Author Topic: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.  (Read 253451 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Brietta

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #2085 on: February 25, 2017, 11:40:38 AM »
It's not normal practice when a child goes missing in country A to seek to publicise the disaappearance in country B.

Your post makes no sense at all and imo is mere nit picking.  Madeleine's disappearance was publicised where it all began, in Portugal.  Where it is worth bearing in mind that in missing child cases the penal code can be relaxed to allow publicity on application to a magistrate.  I believe Amaral made that request in the first instance which allowed the PJ to distribute Madeleine's photograph.

"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 G-Unit

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #2086 on: February 25, 2017, 11:49:18 AM »
Your post makes no sense at all and imo is mere nit picking.  Madeleine's disappearance was publicised where it all began, in Portugal.  Where it is worth bearing in mind that in missing child cases the penal code can be relaxed to allow publicity on application to a magistrate.  I believe Amaral made that request in the first instance which allowed the PJ to distribute Madeleine's photograph.


The media contacted were Sky News and the BBC. Was anyone asked to contact the Portuguese media on their behalf?
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 #2087 on: February 25, 2017, 12:03:00 PM »
The media contacted were Sky News and the BBC. Was anyone asked to contact the Portuguese media on their behalf?

What in the country she was most likely to be? Surely not !

I believe that the Portuguese press was also excluded from interviews and photo shoots later on.

Rather Trumpesque ! Don't like the message, ban the messenger. Of course if worldwide publicity is what you want for your daughter's plight banning anyone who facilitates that does seem a tad odd.
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 G-Unit

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #2088 on: February 25, 2017, 12:31:20 PM »
This from Graham McKenzie's statement is odd.

'He said something along the lines of there being Paedophile gangs in Portugal and that they had abducted Madeleine. I was so shocked by this, having originally thought that she had just wandered off.'

How would Gerry possibly know that there were paedophile gangs in Portugal ?

A very good question, right up there with another interesting question; were there paedophile gangs in Portugal?
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 jassi

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #2089 on: February 25, 2017, 12:35:47 PM »
A very good question, right up there with another interesting question; were there paedophile gangs in Portugal?

I thought paedophiles tended to be loners by their very nature, not gregarious club members.
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 barrier

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #2090 on: February 25, 2017, 12:47:20 PM »
I thought paedophiles tended to be loners by their very nature, not gregarious club members.

Not sure on that when you read of so so and downloading images some one put them up and its not by accident they are found is it? I don't genuinely know and I'd be surprised if any one on here knows.
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 #2091 on: February 25, 2017, 01:57:13 PM »

Alfie

  • Guest
Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #2092 on: February 25, 2017, 01:59:01 PM »
A very good question, right up there with another interesting question; were there paedophile gangs in Portugal?
"something along the lines of"... hmm, not a direct verbatim quote then.

Offline ShiningInLuz

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #2093 on: February 25, 2017, 02:27:12 PM »
Not sure on that when you read of so so and downloading images some one put them up and its not by accident they are found is it? I don't genuinely know and I'd be surprised if any one on here knows.
We are drifting way off-topic, so I'll keep this brief.

SIS (security service) year 2000 report.  4 main centres of paedophilia in Portugal.  3 international rings operating from Portugal.

Casa Pia - news broke Sep 2002.  High profile trial underway when the McCanns visited Portugal.

Aug 2005 - about 209 paedophiles in prison in Portugal.

Oct 2007 - 80 people arrested across Portugal as part of Operation Predator. This may or may not be considered a 'gang'.  They seemed to be accessing photos via a website run by citizens in the US, and the US end was also called Operation Predator.

Portugal only quite recently introduced a paedophile register.  It was not even on the statute books in 2007.

One of the Portuguese dailies has a detailed section re paedophilia.  It publishes about 100 articles per year. Only a small percentage of these relate to arrests/trials, and such reports are not limited to Portugal.  I'd had as much as I could stomach when I'd gone 2 years back, so no doubt I am missing a lot.

Cites are on ShiningInLuz, should anyone be interested.

This does not resolve the issue of Gerry's phone call.
What's up, old man?

Offline Robittybob1

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #2094 on: February 25, 2017, 05:58:38 PM »
The media contacted were Sky News and the BBC. Was anyone asked to contact the Portuguese media on their behalf?
So when was that call made?  Could it have been made even before they were told not to talk to the media?
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 #2095 on: February 25, 2017, 06:40:02 PM »
So when was that call made?  Could it have been made even before they were told not to talk to the media?
the question I would ask is - is there any possible nefarious reason for the McCanns wanting the UK media involved but not the Portuguese media?  If not then, apart from acting as a further criticism to heap upon the parents shoulders (of the "stupid idiots should have thought of that, why didn't they?!" variety)  I can see little relevance to the question. 

Offline Mr Gray

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #2096 on: February 25, 2017, 07:33:27 PM »
Their 'frivolous' request for a appeal, on to put it mildly shaky grounds, will merely end in more fees to pay.

its not an appeal ...its an application for an anulment
« Last Edit: April 30, 2017, 03:39:57 PM by John »

Offline jassi

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #2097 on: February 25, 2017, 07:34:35 PM »
I have read they are just trying to drag things out until the 10th anniversary though I can't imagine why.
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 jassi

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #2098 on: February 25, 2017, 07:38:19 PM »
its not an appeal ...its an application for an anulment

An interesting situation as that will then leave the Appeal Court decision as the final decision.

Of course, it may be rejected out of hand.
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 #2099 on: February 25, 2017, 07:38:33 PM »
I have read they are just trying to drag things out until the 10th anniversary though I can't imagine why.

As if Jassi. 8**8:/:

Are you trying to imply they are looking to make money to pay their legal bills and others ?

Surely not. 8)--))