Gonçalo Amaral Legal Defence fund to be closed on 28 October 2015

[mercury]

How many times did the ex-wife of the disgraced cop write Madeleine's name in her open letter?

How many times  did the mccanns refer to Madeleine as
Daughter
A little girl
A child
The child

If the parents cant call her by her name its a bit rich criticising others for not doing so

[misty]

How many times  did the mccanns refer to Madeleine as
Daughter
A little girl
A child
The child

If the parents cant call her by her name its a bit rich criticising others for not doing so

One letter against many months of appeals, interviews & litigation.
The case is all about Madeleine McCann. Not Goncalo Amaral, his shameless reputation or Sofia Leal's monetary needs.
 

[mercury]

One letter against many months of appeals, interviews & litigation.
The case is all about Madeleine McCann. Not Goncalo Amaral, his shameless reputation or Sofia Leal's monetary needs.

Bit  of skewed thinking there...but  I agree it shouldnt be about  anyones monetary needs! Unless one party has taken the liberty to remove monies from another and even more brazenly if all news reports are true they demand a defendant get divorced so they can get more money from them
Pretty  disgraceful at every level Im sure you would agree

 &%+((£

[Mr Gray]

Bit  of skewed thinking there...but  I agree it shouldnt be about  anyones monetary needs! Unless one party has taken the liberty to remove monies from another and even more brazenly if all news reports are true they demand a defendant get divorced so they can get more money from them
Pretty  disgraceful at every level Im sure you would agree

 &%+((£

you believe that the mccanns demanded amaral get divorced....

[misty]

Bit  of skewed thinking there...but  I agree it shouldnt be about  anyones monetary needs! Unless one party has taken the liberty to remove monies from another and even more brazenly if all news reports are true they demand a defendant get divorced so they can get more money from them
Pretty  disgraceful at every level Im sure you would agree

 &%+((£

I don't think you should believe everything you read in the Portuguese press, Mercury. But it was a court's decision to issue an injunction freezing Amaral's assets, not the McCanns.

[mercury]

I don't think you should believe everything you read in the Portuguese press, Mercury. But it was a court's decision to issue an injunction freezing Amaral's assets, not the McCanns.

If they hadnt demanded a million euros there would be no freezing...but they said it wasnt abut the money so why not issue a writ for one euro?

[misty]

If they hadnt demanded a million euros there would be no freezing...but they said it wasnt abut the money so why not issue a writ for one euro?

Would a writ for one euro have achieved the objective?

[G-Unit]

Quite. A moral victory would have made them seem less grasping.

[G-Unit]

Would a writ for one euro have achieved the objective?

The objective being that Amaral should suffer and feel pain, you mean?

[mercury]

Would a writ for one euro have achieved the objective?

The objective was to remove his book from sale..(.even though they left it for a whole year before taking action...and in secret).....not to manifest  Kate Mccann's revengeful desires  as in "he deserves to be miserable  and feel fear



Well reminded  GU

[misty]

The objective was to remove his book from sale..(.even though they left it for a whole year before taking action...and in secret).....not to manifest  Kate Mccann's revengeful desires  as in "he deserves to be miserable  and feel fear



Well reminded  GU

They had failed in the book-banning route. Trying to ensure that the man didn't profit from the sales of his book was the only alternative route. The McCanns weren't claiming for any assets Amaral held prior to publication of the book. Other financial difficulties & fear were of his own making.

[mercury]

They had failed in the book-banning route. Trying to ensure that the man didn't profit from the sales of his book was the only alternative route. The McCanns weren't claiming for any assets Amaral held prior to publication of the book. Other financial difficulties & fear were of his own making.

Maybe we have been reading different sites? and papers?

The Mccanns did not fail in the book banning route...it was the first decision in this year long battle given by the court judge, his book was banned


As for not claiming for assets made before well they would have to be kamikaze pilots to try that one....its too preposterous for anyone to suggest they could have.......in the case they tried to claim the whole lot for themselves....you know, the  illicit  gains...but of course with a very heavy heart!!! Yeah right misty

[misty]

Maybe we have been reading different sites? and papers?

The Mccanns did not fail in the book banning route...it was the first decision in this year long battle given by the court judge, his book was banned


As for not claiming for assets made before well they would have to be kamikaze pilots to try that one....its too preposterous for anyone to suggest they could have.......in the case they tried to claim the whole lot for themselves....you know, the  illicit  gains...but of course with a very heavy heart!!! Yeah right misty

Did you miss out on 2010 by any chance?

[mercury]

Did you miss out on 2010 by any chance?

If you can keep your  questions to me clear it mght help...i really dont like wasting time tryng  to guess what posters are talking about

[misty]

If you can keep your  questions to me clear it mght help...i really dont like wasting time tryng  to guess what posters are talking about

You seem to think the book was banned. It quickly became unbanned in 2010.