The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™
Hi,

A very warm welcome to The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™ forum.

Please log in, or register to view all the forums, then settle in and start chatting with us!

Enjoy your day,

Jill Havern
Forum owner

Letter 25 Jan 2013 to Carter-Ruck and the Court about THAT proposed settlement with Dr Amaral: is this now an 'Abuse of Process'?

Page 4 of 17 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 10 ... 17  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: Letter 25 Jan 2013 to Carter-Ruck and the Court about THAT proposed settlement with Dr Amaral: is this now an 'Abuse of Process'?

Post by roy rovers on Sat Jan 26, 2013 12:39 pm

Ed1976 it's naughty to come on the computer and pretend that you are your mummy.

roy rovers

Posts : 465
Reputation : 39
Join date : 2012-03-04

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Letter 25 Jan 2013 to Carter-Ruck and the Court about THAT proposed settlement with Dr Amaral: is this now an 'Abuse of Process'?

Post by Me on Sat Jan 26, 2013 1:22 pm

ed1976 wrote:
The whole problem with your arguments and many posters on here is that it is about specifics.

Me was very specific in his post and the word he used was caving. you want to make things up as you go along.

I was very specific. The bet was about who had caved in by asking for the postponement.

The McCann's have caved in (so very kindly confirmed for us by Carter Ruck) and asked for the postponement, so under the terms of our bet you have lost.

Now you can use as many weasel words and semantics as you want but the fact is you have welched on the bet.

Which to be honest i fully expected.

____________________
What is certain is that since the start of the investigation there were  incongruent and even contradictory situations concerning the witness statements; the telephone records of calls that were made and received on mobile phones that belonged to the couple and to the group of friends that were on holidays with them; the movements of people right after the disappearance of the little girl was noticed, concerning the state in which the bedroom from where the child disappeared from was found (closed window? open window? partially open window?) etc., and the mystery would only become even thicker due to the clues that were left by the already mentioned sniffer dogs. - The Words of a JUDGE in relation to the McCanns

Me

Posts : 683
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2011-05-22

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Letter 25 Jan 2013 to Carter-Ruck and the Court about THAT proposed settlement with Dr Amaral: is this now an 'Abuse of Process'?

Post by Me on Sat Jan 26, 2013 1:51 pm

ed1976 wrote:The whole problem with your arguments and many posters on here is that it is about specifics.

Me was very specific in his post and the word he used was caving. you want to make things up as you go along.

And yet ironically you fail to practice what you preach.

The specifics were about who caved in caving in asking for a postponement.

You are now seeking to justify your position based on the vagueness of the word "caving in".

So i'd argue it is you who appears to have the problem with specifics.

____________________
What is certain is that since the start of the investigation there were  incongruent and even contradictory situations concerning the witness statements; the telephone records of calls that were made and received on mobile phones that belonged to the couple and to the group of friends that were on holidays with them; the movements of people right after the disappearance of the little girl was noticed, concerning the state in which the bedroom from where the child disappeared from was found (closed window? open window? partially open window?) etc., and the mystery would only become even thicker due to the clues that were left by the already mentioned sniffer dogs. - The Words of a JUDGE in relation to the McCanns

Me

Posts : 683
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2011-05-22

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Letter 25 Jan 2013 to Carter-Ruck and the Court about THAT proposed settlement with Dr Amaral: is this now an 'Abuse of Process'?

Post by monkey mind on Sat Jan 26, 2013 1:57 pm

To fully appreciate the aptness of the lyrics one should crank up the volume.

big grin dance

All together now........

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y_PZPpWTRTU

monkey mind

Posts : 616
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2011-12-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Letter 25 Jan 2013 to Carter-Ruck and the Court about THAT proposed settlement with Dr Amaral: is this now an 'Abuse of Process'?

Post by Eddie on Sat Jan 26, 2013 2:13 pm

@Me wrote:
ed1976 wrote:
The whole problem with your arguments and many posters on here is that it is about specifics.

Me was very specific in his post and the word he used was caving. you want to make things up as you go along.

I was very specific. The bet was about who had caved in by asking for the postponement.

The McCann's have caved in (so very kindly confirmed for us by Carter Ruck) and asked for the postponement, so under the terms of our bet you have lost.

