Re: McCanns: "The Supreme Court decision was INVALID" - Madeleine McCann's parents 'plan to fight Portuguese court ruling that they haven't been cleared of involvement in their daughter's disappearance' (Daily Mail, 18 Feb 2017)

by plebgate 20.02.17 13:33

Reggiregg wrote:The McCanns have their "people" monitoring social media. On the digital spy McCann discussion, for example, there are contributors who deliberately insult,mock and try to derail those who are against the McCann storyline. The more pertinent the comment (about the dogs, or the missing fridge, or the blue bag etc) the more frenzied the insults. The comments all have the same rather woman-y tone, so it could be one person under different names. But definitely a McCann or someone working for them.

Good post. Maybe (if it hasn't already) this could be added to the 3 psychologists thread as may be of use to Tony?

by **Jill Havern** 20.02.17 14:29

plebgate wrote:
Reggiregg wrote:The McCanns have their "people" monitoring social media. On the digital spy McCann discussion, for example, there are contributors who deliberately insult,mock and try to derail those who are against the McCann storyline. The more pertinent the comment (about the dogs, or the missing fridge, or the blue bag etc) the more frenzied the insults. The comments all have the same rather woman-y tone, so it could be one person under different names. But definitely a McCann or someone working for them.
Good post. Maybe (if it hasn't already) this could be added to the 3 psychologists thread as may be of use to Tony?

This is the thread http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showthread.php?t=2203434&page=271

by Roxyroo 20.02.17 14:35

plebgate wrote:
Reggiregg wrote:The McCanns have their "people" monitoring social media. On the digital spy McCann discussion, for example, there are contributors who deliberately insult,mock and try to derail those who are against the McCann storyline. The more pertinent the comment (about the dogs, or the missing fridge, or the blue bag etc) the more frenzied the insults. The comments all have the same rather woman-y tone, so it could be one person under different names. But definitely a McCann or someone working for them.
Good post. Maybe (if it hasn't already) this could be added to the 3 psychologists thread as may be of use to Tony?

And if they're not doing it out of sense of truth and justice, like we are doing here, then they MUST be getting paid, somehow.
And i wonder by whom?
The Fund or the taxpayer? It can really ONLY be one of those two options. Unless anyone can think of another reason?

Ive also noticed ppl on twitter asking just exactly what Tony Bennett was charged with re. The booklet/leaflet. This may be a way to get you to repeat it, then they think they can sue again. I just stick up for Tony saying hes been here from the very start, easy to find if they really wanted to!
And how the hell can they sue half of the UK now? And the newspapers, twitter etc!?
Who the hell do they think they are!!?!
Aaargh!
spit coffee

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

Added by Mod: More newspaper headlines coming in from around this world, e.g. this one overnight:


	Madeleine McCann's parents fight shocking claims they had something to do with daughter's disappearance ... Glasgow Evening Times The parents of Madeleine McCann have launched a fresh legal battle as they fight shocking claims they had something to do with their daughter's disappearance ...

by **Jill Havern** 21.02.17 9:14

The press are NOT giving up on this. Almost every day there is a new one, even though it is just a repetition of a previous one.
WHY ?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4244534/McCanns-launch-legal-fightback-against-judges-ruling.html

McCanns: "The Supreme Court decision was INVALID" - Madeleine McCann's parents 'plan to fight Portuguese court ruling that they haven't been cleared of involvement in their daughter's disappearance' (Daily Mail, 18 Feb 2017) - Page 3 0885988300000514-0-image-a-27_1487666172656

Madeleine McCann's parents launch fightback against judges' ruling
www.dailymail.co.uk
Furious Gerry and Kate strongly disagreed with the judges' 'erroneous' premise the lifting of their status as 'arguidos' or formal suspects did not mean they were innocent.

Madeleine McCann's furious parents say judges' ruling that they have not been cleared of any involvement in the girl's disappearance is full of 'contradictions' as they launch legal fightback

Kate and Gerry McCann are in a court fight with ex-police chief Goncalo Amaral
Amaral's book'The Truth of the Lie' claims McCanns faked Madeleine's abduction
The McCanns have said they will sue if 'The Truth of the Lie' is sold in Britain

By Gerard Couzens for MailOnline
[size=16]PUBLISHED: 08:39 GMT, 21 February 2017 | UPDATED: 08:51 GMT, 21 February 2017[/size]

and at the end

The 20,000 page 'Madeleine files' made public in 2008 contained a report by public prosecutors which said:' No element of proof whatsoever was found which allows us to form any lucid, sensible, serious and honest conclusion about the circumstance of Madeleine's disappearance from the apartment…including, and most dramatically, establishing whether she is alive or dead, which seems more probable.'
Referring to the McCanns' much-criticised decision to leave their daughter, then three, alone with younger siblings Sean and Amelie while they ate tapas nearby, it added: 'We must also recognise that the parents are paying a heavy penalty over the disappearance of Madeleine for their carelessness in monitoring and protecting their children.'
Portuguese police chiefs said late last year they were 'completely in tune' with British detectives still investigating Madeleine's disappearance, appearing to end years of tension between the two forces whose theories on the youngster's fate have differed wildly.
Portuguese prosecutors reopened their probe into Madeleine McCann's disappearance in May 2014, and are now working in close coordination with Scotland Yard's scaled-down Operation Grange probe into Madeleine's fate.

