Author Topic: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.  (Read 270179 times)

0 Members and 6 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline misty

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #165 on: January 31, 2017, 11:49:32 PM »
The Court of Appeal did not agree with the judge of the first instance; the Supreme Court it seems upheld the Court of Appeal's ruling. That seems to be simple enough.... the first judge made a mistake.

The judges in various courts seem to have made a lot of "mistakes" in this case, don't they? The law has no consistency.

Offline Alice Purjorick

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #166 on: January 31, 2017, 11:53:00 PM »
The right to freedom of speech comes with certain responsibilities & restrictions. Amaral breached those responsibilities imo but it would appear Portuguese justice ignores the writings of Article 10 ECHR as & when it suits.

I expect they do para 2 of the article being such one could drive a Liebherr dragline through it.
But in this instance the McCanns lost their case Sr Amaral is probably placing an order for a Maserati Ghibli and most of the world's population will not give a stuff or say "remind me, what were the rules of engagement here?"
"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 #167 on: January 31, 2017, 11:53:44 PM »
If and when it is confirmed that someone other than the McCanns were responsible for Madeleine's disappearance will this verdict still be viewed as justice served?

Amaral's opinions may be wrong, but the case wasn't about that. It was about his right to express his opinions. The verdict was that he had that right, so justice was served.
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 pathfinder73

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #168 on: January 31, 2017, 11:54:48 PM »
« Last Edit: February 01, 2017, 01:11:20 AM by John »
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 Alice Purjorick

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #169 on: January 31, 2017, 11:57:22 PM »
In Portugal the freedom to say what you like  about another even if it is unproven or untrue is more important than the right not to be smeared and lied about, that's what it boils down to. Amaral fans think that's just, McCanns supporters think it's unjust, and never the twain shall meet.

 @)(++(*
are they like the Amaral Campers ?
"Navigating the difference between weird but normal grief and truly suspicious behaviour is the key for any detective worth his salt.". ….Sarah Bailey

Offline faithlilly

Brietta posted on 10/04/2022 “But whether or not that is the reason behind the delay I am certain that Brueckner's trial is going to take place.”

Let’s count the months, shall we?

Offline Brietta

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #171 on: February 01, 2017, 12:34:03 AM »
Official Find Madeleine Campaign
5 hrs ·

Statement from Gerry and Kate McCann Regarding Portuguese Supreme Court Ruling

What we have been told by our lawyers is obviously extremely disappointing.
It is eight years since we brought the action and in that time the landscape has dramatically changed, namely there is now a joint Metropolitan Police-Policia Judiciaria investigation which is what we've always wanted.

The police in both countries continue to work on the basis that there is no evidence that Madeleine has come to physical harm.

We will, of course, be discussing the implications of the Supreme Court ruling with our lawyers in due course.

Gerry and Kate
https://www.facebook.com/Official.Find.Madeleine.Campaign/
« Last Edit: February 01, 2017, 01:15:51 AM by John »
"All I'm going to say is that we've conducted a very serious investigation and there's no indication that Madeleine McCann's parents are connected to her disappearance. On the other hand, we have a lot of evidence pointing out that Christian killed her," Wolter told the "Friday at 9"....

Offline John

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #172 on: February 01, 2017, 01:15:42 AM »
Official Find Madeleine Campaign
5 hrs ·

Statement from Gerry and Kate McCann Regarding Portuguese Supreme Court Ruling

What we have been told by our lawyers is obviously extremely disappointing.
It is eight years since we brought the action and in that time the landscape has dramatically changed, namely there is now a joint Metropolitan Police-Policia Judiciaria investigation which is what we've always wanted.

The police in both countries continue to work on the basis that there is no evidence that Madeleine has come to physical harm.

We will, of course, be discussing the implications of the Supreme Court ruling with our lawyers in due course.

Gerry and Kate
https://www.facebook.com/Official.Find.Madeleine.Campaign/

I think the implications are rather obvious.

Head down and hope Amaral is feeling charitable.
« Last Edit: February 01, 2017, 01:29:37 PM 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 Brietta

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #173 on: February 01, 2017, 01:34:18 AM »
I think the implications are rather obvious.

Head down and hope Amaral is feeling charitable.

I rather think it will be heads up and expectation of what they know all too well are the capabilities of the man.  In my opinion expectation or hope of charitable feeling from that quarter is futile.  If Amaral does not go about making more mischief it will not be through charity ... it will be for his own reasons.
Maybe along the lines of you can't get blood out of a stone?  Mind you, there are those who might not object to seeing the family out on the street ... we might get the opportunity to see if Amaral is one of them.

The ball is in his court ... at the moment.
"All I'm going to say is that we've conducted a very serious investigation and there's no indication that Madeleine McCann's parents are connected to her disappearance. On the other hand, we have a lot of evidence pointing out that Christian killed her," Wolter told the "Friday at 9"....

Offline G-Unit

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #174 on: February 01, 2017, 06:42:21 AM »
The McCanns appear to have run out of courts.
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 Robittybob1

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #175 on: February 01, 2017, 07:00:46 AM »
It no longer matters what Amaral said in his book, though, does it? What matters is the judgement of the Portuguese courts. They have decided that he was exercising his right to freedom of speech and that in doing so he didn't breach the rights of the McCanns or their children. End of.
Do you think the same decision would have been made in other European countries.  I hope they take it further.  It is unjust in my opinion.
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 Mr Gray

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #176 on: February 01, 2017, 07:03:18 AM »
It is a massive massive victory for injustice

Offline Robittybob1

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #177 on: February 01, 2017, 07:03:27 AM »
exactly  even if the mcanns and supporters dont like it he is entitled to his opinion
Did he really make it clear it was just opinion or was he trying to say it was a fact?
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 Mr Gray

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #178 on: February 01, 2017, 07:06:50 AM »
Did he really make it clear it was just opinion or was he trying to say it was a fact?

He presented it as fact

Offline Mr Gray

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #179 on: February 01, 2017, 07:09:40 AM »
We all have our right to opinion but we do not have the right to express that opinion if it offends others rights
« Last Edit: February 01, 2017, 07:11:53 AM by davel »