Author Topic: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.  (Read 298665 times)

0 Members and 12 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline jassi

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #1710 on: February 16, 2017, 07:53:24 PM »
And let's hope they win this time.  But that must be like a red flag to a bull.

It's not clear yet who if anyone they are going to try to sue
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 #1711 on: February 16, 2017, 07:55:44 PM »
And let's hope they win this time.  But that must be like a red flag to a bull.

Well, speak for yourself on that, and for a very, very limited number of people.

Offline Robittybob1

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #1712 on: February 16, 2017, 08:08:47 PM »
Well, speak for yourself on that, and for a very, very limited number of people.
Has there been a public survey asking what the public think about the McCann case? I know on the forums the [ censored word] seem the most vocal. 
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 #1713 on: February 16, 2017, 08:26:25 PM »
Has there been a public survey asking what the public think about the McCann case? I know on the forums the [ censored word] seem the most vocal.

You could always analyse the Digital Spy pages. There now over 200 and few of the posters seem to be diehards
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 Montclair

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #1714 on: February 17, 2017, 07:43:00 PM »

Offline jassi

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #1715 on: February 17, 2017, 07:49:10 PM »
Have you read the comments?  - very anti-McCann
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 pathfinder73

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #1716 on: February 17, 2017, 08:10:01 PM »
One statement being there is interesting.

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 Robittybob1

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #1717 on: February 17, 2017, 08:16:14 PM »
The McCanns have given orders to Isabel Duarte not to make any comments on the Supreme Court ruling:

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2890547/kate-gerry-mccann-ban-lawyer-not-cleared-maddie-disappearance/?CMP=spklr-_-Editorial-_-FBPAGE-_-TheSun-_-20170217-_-813167549#comments
See what it says "The Supreme Court is Portugal’s highest court but has no criminal authority.

Judges added their job was not to decide if the McCanns bore any criminal responsibility over Maddie’s disappearance.

And they said it would be wrong to draw any inferences about the couple’s guilt or innocence from their ruling.
.....
Goncalo Amaral, who headed the initial investigation into Maddie's disappearance, wrote The Truth Of The Lie in 2008 The ex cop is now writing a second Maddie book after judges ruled his “right to freedom of expression” was worthy of greater protection than the McCann’s “right to honour.”"

So it doesn't say they were right or wrong and doesn't say the McCanns didn't suffer loss of honour.
But these kind words from the SC Judges don't pay the bills.
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 Robittybob1

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #1718 on: February 17, 2017, 08:21:56 PM »
One statement being there is interesting.


Another said "Any 'proof' points towards the abduction being a hoax."  I would use the word "prank".  I wonder what they are implying by the word "hoax".
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 #1719 on: February 17, 2017, 08:30:29 PM »
Another said "Any 'proof' points towards the abduction being a hoax."  I would use the word "prank".  I wonder what they are implying by the word "hoax".

A prank is a jolly jape, an amusing joke played on someone.

A hoax is something like the fake abduction of Shannon Mathews. An attempt to deceive and possible make money.
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 #1720 on: February 17, 2017, 08:35:55 PM »
A prank is a jolly jape, an amusing joke played on someone.

A hoax is something like the fake abduction of Shannon Mathews. An attempt to deceive and possible make money.
So do the two words overlap?  I'll have to consult a dictionary.
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 #1721 on: February 17, 2017, 09:30:15 PM »
The McCanns have given orders to Isabel Duarte not to make any comments on the Supreme Court ruling:

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2890547/kate-gerry-mccann-ban-lawyer-not-cleared-maddie-disappearance/?CMP=spklr-_-Editorial-_-FBPAGE-_-TheSun-_-20170217-_-813167549#comments

Does Ms Kandohla ever make sense?

MADELINE McCann’s parents have begged their Portuguese lawyer to keep quiet
Kate and Gerry McCann have warned their Portuguese lawyer: “Don’t say anything”
But Kate and Gerry have now reportedly ordered her to not “say anything”
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2890547/kate-gerry-mccann-ban-lawyer-not-cleared-maddie-disappearance/?CMP=spklr-_-Editorial-_-FBPAGE-_-TheSun-_-20170217-_-813167549#comments

Did they beg, warn or order Duarte to keep quiet? Make your mind up. Also, why is that news?

