EXCLUSIVE: Madeleine McCann’s parents will finally find out on Tuesday if they have won 14-YEAR libel battle against cop who suggested they were to blame for the girl’s disappearance

Thanks, I missed the Times article - I think. Here is the online version in all it's glory..

Madeleine McCann’s parents lose latest court case against Portuguese detective

Jonathan Ames, Legal Editor
Tuesday September 20 2022, 11.20am, The Times



Kate and Gerry McCann have lost the latest stage of their legal battle against a retired Portuguese detective who had claimed they were involved in their daughter’s disappearance.

Goncalo Amaral alleged that the parents were responsible for what happened to Madeleine McCann, who was three when she was discovered missing from a holiday apartment in Praia da Luz in 2007.

The former police officer made the claims in a book, television documentary and newspaper interview, prompting the McCanns to sue him for libel.



They initially won that claim but the ruling was ultimately overturned by a higher court in Portugal.

Lawyers for the parents then brought a claim in the European Court of Human Rights, arguing that the Portuguese authorities had breached their right to respect for a private and family life in th

e way that the courts dealt with their libel claims against Amaral.

However, judges in Strasbourg ruled today that the local authorities had given the parents a fair hearing in their libel battle against Amaral.

In 2007 the parents were named as possible suspects but Amaral was soon after sacked as head of the local police. He then wrote a book, The Truth of the Lie, in which he claimed Madeleine had died in an accident and the couple had covered it up.

In its judgment today the court ruled that even if the parents’ reputation had been damaged by the Portuguese libel proceedings, that damage “was not on account of the argument put forward by the book’s author but rather as a result of the suspicions expressed against them, which had led to their being placed under investigation in the course of the criminal investigation”.


Madeleine was abducted from her bed while on holiday with her parents
PA

The court ruled, therefore, that “the information had thus been brought to the public’s attention in some detail even before the investigation file was made available to the media and the book in question was published. It followed that the national authorities had not failed in their positive obligation to protect the applicants’ right to respect for their private life”.

The McCanns now have three months to appeal against the decision.

Two years ago German police named Christian Brueckner, a convicted paedophile, as a suspect in the case. Investigators said that Brueckner was thought to have been in the Algarve resort where Madeleine was abducted from her bed and that he allegedly discussed her disappearance in an internet chatroom.

In May German officials denied a parole application for Brueckner, who is serving a sentence for the rape of a 72-year-old American tourist on the Algarve. Officials ruled that there was a risk that he could commit further crimes.

The announcement came 15 years after Madeleine’s disappearance and coincided with her parents publicly reiterating that it was essential they find out the truth.

The McCanns marked the anniversary with a quote from A A Milne’s Winnie the Pooh series: “The most important thing is, even if we’re apart, I’ll always be with you.”

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/madeleine-mccanns-parents-lose-latest-court-case-against-portuguese-detective-w3thxrfdr


The court noted that the Portuguese prosecutor’s office had ultimately decided to take no further action but that regardless the case “had led to intense media attention and much controversy”.

I truly wish the journalists would do their homework before reporting on any subject - either that or .

Clearly the information came from a press release issued by the ECHR on Tuesday 20th September 2022 and as to be expected, the respective journalists put their own slant on the story. Thus leaving out the important bits whilst embellishing the deliberate (?) misunderstandings.

The conclusion of the public notice issued by Messrs Gerry and Kate McCann is interesting..

We hope that with, the help of the public, hard work and diligence we can eventually find those responsible for Madeleine’s disappearance and bring them to justice.
Kate and Gerry McCann

What .... no abduction?

of course no abduction, it happened differently, they know, they were there.

Verdi wrote:The conclusion of the public notice issued by Messrs Gerry and Kate McCann is interesting..

We hope that with, the help of the public, hard work and diligence we can eventually find those responsible for Madeleine’s disappearance and bring them to justice.
Kate and Gerry McCann

What .... no abduction?

So it's only " hope " they have , not trust or believe ?

 " with the help of the public " , the fund is running low give us more money !
 " hard work and diligence " ? Who is going to do this , we've yet to see you two getting your hands dirty ? 
 " eventually find " , so not soon or quickly then ?

 " those responsible for Madeleines disappearance " , are those the same ones who caused you to shout " they've taken her " ? Which ones are they out of all the efits on the website , have you decided yet ? 

Madeleine deserves justice , so what are you going to do about it you've got time on your hands now you've lost against Portugal ? 

Can't say I'm holding my breath , maybe " a source close to the family " can tell us .

