Author Topic: Wandering Off Topic  (Read 3139485 times)

0 Members and 44 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Lace

Re: Wandering Off Topic
« Reply #5115 on: February 01, 2019, 02:23:27 PM »
I’ve a feeling I could show you footage of Kate not asking for help and you would still believe her.

I took into account what the Police said in their statements what Amaral said and what Kate said she did,  I didn't come to my conclusion by what Kate said alone.   

Offline Vertigo Swirl

Re: Wandering Off Topic
« Reply #5116 on: February 01, 2019, 02:29:49 PM »
It is all relevent to piece together the parents version of what may have happpened to their daughter. THEY seem to not want any other possible scenario to be looked at- even after no evidence of an stranger intruder carrying MBM away has been found!

And this is ofcourse a forum for MBM. Even though it smacks of PR for and on behalf of the Parents.
You haven’t explained how it is relevant only claimed that (in your opinion) it is. 
"You can't reason with the unreasonable".

Offline faithlilly

Re: Wandering Off Topic
« Reply #5117 on: February 01, 2019, 03:43:13 PM »
I took into account what the Police said in their statements what Amaral said and what Kate said she did,  I didn't come to my conclusion by what Kate said alone.

The police didn’t mention Kate asking for help for the twins. Silvia Batista didn’t mention Kate asking for help. None of their friends mention Kate asking for help. Gerry doesn’t mention Kate asking for help.....so I’m the face of all the evidence you still think she did.....why ?
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 misty

Re: Wandering Off Topic
« Reply #5118 on: February 07, 2019, 09:42:46 PM »
By portugalresident  2019-02-06

Posted  2019-02-06 

Judge who ‘condoned’ vicious attack on woman with nail-spiked club gets off with a warning

Joaquim Neto de Moura – the judge who essentially ruled that domestic violence is okay when applied to an adulteress – has been sanctioned by his peers… to the lightest possible ‘punishment’ of all: a warning.

His co-judge, who signed off on the ruling that ‘went viral’ in 2017 (without apparently even reading it ) – saw the disciplinary case against her archived.

Say reports in the Portuguese press today, it was the president of the Supreme Court of Justice who ‘saved’ Neto de Moura’s proverbial bacon.

Four members of the superior council of magistrates wanted to ‘fine him’, explains Diário de Notícias, while four were in favour of simply giving him a warning.

Thus the president had the final vote – and he “chose the lighter term”.

DN also stresses that “in spite of various rulings having been identified in which Neto de Moura used the same “justification or argument” for belittling cases of domestic violence against women
– always arguing that the victim’s adultery, whether real or suspected, was the cause of the aggression – the council only set out to pronounce on the most recent case”: the one that saw the UK Guardian comment that “ultra-orthodox patriarchy – one of the cornerstones of the fascist dictatorship of António Salazar up until the 1974 revolution – still survives in parts of Portugal”.

This has been a dismal chapter for Portuguese justice and it comes in a week when a violent father, who had been repeatedly denounced to the authorities by his terrified ex-partner, stabbed his mother-in-law to death and then strangled his own baby daughter before committing suicide.

The ‘institutional failings’ that led to this week’s tragedies are, say pundits, part-and-parcel of the mindset of elements of the judiciary, of which Neto de Moura is simply one example.

Talking on her regular TV slot before the ‘sanction’ was made public, commentator Manuela Moura Guedes said she was “shocked” – not simply by Neto de Moura’s words and rulings, but by the fact that seven fellow judges on the superior council of magistrates had actually wanted the disciplinary case against him archived.

These seven abstained from voting in the final instance, which is why in the end only eight magistrates were involved.

“This judge should not stay in office ”, Moura Guedes told news anchors. “Women are not the property of men”.

Neto de Moura, however, is not even content to accept his ‘warning’. His lawyer has told Lusa news agency that he means to appeal.

WHAT IS THIS ALL ABOUT?

The story goes back years and was neatly explained by the Washington Post as a situation in which “a married Portuguese woman began seeing another man. The affair was brief — and after two months, the woman wanted to end it.

