Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.

[xtina]

G A was the officer on the case .....he may know a lot more .than he has already wrote about .

why are the mccs .so desperate to get rid of him at any cost .....

they have to reap the seeds they sowed ...

they left maddie to her fate....

they brought all this on themselves......

I don't know how they dare even consider ....the court of humane rights.......................

what about maddie ....what about her rights.....her rights of life .....her rights of protection

all they think about is themselves ....hopefully now will be the time .they have to face up to what they did........

[carlymichelle]

G A was the officer on the case .....he may know a lot more .than he has already wrote about .

why are the mccs .so desperate to get rid of him at any cost .....

they have to reap the seeds they sowed ...

they left maddie to her fate....

they brought all this on themselves......

I don't know how they dare even consider ....the court of humane rights.......................

what about maddie ....what about her rights.....her rights of life .....her rights of protection

all they think about is themselves ....hopefully now will be the time .they have to face up to what they did........

no one forced them to  harrass  amaral for 8 years did they??

[Alice Purjorick]

Maybe time for a rerun of this from about three years ago to reminf folk where it went wrong:

Whilst freezing my backside on the family three holer in the shack out back I wondered if Judge Maria Emília de Melo e Castro has to pay back part of her salary due to the entertainment value of this trial? Imagine the dinner table “Did you have a good day in court darling?”  she chuckles as she raises her wine glass “ you would never believe what those [insert the posh Portuguese word for the plural of tosser in here] have been up to today dear ………..”.
Consider:
One witness turns up with an interpreter who isn’t up to the mark and the judge has to help her out (Julio Geordio rides again). The same witness professes to be an expert on the case and shows that she actually don’t know A from a bulls foot; another witness sits in a foreign court spits his dummy out, slags off the local judiciary then says he didn’t read the book because he knew it was lies without reading it. Two witnesses are sent home because they can’t bring anything to the party. One witness (President of the Bar Council?) makes himself ineligible because he has taken his eye off the ball. One witness doesn’t answer a question in case he drops his mate in it so the judge answers it for him. Two witnesses represent both sides. The Judge puts several fleas in several ears reminding various folk it is HER job to compare the book and the police reports not theirs. At the end of the bout it’s difficult to see whether anyone actually laid a glove on an opponent. Before the judges’ cards have been handed to the referee for counting, one contestant says he thinks the opposition played a ringer and another contestant asks to have recount on a previous round.
It really is beyond parody. One inclines to the view that in wasn’t in the script that it should ever wind up in court.

Now as I recall several parties no names no pack drill declared then it was a significant victory for the McCanns.

[Mr Gray]

Effective directors form their opinions upon advice or research. That can be justified if questioned. If the Fund directors took advice or did research the McCanns could have done with using it in court. 

If the McCanns fail to pay what they owe to the Portuguese courts I expect we will learn what the official attitude to Portuguese court decisions is.

Duarte thought she understood the Portuguese legal system, but she got it wrong. Your opinion about UK libel laws could also be wrong.

Amaral has not published his book in the UK yet.

It isn't my opinion it's a fact
That's why amaral hasn't and won't publish in the uk

[stephen25000]

It isn't my opinion it's a fact
That's why amaral hasn't and won't publish in the uk

Your opinion ?

[Admin]

Can we keep to the subject under discussion.

Admin

[Mr Gray]

Your opinion ?

It is directly related to the judgement that it has no bearing on the uk libel question
Libel is crystal clear in the uk and the book would be 100 % libellous

[Mr Gray]

Maybe time for a rerun of this from about three years ago to reminf folk where it went wrong:

Whilst freezing my backside on the family three holer in the shack out back I wondered if Judge Maria Emília de Melo e Castro has to pay back part of her salary due to the entertainment value of this trial? Imagine the dinner table “Did you have a good day in court darling?”  she chuckles as she raises her wine glass “ you would never believe what those [insert the posh Portuguese word for the plural of tosser in here] have been up to today dear ………..”.
Consider:
One witness turns up with an interpreter who isn’t up to the mark and the judge has to help her out (Julio Geordio rides again). The same witness professes to be an expert on the case and shows that she actually don’t know A from a bulls foot; another witness sits in a foreign court spits his dummy out, slags off the local judiciary then says he didn’t read the book because he knew it was lies without reading it. Two witnesses are sent home because they can’t bring anything to the party. One witness (President of the Bar Council?) makes himself ineligible because he has taken his eye off the ball. One witness doesn’t answer a question in case he drops his mate in it so the judge answers it for him. Two witnesses represent both sides. The Judge puts several fleas in several ears reminding various folk it is HER job to compare the book and the police reports not theirs. At the end of the bout it’s difficult to see whether anyone actually laid a glove on an opponent. Before the judges’ cards have been handed to the referee for counting, one contestant says he thinks the opposition played a ringer and another contestant asks to have recount on a previous round.
It really is beyond parody. One inclines to the view that in wasn’t in the script that it should ever wind up in court.

