« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 126 127 [128] 129 130 ... 143   Go Down

Author Topic: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.  (Read 270237 times)

0 Members and 5 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Montclair

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #1905 on: February 20, 2017, 07:03:44 PM »
Quote from: jassi on February 20, 2017, 06:47:56 PM
At the end of the above article there is mention of McCanns wanting to be 'assistants'. Did that ever happen?

I don't think so.
Logged

stephen25000

  • Guest
Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #1906 on: February 20, 2017, 07:08:16 PM »
It seems that Amaral's book and video are reaching a wider audience.

The Pamalam site has reached it's bandwidth, but there is another available.

All thanks to the McCann's.

Oh, the irony.
Logged

Offline Brietta

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #1907 on: February 20, 2017, 08:08:14 PM »
Quote from: stephen25000 on February 20, 2017, 07:08:16 PM
It seems that Amaral's book and video are reaching a wider audience.

The Pamalam site has reached it's bandwidth, but there is another available.

All thanks to the McCann's.

Oh, the irony.

The Pamalam site?  Nobody bothering to visit the bookstores if they can see what it's all about for free?  Now that is ironic.
Logged
"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 #1908 on: February 20, 2017, 08:08:39 PM »
Quote from: stephen25000 on February 20, 2017, 07:08:16 PM
It seems that Amaral's book and video are reaching a wider audience.

The Pamalam site has reached it's bandwidth, but there is another available.

All thanks to the McCann's.

Oh, the irony.
All for a good cause!
Logged
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.

stephen25000

  • Guest
Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #1909 on: February 20, 2017, 08:15:49 PM »
Quote from: Brietta on February 20, 2017, 08:08:14 PM
The Pamalam site?  Nobody bothering to visit the bookstores if they can see what it's all about for free?  Now that is ironic.

Not really Brietta.

Amaral knows what is taking place, and it will serve as a foundation for people buying his next book. 
Logged

Offline Robittybob1

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #1910 on: February 20, 2017, 08:17:21 PM »
Quote from: stephen25000 on February 20, 2017, 08:15:49 PM
Not really Brietta.

Amaral knows what is taking place, and it will serve as a foundation for people buying his next book.
We'll be waiting a while!
Logged
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.

stephen25000

  • Guest
Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #1911 on: February 20, 2017, 08:36:35 PM »
Quote from: Robittybob1 on February 20, 2017, 08:17:21 PM
We'll be waiting a while!

Don't count on that.
Logged

Offline Robittybob1

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #1912 on: February 20, 2017, 09:21:28 PM »
Quote from: stephen25000 on February 20, 2017, 08:36:35 PM
Don't count on that.
I'm already counting.  We must be up to 20 days now.
Logged
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 #1913 on: February 20, 2017, 09:29:23 PM »
Quote from: jassi on February 20, 2017, 06:47:56 PM
At the end of the above article there is mention of McCanns wanting to be 'assistants'. Did that ever happen?
Yes they are assisting the PJ with their enquiries!
Logged
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.

stephen25000

  • Guest
Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #1914 on: February 20, 2017, 09:34:05 PM »
Quote from: Robittybob1 on February 20, 2017, 09:21:28 PM
I'm already counting.  We must be up to 20 days now.

Don't worry, you'll get to read it.
Logged

stephen25000

  • Guest
Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #1915 on: February 20, 2017, 09:35:09 PM »
Quote from: Robittybob1 on February 20, 2017, 09:29:23 PM
Yes they are assisting the PJ with their enquiries!

The Mccann's assisting the PJ. @)(++(*
Logged

Offline Robittybob1

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #1916 on: February 20, 2017, 09:35:34 PM »
Quote from: stephen25000 on February 20, 2017, 09:34:05 PM
Don't worry, you'll get to read it.
Online free of charge.  (I'll be away from the keyboard soon!)
Logged
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 #1917 on: February 20, 2017, 09:37:10 PM »
Quote from: Robittybob1 on February 20, 2017, 09:35:34 PM
Online free of charge.

Not everyone is driven by money  8)-)))
Logged
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 #1918 on: February 20, 2017, 09:38:27 PM »
Quote from: Robittybob1 on February 20, 2017, 09:35:34 PM
Online free of charge.


You could always pay me to read the Mccann book. 8(0(*
Logged

Alfie

  • Guest
Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #1919 on: February 21, 2017, 09:24:51 AM »
Quote from: G-Unit on February 20, 2017, 05:15:40 PM
No they didn't, and no-one blamed them, despite what Alfie said. If you read the cites, both the Legal summary and the Supreme Court judges say it was the witnesses who wouldn't do it, not the McCanns.
So the McCaans weren't witnesses then?

Logged
Pages: 1 ... 126 127 [128] 129 130 ... 143   Go Up
« previous next »