“In response, the woman’s former lover turned to her husband, telling him his wife had been unfaithful. The couple divorced. But the two men, both enraged, worked together to plan an attack on the woman.

“In June 2015, the former paramour kidnapped the woman and held her down while the ex-husband beat her viciously with a nail-spiked club, leaving bruises and lashes all over her body.

“After charges were filed in the assault, the ex-husband was given a 15-month suspended sentence and a fine of about $2,000.

“A prosecutor thought he deserved a harsher sentence, and asked an appeals court in Porto, Portugal’s second largest city, for prison time of three years and six months.

“But the appeals judges (of which Neto de Moura was the boss) decided against it.

“Why? Because they felt it was somewhat understandable that a husband in a “depressive state” would act out against an ex-wife who had betrayed him”.

Neto de Moura’s 20-page ruling quoted passages from the Bible “in which one can read that an adulterous women should be punished with death”, cited cultures still in existence where “adulterous women are stoned to death” and even quoted the penal code of 1886 which “not so long ago punished with a little more than a symbolic penalty a man who, believing his wife to be an adulteress, kills her”.

The document insisted that “the adultery of a woman is a very serious attack on the honour and dignity of (her) man”.

The case prompted outrage and street protests in both Lisbon and Porto.

Left-wing MP Catarina Martins joined calls for Neto de Moura’s ‘removal from all cases involving domestic violence’ saying: ““We know that this is not a one-off isolated case for this judge”, and stressing that “only 16% of complaints about domestic violence get to court and in more than 90% condemnations result in suspended sentences”.

Nonetheless, there are those who believe this ruling sends a powerful message to the judiciary.

It is the first time any judge has been ‘disciplined’ in this way, says Inês Ferreira Leite, lecturer in penal law – and this explains the reason perhaps for magistrates being divided.

“We all want judges to have the liberty of decision” she told reporters, “but a ruling like the one in question is intolerable in light of contemporary social conceptions and the fact that it contradicts the Constitution”.

It was absolutely right that Neto de Moura’s justifications and expressions were censured, she said.

It now remains to be seen if the judge really does move forwards with an appeal.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The old boys' club really do like to look after their own IMO. It really does make you wonder how unbiased any SCJ ruling is.

Offline Vertigo Swirl

Re: Wandering Off Topic
« Reply #5119 on: February 07, 2019, 09:49:29 PM »
By portugalresident  2019-02-06

Posted  2019-02-06 

Judge who ‘condoned’ vicious attack on woman with nail-spiked club gets off with a warning

Joaquim Neto de Moura – the judge who essentially ruled that domestic violence is okay when applied to an adulteress – has been sanctioned by his peers… to the lightest possible ‘punishment’ of all: a warning.

His co-judge, who signed off on the ruling that ‘went viral’ in 2017 (without apparently even reading it ) – saw the disciplinary case against her archived.

Say reports in the Portuguese press today, it was the president of the Supreme Court of Justice who ‘saved’ Neto de Moura’s proverbial bacon.

Four members of the superior council of magistrates wanted to ‘fine him’, explains Diário de Notícias, while four were in favour of simply giving him a warning.

Thus the president had the final vote – and he “chose the lighter term”.

DN also stresses that “in spite of various rulings having been identified in which Neto de Moura used the same “justification or argument” for belittling cases of domestic violence against women
– always arguing that the victim’s adultery, whether real or suspected, was the cause of the aggression – the council only set out to pronounce on the most recent case”: the one that saw the UK Guardian comment that “ultra-orthodox patriarchy – one of the cornerstones of the fascist dictatorship of António Salazar up until the 1974 revolution – still survives in parts of Portugal”.

This has been a dismal chapter for Portuguese justice and it comes in a week when a violent father, who had been repeatedly denounced to the authorities by his terrified ex-partner, stabbed his mother-in-law to death and then strangled his own baby daughter before committing suicide.

The ‘institutional failings’ that led to this week’s tragedies are, say pundits, part-and-parcel of the mindset of elements of the judiciary, of which Neto de Moura is simply one example.

