McCanns/Amaral

True, I had not thought of that - how can they prove any suffering any of them felt are the result of his book and not the CHILD being missing, and a sharp eyed judge can see that one of the two causes of their pain,is attached to a significant pay out for the McScams. Even the UK judge forced them to drop Madeleine from the action
Amaral should wear a Ken Thompson shirt to the trial. There is a father who put his (own) money where his mouth was in searching for (and finding) a son he knew or believed to be merely missing and not dead. He quit his job and went out and looked - on his bike. mcCanns use other people's money to pay people to mount a campaign, etc but do nothing themselves to show they care for their child, not while in PDL to sit at home nights and watch over her, and not today with their lawsuits trying to keep people from their right to free speech or the right to read what the lead investigator on the case has to say.

As long as there is (someone else's) money available to pay lawyers their frivolous lawsuits will go forward. It would be nice if they would lose and have to pay Amaral's court costs.

If the McCanns actually go through with appearing in court, I will eat my hat. I'd better go and see if I can find one, just in case.

What does it mean if they don't win?

What type of parent of person puts soiled nappies in a boot - especially when there are uge green bins ALL OVER the place on the Algarve, you do not EVER have to walk further than 2minutes to place your garbage in these bins,

Ask me I know, I visit the Algarve three or four times a year, Thats what pisses me of: Gerry really does undermine our intelligence, he the same dickhead that cant string a sentence errrrrrrr together.

Their time is coming.

squeaker wrote:If the McCanns actually go through with appearing in court, I will eat my hat. I'd better go and see if I can find one, just in case.

That would be a wise precaution. Given what happened at the appeal hearing.

Perhaps Ms Shilling does a line in edible hats?

sans_souci wrote:

squeaker wrote:If the McCanns actually go through with appearing in court, I will eat my hat. I'd better go and see if I can find one, just in case.

That would be a wise precaution. Given what happened at the appeal hearing.

Perhaps Ms Shilling does a line in edible hats?

Are you referring to Gertrude Shilling?

sans_souci wrote:

squeaker wrote:If the McCanns actually go through with appearing in court, I will eat my hat. I'd better go and see if I can find one, just in case.

That would be a wise precaution. Given what happened at the appeal hearing.

Perhaps Ms Shilling does a line in edible hats?

Does this mean that you believe that the McCanns will probably appear at the libel hearing?

Carolina wrote:

sans_souci wrote:

squeaker wrote:If the McCanns actually go through with appearing in court, I will eat my hat. I'd better go and see if I can find one, just in case.

That would be a wise precaution. Given what happened at the appeal hearing.

Perhaps Ms Shilling does a line in edible hats?

Does this mean that you believe that the McCanns will probably appear at the libel hearing?

I imagine they will be there, at least for part of the hearing. Especially bearing in mind they were there for the hearing of the appeal against the injunction.

sans_souci wrote:

Carolina wrote:

sans_souci wrote:

squeaker wrote:If the McCanns actually go through with appearing in court, I will eat my hat. I'd better go and see if I can find one, just in case.

That would be a wise precaution. Given what happened at the appeal hearing.

Perhaps Ms Shilling does a line in edible hats?

Does this mean that you believe that the McCanns will probably appear at the libel hearing?

I imagine they will be there, at least for part of the hearing. Especially bearing in mind they were there for the hearing of the appeal against the injunction.

Sans, are you talking about Ms Gertrude Shilling, the one who died in 1999?

Sans, I know this may be somewhat difficult for you, answering a question about a statement you have made, but which Ms Shilling were you referring to?

AnnaEsse wrote:Sans, I know this may be somewhat difficult for you, answering a question about a statement you have made, but which Ms Shilling were you referring to?

Well?

AnnaEsse wrote:Sans, I know this may be somewhat difficult for you, answering a question about a statement you have made, but which Ms Shilling were you referring to?

You are of course quite right - I should have thought before typing - it is of course David Shilling who is the milliner, whilst Mrs Shilling was his mother.

I offer my most humble apologies to the forum and throw myself upon your mercy.