Now you can use as many weasel words and semantics as you want but the fact is you have welched on the bet.

Which to be honest i fully expected.

havent got much time at the moment

A bet is like a contract. The word used was caving

To me that me to collapse completely

what does it mean to you

There is no sign that the MCS have caved in

____________________


Eddie

Posts : 107
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-01-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Letter 25 Jan 2013 to Carter-Ruck and the Court about THAT proposed settlement with Dr Amaral: is this now an 'Abuse of Process'?

Post by Guest on Sat Jan 26, 2013 2:38 pm

OK that's it. I am reposting the exchange between you and 'Me'. Notice in the first sentence Me says who has conceded. He then goes on to use a slang term, which you are using as an excuse, however the post definitely says who has conceded. Now we now it is fact from CR that the McCanns have approached Mr Amaral, and not the other way around.

PLEASE leave it now, everyone here and reading can see who is in the right, and it is not you ed1976.

You have lost your bet, so pay up or shut up!!! I don't want any more posts arguing the same point over and over. Any further posts will be deleted. You cannot say you have not been allowed to be heard.



@Me wrote:
ed1976 wrote:
@Me wrote:
ed1976 wrote:I do not know how the law works in portugal but certainly in the UK the court will encourage both parties to reach a settlement without going to court. Amaral has a new lawyer. If the new lawyer has advised Amaral to reach a settlement then the McCannns may have no choice other than agree to try. They would of course be given the option to continue the action if a settlement isn't reached.

Ok, money where your mouth is time. Do you want to put a wager on as to who has conceded here.

Say £250 to charity from whomever is wrong. I'm going with the Mccann's caving, you're going with Amaral.

You taking the bet?

Yes.

Ok, we have a bet. Winner nominates the charity (note must be a real charity and not a limited liability company purporting to be a charity or fund).

Candy, as a mod here please make a note of this little bet, and we will resureect this post when the truth comes out.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Letter 25 Jan 2013 to Carter-Ruck and the Court about THAT proposed settlement with Dr Amaral: is this now an 'Abuse of Process'?

Post by rainbow-fairy on Sat Jan 26, 2013 2:39 pm

Another thread de-railed.
Mods, please, this is beyond tedious now.
Still, when I saw the thread was 8 pages long I should have guessed shouldn't I?

All the obfuscation, twisting and wriggling like a maggot on a hook won't change facts.

Ed, the McCanns were utterly determined to ruin Amaral IN COURt. So determined in fact it has been one of their main focuses for 4 years (whatever happened to "Nothing is more important to us than finding our little girl" I wonder?) The very day before said court date they withdraw. That IS 'caving in', whichever way you twist it or spin it. Have you heard of a thesaurus Ed? Maybe you should give one a try. They provide, as such is the beauty of the English language, alternative words so you don't need to become echolalic. If you really don't understand that withdrawing from your set course at the eleventh hour IS indeed, caving in, then I suggest maybe KS1 English might prove a challenge for you.

You lost your bet and as another poster said, your credibility - but I can't agree with that as IMO from the moment you dodged posts and twisted others comments (mine and aiyoyo's spring instantly to mind) - you had none to lose anyway!

____________________
"Ask the dogs, Sandra" - Gerry McCann to Sandra Felgueiras



Truth is artless and innocent - like the eloquence of nature, it is clothed with simplicity and easy persuasion; always open to investigation and analysis, it seeks exposure because it fears not detection.

NORMAN MACDONALD, Maxims and Moral Reflections.

rainbow-fairy

Posts : 1971
Reputation : 11
Join date : 2011-05-26
Age : 42
Location : going round in circles

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Letter 25 Jan 2013 to Carter-Ruck and the Court about THAT proposed settlement with Dr Amaral: is this now an 'Abuse of Process'?

Post by Guest on Sat Jan 26, 2013 2:42 pm

@rainbow-fairy wrote:Another thread de-railed.
Mods, please, this is beyond tedious now.
Still, when I saw the thread was 8 pages long I should have guessed shouldn't I?

All the obfuscation, twisting and wriggling like a maggot on a hook won't change facts.

