Author Topic: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.  (Read 270119 times)

0 Members and 8 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Robittybob1

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #75 on: January 31, 2017, 06:54:12 PM »

lets see if he donates to their fund
I think he should.
« Last Edit: January 31, 2017, 06:57:38 PM by Robittybob1 »
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.

Alfie

  • Guest
Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #76 on: January 31, 2017, 06:58:21 PM »
Isn't that what the British press do anyway?
Really?  Let's have a few cites then.  BTW, you didn't answer my question.

Alfie

  • Guest
Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #77 on: January 31, 2017, 06:59:10 PM »
dun what?
Are you playing dumb?  It.  What he accuses them of in his book. 

Alfie

  • Guest
Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #78 on: January 31, 2017, 07:00:40 PM »

lets see if he donates to there fund
Now, funnily enough that thought had already crossed my mind.  What a thoroughly magnanimous gesture that would be, and one which would totally redeem him in my eyes (assuming it wasn't just a sarky fiver he bunged in).

Offline Robittybob1

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #79 on: January 31, 2017, 07:06:38 PM »
Are you playing dumb?  It.  What he accuses them of in his book.
His opinions only.  It might have felt like accusations but Amaral is only telling the story from the viewpoint of his opinion.  Well that appears to be what the Supreme Court is telling us.
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 Alice Purjorick

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #80 on: January 31, 2017, 07:08:31 PM »
I sued a solicitor and won

What are you trying to prove?
That you are an all get out finest kind sooper dooper s.o.b or that you don't know the meaning of rule of thumb and you are really Richard Cranium?
Oh yeah what happened to "Amaral is Toast"?.
Nuff said really.
"Navigating the difference between weird but normal grief and truly suspicious behaviour is the key for any detective worth his salt.". ….Sarah Bailey

Offline G-Unit

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #81 on: January 31, 2017, 07:09:55 PM »
Now, funnily enough that thought had already crossed my mind.  What a thoroughly magnanimous gesture that would be, and one which would totally redeem him in my eyes (assuming it wasn't just a sarky fiver he bunged in).

A fund 'searching' for a child he thinks is dead? Why would he do that?

I don't think he needs redemption he has been exonerated by the courts. He will now have his funds released, interest paid for the time they have been unavailable to him, all his legal costs paid and, possibly, compensation for the injunction which denied him his funds and the injunctions which stopped the sale of his books.
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 Alice Purjorick

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #82 on: January 31, 2017, 07:10:39 PM »
Any chance of a cite   8)-)))

ferryman will vouch for him, maybe.
"Navigating the difference between weird but normal grief and truly suspicious behaviour is the key for any detective worth his salt.". ….Sarah Bailey

Offline Mr Gray

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #83 on: January 31, 2017, 07:12:19 PM »
Are you trying to wind everyone up tonight so as to take away the pain of today's landslide victory for Amaral?

As police coordinator Amaral knew everything there was to know about the case, I can't wait to read his new book about events which followed the disappearance.

He didn't understand the forensic evidence
Imo his book was rubbish as was most of what he has said since
Maddie did not fall off the sofa and die

Offline Miss Taken Identity

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #84 on: January 31, 2017, 07:12:41 PM »
Well it will put Madeleine back into the headlines again at least.

Yes, little Maddie the real person of suffering in the McCann family. Or suffering /suffered the worst.

 With  no hope of getting a penny of the money her parents were claiming on her behalf for her suffering while on another money making scam were claiming Maddie 'came to no harm' It came down to this Maddie=£££$$$€€€

This was not a case for justice, not for Maddie, no not at all, it was about Money. Amaral wrote a book based on a police investigation where it would be inevitable that  many police in a room looking at evidence,  circumstantial included, concluded of a particular opinion of what happened- he reported in his book that the findings in a police report was xyz.


It is still held in many peoples minds that Kate's story of whooshing curtains and jemmied shutters was indeed an invention. It was also checked out that an abductor left not one mark on a white wall or ground whilst trying to get out of a small window carrying 'sleeping' child in a hurry. That is why so many people do not buy into their versions of accounts at the start of this, especially after it was discovered that a door was left unlocked- the children woke up crying some nights- and they were left alone SO it is not a nasty mind that would think of another scenario of Maddies disappearance.

If Maddie was abducted from the apartment then it would most likely have been through a unlocked door thus making her parents panic and inventing a story about whooshing curtains and jemmied shutters to deflect any blame/responsibility on them.

They also provided NO evidence of their claims about more suffering caused by the book than their child being 'abducted', they also provided NO evidence of 'people' who stopped looking for Maddie or would stop looking for her due to the contets of the book.

So with no evidence no case to answer!
'Never underestimate the power of stupid people'... George Carlin

Offline Mr Gray

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #85 on: January 31, 2017, 07:16:44 PM »
What are you trying to prove?
That you are an all get out finest kind sooper dooper s.o.b or that you don't know the meaning of rule of thumb and you are really Richard Cranium?
Oh yeah what happened to "Amaral is Toast"?.
Nuff said really.
I'm not trying to prove anything
I'm making a comment
If a solicitor really screws up they are just as easy to sue as anyone else

Offline Mr Gray

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #86 on: January 31, 2017, 07:17:42 PM »
ferryman will vouch for him, maybe.
I could give you the details of you like

Alfie

  • Guest
Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #87 on: January 31, 2017, 07:19:42 PM »
A fund 'searching' for a child he thinks is dead? Why would he do that?

I don't think he needs redemption he has been exonerated by the courts. He will now have his funds released, interest paid for the time they have been unavailable to him, all his legal costs paid and, possibly, compensation for the injunction which denied him his funds and the injunctions which stopped the sale of his books.
I don't care what you think, I was expressing my opinion that such a magnanimous action would redeem him in MY eyes.  Obviously pigs are more likely to fly first, but let's not forget his lawyer even conceded that Madeleine may not be dead, if I recall correctly so why shouldn't he donate to a fund that might at least continue to search for the truth once the official investigation is over, even if it confirms that Madeleine is no longer alive?

Offline xtina

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #88 on: January 31, 2017, 07:22:53 PM »
I think he should.


why..........they tried to destroy him .......but truth always prevails.........

like the truth of the lie
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 #89 on: January 31, 2017, 07:24:13 PM »

why..........they tried to destroy him .......but truth always prevails.........

like the truth of the lie

Who says it's the truth