Author Topic: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.  (Read 269972 times)

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline jassi

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #1260 on: February 08, 2017, 08:27:49 PM »
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.

Yes but you are only considering unjust compared with another system. Apples and pear.
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 #1261 on: February 08, 2017, 08:29:27 PM »
You can always ask his wife, Malaria.
He'll track you down for a comment like that.  You are a marked man, you're fired.
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 Erngath

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #1262 on: February 08, 2017, 08:30:14 PM »
Considering that Portugal is our oldest ally that is unlikely.

Not exactly.
« Last Edit: February 08, 2017, 08:46:52 PM by ShiningInLuz »
Deal with the failings of others as gently as with your own.

Alfie

  • Guest
Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #1263 on: February 08, 2017, 08:30:48 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.
So if in Afghanistan a married rape victim is found guilty of unlawful sexual intercourse and ordered by law to be buried up to her neck and have stones thrown at her head, then I can't possibly make a valid comment about it as I don't know the intricacies of their law and will be comparing it with UK law.  In other words, shut up and don't express an opinion.  Well...no, sorry.

stephen25000

  • Guest
Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #1264 on: February 08, 2017, 08:32:45 PM »
He'll track you down for a comment like that.  You are a marked man, you're fired.

Fired from what.

I know where he is headed.

Offline Erngath

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #1265 on: February 08, 2017, 08:34:26 PM »
Yes but you are only considering unjust compared with another system. Apples and pear.

So you can never make a comparison between two justice systems?
Whether one is more just than others.
Or is justice like beauty, only in the eye of the beholder?
Deal with the failings of others as gently as with your own.

Offline Erngath

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #1266 on: February 08, 2017, 08:35:35 PM »
So if in Afghanistan a married rape victim is found guilty of unlawful sexual intercourse and ordered by law to be buried up to her neck and have stones thrown at her head, then I can't possibly make a valid comment about it as I don't know the intricacies of their law and will be comparing it with UK law.  In other words, shut up and don't express an opinion.  Well...no, sorry.

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

Offline Mr Gray

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #1267 on: February 08, 2017, 08:36:17 PM »
That appears to have been debunked in the rulings.

No one here or in the judgement has defined proof
That's why I made the post

Offline Robittybob1

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #1268 on: February 08, 2017, 08:36:46 PM »
Fired from what.

I know where he is headed.
Is he going on a Luz tour too?
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 #1269 on: February 08, 2017, 08:37:47 PM »
So if in Afghanistan a married rape victim is found guilty of unlawful sexual intercourse and ordered by law to be buried up to her neck and have stones thrown at her head, then I can't possibly make a valid comment about it as I don't know the intricacies of their law and will be comparing it with UK law.  In other words, shut up and don't express an opinion.  Well...no, sorry.

All you can really say is that by western standards it is wrong. By Afghan standards it is clearly OK
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 Erngath

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #1270 on: February 08, 2017, 08:42:02 PM »
All you can really say is that by western standards it is wrong. By Afghan standards it is clearly OK

Speechless I am.
Deal with the failings of others as gently as with your own.

Offline pathfinder73

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #1271 on: February 08, 2017, 08:42:49 PM »
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

They were suspects in August.

Wednesday 8 August 2007

João Carlos returned our car at lunchtime (albeit with a piece missing from the boot). He said that Neves and Encarnação were ready to see us later that afternoon. Thank goodness! Finally someone was going to explain to us exactly what was happening. João told us he would come and meet us at 3pm near the police station, to avoid the media – we wouldn’t be going to the British Consulate this time. On our way to Portimão we dropped Auntie Janet, Sean and Amelie at the home of Susan and Haynes Hubbard.

If we’d wondered about the change of venue for our regular informal meeting, the reason for it soon became clear: this wasn’t our regular informal meeting. We were taken to an upstairs room at the police station where we were greeted by Luís Neves and Guilhermino Encarnação. Our interpreter this time was a police officer, not Proconsul Angela Morado, as was usually the case. The whole demeanour of Neves and Encarnação was different. They looked serious and cold.

There had been a ‘shift’ in the investigation, they said. They had always been optimistic that Madeleine was alive, but now things had changed. Almost instantaneously I could feel my breathing pattern altering and that familiar constriction in my throat. Gerry asked if any evidence had come to light to suggest that Madeleine was dead but they wouldn’t reply. There was a lot of frowning going on which, combined with the language barrier, made it less obvious that they weren’t answering us. Gerry was then asked to leave the room. Now the sirens in my head were deafening. I was on my own and afraid. Please God, let my Madeleine be OK.

