Re: Parents withdraw from Lorraine interview

by plebgate 30.04.16 16:50

Maybe the DS will be Carter Rucked if they do not remove the story.

:emo3:

by **Jill Havern** 30.04.16 17:12

Parents withdraw from Lorraine interview - Page 4 A11

Parents withdraw from Lorraine interview - Page 4 B11

Is it Animal Cruelty to try to put a cat back into the bag . . .?

P

by canada12 30.04.16 17:27

Full speed ahead, then, for plans for the 10th anniversary. Elton John and lots of balloons and ~~fresh pleas for money~~. To make up for missing the 9th big grin

by **sharonl** 30.04.16 17:31

Lorraine Kelly is Patron to Missing People charity where Kate is ambassador, if she still is ambassador.

What's the truth behind this, did Kate pull out or the TV company?

Surprisingly there is no mention of Madeleine here either

http://www.radiotimes.com/tv-programme/xyf5/missing-children-lorraine-kelly-investigates

It is unclear of when this was aired.

Has the worm turned?

by MayMuse 30.04.16 17:36

Page link missing? So maybe the 'worm is wriggling" ?

by **sharonl** 30.04.16 17:48

MayMuse wrote:Page link missing? So maybe the 'worm is wriggling" ?

Just edited to correct that - http://www.radiotimes.com/tv-programme/xyf5/missing-children-lorraine-kelly-investigates

by **Jill Havern** 30.04.16 17:51

canada12 wrote:Full speed ahead, then, for plans for the 10th anniversary. Elton John and lots of balloons and ~~fresh pleas for money~~. To make up for missing the 9th

~~Ah, but they can't plan that far ahead because she could be found by then!~~

by Guest 30.04.16 17:54

Everyone knew in May 2007 that this was for the long term.

Clarence Mitchell gave up a top job.

So he must have known.

by Realist 30.04.16 17:59

BlueBag wrote:I don't know how they thought they would win the appeal.

They weren't thinking of how they could win the appeal, they weren't the appellant. They were thinking of how they could defend the original judgement.

by Guest 30.04.16 18:00

You say tomato I say tomato.

by **Jill Havern** 30.04.16 18:03

BlueBag wrote:Everyone knew in May 2007 that this was for the long term.

Clarence Mitchell gave up a top job.

So he must have known.

Yep.

And before that, of couse, John McCann gave up his job pdq despite having a wife, kids and mortgage when Maddie could have been found at any moment.

I wonder if any of TM have got mortgages these days?

by Cmaryholmes 30.04.16 18:07

Just trying to imagine the next headline....'Mccanns forced to cancel TV appearances due to vile troll threats outrage' .

by Realist 30.04.16 18:11

Get'emGonçalo wrote:

~~Ah, but they can't plan that far ahead because she could be found by then!~~

Indeed, after all, Monsieur le McCann is constantly reminding his audience, particularly anyone thinking of prosecuting him, 'There's no evidence any harm has befallen Madeleine.'

by Patience 30.04.16 18:12

Cmaryholmes wrote:Just trying to imagine the next headline....'Mccanns forced to cancel TV appearances due to vile troll threats outrage' .

I'm not sure they'd get away with that now. Too many comments made by Joe Public in the comments section of articles questioning why people who either don't believe the McCann version of events or are sympathetic to Goncalo Amaral should be referred to as trolls.

by pennylane 30.04.16 18:13

BlueBag wrote:Everyone knew in May 2007 that this was for the long term.

Clarence Mitchell gave up a top job.

So he must have known.

Not sure BB. I remember his resignation speech, and he looked miffed. I think he was given the push when the McCanns culpability became more evident. He was backed into a corner, just like all those standing shoulder to shoulder with the McCanns, telling the world black is white. His MMU job was gently but firmly whooshed (imo)

by whodunit 30.04.16 18:14

BlueBag wrote:I don't know how they thought they would win the appeal.

The same way they won the nonsensical judgement in the first place? Which, imo, was achieved by a 'meeting between British police and Portuguese authorities'.

https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t11090p20-meeting-on-the-maddie-case-between-british-police-and-portuguese-authorities#304603

The judge's ruling in the first instance made no sense in several respects. One is she literally overruled a HIGHER COURT on the book ban. It felt like a ruling borne out of a desperate clutching at straws.The judge handed the ruling over to the McCs attorney Duarte for immediate publication before GA even had a chance to read it.

This time they tried to have one of the judges removed.

by **Jill Havern** 30.04.16 18:23

pennylane wrote:
BlueBag wrote:Everyone knew in May 2007 that this was for the long term.

Clarence Mitchell gave up a top job.

