Author Topic: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.  (Read 270275 times)

0 Members and 5 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Angelo222

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #1755 on: February 18, 2017, 02:45:21 PM »
Please stop writing nonsense.  Nothing would have stopped Amaral cashing in on the case at the expense of the McCanns' reputation and Madeleine's right to be considered alive and findable and you know it.

I think you are deluding yourself Alfie, Amaral would still be a PJ officer had British politicians not attempted to dictate the outcome of this case.  Even Met officers have said the interference by politicians in this case was unprecedented and unacceptable.
« Last Edit: February 18, 2017, 02:48:22 PM by Angelo222 »
De troothe has the annoying habit of coming to the surface just when you least expect it!!

Je ne regrette rien!!

stephen25000

  • Guest
Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #1756 on: February 18, 2017, 02:50:18 PM »
The story running in the online Daily Mail, appears to have been demoted from the main stories, and with 4 comments, as it was earlier today.

Alfie

  • Guest
Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #1757 on: February 18, 2017, 02:56:10 PM »
I think you are deluding yourself Alfie, Amaral would still be a PJ officer had British politicians not attempted to dictate the outcome of this case.  Even Met officers have said the interference by politicians in this case was unprecedented and unacceptable.
In my opinion it is you who is deluding yourself.  The McCanns cooperation or perceived (by you) lack thereof would have made absoloutely no difference to the decisions Amaral took during his handling of the case, and therefore I am perfectly entitled to hold the view that nothing would have stopped him cashing in on it in the way he clearly did.

Offline Eleanor

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #1758 on: February 18, 2017, 02:58:14 PM »
is that Correia ? ?{)(**

It's......Nope, I can't tell you.  Otherwise I would have to kill you.  But you won't half be surprised when it does come out.

Offline Mr Gray

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #1759 on: February 18, 2017, 03:04:43 PM »
Oh its final, the penny just hasn't dropped yet.  There is no higher authority in Portugal.

It seems there is

Offline Angelo222

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #1760 on: February 18, 2017, 03:07:17 PM »
In my opinion it is you who is deluding yourself.  The McCanns cooperation or perceived (by you) lack thereof would have made absoloutely no difference to the decisions Amaral took during his handling of the case, and therefore I am perfectly entitled to hold the view that nothing would have stopped him cashing in on it in the way he clearly did.

Amaral was left with no choice after speaking out about the interference.  He was absolutely right and many Met officers support him.
De troothe has the annoying habit of coming to the surface just when you least expect it!!

Je ne regrette rien!!

Offline Angelo222

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #1761 on: February 18, 2017, 03:09:12 PM »
It seems there is

You're wrong but that is nothing new.  There is no appeal beyond Portugal's Supreme Court. If they make a complaint that is an entirely different issue.  I completely agree with the SC, they failed to demonstrate their innocence by their actions.
De troothe has the annoying habit of coming to the surface just when you least expect it!!

Je ne regrette rien!!

Offline Mr Gray

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #1762 on: February 18, 2017, 03:10:41 PM »
Well, I'll be interested to see that is.

We've heard for years that Amaral had one, and I didn't believe that either.

If they try to use May the 3 rd, as their ace in the hole, it will backfire.

Likewise, I would imagine the Portuguese judiciary have no time for the Mccann's appeals. As i said earlier, the judgement from the Supreme Court, contained nothing really different, from the original shelving of the case, which I read, and was quite clear cut.

The SC said it was not their position to judge the McCanns guilt or innocence and then did exactly that
Surely you can see the dichotomy


Offline Eleanor

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #1763 on: February 18, 2017, 03:11:12 PM »
You're wrong but that is nothing new.  There is no appeal beyond Portugal's Supreme Court. If they make a complaint that is an entirely different issue.  I completely agree with the SC, they failed to demonstrate their innocence by their actions.

Let's be thankful that we have something new to talk about.

Offline Eleanor

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #1764 on: February 18, 2017, 03:12:37 PM »
The SC said it was not their position to judge the McCanns guilt or innocence and then did exactly that
Surely you can see the dichotomy

This is what they did.  Shot themselves in both feet, if you ask me.

Offline Mr Gray

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #1765 on: February 18, 2017, 03:13:55 PM »
You're wrong but that is nothing new.  There is no appeal beyond Portugal's Supreme Court. If they make a complaint that is an entirely different issue.  I completely agree with the SC, they failed to demonstrate their innocence by their actions.

You might agree with it and you also agree with the torture of ciprianos and nether has any place in a civilised justice system
No one has to prove their innocence
Another own goal by the SC

stephen25000

  • Guest
Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #1766 on: February 18, 2017, 03:14:58 PM »
It's......Nope, I can't tell you.  Otherwise I would have to kill you.  But you won't half be surprised when it does come out.

We shall see.

Perhaps you need to listen to other sources. *&*%£

Offline Mr Gray

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #1767 on: February 18, 2017, 03:15:28 PM »
This is what they did.  Shot themselves in both feet, if you ask me.

You correctly pointed this out very early on whilst the sceptics were still celebrating

stephen25000

  • Guest
Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #1768 on: February 18, 2017, 03:16:10 PM »
This is what they did.  Shot themselves in both feet, if you ask me.

If the McCann's try that, they are going to be very disappointed.

Offline Mr Gray

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #1769 on: February 18, 2017, 03:18:48 PM »
If the McCann's try that, they are going to be very disappointed.

I had wondered why amaral was so quiet
This is obviously why