Talking on her regular TV slot before the ‘sanction’ was made public, commentator Manuela Moura Guedes said she was “shocked” – not simply by Neto de Moura’s words and rulings, but by the fact that seven fellow judges on the superior council of magistrates had actually wanted the disciplinary case against him archived.

These seven abstained from voting in the final instance, which is why in the end only eight magistrates were involved.

“This judge should not stay in office ”, Moura Guedes told news anchors. “Women are not the property of men”.

Neto de Moura, however, is not even content to accept his ‘warning’. His lawyer has told Lusa news agency that he means to appeal.

WHAT IS THIS ALL ABOUT?

The story goes back years and was neatly explained by the Washington Post as a situation in which “a married Portuguese woman began seeing another man. The affair was brief — and after two months, the woman wanted to end it.

“In response, the woman’s former lover turned to her husband, telling him his wife had been unfaithful. The couple divorced. But the two men, both enraged, worked together to plan an attack on the woman.

“In June 2015, the former paramour kidnapped the woman and held her down while the ex-husband beat her viciously with a nail-spiked club, leaving bruises and lashes all over her body.

“After charges were filed in the assault, the ex-husband was given a 15-month suspended sentence and a fine of about $2,000.

“A prosecutor thought he deserved a harsher sentence, and asked an appeals court in Porto, Portugal’s second largest city, for prison time of three years and six months.

“But the appeals judges (of which Neto de Moura was the boss) decided against it.

“Why? Because they felt it was somewhat understandable that a husband in a “depressive state” would act out against an ex-wife who had betrayed him”.

Neto de Moura’s 20-page ruling quoted passages from the Bible “in which one can read that an adulterous women should be punished with death”, cited cultures still in existence where “adulterous women are stoned to death” and even quoted the penal code of 1886 which “not so long ago punished with a little more than a symbolic penalty a man who, believing his wife to be an adulteress, kills her”.

The document insisted that “the adultery of a woman is a very serious attack on the honour and dignity of (her) man”.

The case prompted outrage and street protests in both Lisbon and Porto.

Left-wing MP Catarina Martins joined calls for Neto de Moura’s ‘removal from all cases involving domestic violence’ saying: ““We know that this is not a one-off isolated case for this judge”, and stressing that “only 16% of complaints about domestic violence get to court and in more than 90% condemnations result in suspended sentences”.

Nonetheless, there are those who believe this ruling sends a powerful message to the judiciary.

It is the first time any judge has been ‘disciplined’ in this way, says Inês Ferreira Leite, lecturer in penal law – and this explains the reason perhaps for magistrates being divided.

“We all want judges to have the liberty of decision” she told reporters, “but a ruling like the one in question is intolerable in light of contemporary social conceptions and the fact that it contradicts the Constitution”.

It was absolutely right that Neto de Moura’s justifications and expressions were censured, she said.

It now remains to be seen if the judge really does move forwards with an appeal.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The old boys' club really do like to look after their own IMO. It really does make you wonder how unbiased any SCJ ruling is.
Absolute bloody joke.  8()(((@#
"You can't reason with the unreasonable".

Offline Brietta

Re: Wandering Off Topic
« Reply #5120 on: February 07, 2019, 10:39:30 PM »
Absolute bloody joke.  8()(((@#
  ... and unconstitutional into the bargain.
"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: Wandering Off Topic
« Reply #5121 on: February 13, 2019, 10:22:49 AM »
Following the setting up of Operation Grange Sir Paul Stephenson was questioned by the London Assembly. He said something very inyeresting;

The Government will reimburse the Met on a quarterly basis as the review goes on, he said.
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/press/49may11/BELFAST_T_26_05-2011.htm
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 Vertigo Swirl

Re: Wandering Off Topic
« Reply #5122 on: February 13, 2019, 11:40:34 AM »
Following the setting up of Operation Grange Sir Paul Stephenson was questioned by the London Assembly. He said something very inyeresting;

The Government will reimburse the Met on a quarterly basis as the review goes on, he said.
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/press/49may11/BELFAST_T_26_05-2011.htm
He was referring to the review and not the re-investigation wasn’t he?
"You can't reason with the unreasonable".

