Re: Why Operation Grange can only be a whitewash

by notlongnow 04.03.14 16:56

Who is to benefit out of this if it is a whitewash?

SY only have these options

1/ We don't have a clue
2/ we are pretty sure who did it but don't have enough evidence
3/ we know who did it but they are now sadly dead
4/ we know who did it but are going to cover it up.
5/ arrest all those involved

I feel this has snowballed to much to be a whitewash now if it was ever going that way.
MP's and the Mets reputation is at an all time low.
This whitewash would be one to many as tens of thousands are watching what happens.

I for one would never trust the police or bother to vote again.
Sadly for Maddie this has gone a long way past just a missing child.

by **PeterMac** 04.03.14 17:17

IF it was going to be a whitewash, why did they not look the other way over the PMs personal advisor.
But they didn't.
They arrested him and then went into No 10 and went through his / No 10s computer.
And the PM was told, and obviously did not stop it, or slow it down.
That does not prove that DCI Redwood is operating differently, of course, but it may indicate a sense of purpose in the Met.
Not to mention that Cameron does not wish to be involved in anything looking like a coverup

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/mar/04/patrick-rock-arrest-david-cameron-defends-secrecy

No 10 confirmed on Monday evening that Rock had been arrested after being approached by the Daily Mail. A spokesman said: "On the evening of 12 February, Downing Street was first made aware of a potential offence relating to child abuse imagery. It was immediately referred to the National Crime Agency (Ceop).
"The prime minister was immediately informed and kept updated throughout. Patrick Rock was arrested at his home in the early hours of 13 February, a few hours after Downing Street had reported the matter. Subsequently, we arranged for officers to come into No 10 and have access to all IT systems and offices they considered relevant.

by ultimaThule 04.03.14 17:35

I see no evidence of whitewash - far from it, and it seems to me, from observation of this forum and others, that the growing vociferousness of those who prefer to believe the McCanns enjoy some form of immunity from arrest and prosecution is, in itself, indication that the cold light of reality is beginning to dawn over Rothley Towers to the increasing discomfit of its inhabitants.

by Woofer 04.03.14 17:43

PeterMac wrote:IF it was going to be a whitewash, why did they not look the other way over the PMs personal advisor.
But they didn't.
They arrested him and then went into No 10 and went through his / No 10s computer.
And the PM was told, and obviously did not stop it, or slow it down.
That does not prove that DCI Redwood is operating differently, of course, but it may indicate a sense of purpose in the Met.
Not to mention that Cameron does not wish to be involved in anything looking like a coverup

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/mar/04/patrick-rock-arrest-david-cameron-defends-secrecy
No 10 confirmed on Monday evening that Rock had been arrested after being approached by the Daily Mail. A spokesman said: "On the evening of 12 February, Downing Street was first made aware of a potential offence relating to child abuse imagery. It was immediately referred to the National Crime Agency (Ceop).
"The prime minister was immediately informed and kept updated throughout. Patrick Rock was arrested at his home in the early hours of 13 February, a few hours after Downing Street had reported the matter. Subsequently, we arranged for officers to come into No 10 and have access to all IT systems and offices they considered relevant.

But that`s to do with child porn, they wouldn`t dare try to cover that up once the Met had its grip. If it was nothing to do with child porn but say royalty, MI5 (who GA said were involved) would be leagues ahead of the Met.

Not saying it is - just thinking who has more influence than the Met.

by Guest 04.03.14 17:59

I became convinced that the McCs hadn't be careful enough what they wished for, when I saw these picture of May 2013 and a full-blown INVESTIGATION came to light a month later:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2319228/Madeline-McCann-A-tearful-emotional-Gerry-Kate-mark-sixth-anniversary-daughters-disappearance.html

by diatribe 04.03.14 17:59

PeterMac wrote:IF it was going to be a whitewash, why did they not look the other way over the PMs personal advisor.

