Author Topic: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.  (Read 286391 times)

0 Members and 5 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Robittybob1

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #2040 on: February 24, 2017, 02:30:05 PM »
Not for the McCanns, there isn't.  Very much a Pyrrhic victory at best and most likely a humiliating slap down.
Where did you get that word from? "Pyrrhic victory"  I've never seen that word before.
Google:  "Pyrrhic victory is a victory that inflicts such a devastating toll on the victor that it is tantamount to defeat. Someone who wins a Pyrrhic victory has been victorious in some way. However, the heavy toll negates any sense of achievement or profit."
« Last Edit: February 24, 2017, 02:32:15 PM by Robittybob1 »
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.

Alfie

  • Guest
Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #2041 on: February 24, 2017, 03:24:37 PM »
We will never know how the investigation would have progressed had it not been interfered with.
Pehaps you could explain in what ways the McCanns by calling it an abduction and publicising it as such, as well as criticising the investigation actually hampered police work into the investigation.  I'd really be interested to know.  Are the PJ so easily swayed and so easily hurt by critical comments that they collectively rolled into a ball and failed to do their jobs properly??

Offline ShiningInLuz

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #2042 on: February 24, 2017, 03:36:31 PM »
Pehaps you could explain in what ways the McCanns by calling it an abduction and publicising it as such, as well as criticising the investigation actually hampered police work into the investigation.  I'd really be interested to know.  Are the PJ so easily swayed and so easily hurt by critical comments that they collectively rolled into a ball and failed to do their jobs properly??
The PJ do not normally attempt to do their work in such a media scrum.  It meant less resources were available to devote to working out what happened.

If Duarte really has said 'frivolous comments' in the complaint it is another significant mistake.  I would have thought she was smart enough to use legalease rather than this phrase.
What's up, old man?

Offline Mr Gray

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #2043 on: February 24, 2017, 03:54:34 PM »
The PJ do not normally attempt to do their work in such a media scrum.  It meant less resources were available to devote to working out what happened.

If Duarte really has said 'frivolous comments' in the complaint it is another significant mistake.  I would have thought she was smart enough to use legalease rather than this phrase.

every high profile case takes place in a media scrum....the pj just were not up to the job. No excuse for the poor collection of forensics and teh inability to understand the results of what forensic tests were undertaken.

as for frivolous....dont believe everything you read in teh papers

Offline parapono

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #2044 on: February 24, 2017, 04:47:53 PM »
I just noticed that a new version of the translation of the Supreme Court ruling by Anne Guedes is now available on Pamalam's site. I wont post a link. I hope John will make it available here. The ruling is now published with notes and links that help to understand it and allow direct consultation of Portuguese Law in English.
Mighty helpful imo.

Offline Brietta

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #2045 on: February 24, 2017, 04:52:54 PM »
Correct,whilst the MET engage on their magical mystery tour spending millions there is nothing to indicate that the PJ are involved,they have let the met have a long rope and its tightening,the PJ have played a blinder.

You imagine the PJ have 'played a blinder' ... please explain exactly what you mean by that?
"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 ShiningInLuz

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #2046 on: February 24, 2017, 06:23:08 PM »
every high profile case takes place in a media scrum....the pj just were not up to the job. No excuse for the poor collection of forensics and teh inability to understand the results of what forensic tests were undertaken.

as for frivolous....dont believe everything you read in teh papers
The idea that every high profile case in Portugal takes place in a media scrum of the type that was initiated and fuelled by Team McCann is a non-starter.

"No media.  No media."  So what did Team McCann do?  Tried quite hard to get it into the media.  Source - Kate's book.

Perhaps you know of another Portuguese case where the Pontiff was met and an appearance was made on Oprah?
What's up, old man?

Offline barrier

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #2047 on: February 24, 2017, 06:26:32 PM »
You imagine the PJ have 'played a blinder' ... please explain exactly what you mean by that?

The investigation is in all likelihood soon to be brought to an end,cost of multi millions to the uk tax payer for what? the cost to the PJ ? very little I'd venture with the same result,the case remains undetermined.They even let SY do some landscaping of the Portuguese countryside in the hot sun in full view of the worlds media,yep the PJ have let the MET have their fun.
This is my own private domicile and I shall not be harassed, biatch:Jesse Pinkman Character.

