Author Topic: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?  (Read 98778 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Mr Gray

Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
« Reply #570 on: April 10, 2017, 05:21:41 PM »
I never claimed that Parapono was a reliable cite, did I?  I suggested Parapono might be able to assist, which is an altogether different thing.

I am happy to continue this rather pointless debate for as long as you misinterpret what happened in post after post.  It illustrates your approach when you are offered assistance.  Consequently, forum members can make up their own minds as to whether offering to help you is sage or not.
what makes you think either you or parapon could offer me any assisitance...I don't believe you could

ferryman

  • Guest
Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
« Reply #571 on: April 10, 2017, 05:22:28 PM »
kates claim is not blown out of the water...again you post your opinion as fact. I dont think it is unreasonable to suggest that a police force who tortures suspects would not bend the truth a little and offer kate a deal...through her lawyer or whatever......if you look at what kates lawyer actually said then its not as clear cut as you make out

Is correct.

Kate's lawyer said there was a 'misunderstanding' about Philomena McCann's description of the deal put to Kate and Gerry as a 'plea-bargain', which, indeed, there was.

The (offered) deal was not a 'plea-bargain'.  But emphatically and unreservedly, a deal was offered.


Offline ShiningInLuz

Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
« Reply #572 on: April 10, 2017, 05:22:47 PM »
You incorrectly claimed that the source of the information was parapono as regards a posted directed directly at gunit....i think it is you who is waffling
Rubbish.  I NEVER claimed that G-Unit's source was Parapono, no matter how many times you post this disinformation.
What's up, old man?

Offline Mr Gray

Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
« Reply #573 on: April 10, 2017, 05:23:24 PM »
Bottom line.

The Mccanns have to pay what they owe as regards legal fees.

It will prove interesting  to see if they try bankruptcy, since that could have repercussions.

bottom line ...we dont know how much these fees are....despite a claim by gunit

Offline Mr Gray

Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
« Reply #574 on: April 10, 2017, 05:32:46 PM »
Rubbish.  I NEVER claimed that G-Unit's source was Parapono, no matter how many times you post this disinformation.
you said...

It is my understanding that Parapono has followed the McCanns v Amaral case and is informed as to how the court will allocate costs. 


perhaps you could expalin on what basis you came to that understanding

Offline ShiningInLuz

Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
« Reply #575 on: April 10, 2017, 05:38:56 PM »
How?

Parapona has merely confirmed what no one (so far as I am aware) ever disputed, that moving and concealing a body is a criminal offence in Portugal.

Meanwhile, the culmination of an enquiry in which Mark Harrison confirms, in numerous cites in his reports, that he was tasked to investigate that Madeleine had been murdered, was that Kate and Gerry were made arguidos, accused of murdering their eldest daughter.

I have produced the cites, innumerable times on this board, and will do so again if required.

But it really ought not to be necessary.

Meanwhile, the 'plea-bargain' thing was journalist Giles Tremlett getting entirely the wrong-end of the stick on the basis of incomplete information, in an article written before the files were released.
What Parapono has revealed, at least to me, is that the information in the criminal code aligns precisely with the two years passed on to Kate, so there was no deal.  It was a simple and accurate explanation of the law.

As to Mark Harrison's brief, I have not checked the wording in the Files.  Some 3 or 4 months after Madeleine had disappeared, there was a good chance Madeleine was dead.  Bringing in a cadaver and blood dog is hardly compatible with searching for a living person.

I'm not aware of the capabilities of Tito and Muzzy (?), but it suggestive that OG also included a dead body in their home-set agenda.

The McCanns were made arguidos for the same reason the other 5 have - that they might incriminate themselves under questioning.  If it was the McCanns only, a claim of murder might pass muster.  However, with 7 arguidos, murder is akin to Agatha Christie's Murder on the Orient Express.
What's up, old man?

ferryman

  • Guest
Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
« Reply #576 on: April 10, 2017, 05:39:07 PM »
Selective holding again?

