Author Topic: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.  (Read 270061 times)

0 Members and 8 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline G-Unit

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #330 on: February 02, 2017, 05:49:01 AM »
Portugal will lose.   Tourists will go elsewhere.   They will lose in the court of public opinion.

I think not. It's a storm in a teacup to most people.
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 carlymichelle

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #331 on: February 02, 2017, 06:03:55 AM »
I think not. It's a storm in a teacup to most people.

 8)-))) yep some might even  think they brought it on themsselves  right??

Offline Angelo222

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #332 on: February 02, 2017, 06:57:51 AM »
I think not. It's a storm in a teacup to most people.

The McCann's could have silenced Amaral and had the book banned without the huge claim for damages.  That claim revealed the true reason for the case imo.
De troothe has the annoying habit of coming to the surface just when you least expect it!!

Je ne regrette rien!!

Offline Angelo222

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #333 on: February 02, 2017, 07:02:06 AM »
Portugal will lose.   Tourists will go elsewhere.   They will lose in the court of public opinion.

Don't be daft Robbie.  Do you really think the great British public give a hoot about who lost or won a court case in Lisbon?
De troothe has the annoying habit of coming to the surface just when you least expect it!!

Je ne regrette rien!!

Offline carlymichelle

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #334 on: February 02, 2017, 07:07:54 AM »
Don't be daft Robbie.  Do you really think the great British public give a hoot about who lost or won a court case in Lisbon?

the ones   that do are  very emotionally involved   with the mcanns  imo

Offline Robittybob1

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #335 on: February 02, 2017, 07:23:45 AM »
Don't be daft Robbie.  Do you really think the great British public give a hoot about who lost or won a court case in Lisbon?
It has put me off going there.  Too many strange decisions and behaviour of the police toward tourists.

http://www.theportugalnews.com/news/family-claim-australian-woman-murdered-at-algarve-home-police-say-suicide/4397
There was the case "Portuguese police have allegedly failed to uncover the murder of an Australian woman who was found dead at her Algarve home in 2008, declaring it was suicide. The news emerged this week that an independent autopsy in her homeland said she had been the victim of a murder."

How could that be suicide?
« Last Edit: February 02, 2017, 07:28:45 AM 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.

Offline Angelo222

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #336 on: February 02, 2017, 07:29:26 AM »
It has put me off going there.  Too many strange decisions and behaviour of the police toward tourists.

http://www.theportugalnews.com/news/family-claim-australian-woman-murdered-at-algarve-home-police-say-suicide/4397
There was the case "Portuguese police have allegedly failed to uncover the murder of an Australian woman who was found dead at her Algarve home in 2008, declaring it was suicide. The news emerged this week that an independent autopsy in her homeland said she had been the victim of a murder."

How could that be suicide?

Its the same everywhere, Portugal is no different.
De troothe has the annoying habit of coming to the surface just when you least expect it!!

Je ne regrette rien!!

Offline Angelo222

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #337 on: February 02, 2017, 07:30:48 AM »
the ones   that do are  very emotionally involved   with the mcanns  imo

A small group getting smaller by the day.
De troothe has the annoying habit of coming to the surface just when you least expect it!!

Je ne regrette rien!!

Offline Robittybob1

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #338 on: February 02, 2017, 07:32:01 AM »
the ones   that do are  very emotionally involved   with the mcanns  imo
I'm not emotionally involved.  Just seeking the solution, and Amaral seems to be out of bounds using the suspicion of the Portuguese investigation as a solution without the actual charge been proved against the McCanns and their friends. 
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 Robittybob1

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #339 on: February 02, 2017, 07:34:33 AM »
The McCann's could have silenced Amaral and had the book banned without the huge claim for damages.  That claim revealed the true reason for the case imo.
How?
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 Angelo222

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #340 on: February 02, 2017, 07:35:29 AM »
I'm not emotionally involved.  Just seeking the solution, and Amaral seems to be out of bounds using the suspicion of the Portuguese investigation as a solution without the actual charge been proved against the McCanns and their friends.

So tell me Rob, what about their activities after the event.  Do you agree that this should be investigated?
De troothe has the annoying habit of coming to the surface just when you least expect it!!

Je ne regrette rien!!

Offline carlymichelle

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #341 on: February 02, 2017, 07:36:39 AM »
So tell me Rob, what about their activities after the event.  Do you agree that this should be investigated?

didnt the hirecar have more miles/km then it should have??

Offline Robittybob1

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #342 on: February 02, 2017, 07:39:04 AM »
So tell me Rob, what about their activities after the event.  Do you agree that this should be investigated?
There is a story to tell but it wasn't Madeleine who died that night IMO.  What activities were you meaning exactly? 
« Last Edit: February 02, 2017, 07:41:26 AM 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.

Offline Robittybob1

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #343 on: February 02, 2017, 07:40:45 AM »
didnt the hirecar have more miles/km then it should have??
As I said there could be a story to tell.   It really amazed me that the hire car wasn't examined on the day that the villa was examined but they were allowed to do the trip to Huelva the next day and then the PJ say more mileage was clocked up on that trip.  It doesn't seem to make sense to me.
« Last Edit: February 02, 2017, 07:43:54 AM 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.

Offline Angelo222

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #344 on: February 02, 2017, 07:45:52 AM »
There is a story to tell but it wasn't Madeleine who died that night IMO.  What activities were you meaning exactly?

The Metodo affair
De troothe has the annoying habit of coming to the surface just when you least expect it!!

Je ne regrette rien!!