Ed, the McCanns were utterly determined to ruin Amaral IN COURt. So determined in fact it has been one of their main focuses for 4 years (whatever happened to "Nothing is more important to us than finding our little girl" I wonder?) The very day before said court date they withdraw. That IS 'caving in', whichever way you twist it or spin it. Have you heard of a thesaurus Ed? Maybe you should give one a try. They provide, as such is the beauty of the English language, alternative words so you don't need to become echolalic. If you really don't understand that withdrawing from your set course at the eleventh hour IS indeed, caving in, then I suggest maybe KS1 English might prove a challenge for you.

You lost your bet and as another poster said, your credibility - but I can't agree with that as IMO from the moment you dodged posts and twisted others comments (mine and aiyoyo's spring instantly to mind) - you had none to lose anyway!

ed1976 has been warned in my last post before yours rainbow-fairy. Sometimes it is good to let them have their say, guests looking in will see exactly the tactics being used, and how they try and wriggle out of things before them. They are damaging their own credibility.....keep at it I say

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Letter 25 Jan 2013 to Carter-Ruck and the Court about THAT proposed settlement with Dr Amaral: is this now an 'Abuse of Process'?

Post by rainbow-fairy on Sat Jan 26, 2013 2:54 pm

Apologies Candy I must've been typing and missed your post :)

Not telling you how to do your job (which must drive you insane) just airing frustrations...

____________________
"Ask the dogs, Sandra" - Gerry McCann to Sandra Felgueiras



Truth is artless and innocent - like the eloquence of nature, it is clothed with simplicity and easy persuasion; always open to investigation and analysis, it seeks exposure because it fears not detection.

NORMAN MACDONALD, Maxims and Moral Reflections.

rainbow-fairy

Posts : 1971
Reputation : 11
Join date : 2011-05-26
Age : 42
Location : going round in circles

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Letter 25 Jan 2013 to Carter-Ruck and the Court about THAT proposed settlement with Dr Amaral: is this now an 'Abuse of Process'?

Post by Guest on Sat Jan 26, 2013 2:55 pm

@monkey mind wrote:To fully appreciate the aptness of the lyrics one should crank up the volume.



All together now........

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y_PZPpWTRTU

I think we've heard enough from the horse's mouth now - time for Mr Ed to be put out to pasture!

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Letter 25 Jan 2013 to Carter-Ruck and the Court about THAT proposed settlement with Dr Amaral: is this now an 'Abuse of Process'?

Post by aiyoyo on Sat Jan 26, 2013 3:01 pm

ed1976 wrote:
candyfloss wrote:ed1976, I am getting rather annoyed now, so if I were you I would give it a rest. You are talking nonsense. If the McCanns wanted to impose anything then all they had to do is go ahead with the trial, win, go past go, collect 1.2million, and impose anything they wanted as winners.........doh!!

Quote from letter by TB on first page of this thread.



“…I understand that the trial, which had been due to take place in January 2013, has been postponed at the request of the Claimants’ lawyer, to allow the parties to explore whether a settlement may be reached which gives the Claimants sufficient vindication and protection in the future”.

Which part of the sentence in red do you not understand? The McCanns will be asking for conditions from Amaral as part of the settlement.

Well, ednumbered, let's put it this way -
they may wish to try (have no doubt about that) but will be told to go fly kite (so to speak).

They are in no position to ask for anything let alone vindication because you conveniently forget they are the aggressors not victims.

aiyoyo

Posts : 9611
Reputation : 318
Join date : 2009-11-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Letter 25 Jan 2013 to Carter-Ruck and the Court about THAT proposed settlement with Dr Amaral: is this now an 'Abuse of Process'?

Post by Guest on Sat Jan 26, 2013 3:02 pm

Summary so far.........

ed1976 believes in Father Christmas, tooth fairy and the world is flat, and will not be swayed.........oh and the phrase 'caved in' does not mean conceded.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Letter 25 Jan 2013 to Carter-Ruck and the Court about THAT proposed settlement with Dr Amaral: is this now an 'Abuse of Process'?

Post by marxman on Sat Jan 26, 2013 3:14 pm

candyfloss wrote:Summary so far.........

ed1976 believes in Father Christmas, tooth fairy and the world is flat, and will not be swayed.........oh and the phrase 'caved in' does not mean conceded.



