Author Topic: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.  (Read 299866 times)

0 Members and 4 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline pathfinder73

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #270 on: February 01, 2017, 12:51:56 PM »
Go tell that to SY because I don't think they spent millions years later on searching wasteland and inside drains for a living child.
Smithman carrying a child in his arms checked his watch after passing the Smith family and the time was 10:03. Both are still unidentified 10 years later.

Offline carlymichelle

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #271 on: February 01, 2017, 12:56:31 PM »
So unlikely ever to be over.

I'm sure those who subscribed to the go fund found the result thanks enough.  8)--))

 8)-)))

Offline Mr Gray

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #272 on: February 01, 2017, 01:40:36 PM »
exactly   i think its time  that some people accept  it is over dont you??

this is about maddie and until we know what happened it wont be over

Offline John

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #273 on: February 01, 2017, 01:41:59 PM »
If the British public hadn't raised funds for Amaral he would have not been able to defend himself properly and may have lost the case.  That must be a bitter pill in itself for the McCanns to digest.
« Last Edit: February 05, 2017, 11:48:23 AM by John »
A malicious prosecution for a crime which never existed. An exposé of egregious malfeasance by public officials.
Indeed, the truth never changes with the passage of time.

Offline carlymichelle

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #274 on: February 01, 2017, 01:43:21 PM »
If the British public hadn't raised funds for Amaral he would have not been able to defend himself properly and may have lost the case.  That must be a bitter pill in itself for the McCanns to digest.

 8((()*/ 8((()*/    exactly the public helped  GA  win   and looks like  they didnt  donate as much to the mcanns did they

Offline Mr Gray

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #275 on: February 01, 2017, 01:46:06 PM »
If the British public hadn't raised funds for Amaral he would have not been able to defend himself properly and may have lost the case.  That must be a bitter pill in itself for the McCanns to digest.

I wasnt aware that the British public had supported his appeal...amaral does not have the support of the British Public....just a handful of poeple who have believe a lot of lies is how i would describe them....you could say he had little support in portugal.


Offline jassi

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #276 on: February 01, 2017, 01:53:17 PM »
I wasnt aware that the British public had supported his appeal...amaral does not have the support of the British Public....just a handful of poeple who have believe a lot of lies is how i would describe them....you could say he had little support in portugal.

You can say what you like - it may not be true.
I believe everything. And l believe nothing.
I suspect everyone. And l suspect no one.
I gather the facts, examine the clues... and before   you know it, the case is solved!"

Or maybe not -

OG have been pushed out by the Germans who have reserved all the deck chairs for the foreseeable future

Offline pathfinder73

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #277 on: February 01, 2017, 01:56:05 PM »
I wasnt aware that the British public had supported his appeal...amaral does not have the support of the British Public....just a handful of poeple who have believe a lot of lies is how i would describe them....you could say he had little support in portugal.

Smithman carrying a child in his arms checked his watch after passing the Smith family and the time was 10:03. Both are still unidentified 10 years later.

Offline Carana

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #278 on: February 01, 2017, 02:05:41 PM »
If the British public hadn't raised funds for Amaral he would have not been able to defend himself properly and may have lost the case.  That must be a bitter pill in itself for the McCanns to digest.

I thought he was a lawyer?

What was the proportion between what his PT-based compatriots and his UK fan club raised?


Offline jassi

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #279 on: February 01, 2017, 02:08:01 PM »
I thought he was a lawyer?

What was the proportion between what his PT-based compatriots and his UK fan club raised?


Does it matter ? A Euro is a Euro wherever it comes from.
I believe everything. And l believe nothing.
I suspect everyone. And l suspect no one.
I gather the facts, examine the clues... and before   you know it, the case is solved!"

Or maybe not -

OG have been pushed out by the Germans who have reserved all the deck chairs for the foreseeable future

Offline carlymichelle

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #280 on: February 01, 2017, 02:09:39 PM »
Does it matter ? A Euro is a Euro wherever it comes from.


anyone can  send anyone money  online nowdays paypal  etc is universal money

Offline G-Unit

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #281 on: February 01, 2017, 02:36:14 PM »
The whole point of her parents bringing the case was to fight for and protect Madeleine's RIGHT to be regarded as a missing child and not to be dismissed and forgotten as a dead one - which is what Amaral was claiming.

The fact that purely out of an intense dislike for the parents, there are those who actually want to take it out on a little girl by supporting the removal  of Madeleine's right to be searched for -  just for the pleasure of spiting her mum and dad -  is both sad and disturbing IMO.

Yes, they said that after they won the first judgement;

“We want to emphasise that the action was never about money. It was entirely focused on the libels on our other children and the damage that was done in the search for Madeleine.”
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/madeleine-mccann-kate-gerry-urge-5599047

The strange thing about that statement is that all claims relating to the children failed, so why did they settle for the Eur 500.000 awarded to the two of them? 

If the damage caused to their children was their entire focus, why didn't they appeal on their behalf?

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 Mr Gray

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #282 on: February 01, 2017, 03:01:52 PM »
Yes, they said that after they won the first judgement;

“We want to emphasise that the action was never about money. It was entirely focused on the libels on our other children and the damage that was done in the search for Madeleine.”
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/madeleine-mccann-kate-gerry-urge-5599047

The strange thing about that statement is that all claims relating to the children failed, so why did they settle for the Eur 500.000 awarded to the two of them? 

If the damage caused to their children was their entire focus, why didn't they appeal on their behalf?

The book was banned that was the important thing
And surely they needed to hear the result of amarals appeal first

stephen25000

  • Guest
Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #283 on: February 01, 2017, 03:03:51 PM »
The book was banned that was the important thing
And surely they needed to hear the result of amarals appeal first

Here was no need to take Amaral to court.

Now, they literally will be paying the price.
« Last Edit: February 01, 2017, 03:21:38 PM by stephen25000 »

Offline Mr Gray

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #284 on: February 01, 2017, 03:10:23 PM »
I wonder how much the fact that amaral had been a senior PJ officer affected the Supreme Court judgement
To have ruled against one of their officers in the Supreme Court would have humiliated the whole PJ