Alfie

  • Guest
Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #2048 on: February 24, 2017, 06:27:57 PM »
every high profile case takes place in a media scrum....the pj just were not up to the job. No excuse for the poor collection of forensics and teh inability to understand the results of what forensic tests were undertaken.

as for frivolous....dont believe everything you read in teh papers
Exactly right.  I don't see how the media's involvement (or the Pope's for that matter) could possibly have had a negative effect on the PJ's ability to perform their role.  They should have been able to get on with the job without worrying about what the media was reporting. 

Alfie

  • Guest
Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #2049 on: February 24, 2017, 06:29:23 PM »
The investigation is in all likelihood soon to be brought to an end,cost of multi millions to the uk tax payer for what? the cost to the PJ ? very little I'd venture with the same result,the case remains undetermined.They even let SY do some landscaping of the Portuguese countryside in the hot sun in full view of the worlds media,yep the PJ have let the MET have their fun.
Do you mean the PJ have invested very little time, energy and manpower on this re-investigation?  Well that figures!

Offline ShiningInLuz

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #2050 on: February 24, 2017, 06:35:24 PM »
The investigation is in all likelihood soon to be brought to an end,cost of multi millions to the uk tax payer for what? the cost to the PJ ? very little I'd venture with the same result,the case remains undetermined.
Just a thought.  Someone in the media was quoted as saying the cost of OG was equivalent to the budget of the PJ for a year.  I did not dig into the truth of this, so please don't quote me.

I do know that the GNR and PJ deployed what are considered to be vast resources on a single case.  Resources that would not have been deployed for a Portuguese child, whether missing in Portugal or missing in England.
What's up, old man?

Offline jassi

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #2051 on: February 24, 2017, 06:35:56 PM »
They had a handful made available to assist and facilitate  OG. They have another team working in isolation who have no contact with OG
No one seems to know just what they are doing.
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

Alfie

  • Guest
Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #2052 on: February 24, 2017, 06:44:06 PM »
They had a handful made available to assist and facilitate  OG. They have another team working in isolation who have no contact with OG
No one seems to know just what they are doing.
Apart from Barrier who knows they are playing a blinder, ob.

Offline ShiningInLuz

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #2053 on: February 24, 2017, 06:50:03 PM »
Exactly right.  I don't see how the media's involvement (or the Pope's for that matter) could possibly have had a negative effect on the PJ's ability to perform their role.  They should have been able to get on with the job without worrying about what the media was reporting.
Just like the PJ and GNR should have been able to get on with their job in the June 2014 Luz dig without worrying about the media?

OK - no need to cordon the 3 dig areas off.  No need to issue warnings about media interference.  No need to man umpty positions in Luz 24x10 for that farrago.  They should have stepped back and let the media get on with it.  Are you of the opinion that was appropriate for 4 May 2007?

I must look up the Portuguese word for tripe.  I wonder if the alleged butcher in Portelas sells tripe.  I say alleged because we have been told it is the best butcher in the region and I can lay my hands on all sorts of rare meat.  Whilst A N Other reckons there is no butcher in Portelas and I am going to have to visit Odiáxere for my delicacies.
What's up, old man?

Offline Robittybob1

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #2054 on: February 24, 2017, 06:55:52 PM »
Just like the PJ and GNR should have been able to get on with their job in the June 2014 Luz dig without worrying about the media?

OK - no need to cordon the 3 dig areas off.  No need to issue warnings about media interference.  No need to man umpty positions in Luz 24x10 for that farrago.  They should have stepped back and let the media get on with it.  Are you of the opinion that was appropriate for 4 May 2007?

I must look up the Portuguese word for tripe.  I wonder if the alleged butcher in Portelas sells tripe.  I say alleged because we have been told it is the best butcher in the region and I can lay my hands on all sorts of rare meat.  Whilst A N Other reckons there is no butcher in Portelas and I am going to have to visit Odiáxere for my delicacies.
What are your teeth like?  Tripe is like eating rubber.
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.