Maybe to a caveman 'caved in' just means living in a cave?

marxman

Posts : 81
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2012-07-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Letter 25 Jan 2013 to Carter-Ruck and the Court about THAT proposed settlement with Dr Amaral: is this now an 'Abuse of Process'?

Post by rainbow-fairy on Sat Jan 26, 2013 3:58 pm

candyfloss wrote:
@rainbow-fairy wrote:Another thread de-railed.
Mods, please, this is beyond tedious now.
Still, when I saw the thread was 8 pages long I should have guessed shouldn't I?

All the obfuscation, twisting and wriggling like a maggot on a hook won't change facts.

Ed, the McCanns were utterly determined to ruin Amaral IN COURt. So determined in fact it has been one of their main focuses for 4 years (whatever happened to "Nothing is more important to us than finding our little girl" I wonder?) The very day before said court date they withdraw. That IS 'caving in', whichever way you twist it or spin it. Have you heard of a thesaurus Ed? Maybe you should give one a try. They provide, as such is the beauty of the English language, alternative words so you don't need to become echolalic. If you really don't understand that withdrawing from your set course at the eleventh hour IS indeed, caving in, then I suggest maybe KS1 English might prove a challenge for you.

You lost your bet and as another poster said, your credibility - but I can't agree with that as IMO from the moment you dodged posts and twisted others comments (mine and aiyoyo's spring instantly to mind) - you had none to lose anyway!

ed1976 has been warned in my last post before yours rainbow-fairy. Sometimes it is good to let them have their say, guests looking in will see exactly the tactics being used, and how they try and wriggle out of things before them. They are damaging their own credibility.....keep at it I say
I appreciate and understand your reasoning. My concern is the amount of times you yourself has personally warned ed1976, to no avail. Its like they are giving you the metaphorical middle finger and I don't like to see it. I'm sure guests contemplating joining us don't either (unless they have the same agenda of course). 'Ange' put it very well on the other thread too.

I don't believe ed needs anymore rope to hang him/herself, job was done on about post 5!
Just my opinion though, fwiw..... :)

____________________
"Ask the dogs, Sandra" - Gerry McCann to Sandra Felgueiras



Truth is artless and innocent - like the eloquence of nature, it is clothed with simplicity and easy persuasion; always open to investigation and analysis, it seeks exposure because it fears not detection.

NORMAN MACDONALD, Maxims and Moral Reflections.

rainbow-fairy

Posts : 1971
Reputation : 11
Join date : 2011-05-26
Age : 42
Location : going round in circles

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Letter 25 Jan 2013 to Carter-Ruck and the Court about THAT proposed settlement with Dr Amaral: is this now an 'Abuse of Process'?

Post by russiandoll on Sat Jan 26, 2013 5:15 pm

Having decided due to illness, sudden bereavement [and then reading strange things re Sandyhook which saddened me] not to post here any more and get into heated exchanges with members, I still read avidly and feel that because this thing with ed concerns going back on a bet which meant a charitable donation...
I should post this, ed pay up or shut up.
while neither party has either conceded or caved if you want to be pedantic......

this is the legal situation re seeking a settlement, the defendant is usually the one to decide not to continue to defend a case due for trial,

In civil lawsuits, settlement is an alternative to pursuing litigation
through trial. Typically, it occurs when the defendant agrees to some or
all of the plaintiff's claims and decides not to fight the matter in
court.
Usually, a settlement requires the defendant to pay the plaintiff
some monetary amount. Popularly called settling out of court, a
settlement agreement ends the litigation. Settlement is a popular option
for several reasons, but a large number of cases are settled simply
because defendants want to avoid the high cost of litigation.

Civil lawsuits originate when a claimant decides that another party has
caused him or her injury and files suit. The plaintiff seeks to recover
damages from the defendant. The defendant's attorney will evaluate the
plaintiff's claim. If the plaintiff has a strong case and the attorney
believes defendant is likely to lose, the attorney may recommend that
the defendant settle the case.



Like litigation itself, settlement is a process. Generally, the easiest
time to settle a dispute is before litigation begins, but many
opportunities for settlement present themselves. As litigation advances
toward trial, attorneys for both sides communicate with each other and
with the court and gauge the relative strength of their cases. If either
of the parties believes he is unlikely to prevail, he is likely to
offer a settlement to the other party.