Now as I recall several parties no names no pack drill declared then it was a significant victory for the McCanns.

And that trial was a significant victory for the mccanns

[Brietta]

I havent been on for ages, as the saga just went on and on, but this is wonderful news I bet Amaral is beaming.

Since the day the child went missing i havent changed my mind, and I doubt Amaral has either. How anyone can think this is a VICTORY for the McCanns is beyond me.  I think its a victory a VICTORY FOR JUSTICE FOR AMARAL who had his life ruined by these people.   They should have left well alone, and perhaps then people would have stopped wanting to read his book.

I am so happy this is finally over and maybe now the McCanns will move on, as like you said there is no trace of the child, someone knows what happened to her, but we will never know i dont think anyway.

What an extraordinary post.

It appears that you misunderstand that Madeleine McCann disappeared while on holiday in Portugal and the Portuguese authorities gave up on her to quote you, “Since the day the child went missing”. 

Putting the seal on that when her case was archived in July 2008.
Meaning that after just more than a year from the date of her disappearance she was written off when her case was to all effect and purposes ~ closed.

An action surely unprecedented in the case of a missing child in any civilised society in the world.  One in total abrogation of the rights of the child.
Amaral didn’t need … to quote you again … “VICTORY FOR JUSTICE FOR AMARAL”.  The justice should have been for Madeleine.

Amaral didn’t need to write his exploitative book … but the McCanns did have to continue searching for their daughter … no one else was! and Amaral's book exploiting her wasn't helping.

How can you possibly suggest the McCanns can “move on”?  Their daughter is missing!  Or are you also one of those who make the comparison to a missing pussy cat?

Game set and match for those who delight in the victory of a man whose incompetence may have fatally compromised an investigation into a missing child, which his sacking from the case was too little too late to prevent.

The failed action which was taken on behalf of Madeleine McCann is not the end of it by a long chalk.  Which is something those who have written her off as dead without one iota of proof to back up Amaral’s opinion … would never ever hope to understand.

[G-Unit]

And that trial was a significant victory for the mccanns

They were granted 40% of their claim, 60% was dismissed. Not a resounding victory by any normal person's measurement.

[Alice Purjorick]

And that trial was a significant victory for the mccanns

Yeah ! that trial has just finished.
Round One: 1.2MM up for grabs of which 700k was rejected.
Round Two: the remaining 500k was rejected
Round Three: all referees and judges agree that all 1.2MM be rejected case dismissed. The defendants costs all three (4?) of them to be born by the plaintiffs.
Explain how that is a significant victory within the context of the original objective?
The book has been freely available on the internet since God was a boy.

[stephen25000]

What an extraordinary post.

It appears that you misunderstand that Madeleine McCann disappeared while on holiday in Portugal and the Portuguese authorities gave up on her to quote you, “Since the day the child went missing”. 

Putting the seal on that when her case was archived in July 2008.
Meaning that after just more than a year from the date of her disappearance she was written off when her case was to all effect and purposes ~ closed.

An action surely unprecedented in the case of a missing child in any civilised society in the world.  One in total abrogation of the rights of the child.
Amaral didn’t need … to quote you again … “VICTORY FOR JUSTICE FOR AMARAL”.  The justice should have been for Madeleine.

Amaral didn’t need to write his exploitative book … but the McCanns did have to continue searching for their daughter … no one else was! and Amaral's book exploiting her wasn't helping.

How can you possibly suggest the McCanns can “move on”?  Their daughter is missing!  Or are you also one of those who make the comparison to a missing pussy cat?

Game set and match for those who delight in the victory of a man whose incompetence may have fatally compromised an investigation into a missing child, which his sacking from the case was too little too late to prevent.

The failed action which was taken on behalf of Madeleine McCann is not the end of it by a long chalk.  Which is something those who have written her off as dead without one iota of proof to back up Amaral’s opinion … would never ever hope to understand.

Colombosstogey's post was excellent and succinctly put.

That you won't agree with it , is par for the course, as you have never criticized what the Mccann's did, but reserve your criticism for anyone who doesn't agree with the mccann's version of events, or investigated them.

There is absolutely no evidence that Amaral's book interfered with any 'search'.

That is merely the mantra repeated by the McCann's and some of their followers.

[barrier]

Yeah ! that trial has just finished.
Round One: 1.2MM up for grabs of which 700k was rejected.
Round Two: the remaining 500k was rejected
Round Three: all referees and judges agree that all 1.2MM be rejected case dismissed. The defendants costs all three (4?) of them to be born by the plaintiffs.
Explain how that is a significant victory within the context of the original objective?
The book has been freely available on the internet since God was a boy.

I wondering if some aren't reading about a completely different case.

[Alice Purjorick]

It is directly related to the judgement that it has no bearing on the uk libel question
Libel is crystal clear in the uk and the book would be 100 % libellous

Not under the present law.

[Alice Purjorick]

I wondering if some aren't reading about a completely different case.

I came to that conclusion about three and half years ago...