Parents say they will keep fighting libel battle with ex-cop and bring their daughter home

Verdi wrote:   What a load of bloody cobblers - please excuse my language.  This woman is a liability - even Clarence Mitchell can't equal her crass stupidity.

A respected lawyer, Isabel Duarte says, I quote “They have now made a complaint over the ruling to that court, it is sort of like an appeal.”

Sort of like an appeal?  What sort of language is that for a lawyer - is it legalese for I haven't a bloody clue what I'm talking about?

How dare Goncalo Amaral relax in the sunshine drinking beer when he could be down the local tapas with his mates whilst his kids are left alone in the dark to fend for themselves?

"Madeleine McCann ’s parents will keep fighting their libel battle with a former police chief because it will “empower them to help bring their daughter home”, according to a pal."

Empower them to help bring their daughter home?  What the effing hell is that supposed to mean - will they be proactively searching for their precious daughter or sitting on their fat backsides expecting everyone else to jump at their command.  Even if Madeleine is out there and findable, the chances of her being returned to chez Rothley hovers around zero.  She is a ward of court, the parents have no say in her future - she would!  What teenage girl would want to be returned to parents who left her alone with her younger brother and sister to be abducted by a stranger.

This case has gone way beyond the ridiculous.

MayMuse wrote:

Verdi wrote:   What a load of bloody cobblers - please excuse my language.  This woman is a liability - even Clarence Mitchell can't equal her crass stupidity.

A respected lawyer, Isabel Duarte says, I quote “They have now made a complaint over the ruling to that court, it is sort of like an appeal.”

Sort of like an appeal?  What sort of language is that for a lawyer - is it legalese for I haven't a bloody clue what I'm talking about?

How dare Goncalo Amaral relax in the sunshine drinking beer when he could be down the local tapas with his mates whilst his kids are left alone in the dark to fend for themselves?

"Madeleine McCann ’s parents will keep fighting their libel battle with a former police chief because it will “empower them to help bring their daughter home”, according to a pal."

Empower them to help bring their daughter home?  What the effing hell is that supposed to mean - will they be proactively searching for their precious daughter or sitting on their fat backsides expecting everyone else to jump at their command.  Even if Madeleine is out there and findable, the chances of her being returned to chez Rothley hovers around zero.  She is a ward of court, the parents have no say in her future - she would!  What teenage girl would want to be returned to parents who left her alone with her younger brother and sister to be abducted by a stranger.

This case has gone way beyond the ridiculous.

I agree Verdi, but what a "few more months " difference it will make is ominous! They will bring their daughter home? How and when? Such a clear and final statement, Do they know something we don't ( erm,erm) or does Tracey? 

Rogue-a-Tory wrote:Doctors Kate & Gerry McCann together with their family's spokesman are also very concerned about what happened in Sweden over the weekend

Rogue-a-Tory wrote:

Cmaryholmes wrote:

Rogue-a-Tory wrote:Doctors Kate & Gerry McCann together with their family's spokesman are also very concerned about what happened in Sweden over the weekend

What happened in Sweden over the weekend? Have I missed something?

You've just missed Donald

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-39023978

Paddington2007 wrote:Kate and Gerry McCann do seem to have very serious "trust issues" and an arrogant almost contemptuous belief that they are smarter and better informed than those tasked with discovering the truth of what actually happened to Madeleine.

Whilst Scotland Yard (clearly extremely experienced and very well funded) have stated quite categorically that the "Tannerman sighting" has been ruled out and is entirely irrelevant, Mr and Mrs McCann continue to include this "sighting" in the "number 1" spot on their website.  On the basis "it is not possible to be certain."

They ridicule the sniffer dogs.

They demonise Snr Amaral, a man who was caught up in this simply because he was doing his job as a Portuguese detective.

They have instructed their Portuguese solicitor Ms Duarte, to remain silent.

They have complained extensively about the media reporting of the case, sued and sought to silence any dissent or questioning of "the party line."

Now, they are complaining about the findings of three Supreme Court judges.  Quite how they plan to "fight" the decision of the Supreme Court (presumably, the clue is in the name) remains to be seen.

It appears a strange contradiction for people who we are led to believe were sufficiently trusting to leave three babies alone for hours in an unlocked apartment in a foreign land. In my personal experience people are generally either trusting or mistrusting of fate and that attitude is set and pervades all their doings.

I can only imagine how many professional people they have angered and I still hope ultimately that the "truth will out" because it usually does.

I suspect it is no easy task for law enforcement, either at home or abroad, to get any sort of conviction without a body or a body of evidence "corpus delicti" but there must certainly be an awful lot of motivated people trying!

