Author Topic: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.  (Read 270049 times)

0 Members and 6 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline carlymichelle

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #225 on: February 01, 2017, 10:13:33 AM »
Not sure.
European arrest warrant? Maybe they could flee and share a room in the Ecuador embassy along with Assange   @)(++(*

 @)(++(* lol he is australian like me  didnt he  leak  some stuff about the mcanns from memory? they wouldnt like him very much  lol

Offline jassi

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #226 on: February 01, 2017, 10:14:13 AM »
It will be interesting to see what happens
I don't think the McCanns have a lot of money
They may be able to declare bankruptcy and he won't get a penny off them

He won't get a penny anyway. They owe the money to the Portuguese Court  for legal costs
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 #227 on: February 01, 2017, 10:16:35 AM »
He won't get a penny anyway. They owe the money to the Portuguese Court  for legal costs

it wasnt about   the money for  GA  was it??

Offline jassi

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #228 on: February 01, 2017, 10:19:23 AM »
it wasnt about   the money for  GA  was it??

I think regaining access to his own money might have had some bearing on the matter.
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 #229 on: February 01, 2017, 10:21:18 AM »
I think regaining access to his own money might have had some bearing on the matter.

well  yes  you know what  i mean though he isnt out to destroy the mcanns like some  think he is and he never   was

Offline faithlilly

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #230 on: February 01, 2017, 10:39:44 AM »
Exactly, no investigation with little prospect of one at the time, but a real danger that in the country where she went missing everyone would be brainwashed into believing Amaral's thesis was the truth and that Madeleine was dead and no longer findable.  Were they wrong to stand up against him and his book in an effort to try and stop him from his campaign against them and their daughter?  Let's not forget, doubter logic dictates if they don't sue, it must be true, so had they not fought him in the courts you would have seen this as further evidence of their guilt, would you not?

So they spent all the money that could have been used on private detectives, public awareness initiatives etc to fund a case on a spurious belief ( rejected by the courts) that a whole nation could be brainwashed by a book. Is that really what you're saying? Lest we forget at the time they filed the claim there was sighting coming in hand over fist.
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 Mr Gray

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #231 on: February 01, 2017, 10:44:44 AM »
Not sure.
European arrest warrant? Maybe they could flee and share a room in the Ecuador embassy along with Assange   @)(++(*
It's a civil matter so no arrest warrants

Offline jassi

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #232 on: February 01, 2017, 10:48:40 AM »
Not paying money owed to the judiciary might be a criminal charge.
You know just how contrary Portuguese law can be
« Last Edit: February 01, 2017, 10:51:27 AM by jassi »
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 #233 on: February 01, 2017, 10:55:51 AM »
Not paying money owed to the judiciary might be a criminal charge.
You know just how contrary Portuguese law can be

 ?{)(** they dont beat about the bush do they  *&*%£

Offline Alice Purjorick

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #234 on: February 01, 2017, 10:58:32 AM »
Not paying money owed to the judiciary might be a criminal charge.
You know just how contrary Portuguese law can be

It's the same over here.
The courts take a dim view of people taking he piss and have court officers and policeman knocking on their doors at silly oclock (cos that's when folks is in and at their doziest), demanding money
"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 #235 on: February 01, 2017, 10:59:27 AM »
Moderators please note:

It is understandable that there will be some upset and anger among certain members in the light of yesterdays Supreme Court decision in Lisbon. Moderators should please ensure that this does not spill over onto the boards.  Warnings should continue to be issued where they are deserved.  TY


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 #236 on: February 01, 2017, 11:00:16 AM »
It's the same over here.
The courts take a dim view of people taking he piss and have court officers and policeman knocking on their doors at silly oclock (cos that's when folks is in and at their doziest), demanding money

 @)(++(* if that happens here in australia police break down the door true story  @)(++(*

Offline Mr Gray

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #237 on: February 01, 2017, 11:00:35 AM »
Not paying money owed to the judiciary might be a criminal charge.
You know just how contrary Portuguese law can be

Owing money is a civil matter

Alfie

  • Guest
Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #238 on: February 01, 2017, 11:04:04 AM »
So they spent all the money that could have been used on private detectives, public awareness initiatives etc to fund a case on a spurious belief ( rejected by the courts) that a whole nation could be brainwashed by a book. Is that really what you're saying? Lest we forget at the time they filed the claim there was sighting coming in hand over fist.
If I recall correctly they spent an awful lot of money on private detectives, but yes they obviously firmly believed that Amaral and his book were damaging to the search for Madeleine and why shouldn't they have believed that?  I'm sure if you had lost your child in a foreign country and the detective on the case wrote a bestselling book saying you'd hidden her body (the implication being don't bother looking for her, she's dead) you might feel the same way. 

Offline John

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #239 on: February 01, 2017, 11:04:16 AM »
That is a ridiculous remark and it sounds quite vindictive.

If the money spent on chasing Amaral through the courts had been spent on searching for Madeleine, don't you agree that would have been the right thing to do ?

In the spirit of openness and transparency both sides should reveal how much this fiasco has cost so far.

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.