« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 143   Go Down

Author Topic: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.  (Read 298903 times)

0 Members and 15 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Mr Gray

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #30 on: January 31, 2017, 05:14:44 PM »
Quote from: ShiningInLuz on January 31, 2017, 05:10:21 PM
Barrage of negative media reports from whom against whom?

One of the parts of the CdM report that caught my eye was how well this news was received in Portugal.  94.2% very pleased.

why does taht surprise you
Logged

Offline ShiningInLuz

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #31 on: January 31, 2017, 05:26:53 PM »
Quote from: davel on January 31, 2017, 05:14:44 PM
why does taht surprise you
It doesn't, which is why I asked the question about whom Misty thought was going to be on the receiving end of a barrage of negative reporting, and from whom.

As far as I can tell, the UK press are going to have to tread carefully in reporting this news accurately.

That leaves the Portuguese press.  I cannot foresee the declaration of an open hunting season, but should it occur, I would assume it would be anti-McCann.

It is more likely that Amaral will be doing another round of interviews, whilst the McCanns will say very little.
Logged
What's up, old man?

Offline Mr Gray

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #32 on: January 31, 2017, 05:28:44 PM »
Quote from: ShiningInLuz on January 31, 2017, 05:26:53 PM
It doesn't, which is why I asked the question about whom Misty thought was going to be on the receiving end of a barrage of negative reporting, and from whom.

As far as I can tell, the UK press are going to have to tread carefully in reporting this news accurately.

That leaves the Portuguese press.  I cannot foresee the declaration of an open hunting season, but should it occur, I would assume it would be anti-McCann.

It is more likely that Amaral will be doing another round of interviews, whilst the McCanns will say very little.

what makes you think the uk press will have to tread carfully....they have descibed him as a ex bungling cop in the past
Logged

Offline misty

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #33 on: January 31, 2017, 05:32:24 PM »
Quote from: ShiningInLuz on January 31, 2017, 05:26:53 PM
It doesn't, which is why I asked the question about whom Misty thought was going to be on the receiving end of a barrage of negative reporting, and from whom.

As far as I can tell, the UK press are going to have to tread carefully in reporting this news accurately.

That leaves the Portuguese press.  I cannot foresee the declaration of an open hunting season, but should it occur, I would assume it would be anti-McCann.

It is more likely that Amaral will be doing another round of interviews, whilst the McCanns will say very little.

A long time ago it was reported that the UK police had investigated Amaral.
Not so long ago the Sun pulled a story headed "Maddie cop's sick secret".
It will be in the public interest to know what information about Amaral has been withheld pending the outcome of this libel trial. Freedom of speech and all that.
Logged

Offline Alice Purjorick

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #34 on: January 31, 2017, 05:36:13 PM »
Quote from: Brietta on January 31, 2017, 04:57:51 PM
I am exceedingly sorry their appeal hasn't been upheld. I had hoped it would be.  However, from the little I have learned about Portuguese process ... I am not in the least surprised at the outcome.


I was running a sweepstake on who would be the first supporter to say that.
I guess I'll have to pay out to whoever drew your name ................................   @)(++(*
Logged
"Navigating the difference between weird but normal grief and truly suspicious behaviour is the key for any detective worth his salt.". ….Sarah Bailey

Offline John

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #35 on: January 31, 2017, 05:47:42 PM »
Thinking back now to the original judgement by Judge Emilia Melo e Castro, she obviously got it so very wrong.  Lets hope she undertakes some refresher courses or even retraining before she returns any more bad decisions.

If I were the McCann's I would be looking for a rebate from Dra Isabel Duarte whose advice got them into this shit in the first place.
« Last Edit: January 31, 2017, 05:50:09 PM by John »
Logged
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 Robittybob1

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #36 on: January 31, 2017, 05:52:47 PM »
Quote from: misty on January 31, 2017, 05:32:24 PM
A long time ago it was reported that the UK police had investigated Amaral.
Not so long ago the Sun pulled a story headed "Maddie cop's sick secret".
It will be in the public interest to know what information about Amaral has been withheld pending the outcome of this libel trial. Freedom of speech and all that.
We should be given a bit more freedom of speech on this forum too now, if Amaral's book is considered fair.
Logged
Moderation
John has instructed all moderators to take a very strong line with posters who constantly breach the rules of this forum.  This sniping, goading, name calling and other various forms of disruption will cease.