I don't think the intention of Operation Grange was to be a 'Whitewash,' but as previously stated, more on the lines of a damage limitations evercise. There is a subtle difference and Cameron's intervention did supersede the publication of the PJ files, Mr. Goncala's book, the video etc.

Being an ex police officer, which gives you the advantage of having a better insight into the workings of a policeman's mind than I, I do appreciate your views on this matter. However, no matter how sincere Inspector Redwood's intentions might be, I think you will appreciate this may conceivably be a case of him being asked to accomplish the equivalent of swimming the channel whilst being constrained with leaden weights attached to his torso. big grin

by Mirage 04.03.14 18:03

diatribe wrote:
PeterMac wrote:IF it was going to be a whitewash, why did they not look the other way over the PMs personal advisor.

I don't think the intention of Operation Grange was to be a 'Whitewash,' but as previously stated, more on the lines of a damage limitations evercise. There is a subtle difference and Cameron's intervention did supersede the publication of the PJ files, Mr. Goncala's book, the video etc.

Being an ex police officer, which gives you the advantage of being able to have a better insight into the workings of a policeman's mind than I, I do appreciate your views on this matter. However, no matter how sincere Inspector Redwood's intentions might be, I think you will appreciate this may conceivably be a case of him being asked to accomplish the equivalent of swimming the channel whilst being constrained with leaden weights attached to his torso.

And a too thinly applied layer of goose fat. big grin

by ultimaThule 04.03.14 18:29

diatribe wrote:
ultimaThule wrote:, The Court of Appeal can now quash an acquittal and order a retrial when "new and compelling" evidence is produced and, more particularly, since this also applies to British nationals who are tried and acquitted of serious crimes abroad.

''Where an acquittal has taken place abroad, the new legislation allows a retrial for an offence which is equivalent to a qualifying offence in this country, even though the offence may be differently described in the law of that other country (section 75(4) and (5)). In such cases whilst it is not possible for the British courts to set aside a foreign acquittal, the prosecutor may apply to the Court of Appeal for a determination of whether or not the acquittal is a bar to prosecution in this country, and if it does, that the acquittal is not to be a bar (section 76(2)).''

I have asked before and now ask again that you refrain from your practice of quoting extracts from my posts out of context, diatribe.

With regard to my post on Monday 3 March at 4.20pm which can be found on page 12 of this thread, I could have opted to write "as jeanmonroe has said, 'The Court of Appeal can now quash an acquittal and order a retrial when "new and compelling" evidence is produced" as part 10 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 which reforms the law relating to double jeopardy by permitting retrials in respect of a number of serious offences.'

I could have then gone on to explain that, in the absence of such reforms, the principle arising from common law of autrefois acquit and autrefois convict provide a bar to a trial in respect of the same offence of a person who has previously been either acquitted or convicted of that offence and that, following an acquittal or a conviction, the courts may consider it an abuse of process for additional charges to be brought for different offences arsing from the same behaviour or facts.

Had I been minded to do so I could have then drawn attention to the fact that the reforms amend the law in relation to re-investigation of those persons acquitted of serious offences in these circumstances by enabling the prosecuting authorities, having first obtained the consent of the DPP, to apply to the Court of Appeal for a Section 77 Order which is either:

1. an order by the Court of Appeal under section 77(1) quashing the acquittal and directing that a retrial shall be held; or

2. in the case of foreign acquittals, under section 77(3) an order which determines that the foreign acquittal is a bar and orders that it shall be or shall not be a bar; or

3. an order declaring that the foreign acquittal is not a bar to a trial under section 77(4)

and that where the Court of Appeal quashes an acquittal, a new indictment for the same offence may then be preferred by the prosecuting authorities and a retrial will follow which will take account of all the evidence available in the case.

