« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 72 73 [74] 75 76 ... 143   Go Down

Author Topic: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.  (Read 270464 times)

0 Members and 4 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline carlymichelle

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #1095 on: February 08, 2017, 10:47:45 AM »
Quote from: Montclair on February 08, 2017, 10:46:48 AM
The decision was reported in all of the newspapers in Portugal. If you are not in Portugal how would you know.

some only see what they want too dont they
Logged

Offline Brietta

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #1096 on: February 08, 2017, 10:48:15 AM »
Quote from: Montclair on February 08, 2017, 10:46:48 AM
The decision was reported in all of the newspapers in Portugal. If you are not in Portugal how would you know.

You will have cites then.  Thank you
Logged
"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 carlymichelle

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #1097 on: February 08, 2017, 10:49:24 AM »
Quote from: Brietta on February 08, 2017, 10:48:15 AM
You will have cites then.  Thank you

why not google it??
Logged

Alfie

  • Guest
Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #1098 on: February 08, 2017, 10:51:50 AM »
Quote from: Montclair on February 08, 2017, 10:46:48 AM
The decision was reported in all of the newspapers in Portugal. If you are not in Portugal how would you know.
The decision was reported in all the mainstream PT press, how about the substance of the judgement which was released yesterday?
Logged

Offline Brietta

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #1099 on: February 08, 2017, 10:53:01 AM »
Quote from: xtina on February 08, 2017, 10:38:17 AM
don.t worry about it Brietta....it will come ...

when the judgement .is shown ..some will have a lot more to worry about than MSM

But it is here already xtina.  Courtesy of blogs which are very much 'on message' which unfortunately is very much their message. 
Logged
"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 #1100 on: February 08, 2017, 10:54:52 AM »
Quote from: carlymichelle on February 08, 2017, 10:49:24 AM
why not google it??

A member has made a statement.  Forum etiquette demands she supply a cite.
Logged
"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 #1101 on: February 08, 2017, 10:59:19 AM »
Quote from: Alfie on February 08, 2017, 10:51:50 AM
The decision was reported in all the mainstream PT press, how about the substance of the judgement which was released yesterday?

Blogs and Natasha have intimated the release and have started their analysis for public consumption.  No-one else apparently has, not even a mention of the release.  Is it still embargoed information?
Logged
"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 Alice Purjorick

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #1102 on: February 08, 2017, 10:59:46 AM »
Quote from: davel on February 08, 2017, 05:12:04 AM
If this translation is correct
It may not be
If the McCanns aren't entitled to the presumption of innocence because they haven't been cleared then no suspect in Portugal is entitled to the presumption of innocence which is  totally at odds with the declaration of human rights which Portugal I presume is signed up to

It would make Portugals justice system a laughing stock

We have been hearing that story for a while now.
Logged
"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 #1103 on: February 08, 2017, 11:00:07 AM »
Quote from: Brietta on February 08, 2017, 10:33:36 AM
The mainstream Portuguese press are not covering the judgement as yet ... I find that extraordinary.

Or maybe not so extraordinary .....
Logged

stephen25000

  • Guest
Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #1104 on: February 08, 2017, 11:04:48 AM »
Quote from: ferryman on February 08, 2017, 11:00:07 AM
Or maybe not so extraordinary .....

Why ?

Amaral has nothing to worry about now, does he.
Logged

Offline Brietta

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #1105 on: February 08, 2017, 11:06:23 AM »
Quote from: ferryman on February 08, 2017, 11:00:07 AM
Or maybe not so extraordinary .....

I could very well be wrong on this but so far no-one is posting up anything to correct me.

If the information is still under some sort of embargo, it is my opinion that someone somewhere is in serious breach of the law in Portugal or contempt of court, one or both.
Logged
"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 jassi

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #1106 on: February 08, 2017, 11:07:15 AM »
Quote from: stephen25000 on February 08, 2017, 11:04:48 AM
Why ?

Amaral has nothing to worry about now, does he.

 He has certainly  survived the worse that the McCanns could throw at him.
Logged
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 Brietta

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #1107 on: February 08, 2017, 11:08:36 AM »
Quote from: stephen25000 on February 08, 2017, 11:04:48 AM
Why ?

Amaral has nothing to worry about now, does he.

As far as his honour is concerned ... not a thing ... it is as it always was.
Logged
"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"....

stephen25000

  • Guest
Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #1108 on: February 08, 2017, 11:15:32 AM »
Quote from: Brietta on February 08, 2017, 11:08:36 AM
As far as his honour is concerned ... not a thing ... it is as it always was.

He  has nothing to bother about per se.

The ball is now firmly where it should belong.
Logged

Offline carlymichelle

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #1109 on: February 08, 2017, 11:18:06 AM »
Quote from: stephen25000 on February 08, 2017, 11:15:32 AM
He  has nothing to bother about per se.

The ball is now firmly where it should belong.

some people cant accept that can they??
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 72 73 [74] 75 76 ... 143   Go Up
« previous next »