I wonder what Peter Hyatt would make of this part of their statement… ‘The focus is now rightly on the search for Madeleine and her abductor(s).’

Why would the focus be on Maddie NOW?
Shouldn’t that have RIGHTLY been their primary concern for the past 15 years?

Poor wee lassie.

"We hope that with, the help of the public, hard work and diligence we can eventually find those responsible for Madeleine’s disappearance and bring them to justice."

Which interpreted means

We hope, that with the help of the compliant Media, to whom we paid vast amounts of money, and with the help of armies of acolytes and apologists, who will continue their hard work and diligence to ensure that the facts are never analysed properly, that the nonsense story about Abduction and Paed****** can be extended indefinitely, and that anyone responsible for saying anything else is brought to a mis-carriage of Justice.

Keelafreeze wrote:I wonder what Peter Hyatt would make of this part of their statement…  ‘The focus is now rightly on the search for Madeleine and her abductor(s).’

Why would the focus be on Maddie NOW?
Shouldn’t that have RIGHTLY been their primary concern for the past 15 years?

Poor wee lassie.

onboard the good ship CMOMM Keelafreeze

I think team McCann are trying to imply that nasty Portuguese man who did his upmost to solve the case of their missing daughter, little Madeleine, has used up all their valuable time needlessly taking him, Snr Amaral, through every court of law in the land that would allow them through the door.

Since the beginning of May 2007 there has never been any indication to suggest team McCann ever searched for Madeleine.  They talk glibly about 'their own investigation' - what are they talking about?  Investigate what exactly?

If they mean hiring dodgy private dicks to pervert the course of justice then it has to be admitted - top marks!  Team McCann have never 'searched', they have never 'investigated' anything, their only objective was to protect themselves, thus built a bastion of high profile support to build an impenetrable firewall.

10/10!

https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t16909-the-mccanns-private-detectives#422506

They are so annoyingly transparent but I guess that matters not when cosseted by the establishment.

Weekend repeat..

The McCanns Did Not Physically Search for Madeleine

Gerry went to SLEEP.  Kate told the world, so it must be true.

She should know - she was there .

that being there or being not there has quite a lifespan in this story.

so the uk police still believe they have an alibi, because they were not in 5a. but that becomes silly when we look at the charges. being faking an abduction and getting rid of the body. 

even only the thursday evening has enough time to spend to do just that. even without others in the know. 
gerry's long sanitation check just after 9.00 hours. there is no way to establish the exact time he was gone. not from his own statements or that of others. 

also after the missus had set the alarm sometime around 22.00 hours, the same no exact timing possible, only the mccann's did access 5a. jane was in 5d by her version, diane was left in the restaurant, all others started to search the surroundings for a first short stint. 

both left at first light by kate mccann her version, and have been only seen when they got back around 7.00 hours. 

any time before that evening and 20.30 hours make a lot more possible. so i do not get how experienced police officers get that into an alibi, because they have been at times that evening at the tapas. but when you promote the idea of a burglary gone wrong, that third party has so little time to do that, why the idea the mccann's could not have used the same amounts of time to do the same?

 there was in reality not even proof of a faked abduction, no one ever saw the open shutters and windows, no traces of a third party getting access to 5a, or any actions that could have been taken to abduct a child. 
even the timelines did not give enough time to abduct a child versus the state of 5a. 

and when kate mccann tells us, it happened differently, she knows, because she was there, that was a major brain leak. it was a point blanc deep emotional driven answer, and i still think that was a true answer. 

all in all the portuguese police never could clear them as suspects in the case of the missing child madeleine mccann. the portuguese police could simply not prove what they did, or did not. it is just still an open question. not proven does not mean innocent. you would expect people with a university degree could understand the wording as it was given by the portuguese supreme court, but they did pay for that answer, the echr itself is free, the lawyers you need are not. 

the idea they ever had been cleared and because of that must be innocent, is just a mccann mindfuck, and i can understand the uk has taken restrictions in what the press and media can do with alternative views, but i can not understand it when outside the uk the reporting about the innocent dream and not existing clearing of the mccanns, what was an integral part of the verdict to decide about by the echr, and that verdict told the mccanns that was a wrong understanding, still got to be used in a story about that verdict. 

and i never got the idea, the mccann's are innocent could fit in an alternative view, it is sold as the only view. not in the sense we did and could not hear or read about their version of the truth. they used their voice, and that of their family and acolytes very well. and it was what got the uk press and media voiced already extremely well at the time that amaral his book got out. 