Offline Sunny

Re: Wandering Off Topic
« Reply #5123 on: February 13, 2019, 01:20:38 PM »
I took into account what the Police said in their statements what Amaral said and what Kate said she did,  I didn't come to my conclusion by what Kate said alone.
Could you provide cites where the Police said that Kate had alerted them to the twins condition on the night of 3rd May 2007 please.   
Members are reminded that cites must be provided in accordance with the forum rules. On several occasions recently cites have been requested but never provided. Asking for a cite is not goading but compliance.

From this moment onward, posts making significant claims which are not backed up by a cite will be removed.

Moderators and Editors take note!

Offline Robittybob1

Re: Wandering Off Topic
« Reply #5124 on: February 14, 2019, 11:34:48 PM »
Could you provide cites where the Police said that Kate had alerted them to the twins condition on the night of 3rd May 2007 please.   
There would be no cites for this other than what Kate could claim in her book.
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.

Offline Miss Taken Identity

Re: Wandering Off Topic
« Reply #5125 on: February 17, 2019, 03:12:58 PM »
There would be no cites for this other than what Kate could claim in her book.

That is the problem with Kate's Book. a lot cannot be independantly verified. she is just writing her version with some wee bits added on or removed to suit her agenda. IMO. The Blacksmiths  blog mentions a great deal about some annomolies.
'Never underestimate the power of stupid people'... George Carlin

Offline misty

Re: Wandering Off Topic
« Reply #5126 on: March 05, 2019, 09:43:10 PM »
https://www.portugalresident.com/2019/03/04/judge-pilloried-in-press-for-rulings-on-domestic-violence-sues-dozens/
By portugalresident  2019-03-04

The extraordinary news emerged over the weekend: Judge Joaquim Neto de Moura – the man pilloried in the press recently over his controversial decisions in cases of domestic violence – has decided to sue everyone who has either publicly derided or made fun of him.

The list is said to include at least 20 politicians, journalists, commentators and cartoonists, and this is only the beginning.

The judge’s lawyer told reporters on Saturday: “We are still looking into all the people who have offended his dignity. We cannot accept that a State governed by law can insult someone”.

Catarina Martins, leader of the country’s Left Bloc whose MP Mariana Mortágua is among those already made the subject of ‘civil actions’, has quipped that Neto de Moura will ultimately have to sue ‘most of the whole country’.

Indeed his arguably most controversial decision – to reduce sentencing on two men who battered an adulterous woman, on the basis that ‘adultery is a grave attack on a man’s honour and dignity’ – has also been the subject of derision within the international press.

The UK Guardian for example, concluded its report on the story that hit national headlines two years ago, saying it showed that “ultra-orthodox patriarchy – one of the cornerstones of the fascist dictatorship of António Salazar up until the 1974 revolution – still survives in parts of Portugal”, while the Washington Post commented that Neto de Moura and his supporting magistrate on the bench “felt it was somewhat understandable that a husband in a depressive state would act out against an ex-wife who had betrayed him”.

This situation comes in a year when domestic violence has been brought sharply into focus: 11 women have been killed since the start of the year, prompting the creation of the first ‘national day of mourning’ for victims of domestic violence (click here).

It also shines a light on Portugal’s laws of defamation which critics say need bringing up to speed with the 21st century.

This is still a country where anyone can take out a civil case against another party for so-called offences against one’s honour.

Over 9000 people delivered a petition to parliament last year, calling for an end to the law which they denounce as “medieval and obsolete” (click here).

Meantime, some of the ‘insults’ thrown at Judge Neto include contentions that he needs a ‘psychological exam’, that he is “an insult to all judges”, and that he reaches his decisions on the basis of his own personal feelings.

Neto de Moura has been a judge for the last 30 years.

Say reports, he is known as the ‘judge who does not laugh’.

His retaliation against critics follows two recent rulings. The one referring to the woman beaten (with a nail spiked club) for her adultery, and another in which he removed an electronic bracelet from a man who had beaten his former partner so badly that her eardrum ruptured (click here).