WOOOOOOOOO . !!!

by ChippyM 21.02.17 9:23

"Portuguese prosecutors reopened their probe into Madeleine McCann's disappearance in May 2014, and are now working in close coordination with Scotland Yard's scaled-down Operation Grange probe into Madeleine's fate."

Interesting choice of words.

Fate = what happens to a particular person or thing, especially something final or negative, such as deathor defeat:

verb

[list=lr_dct_sf_sens]
[*]1.
be destined to happen, turn out, or act in a particular way.

"the regime was fated to end badly"

synonyms:

be predestined, be preordained, be foreordained, be destined, be meant, be doomed, be foredoomed, be cursed, be damned;

[/list]

by Guest 21.02.17 9:42

The comments as usual show the public mood.

This last one made me think:

Jelly-Bean-Jon, somewhere in the SW, United Kingdom, 28 minutes ago
No court would say anyone has been cleared, that's just not how it works. What if something new comes to light next week or next month etc? This doesn't mean they are guilty, just that nobody knows what happened. Don't forget there is no evidence to support or disprove any theory (inc the abduction).

Is there any evidence that the scenario which says that the parents faked the abduction is ruled out?

There is certainly evidence pointing at a faked abduction, but is there any evidence that clears them?

We all know the answer to that.

by plebgate 21.02.17 9:58

REf. the daily mail article GEG has posted today.

It says that Mr and Mrs feel that the judges' ruling is full of contradictions.

Um errr oh um contradictions a plenty in the official police files. Sometimes I cannot believe what I read I really cannot.

So they can launch a complaint because of supposed contradictions by the Supreme Court judges but us mere commoners cannot question or point out contradictions in the official files.

Still no reporting of any of this in the Daily Express.
I wonder why?

by Lands_end 21.02.17 10:01

BlueBag wrote:The comments as usual show the public mood.

This last one made me think:

Jelly-Bean-Jon, somewhere in the SW, United Kingdom, 28 minutes ago
No court would say anyone has been cleared, that's just not how it works. What if something new comes to light next week or next month etc? This doesn't mean they are guilty, just that nobody knows what happened. Don't forget there is no evidence to support or disprove any theory (inc the abduction).

Is there any evidence that the scenario which says that the parents faked the abduction is ruled out?

There is certainly evidence pointing at a faked abduction, but is there any evidence that clears them?

We all know the answer to that.

Below is the evidence relating to abduction.

by **Jill Havern** 21.02.17 10:06

plebgate wrote:REf. the daily mail article GEG has posted today.

It says that Mr and Mrs feel that the judges' ruling is full of contradictions.

Um errr oh um contradictions a plenty in the official police files. Sometimes I cannot believe what I read I really cannot.

So they can launch a complaint because of supposed contradictions by the Supreme Court judges but us mere commoners cannot question or point out contradictions in the official files.

Still no reporting of any of this in the Daily Express.
I wonder why?

You mean the Daily Express that the McCanns sued for £550,000, and the Tapas 7 sued for £375,000 and they then had to put an apology on their front page?

That Daily Express?

by MayMuse 21.02.17 10:10

Is this the paragraph in the PJFILES which the parents are going to try to use in their compliant ? Has the Mirror leaked ?

The 20,000 page 'Madeleine files' made public in 2008 contained a report by public prosecutors which said:' No element of proof whatsoever was found which allows us to form any lucid, sensible, serious and honest conclusion about the circumstance of Madeleine's disappearance from the apartment…including, and most dramatically, establishing whether she is alive or dead, which seems more probable.'
Referring to the McCanns' much-criticised decision to leave their daughter, then three, alone with younger siblings Sean and Amelie while they ate tapas nearby, it added: 'We must also recognise that the parents are paying a heavy penalty over the disappearance of Madeleine for their carelessness in monitoring and protecting their children.'