but yeah, telling they started a row of court cases, because they were mad as hell, and had the idea to being able to kill the messenger would not bring in the money to do that. and maybe they are still mad because they never got a go fund me page up and running. 

so now they still have the free ride because the fund will have to pay the outstanding court costs and their lawyers fees, with the not surprising result there is no money left to start their version of searching. so their non understanding of the juridical processes is exactly what will be hindering that version of searching they like more. the fund funded by the same press and media, they are always very welcome to tell their version.

it was actually an extremely well investment , these press and media releases against the mccann version, the story is still the best cash cow in the field, so press and media would not mind which side they have to take on board, it still pays out. the mccann's could also easily find the money, they have as mastermind behind their version of their truth always the movie rights in the pocket. there must be at least one very good script writer out there that can make sense of their version. all you need is the by line; based on the true story of the mccann's.

I haven’t read every part of the pj files, but am I wrong in thinking that
1) tapas kitchen staff member (back of house) claims the only one of the tapas 9 still at the table between 9.30-9.40pm was the older woman - Diane Webster.
2) tapas bar staff (front of house) claims the only one of the tapas 9 still at the table at 9.30pm was the older woman  - Diane Webster.

If so, and apologies if wrong, then Kate could neither have left for her check when she says nor come running back shouting at 10pm.

no, you are right, there are so much times around, it is impossible to get to a set timing. so it is hard to go around the old and trusted way to use the nearest hour as an indication. 

people could have been mistaken, watches and clocks could be off time, people tell porkies, so it is not uncommon to work with a larger margin around named times at all. 

letting the spokesperson of choice to tell they had no devices with timings, like watches, was plain stupid, when daddy mccann told in his statement how he told the missus it was time to check the children with an exact number of minutes. 

the tapas 9 had their conference about the timelines, multiples even, so it is just guessing what is real about times and the timeline and what is not. and it showed their amateur status, because they have forgotten to leave a nice chunk of time to let the fake abductor doing its job. 

there are more statements about earlier happenings. the strangest is the statement from the carpenters, he told his wife had heard calling out something like maddie, but they left the tapas around 9.30 and did not been there when kate set the alarm. 

many people have tried to work out all the traffic of the tapas 9 that evening and i did also and it is impossible to get into an acceptable story. 
and there are also statements, with a time in it, that tell about nothing happening on times something has to be happening per tapas 9. 

so that reconstruction that was planned could have told how the things had or not had been happening that evening. extremely useful even when you want to give a third party the role of mister bad guy. 

the people who tell about an earlier alarm, are also the people who had to work that evening, and from personal experience i am used that, you look more and more on a clock or your watch at the end of your shifts. these people usually have still to do some clean up work before they can go home. it never became really clear if the tapas 9 minus jane were the only guests left, or that there have still been people at the bar, people on holiday in southern countries 22.00 hours would be quite early for all to have left already from the bar. none came forward. 

well we all have seen what happened when the mccanns got into doing their own version of a reconstitution. gerry blew a hole in it. all other reconstructions with the timeline all had silly doors and missing parts. and of course all missed the whoosh of the curtains. even the drama department of the bbc productions could not fake that. 

so how could proven pretty intelligent people can not understand, that the portuguese police could not clear them based on all their own versions of the truth. and we have only the written versions, these police officers had also the full experience, from behavior and reactions on everything. 

and if we want to believe them, about times, it also means that they do not have both a full alibi for that evening and the night following that. when a burglar only needs 2 minutes to step into the role of abductor, why could one or two parents not do the same actions in 5, or even 10 minutes. they had that time that evening. so it would be silly to call it a alibi.

But isn't that point at the core of the problem faced since the beginning - the total absence of reliable witnesses?

In fairness, the Ocean Club staff wouldn't have been clock watching as regards the minute by minute movement of guests, they weren't anticipating being questioned as witnesses when they turned up for work on Thursday 3rd May 2007.  If you ask me tomorrow what time I went to bed, never would I be able to give an accurate time unless for some reason the time was relevant - even then my recollection could be considered unreliable.