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 faithlilly

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #1722 on: February 17, 2017, 09:53:31 PM »
Does Ms Kandohla ever make sense?

MADELINE McCann’s parents have begged their Portuguese lawyer to keep quiet
Kate and Gerry McCann have warned their Portuguese lawyer: “Don’t say anything”
But Kate and Gerry have now reportedly ordered her to not “say anything”
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2890547/kate-gerry-mccann-ban-lawyer-not-cleared-maddie-disappearance/?CMP=spklr-_-Editorial-_-FBPAGE-_-TheSun-_-20170217-_-813167549#comments

Did they beg, warn or order Duarte to keep quiet? Make your mind up. Also, why is that news?

I prefer the Mail's take on the story

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4235434/McCanns-ban-Portuguese-lawyer-speaking-press.html#ixzz4YyGn5mqX

Especially this part :

'The couple, both 48, from Rothley, Leics, have previously gone to extraordinary lengths to stop people close to them talking and even prevented some British newspapers from reporting certain details about the Maddie mystery.

They have also banned all family members and friends from talking to journalists.'
Brietta posted on 10/04/2022 “But whether or not that is the reason behind the delay I am certain that Brueckner's trial is going to take place.”

Let’s count the months, shall we?

Offline carlymichelle

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #1723 on: February 17, 2017, 10:11:12 PM »
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4235434/McCanns-ban-Portuguese-lawyer-speaking-press.html

Madeleine McCann's parents ban their lawyer from speaking to the press after Portugal's supreme court insisted they hadn't been proved innocent over their daughter's death

    Isabel Duarte thought have been considering a reaction after  a failed libel battle
    Ex-policeman Goncalo Amaral claimed the couple faked Maddie's abduction
    But Kate and Gerry have reportedly ordered her 'not to say anything' about case

By Tracey Kandohla For Mail Online

Published: 04:58 +11:00, 18 February 2017 | Updated: 07:19 +11:00, 18 February 2017

    e-mail

1.2k
shares

151

View comments

Kate and Gerry McCann have banned their Portuguese lawyer from giving any comment after judges said they had not been cleared over daughter Madeleine's disappearance.

Whilst Isabel Duarte had been carefully considering reaction on their behalf to a failed libel battle against a former police chief 'to protect my clients', they have now warned her: 'Don't say anything!'

Lisbon-based Ms Duarte received a copy of Portugal's Supreme Court judgement 10 days ago – a week after it was made to 'the bitter disappointment' of Maddie's parents and to 'the delight but no surprise' of Goncalo Amaral.
Kate and Gerry McCann have banned their Portuguese lawyer from giving any comment after judges said they had not been cleared over daughter Madeleine's disappearance
+4

Kate and Gerry McCann have banned their Portuguese lawyer from giving any comment after judges said they had not been cleared over daughter Madeleine's disappearance

But the McCanns have now ordered her not to respond to any media request for their reaction.

Ms Duarte said today: 'We received instructions from the clients not to make any declaration or give public information about the file against Mr Amaral or the case itself.'

The couple lost on appeal their nine-year civil battle against the Portuguese ex-policeman who they had tried to silence for claiming their daughter had been accidentally killed in a holiday apartment in May 2007 and they had covered it up.
RELATED ARTICLES

    Previous
    1
    2
    Next

    Kate and Gerry McCann may sue over Portuguese detective's...
    Karen Matthews 'is planning to flee Britain and start a new...
    Britain's most hated mum and the God squad: Born again Karen...

Share this article
Share

They have always vehemently denied any involvement.

Former GP Kate and heart doctor Gerry were ruled out as 'arguidos' – formal suspect - in 2008 but the country's top court said in newly released 76-page dossier that this does not 'equate to proof of innocence', meaning suspicion still hangs over them.