Tell us about that night, they said. Tell us everything that happened after the children went to bed. I gave them every detail I could remember, as I had before, but this time they responded by just staring at me and shaking their heads. I was reeling with confusion, disbelief and panic. What the hell was going on? Evidently not satisfied with my account, they pressed me. Was there anything else I wanted to add? Anything else unusual that had occurred that night?
Of course there wasn’t. If there had been I would have told them on 3 May. I’d recounted absolutely everything and anything – more than they wanted or needed to know, probably, just in case some triviality I recalled might be significant. How could they think I would hold something back that might help my daughter? Why were they asking me this? Why?

Neves stated bluntly that they didn’t believe my version of events. It ‘didn’t fit’ with what they knew. Didn’t fit? What did they know? I was sobbing now, well past the stage of silent tears and stifled sniffs. I began to wail hysterically, drawing breath in desperate gasps.

Why did I think Madeleine had been alive when she was taken from the apartment? they persisted. I explained between sobs that there had been nothing to suggest otherwise; no indication that she might have come to harm. Had I ever considered that she may be dead? Yes, of course. Early on that was all I thought, all the time: that some paedophile had grabbed her, abused her and later killed her. Then I’d begun to wonder if she was being held by pornographers, I told them, or had been taken for someone who wanted a child.

I was becoming more and more distressed and more and more scared. I wanted Gerry. Still they pushed me. They proposed that when I’d put Madeleine to bed that night, it wasn’t actually the last time I’d seen her. But it was. It was! I felt I was being bullied, and I suppose I was. I assume these tactics were deliberate: knock her off balance by telling her that her daughter is dead and get her to confess. Because I was in no doubt now that they were trying to make me say I’d killed Madeleine or knew what had happened to her. I might be naive but I’m not stupid.

On and on it went. They tried to convince me I’d had a blackout – a ‘loss of memory episode’, I think they called it. My denials, answers and pleas fell on deaf ears. This was their theory and they wanted to shoehorn me into it, end of story. At last they seemed to decide that the interview was over. They told me I could ring them any time, day or night, to give them the information they were waiting for.

I was allowed to spend a couple of minutes with Gerry, but I don’t think he was able to get much sense out of me. Then it was his turn to be interrogated. He managed to remain a little calmer than I had but he was still visibly upset and shaken afterwards. He gave the police his account of the events of 3 May and the reasons why he didn’t believe Madeleine had been killed in the apartment. Through his tears he pleaded with the two men: ‘Do you have evidence that Madeleine is dead? We’re her parents. You have to tell us.’

‘It’s coming,’ Neves told him. ‘It’s coming!’

Outside the room, I was praying – begging prayers. I was beginning to come unstuck. But if I thought the police had finished with me, I was mistaken. Before long I was ordered back into the room to join Gerry for round three.

Once again Gerry wanted to know if the case had now become a murder inquiry. The answer was indirect: ‘You can probably guess that from our lack of response.’ In a slightly threatening manner, Luís asked why I wasn’t looking him straight in the eye. There was no reason, other than that I was incapable of looking at anyone properly: my own eyes were so swollen and sore that I was struggling to keep them from closing completely. Finally, Gerry tried to establish when – and if – we would be having another meeting with them. ‘The next time we meet it will be across the table.’ The message behind this rather Delphic statement was clear: there would be no more informal meetings.
« Last Edit: February 08, 2017, 08:52:02 PM by pathfinder73 »
Smithman carrying a child in his arms checked his watch after passing the Smith family and the time was 10:03. Both are still unidentified 10 years later.

Offline jassi

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #1272 on: February 08, 2017, 08:42:50 PM »
If only   @)(++(*
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 Erngath

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #1273 on: February 08, 2017, 08:44:24 PM »
If only   @)(++(*

So, the post about our oldest ally ..................are you sure?
Deal with the failings of others as gently as with your own.

Alfie

  • Guest
Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #1274 on: February 08, 2017, 08:45:02 PM »
All you can really say is that by western standards it is wrong. By Afghan standards it is clearly OK
tell that to the rape victim being stoned to death!