleging the PJ lied about the legal explanation of Kate's position and that her lawyer Carlos was incompetent in duties to Kate. Not even Kate alleges this.
Parapona has blown the Kate 'deal' myth out of the water.
It's time to move on.
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 10, 2017, 04:42:23 PM
That is libel of both Kate and her lawyer Carlos, and the PJ, so kindly cease and desist.
Page 243 of 'madeleine'. Kate covers that if she admitted to having hidden and disposed of Madeleine, she would get two years. Gerry would go free. This was in discussion with her lawyer after her Sep 2007 interview as a witness. Kate also makes clear the information was not passed directly from the police, but via her lawyer.
Page 252 covers how this alleged deal was leaked by Team McCann to the public, and Kate's reaction to that leaking. It also covers the PJ response of 'no deals', and Kate tries to rubbish this.
Kate fails to mention that her lawyer clarified in the media that this was not a deal.
Parapono's post has clarified the law, and is a somewhat more accurate explanation of Kate's legal position than Kate represents in her book.
It would be helpful if you posted information that has a grain of truth in it. Before you start, the Cipriano case won't wash. You are alleging the PJ lied about the legal explanation of Kate's position and that her lawyer Carlos was incompetent in duties to Kate. Not even Kate alleges this.
Parapona has blown the Kate 'deal' myth out of the water.
It's time to move on.
kates claim is not blown out of the water...again you post your opinion as fact. I dont think it is unreasonable to suggest that a police force who tortures suspects would not bend the truth a little and offer kate a deal...through her lawyer or whatever......if you look at what kates lawyer actually said then its not as clear cut as you make out
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: ShiningInLuz on April 10, 2017, 04:44:35 PM
asking for a cite is not requiring assistance....its to test how reliable the information is....gunit has failed to support her post and your claim that parapono was the source was just plain wrong
Am I to take it you are going to continually post misinformation? At NO time did I claim G-Unit's source was Parapono. That is just more waffle.
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: ferryman on April 10, 2017, 04:44:49 PM
That is libel of both Kate and her lawyer Carlos, and the PJ, so kindly cease and desist.
Page 243 of 'madeleine'. Kate covers that if she admitted to having hidden and disposed of Madeleine, she would get two years. Gerry would go free. This was in discussion with her lawyer after her Sep 2007 interview as a witness. Kate also makes clear the information was not passed directly from the police, but via her lawyer.
Page 252 covers how this alleged deal was leaked by Team McCann to the public, and Kate's reaction to that leaking. It also covers the PJ response of 'no deals', and Kate tries to rubbish this.
Kate fails to mention that her lawyer clarified in the media that this was not a deal.
Parapono's post has clarified the law, and is a somewhat more accurate explanation of Kate's legal position than Kate represents in her book.
It would be helpful if you posted information that has a grain of truth in it. Before you start, the Cipriano case won't wash. You are alleging the PJ lied about the legal explanation of Kate's position and that her lawyer Carlos was incompetent in duties to Kate. Not even Kate alleges this.
Parapona has blown the Kate 'deal' myth out of the water.
It's time to move on.
How?
Parapona has merely confirmed what no one (so far as I am aware) ever disputed, that moving and concealing a body is a criminal offence in Portugal.
Meanwhile, the culmination of an enquiry in which Mark Harrison confirms, in numerous cites in his reports, that he was tasked to investigate that Madeleine had been murdered, was that Kate and Gerry were made arguidos, accused of murdering their eldest daughter.
I have produced the cites, innumerable times on this board, and will do so again if required.
But it really ought not to be necessary.
Meanwhile, the 'plea-bargain' thing was journalist Giles Tremlett getting entirely the wrong-end of the stick on the basis of incomplete information, in an article written before the files were released.
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: ShiningInLuz on April 10, 2017, 04:47:03 PM
Am I to take it you are going to continually post misinformation? At NO time did I claim G-Unit's source was Parapono. That is just more waffle.
You incorrectly claimed that the source of the information was parapono as regards a posted directed directly at gunit....i think it is you who is waffling
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: ferryman on April 10, 2017, 04:50:31 PM
This is from early in the first of Harrison's 3 reports.
But I can provide others if you want them.
Quote
This report considers solely the possibility that Madeleine McCann has been murdered and her body is concealed within the areas previously searched by Police in Zone 1 around Praia Da Luz.
Harrison offered to investigate other possibilities or scenarios (sic) on request.
Quote
In considering the two scenarios that Madeleine McCann has been murdered and her body disposed of by a person on foot or in a vehicle, I have reflected on the areas within zone 1 that have been previously searched or subject to forensic examination.
(Mark Harrison)
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: ShiningInLuz on April 10, 2017, 04:59:07 PM
Sometimes you're happy with "your understanding" of another's claim or alleged knowledge of the matter under discussion and sometimes you demand cites - does it very much depend on WHO is making the claim?
Alfie floggeth the dead horse once more.
How many times do I have to write I an not interested in this point and I prefer to wait until such information enters the public domain?
It does not matter which forum member is making a claim. If it is germane to the case, it is normal to give a cite. I don't see this as germane to the case and I did not cite Parapono. I posted my understanding and made it clear it was my understanding, and forum rules do not require a cite for the such like.
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: stephen25000 on April 10, 2017, 05:06:18 PM
Bottom line.
The Mccanns have to pay what they owe as regards legal fees.
It will prove interesting to see if they try bankruptcy, since that could have repercussions.
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: ferryman on April 10, 2017, 05:07:48 PM
While I'm on a roll, I've long considered this the most libellous reference in Amaral's book, against stiff competition:
Quote
After a week of intense work, Harrison presents the results of his study to my coordinating group. Even if we were expecting it, his conclusions confirm our worst fears. The most plausible scenario is the following: there is no doubt that Madeleine is dead, and her body is hidden somewhere in the area around Praia da Luz. He praises the quality of the work carried out by the Portuguese authorities in trying to find the little girl alive. According to him, the time has come to redirect the searches in order to find, this time, a body hidden in the surrounding area.
AMAZING STATISTICS
Great Britain has at its disposal the world's biggest data bank on homicide of children under five years old. Since 1960, the count is 1528. Harrison is well acquainted with its contents. He often draws information from there which helps him to resolve similar cases. Valuable information can be found there on on various criminal modus operandi, places where bodies are hidden, techniques used to get rid of a body. He relates that on one occasion, thanks to the data, he was able to deduce the maximum distance a body might be found in relation to where the crime had been committed.
The figures quoted in the report he hands over give us the shivers. The crimes, including those of a sexual nature, are committed by the parents in 84% of cases; 96% are perpetrated by friends and relatives. In only 4% of them is the murderer or abductor a total stranger to the victim. In this roundabout way, Mark Harrison points out that the guilty party may be a person close to Madeleine, and even her own parents. From now on, we have to explore this track, especially as the others have proved fruitless.
Which, of course, all fully explains why Harrison concluded his third, and final, report with this (more in edit).
Quote
I am currently of the opinion on the available information and statistical datasets that if death has occurred, that it is possible that Madeleine McCann’s body has been disposed into the sea at Praia da Luz. (See my second report entitled “NPIA OP TASK Search Doc Beach and Marine”).
(Mark Harrison)
*Edited for spelling.
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: ShiningInLuz on April 10, 2017, 05:08:40 PM
Parapono is not a reliable cite It would have to be something official Not just a statement by an anonymous poster Surely you can see that
I never claimed that Parapono was a reliable cite, did I? I suggested Parapono might be able to assist, which is an altogether different thing.
I am happy to continue this rather pointless debate for as long as you misinterpret what happened in post after post. It illustrates your approach when you are offered assistance. Consequently, forum members can make up their own minds as to whether offering to help you is sage or not.
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: ShiningInLuz on April 10, 2017, 05:12:55 PM
kates claim is not blown out of the water...again you post your opinion as fact. I dont think it is unreasonable to suggest that a police force who tortures suspects would not bend the truth a little and offer kate a deal...through her lawyer or whatever......if you look at what kates lawyer actually said then its not as clear cut as you make out
It's crystal clear from Kate's book, allied to the criminal code article posted on here.
I do not care what your opinion is about what happened. You are speculating in the absence of facts. The odd thing is you are contradicting how Kate described it in her book.
You have the page numbers, so try reading what Kate said of the matter in her own words.