I may have then sought to assure those who have cause to fear these reforms that the measures provide safeguards aimed at preventing the possible harassment of acquitted persons in cases where there is no genuinely new evidence, by requiring the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions to both the re-opening of investigations and to the making of an application to the Court of Appeal and that, prior to giving consent, the DPP will take into account both the strength of the evidence and the public interest in determining whether a re-investigation or application to the Court is appropriate.

As you have previously stated that your somewhat limited understanding of the law was gained when you were a defendant in criminal proceedings, regardless of whether you were found guilty or not guilty, I could have opted to provide further assurance for those such as yourself that these procedures apply only in respect of serious offences and are listed in Part 10 schedule 5 of the 2003 CJ Act.

Instead, by way of a lighthearted response to a post by jeanmonroe, which can also be found on p.12 of this thread, I elected to write the markedly less wordy:

I am sometimes given to wonder whether K&G regret accepting Rebekah's offer of a helping hand in their ~~unconvincing~~ quest for the UK police to review the case, canada12, but no doubt they are ecstatic that NSY is pulling out all the stops and, unasked ~~when all it would have taken is the price of a stamp~~, the PJ have re-opened their shelved investigation in order to 'leave no stone unturned' as the saying goes.

It occurs to me that the McCanns must derive immense comfort from knowing that, as jeanmonroe has said, The Court of Appeal can now quash an acquittal and order a retrial when "new and compelling" evidence is produced and, more particularly, since this also applies to British nationals who are tried and acquitted of serious crimes abroad.

It's to be hoped the grieving parents are able to find some small cause for celebration every day for what is life if there's nothing to look forward to ~~except spending the rest of it behind bars~~? Why Operation Grange can only be a whitewash - Page 8 181154

Why Operation Grange can only be a whitewash - Page 8 181154

in the belief that I am under no compulsion or obligation to provide considered legal opinon on every occasion when posting on this forum and, while writing on this matter, I would ask you to note that it is not my intention to be bullied into doing so by those on whom such opinion is wasted.

by Liz Eagles 04.03.14 19:29

ultimaThule wrote:
diatribe wrote:
ultimaThule wrote:, The Court of Appeal can now quash an acquittal and order a retrial when "new and compelling" evidence is produced and, more particularly, since this also applies to British nationals who are tried and acquitted of serious crimes abroad.

''Where an acquittal has taken place abroad, the new legislation allows a retrial for an offence which is equivalent to a qualifying offence in this country, even though the offence may be differently described in the law of that other country (section 75(4) and (5)). In such cases whilst it is not possible for the British courts to set aside a foreign acquittal, the prosecutor may apply to the Court of Appeal for a determination of whether or not the acquittal is a bar to prosecution in this country, and if it does, that the acquittal is not to be a bar (section 76(2)).''
I have asked before and now ask again that you refrain from your practice of quoting extracts from my posts out of context, diatribe.

With regard to my post on Monday 3 March at 4.20pm which can be found on page 12 of this thread, I could have opted to write "as jeanmonroe has said, 'The Court of Appeal can now quash an acquittal and order a retrial when "new and compelling" evidence is produced" as part 10 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 which reforms the law relating to double jeopardy by permitting retrials in respect of a number of serious offences.'

I could have then gone on to explain that, in the absence of such reforms, the principle arising from common law of autrefois acquit and autrefois convict provide a bar to a trial in respect of the same offence of a person who has previously been either acquitted or convicted of that offence and that, following an acquittal or a conviction, the courts may consider it an abuse of process for additional charges to be brought for different offences arsing from the same behaviour or facts.

Had I been minded to do so I could have then drawn attention to the fact that the reforms amend the law in relation to re-investigation of those persons acquitted of serious offences in these circumstances by enabling the prosecuting authorities, having first obtained the consent of the DPP, to apply to the Court of Appeal for a Section 77 Order which is either:

1. an order by the Court of Appeal under section 77(1) quashing the acquittal and directing that a retrial shall be held; or

2. in the case of foreign acquittals, under section 77(3) an order which determines that the foreign acquittal is a bar and orders that it shall be or shall not be a bar; or

3. an order declaring that the foreign acquittal is not a bar to a trial under section 77(4)

and that where the Court of Appeal quashes an acquittal, a new indictment for the same offence may then be preferred by the prosecuting authorities and a retrial will follow which will take account of all the evidence available in the case.

