Author Topic: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.  (Read 269958 times)

0 Members and 4 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Robittybob1

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #1245 on: February 08, 2017, 08:09:14 PM »
The McCanns have been proven innocent
When did that happen?
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 G-Unit

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #1246 on: February 08, 2017, 08:09:22 PM »
The poor course of action:  Defending their rights!

The courts have considered their claim and the verdict is that their rights were not violated. No matter what they and others think, that verdict will remain.
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 Erngath

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #1247 on: February 08, 2017, 08:10:22 PM »
70% of the countries in the world do not have a system based on English Common Law.
It is a weird world we live in that's for sure. They should count themselves lucky it was Portugal and not Sweden or the Czech Pub.
If you are squeamish it is best not go beyond the soggy bit at Dover without mummy as it can be frightening. Places filled with nasty foreigners who don't speak English all waiting to...........well they had dictatorships half a century ago and so on.

Never go near Dover.............too many "nasty foreigners" there.
Mummy has been dead for eighteen years.

Deal with the failings of others as gently as with your own.

Offline slartibartfast

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #1248 on: February 08, 2017, 08:10:49 PM »
The McCanns have been proven innocent

That appears to have been debunked in the rulings.
“Reasoning will never make a Man correct an ill Opinion, which by Reasoning he never acquired”.

Offline Erngath

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #1249 on: February 08, 2017, 08:13:37 PM »
The courts have considered their claim and the verdict is that their rights were not violated. No matter what they and others think, that verdict will remain.

But we do have the right to debate their verdict and even consider the possibility that it is an unjust verdict.
Deal with the failings of others as gently as with your own.

Offline Brietta

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #1250 on: February 08, 2017, 08:13:56 PM »
An interesting comment from a Portuguese commentator, back in 2007 - says it all really:

 Joao Marques dos Santos of Correio da Manha. "The theory of the presumption of innocence for an arguido is a joke. When someone is declared an arguido, the exact opposite occurs. That person, whether innocent or not, is considered by investigators to be potentially guilty. The effects are devastating and irreparable."

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2007/sep/17/mondaymediasection13

In my opinion that is exactly why the McCanns were declared arguidos days prior to the change in the law which would have required evidence for that to happen.

Long term ... it all worked out very well for Amaral.


Portuguese police 'rushed to make McCanns suspects to avoid new law'

Police waged a smear campaign against Kate and Gerry McCann, deliberately rushing to make them suspects just days before a new law made it impossible without firm evidence against the couple, it was claimed.
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/portuguese-police-rushed-to-make-mccanns-suspects-to-avoid-new-law-6623136.html
"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 Robittybob1

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #1251 on: February 08, 2017, 08:17:49 PM »
The courts have considered their claim and the verdict is that their rights were not violated. No matter what they and others think, that verdict will remain.
True but at the time they were defending their rights.  They felt Amaral was expressing his findings as fact.  OK the claims are now viewed as "opinion", but that to a lot of us is a strange judgement.
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 jassi

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #1252 on: February 08, 2017, 08:18:02 PM »
But we do have the right to debate their verdict and even consider the possibility that it is an unjust verdict.

As it is likely that you won't understand the intricacies of Portuguese law you cannot possible make a valid comment as you will be comparing it with UK law.
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 Robittybob1

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #1253 on: February 08, 2017, 08:19:52 PM »
But we do have the right to debate their verdict and even consider the possibility that it is an unjust verdict.
And to boycott Portugal and even to declare war on her if required. 
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 jassi

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #1254 on: February 08, 2017, 08:22:01 PM »
And to boycott Portugal and even to declare war on her if required.

Considering that Portugal is our oldest ally that is unlikely.
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

stephen25000

  • Guest
Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #1255 on: February 08, 2017, 08:22:06 PM »
And to boycott Portugal and even to declare war on her if required.

Are you Donald Trump. @)(++(* @)(++(*

Offline Erngath

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #1256 on: February 08, 2017, 08:23:44 PM »
As it is likely that you won't understand the intricacies of Portuguese law you cannot possible make a valid comment as you will be comparing it with UK law.

I don't understand the intricacies of the law in many countries but that does not preclude me making a judgement on the outcome of any legal proceeding if the outcome seems unjust.
Deal with the failings of others as gently as with your own.

Offline Robittybob1

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #1257 on: February 08, 2017, 08:24:46 PM »
Are you Donald Trump. @)(++(* @)(++(*
No I Can't build a wall in that region.
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.

Alfie

  • Guest
Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #1258 on: February 08, 2017, 08:26:14 PM »
Since there hasn't been a legal action...
so the Supreme Court ruling isn't a legal action?

stephen25000

  • Guest
Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #1259 on: February 08, 2017, 08:26:33 PM »
No I Can't build a wall in that region.

You can always ask his wife, Malaria.