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: slartibartfast on April 10, 2017, 05:19:31 PM
I never claimed that Parapono was a reliable cite, did I? I suggested Parapono might be able to assist, which is an altogether different thing.
I am happy to continue this rather pointless debate for as long as you misinterpret what happened in post after post. It illustrates your approach when you are offered assistance. Consequently, forum members can make up their own minds as to whether offering to help you is sage or not.
what makes you think either you or parapon could offer me any assisitance...I don't believe you could
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: ferryman on April 10, 2017, 05:22:28 PM
kates claim is not blown out of the water...again you post your opinion as fact. I dont think it is unreasonable to suggest that a police force who tortures suspects would not bend the truth a little and offer kate a deal...through her lawyer or whatever......if you look at what kates lawyer actually said then its not as clear cut as you make out
Is correct.
Kate's lawyer said there was a 'misunderstanding' about Philomena McCann's description of the deal put to Kate and Gerry as a 'plea-bargain', which, indeed, there was.
The (offered) deal was not a 'plea-bargain'. But emphatically and unreservedly, a deal was offered.
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: ShiningInLuz on April 10, 2017, 05:22:47 PM
You incorrectly claimed that the source of the information was parapono as regards a posted directed directly at gunit....i think it is you who is waffling
Rubbish. I NEVER claimed that G-Unit's source was Parapono, no matter how many times you post this disinformation.
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 10, 2017, 05:23:24 PM
Parapona has merely confirmed what no one (so far as I am aware) ever disputed, that moving and concealing a body is a criminal offence in Portugal.
Meanwhile, the culmination of an enquiry in which Mark Harrison confirms, in numerous cites in his reports, that he was tasked to investigate that Madeleine had been murdered, was that Kate and Gerry were made arguidos, accused of murdering their eldest daughter.
I have produced the cites, innumerable times on this board, and will do so again if required.
But it really ought not to be necessary.
Meanwhile, the 'plea-bargain' thing was journalist Giles Tremlett getting entirely the wrong-end of the stick on the basis of incomplete information, in an article written before the files were released.
What Parapono has revealed, at least to me, is that the information in the criminal code aligns precisely with the two years passed on to Kate, so there was no deal. It was a simple and accurate explanation of the law.
As to Mark Harrison's brief, I have not checked the wording in the Files. Some 3 or 4 months after Madeleine had disappeared, there was a good chance Madeleine was dead. Bringing in a cadaver and blood dog is hardly compatible with searching for a living person.
I'm not aware of the capabilities of Tito and Muzzy (?), but it suggestive that OG also included a dead body in their home-set agenda.
The McCanns were made arguidos for the same reason the other 5 have - that they might incriminate themselves under questioning. If it was the McCanns only, a claim of murder might pass muster. However, with 7 arguidos, murder is akin to Agatha Christie's Murder on the Orient Express.
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: ferryman on April 10, 2017, 05:39:07 PM
What Parapono has revealed, at least to me, is that the information in the criminal code aligns precisely with the two years passed on to Kate, so there was no deal. It was a simple and accurate explanation of the law.
As to Mark Harrison's brief, I have not checked the wording in the Files. Some 3 or 4 months after Madeleine had disappeared, there was a good chance Madeleine was dead. Bringing in a cadaver and blood dog is hardly compatible with searching for a living person.
I'm not aware of the capabilities of Tito and Muzzy (?), but it suggestive that OG also included a dead body in their home-set agenda.
The McCanns were made arguidos for the same reason the other 5 have - that they might incriminate themselves under questioning. If it was the McCanns only, a claim of murder might pass muster. However, with 7 arguidos, murder is akin to Agatha Christie's Murder on the Orient Express.
How do you conclude, from Parapono's quote that there was no deal?
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 10, 2017, 05:44:23 PM
What Parapono has revealed, at least to me, is that the information in the criminal code aligns precisely with the two years passed on to Kate, so there was no deal. It was a simple and accurate explanation of the law.
As to Mark Harrison's brief, I have not checked the wording in the Files. Some 3 or 4 months after Madeleine had disappeared, there was a good chance Madeleine was dead. Bringing in a cadaver and blood dog is hardly compatible with searching for a living person.
I'm not aware of the capabilities of Tito and Muzzy (?), but it suggestive that OG also included a dead body in their home-set agenda.
The McCanns were made arguidos for the same reason the other 5 have - that they might incriminate themselves under questioning. If it was the McCanns only, a claim of murder might pass muster. However, with 7 arguidos, murder is akin to Agatha Christie's Murder on the Orient Express.
the fact that it aligns precisely suggests to me there was a deal....unless kate had been studying the penal code...
I think her lawyer simply backtracked when the offer was made public....do you have an accurate record of what he said on the matter....I doubt it
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: ShiningInLuz on April 10, 2017, 05:53:28 PM
You incorrectly claimed that the source of the information was parapono as regards a posted directed directly at gunit....i think it is you who is waffling
Cite?
That would be a no. Because I didn't.
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: ferryman on April 10, 2017, 05:55:27 PM
Kate does not use the phrase 'plea-bargain' in her book.
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: ShiningInLuz on April 10, 2017, 05:57:10 PM
I believe I have covered this in a reply to an earlier post, but if you think not, please raise it again. TY
I assume you are referring to this sentence from your post 576?
Quote
What Parapono has revealed, at least to me, is that the information in the criminal code aligns precisely with the two years passed on to Kate, so there was no deal. It was a simple and accurate explanation of the law.
How does Parapono confirm there was no deal in what he s/he quotes?
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: ShiningInLuz on April 10, 2017, 06:05:38 PM
Kate's lawyer said there was a 'misunderstanding' about Philomena McCann's description of the deal put to Kate and Gerry as a 'plea-bargain', which, indeed, there was.
The (offered) deal was not a 'plea-bargain'. But emphatically and unreservedly, a deal was offered.
If the offence was body concealment or disposal and the criminal code says 2 years, then it is no deal to say the max would be 2 years. It is an accurate explanation of the penal code.
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: ShiningInLuz on April 10, 2017, 06:08:07 PM
Kate does not use the phrase 'plea-bargain' in her book.
To the uninitiated familiar with American cop programmes when told what Kate's lawyer put to her would perhaps be understood as a 'plea-bargain'. Why are we even doing the ground hog thing on this issue yet again? 8)-)))
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 10, 2017, 06:10:17 PM
I have declined exactly the same request from Alfie.
I am declining your request as well.
Im asking for an expalnation....you dont seem to understand the meaning of the word assistance. Without any sort of expalnation as to why you undersatnd this....your post is simply waffle
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 10, 2017, 06:11:23 PM
To the uninitiated familiar with American cop programmes when told what Kate's lawyer put to her would perhaps be understood as a 'plea-bargain'. Why are we even doing the ground hog thing on this issue yet again? 8)-)))
we are doing it because sil incorrectly claims that paraponos post blows it out of the water
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: ShiningInLuz on April 10, 2017, 06:12:08 PM
If the offence was body concealment or disposal and the criminal code says 2 years, then it is no deal to say the max would be 2 years. It is an accurate explanation of the penal code.
The culmination of a murder enquiry was that Kate and Gerry were made arguidos, accused of murdering their eldest daughter.
They were offered the deal that Kate would receive only a few years if she confessed to finding and concealing 'a body', and Gerry would be let off scot free.
And yes, Brietta is absolutely right, the 'plea-bargain' is a feature of American law, reached after charges are brought, in which the accused pleads guilty to minor charges, for which comparatively lenient sentences will be imposed, in return for a promise that more serious charges will be dropped.
The McCanns were never charged.
And in any event, because, in Portugal, the police and the judiciary operate independently of each other, 'plea-bargains are not possible.
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: Alfie on April 10, 2017, 06:17:50 PM
If the offence was body concealment or disposal and the criminal code says 2 years, then it is no deal to say the max would be 2 years. It is an accurate explanation of the penal code.
Kate was being encouraged to confess to body concealment with the enticement of only 2 years in prison for hiding a body - sounds like they were trying it on to me.
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: ShiningInLuz on April 10, 2017, 06:26:02 PM
To the uninitiated familiar with American cop programmes when told what Kate's lawyer put to her would perhaps be understood as a 'plea-bargain'. Why are we even doing the ground hog thing on this issue yet again? 8)-)))
Unfortunately Alfie and Davel seem to think it important.
It is, but no-one seems to have twigged why. By the way, Kate covers an aspect of that in her book as well, so perhaps a few people on here would do well to whip out their copy, and at least get Kate's take.