I may have then sought to assure those who have cause to fear these reforms that the measures provide safeguards aimed at preventing the possible harassment of acquitted persons in cases where there is no genuinely new evidence, by requiring the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions to both the re-opening of investigations and to the making of an application to the Court of Appeal and that, prior to giving consent, the DPP will take into account both the strength of the evidence and the public interest in determining whether a re-investigation or application to the Court is appropriate.

As you have previously stated that your somewhat limited understanding of the law was gained when you were a defendant in criminal proceedings, regardless of whether you were found guilty or not guilty, I could have opted to provide further assurance for those such as yourself that these procedures apply only in respect of serious offences and are listed in Part 10 schedule 5 of the 2003 CJ Act.

Instead, by way of a lighthearted response to a post by jeanmonroe, which can also be found on p.12 of this thread, I elected to write the markedly less wordy:

I am sometimes given to wonder whether K&G regret accepting Rebekah's offer of a helping hand in their ~~unconvincing~~ quest for the UK police to review the case, canada12, but no doubt they are ecstatic that NSY is pulling out all the stops and, unasked ~~when all it would have taken is the price of a stamp~~, the PJ have re-opened their shelved investigation in order to 'leave no stone unturned' as the saying goes.

It occurs to me that the McCanns must derive immense comfort from knowing that, as jeanmonroe has said, The Court of Appeal can now quash an acquittal and order a retrial when "new and compelling" evidence is produced and, more particularly, since this also applies to British nationals who are tried and acquitted of serious crimes abroad.

It's to be hoped the grieving parents are able to find some small cause for celebration every day for what is life if there's nothing to look forward to ~~except spending the rest of it behind bars~~?

in the belief that I am under no compulsion or obligation to provide considered legal opinon on every occasion when posting on this forum and, while writing on this matter, I would ask you to note that it is not my intention to be bullied into doing so by those on whom such opinion is wasted.

Forgive me for being a simpleton who doesn't love the sound of her own prose but I asked you for this information in honesty and now it seems it's only forthcoming when in combat with another member of the forum and it still doesn't make sense because I had sincerely hoped you would explain it.

by diatribe 04.03.14 19:34

ultimaThule wrote:

I have asked before and now ask again that you refrain from your practice of quoting extracts from my posts out of context, diatribe.

I fail to see how I have taken any of your remarks out of context

With regard to my post on Monday 3 March at 4.20pm which can be found on page 12 of this thread, I could have opted to write "as jeanmonroe has said, 'The Court of Appeal can now quash an acquittal and order a retrial when "new and compelling" evidence is produced" as part 10 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 which reforms the law relating to double jeopardy by permitting retrials in respect of a number of serious offences.'

Indeed you could have, but you didn't, instead opting to add the rider,'' since this also applies to British nationals who are tried and acquitted of serious crimes abroad.''which is clearly misleading, hence my inclusion of the relevant part of the act ( section 75(4) and (5)[size=14.67]. [/size]

I could have then gone on to explain that, in the absence of such reforms, the principle arising from common law of autrefois acquit and autrefois convict provide a bar to a trial in respect of the same offence of a person who has previously been either acquitted or convicted of that offence and that, following an acquittal or a conviction, the courts may consider it an abuse of process for additional charges to be brought for different offences arsing from the same behaviour or facts.

Again, you could have, but you didn't, if I could have my life over again, I wouldn't have wasted my education in frequenting opiate fumed dens, instead of attending university, but I didn't. Such a waste, wouldn't you concur.