Track back to reply no. 566 and you'll find I've supplied the cites as promised, but after you replied to my post.

ferryman

  • Guest
Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
« Reply #577 on: April 10, 2017, 05:44:00 PM »
What Parapono has revealed, at least to me, is that the information in the criminal code aligns precisely with the two years passed on to Kate, so there was no deal.  It was a simple and accurate explanation of the law.

As to Mark Harrison's brief, I have not checked the wording in the Files.  Some 3 or 4 months after Madeleine had disappeared, there was a good chance Madeleine was dead.  Bringing in a cadaver and blood dog is hardly compatible with searching for a living person.

I'm not aware of the capabilities of Tito and Muzzy (?), but it suggestive that OG also included a dead body in their home-set agenda.

The McCanns were made arguidos for the same reason the other 5 have - that they might incriminate themselves under questioning.  If it was the McCanns only, a claim of murder might pass muster.  However, with 7 arguidos, murder is akin to Agatha Christie's Murder on the Orient Express.

How do you conclude, from Parapono's quote that there was no deal?

Offline Mr Gray

Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
« Reply #578 on: April 10, 2017, 05:44:23 PM »
What Parapono has revealed, at least to me, is that the information in the criminal code aligns precisely with the two years passed on to Kate, so there was no deal.  It was a simple and accurate explanation of the law.

As to Mark Harrison's brief, I have not checked the wording in the Files.  Some 3 or 4 months after Madeleine had disappeared, there was a good chance Madeleine was dead.  Bringing in a cadaver and blood dog is hardly compatible with searching for a living person.

I'm not aware of the capabilities of Tito and Muzzy (?), but it suggestive that OG also included a dead body in their home-set agenda.

The McCanns were made arguidos for the same reason the other 5 have - that they might incriminate themselves under questioning.  If it was the McCanns only, a claim of murder might pass muster.  However, with 7 arguidos, murder is akin to Agatha Christie's Murder on the Orient Express.

the fact that it aligns precisely suggests to me there was a deal....unless kate had been studying the penal code...

I think her lawyer simply backtracked when the offer was made public....do you have an accurate record of what he said on the matter....I doubt it
« Last Edit: April 10, 2017, 05:48:14 PM by davel »

Offline ShiningInLuz

Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
« Reply #579 on: April 10, 2017, 05:53:28 PM »
You incorrectly claimed that the source of the information was parapono as regards a posted directed directly at gunit....i think it is you who is waffling
Cite?

That would be a no.  Because I didn't.
What's up, old man?

ferryman

  • Guest
Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
« Reply #580 on: April 10, 2017, 05:55:27 PM »
Kate does not use the phrase 'plea-bargain' in her book.

Offline ShiningInLuz

Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
« Reply #581 on: April 10, 2017, 05:57:10 PM »
How many cites do you want?

This is from early in the first of Harrison's 3 reports.

But I can provide others if you want them.

Harrison offered to investigate other possibilities or scenarios (sic) on request.

(Mark Harrison)
Thanks for this.

I believe I have covered this in a reply to an earlier post, but if you think not, please raise it again.  TY
What's up, old man?

Offline Mr Gray

Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
« Reply #582 on: April 10, 2017, 06:00:10 PM »
Cite?

That would be a no.  Because I didn't.
It is my understanding that Parapono has followed the McCanns v Amaral case and is informed as to how the court will allocate costs. 

I never claimed this was gunits source....unfortunately gunit has not given her source

Offline ShiningInLuz

Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
« Reply #583 on: April 10, 2017, 06:01:26 PM »
what makes you think either you or parapon could offer me any assisitance...I don't believe you could
Don't worry.  After the waste of time on this non-issue I will not be offering assistance to you in the future.
What's up, old man?

Offline Mr Gray

Re: So what now, post Supreme Court decisions?
« Reply #584 on: April 10, 2017, 06:03:33 PM »
Don't worry.  After the waste of time on this non-issue I will not be offering assistance to you in the future.

you havent been of any assistance to me at all so I wont miss your information...it is invariably wrong