Sky Documentary - Searching For Madeleine

[Eleanor]

You accuse the McCanns of 'buying' protection and when they run out of money for it ... reporting on Madeleine's case will perhaps become more "interesting". 

"The McCanns have had no special protection, just the kind you can buy. If that becomes too expensive we might see some more interesting reporting."

Please elucidate.

Either G-unit has forgotten No Win, No Fee, or is accusing The McCanns of bribing people.

[faithlilly]

Either G-unit has forgotten No Win, No Fee, or is accusing The McCanns of bribing people.

Carter Ruck are on a retainer, that much was admitted when Gerry appeared before the select committee.

[Eleanor]

Carter Ruck are on a retainer, that much was admitted when Gerry appeared before the select committee.

So running out of money on that score wouldn't matter.

[Mr Gray]

Carter Ruck are on no wi no fee as I understand and they must love it
There is no evidence against the McCanns and they should not be defamed
It has not been ruled yet whether the judgement in Portugal complies with the law

[G-Unit]

Either G-unit has forgotten No Win, No Fee, or is accusing The McCanns of bribing people.

Every time a lawyers writes a letter they charge you. I doubt if letters come under the heading of 'no win no fee'. I accuse no-one of bribery, where does that come into it? Carter Ruck appear to highlight what is being objected to, what the receiver's response should be, and the consequences of refusing to comply. They threaten.

[Eleanor]

Every time a lawyers writes a letter they charge you. I doubt if letters come under the heading of 'no win no fee'. I accuse no-one of bribery, where does that come into it? Carter Ruck appear to highlight what is being objected to, what the receiver's response should be, and the consequences of refusing to comply. They threaten.

How many letters have they written?  Do you know?

[G-Unit]

Carter Ruck are on no wi no fee as I understand and they must love it
There is no evidence against the McCanns and they should not be defamed
It has not been ruled yet whether the judgement in Portugal complies with the law

The Portuguese Supreme Court is the arbiter of the law of Portugal. I think you mean European law.

[Benice]

I don't think you can prove what you say either. I see nothing wrong in Amaral giving his opinion and neither do the Portuguese Courts.

Everyone is entitled to the protection of the law but not everyone is entitled to the protection of highly paid lawyers; only those who can pay for it. Are lawyers always right? Clearly not, because for every case a lawyer wins another one loses.

It makes no difference to the Libel laws whether highly paid lawyers are involved or not.  Such lawyers may be advantageous with regard to other types of crimes but not Libel      Either a claim is libellous or it isn't imo. 

Newspaper editors making sure that no libellous claims or statements are made with regard to the McCanns is not out of any special consideration for them  - as some people seem to think.      They are protecting their own backs not the McCanns.   

AIMHO

[Mr Gray]

Every time a lawyers writes a letter they charge you. I doubt if letters come under the heading of 'no win no fee'. I accuse no-one of bribery, where does that come into it? Carter Ruck appear to highlight what is being objected to, what the receiver's response should be, and the consequences of refusing to comply. They threaten.

They threaten people with the law
You seem to want people to be able to act outside the law to persecute the mccanns

[Mr Gray]

The Portuguese Supreme Court is the arbiter of the law of Portugal. I think you mean European law.

No I don't
Portuguese law is governed by Europe and is subject  to European law
The ECHR will decide if the SC has complied with the law
The judgement claims it has complied but the ECHR may decide otherwise
As regard human rights the ECHR is the arbiter of the law in portugal and thank god for that

[jassi]

No I don't
Portuguese law is governed by Europe and is subject  to European law
The ECHR will decide if the SC has complied with the law
The judgement claims it has complied but the ECHR may decide otherwise

And then what?
Some small compensatory fine and then business as usual ?

[G-Unit]

No I don't
Portuguese law is governed by Europe and is subject  to European law
The ECHR will decide if the SC has complied with the law
The judgement claims it has complied but the ECHR may decide otherwise

You are arguing about something which hasn't, as yet, been applied for. If it is applied for it will take years to decide if, of course, the application is accepted. You may think it will be accepted and the judgement will be in the McCann's favour. Pure speculation coloured by your biased opinion. At this moment in time the McCanns have lost their case to silence Amaral.

[Alice Purjorick]

You are arguing about something which hasn't, as yet, been applied for. If it is applied for it will take years to decide if, of course, the application is accepted. You may think it will be accepted and the judgement will be in the McCann's favour. Pure speculation coloured by your biased opinion. At this moment in time the McCanns have lost their case to silence Amaral.

They have lost that particular case against Sr Amaral for ever.

[Alice Purjorick]

Would you care to try again?

 Thread
"What is the evidence in the Madeleine McCann disappearance?"
Post 5

[Mr Gray]

They have lost that particular case against Sr Amaral for ever.

They have lost that case but perhaps to a judgement that was not lawful