Offline John

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #37 on: January 31, 2017, 05:54:20 PM »
Quote from: Robittybob1 on January 31, 2017, 05:52:47 PM
We should be given a bit more freedom of speech on this forum too now, if Amaral's book is considered fair.

aye Robbie  @)(++(*  nice try
Logged
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 Mr Gray

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #38 on: January 31, 2017, 05:55:35 PM »
Quote from: Robittybob1 on January 31, 2017, 05:52:47 PM
We should be given a bit more freedom of speech on this forum too now, if Amaral's book is considered fair.

I made a simila post and it was removed
Freedom of speech?
Logged

Offline jassi

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #39 on: January 31, 2017, 05:56:43 PM »
Why not as long, as the rules are obeyed.
Logged
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 Angelo222

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #40 on: January 31, 2017, 05:57:09 PM »
Quote from: davel on January 31, 2017, 05:55:35 PM
I made a simila post and it was removed
Freedom of speech?

Carry on davel, it has never stopped you before.  But then again you live in the UK and not Portugal so the laws are different old bean.
Logged
De troothe has the annoying habit of coming to the surface just when you least expect it!!

Je ne regrette rien!!

Offline Mr Gray

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #41 on: January 31, 2017, 06:00:54 PM »
Quote from: Angelo222 on January 31, 2017, 05:57:09 PM
Carry on davel, it has never stopped you before.  But then again you live in the UK and not Portugal so the laws are different old bean.

You are quite wrong
« Last Edit: January 31, 2017, 06:36:14 PM by Angelo222 »
Logged

Offline xtina

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #42 on: January 31, 2017, 06:02:22 PM »
G A ......wrote the book ........always stood by it ..now being called lead officer

and lets face it he knows more than us ...about it ...

he was there on the case .......we wasn't


The lead officer in the Madeleine McCann case will not have to pay compensation to her parents over a book he wrote about her disappearance.

http://news.sky.com/story/madeleine-mccann-police-officer-will-not-have-to-pay-compensation-over-book-10750294


Logged
Always listen to both sides of the story before you judge.

The first storyteller you will always find has modified the story, for there benefit BE WISE.

Offline Mr Gray

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #43 on: January 31, 2017, 06:04:46 PM »
Quote from: xtina on January 31, 2017, 06:02:22 PM
G A ......wrote the book ........always stood by it ..now being called lead officer

and lets face it he knows more than us ...about it ...

he was there on the case .......we wasn't


The lead officer in the Madeleine McCann case will not have to pay compensation to her parents over a book he wrote about her disappearance.

http://news.sky.com/story/madeleine-mccann-police-officer-will-not-have-to-pay-compensation-over-book-10750294

I don't think he does no more than us
He certainly didn't understand the forensic evidence
Logged

Offline Robittybob1

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #44 on: January 31, 2017, 06:09:32 PM »
Quote from: xtina on January 31, 2017, 06:02:22 PM
G A ......wrote the book ........always stood by it ..now being called lead officer

and lets face it he knows more than us ...about it ...

he was there on the case .......we wasn't


The lead officer in the Madeleine McCann case will not have to pay compensation to her parents over a book he wrote about her disappearance.

http://news.sky.com/story/madeleine-mccann-police-officer-will-not-have-to-pay-compensation-over-book-10750294
The quote I picked up "On April 19, 2016, the Court of Appeal of Lisbon recognized Gonçalo Amaral the constitutional right to express his opinion and revoked the decision that forced the former PJ inspector to pay one to the English couple.


"On April 19, 2016, the Court of Appeal of Lisbon recognized Gonçalo Amaral the constitutional right to express his opinion and revoked the decision that forced the former PJ inspector to pay one to the English couple. With the decision then handed down, Relação also revoked the ban on the commercialization of the book written by Gonçalo Amaral, which appeared in the sentence of the first instance."

OK he can sell a few more copies of his book which is available free on the internet.
Sell more DVD which are already on Youtube.

No more interest payments.  OK. 
Logged
Moderation
John has instructed all moderators to take a very strong line with posters who constantly breach the rules of this forum.  This sniping, goading, name calling and other various forms of disruption will cease.
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 143   Go Up
« previous next »