Sans...shouldnt you be serving the pope tea as this moment!!

sans_souci wrote:

squeaker wrote:If the McCanns actually go through with appearing in court, I will eat my hat. I'd better go and see if I can find one, just in case.

That would be a wise precaution. Given what happened at the appeal hearing.

Perhaps Ms Shilling does a line in edible hats?

Would that be the appeal hearing where the judge rewrote some of the terms of the first temporary injunction and by doing so it allowed Dr G A to speak.

sans_souci wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:Sans, I know this may be somewhat difficult for you, answering a question about a statement you have made, but which Ms Shilling were you referring to?

You are of course quite right - I should have thought before typing - it is of course David Shilling who is the milliner, whilst Mrs Shilling was his mother.

I offer my most humble apologies to the forum and throw myself upon your mercy.

Thank you sans. I would just add that if the McCanns, both of them, take the witness stand in a court of law and answer questions about their search for their child without either getting rather worked up, then I shall cook a hat-shaped cake and eat it.

Conditions:

1) They take the stand.

2) They answer all questions about searching for their daughter and what makes them so sure she's alive and unharmed.

3) Neither gets worked up about the questions being asked.

Hi Anna

I would like your suggestions to happen - but I am afraid they wont - this is just about "pieces of paper" and whose holding the Rule book.

Angelique

AnnaEsse wrote:

sans_souci wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:Sans, I know this may be somewhat difficult for you, answering a question about a statement you have made, but which Ms Shilling were you referring to?

You are of course quite right - I should have thought before typing - it is of course David Shilling who is the milliner, whilst Mrs Shilling was his mother.

I offer my most humble apologies to the forum and throw myself upon your mercy.

Thank you sans. I would just add that if the McCanns, both of them, take the witness stand in a court of law and answer questions about their search for their child without either getting rather worked up, then I shall cook a hat-shaped cake and eat it.

Conditions:

1) They take the stand.

2) They answer all questions about searching for their daughter and what makes them so sure she's alive and unharmed.

3) Neither gets worked up about the questions being asked.

Don't bother because that would be cheating.

The hat would have to be one of my choosing........

sans_souci wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:

sans_souci wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:Sans, I know this may be somewhat difficult for you, answering a question about a statement you have made, but which Ms Shilling were you referring to?

You are of course quite right - I should have thought before typing - it is of course David Shilling who is the milliner, whilst Mrs Shilling was his mother.

I offer my most humble apologies to the forum and throw myself upon your mercy.

Thank you sans. I would just add that if the McCanns, both of them, take the witness stand in a court of law and answer questions about their search for their child without either getting rather worked up, then I shall cook a hat-shaped cake and eat it.

Conditions:

1) They take the stand.

2) They answer all questions about searching for their daughter and what makes them so sure she's alive and unharmed.

3) Neither gets worked up about the questions being asked.

Don't bother because that would be cheating.

The hat would have to be one of my choosing........

I only eat my own home-made cakes. And I would be happy to photograph it before and with me eating it. You have entered into this hat business at a stage where the conditions are not open to you. The conditions are set by the person who makes the offer, not by a bystander.

AnnaEsse wrote:

sans_souci wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:Sans, I know this may be somewhat difficult for you, answering a question about a statement you have made, but which Ms Shilling were you referring to?

You are of course quite right - I should have thought before typing - it is of course David Shilling who is the milliner, whilst Mrs Shilling was his mother.

I offer my most humble apologies to the forum and throw myself upon your mercy.

Thank you sans. I would just add that if the McCanns, both of them, take the witness stand in a court of law and answer questions about their search for their child without either getting rather worked up, then I shall cook a hat-shaped cake and eat it.

Conditions:

1) They take the stand.

2) They answer all questions about searching for their daughter and what makes them so sure she's alive and unharmed.

3) Neither gets worked up about the questions being asked.

The Universe isn't prepared for that and it is possible a second big bang would occur wiping us all out from the face of the Earth with only a few unicellular specimens surviving, most of which McCann supporters.

kitti wrote:Sans...shouldnt you be serving the pope tea as this moment!!