I believe the important factor to be the difference in timing between Kate McCann's alert and the time the police were called.  Witness statements can only be a guide to events requiring supportive evidence to move an investigation forward, to get an idea of time scale.

that is always the case with bystander witnesses, because you ask questions about moments who could be meaningless for them as a person. people usually needs a connection or a stressmoment to set it against a moment in time and remember that. 

still half an hour of differences in more statements in a group of equals like the workers in the restaurant forms a conflict. 

and as is indeed often in this case, because they did not have to pay after their dinner, there is also not a time registered on the checkout. a lingering party could be such a stressmoment. end of your shift is near, you want to go home, so usually it will be common to think and tell your co-workers, are they still there. and for most people that would be natural moments to look at a clock or watch, or the till to see the time. there could not have been much going about to keep their minds of the time. 

time devices are often not fully correct, so differences of about a 10 tot even 15 minutes could be possible. 
but in this case 21.30 hours against well after 10 is a lot. if it was just one statement, it could just be a mistaken witness, 2 of more and you want to know more of it. but outside the tapas 9 group, there are more statements and stories out that could make the earlier time more likely. the carpenters, the lady that told the creche workers a girl was missing. also one of the other restaurants had a perception it happened earlier that evening. the chef who only got in and out of the tapas. 

but is was quite busy that night on that street, the moyes hanging on their balcony had walked back to their apartment in block 5, the couple of the maintenance man who traveled that street, the carpenters. and jez wilkins. and another couple that left from another block. totman is missing with a statement, but must have been around, if he was tannerman, or just the outline for the tannerman we do not can be sure about. 

and no one did see anyone of the tapas 9 out and about, and they all had traveled this streets twice every time the told they did go out to check. 

there is no back up to the timeline concocted by the tapas 9, not in paperwork, not in statements.  and it is their very own timeline that made third party involvement extremely unlikely, and the burglar, who left a empty room without looking and taking things of his liking and would end up looking in bedrooms, that could have people in them, that is not how 5a looked at all. burglars do not clear a house first, they just get what they want on the go, they know the can be discovered at any time. so that burglary gone wrong is still extremely silly as a working theory. 

making a timeline, during all running on about, is there really another reason to think , why had these 9 people the idea they needed an alibi. it was a very unusual thing to do. usual is, to write down your own times as careful as possible about your actions to be asked by a police officer. and that is not asked because they think you have done something, but you need to get a timeline to know where the time could have been for a third party to act in. even if the child disappear by her own actions, you want to know how long she has been gone. you need to set the boundary for the search area, that gives also the number of people you need to search.

all this, the mccanns translated from the start as they think we did it. and it could have been they have been very right in that. suspects usually know, you know they did something that was out of order. still it does not matter what those officers think, your protocol is so deeply imprinted in your brains, you go for all and every possible kind of actions in every case. 

and even it is well known through instructions that parents and/or carers are the most common predators of the children in their care, it is extremely hard to not want to think parents would not to that to their very own child. so parents and carers usually get far more credit than logic implies. 

and in principle there is nothing wrong with the jim gamble approach, as in first start off with clearing parents and or carers, but in the majority of cases you can not clear them because they are the perps. and when they start off with lies and porkies, how could you ever clear them, or see them as innocent. 

and i am in line with the first investigation, but there is so little to get something proven as happened, but that is something you get used too, but that does not make them innocent. there is in the world of law not such a thing as innocent in the same meaning as in your day to day life. in law it means nothing more than we could not prove you have been part of a crime. working the law has very little use for a hard no or yes, it has far more margins, but all stands with what you can prove or not. 

and investigations are never about conclusions, conclusions are the privacy of the courts of law, investigations are all about gathering all facts and circumstances and from there finding evidence, but the conclusion of that is not the task of an investigation, that part is for the courts only. the case itself never got that far. 

there are usually routes to ask a verdict about your status in a court of penal law, but it means you risk letting all your dogs out. but they choose the civil courts and had the idea they could pump out nasties on the other party. without getting smeared themselves. well that did not worked well, they could not do that, because a civil court only looks into the exact questions you ask them to look into. and amaral is right justice one this one. 

i still like that first case judge, yes she voiced against amaral, but she made the dogs a legal instrument for eternity. so yeah, the mccanns have been the ones who did leave the dogs in. it was this judge that named them as facts in this case.

"ONEHAND:   still like that first case judge, yes she voiced against amaral, but she made the dogs a legal instrument for eternity. 
so yeah, the mccanns have been the ones who did leave the dogs in. it was this judge that named them as facts in this case."