My own view of its importance is quite different, though.
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: stephen25000 on April 10, 2017, 06:26:43 PM
Yet it is known deals aren't allowed in the Portuguese legal system.
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 10, 2017, 06:27:32 PM
Unfortunately Alfie and Davel seem to think it important.
It is, but no-one seems to have twigged why. By the way, Kate covers an aspect of that in her book as well, so perhaps a few people on here would do well to whip out their copy, and at least get Kate's take.
My own view of its importance is quite different, though.
Your memory is letting you down again It was you who raised the matter
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: ShiningInLuz on April 10, 2017, 06:30:44 PM
Im asking for an expalnation....you dont seem to understand the meaning of the word assistance. Without any sort of expalnation as to why you undersatnd this....your post is simply waffle
I am not required by the forum to provide cites for posts coming under the heading IMO, and 'I understand' is in that group.
I have declined twice to explain this further, but feel free to keep flogging the same dead horse.
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: ShiningInLuz on April 10, 2017, 06:35:35 PM
The culmination of a murder enquiry was that Kate and Gerry were made arguidos, accused of murdering their eldest daughter.
They were offered the deal that Kate would receive only a few years if she confessed to finding and concealing 'a body', and Gerry would be let off scot free.
And yes, Brietta is absolutely right, the 'plea-bargain' is a feature of American law, reached after charges are brought, in which the accused pleads guilty to minor charges, for which comparatively lenient sentences will be imposed, in return for a promise that more serious charges will be dropped.
The McCanns were never charged.
And in any event, because, in Portugal, the police and the judiciary operate independently of each other, 'plea-bargains are not possible.
I am not aware they were ever accused of anything, let alone murder.
One does not accuse an arguido in Portugal, any more than one accuses a person conducting an interview under caution in the UK.
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: ferryman on April 10, 2017, 06:41:38 PM
I am not aware they were ever accused of anything, let alone murder.
One does not accuse an arguido in Portugal, any more than one accuses a person conducting an interview under caution in the UK.
The arguido status is an accusation, short of charges, of a criminal offence:
Quote
Q&A: Suspects and Portuguese law Madeleine McCann's parents have been named official suspects by Portuguese police investigating their daughter's disappearance.
Previously, a 33-year-old British man - Robert Murat - was also declared "arguido" by detectives.
People given arguido/a status are officially treated as a suspect in a crime.
None of the three have been arrested or charged.
How is arguido status given and what does it mean?
Under Portuguese law either the police or a person being questioned can request that they be formally named as a suspect, a process called arguido.
Artur Rego, a Portuguese lawyer, told BBC News: "Arguido is the person who has been accused of being the perpetrator.
"This is just an accusation made exactly at the end of the investigation."
A person can ask for arguido status if they feel the line of questioning is implying that they are a suspect. This gives them more rights than a witness would have.
What rights does an arguido have?
Arguido status gives a range of legal protections, such as the right to remain silent and the right to a lawyer during questioning.
Mr Rego said: "Sometimes when they [the police] suspect someone, they call that person in as a witness.
"They don't constitute him as arguido and they extract as much information from him as they can, because as a witness he cannot refuse to collaborate with the police.
"Now the moment he is constituted as arguido, as the defendant, then he can not only refuse to answer questions because they can incriminate him, but also he has the right to be accompanied in the questionings by his own solicitor."
Once someone is an arguido they can be arrested, but only if there is sufficient evidence.
What action can the courts take against an arguido?
The police can use their powers to bring the suspect before a judge to ask for restrictions to be imposed on their movements.
If they do, they could be banned from leaving their house or the area, or held in custody while the case continues.
In this case, the suspect is not subject to a judge's order, but has signed an identity and residence statement.
It prevents the person moving house or leaving the country. If they stay anywhere other than their given place of residence for more than five days they have to notify police.
E-mail this to a friend Printable version Bookmark with: Delicious Digg reddit Facebook StumbleUpon What are these?
To be a suspect in a crime is to be accused, is it not?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6657977.stm
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 10, 2017, 06:42:55 PM
What you mean is - you can't answer the question without looking silly, come on - be honest now!
Poder- to be able to, to have the power to. Posso - I can, I am able to, I have the power to. Except to do so would be in breach of forum rules, so I am not.
Is there to be another round of dead-horse flogging or can we move on to something interesting?
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 10, 2017, 06:44:17 PM
It is my understanding that Kate WAS offerred a deal by the pj
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: ferryman on April 10, 2017, 06:45:07 PM
Kate was being encouraged to confess to body concealment with the enticement of only 2 years in prison for hiding a body - sounds like they were trying it on to me.
You are now getting close to the important bit with 'trying it on', but you are not there yet.
What should Kate, Gerry and Carlos have realised at this time?
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: Alfie on April 10, 2017, 06:48:02 PM
Poder- to be able to, to have the power to. Posso - I can, I am able to, I have the power to. Except to do so would be in breach of forum rules, so I am not.
Is there to be another round of dead-horse flogging or can we move on to something interesting?
The very definition of this forum is dead-horse flogging, hadn't you noticed? What would you like to talk about that hasn't been done to death a thousand times already? How's the weather over there? We've had some warm temperatures this weekend, but not so mild today. They say Easter will be cool which is a shame. hey - ho, what are you having for dinner? Thai green curry for us I think. Yum. 8((()*/
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: stephen25000 on April 10, 2017, 06:54:17 PM
Neither is it allowed by Portuguese law that suspects are beaten in police custody.
The Portuguese courts still found it proved that Leonor Cipriano was tortured in police custody.
I'm afraid that just trying to tag Portugal with certain behaviour is rather trite.
Perhaps you can remind me of which members of the PJ have served a sentence for 'torturing' Cipriano, the convicted child murderer and convicted liar, who of course had her sentence extended.
She, of course gave multiple varied accounts of what happened to her.
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: ShiningInLuz on April 10, 2017, 07:10:09 PM
The arguido status is an accusation, short of charges, of a criminal offence:
To be a suspect in a crime is to be accused, is it not?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6657977.stm
To be interviewed under caution in the UK has the connotation that one is a suspect in something and one can incriminate oneself.
To be interviewed as an arguido in Portugal has the same negative connotation i.e. that one is a suspect or that one can incriminate oneself. However, no one is told up front in a formal manner what the police might suspect them of, although the line of questioning and 'evidence' presented should make that clear as one progresses.
Thank you for the link. My only issue was that the term arguido was being bandied about then, and in the OG period, as a small step away from 'the police have gotcha'. Most of the clarification articles tend to be somewhat simplistic attempts to make clear this interpretation is inaccurate.
Again, thank you for your link.
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: ShiningInLuz on April 10, 2017, 07:21:27 PM
The very definition of this forum is dead-horse flogging, hadn't you noticed? What would you like to talk about that hasn't been done to death a thousand times already? How's the weather over there? We've had some warm temperatures this weekend, but not so mild today. They say Easter will be cool which is a shame. hey - ho, what are you having for dinner? Thai green curry for us I think. Yum. 8((()*/
Mid-day temps in the shade in Centigrade from 1 Apr 2017 have been 23, 21, 22, 22, 22, 21, 23, 20, 20, 20. Shorts and sandals. No rain. Just ShiningInLuz. Before you ask, I am running a weather experiment in Luz before we relocate, so I am also recording the weather conditions at 10pm each evening.
I'm having a takeaway from a Chinese in Luz. Just special fried rice. I reckon you win the duel of the dinners with Thai green curry. Enjoy!
8((()*/
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: Alice Purjorick on April 10, 2017, 08:01:20 PM
Mid-day temps in the shade in Centigrade from 1 Apr 2017 have been 23, 21, 22, 22, 22, 21, 23, 20, 20, 20. Shorts and sandals. No rain. Just ShiningInLuz. Before you ask, I am running a weather experiment in Luz before we relocate, so I am also recording the weather conditions at 10pm each evening.
I'm having a takeaway from a Chinese in Luz. Just special fried rice. I reckon you win the duel of the dinners with Thai green curry. Enjoy!