The McCanns were nevertheless not cleared by the archiving of the process so even though their arquido status was lifted as part of the shelving of the case, would that mean if it is re opened they are still classed as suspects?

by plebgate 21.02.17 10:18

@GEG yes the Daily Express who were sued and dished out a lorra, lorra.
One would have thought they would be all over this news. I am having to wonder whether they might have staff out there ready and waiting for a big story or sumat.
Someone posted last week that there are reporters out there.
Could all get very interesting?

by SuspiciousMinds 21.02.17 10:42

BlueBag wrote:This is so ridiculously stupid.

They were never cleared.

We all know it.

They know it.

They are going to get embarrassed yet again.

That's if they find a legal route to take, which I doubt.

It's just a PR ploy. They know perfectly well that the report didn't clear them. They know there is no way their complaint will be upheld. They will complain that they thought there was sufficient evidence to prove they were innocent; they will be told (again) that there was merely insufficient evidence to prove they were guilty of a crime. Then they will claim to the world that they misunderstood the ruling and they are devastated to discover that they weren't cleared after all, so they weren't lying for 9 years because they would never lie, they just didn't understand the silly Portuguese legal system and aren't the Portuguese police mean to them, and Amaral only won on a technicality because of their innocent little misunderstanding and it's not fair, oh and give us loads of money.

Some fools out there will believe it and propagate the myth - that's the best they can hope for now.

by **Jill Havern** 21.02.17 10:51

SuspiciousMinds wrote:oh and give us loads of money.

From Papal to paypal.

by plebgate 21.02.17 10:52

Well they had a Portugese lawyer. I would have thought that the Portugese legal postion would have been explained before any legal papers filed in the courts?
This post in response to suspicious mind.

by sallypelt 21.02.17 10:55

It took the Supreme Court months to find the McCann's "not cleared", but it only took Brian Kennedy "FIFTEEN SECONDS to know they were "INNOCENT"

Kennedy should have been one of the Supreme Court judges. He could have saved himself a fortune.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/madeleinemccann/11077525/Madeleine-McCann-I-listened-for-15-seconds-and-knew-they-were-innocent.html

Madeleine McCann: 'I listened for 15 seconds and knew they were innocent’

by plebgate 21.02.17 10:57

BTW why must they delve into Maddie's fund to pay legal expenses?

What happened to their millionaire backers?

by Lands_end 21.02.17 11:03

jeanmonroe wrote:Lawyer confirms money from 'Find Madeleine' fund will be used to fight ruling that failed to clear couple of involvement in child's disappearance.

Kate and Gerry McCann’s lawyer confirmed they would use money from the “Find Madeleine” fund in a bid to overturn the ruling, and challenge claims by former police chief Goncalo Amaral that they had faked their daughter's abduction.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/madeleine-mccann-missing-abduction-parents-legal-battle-goncalo-amaral-police-claims-portugal-a7588281.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, FINALLY!

McC's 'spokesman' PROVEN, to BE a 'LIAR'

Clarence Mitchell, spokesman for the McCann couple, LIES on NZ Radio

By admin, on April 19th, 2009

On September 20th, 2007, Clarence Mitchell was interviewed on Radio Live in New Zealand by Marcus Lush.

Near the end of the interview Clarence says this:

"I’d stress as well that the money that people have donated from around the world is only being spent on that campaign and Kate and Gerry’s legal costs and media management in the shape of me that’s all coming from the financial benefactors who are contributing quite separately so that anybody who has given money to help find Madeleine (fund) need have no fear that their money is being spent on lawyers fees or anything like that."

This statement is quite clear and worth repeating, ad infinitum:. “....so that anybody who has given money to help find Madeleine (fund) need have no fear that their money is being spent on lawyers fees or anything like that."

After reviewing the money spent on lawyers in the Madeleine Fund accounts, it is quite obvious that Mitchell’s statement is a bare faced lie.

Ooopps!

Clarence Mitchell is a professional liar, period.

by whatsupdoc 21.02.17 12:37

t controlling what went out via the Media

Lands_end wrote:
jeanmonroe wrote:Lawyer confirms money from 'Find Madeleine' fund will be used to fight ruling that failed to clear couple of involvement in child's disappearance.

Kate and Gerry McCann’s lawyer confirmed they would use money from the “Find Madeleine” fund in a bid to overturn the ruling, and challenge claims by former police chief Goncalo Amaral that they had faked their daughter's abduction.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/madeleine-mccann-missing-abduction-parents-legal-battle-goncalo-amaral-police-claims-portugal-a7588281.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, FINALLY!

McC's 'spokesman' PROVEN, to BE a 'LIAR'

Clarence Mitchell, spokesman for the McCann couple, LIES on NZ Radio

By admin, on April 19th, 2009

On September 20th, 2007, Clarence Mitchell was interviewed on Radio Live in New Zealand by Marcus Lush.