Had I been minded to do so I could have then drawn attention to the fact that the reforms amend the law in relation to re-investigation of those persons acquitted of serious offences in these circumstances by enabling the prosecuting authorities, having first obtained the consent of the DPP, to apply to the Court of Appeal for a Section 77 Order which is either:

1. an order by the Court of Appeal under section 77(1) quashing the acquittal and directing that a retrial shall be held; or

2. in the case of foreign acquittals, under section 77(3) an order which determines that the foreign acquittal is a bar and orders that it shall be or shall not be a bar; or

3. an order declaring that the foreign acquittal is not a bar to a trial under section 77(4)

and that where the Court of Appeal quashes an acquittal, a new indictment for the same offence may then be preferred by the prosecuting authorities and a retrial will follow which will take account of all the evidence available in the case.

None of which is relevant to the part of your posting I was refuting, even you can't expect me to precipitate the next piece of irrelevant information you, in your infinite wisdom are about to impart upon us. I am merely a forum member, not a clairvoyant extraordinaire.

I may have then sought to assure those who have cause to fear these reforms that the measures provide safeguards aimed at preventing the possible harassment of acquitted persons in cases where there is no genuinely new evidence, by requiring the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions to both the re-opening of investigations and to the making of an application to the Court of Appeal and that, prior to giving consent, the DPP will take into account both the strength of the evidence and the public interest in determining whether a re-investigation or application to the Court is appropriate.

None of which will apply in the case of the McCanns if for no other reason, there doesn't appear to be enough prima facia evidence to indict them in the first instance, never mind there being enough genuine new evidence to retry them in the event of an acquittal.

As you have previously stated that your somewhat limited understanding of the law was gained when you were a defendant in criminal proceedings, regardless of whether you were found guilty or not guilty, I could have opted to provide further assurance for those such as yourself that these procedures apply only in respect of serious offences and are listed in Part 10 schedule 5 of the 2003 CJ Act.

My understanding of the law may be somewhat limited, but I do have the saving grace of only commenting on matters where I have either had first hand experience ,or have a modicum of knowledge, whereas your somewhat limited understanding of the law doesn't appear to restrict you from diving head first into swimming pools, where you haven't first checked whether the attendant has bothered to fill them with water.

Instead, by way of a lighthearted response to a post by jeanmonroe, which can also be found on p.12 of this thread, I elected to write the markedly less wordy:

I am sometimes given to wonder whether K&G regret accepting Rebekah's offer of a helping hand in their ~~unconvincing~~ quest for the UK police to review the case, canada12, but no doubt they are ecstatic that NSY is pulling out all the stops and, unasked ~~when all it would have taken is the price of a stamp~~, the PJ have re-opened their shelved investigation in order to 'leave no stone unturned' as the saying goes.

It occurs to me that the McCanns must derive immense comfort from knowing that, as jeanmonroe has said, The Court of Appeal can now quash an acquittal and order a retrial when "new and compelling" evidence is produced and, more particularly, since this also applies to British nationals who are tried and acquitted of serious crimes abroad.

It's to be hoped the grieving parents are able to find some small cause for celebration every day for what is life if there's nothing to look forward to ~~except spending the rest of it behind bars~~?

Methinks you protesteth too much.

in the belief that I am under no compulsion or obligation to provide considered legal opinon on every occasion when posting on this forum and, while writing on this matter, I would ask you to note that it is not my intention to be bullied into doing so by those on whom such opinion is wasted.

You appear to be suffering from delusions of grandeur, because far from others queuing outside your imagined chambers for legal opinion, it is you who appear hell bent upon thrusting your somewhat limited understanding of the law upon others whether they have chosen to seek your counsel or not. All of which would be sufferable if it actually bore any relevance to the matter in hand. I trust you won't take offence if I have the temerity to suggest that when copying and pasting legal text from the internet that you at least first ensure it actually relates to the matter you are arguing, even if it doesn't substantiate it.

by diatribe 04.03.14 19:56

aquila wrote:
Forgive me for being a simpleton who doesn't love the sound of her own prose but I asked you for this information in honesty and now it seems it's only forthcoming when in combat with another member of the forum and it still doesn't make sense because I had sincerely hoped you would explain it.

