Author Topic: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.  (Read 269966 times)

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline carlymichelle

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #105 on: January 31, 2017, 08:41:09 PM »
 @)(++(* 8@??)( AWESOME NEWS TO  WAKE UP TO   HERE 

Offline carlymichelle

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #106 on: January 31, 2017, 08:42:26 PM »
technically  couldnt he now sue bloggers and   forum posteres   who have  tarnished his name  too??

Offline Mr Gray

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #107 on: January 31, 2017, 08:43:30 PM »
And much good it will do you- nobody cares any more.

it wont do me any harm or good....

stephen25000

  • Guest
Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #108 on: January 31, 2017, 08:59:27 PM »
The McCann's lost big time.

Nowhere to go now.
« Last Edit: February 01, 2017, 12:48:50 AM by John »

Offline barrier

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #109 on: January 31, 2017, 09:00:58 PM »
I don't think he does no more than us
He certainly didn't understand the forensic evidence

He certainly understood the Portuguese law far more than the McCanns or their lawyer.
This is my own private domicile and I shall not be harassed, biatch:Jesse Pinkman Character.

Offline carlymichelle

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #110 on: January 31, 2017, 09:01:58 PM »
He certainly understood the Portuguese law far more than the McCanns or their lawyer.

barrier  im  not a  expert but  if he  wants he can sue people online for tarnishing his name  couldnt he??

Alfie

  • Guest
Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #111 on: January 31, 2017, 09:05:57 PM »
Ypu have seen the cite showing the source of that theory, why do you continue to perpetuate the myth?
I'm sorry, I don't know what you're referring to.

Offline Mr Gray

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #112 on: January 31, 2017, 09:06:36 PM »
I'm sorry, I don't know what you're referring to.

i wondered about that too

Offline barrier

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #113 on: January 31, 2017, 09:12:36 PM »
barrier  im  not a  expert but  if he  wants he can sue people online for tarnishing his name  couldnt he??

I haven't a clue but Mr Amaral just doesn't seem the bitter sort.Who could blame him though.
This is my own private domicile and I shall not be harassed, biatch:Jesse Pinkman Character.

Offline G-Unit

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #114 on: January 31, 2017, 09:18:22 PM »
I'm sorry, I don't know what you're referring to.

"According to Encarnacao the child's death must have resulted from a fall behind the sofa"
THE TRUTH OF THE LIE.

Do you have a cite for your oft repeated allegation that it was 'Amaral's theory'?
Read and abide by the forum rules.
Result = happy posting.
Ignore and break the rules
Result = edits, deletions and unhappiness
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?board=2.0

Alfie

  • Guest
Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #115 on: January 31, 2017, 09:21:14 PM »
"According to Encarnacao the child's death must have resulted from a fall behind the sofa"
THE TRUTH OF THE LIE.

Do you have a cite for your oft repeated allegation that it was 'Amaral's theory'?
So are you saying Amaral didn't believe Madeleine died falling off the sofa?  What did he think happened then?

Alfie

  • Guest
Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #116 on: January 31, 2017, 09:26:39 PM »
If it is a myth that Amaral thinks Madeleine fell off the sofa as part of his theory what did he mean when he wrote this in his book?

The role of this sofa is important if you imagine the hypothesis, not of an abduction, but of an accident inside the apartment itself. If it was really away from the wall before the abduction, it may be that Madeleine had climbed onto it and fallen down the other side.

Offline Miss Taken Identity

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #117 on: January 31, 2017, 09:30:03 PM »
I haven't a clue but Mr Amaral just doesn't seem the bitter sort.Who could blame him though.

Yes I agree. He would gain nothing, he has been vindicated through the courts, he has proved to be the David here, and what a sling shot from the go fund me page.

I am not going to gloat about the McCanns losing, I am saddened that they took this route it lost them a lot of initial support. and Maddie's fate remains unresolved and no one talks about her as he parents hog all the news, with her little baby picture of course. [Helps with the sympathy angle).

Good news for Amaral but still sad day.

'Never underestimate the power of stupid people'... George Carlin

Offline G-Unit

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #118 on: January 31, 2017, 09:37:27 PM »
Apparently you can tell any manner of lie about anyone in Portugal and if they can't prove you're lying you can get away with it.  Seems fair enough doesn't it?

Justice has prevailed. The original judgement that Amaral breached Judicial Secrecy and failed to uphold the presumption of innocence has been rejected by both higher courts. The attempt by the McCanns to stop any theory except their own being heard has failed.
Read and abide by the forum rules.
Result = happy posting.
Ignore and break the rules
Result = edits, deletions and unhappiness
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?board=2.0

Offline carlymichelle

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #119 on: January 31, 2017, 09:40:35 PM »
Justice has prevailed. The original judgement that Amaral breached Judicial Secrecy and failed to uphold the presumption of innocence has been rejected by both higher courts. The attempt by the McCanns to stop any theory except their own being heard has failed.

exactly  they wasted   10 years of the twins lives  in court  and for  what??