With his trousers down, and nether regions up I assume?

My guess is they'll show up and have their pitiful woeful faces on, but will avail themselves of their rights to silence and against self incrimination after all it is not them who is on trial, it's Amaral. They don't need to take the witness stand do they? Or do they? If they do, so they can answer questions about how the intimation that their child died in 5a has harmed Maddie, via harming the "search" for Maddie.

does Amaral's lawyer get to cross examine or are they just given the bully pulpit from which to spew their nonsense and the defendant doesn't get to have his lawyer question them? Like, how come you guys did not cooperate and did not answer the PJ questions, clearly you didn't think THAT would harm the search for your daughter even though it resulted inthe case being shelved, you were more interested in CYA manuevers, right, than in taking steps that would assist any kind of investigation? I mean, my first question as his lawyer would be WHAT SEARCH?

If Madeleine's dead, by their hand, or even not by their hand but they know she is dead, then the search is pointless, insofar as people throwing good money after bad or good money being wasted when it could go to help others who are still "alive and finable". It's not going to "help" her even if you find her.

I don't see how the logic can be other than this, either she is alive and needs to be searched for, and the search assisted in all ways possible or she doesn't. Why can McCanns behave in a way that impedes the search (by impeding the investigation, failing to search, hiring crap fraud detectives and spin masters with the Fund's money) but Amaral if he does something that impedes the search, can be sued? Who's suing the McCanns for failing to assist the search? Didn't they sit and have their lawyer prep them and their pals for the rogatory interviews, and refuse to reconstruct the crime, all the while claiming Madeleine was with pedophiles?

Will they get to play Kate's statement from the tv interview that they didn't actually physically search?

I hope Amaral has a good lawyer and that the McCanns if they are allowed to speak about how this book has harmed "the search" are put on the stand and have to describe all the vastly many ways they have searched and used money to search, their detectives' pedigrees ought to be interesting too, as compared to Mr Amaral's. The people they hired to carry on the "search" - I can't believe they'd bear to show their faces in court for fear they would get questions like that.

widowan wrote:

Why can McCanns behave in a way that impedes the search (by impeding the investigation) but Amaral if he does that can be sued? Who's suing the McCanns for failing to assist the search? Didn't they sit and have their lawyer prep them and their pals for the rogatory interviews, and refuse to reconstruct the crime, all the while claiming Madeleine was with pedophiles?

Don't give many green stripes. Have one, Widowan.

If anyone's baking cake hats to eat, make mine spice cake with buttercream frosting okay? Or how about a nice German chocolate fedora with lovely coconut icing? I haven't eaten a good hat in years.

docmac wrote:

widowan wrote:

Why can McCanns behave in a way that impedes the search (by impeding the investigation) but Amaral if he does that can be sued? Who's suing the McCanns for failing to assist the search? Didn't they sit and have their lawyer prep them and their pals for the rogatory interviews, and refuse to reconstruct the crime, all the while claiming Madeleine was with pedophiles?

Don't give many green stripes. Have one, Widowan.

Thanks... not sure what a green stripe is but it must be good. If I get five of them can I have a red velvet hat-cake with chocolate chip frosting?

widowan wrote:

docmac wrote:

widowan wrote:

Why can McCanns behave in a way that impedes the search (by impeding the investigation) but Amaral if he does that can be sued? Who's suing the McCanns for failing to assist the search? Didn't they sit and have their lawyer prep them and their pals for the rogatory interviews, and refuse to reconstruct the crime, all the while claiming Madeleine was with pedophiles?

Don't give many green stripes. Have one, Widowan.

Thanks... not sure what a green stripe is but it must be good. If I get five of them can I have a red velvet hat-cake with chocolate chip frosting?

A green stripe means more 'rep'. It's not something I strive for, but you deserve an extra point for that post.

Just wondering whatever happened to the McCanns' proposed literary version of events. This would have been an hilarious read, imo. Especially if all the 'erms' were not edited out.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-562371/McCann-twins-pick-phone-day-ask-Where-Madeleine.html