The cost of litigation is only one factor that encourages settlement.
Both plaintiffs and defendants are often motivated to settle for other
reasons. For one thing litigation is frequently unpleasant. The process
of discovery—in which both sides solicit information from each other—can
cause embarrassment because considerable personal and financial
information must be released. Litigation can also have a harmful impact
on the public reputation of the parties


The plaintiff typically agrees to forgo any future litigation against
the defendant, and the defendant agrees to pay the plaintiff some
monetary amount. Additionally, settlements can require the defendant to
change a policy or stop some form of behavior.



please note the facts ed and pay particular attention to what follows from the word typically.
If as is usual the defendant makes the offer to settle, he or she will pay money and maybe agree to stop certain behaviour.
This is an atypical case in that the move was made by the plaintiff.
The only logical inference is that the plaintiffs have decided or been advised that they cannot win their case.
In addition they might well not wish certain information to be divulged in a court.
And almost certainly do not want that information to become public knowledge.

p.s. you must accept based on the above that the McCanns have conceded that they cannot win their case. There is no other reason for them not to pursue it.

____________________



             The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie — deliberate,
contrived and dishonest — but the myth — persistent, persuasive and
unrealistic.
~John F. Kennedy


russiandoll

Posts : 3942
Reputation : 7
Join date : 2011-09-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Letter 25 Jan 2013 to Carter-Ruck and the Court about THAT proposed settlement with Dr Amaral: is this now an 'Abuse of Process'?

Post by PeterMac on Sat Jan 26, 2013 5:18 pm

B O R I N G

(Sorry russiandoll, didn't mean you !)

____________________


PeterMac
Researcher

Posts : 10170
Reputation : 143
Join date : 2010-12-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Letter 25 Jan 2013 to Carter-Ruck and the Court about THAT proposed settlement with Dr Amaral: is this now an 'Abuse of Process'?

Post by Woofer on Sat Jan 26, 2013 5:44 pm

Maybe to you Peter !

or is it you`re bored with the divvi?

Woofer

Posts : 3390
Reputation : 12
Join date : 2012-02-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Letter 25 Jan 2013 to Carter-Ruck and the Court about THAT proposed settlement with Dr Amaral: is this now an 'Abuse of Process'?

Post by russiandoll on Sat Jan 26, 2013 5:48 pm

Thank you Peter Mac and you have reminded me that I need to say sorry to a few members here including your good self. I am sincerely sorry if in the heat of the moment when I did what you lot call a flounce [ very Scarlett O 'Hara and not my style!] I caused offence. I also have MS and can be a real f*****g tosser when the going gets tough.

What I should have said is that I was going through a very tough time physically and emotionally and needed to distance myself as I was getting easily wound up [again not my style, honest guvnor] at reading about some Sandyhook parents' distress not being genuine. I thought it gave ammunition to those who say our stance re the Maddie affair does not come from a good place.
For what it's worth we are imo in interesting times. Please ignore ed now.....no amount of can alter these simple FACTS.

1. Goncalo Amaral has NOT backed down from his position that the McCanns are NOT telling the truth.
2. The McCanns have decided NOT to pursue their claim in court that he has libelled them by stating the above.

GO FIGURE !

____________________



             The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie — deliberate,
contrived and dishonest — but the myth — persistent, persuasive and
unrealistic.
~John F. Kennedy


russiandoll

Posts : 3942
Reputation : 7
Join date : 2011-09-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Letter 25 Jan 2013 to Carter-Ruck and the Court about THAT proposed settlement with Dr Amaral: is this now an 'Abuse of Process'?

Post by bobbin on Sat Jan 26, 2013 5:48 pm

@PeterMac wrote:B O R I N G

(Sorry russiandoll, didn't mean you !)

I'm sure russiandoll didn't think that otherwise very apt remark was for her, PeterMac.
Her post was very clear and and succinct.

To russiandoll, I'm sorry you've had a bad time and am glad that you still take an interest in the real pursuit to find out what happened to Madeleine, and where she might now be.

bobbin

Posts : 2030
Reputation : 119
Join date : 2011-12-05

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Letter 25 Jan 2013 to Carter-Ruck and the Court about THAT proposed settlement with Dr Amaral: is this now an 'Abuse of Process'?