But what that first judgment also did is to  fix as a 'fact' that Madeleine disappeared from 5A 
on the evening of Thursday 3/5/7 between 9.15pm and 9.50pm

And it is that 'Fact' which has been shown to have less evidence than was at first supposed.
The only testimony for it comes from the McCanns.   
And from NO ONE ELSE

i have not much problem with that, as a fact is would only be seen as by the knowledge of that moment. 

and i still think it is possible to let all of what happened be restricted to that thursday evening. 
the only proof that no one could deny is the not seen by us footage at the airport that the pj had used to establish a child of that description and age was traveling in the company of the mccanns. 

that specific time and date is just from the official investigation. and it can only be used in one single case, the dogs as an instrument did not had any legal standing in portugal. and that can be making a difference in another case in the future. 

but you are true, the only account of a disappearing child is the result of the words of the parents. and that is only be accepted because of the footage from the airport, not in the files, because the pj could never claim ownership and that means you have also no rights to publicize it. so it was accepted a child of the description and age has been arriving in portugal, and the statements of the nannies from the creche was used to make het existence harder. 

we have the same principle duty for witnesses to only tell the truth as portugal, but it looks to be we handle it in a much less dominating way. there is most times no budget and manpower to bring a witness that tells porkies in a statement during an investigation before a court of law, i would not advise to do the same during the court fases of a case. it looks to be the case that portuguese have a difference of opinion in what can be accepted from a witness. looking into their history, i can see were that was coming from. 
so you get a bunch of non portuguese witnesses that did not recognize that, and just did as at home, and only told what they liked to tell, often more or less not so much a true story. 

so when a non portuguese witness was asked a question, the lacked the seriousness that the pj was expected to get. so we end up with a lot of frivolous statements, even with a lot of porkies in it. they did not feel the duty of the witness. 

the tapas 7 could not go beyond the mccann version of the truth, a lot of the workers would already have had the feel, that being honest could flow back on them, and their job. and overal there is always escapism, not their child, not their responsibility , so keep your mouth shut and get out. and there already were a lot of uk boots on the ground, so no one knows how much instruction is given to witnesses. 

gerry mccann was not even 5 minutes in for his first formal statement and got a hard lie out, and it was his missing child, from his accommodation, under his duty of care.

usually to get confirming, the people who have working access to a place, are te easiest to use, but it had been better to get signed statement from all parents with children at the so called high tea. and all parents who had been around the children of that creche. 

more time to execute things, would make it easier to do. but with what is known, i can write up a theory starting from that footage after arrival. or grab one that is already out there. and even an event well before is to defend, because we only have to accept the mccanns word for that girl in pictures is truly madeleine beth mccann. my own opinions do not go that far, but there is very little to prove it can not have been. 

over 90% of all intel in this case is just verbal, the small pieces who are there are easy to replicate forms, absolutely not unique. no checks on the computer files the guest listings have been a print off from. no entry registration anywhere they went. and the millennium was only numbers of guest on the listings, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 check, you can eat, nice dinner. 

but they needed a date and time of the start of the even for an investigation, same like the choice to start from a possible abduction. there was little else to choose from, because need a crime to get it to the criminal investigation fase. otherwise, their hands would be bound to the help task. beyond searching that would not have resulted in any kind of useful competences at all. and it is not uncommon to see the crime type and dates changed when more facts and circumstances decide that is needed. 

and in reality it did changed from possible abduction? to disappearing, because no crime was named when the case was rested. from the witness statements there is nothing to get that in another light. and it could officially already have changed again because of the latest arguido. 

as a fact is does not have any restrictions on the case madeleine mccann, or any other case after it.

onehand wrote: a lot of the workers would already have had the feel, that being honest could flow back on them, and their job. and overal there is always escapism, not their child, not their responsibility , so keep your mouth shut and get out. and there already were a lot of uk boots on the ground, so no one knows how much instruction is given to witnesses.

Am I reading you rightly - are you suggesting Ocean Club staff deliberately lied in their witness testimonies because they felt compromised?

If so I totally disagree, such an implication leads to the widely rumoured theory 'they were all in on it !?!'.

I've had a rummage around the relevant witness statements documented by the PJ investigation, bear in mind here the possibility of errors in translation.

The majority of recorded witnesses specify a timeline of around or between 22:00/22.30H when first alerted.  Much of this was second hand information passed on by colleagues - according to the witnesses themselves.

One Tapas bar worker said he thinks the alarm he was raised between 21:30/22.00H, he also said he remembers one or so members of the group were absent from the table for a while every evening, he didn't know why until he saw a press report the next day which said they were checking on their children.

Go figure ....