So he must have known.

Not sure BB. I remember his resignation speech, and he looked miffed. I think he was given the push when the McCanns culpability became more evident. He was backed into a corner, just like all those standing shoulder to shoulder with the McCanns, telling the world black is white. His MMU job was gently but firmly whooshed (imo)

But he's still doing it, though, isn't he? Unless he's just doing it freelance these days.

by Realist 30.04.16 18:23

I wouldn't have thought so, judges do not generally appreciate having their rulings overturned.

by pennylane 30.04.16 18:27

whodunit wrote:
BlueBag wrote:I don't know how they thought they would win the appeal.

The same way they won the nonsensical judgement in the first place? Which, imo, was achieved by a 'meeting between British police and Portuguese authorities'.

https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t11090p20-meeting-on-the-maddie-case-between-british-police-and-portuguese-authorities#304603

The judge's ruling in the first instance made no sense in several respects. One is she literally overruled a HIGHER COURT on the book ban. It felt like a ruling borne out of a desperate clutching at straws.The judge handed the ruling over to the McCs attorney Duarte for immediate publication before GA even had a chance to read it.

This time they tried to have one of the judges removed.

Yes I agree, that last win was down to dirty dealings.

by cbeagle 30.04.16 18:29

Given the amount of public money spent investigating their daughter's disappearance the parents should have a responsibility to face the UK media.

by pennylane 30.04.16 18:32

Get'emGonçalo wrote:
pennylane wrote:
BlueBag wrote:Everyone knew in May 2007 that this was for the long term.

Clarence Mitchell gave up a top job.

So he must have known.

Not sure BB. I remember his resignation speech, and he looked miffed. I think he was given the push when the McCanns culpability became more evident. He was backed into a corner, just like all those standing shoulder to shoulder with the McCanns, telling the world black is white. His MMU job was gently but firmly whooshed (imo)
But he's still doing it, though, isn't he? Unless he's just doing it freelance these days.

He was sent out there by the government in the first instance, and then it went horribly pear shaped so he was forced to distance himself, but still given plenty of support behind the scenes imo.

by pennylane 30.04.16 18:33

Ladyinred wrote:

Whoops sorry Ladyinred xxxxxxxxxxxx

by whodunit 30.04.16 18:34

pennylane wrote:
whodunit wrote:
BlueBag wrote:I don't know how they thought they would win the appeal.

The same way they won the nonsensical judgement in the first place? Which, imo, was achieved by a 'meeting between British police and Portuguese authorities'.

https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t11090p20-meeting-on-the-maddie-case-between-british-police-and-portuguese-authorities#304603

The judge's ruling in the first instance made no sense in several respects. One is she literally overruled a HIGHER COURT on the book ban. It felt like a ruling borne out of a desperate clutching at straws.The judge handed the ruling over to the McCs attorney Duarte for immediate publication before GA even had a chance to read it.

This time they tried to have one of the judges removed.

Yes I agree, that last win was down to dirty dealings.

Especially when you consider that the preliminary findings of the judge indicated an almost certain win for GA. Keep in mind this was in January 2015:

EXCLUSIVE: ‘McCanns will lose £1m libel trial’ Judge’s initial findings go against couple

"Last week in Lisbon Judge Maria Emilia Melo e Castro set out in some detail what she had found to be proven and not proven, although she has not given her final verdict.
She did not find that because of statements in the book, documentary and a newspaper interview Kate and Gerry had been “completely destroyed” from a “moral, ethical and family point of view beyond the pain that their daughter’s absence causes them”. And she said it was not proven that they would suffer “permanent anguish, insomnia, lack of appetite and an indefinable fear”.
The judge said this psychological state existed before the publication of the book but added that it was normal for the couple to be affected by the book and they would also have “felt badly” over allegations by Mr Amaral that they hid their daughter’s body.
However, it was not possible to determine what most people think after reading Mr Amaral’s theories, she said, and she found it was not proven that the attention of the media and of people in general diminished when Amaral’s book was published.
The judge thought it was proven that some facts in the documentary and book came from police files used by the investigation team, although others did not."

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/554107/McCanns-will-lose-1m-trial-Portuguese-judge-s-initial-findings-against-Kate-and-Gerry

The meeting I referred to above between British police and Portuguese authorities took place in March. By April 28th, the date of the judge's ruling, there had been a complete turn around from the initial findings and GA was ordered to pay a massive settlement to the McCs.

by Guest 30.04.16 19:02

Let's get back on topic, please.

by pendragon2007 30.04.16 19:18

Photoshoot - Press and public disappointed at McCanns failure to turn up for Lorraine interview.

Log in for more topics