Author Topic: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.  (Read 270272 times)

0 Members and 5 Guests are viewing this topic.

stephen25000

  • Guest
Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #1935 on: February 21, 2017, 07:51:06 PM »
Was that in 2008?  I wouldn't be sure but I could imagine Kate McCann complaining that it showed how one eyed the whole investigation was.  It would need research.  If she did there would be a mention in her book.

How come Rob, people with an ounce of common sense, already know what the archiving report said ?

Offline Robittybob1

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #1936 on: February 21, 2017, 07:53:31 PM »
How come Rob, people with an ounce of common sense, already know what the archiving report said ?
That was not the question Slarti asked.  Slartibartfast: "Has anyone objected to the archiving report?"  It is not a matter of knowing it.
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 #1937 on: February 21, 2017, 08:02:22 PM »
That was not the question Slarti asked.  Slartibartfast: "Has anyone objected to the archiving report?"  It is not a matter of knowing it.

We already know Rob, the McCann's didn't, and you know that.

Offline G-Unit

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #1938 on: February 21, 2017, 08:52:30 PM »
Has anyone objected to the archiving report?

I vaguely remember a threat to sue the PJ, but that obviously went nowhere.
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 Eleanor

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #1939 on: February 21, 2017, 08:58:34 PM »
I vaguely remember a threat to sue the PJ, but that obviously went nowhere.

Could we at least stick to facts, please.

Offline G-Unit

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #1940 on: February 21, 2017, 09:22:52 PM »
Could we at least stick to facts, please.

Kate and Gerry McCann have threatened to sue Portuguese police for the bungled probe into their daughter Madeleine’s disappearance.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/mccanns-threaten-to-sue-portuguese-police-319643

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 Eleanor

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #1941 on: February 21, 2017, 09:53:03 PM »
Kate and Gerry McCann have threatened to sue Portuguese police for the bungled probe into their daughter Madeleine’s disappearance.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/mccanns-threaten-to-sue-portuguese-police-319643

Merci beaucoup.  If you think that this is a fact, of course.

Offline Robittybob1

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #1942 on: February 21, 2017, 11:11:47 PM »
Kate and Gerry McCann have threatened to sue Portuguese police for the bungled probe into their daughter Madeleine’s disappearance.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/mccanns-threaten-to-sue-portuguese-police-319643
That is pretty "old" news.
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 #1943 on: February 21, 2017, 11:26:13 PM »
We already know Rob, the McCann's didn't, and you know that.
Well I didn't know that actually.  I could imagine they were relieved that they felt cleared.  They may have felt cleared then even if they have now been told they weren't cleared.
I am reading the chapter "Closing the case" and it doesn't read that the McCanns were cheered by that fact.  I'll see if the text is on the internet later.
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 #1944 on: February 22, 2017, 07:00:27 AM »
Merci beaucoup.  If you think that this is a fact, of course.

It's a fact that I read something about it. Whether what was printed was true is another matter.
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 Mr Gray

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #1945 on: February 22, 2017, 07:48:47 AM »
what is astonishing about teh SC statement is they are giving their opinions when there is an open ongoing police investigation...how bizarre is that

Offline Robittybob1

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #1946 on: February 22, 2017, 08:28:45 AM »
what is astonishing about teh SC statement is they are giving their opinions when there is an open ongoing police investigation...how bizarre is that
Why do you find that astonishing?
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 #1947 on: February 22, 2017, 08:30:38 AM »
what is astonishing about teh SC statement is they are giving their opinions when there is an open ongoing police investigation...how bizarre is that

It isn't bizarre at all if you understand that the judges opinions relate to events in 2007/8, which is what the 'libel' case is all about. That's why Duarte's points (which they are answering) also relate to that time. If any present investigation was relevant I'm sure she would have mentioned it.
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 Robittybob1

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #1948 on: February 22, 2017, 08:47:31 AM »
It isn't bizarre at all if you understand that the judges opinions relate to events in 2007/8, which is what the 'libel' case is all about. That's why Duarte's points (which they are answering) also relate to that time. If any present investigation was relevant I'm sure she would have mentioned it.
If I understand you correctly, the case could even have been solved in the interim, that wouldn't matter as the SC judges are looking at the situation as it was in 2007/8.  Would Amaral have won his case if Madeleine had been found alive and well in the interim?
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 #1949 on: February 22, 2017, 08:57:52 AM »
If I understand you correctly, the case could even have been solved in the interim, that wouldn't matter as the SC judges are looking at the situation as it was in 2007/8.  Would Amaral have won his case if Madeleine had been found alive and well in the interim?

Would it have mattered?

If Madeleine was found alive, McCann would have been vindicated, they would (presumably) have Madeleine back and it really wouldn't matter what anybody had said
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