The first ruling has led to him being given a ‘warning’ by the Supreme Court of Justice (click here).

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The judge obviously feels he has the law on his side.  ?>)()<

Online Eleanor

Re: Wandering Off Topic
« Reply #5127 on: March 06, 2019, 03:20:44 PM »

So Portugal is still in The Dark Ages, and those Elders of The Judiciary are not to be trusted to be impartial.  Well, I knew that already.  Doesn't everyone.

Offline Miss Taken Identity

Re: Wandering Off Topic
« Reply #5128 on: March 08, 2019, 02:56:53 PM »
https://www.portugalresident.com/2019/03/04/judge-pilloried-in-press-for-rulings-on-domestic-violence-sues-dozens/
By portugalresident  2019-03-04

The extraordinary news emerged over the weekend: Judge Joaquim Neto de Moura – the man pilloried in the press recently over his controversial decisions in cases of domestic violence – has decided to sue everyone who has either publicly derided or made fun of him.

The list is said to include at least 20 politicians, journalists, commentators and cartoonists, and this is only the beginning.

The judge’s lawyer told reporters on Saturday: “We are still looking into all the people who have offended his dignity. We cannot accept that a State governed by law can insult someone”.

Catarina Martins, leader of the country’s Left Bloc whose MP Mariana Mortágua is among those already made the subject of ‘civil actions’, has quipped that Neto de Moura will ultimately have to sue ‘most of the whole country’.

Indeed his arguably most controversial decision – to reduce sentencing on two men who battered an adulterous woman, on the basis that ‘adultery is a grave attack on a man’s honour and dignity’ – has also been the subject of derision within the international press.

The UK Guardian for example, concluded its report on the story that hit national headlines two years ago, saying it showed that “ultra-orthodox patriarchy – one of the cornerstones of the fascist dictatorship of António Salazar up until the 1974 revolution – still survives in parts of Portugal”, while the Washington Post commented that Neto de Moura and his supporting magistrate on the bench “felt it was somewhat understandable that a husband in a depressive state would act out against an ex-wife who had betrayed him”.

This situation comes in a year when domestic violence has been brought sharply into focus: 11 women have been killed since the start of the year, prompting the creation of the first ‘national day of mourning’ for victims of domestic violence (click here).

It also shines a light on Portugal’s laws of defamation which critics say need bringing up to speed with the 21st century.

This is still a country where anyone can take out a civil case against another party for so-called offences against one’s honour.

Over 9000 people delivered a petition to parliament last year, calling for an end to the law which they denounce as “medieval and obsolete” (click here).

Meantime, some of the ‘insults’ thrown at Judge Neto include contentions that he needs a ‘psychological exam’, that he is “an insult to all judges”, and that he reaches his decisions on the basis of his own personal feelings.

Neto de Moura has been a judge for the last 30 years.

Say reports, he is known as the ‘judge who does not laugh’.

His retaliation against critics follows two recent rulings. The one referring to the woman beaten (with a nail spiked club) for her adultery, and another in which he removed an electronic bracelet from a man who had beaten his former partner so badly that her eardrum ruptured (click here).

The first ruling has led to him being given a ‘warning’ by the Supreme Court of Justice (click here).

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The judge obviously feels he has the law on his side.  ?>)()<




No system is perfect- how about this having an effect on a child of 3 being left alone by her parents- to be'abducted'? Nothing to see here...
'Never underestimate the power of stupid people'... George Carlin

Offline Brietta

Re: Wandering Off Topic
« Reply #5129 on: March 08, 2019, 03:06:16 PM »



No system is perfect- how about this having an effect on a child of 3 being left alone by her parents- to be'abducted'? Nothing to see here...

The Portuguese Prosecutors https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2504246/Madeleine-McCann-files-Portuguese-prosecutors-criticise-police.html went out of their way to exonerate the parents from blame and gave very succinct and humane reasons for doing so.
What a shame that humanity has not been replicated by some which I think may well have made life a bit easier for the actual perpetrator/s.
"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"....