Near the end of the interview Clarence says this:

"I’d stress as well that the money that people have donated from around the world is only being spent on that campaign and Kate and Gerry’s legal costs and media management in the shape of me that’s all coming from the financial benefactors who are contributing quite separately so that anybody who has given money to help find Madeleine (fund) need have no fear that their money is being spent on lawyers fees or anything like that."

This statement is quite clear and worth repeating, ad infinitum:. “....so that anybody who has given money to help find Madeleine (fund) need have no fear that their money is being spent on lawyers fees or anything like that."

After reviewing the money spent on lawyers in the Madeleine Fund accounts, it is quite obvious that Mitchell’s statement is a bare faced lie.

Ooopps!
Clarence Mitchell is a professional liar, period.

For people new to the McCann case here is a video by Richard D. Hall showing Clarence Mitchell in OZ giving a lecture containing so many inaccuracies it is quite unbelieveable.

CM previously worked for the Government controlling what was to be released to the press and TV.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zzikQRswVpw

by Verdi 21.02.17 12:41

May I whatsupdoc ?

by whatsupdoc 21.02.17 13:20

No prob, Verdi. Hope you and everyone else is well. I've been busy with a list of jobs at home and just dropped in for a minute here and there.

by **Jill Havern** 21.02.17 13:46

Courtesy of PeterMac:

http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/id136.htm

The PJ's Final Report & The Archiving Dispatch
www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk
One year ago today, the Madeleine McCann case investigation was archived, pending 'better' evidence. The three arguidos in the process, Robert Murat, Kate Healy and ...

How any case can be archived, sustained on a 57-page document that lists nothing but doubts, can only be justified by the need to comply with the new Penal Process Code, which was enforced on the 15th of September 2007. Under the new code, any judicial process starts a countdown on the day that the first arguido is made: after 8 months, with two possible extensions of 3 months each, there has to be a decision to either accuse, or archive the case.

In other words it is not a decision. It is an administrative process, which comes into operation automatically. The fact that there were doubts and queries and problems was immaterial.
Charge or release !
It therefore says NOTHING about guilt. In the event that evidence had been found to exonerate, the status would be lifted, but the case would not be archived.

In the UK you can be on police bail before charge for YEARS, and there are strenuous efforts being made to bring in some statutory time limit.

RM was arguido from 14/7/7 to 21/7/8, and the G&K from 6/9/7 to 21/7/8
Bit different from the 'for one day' which appeared in some of the gutter press

by SuspiciousMinds 21.02.17 14:10

plebgate wrote:Well they had a Portugese lawyer. I would have thought that the Portugese legal postion would have been explained before any legal papers filed in the courts?
This post in response to suspicious mind.

That's beside the point. The Portuguese lawyer can easily be belittled, condemned and dismissed for failing the McCanns, just as the 'sardine-munching' Portuguese police were. The McCanns aren't remotely bothered about their lawyer's reputation, or the logic of those who are already set against them.

They just desperately need to convince their supporters and financial backers (in the most obviously 'outraged' and public way possible) that it was all a misunderstanding and they haven't been deliberately lying to them for 9 years about being cleared. Because if they could lie about that...

And it paints them as victims again, just in time for the 10th anniversary and lots of lucrative, sympathetic interviews about the rotten, corrupt, third-world Portuguese legal system.

by plebgate 21.02.17 15:52

"How is it possible, for the last eight years, that the McCanns have not realised that they were never cleared by the PJ?

Didn't they translate the files and read them? Because we all knew about it, and there has been plenty of discussion on the internet."

The above was posted on a different thread by suzyj so I have used some of the post as my answer to you SM.
Hope you don't mind SuzyJ.

They could try and convince and belittle anyone they choose I suppose, but the ruling by the Supreme Court (unless overturned) stands and IMO no multimillionaire would contribute to any costs with a ruling like that having been made.

by SuspiciousMinds 21.02.17 17:18

plebgate wrote:"How is it possible, for the last eight years, that the McCanns have not realised that they were never cleared by the PJ?

Didn't they translate the files and read them? Because we all knew about it, and there has been plenty of discussion on the internet."

Of course they knew. But for 9 years they have nevertheless spun the 'we were cleared' line for the media, which the Supreme Court has now well and truly demolished. So now they need to pretend that they were naive and misinformed and really did think they'd been cleared, so as not to be accused of telling porkies.

It's just PR. They can't genuinely be expecting to have their complaint upheld, so what other motivation could there be?

by suzyjohnson 21.02.17 21:24

It seems, to me, to be more than coincidence that Operation Grange has been extended by a couple of months at a time. Have they been waiting for the result from the Portuguese Supreme Court? There seems to be a lot of focus on the McCanns just now from every direction.

BTW It's ok plebgate.

Log in for more topics