Post by Guest on Sat Jan 26, 2013 5:57 pm

I'm also glad to "see" you back, Russiandoll.

Please never call yourself an effing tosser - you don't deserve it I'm sure, unlike the person who put it in her famous work of fiction which she claims to have written for the benefit of her twins!

I'm wondering if our talking horse was previously here in the shape of a frayed feline - the refusal to shut up and move on is just the same.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Letter 25 Jan 2013 to Carter-Ruck and the Court about THAT proposed settlement with Dr Amaral: is this now an 'Abuse of Process'?

Post by Woofer on Sat Jan 26, 2013 5:58 pm

Russian Doll - glad you`re still around - I miss your contributions.

____________________
The constant assertion of belief is an indication of fear - Jiddu Krishnamurti

Woofer

Posts : 3390
Reputation : 12
Join date : 2012-02-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Letter 25 Jan 2013 to Carter-Ruck and the Court about THAT proposed settlement with Dr Amaral: is this now an 'Abuse of Process'?

Post by russiandoll on Sat Jan 26, 2013 6:00 pm

Thanks for your kind words bobbin. Since reading the book of the *cough* truth then taking up the files again my interest has only increased. As has my wish for justice for this little girl. [ I wish I could do a PhD thesis on a McCann related topic!]

____________________



             The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie — deliberate,
contrived and dishonest — but the myth — persistent, persuasive and
unrealistic.
~John F. Kennedy


russiandoll

Posts : 3942
Reputation : 7
Join date : 2011-09-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Letter 25 Jan 2013 to Carter-Ruck and the Court about THAT proposed settlement with Dr Amaral: is this now an 'Abuse of Process'?

Post by Eddie on Sat Jan 26, 2013 6:02 pm

@russiandoll wrote:Thank you Peter Mac and you have reminded me that I need to say sorry to a few members here including your good self. I am sincerely sorry if in the heat of the moment when I did what you lot call a flounce [ very Scarlett O 'Hara and not my style!] I caused offence. I also have MS and can be a real f*****g tosser when the going gets tough.

What I should have said is that I was going through a very tough time physically and emotionally and needed to distance myself as I was getting easily wound up [again not my style, honest guvnor] at reading about some Sandyhook parents' distress not being genuine. I thought it gave ammunition to those who say our stance re the Maddie affair does not come from a good place.
For what it's worth we are imo in interesting times. Please ignore ed now.....no amount of can alter these simple FACTS.

1. Goncalo Amaral has NOT backed down from his position that the McCanns are NOT telling the truth.
2. The McCanns have decided NOT to pursue their claim in court that he has libelled them by stating the above.

GO FIGURE !

The statement in red is incorrect. The McCanns reserve the right to continue with the court case if Amaral does not meet their demands.

the McCanns have not caved in.

I actually thought I was dealing with people who could actually read a sentence and understand what it means. Plainly I am not. It is impossible to have an intelligent conversation with someone who is not intelligent. It is no wonder that the vast majority on this forum have got most of the facts of this case back to front, led by TB who has been so stupid he will shortly be losing what little he has left once he has settled with Smethurst. Poor , deluded fools.

____________________


Eddie

Posts : 107
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-01-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Letter 25 Jan 2013 to Carter-Ruck and the Court about THAT proposed settlement with Dr Amaral: is this now an 'Abuse of Process'?

Post by bobbin on Sat Jan 26, 2013 6:05 pm

@russiandoll wrote:Thanks for your kind words bobbin. Since reading the book of the *cough* truth then taking up the files again my interest has only increased. As has my wish for justice for this little girl. [ I wish I could do a PhD thesis on a McCann related topic!]

I think we'd all get a grade A +++, by the way we work together, if such an exam existed.
But what is the point of a PhD if it isn't to be useful ?
Well, I think the time is coming where our individual and corporate contributions will pay off and Madeleine will have the 'honour of justice' that she so sadly deserves.

bobbin

Posts : 2030
Reputation : 119
Join date : 2011-12-05

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Page 4 of 17 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 10 ... 17  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum