Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.

[Robittybob1]

Understatement  of the week   

I'm not upset.

[Eleanor]

Can we stop the silliness now, please.

[xtina]

Still perplexed why apparently none of the MSM is running with the judgement   &%+((£

worry no more..........

Been a long time coming to read the below in the MSM:

MCCANNS 'NOT IN THE CLEAR' Removal of Kate and Gerry’s ‘formal suspect’ status does not mean they are innocent in disappearance of daughter Madeleine McCann, judges say
Portugal’s Supreme Court has cast doubt over the parents of missing Madeleine once again - claiming there are 'serious concerns' in abduction theory

KATE and Gerry McCann face fresh heartache after judges said they had not been cleared over daughter Madeleine’s disappearance.
Portugal’s Supreme Court has said the removal of their “arguido” — or formal suspect — status should not be “equated to proof of innocence”.

The country’s most senior judges claimed the investigation into them was only shelved in 2008 because of a lack of evidence.
And they said there were “serious concerns” over the theory that Madeleine had been abducted from their Ocean Club apartment in Praia da Luz, in May 2007.

[misty]

worry no more..........

Been a long time coming to read the below in the MSM:

MCCANNS 'NOT IN THE CLEAR' Removal of Kate and Gerry’s ‘formal suspect’ status does not mean they are innocent in disappearance of daughter Madeleine McCann, judges say
Portugal’s Supreme Court has cast doubt over the parents of missing Madeleine once again - claiming there are 'serious concerns' in abduction theory

KATE and Gerry McCann face fresh heartache after judges said they had not been cleared over daughter Madeleine’s disappearance.
Portugal’s Supreme Court has said the removal of their “arguido” — or formal suspect — status should not be “equated to proof of innocence”.

The country’s most senior judges claimed the investigation into them was only shelved in 2008 because of a lack of evidence.
And they said there were “serious concerns” over the theory that Madeleine had been abducted from their Ocean Club apartment in Praia da Luz, in May 2007.

It's 2017 now. Like their justice system, the judges are rather behind the times.

[ferryman]

It's 2017 now. Like their justice system, the judges are rather behind the times.

Is right!

There is a (sort of) equivalent in English law that Sion Jenkins benefited from.  He was convicted of the murder of his daughter-in-law, Billy-Jo on the strength of expert witness in court that specs of Billy-Jo's blood, found on Jenkins' clothes, could only have got there if Jenkins was with with her while she was alive.

But then the defence found an expert witness who testified that the blood could have got there after Billy-Jo had died.

And Jenkins was accorded benefit of the doubt, released from his prison sentence and freed (but not compensated).

These Portuguese judges appear to have applied a similar principle to the McCanns, clearly without having read the files and without having researched the facts properly.

Disgraceful.

[stephen25000]

Is right!

There is a (sort of) equivalent in English law that Sion Jenkins benefited from.  He was convicted of the murder of his daughter-in-law, Billy-Jo on the strength of expert witness in court that specs of Billy-Jo's blood, found on Jenkins' clothes, could only have got there if Jenkins was with with her while she was alive.

But then the defence found an expert witness who testified that the blood could have got there after Billy-Jo had died.

And Jenkins was accorded benefit of the doubt, released from his prison sentence and freed (but not compensated).

These Portuguese judges appear to have applied a similar principle to the McCanns, clearly without having read the files and without having researched the facts properly.

Disgraceful.

What is disgraceful is your continued besmirching of anyone who goes against the McCann line.

So, a bit of straightforward  advice. The Supreme Court is done and dusted, and the McCann's have a great deal more to worry about now, so try helping them in a constructive way for a change.

[xtina]

It's 2017 now. Like their justice system, the judges are rather behind the times.

what is your point ...?????????????

I know its 2017.................it was wrote in 2017

[G-Unit]

It's 2017 now. Like their justice system, the judges are rather behind the times.

The McCann's lawyer harked back to the 2008 archiving dispatch to base her argument on; the SC judges responded.

[carlymichelle]

The McCann's lawyer harked back to the 2008 archiving dispatch to base her argument on; the SC judges responded.

so basically  2008 has nothing to do with the new  ruling??

[Brietta]

What is disgraceful is your continued besmirching of anyone who goes against the McCann line.

So, a bit of straightforward  advice. The Supreme Court is done and dusted, and the McCann's have a great deal more to worry about now, so try helping them in a constructive way for a change.

Who went against the McCann line? ... not anyone that I have seen.  What I have noticed are high court judges who have played fast and loose with the principals of decency and the law of the land while traducing the human rights of individuals which are enshrined in law internationally and within their own borders.

[G-Unit]

so basically  2008 has nothing to do with the new  ruling??

Only insofar as the McCann's lawyer argued that they were cleared by the archiving dispatch. The Supreme Court judges disagreed with her opinion.

[Benice]

What is disgraceful is your continued besmirching of anyone who goes against the McCann line.

So, a bit of straightforward  advice. The Supreme Court is done and dusted, and the McCann's have a great deal more to worry about now, so try helping them in a constructive way for a change.

LOL - A bit of straightforward advice for you Stephen.   Considering you spend your whole time on here denigrating the McCanns and anyone who doesn't take your sceptic line  - I advise you to look up the word IRONY as you appear to have no understanding whatsoever of what it means.

 

[G-Unit]

Who went against the McCann line? ... not anyone that I have seen.  What I have noticed are high court judges who have played fast and loose with the principals of decency and the law of the land while traducing the human rights of individuals which are enshrined in law internationally and within their own borders.

It would be interesting to see your assertions supported by reference to citations.

[Brietta]

so basically  2008 has nothing to do with the new  ruling??

A civil court has interfered in a questionable manner in the ruling of the Attorney General relating to a criminal case.  I will be surprised if questions are not being asked in modern Portugal about what has been done here.

[stephen25000]

LOL - A bit of straightforward advice for you Stephen.   Considering you spend your whole time on here denigrating the McCanns and anyone who doesn't take your sceptic line  - I advise you to look up the word IRONY as you appear to have no understanding whatsoever of what it means.

The McCann's are responsible for what they failed to do.

You, like other supporters like to shift the blame onto others.

Well, time to get over the Supreme Court decision.

So Benice, what have you done to help the Mccann's and have you searched for Madeleine  ?