8((()*/
Don't forget to record the wind direction and velocity too. On the food front I will stick with pie and mash with green liquor served in the traditional manner 8(>((
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 10, 2017, 08:15:18 PM
Don't forget to record the wind direction and velocity too. On the food front I will stick with pie and mash with green liquor served in the traditional manner 8(>((
shouldnt that be wind speed....scalers and vectors
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: stephen25000 on April 10, 2017, 08:21:59 PM
Don't forget to record the wind direction and velocity too. On the food front I will stick with pie and mash with green liquor served in the traditional manner 8(>((
Don't forget a bowl of Gagh, and a cask of Blood Wine. *&*%£
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: Robittybob1 on April 10, 2017, 08:37:09 PM
I'm afraid that just trying to tag Portugal with certain behaviour is rather trite.
Perhaps you can remind me of which members of the PJ have served a sentence for 'torturing' Cipriano, the convicted child murderer and convicted liar, who of course had her sentence extended.
She, of course gave multiple varied accounts of what happened to her.
Strawman!
Actually, a double strawman.
The Portuguese courts found it proved that Leonor Cipriano had been tortured in police custody, but did not convict any of the policemen, proven to be with her at the time of the torture, because Leonor's torturers had had the, (ahem) foresight! to put a bag over her head before they tortured her, so she could not identify her aggressors.
Leonor is not a particularly well-educated woman, subjected to a terrifying ordeal, while temporarily, and very nearly permanently, deprived of one of her vital senses, sight.
And she promptly had her sentence increased because she is (deemed) not to have got her facts entirely straight about the details of that terrifying ordeal.
The just (and logical) result of it being proved she was tortured is that her conviction should have been quashed.
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: stephen25000 on April 10, 2017, 08:51:38 PM
The Portuguese courts found it proved that Leonor Cipriano had been tortured in police custody, but did not convict any of the policemen, proven to be with her at the time of the torture, because Leonor's torturers had had the, (ahem) foresight! to put a bag over her head before they tortured her, so she could not identify her aggressors.
Leonor is not a particularly well-educated woman, subjected to a terrifying ordeal, while temporarily, and very nearly permanently, deprived of one of her vital senses, sight.
And she promptly had her sentence increased because she is (deemed) not to have got her facts entirely straight about the details of that terrifying ordeal.
The just (and logical) result of it being proved she was tortured is that her conviction should have been quashed.
T.B.'s.
The woman is a convicted murderer and liar.
As to why you support such a person, well that is another matter.
However, hardly difficult to deduce.
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: ferryman on April 10, 2017, 08:53:31 PM
Don't forget to record the wind direction and velocity too. On the food front I will stick with pie and mash with green liquor served in the traditional manner 8(>((
I have been recording wind direction and speed, plus cloud cover at both my 1.37pm and 10pm checks, from 30/3/17. Before that it was just the mid-day check from Nov 16 until I realised I need the night-time check as well.
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: slartibartfast on April 10, 2017, 09:01:26 PM
I'm afraid that just trying to tag Portugal with certain behaviour is rather trite.
Perhaps you can remind me of which members of the PJ have served a sentence for 'torturing' Cipriano, the convicted child murderer and convicted liar, who of course had her sentence extended.
She, of course gave multiple varied accounts of what happened to her.
this is what Amnesty International had to say about the torture of Cipriano
Portugal Human Rights
Torture and other ill-treatment
On 22 May the Criminal Court of Faro issued its sentence in the case of the torture of Leonor Cipriano. The court recognized that she had been tortured in police custody in 2004, but acquitted all three police officers, claiming that it was impossible to identify exactly who had been responsible
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: Alice Purjorick on April 10, 2017, 10:08:29 PM
there is no debate...im happy to have one.....you cannot explain what your reference to omega means...lets have a debate
You did physics to an advanced level so you should not need to ask what omega represents. One last clue for you: radians. If you can't get it after that then we all know who is bullshitting and who isn't.
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: Robittybob1 on April 10, 2017, 11:55:18 PM
You did physics to an advanced level so you should not need to ask what omega represents. One last clue for you: radians. If you can't get it after that then we all know who is bullshitting and who isn't.
Oh is that what its about.
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 11, 2017, 12:08:14 AM
You did physics to an advanced level so you should not need to ask what omega represents. One last clue for you: radians. If you can't get it after that then we all know who is bullshitting and who isn't.
I thought you wanted a debate....yes I did physics at adavanced level....state your case
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: stephen25000 on April 11, 2017, 09:03:41 AM
It's a symbol which you should recognize from Physics and Mechanics (as part of Maths 'A' level courses).
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: Robittybob1 on April 11, 2017, 09:21:22 AM
I'm absolutely sure the reference to omega will have deep and profound consequences for what happens post the Supreme Court decision.
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: Alfie on April 11, 2017, 11:03:55 AM
Typical Alice thread disruption to start willy waving again. "My scientific knowledge is greater than thou's scientific knowledge" - childish in the extreme.
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: stephen25000 on April 11, 2017, 11:20:20 AM
Typical Alice thread disruption to start willy waving again. "My scientific knowledge is greater than thou's scientific knowledge" - childish in the extreme.
Alfie.
You were supporting davel in that regard last night.
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 11, 2017, 11:22:29 AM
It is established (the PJ final report says so) that, at the time of the Smith sighting, and also the time of Kate's alert, Gerry was at the Tapas Restaurant.
Inspector Carlos also confirms that the McCanns leant full cooperation to the PJ efforts to try to find Madeleine.
Amaral didn't even understand the work of Mark Harrison, let alone the forensic results.
How much more needs to be clarified to establish that the Supreme Court got it (badly) wrong; the first-instance judge, exactly right?
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: faithlilly on April 11, 2017, 11:50:59 AM
It is established (the PJ final report says so) that, at the time of the Smith sighting, and also the time of Kate's alert, Gerry was at the Tapas Restaurant.
Inspector Carlos also confirms that the McCanns leant full cooperation to the PJ efforts to try to find Madeleine.
Amaral didn't even understand the work of Mark Harrison, let alone the forensic results.
How much more needs to be clarified to establish that the Supreme Court got it (badly) wrong; the first-instance judge, exactly right?
The Mccanns did not fully cooperate.
Need I remind you what was said at the end of the 48 questions.
The denigrating terms applied to members of the P.J.
......
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: slartibartfast on April 11, 2017, 11:55:26 AM
IMO the book was about the investigation not what happened to Maddie.
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: ferryman on April 11, 2017, 11:57:36 AM
Typical Alice thread disruption to start willy waving again. "My scientific knowledge is greater than thou's scientific knowledge" - childish in the extreme.
Sure it's childish but amusing nonetheless.
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: G-Unit on April 11, 2017, 04:57:12 PM
If Operation Grange solve the crime and (particularly) if they were to find Madeleine alive.
That would make no difference whatsoever. You seem to think the case rested on whether Amaral's opinion was right. It wasn't. The case was about whether he could express his opinion or not.
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: Alfie on April 11, 2017, 06:15:28 PM
That would make no difference whatsoever. You seem to think the case rested on whether Amaral's opinion was right. It wasn't. The case was about whether he could express his opinion or not.
I thought it was a damages case, that's what we were constantly being told - that it was nothing to do with libel, remember?
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: Miss Taken Identity on April 11, 2017, 06:24:03 PM
I thought it was a damages case, that's what we were constantly being told - that it was nothing to do with libel, remember?
Yeah we the septics remember, how could we be allowed to forget.. It started off as damages to parents reputation to he search for Maddie, then the 'fan club' descided it was a libe trial to find The McCanns innocent ..
BUT after all these posts the SC found Amaral had no case to answer regarding his freedom of speech claim. As far as we know SC havn't changed their mind or had their minds changed for them. Simples. 8)-)))
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: jassi on April 11, 2017, 06:27:31 PM
When appropriate, I just refer to it as the McCann v Amaral case and find that avoids all trivial argument.
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: G-Unit on April 11, 2017, 06:53:27 PM
That would make no difference whatsoever. You seem to think the case rested on whether Amaral's opinion was right. It wasn't. The case was about whether he could express his opinion or not.
That's what I mean, he has been allowed to express his opinion and now he should be man enough to admit he was wrong. To pay all the McCanns legal fees out of the gains from his book which he can now see was a theory along the wrong path. I believe that would be a great move enabling him to ease the tension between the McCanns and himself and opening up the opportunity to really provide another scenario explaining Smith-man.
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: stephen25000 on April 11, 2017, 07:46:23 PM
That's what I mean, he has been allowed to express his opinion and now he should be man enough to admit he was wrong. To pay all the McCanns legal fees out of the gains from his book which he can now see was a theory along the wrong path. I believe that would be a great move enabling him to ease the tension between the McCanns and himself and opening up the opportunity to really provide another scenario explaining Smith-man.
