Author Topic: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.  (Read 270166 times)

0 Members and 7 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Mr Gray

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #315 on: February 01, 2017, 08:18:19 PM »
The Supreme Court said 'Negada a Revista', which means the application to appeal was either denied or rejected, I'm not sure which. That, to me, means the Supreme Court were satisfied with the interpretation of the Appeal Court judges.

Thats right.....stephen seems to think thers a book of rules ath covers every situation...of course there isnt....the law has to be intepreted

Offline jassi

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #316 on: February 01, 2017, 08:22:35 PM »
Once made, their decision cannot be reversed or set aside.
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 Mr Gray

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #317 on: February 01, 2017, 08:24:47 PM »
Once made, their decision cannot be reversed or set aside.

Thats why its called the supreme court

Offline jassi

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #318 on: February 01, 2017, 08:28:14 PM »
Exactly. They decided against the McCanns. Accept.
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 Mr Gray

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #319 on: February 01, 2017, 09:01:36 PM »
Exactly. They decided against the McCanns. Accept.

Im aware that they decided against them but strangely I have a similar thoughts to sil....im interested in what comes next.....could be quite fascinating

but on the note of acceptance


The McCanns are innocent of any criminal involvement in maddies disappearance....accept

stephen25000

  • Guest
Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #320 on: February 01, 2017, 09:08:03 PM »
Im aware that they decided against them but strangely I have a similar thoughts to sil....im interested in what comes next.....could be quite fascinating

but on the note of acceptance


The McCanns are innocent of any criminal involvement in maddies disappearance....accept


It isn't known what happened to her.

However, they do remain the last known people to see her alive.

FACT.

Offline Robittybob1

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #321 on: February 01, 2017, 11:07:17 PM »

What for?  Their somewhat dubious reputation? They would be taking on the State of Portugal, not Amaral.
It needs sorting.
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 #322 on: February 01, 2017, 11:15:20 PM »
It needs sorting.

Who knows
Might get some wealthy person who is disgusted by this  verdict and persuade the McCanns to embarrass Portugal in the ECHR
Could be fun

Offline Alice Purjorick

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #323 on: February 01, 2017, 11:23:59 PM »
Who knows
Might get some wealthy person who is disgusted by this  verdict and persuade the McCanns to embarrass Portugal in the ECHR
Could be fun

If you have nothing better to do for ten years.
I believe that's how long it took Steel and Morris to get a result when they took the UK to the ECHR.
"Navigating the difference between weird but normal grief and truly suspicious behaviour is the key for any detective worth his salt.". ….Sarah Bailey

Offline Alice Purjorick

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #324 on: February 01, 2017, 11:31:02 PM »
It needs sorting.

It is sorted.
The judgement of the Portuguese Supreme Court cannot be overturned.
The McCann's could apply to the ECHR to sue the Portuguese State for not upholding their human rights but whatever happens there ..... see second sentence above.
Read about "The MacLibel Trial" to gain a better appreciation.
"Navigating the difference between weird but normal grief and truly suspicious behaviour is the key for any detective worth his salt.". ….Sarah Bailey

Offline carlymichelle

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #325 on: February 01, 2017, 11:35:26 PM »
It is sorted.
The judgement of the Portuguese Supreme Court cannot be overturned.
The McCann's could apply to the ECHR to sue the Portuguese State for not upholding their human rights but whatever happens there ..... see second sentence above.
Read about "The MacLibel Trial" to gain a better appreciation.

davel needs to accept the mcanns have lost and GA has  won doesnt  he

Offline Alice Purjorick

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #326 on: February 01, 2017, 11:36:26 PM »
The Sun stuff does not seem to have gone to script.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2238940/madeleine-mccann-what-happened-disappearance-sightings/


"On the night she was taken police received two separate potential sightings from members of the public -- however one was fully ruled out as being a holidaymaker with his daughter".
So what about the other one chief?
« Last Edit: February 01, 2017, 11:51:22 PM by Alice Purjorick »
"Navigating the difference between weird but normal grief and truly suspicious behaviour is the key for any detective worth his salt.". ….Sarah Bailey

Offline Alice Purjorick

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #327 on: February 01, 2017, 11:39:44 PM »
davel needs to accept the mcanns have lost and GA has  won doesnt  he

All that is left is for the supporters to sling brick bats at the Portuguese legal system.
Stuff their luck.
 "No one with any intelligence" will believe them; unquote  8(0(*
"Navigating the difference between weird but normal grief and truly suspicious behaviour is the key for any detective worth his salt.". ….Sarah Bailey

Offline misty

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #328 on: February 02, 2017, 01:27:43 AM »
http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/584498/Madeleine-McCann-parents-kate-gerry-fear-ex-cop-Goncalo-Amaral-book-published-uk

*snipped*
The McCanns’ lawyers have warned they will take action against anyone who tries to release it in the UK.

Spokesman Clarence Mitchell said: “If it does appear, whoever is responsible will be sued.”

Offline Robittybob1

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #329 on: February 02, 2017, 02:58:40 AM »
It is sorted.
The judgement of the Portuguese Supreme Court cannot be overturned.
The McCann's could apply to the ECHR to sue the Portuguese State for not upholding their human rights but whatever happens there ..... see second sentence above.
Read about "The MacLibel Trial" to gain a better appreciation.
Portugal will lose.   Tourists will go elsewhere.   They will lose in the court of public 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.