Author Topic: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.  (Read 270425 times)

0 Members and 6 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline carlymichelle

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #1050 on: February 07, 2017, 08:25:13 PM »
Yes but just  who is 'they'?

not  sure??????

stephen25000

  • Guest
Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #1051 on: February 07, 2017, 08:31:18 PM »
' The author of the book “Maddie, the Truth of the Lie” , the co-defendant (co-R) Gonçalo Amaral was an investigator in the case of the disappearance of Madeleine McCann , having been the target of repeated personal and professional attacks by the applicants (AA) in the national and international media.
'

stephen25000

  • Guest
Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #1052 on: February 07, 2017, 08:37:20 PM »
' We believe that the main damage was caused to the McCann arguidos, who lost the possibility to prove what they have protested since they were constituted arguidos: their innocence towards the fateful event; the investigation was also disturbed, because said facts remain unclarified.”(...) '

Offline G-Unit

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #1053 on: February 07, 2017, 08:45:26 PM »
Translation from the April judgement 2016, as a reminder............

http://pjga.blogspot.co.uk/2016/04/full-translation-decision-from.html?spref=tw

An extract...........

' The court should note that all the witnesses are close to the AA, (family member, phycologist and lawyer) and that in their statements they clearly tried to minimise the theories predating the book and the documentary and, at the same time, naturally tried to give special emphasis to the impact of the book and DVD on the general wellbeing (mood)of the AA.

– This is especially so in relation to the witness Michael Terence Wright, who was in charge of assisting the Applicants (AA) in the dissemination of campaigns and monitoring/surveillance of some sites as well as of information present on the internet, after the disappearance of the minor Madeleine Beth McCann. '

This link is to the judgement of the Appeal Court, April 2016?
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

stephen25000

  • Guest
Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #1054 on: February 07, 2017, 08:47:20 PM »
This link is to the judgement of the Appeal Court, April 2016?

...and since the Supreme Court rejected the Mccann's appeal, that 2016 appeal judgement will stand, I presume.

Offline jassi

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #1055 on: February 07, 2017, 08:53:46 PM »
...and since the Supreme Court rejected the Mccann's appeal, that 2016 appeal judgement will stand, I presume.

supplemented by 75 additional pages of reasoning   ?{)(**
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 xtina

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #1056 on: February 07, 2017, 08:54:11 PM »
41. At the beginning of the documentary, the defendant Gonçalo Amaral states the following: -“ My name is Gonçalo Amaral and I was a police investigator for the Judiciary Police for 27 years. I co-ordinated the investigation of the disappearance of Madeleine McCann on the 3rd of May 2007. During the next 50 minutes I will prove that the child was not abducted and that she died in the holiday apartment in Praia da Luz. Discover all the truth about what happened that day. A death that many want to cover up”

42. At the end of the documentary, the defendant Gonçalo Amaral states the following: -“ What I know tells me that Madeleine McCann died in apartment 5A on teh 3rd of May 2007. I am certain that this truth will one day be verified. The investigation was brutally interrupted and there was a hasty political archival .There is some who hide the truth but, sooner or later, the varnish will crack and the revelations will surface. Only then will there be justice for Madeleine MCCann.”

http://pjga.blogspot.co.uk/2016/04/full-translation-decision-from.html?spref=tw
Always listen to both sides of the story before you judge.

The first storyteller you will always find has modified the story, for there benefit BE WISE.

stephen25000

  • Guest
Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #1057 on: February 07, 2017, 08:57:23 PM »
supplemented by 75 additional pages of reasoning   ?{)(**

Yup. 8((()*/

Offline Alice Purjorick

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #1058 on: February 07, 2017, 09:18:58 PM »
You seem to be taking this far too seriously

Well according to you, you are off on holiday............................... &%+((£
"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 #1059 on: February 07, 2017, 09:21:29 PM »
I suppose we need to wait for the translation to see exactly what is mentioned.

Nah! making it up is more fun.
"Navigating the difference between weird but normal grief and truly suspicious behaviour is the key for any detective worth his salt.". ….Sarah Bailey

ferryman

  • Guest
Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #1060 on: February 07, 2017, 09:39:57 PM »
They have a value to investigators otherwise why bother with dogs at all. The thing about dog alerts is that they raise suspicion.

When the dogs are handled and deployed competently, yes.

Offline Brietta

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #1061 on: February 07, 2017, 11:11:45 PM »
This may be a stupid question ... why can't I locate a copy of the judgement or any mention of it anywhere on Portuguese MSM?
"All I'm going to say is that we've conducted a very serious investigation and there's no indication that Madeleine McCann's parents are connected to her disappearance. On the other hand, we have a lot of evidence pointing out that Christian killed her," Wolter told the "Friday at 9"....

Offline Brietta

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #1062 on: February 07, 2017, 11:42:43 PM »
This may be a stupid question ... why can't I locate a copy of the judgement or any mention of it anywhere on Portuguese MSM?

Can no-one provide a cite?
"All I'm going to say is that we've conducted a very serious investigation and there's no indication that Madeleine McCann's parents are connected to her disappearance. On the other hand, we have a lot of evidence pointing out that Christian killed her," Wolter told the "Friday at 9"....

Offline misty

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #1063 on: February 08, 2017, 12:00:28 AM »
Can no-one provide a cite?

http://pjga.blogspot.co.uk/

Scroll down to last page for date 31/1/17 & signatures of the 3 judges.

Offline Brietta

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #1064 on: February 08, 2017, 12:36:13 AM »
http://pjga.blogspot.co.uk/

Scroll down to last page for date 31/1/17 & signatures of the 3 judges.

I can't read their handwriting, Misty.  I do know that Isabel Duarte objected to one at the beginning of this process, but got nowhere.
"All I'm going to say is that we've conducted a very serious investigation and there's no indication that Madeleine McCann's parents are connected to her disappearance. On the other hand, we have a lot of evidence pointing out that Christian killed her," Wolter told the "Friday at 9"....