New FREE e-book: What really happened to Madeleine McCann by PeterMac

Yyyeeah, yeah you’re right. It was a very small window of opportunity but they saw it and then *click*!!!!!!
Here Kate makes a clicking sound with her tongue and a simultaneous downward chopping motion with her right hand.

PeterMac wrote:Kevin.
This is the youtube reference
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WaYLHtnEr8I&feature=player_embedded

Portia wrote:

PeterMac wrote:Kevin.
This is the youtube reference
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WaYLHtnEr8I&feature=player_embedded

Now, come on, Kevin dear, things at the office cannot be THAT bad, can they?
O, sorry, come to think of it, they just might; at a place where the clients expect their expensive Pink * * * Silks to lie under oath, they can.

PeterMac wrote:

Portia wrote:

PeterMac wrote:Kevin.
This is the youtube reference
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WaYLHtnEr8I&feature=player_embedded

Now, come on, Kevin dear, things at the office cannot be THAT bad, can they?
O, sorry, come to think of it, they just might; at a place where the clients expect their expensive Pink * * * Silks to lie under oath, they can.

For clarification, and to avoid expensive action - it wasn't the silk.
It was Mrs Matorell / Hudson - a solicitor - who gave evidence on oath about something for which she had no evidence.
And of which she then had to admit she had no evidence, and that she had based her sworn affidavit on uncorroborated hearsay.
And it wasn't a lie, as such, just saying something to the Judge in the High Court which could not be confirmed by anyone.
So not quite a lie, more a try-on. Just to see if it would grow wings and fly
It didn't. And it goes down in the annals as another disgraceful attempt to mislead a Court.

But they got what they wanted in the end. (less a third of a million quid)

Peneda Geres wrote:

PeterMac wrote:

Portia wrote:

PeterMac wrote:Kevin.
This is the youtube reference
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WaYLHtnEr8I&feature=player_embedded

Now, come on, Kevin dear, things at the office cannot be THAT bad, can they?
O, sorry, come to think of it, they just might; at a place where the clients expect their expensive Pink * * * Silks to lie under oath, they can.

For clarification, and to avoid expensive action - it wasn't the silk.
It was Mrs Matorell / Hudson - a solicitor - who gave evidence on oath about something for which she had no evidence.
And of which she then had to admit she had no evidence, and that she had based her sworn affidavit on uncorroborated hearsay.
And it wasn't a lie, as such, just saying something to the Judge in the High Court which could not be confirmed by anyone.
So not quite a lie, more a try-on. Just to see if it would grow wings and fly
It didn't. And it goes down in the annals as another disgraceful attempt to mislead a Court.

But they got what they wanted in the end. (less a third of a million quid)

All judges and senior police are corrupt.

Smokeandmirrors wrote:And they got something else - a few thousand people now knowing that they don't bother to verify "facts" before stepping into a high court. It is now a matter of public record with this and the Smethurst hearing that they charge a fortune for knowing diddly squit about the matters they are representing in court. What a disgrace they are to the profession.

Peneda Geres wrote:

PeterMac wrote:

Portia wrote:

PeterMac wrote:Kevin.
This is the youtube reference
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WaYLHtnEr8I&feature=player_embedded

Now, come on, Kevin dear, things at the office cannot be THAT bad, can they?
O, sorry, come to think of it, they just might; at a place where the clients expect their expensive Pink * * * Silks to lie under oath, they can.

For clarification, and to avoid expensive action - it wasn't the silk.
It was Mrs Matorell / Hudson - a solicitor - who gave evidence on oath about something for which she had no evidence.
And of which she then had to admit she had no evidence, and that she had based her sworn affidavit on uncorroborated hearsay.
And it wasn't a lie, as such, just saying something to the Judge in the High Court which could not be confirmed by anyone.
So not quite a lie, more a try-on. Just to see if it would grow wings and fly
It didn't. And it goes down in the annals as another disgraceful attempt to mislead a Court.

But they got what they wanted in the end. (less a third of a million quid)

All judges and senior police are corrupt.

Châtelaine wrote:I'm pretty sure that Judge T has been instrumental to a suspended sentence and a VERY limited pay-out ....
I'm also quite convinced he'd be delighted to conduct a trial with less "the law is an a**e" restrictions.

Peneda Geres wrote:

PeterMac wrote:

Portia wrote:

PeterMac wrote:Kevin.
This is the youtube reference
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WaYLHtnEr8I&feature=player_embedded

Now, come on, Kevin dear, things at the office cannot be THAT bad, can they?
O, sorry, come to think of it, they just might; at a place where the clients expect their expensive Pink * * * Silks to lie under oath, they can.

For clarification, and to avoid expensive action - it wasn't the silk.
It was Mrs Matorell / Hudson - a solicitor - who gave evidence on oath about something for which she had no evidence.
And of which she then had to admit she had no evidence, and that she had based her sworn affidavit on uncorroborated hearsay.
And it wasn't a lie, as such, just saying something to the Judge in the High Court which could not be confirmed by anyone.
So not quite a lie, more a try-on. Just to see if it would grow wings and fly
It didn't. And it goes down in the annals as another disgraceful attempt to mislead a Court.

But they got what they wanted in the end. (less a third of a million quid)

All judges and senior police are corrupt.

No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:May I suggest that, whenever there's a sycophantic article in the media about the McCanns (more or less every day then) and comments are being allowed, that a link to this e-book is posted.

No doubt in most cases it will be whooshed in record time but there's still a good chance that some people will get to know about it.

pennylane wrote:

No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:May I suggest that, whenever there's a sycophantic article in the media about the McCanns (more or less every day then) and comments are being allowed, that a link to this e-book is posted.

No doubt in most cases it will be whooshed in record time but there's still a good chance that some people will get to know about it.

Brilliant idea!

Châtelaine wrote:I'm pretty sure that Judge T has been instrumental to a suspended sentence and a VERY limited pay-out ....
I'm also quite convinced he'd be delighted to conduct a trial with less "the law is an a**e" restrictions.