His theory remains on the table Rob.
Try again.
As to apologizing, that is what the McCann's should do, to all those tax payers in Portugal and the UK , whose money has been used, as a result of their inability to protect their children.
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: G-Unit on April 11, 2017, 07:52:09 PM
That's what I mean, he has been allowed to express his opinion and now he should be man enough to admit he was wrong. To pay all the McCanns legal fees out of the gains from his book which he can now see was a theory along the wrong path. I believe that would be a great move enabling him to ease the tension between the McCanns and himself and opening up the opportunity to really provide another scenario explaining Smith-man.
Looking at it another way, the McCanns have not been allowed to take his money and ruin him. Why he should do them any favours escapes me, but I do enjoy your fantasies. 8(0(*
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: ferryman on April 11, 2017, 07:54:18 PM
Looking at it another way, the McCanns have not been allowed to take his money and ruin him. Why he should do them any favours escapes me, but I do enjoy your fantasies. 8(0(*
What do you suppose Amaral did to the McCanns with his book?
Certainly not tell the truth.
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: Robittybob1 on April 11, 2017, 08:00:34 PM
Looking at it another way, the McCanns have not been allowed to take his money and ruin him. Why he should do them any favours escapes me, but I do enjoy your fantasies. 8(0(*
With the animosity settled he would be allowed to publish another book in England and hence reap the benefits of the truce.
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 11, 2017, 09:04:22 PM
It just goes to show how slow on the uptake the average supporter is.
Kipper got removed last year when we had the "likes" issue & multi-ID's. Someone let the poster back on to rack up the likes (almost entirely on sceptic's posts). It didn't go unnoticed, it was just ignored.
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: Alfie on April 11, 2017, 11:09:13 PM
Kipper got removed last year when we had the "likes" issue & multi-ID's. Someone let the poster back on to rack up the likes (almost entirely on sceptic's posts). It didn't go unnoticed, it was just ignored.
Exactly right.
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: Robittybob1 on April 11, 2017, 11:56:56 PM
When posts are liked and you don't agree it does have an affect.
I think we should go back to the days of having our likes tally posted under our names so it can become a proper popularity contest and we can ship in lots of fake accounts to boost our ratings. It's very important to be seen to be popular and liked by the majority don't you agree...? ?{)(**
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: Robittybob1 on April 12, 2017, 01:54:00 AM
I think we should go back to the days of having our likes tally posted under our names so it can become a proper popularity contest and we can ship in lots of fake accounts to boost our ratings. It's very important to be seen to be popular and liked by the majority don't you agree...? ?{)(**
Occasionally I get a like and it does cheer me up. Too many might just go to my head.
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: ferryman on April 12, 2017, 09:41:33 AM
Yeah we the septics remember, how could we be allowed to forget.. It started off as damages to parents reputation to he search for Maddie, then the 'fan club' descided it was a libe trial to find The McCanns innocent ..
BUT after all these posts the SC found Amaral had no case to answer regarding his freedom of speech claim. As far as we know SC havn't changed their mind or had their minds changed for them. Simples. 8)-)))
Has Amaral been paid his dosh?
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: Robittybob1 on April 12, 2017, 09:49:03 AM
Yeah we the septics remember, how could we be allowed to forget.. It started off as damages to parents reputation to he search for Maddie, then the 'fan club' descided it was a libe trial to find The McCanns innocent ..
BUT after all these posts the SC found Amaral had no case to answer regarding his freedom of speech claim. As far as we know SC havn't changed their mind or had their minds changed for them. Simples. 8)-)))
Mindless. Shame on them.
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: jassi on April 12, 2017, 10:05:59 AM
I am not aware they were ever accused of anything, let alone murder.
One does not accuse an arguido in Portugal, any more than one accuses a person conducting an interview under caution in the UK.
Quote
Interview under caution
Every day Cartwright King’s expert solicitors and legal advisors represent clients in interviews under caution throughout the country. We can provide you with advice and assistance wherever you are based.
Most interviews under caution take place at short notice, after an initial arrest or a raid by the authorities. However, increasingly the police and other agencies are relying upon interviews arranged voluntarily. If you have been invited to such an interview, even though you may have been told that you will not be arrested, it is still vital that you obtain proper advice from us as the investigators still suspect that you have committed a criminal offence.
In lengthy and complex investigations you may be subject to more than one interview. It may be that you are then bailed to a future date to enable the police to make further enquiries. The results of which may form the basis of a further interview. If your investigation is serious and complex but you were represented by the duty solicitor in your initial interview, you may benefit from the assistance of one of our specialist solicitors as your case progresses.
Free Initial Telephone Advice
To discuss your options, the process and for confidential advice please call us on freephone 0808 168 5550 or email info@cartwrightking.co.uk and we'll call you back.
We can help you with the following interviews:
Police Serious Fraud Office National Crime Agency DWP – benefits & housing benefit Job Centre Council / Local Authority HSE Environment Agency HMRC DVSA / VOSA Voluntary interviews Internal Arrest Warrants Other regulatory agencies What is an interview under caution?
A police interview under caution is an interview that is conducted in accordance with the Police and Criminal Evidence Act. The caution is administered at the start of the interview and must be given if you are being asked questions where it is suspected that you have committed an offence. The purpose of the caution is to warn you that although you have a right to remain silent, if you do so a jury may draw what is known as an “adverse inference” at any later trial.
Why have I been invited?
Increasingly, the police are turning to interviews by invitation rather than arresting individuals in order to interview them. They may do this because although they will have received a complaint that they wish to investigate, and they believe that you are involved, they do not have sufficient evidence to arrest you. Alternatively, it may be that they know that their investigation is likely to be lengthy and they wish to avoid the obligations placed upon them when dealing with individuals under arrest.
Other agencies, such as the DWP do not have powers of arrest and can therefore only interview you if you consent, although if you refuse to attend an interview voluntarily they may pass their investigation over to the police to pursue.
What will happen?
As you are not under arrest, you are free to leave and stop the interview at any time. However, in some circumstances, attempting to do so may lead to you being arrested. Unlike if you were under arrest you will not have your photograph and other forensic samples taken from you and you will not have to spend any time in police custody. The interview will however, be recorded and you are entitled to have a solicitor present.
How we can help?
Just like being under arrest, you are entitled to have a solicitor present during the course of the interview to ensure that the questioning is conducted fairly, and that your rights are upheld. Your solicitor will be provided with some pre-interview disclosure, which should help to establish why the police think that you are involved in any particular allegation. You will then have an opportunity to discuss this with your solicitor in confidence prior to the interview. They can provide you with advice as to whether it would be in your best interests to co-operate with the interview or not.
Why you should have a solicitor?
You should always have a solicitor present in an interview under caution. The solicitor is your representative and is there to safeguard your interests. He or she will discuss the case with you, analyse the disclosure given by the investigators and ask you about your potential responses. The interview procedure is perhaps the most important stage of any criminal investigation. It is at that crucial early stage, before the views of the investigator are fully formed, that you can influence the course of the investigation to your benefit. However, anything that you say could be used as evidence against you at trial.
It may be that you can provide an explanation that satisfies the investigator that no offence has been committed or you may be able to present facts that will later form the basis of your defence at trial. It may be that you choose to exercise your right to silence - you do not have to say anything in answer to any of the questions.
Making the right decision at this early stage is crucial to your case, and our expert legal advisers can advise you as to the right course of action for you.
Also, because bankruptcy can affect some types of employment.
Not doctors Simon Cowell is an ex bankrupt Doesn't seem to have done him much harm
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: Robittybob1 on April 12, 2017, 05:04:06 PM
I'm still expecting Goncalo Amaral to pay the McCanns legal bills out of the ill gotten gains. His theory was wrong, he knows it now, he knows it has hurt the McCanns reputation, so he should bail them out rather than let the McCanns go bankrupt.
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: stephen25000 on April 12, 2017, 05:09:30 PM
I'm still expecting Goncalo Amaral to pay the McCanns legal bills out of the ill gotten gains. His theory was wrong, he knows it now, he knows it has hurt the McCanns reputation, so he should bail them out rather than let the McCanns go bankrupt.
Dear oh dear. &%&£(+ &%&£(+ &%&£(+
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: Robittybob1 on April 12, 2017, 05:35:16 PM
Let me be like Davel and make a prediction. I predict Goncalo Amaral will pay the McCanns legal bills out of the ill gotten gains. His theory was wrong, he knows it now, he knows it has hurt the McCanns reputation, so he will bail them out rather than let the McCanns go bankrupt.
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: stephen25000 on April 12, 2017, 05:40:42 PM
Let me be like Davel and make a prediction. I predict Goncalo Amaral will pay the McCanns legal bills out of the ill gotten gains. His theory was wrong, he knows it now, he knows it has hurt the McCanns reputation, so he will bail them out rather than let the McCanns go bankrupt.
The Mccann's and no one else are responsible for the mess they are in.
It was never Amaral.
As to his basic theory, that remains on the table.
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: ferryman on April 12, 2017, 05:44:15 PM
Let me be like Davel and make a prediction. I predict Goncalo Amaral will pay the McCanns legal bills out of the ill gotten gains. His theory was wrong, he knows it now, he knows it has hurt the McCanns reputation, so he will bail them out rather than let the McCanns go bankrupt.
I think Amaral is unprincipled to a core, will grab what he can get and will cause the maximum pain he can get away with.
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: stephen25000 on April 12, 2017, 05:45:35 PM
The Mccann's and no one else are responsible for the mess they are in.
It was never Amaral.
As to his basic theory, that remains on the table.
You can't be serious. Even the SC judges steered clear of it. It was a thesis and it has run it course and found to be wanting, it was found to be damaging, it hurt the reputations of the McCanns and it hampered the search for Madeleine.
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: stephen25000 on April 12, 2017, 06:40:11 PM
You can't be serious. Even the SC judges steered clear of it. It was a thesis and it has run it course and found to be wanting, it was found to be damaging, it hurt the reputations of the McCanns and it hampered the search for Madeleine.
It wasn't in the courts remit to judge his theory.
Have you read the judgement ?
As to the Mccann's, they hurt their own reputations through what they did.
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: G-Unit on April 12, 2017, 07:30:43 PM
You can't be serious. Even the SC judges steered clear of it. It was a thesis and it has run it course and found to be wanting, it was found to be damaging, it hurt the reputations of the McCanns and it hampered the search for Madeleine.
The McCanns damaged their own reputation, as this link demonstrates;
May 4 2008 by Phil Cullen, Sunday Sun
ON the one hand, Kate and Gerry McCann want no stone unturned in the hunt for Madeleine.
And on the other, they are reluctant to return to Portugal for a reconstruction.
One the one hand, they court publicity.
And on the other, they get huffy when journalists don’t follow the McCann agenda.
Watching the TV interviews last week on the anniversary of Madeleine’s disappearance I was struck by how many awkward questions they faced.
They included the leaked witness statement where Kate admitted Madeleine had asked why she was left to cry.
The fact remains they did have "something to do" with Madeleine's disappearance.
By that, I mean leaving her and her siblings alone that night.
And therefore contributing to a sequence of events which resulted in tragedy.
All right-minded people will hope their daughter is found.
But her parents are doing themselves no favours with the contradictory messages they send out. http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/id118.htm
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: ferryman on April 12, 2017, 07:34:27 PM
After the way they were shamefully accused in their arguido interviews, why do you suppose they would trust further proposed actions?
It wasn't about them, it was about co-operating with the investigation into the disappearance of their daughter.
Jon Gaunt Published: 16 May 2008
WHAT is it with the McCanns? They say they will do anything to help find Maddie but are still dragging their feet over returning to Portugal for a reconstruction of the fateful night when they left Maddie and her twin siblings home alone.
Sources close to them say they have "serious reservations".
Why? What serious reservations?
Their spokesman, Clarence Mitchell, asks: "What is the value?"
So now this ex-BBC reporter, Government spin doctor and PR man is suddenly Columbo or Morse, is he?
I'm sorry, but let's remember they are still prime suspects and if the Portuguese plods want them in Portugal they should be there — reservations or not.
Kelvin MacKenzie (Editor of the Sun 1981-1994) 29/05/2008
I am puzzled at the refusal of the McCanns to fly to the Algarve today for a police reconstruction of the night Madeleine disappeared.
It is said they are suspicous of police motives and do not believe it will help find their daughter. Are they really the best placed people to make that decision? after all, they remain the leading suspects in the case and despite Portuguese police handling the investigation badly, the law remains their best hope for justice.
Already the McCanns have tried worldwide publicity - including roping in the pope - and that didn't work.
They have taken the public's money and spent it on £50,000-a-month private detectives, and that certainly hasn't worked.
Those with decent memories may well recall these private eyes claiming they would have Madeleine home by christmas.
So why wouldn't the Mccanns and the Tapas seven try one more throw of the dice ? according to a "friend", it would have disrupted their family and business schedules.
Their "schedules" have already been disrupted and tragically will remain so for as long as Madeleine remains missing.
Could I urge them to have a change of heart and co-operate with the police.
Until they do so my personal jury will remain out.
Carole Malone 01/06/2008
So, it isn't just Kate and Gerry who have refused to go back to Portugal for a police reconstuction of Maddies disappearance.
We now learn that at least four of the Tapas seven have also refused because they too left their kids alone when they went drinking that fateful night.
Are they worried that like the McCanns, they might also become suspects?
Er, so what happened to the "We'll do whatever is necessary to find Maddie" mantra? Did that come with the proviso that they'll do "whatever's necessary" as long as it doesn't embarrass them, inconvenience them or put them in any personal danger?
Anyway, I don't see the problem. If these people have nothing to hide, if they really DO want to help find Maddie, why haven't they already hauled their backsides back to Portugal? http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/id118.htm
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 12, 2017, 09:50:31 PM
It wasn't about them, it was about co-operating with the investigation into the disappearance of their daughter.
Jon Gaunt Published: 16 May 2008
WHAT is it with the McCanns? They say they will do anything to help find Maddie but are still dragging their feet over returning to Portugal for a reconstruction of the fateful night when they left Maddie and her twin siblings home alone.
Sources close to them say they have "serious reservations".
Why? What serious reservations?
Their spokesman, Clarence Mitchell, asks: "What is the value?"
So now this ex-BBC reporter, Government spin doctor and PR man is suddenly Columbo or Morse, is he?
I'm sorry, but let's remember they are still prime suspects and if the Portuguese plods want them in Portugal they should be there — reservations or not.
Kelvin MacKenzie (Editor of the Sun 1981-1994) 29/05/2008
I am puzzled at the refusal of the McCanns to fly to the Algarve today for a police reconstruction of the night Madeleine disappeared.
It is said they are suspicous of police motives and do not believe it will help find their daughter. Are they really the best placed people to make that decision? after all, they remain the leading suspects in the case and despite Portuguese police handling the investigation badly, the law remains their best hope for justice.
Already the McCanns have tried worldwide publicity - including roping in the pope - and that didn't work.
They have taken the public's money and spent it on £50,000-a-month private detectives, and that certainly hasn't worked.
Those with decent memories may well recall these private eyes claiming they would have Madeleine home by christmas.
So why wouldn't the Mccanns and the Tapas seven try one more throw of the dice ? according to a "friend", it would have disrupted their family and business schedules.
Their "schedules" have already been disrupted and tragically will remain so for as long as Madeleine remains missing.
Could I urge them to have a change of heart and co-operate with the police.
Until they do so my personal jury will remain out.
Carole Malone 01/06/2008
So, it isn't just Kate and Gerry who have refused to go back to Portugal for a police reconstuction of Maddies disappearance.
We now learn that at least four of the Tapas seven have also refused because they too left their kids alone when they went drinking that fateful night.
Are they worried that like the McCanns, they might also become suspects?
Er, so what happened to the "We'll do whatever is necessary to find Maddie" mantra? Did that come with the proviso that they'll do "whatever's necessary" as long as it doesn't embarrass them, inconvenience them or put them in any personal danger?
Anyway, I don't see the problem. If these people have nothing to hide, if they really DO want to help find Maddie, why haven't they already hauled their backsides back to Portugal? http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/id118.htm
McCanns must not return to Portugal Daily Express (No online link)
Richard Madeley 12th April 2008
Sources cose to Kate and Gerry McCann have indicated they are most unlikely to comply with a request that they return to Praia de Luz.
Police there want them to take part in a large-scale re-enactment of the minutes and hours following Madeleine's disappearance. The couple are quite right to turn down this invitation.
