Author Topic: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.  (Read 299749 times)

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline slartibartfast

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #630 on: February 03, 2017, 10:44:49 PM »
I think alot of posters who were feeling so good last night are realising how much things can change in a day

Nothing has changed.
“Reasoning will never make a Man correct an ill Opinion, which by Reasoning he never acquired”.

Offline carlymichelle

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #631 on: February 03, 2017, 10:46:44 PM »
Nothing has changed.

the mcanns still need to pay amaral and  all the court fees dont they??

Offline faithlilly

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #632 on: February 03, 2017, 10:47:31 PM »
That's what worries her, that he's fine ...

I sincerely hope he is. It just seems though that for someone who wishes to raise awareness of his missing daughter he's strangely quiet. In fact it's almost as if he's got sick of the whole circus. Kate though is doing a sterling job carrying the torch alone.
« Last Edit: February 03, 2017, 10:51:43 PM by 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?

ferryman

  • Guest
Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #633 on: February 03, 2017, 10:48:09 PM »
I wonder what...

... was that you posted earlier?

Post number 666

Offline slartibartfast

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #634 on: February 03, 2017, 10:50:04 PM »
Post number 666

What relevance does that post have?
“Reasoning will never make a Man correct an ill Opinion, which by Reasoning he never acquired”.

ferryman

  • Guest
Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #635 on: February 03, 2017, 10:51:15 PM »
What relevance does that post have?

Needs a modicum of intelligence to work it out.

Offline carlymichelle

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #636 on: February 03, 2017, 10:53:19 PM »
What relevance does that post have?

its suppodly the   devils number  @)(++(*

Offline slartibartfast

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #637 on: February 03, 2017, 10:55:07 PM »
Needs a modicum of intelligence to work it out.

Well you don't seem to have managed.
“Reasoning will never make a Man correct an ill Opinion, which by Reasoning he never acquired”.

ferryman

  • Guest
Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #638 on: February 03, 2017, 10:58:00 PM »
From chapter 16 of Amaral's Book of many lies:

Quote
After a week of intense work, Harrison presents the results of his study to my coordinating group. Even if we were expecting it, his conclusions confirm our worst fears. The most plausible scenario is the following: there is no doubt that Madeleine is dead, and her body is hidden somewhere in the area around Praia da Luz. He praises the quality of the work carried out by the Portuguese authorities in trying to find the little girl alive. According to him, the time has come to redirect the searches in order to find, this time, a body hidden in the surrounding area.

And the penultimate sentence of Mark Harrison's final report:

Quote
I am currently of the opinion on the available information and statistical datasets that if death has occurred, that it is possible that Madeleine McCann’s body has been disposed into the sea at Praia da Luz. (See my second report entitled “NPIA OP TASK Search Doc Beach and Marine”).
« Last Edit: February 03, 2017, 11:08:21 PM by ferryman »

Offline slartibartfast

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #639 on: February 03, 2017, 10:59:24 PM »
From chapter 16 of Amaral's Book:

And the penultimate sentence of Mark Harrison's final report:

...and again Harrison uses a strange choice of words which you have failed to address.
“Reasoning will never make a Man correct an ill Opinion, which by Reasoning he never acquired”.

Offline Mr Gray

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #640 on: February 03, 2017, 10:59:49 PM »

Offline Robittybob1

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #641 on: February 03, 2017, 11:00:45 PM »
The McCanns would have to risk a lot more to prove that.
It seems you can say what you like in Portugal.  Just call it freedom of expression and opinion and you are safe.
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 barrier

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #642 on: February 03, 2017, 11:03:23 PM »
a lot has changed

Nah! I haven't been a member long but a long time reader,the petty bickering remains.
This is my own private domicile and I shall not be harassed, biatch:Jesse Pinkman Character.

Offline slartibartfast

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #643 on: February 03, 2017, 11:05:53 PM »
a lot has changed

Nope. The McCanns have still failed to win the damages trial. The McCanns have still incurred significant costs. The Press have still reported on GA's theories. The McCanns are in the U.K. and will have to be careful of what they say, as we are always being told it is easier to prove libel in the U.K. than PT.

“Reasoning will never make a Man correct an ill Opinion, which by Reasoning he never acquired”.

Offline Mr Gray

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #644 on: February 03, 2017, 11:11:35 PM »
Nope. The McCanns have still failed to win the damages trial. The McCanns have still incurred significant costs. The Press have still reported on GA's theories. The McCanns are in the U.K. and will have to be careful of what they say, as we are always being told it is easier to prove libel in the U.K. than PT.

the mccanns can say a hell of a lot..amaral is a very easy target...his understanding of the evidence was flawed...he was sacked ...criminal conviction....but you dont have to take my word for it...wait and see