ETA: Apologies if I've misunderstood your meaning.

i had be more clear. no people with some distance to a victim who feel compromised do usually not go into telling lies, but in keeping what they think they know just for themselves. so all you get is a meager answer on an exact question, not a witness that is telling how it was in their thinking and or believe, and telling the whole story as it was seen to their eyes. 

and they always will feel already compromised because they would not be treated as equal human beings, but as second class to the holiday guests.  they always would be the minor minions. as a result you will get a natural distancing. usually you would end up with a lot as vague as is possible information. 

you can see the difference for yourself between the statements of the tapas workers and the others who had far less direct contact with the guests. 

and i can understand it, choosing just shut up and leave, look how many have pointed out with; it must have been someone who worked there, know all about 5a, have given keys, or sold keys, and that is the usual thing. 
you do not have to tell these people what happened if they end up to testify before the courts, you get a lawyer telling you, you are just a very wrong lying filthy piece of s...t in 100 more eloquent words. and most would lose their job well before that , because their boss don't like people as you to be honest when it is about a guest. they find something on you.

the reality is this is a bunch of people used to work on the clock. they keep an eye on the guest, a glass can not stay empty for long. but i can understand, that keeping shut up is often better for themselves and their families. and it is not even uncommon a boss instruct you to not speak out. 

most times you can still get the story, but only informally and of the record. you have still to find a way to make use of it, without that person in it. 

i have no negative feelings about people who choose not to speak up officially when they have no direct role in the crime itself, and have need to protect their own private life. it was pretty quickly clear there was no living child at risk. and that is usually what is the great decider, if the locals and workers have had the idea the child was in need and alive, they would have found a way to speak up. most would have seen some mccanns acting out well before these formal statements have been made.

OK fair enough, I agree to disagree.

In reality I can't see how this has any particular relevance anyway.  Established fact, as near as you can get, Kate McCann raised the alarm on the night of 3rd May 2007, timing differs from one witness to another but the fact remains consistent - Kate McCann raised the alarm that her three year old child was missing on the night of 3rd May 2007.

It is not known precisely what questions were asked during the witness interview process, being a routine investigation I venture to suggest questions posed would be set and differ little from one witness to another.  Only as an investigation progresses and develops will specific witnesses become of more interest to the investigation - so on and so forth.

Can I have your full name, DOB and address
Were you working on the night of 3rd May 2007
What time did you arrive for work and what time did you leave
Can you recall the time you first heard a child had gone missing
How did you hear of the missing child
Can you describe the night of 3rd May, did you see or hear anything suspicious
Do you have any information that you think might help our inquiries
Please contact us if you remember anything unusual

Words to that effect.

The witnesses were just that, they were not suspects.

If, as suggested, management leaned on staff before being interviewed by the PJ, it's more likely it would be solely related to the Ocean Club and Warners reputation rather than a covert attempt to influence a witness deposition - to tell a deliberate lie in order to deceive the investigation.

I very much doubt the consensus in early days unanimously agreed on any case detail for the simple reason they wouldn't know how the investigation was progressing, who had been interviewed, why when and where.

The most important anomaly, as I see it, is the absence of any evidence to suggest Madeleine McCann was a living healthy child on or around Thursday 3rd May 2007.  Establish that and see how insignificant a slight discrepancy in timing between one witness and another becomes.  This particular point of interest concerns only when - the exact timing, Kate McCann raised the alarm.  I don't think a matter of minutes between one witness and another signifies anything of note.

Anyone else noticed how suddenly very quiet it has gone.
Gamble 
Clarke
Gurney
Kandohla

gurney was back on twitter, ant the rest of the acolytes also, but most have been missing only short times, sadly. 

the other 3 i expect to find a small hole again to pop up through. now i now how the sound in silence, i must say i do like them better silent. kandohla is most at risk, there is a lot of talk the gym can no longer stay open because of the energy bills. and a lot of tea rooms are also at risk of having to back scaling the opening hours. so that could be a big problem in contacting the source and friends. 

at least clarcke can keep himself warm by burning some unsold books and the already printed papers with the story of the victory of the mccann's. 

jimmy is still alive and kicking, but kept busy with the old wayback machine story on twitter. he has little form lost. 
but he maybe would has still all the addresses of nice counseling people like mr. pike, that he met during his actions in portugal, so he must know where to get help if needed.

Anyone else noticed how suddenly very quiet it has gone.
Gamble
Clarke
Gurney
Kandohla

There's a lot going on behind the scenes..


Gamble


Clarke


Gurney


Kandhola

The 'three months to appeal period' is now up. No change to the portal as yet, showing the same as when first announced in September. 

Any appeals to the ECHR after judgement look pretty pointless statistically in any event.