The whole thing has the authentic smell of a trap. What can such a re-enactment possibly achieve nearly a year on from that dreadful night? Nothing. The trail went cold months ago thanks to the idiotic blundering of Praia de Luz's finest.
No. The Poruguese police want Kate and Gerry back in their jurisdiction for their own private reasons.
The couple remain official suspects but could never to extradited back to Portugal: there isn't a scintilla of evidence against them. This new proposal is, to my suspicious and cynical eye, an attempt to lure the couple back there, along with the friends who were with them the night Madeleine vanished, so they can be re-arrested.
The police could pounce on the tiniest discrepancy in what anyone said and blow it up out of all proportion.
And now as I write this, come reports of a new smear on the couple from Portuguese police.
I rest my case.
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: ShiningInLuz on April 12, 2017, 09:54:42 PM
McCanns must not return to Portugal Daily Express (No online link)
Richard Madeley 12th April 2008
Sources cose to Kate and Gerry McCann have indicated they are most unlikely to comply with a request that they return to Praia de Luz.
Police there want them to take part in a large-scale re-enactment of the minutes and hours following Madeleine's disappearance. The couple are quite right to turn down this invitation.
The whole thing has the authentic smell of a trap. What can such a re-enactment possibly achieve nearly a year on from that dreadful night? Nothing. The trail went cold months ago thanks to the idiotic blundering of Praia de Luz's finest.
No. The Poruguese police want Kate and Gerry back in their jurisdiction for their own private reasons.
The couple remain official suspects but could never to extradited back to Portugal: there isn't a scintilla of evidence against them. This new proposal is, to my suspicious and cynical eye, an attempt to lure the couple back there, along with the friends who were with them the night Madeleine vanished, so they can be re-arrested.
The police could pounce on the tiniest discrepancy in what anyone said and blow it up out of all proportion.
And now as I write this, come reports of a new smear on the couple from Portuguese police.
I rest my case.
Praia de Luz's finest? @)(++(*
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 12, 2017, 09:55:07 PM
McCanns must not return to Portugal Daily Express (No online link)
Richard Madeley 12th April 2008
Sources cose to Kate and Gerry McCann have indicated they are most unlikely to comply with a request that they return to Praia de Luz.
Police there want them to take part in a large-scale re-enactment of the minutes and hours following Madeleine's disappearance. The couple are quite right to turn down this invitation.
The whole thing has the authentic smell of a trap. What can such a re-enactment possibly achieve nearly a year on from that dreadful night? Nothing. The trail went cold months ago thanks to the idiotic blundering of Praia de Luz's finest.
No. The Poruguese police want Kate and Gerry back in their jurisdiction for their own private reasons.
The couple remain official suspects but could never to extradited back to Portugal: there isn't a scintilla of evidence against them. This new proposal is, to my suspicious and cynical eye, an attempt to lure the couple back there, along with the friends who were with them the night Madeleine vanished, so they can be re-arrested.
The police could pounce on the tiniest discrepancy in what anyone said and blow it up out of all proportion.
And now as I write this, come reports of a new smear on the couple from Portuguese police.
I rest my case.
I remember him.
He claimed some people were jealous of Kate Mccann's looks. *&*%£
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: ShiningInLuz on April 12, 2017, 10:00:41 PM
have you not heard of a metaphor....or was your education purely science based
It was in mechanics, law and some accountancy. Now figure that out. I do music, poetry and literature as a passtime when not up to me wotsits in water flinging fluff at things with adipose fins.
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 12, 2017, 11:11:42 PM
It was in mechanics, law and some accountancy. Now figure that out. I do music, poetry and literature as a passtime when not up to me wotsits in water flinging fluff at things with adipose fins.
then you will understand the word metaphor and stop being silly
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: ShiningInLuz on April 12, 2017, 11:11:58 PM
I didn't think there was one. The thread is "what now post supreme court". The McCanns pay or don't pay depending upon whether they can afford it or come to some arrangement with the Portuguese court if they can't afford it. Game over pretty much wrt McCann v Amaral. Nothing can change the judgement. Jassi posted that early doors.
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 12, 2017, 11:31:26 PM
I didn't think there was one. The thread is "what now post supreme court". The McCanns pay or don't pay depending upon whether they can afford it or come to some arrangement with the Portuguese court if they can't afford it. Game over pretty much wrt McCann v Amaral. Nothing can change the judgement. Jassi posted that early doors.
really...they may already have settled it....we dont know...we dont even know how much the legal costs are
what we do know is the mccanns have considerable earning power....money is not their problem....FINDING THEIR POOR DAUGHTER OR WHAT HAPPENNED TO HER IS
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: carlymichelle on April 12, 2017, 11:35:02 PM
I didn't think there was one. The thread is "what now post supreme court". The McCanns pay or don't pay depending upon whether they can afford it or come to some arrangement with the Portuguese court if they can't afford it. Game over pretty much wrt McCann v Amaral. Nothing can change the judgement. Jassi posted that early doors.
?{)(** after saying for 8 years that the mcanns would win it must be hard for their supporters to accept they lost ?{)(**
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 12, 2017, 11:36:48 PM
?{)(** after saying for 8 years that the mcanns would win it must be hard for their supporters to accept they lost ?{)(**
They actually won apparently. We are just too thick to see it allegedly. I see your girls and guys are making a reasonable start in Hong Kong. It's a shame Anna "The Elbows" has retired 8(0(*
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: Mr Gray on April 12, 2017, 11:52:17 PM
They actually won apparently. We are just too thick to see it allegedly. I see your girls and guys are making a reasonable start in Hong Kong. It's a shame Anna "The Elbows" has retired 8(0(*
no level playing field
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: G-Unit on April 13, 2017, 07:38:59 AM
They actually won apparently. We are just too thick to see it allegedly. I see your girls and guys are making a reasonable start in Hong Kong. It's a shame Anna "The Elbows" has retired 8(0(*
The thread is making me feel thick too. I'm not following the line of the argument at all. "They actually won apparently." Who won?
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: barrier on April 14, 2017, 03:36:18 PM
I wonder if Mr Amarals lawyer will contemplate taking on the UK tabloids just like Mrs Trump rather successfully done with the mail this week.
There have been sports matches lost where it was later obvious the referee got a vital decision wrong. Same thing happened here.
What a poor comparison. A referee making a split second decision about something he may not have seen clearly cannot be compared to judges bringing their legal knowledge to bear with all the time in the world at their disposal.
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: barrier on April 14, 2017, 06:55:49 PM
What a poor comparison. A referee making a split second decision about something he may not have seen clearly cannot be compared to judges bringing their legal knowledge to bear with all the time in the world at their disposal.
For once once we agree.
The Supreme judges had much longer to ponder their decision than a referee in a football much does, and much more complete information to consider.
Yet they still got it wrong.
Amazing ....
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: G-Unit on April 14, 2017, 06:58:22 PM
What a poor comparison. A referee making a split second decision about something he may not have seen clearly cannot be compared to judges bringing their legal knowledge to bear with all the time in the world at their disposal.
That would be like going to the third umpire up stairs and even they get it wrong. It has the appearance of considered decision but there is the appearance of political motive behind it IMO. Was it that important that the Portuguese won the case.
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: ferryman on April 14, 2017, 07:09:11 PM
The say-so of pretty much anyone who has read the files (at least objectively).
They weren't looking at the files were they. It was more whether the reputation of an English family was more important than the opinions (no matter how wrong with hindsight) of a former PJ coordinator. The Portuguese agenda!
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: stephen25000 on April 14, 2017, 07:17:24 PM
That would be like going to the third umpire up stairs and even they get it wrong. It has the appearance of considered decision but there is the appearance of political motive behind it IMO. Was it that important that the Portuguese won the case.
When I and others have mentioned political interference on behalf of the mccanns, Mccann supporters claim it is a conspiracy theory. 8(>((
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: ferryman on April 14, 2017, 07:22:31 PM
They weren't looking at the files were they. It was more whether the reputation of an English family was more important than the opinions (no matter how wrong with hindsight) of a former PJ coordinator. The Portuguese agenda!
That seems to be about the sum.
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: stephen25000 on April 14, 2017, 07:32:00 PM
When I and others have mentioned political interference on behalf of the mccanns, Mccann supporters claim it is a conspiracy theory. 8(>((
So do you agree there could be this political aspect interfering with the investigation and later the court decisions? Look at Syria, Russia is blamed for killing babies. There have been only 460,000 other deaths so far. The issue is not the deaths but the politics. Some countries will do anything required to win.
