Wandering Off Topic

[Vertigo Swirl]

It's not a question of whether Portugal supported the McCanns' human rights; the question is did it breach them. I believe in the rule of law, which means accepting decisions handed down by all courts, not just those we agree with.

What on earth are you doing as a mod on The Miscarriage Of Justice Forum then?

[G-Unit]

What on earth are you doing as a mod on The Miscarriage Of Justice Forum then?

Does everyone else here reject the rule of law then?

[Eleanor]

It's not a question of whether Portugal supported the McCanns' human rights; the question is did it breach them. I believe in the rule of law, which means accepting decisions handed down by all courts, not just those we agree with.

Or was Portugal more interested in the Rights of a Convicted Liar?  And if so, why would that be?

[Mr Gray]

It's not a question of whether Portugal supported the McCanns' human rights; the question is did it breach them. I believe in the rule of law, which means accepting decisions handed down by all courts, not just those we agree with.

So if the ECHR rule that Portugal , the SC and Amaral with his book breached the McCanns Human Rights you will be as critical of them as you are of Wolters....Good to know but I find it hard to beleive

[Eleanor]

Does everyone else here reject the rule of law then?

What Rule of whose Law?  Try not to be too ridiculous.  Amaral was convicted of Perjury by a Portuguese Court.  He is a liar.  And has proved it yet again.

So what you are saying is that Amaral has a Right to Lie if he feels like it and that's okay.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Does everyone else here reject the rule of law then?

Did I say that?  Do you respect the rule of law in the Jeremy Bamber case?  I seem to recall you were of the view that he might be a victim of a terrible miscarriage of justice.  Are you now  saying that though you believe it may be a miscarriage of justice that you nevertheless respect the legal decision to find him guilty and incarcerate him for the rest of his life?

[Eleanor]

Did I say that?  Do you respect the rule of law in the Jeremy Bamber case?  I seem to recall you were of the view that he might be a victim of a terrible miscarriage of justice.  Are you now  saying that though you believe it may be a miscarriage of justice that you nevertheless respect the legal decision to find him guilty and incarcerate him for the rest of his life?

I wouldn't bother if I was you.  Gunit's thinking is seriously skewed.  Unto her only what she wants to believe.

[Lace]

My argument is that pointing out CB has no previous convictions for abduction or murder (as some have done on here) is entirely irrelevant.  It means nothing, and certainly does not mean CB is unlikely or unable to have committed such crimes. It may be of zero interest to some but nonetheless it is an entirely logical and IMO  irrefutable point.

That elderly woman could have died of a heart attack being beaten and raped.   It's ridiculous to say he is not capable of murder,  he has just been lucky so far.

[Lace]

The supporter's fantasy is that everyone who has doubts about the case or about the T9's story was influenced by Amaral.

Not everyone of course but a lot.   The people who believe Amaral then go on to tweet about it endlessly convincing others.   People to this day believe the McCann's drugged their children, that they washed the curtains that there was blood in the car.  I could go on but you probably know it all.

[Wonderfulspam]

That elderly woman could have died of a heart attack being beaten and raped.   It's ridiculous to say he is not capable of murder,  he has just been lucky so far.

Wouldn't that be manslaughter?

[sadie]

I wouldn't bother if I was you.  Gunit's thinking is seriously skewed.  Unto her only what she wants to believe.

Or perchance, what she has been told to promote ?

[G-Unit]

Or perchance, what she has been told to promote ?

Oh, the fantasies! 

[G-Unit]

What happened to Faithlily's Comment?  Although I can't remember now exactly what it was.

On balance, I would say that Brueckner's previous record makes him a very likely candidate as opposed to The McCanns, which is what it is all about on this Forum, if truth be told.

I have found the hypocrisy levelled against The McCanns absolutely mind blowing, when they have no record of anything at all.  Innocent Until Proven Guilty never came into it with some.  But I will continue to expect the same for Brueckner until proven otherwise.

How any of you have the nerve to deny The McCanns a basic Right which you now call on for Brueckner, Human Rights notwithstanding is completely beyond me.

This comment?

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7060.msg683782#msg683782

[Vertigo Swirl]

This comment?

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7060.msg683782#msg683782

I guessd  it would be an attack on me orone of my posts, and clearly whatever she said was deemed necessary for editing by John.  What a surprise!   what he left of her post makes little sense so I guess I shall never know the full extent of the undoubtedly nasty, spiteful comment she left for me.

[barrier]

No fanfare for the common man just justice going about its course albeit 30 yrs on, no salacious gossip about previous, that will we be played out in court if it is the case, silence and how it should be.
One issue though, she's unlikely to have been stabbed to death 37 times , but received 37 stab wounds.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10848865/Murder-suspect-54-appears-court-Nikki-Allan-seven-dead-nearly-30-years-ago.html



Murder suspect, 54, appears in court over schoolgirl Nikki Allan, seven, found dead in derelict building after going missing nearly 30 years ago
Man, 54, charged with murdering seven-year-old Nikki Allan in 1992
Nikki was killed after leaving her grandparents' home in Sunderland
She was found brutally stabbed to death 37 times and beaten with a brick
On Tuesday, David Thomas Boyd appeared at Newcastle Crown Court