JRP wrote:

Paddington2007 wrote:Kate and Gerry McCann do seem to have very serious "trust issues" and an arrogant almost contemptuous belief that they are smarter and better informed than those tasked with discovering the truth of what actually happened to Madeleine.

Whilst Scotland Yard (clearly extremely experienced and very well funded) have stated quite categorically that the "Tannerman sighting" has been ruled out and is entirely irrelevant, Mr and Mrs McCann continue to include this "sighting" in the "number 1" spot on their website.  On the basis "it is not possible to be certain."

They ridicule the sniffer dogs.

They demonise Snr Amaral, a man who was caught up in this simply because he was doing his job as a Portuguese detective.

They have instructed their Portuguese solicitor Ms Duarte, to remain silent.

They have complained extensively about the media reporting of the case, sued and sought to silence any dissent or questioning of "the party line."

Now, they are complaining about the findings of three Supreme Court judges.  Quite how they plan to "fight" the decision of the Supreme Court (presumably, the clue is in the name) remains to be seen.

It appears a strange contradiction for people who we are led to believe were sufficiently trusting to leave three babies alone for hours in an unlocked apartment in a foreign land. In my personal experience people are generally either trusting or mistrusting of fate and that attitude is set and pervades all their doings.

I can only imagine how many professional people they have angered and I still hope ultimately that the "truth will out" because it usually does.

I suspect it is no easy task for law enforcement, either at home or abroad, to get any sort of conviction without a body or a body of evidence "corpus delicti" but there must certainly be an awful lot of motivated people trying!

I was surprised when reading the comments on the S*n website, which was brought onto this forum last Friday (17th Feb '17) that when someone mentioned Tannerman being ruled out by DCI Redwood in the Crimewatch drama, another poster, a pro-McCann called Pamala Gurney wrote.
Tannerman was not ruled out by Crecheman, Checheman was added as well as Tannerman.

A blatant lie, aimed at adding more confusion.

It must have been a very busy road that night with all these "not tourist types" carrying their kids around.

MayMuse wrote:H

JRP wrote:

Paddington2007 wrote:Kate and Gerry McCann do seem to have very serious "trust issues" and an arrogant almost contemptuous belief that they are smarter and better informed than those tasked with discovering the truth of what actually happened to Madeleine.

Whilst Scotland Yard (clearly extremely experienced and very well funded) have stated quite categorically that the "Tannerman sighting" has been ruled out and is entirely irrelevant, Mr and Mrs McCann continue to include this "sighting" in the "number 1" spot on their website.  On the basis "it is not possible to be certain."

They ridicule the sniffer dogs.

They demonise Snr Amaral, a man who was caught up in this simply because he was doing his job as a Portuguese detective.

They have instructed their Portuguese solicitor Ms Duarte, to remain silent.

They have complained extensively about the media reporting of the case, sued and sought to silence any dissent or questioning of "the party line."

Now, they are complaining about the findings of three Supreme Court judges.  Quite how they plan to "fight" the decision of the Supreme Court (presumably, the clue is in the name) remains to be seen.

It appears a strange contradiction for people who we are led to believe were sufficiently trusting to leave three babies alone for hours in an unlocked apartment in a foreign land. In my personal experience people are generally either trusting or mistrusting of fate and that attitude is set and pervades all their doings.

I can only imagine how many professional people they have angered and I still hope ultimately that the "truth will out" because it usually does.

I suspect it is no easy task for law enforcement, either at home or abroad, to get any sort of conviction without a body or a body of evidence "corpus delicti" but there must certainly be an awful lot of motivated people trying!

I was surprised when reading the comments on the S*n website, which was brought onto this forum last Friday (17th Feb '17) that when someone mentioned Tannerman being ruled out by DCI Redwood in the Crimewatch drama, another poster, a pro-McCann called Pamala Gurney wrote.
Tannerman was not ruled out by Crecheman, Checheman was added as well as Tannerman.

A blatant lie, aimed at adding more confusion.

It must have been a very busy road that night with all these "not tourist types" carrying their kids around.

Oh come on credit where credit is due, PG is partly correct as ex DCI Redwood did "add" this father apparently carrying his child from the crèche , the wrong way, complete with photos and ancient long sleeved pyjamas! 
This father who apparently remembered years later "it could be him"? 

An extra-ordinary exchange for the elusive "eggman" 

SuspiciousMinds wrote:“It appears he has no idea of the hurt and anguish he continues to heap on Madeleine’s poor parents.”

By refusing to give in and winning a court case that they brought against him. The b*stard!!! How dare he have the cheek to defend himself? Who does he think he is, thwarting the will of St. Jerry? He should be bally well strung up and forced to feel fear and misery!!!

And as for that abductor, oh we'll forgive him. After all, he hasn't caused us any hurt and anguish - we're loaded now, thanks to him! Woo-hoo!