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: stephen25000 on April 14, 2017, 07:47:07 PM
So do you agree there could be this political aspect interfering with the investigation and later the court decisions? Look at Syria, Russia is blamed for killing babies. There have been only 460,000 other deaths so far. The issue is not the deaths but the politics. Some countries will do anything required to win.
It is know Rob, that Blair, Brown and their wives were in 'contact' with the McCann's, along with other government Ministers, and of course Mitchell, who worked for the Blair government.
Now provide evidence of Portuguese government interference in this case against the McCann's.
Can you
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: Robittybob1 on April 14, 2017, 08:02:51 PM
It is know Rob, that Blair, Brown and their wives were in 'contact' with the McCann's, along with other government Ministers, and of course Mitchell, who worked for the Blair government.
Now provide evidence of Portuguese government interference in this case against the McCann's.
Can you
Doesn't Amaral himself mention it in that interview? http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8007.0
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: G-Unit on April 15, 2017, 07:05:40 AM
That would be like going to the third umpire up stairs and even they get it wrong. It has the appearance of considered decision but there is the appearance of political motive behind it IMO. Was it that important that the Portuguese won the case.
The 'Portuguese' as in Amaral, the judges or the whole nation?
No-one won anything. The McCanns made accusations against Amaral but were unable to prove them in court. Unlike the UK newspapers he refused to back off and settle out of court. Perhaps because he knew the law and knew he hadn't done anything wrong?
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: Robittybob1 on April 15, 2017, 07:41:01 AM
The 'Portuguese' as in Amaral, the judges or the whole nation?
No-one won anything. The McCanns made accusations against Amaral but were unable to prove them in court. Unlike the UK newspapers he refused to back off and settle out of court. Perhaps because he knew the law and knew he hadn't done anything wrong?
It is all of them resulting in national pride and respect of the police forces. (Opinion mostly, yet I did see it an article discussing the need for respect of the police but I have no idea where it might be, so I can't give a cite.)
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: G-Unit on April 15, 2017, 08:49:45 AM
It is all of them resulting in national pride and respect of the police forces. (Opinion mostly, yet I did see it an article discussing the need for respect of the police but I have no idea where it might be, so I can't give a cite.)
If you bothered to read all the court reports the McCann's case was weak from the beginning. When the Appeal Court overturned the injunction banning Amaral's book in 2010 the judges said much the same as the Appeal Court judges in 2016. Blaming the nation of Portugal because the couple had no case is ridiculous imo.
The book at stake in this process - "Maddie - the Truth of the Lie" - which was written by the defendant Dr. Goncalo Amaral, has the main motivation of defending his personal and professional honour, as the author points out right away in the preface and throughout his text.
The contents of the book does not offend any of the applicants' fundamental rights.
The exercise of its writing and publication is included in the constitutional rights that are secured to everyone by the European Convention on Human Rights and by the Portuguese Republic's Constitution, namely in its articles 37º and 38º. http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/court_docs.htm
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: Robittybob1 on April 15, 2017, 08:55:07 AM
If you bothered to read all the court reports the McCann's case was weak from the beginning. When the Appeal Court overturned the injunction banning Amaral's book in 2010 the judges said much the same as the Appeal Court judges in 2016. Blaming the nation of Portugal because the couple had no case is ridiculous imo.
The book at stake in this process - "Maddie - the Truth of the Lie" - which was written by the defendant Dr. Goncalo Amaral, has the main motivation of defending his personal and professional honour, as the author points out right away in the preface and throughout his text.
The contents of the book does not offend any of the applicants' fundamental rights.
The exercise of its writing and publication is included in the constitutional rights that are secured to everyone by the European Convention on Human Rights and by the Portuguese Republic's Constitution, namely in its articles 37º and 38º. http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/court_docs.htm
Personally I wondered why the McCanns worried about the book. But the first instance Judge found for the McCanns and I agreed with that decision, since then it has been dubious.
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: G-Unit on April 15, 2017, 09:29:19 AM
Personally I wondered why the McCanns worried about the book. But the first instance Judge found for the McCanns and I agreed with that decision, since then it has been dubious.
Had Amaral not been a retired policeman the Judge in the Court of the first instance would have dismissed the McCann's case then. She argued that as a retired policemen his freedom of expression was more restricted than that of a normal citizen. The Appeal Court Judges rejected her argument.
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: Robittybob1 on April 15, 2017, 09:32:52 AM
Had Amaral not been a retired policeman the Judge in the Court of the first instance would have dismissed the McCann's case then. She argued that as a retired policemen his freedom of expression was more restricted than that of a normal citizen. The Appeal Court Judges rejected her argument.
I know that but it didn't seem a very sound reason to me.
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: G-Unit on April 15, 2017, 10:04:33 AM
The 'Portuguese' as in Amaral, the judges or the whole nation?
No-one won anything. The McCanns made accusations against Amaral but were unable to prove them in court. Unlike the UK newspapers he refused to back off and settle out of court. Perhaps because he knew the law and knew he hadn't done anything wrong?
The McCanns set the record straight (according to known facts, including those known by the McCanns) about the disappearance of their daughter.
And might, in passing, have it plain that they had a not particularly high opinion of the person who (first) led the (flawed) initial investigation into Madeleine's disappearance.
Scarcely a preface that justified the wholesale and unwarranted onslaught against the couple, unleashed by Amaral in his book.
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: Robittybob1 on April 16, 2017, 01:48:16 AM
That he was allowed to break the Code of Reserve even if he was retired.
The case wasn't covered by Judicial Secrecy once archived;
it is hardly understandable that an employee, even more a retired one, would have to keep said duties of secrecy and reserve, thus being limited in the exercise of his right to an opinion, concerning the interpretation of facts that were already made public by the judiciary authority, and widely debated (in fact, largely by initiative of the intervenients themselves) in the national and international media. http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7153.0
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: Robittybob1 on April 16, 2017, 09:25:27 AM
The case wasn't covered by Judicial Secrecy once archived;
it is hardly understandable that an employee, even more a retired one, would have to keep said duties of secrecy and reserve, thus being limited in the exercise of his right to an opinion, concerning the interpretation of facts that were already made public by the judiciary authority, and widely debated (in fact, largely by initiative of the intervenients themselves) in the national and international media. http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7153.0
All of that is debatable I don't think the duty of reserve expires. The facts had not been disclosed at the time the book was published. (for sufficient time at least). These issues had not been widely debated in the media.
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: stephen25000 on April 16, 2017, 09:26:46 AM
All of that is debatable I don't think the duty of reserve expires. The facts had not been disclosed at the time the book was published. (for sufficient time at least). These issues had not been widely debated in the media.
Yes, the facts had been disclosed.
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: Robittybob1 on April 16, 2017, 09:28:11 AM
Does it make a mockery of the SC judgement? "it is hardly understandable that an employee, even more a retired one, would have to keep said duties of secrecy and reserve, thus being limited in the exercise of his right to an opinion, concerning the interpretation of facts that were already made public by the judiciary authority,and widely debated (in fact, largely by initiative of the intervenients themselves) in the national and international media. http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7153.0"
If they were just released they can't be widely debated.
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: jassi on April 16, 2017, 10:32:52 AM
Does it make a mockery of the SC judgement? "it is hardly understandable that an employee, even more a retired one, would have to keep said duties of secrecy and reserve, thus being limited in the exercise of his right to an opinion, concerning the interpretation of facts that were already made public by the judiciary authority,and widely debated (in fact, largely by initiative of the intervenients themselves) in the national and international media. http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7153.0"
If they were just released they can't be widely debated.
It's all over - done and dusted - cannot be reversed. Accept and move on,
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: ferryman on April 16, 2017, 10:33:49 AM
The case wasn't covered by Judicial Secrecy once archived;
it is hardly understandable that an employee, even more a retired one, would have to keep said duties of secrecy and reserve, thus being limited in the exercise of his right to an opinion, concerning the interpretation of facts that were already made public by the judiciary authority, and widely debated (in fact, largely by initiative of the intervenients themselves) in the national and international media. http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7153.0
Except that your commentary on the passage misses the point of the passage.
As far as I can see, the point being made by the judges, there, is not so much to dispute that Amaral breached judicial secrecy; rather that he was under no obligation to keep it (because he quit the PJ before he wrote his book)
Title: Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
Post by: Robittybob1 on April 16, 2017, 10:34:39 AM