Senior judges claim the investigation into them was only shelved because of lack of evidence.
Whilst Isabel Duarte (right) had been carefully considering reaction on their behalf to a failed libel battle against a former police chief 'to protect my clients', they have now warned her: 'Don't say anything!' Also pictured: Kate McCann (left) and friend Fiona Payne
+4

Whilst Isabel Duarte (right) had been carefully considering reaction on their behalf to a failed libel battle against a former police chief 'to protect my clients', they have now warned her: 'Don't say anything!' Also pictured: Kate McCann (left) and friend Fiona Payne

Their latest order to their lawyer may signal the end of their legal fight against Mr Amaral with no anticipation of them challenging the ruling in the European Court of Human Rights.

The couple, both 48, from Rothley, Leics, have previously gone to extraordinary lengths to stop people close to them talking and even prevented some British newspapers from reporting certain details about the Maddie mystery.

They have also banned all family members and friends from talking to journalists.
Ms Duarte received a copy of Portugal's Supreme Court judgement 10 days ago – a week after it was made to 'the bitter disappointment' of Maddie's parents and to 'the delight but no surprise' of Goncalo Amaral (pictured)
+4

Ms Duarte received a copy of Portugal's Supreme Court judgement 10 days ago – a week after it was made to 'the bitter disappointment' of Maddie's parents and to 'the delight but no surprise' of Goncalo Amaral (pictured)

The pair only speak publicly on occasional anniversaries of their daughter's disappearance. And Kate does the odd interview as ambassador for Missing People to highlight the charity's work.

Their long-serving spokesman Clarence Mitchell sometimes comments on their behalf but he no longer gets paid for his services.

The McCanns dropped him last year from the Maddie Fund payroll to cut costs but the renowned PR assists them, he says, because 'hopefully it helps in the search for Madeleine.'

The previously reported Supreme Court ruling said there were 'serious concerns' over the theory three-year-old Maddie had been snatched from her bedroom at the Ocean Club apartment in the Algarve's Praia da Luz nearly 10 years ago.

The comments were made in the huge dossier after Mr Goncalo, who headed the hunt for the missing girl, who was handed victory. The McCanns had insisted 'poisonous lies' in his 2008 Maddie book The Truth of the Lie and a TV documentary about the case had been hurtful and libellous.

The Supreme Court is Portugal's highest court but has no criminal authority. Judges added their job was not to decide if the McCanns bore any criminal responsibility over Maddie's disappearance.

And they said it would be wrong to draw any inferences about the couple's guilt or innocence from their ruling.
The McCanns have now ordered Duarte not to respond to any media request for their reaction
+4

The McCanns have now ordered Duarte not to respond to any media request for their reaction

After receiving a copy of the ruling Ms Duarte said she would make a comment after 'carefully considering the contents the judges wrote' – which has now been blocked by the McCanns.

Mr Mitchell added: 'I haven't seen the ruling so it would be inappropriate for me to talk about it in any way. It is purely for the lawyers.'

Mr Amaral, 58, was booted off the original Maddie inquiry after criticising British police, and later retired. He insists everything written in his book was already contained in police and court case files which had been made public.

He is now writing a second Maddie book after judges ruled his 'right to freedom of expression' was worthy of greater protection than the McCanns' 'right to honour.'

Ms Duarte, speaking before the couple's original libel victory was overturned on appeal: 'It has been proved in the civil file that Mr Amaral earned around 380,000 Euros in one year from the book, which is made of up false stories based on the case.

Kate and Gerry expect compensation for the dreadful damages this book has brought their family.'     

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4235434/McCanns-ban-Portuguese-lawyer-speaking-press.html#ixzz4Yz13QYnf
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Offline Alice Purjorick

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #1724 on: February 17, 2017, 10:31:03 PM »

"Judges added their job was not to decide if the McCanns bore any criminal responsibility over Maddie’s disappearance".
Why should this be a surprise to anyone?. Those sort of things are customarily decided in lower courts. The Supreme Court rule on points of law in most countries whether the system is based on English Common Law or Roman Law. Google it of you like.

It looks like the press are breaking step and going where the story takes them...... &%+((£
"Navigating the difference between weird but normal grief and truly suspicious behaviour is the key for any detective worth his salt.". ….Sarah Bailey