Portugal Supreme Court: The McCanns are not cleared in Maddie Case

[rotti]

Sorry, but what is the difference between Amaral having a theory and the McCanns having a theory? He is sure his theory is the correct one and so are they. Both theories use facts from the files to support them. Both hope their theories will be proved correct one day. Neither can be proved correct at the moment.

i think it might be that amaral's theory is backed up by 2 canines who have never been wrong according to ex pc grime.and the mccans only have their friend who saw a child being carried away but did not mention it at all for 24hrs'think about it'who would you believe'.the dogs were no friends of amaral

[carlymichelle]

katie hopkins article  was  awesome and all of it  was true  imo 

[Robittybob1]

i think it might be that amaral's theory is backed up by 2 canines who have never been wrong according to ex pc grime.and the mccans only have their friend who saw a child being carried away but did not mention it at all for 24hrs'think about it'who would you believe'.the dogs were no friends of amaral

Factually wrong.

[Mr Gray]

katie hopkins article  was  awesome and all of it  was true  imo 

She supports the abduction

[misty]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4213890/Detective-blamed-Maddie-s-parents-writes-second-book.html

I won't c&p the contents as it would be deemed libellous here. However, it seems he has not yet written his sequel if the reporter is correct, so who knows what to believe?

This bit is interesting, though.

"As for the Irish couple Amaral cites, the man who was in his 70s admitted he was not wearing his glasses at the time, while dozens of witnesses confirmed Gerry McCann was at the holiday complex at 10pm when the man and his wife ‘thought’ they saw him" - to take Smithman back to Groundhog day. 

[Brietta]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4213890/Detective-blamed-Maddie-s-parents-writes-second-book.html

I won't c&p the contents as it would be deemed libellous here. However, it seems he has not yet written his sequel if the reporter is correct, so who knows what to believe?

This bit is interesting, though.

"As for the Irish couple Amaral cites, the man who was in his 70s admitted he was not wearing his glasses at the time, while dozens of witnesses confirmed Gerry McCann was at the holiday complex at 10pm when the man and his wife ‘thought’ they saw him" - to take Smithman back to Groundhog day. 

Two bits caught my eye, Misty ...

• "The ruling also raises questions about the impartiality of the Portuguese courts ...  ... "
• "One book could be interpreted as a genuine attempt to air one’s views on aspects of the investigation, but a second looks like cashing in."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4213890/Detective-blamed-Maddie-s-parents-writes-second-book.html#ixzz4YLFwjSxG

[stephen25000]

Two bits caught my eye, Misty ...

• "The ruling also raises questions about the impartiality of the Portuguese courts ...  ... "
• "One book could be interpreted as a genuine attempt to air one’s views on aspects of the investigation, but a second looks like cashing in."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4213890/Detective-blamed-Maddie-s-parents-writes-second-book.html#ixzz4YLFwjSxG

...and what would a second book from the Mccanns look like ?

[G-Unit]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4213890/Detective-blamed-Maddie-s-parents-writes-second-book.html

I won't c&p the contents as it would be deemed libellous here. However, it seems he has not yet written his sequel if the reporter is correct, so who knows what to believe?

This bit is interesting, though.

"As for the Irish couple Amaral cites, the man who was in his 70s admitted he was not wearing his glasses at the time, while dozens of witnesses confirmed Gerry McCann was at the holiday complex at 10pm when the man and his wife ‘thought’ they saw him" - to take Smithman back to Groundhog day. 

Dozens of witnesses? Rubbish.

[G-Unit]

Some informed journalism would be a refreshing change. Hands up those who, unlike Neil Tweedie, know where Amaral's money is?


He is said to have made some £300,000 from his book and an accompanying documentary, but the money appears to be long gone

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4213890/Detective-blamed-Maddie-s-parents-writes-second-book.html#ixzz4YM7iX9lj
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

 

[Mr Gray]

Do the Supreme Court realise that even if the McCanns had been tried and found not guilty that would not prove their innocence

[stephen25000]

Do the Supreme Court realise that even if the McCanns had been tried and found not guilty that would not prove their innocence

You can disagree with the Supreme Court Judgement, which in effect is no different from the Appeal hearing decision in 2016, but nothing you say will make a scrap of difference.

[xtina]

sorry if already shown



 CMTV Debate on the Supreme Court Ruling and the Maddie Case




Sara Carrilho - Ten years later what is certain is that we still don't know...

Carlos Anjos - Ten years later, at least some Justice was done, it was proved that the abduction of the child is highly unlikely.

Sara Carrilho - In relation to the whereabouts of the child, we still don't know where she is and ten years have passed.

Broadcast by CMTV, Rua Segura Se.17 EP.28 February 9, 2017


https://joana-morais.blogspot.co.uk/2017/02/cmtv-debate-on-supreme-court-ruling-and.html

[Brietta]

...and what would a second book from the Mccanns look like ?

            Is there one? ...  &%+((£

[faithlilly]

Some informed journalism would be a refreshing change. Hands up those who, unlike Neil Tweedie, know where Amaral's money is?


He is said to have made some £300,000 from his book and an accompanying documentary, but the money appears to be long gone

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4213890/Detective-blamed-Maddie-s-parents-writes-second-book.html#ixzz4YM7iX9lj
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Certainly not particularly well researched by I think this article also contains a lot of material the McCanns won't be too pleased is being brought up again.

[Mr Gray]

You can disagree with the Supreme Court Judgement, which in effect is no different from the Appeal hearing decision in 2016, but nothing you say will make a scrap of difference.

It would be better to comment on what I have said rather than your continued stock reply to almost every post