Alas, dear Aquila, just because a person is able to copy and paste a piece of legal literature, doesn't necessarily mean that they are able to comprehend the content. big grin

by Cristobell 04.03.14 20:06

marconi wrote:I hope Cameron is not involved in any pornography.
That he only watched Philomena in bikini.

by Liz Eagles 04.03.14 20:07

diatribe wrote:
aquila wrote:
Forgive me for being a simpleton who doesn't love the sound of her own prose but I asked you for this information in honesty and now it seems it's only forthcoming when in combat with another member of the forum and it still doesn't make sense because I had sincerely hoped you would explain it.
Alas, dear Aquila, just because a person is able to copy and paste a piece of legal literature, doesn't necessarily mean that they are able to comprehend the content.

No offence here diatribe but your post re the law was no clearer either and it didn't show a reference. I read it three or four times and couldn't make head nor tail of it.

I only wish to understand and it seems that 'experts' are lacking here which is a pity.

by ultimaThule 04.03.14 20:24

10 out of 10 for trying, diatribe. As perusal of your posts to date show, you can indeed be exceedingly trying, and unnecssarily rude, to those who are not willing to ascribe to your personal views and opinions.

I'm content for my contributions to this forum to be judged alongside your own and remain confident time will prove my, to use your term, "common logic" conclusion that expediency will prevail in the matter of where British nationals who are held accountable for heinous crimes against Madeleine McCann will be tried.

by diatribe 04.03.14 20:31

aquila wrote:
No offence here diatribe but your post re the law was no clearer either and it didn't show a reference. I read it three or four times and couldn't make head nor tail of it.

I only wish to understand and it seems that 'experts' are lacking here which is a pity.

I'm no more of an expert than you, Aquila. Here is the link to the act and the part in question is section 75.

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/retrial_of_serious_offences/

The part I was refuting relates to the UK CCA(Criminal Court of Appeal) not having power under this act to overturn acquittals from foreign courts no matter what the nationality of the appellant. I can't personally see how any of this act relates to the position the McCanns might find themselves in.

I hope this is helpful to you

by ultimaThule 04.03.14 20:33

aquila wrote:
Forgive me for being a simpleton who doesn't love the sound of her own prose but I asked you for this information in honesty and now it seems it's only forthcoming when in combat with another member of the forum and it still doesn't make sense because I had sincerely hoped you would explain it.

What would you like explained, aquila? The matter of jurisdiction in cases where serious crimes are committed abroad by British nationals, or the way in which jurisdiction impacts on the work of the UK's police authorities?

by Liz Eagles 04.03.14 20:39

ultimaThule wrote:
aquila wrote:
Forgive me for being a simpleton who doesn't love the sound of her own prose but I asked you for this information in honesty and now it seems it's only forthcoming when in combat with another member of the forum and it still doesn't make sense because I had sincerely hoped you would explain it.
What would you like explained, aquila? The matter of jurisdiction in cases where serious crimes are committed abroad by British nationals, or the way in which jurisdiction impacts on the work of the UK's police authorities?

Both and with honest references please. I'm pretty certain I'm not the only person on this forum that would be reassured by this information.

by diatribe 04.03.14 20:44

ultimaThule wrote:10 out of 10 for trying, diatribe. As perusal of your posts to date show, you can indeed be exceedingly trying, and unnecssarily rude, to those who are not willing to ascribe to your personal views and opinions.

I tend to treat others on a quid pro quo basis.

by diatribe 04.03.14 20:53

ultimaThule wrote:

I'm content for my contributions to this forum to be judged alongside your own and remain confident time will prove my, to use your term, "common logic" conclusion that expediency will prevail in the matter of where British nationals who are held accountable for heinous crimes against Madeleine McCann will be tried.

Expediency, how do you come to that conclusion when the all the evidence and most of the witnesses are located in Portugal, unless of course you are intimating the McCanns would either plead guilty in a UK court, or be prepared to accept written witness statements without exercising their prerogative to cross examine.

by Cristobell 04.03.14 21:01

Châtelaine wrote:I became convinced that the McCs hadn't be careful enough what they wished for, when I saw these picture of May 2013 and a full-blown INVESTIGATION came to light a month later:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2319228/Madeline-McCann-A-tearful-emotional-Gerry-Kate-mark-sixth-anniversary-daughters-disappearance.html

Those pictures are hugely significant Chatelaine, I think at that point, something changed. I was looking at the background to the 'laughing' video (May 2nd 2012), and they had good reason for their smiles. Scotland Yard had just released an age progression picture of Maddie and the PJ confirmed, yet again, that they were not going to re-open the investigation. One year on, May 2013, they look utterly devastated.

They did maintain a high public profile, Kate running the Marathon for Missing People and Gerry with his triathlon. A bad move imo, in their eagerness to show off their physical prowess, they actually showed just how little support they have, despite the guest spots on Lorraine's sofa. Once again, I think they put their vanity before common sense. The only big sponsor they had was Hugh Grant, and clearly that was because of the Hacked Off connection. Unfortunately, their fund raising abilities have nosedived, and any glittering future careers that may have gone with it.

Something changed dramatically at the time of those pictures (May 2013). We have never seen looking so distraught, not even even in May 2007. They certainly didn't look confident when they turned up for the ongoing libel trial - which seems to have come to a standstill.

I'm 99% convinced no whitewash, but that statement by Sir. BHH niggles me.

by diatribe 04.03.14 21:14

Cristobell wrote:

They certainly didn't look confident when they turned up for the ongoing libel trial - which seems to have come to a standstill.

I appreciate this is the wrong thread, but do you think it is possible that the McCanns have withdrawn from the action and reached some kind of secret deal with Goncala regarding his costs.

by notlongnow 04.03.14 21:24

diatribe wrote:
Cristobell wrote:

They certainly didn't look confident when they turned up for the ongoing libel trial - which seems to have come to a standstill.

I appreciate this is the wrong thread, but do you think it is possible that the McCanns have withdrawn from the action and reached some kind of secret deal with Goncala regarding his costs.

Can't see it.
That really wouldn't look good.

by petunia 04.03.14 22:17

Notlongnow.i doubt Goncalo would ever bow down to the mccanns he is an honorable and imo a very stubborn man who will fight with his last breath for justice for maddie,in my mind he treats maddie like one of his daughters although he never knew her, she means the world to him and he wont rest till she gets justice,i doubt very much he hates the mccanns has much as they hate him...i am a great believer in good prevails over evil no matter how long it takes..Cristobell what gives me hope is bhh couldn't remember what operation grange was about,everthing he said when he realised what it was about was all fluffy words all imo of course.

by Woofer 04.03.14 22:18

diatribe wrote:
Cristobell wrote:

They certainly didn't look confident when they turned up for the ongoing libel trial - which seems to have come to a standstill.

I appreciate this is the wrong thread, but do you think it is possible that the McCanns have withdrawn from the action and reached some kind of secret deal with Goncala regarding his costs.

It`s Gonçalo.

by marconi 04.03.14 22:44

Châtelaine wrote:I became convinced that the McCs hadn't be careful enough what they wished for, when I saw these picture of May 2013 and a full-blown INVESTIGATION came to light a month later:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2319228/Madeline-McCann-A-tearful-emotional-Gerry-Kate-mark-sixth-anniversary-daughters-disappearance.html

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

I felt tht that photo had to do with bad news for the McCanns. A proof that their intention was not a review let alone an investigation.
By the way, where are they now?
I am still worried about the twins. I hope they are safe.

Log in for more topics