Missing Madeleine
Come join us...there's more inside you cannot see as a guest!

McCanns v Amaral

Page 3 of 5 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: McCanns v Amaral

Post  Navigator on Mon 30 Jan - 0:46

Claudia79 wrote:
Navigator wrote:
Loopdaloop wrote:
Navigator wrote:What I find odd is that nobody (even those who claim to have spoken to Goncalo Amaral) can say why he has chosen this particular crucial moment to change his lawyer. What kind of reason can he have that has to be kept so secret? I know we won't be told because it is probably something vital in the case but you have to admit its a great subject for speculation.


why's it odd? Please expand.

Simple really. They say they are informing people and don't.

Who's they?

Anyone who is partially explaining things.

Navigator
Newbie
Newbie

Number of posts : 35
Warning :
0 / 1000 / 100

Registration date : 2012-01-23

Back to top Go down

Re: McCanns v Amaral

Post  Claudia79 on Mon 30 Jan - 0:54

Navigator wrote:
Claudia79 wrote:
Navigator wrote:
Loopdaloop wrote:
Navigator wrote:What I find odd is that nobody (even those who claim to have spoken to Goncalo Amaral) can say why he has chosen this particular crucial moment to change his lawyer. What kind of reason can he have that has to be kept so secret? I know we won't be told because it is probably something vital in the case but you have to admit its a great subject for speculation.


why's it odd? Please expand.

Simple really. They say they are informing people and don't.

Who's they?

Anyone who is partially explaining things.

Why don't you add GA on Facebook and ask him to explain things to you? Everything. Bit by bit. New lawyer's name. Witnesses. Legal strategy. I know some people who are also dying to know.

Claudia79
Administrator
Administrator

Female
Number of posts : 7004
Age : 37
Location : Portugal
Warning :
0 / 1000 / 100

Registration date : 2009-08-25

http://proud-of-the-pj.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: McCanns v Amaral

Post  Navigator on Mon 30 Jan - 0:59

Claudia79 wrote:
Navigator wrote:
Claudia79 wrote:
Navigator wrote:
Loopdaloop wrote:

why's it odd? Please expand.

Simple really. They say they are informing people and don't.

Who's they?

Anyone who is partially explaining things.

Why don't you add GA on Facebook and ask him to explain things to you? Everything. Bit by bit. New lawyer's name. Witnesses. Legal strategy. I know some people who are also dying to know.

How do we know that is a real Facebook account?

I haven't asked for all that information anyway. Just wondering why anybody changes their lawyer at such a crucial stage and why the reason for doing that has to be kept a secret?

Navigator
Newbie
Newbie

Number of posts : 35
Warning :
0 / 1000 / 100

Registration date : 2012-01-23

Back to top Go down

Re: McCanns v Amaral

Post  Claudia79 on Mon 30 Jan - 1:04

Navigator wrote:
Claudia79 wrote:
Navigator wrote:
Claudia79 wrote:
Navigator wrote:

Simple really. They say they are informing people and don't.

Who's they?

Anyone who is partially explaining things.

Why don't you add GA on Facebook and ask him to explain things to you? Everything. Bit by bit. New lawyer's name. Witnesses. Legal strategy. I know some people who are also dying to know.

How do we know that is a real Facebook account?

I haven't asked for all that information anyway. Just wondering why anybody changes their lawyer at such a crucial stage and why the reason for doing that has to be kept a secret?

I know it is. If you don't, well, it is your problem.
You are assuming (wrongly) it is a secret. Just because you don't know, it doesn't mean it's a secret.

Claudia79
Administrator
Administrator

Female
Number of posts : 7004
Age : 37
Location : Portugal
Warning :
0 / 1000 / 100

Registration date : 2009-08-25

http://proud-of-the-pj.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: McCanns v Amaral

Post  Navigator on Mon 30 Jan - 1:46

Claudia79 wrote:
Navigator wrote:
Claudia79 wrote:
Navigator wrote:
Claudia79 wrote:

Who's they?

Anyone who is partially explaining things.

Why don't you add GA on Facebook and ask him to explain things to you? Everything. Bit by bit. New lawyer's name. Witnesses. Legal strategy. I know some people who are also dying to know.

How do we know that is a real Facebook account?

I haven't asked for all that information anyway. Just wondering why anybody changes their lawyer at such a crucial stage and why the reason for doing that has to be kept a secret?

I know it is. If you don't, well, it is your problem.
You are assuming (wrongly) it is a secret. Just because you don't know, it doesn't mean it's a secret.

Well I understand the Ricardo Paiva account was said by some to be real and by others to be fake. Can't help wondering about the Goncalo Amaral one.

As for me assuming anything. You are wrong. It isn't an assumption and it isn't based on the fact I don't know.

I am right it is a secret. And what is that knowledge (not assumption) based on? Well on the fact that those who claim to know the reason are not willing to tell others. Thats the definition of keeping a secret. So if you do know then you are keeping it secret, isn't that right.

I wasn't asking whether it was a secret. I know that it is from the reaction of those who claim to know the facts. What I am asking myself is what that secret is because it is odd that a person should change his lawyer at such a crucial time. There aren't too many reasons why people would do that.

Navigator
Newbie
Newbie

Number of posts : 35
Warning :
0 / 1000 / 100

Registration date : 2012-01-23

Back to top Go down

Re: McCanns v Amaral

Post  AnnaEsse on Mon 30 Jan - 7:38

Navigator wrote:
Claudia79 wrote:
Navigator wrote:
Claudia79 wrote:
Navigator wrote:

Anyone who is partially explaining things.

Why don't you add GA on Facebook and ask him to explain things to you? Everything. Bit by bit. New lawyer's name. Witnesses. Legal strategy. I know some people who are also dying to know.

How do we know that is a real Facebook account?

I haven't asked for all that information anyway. Just wondering why anybody changes their lawyer at such a crucial stage and why the reason for doing that has to be kept a secret?

I know it is. If you don't, well, it is your problem.
You are assuming (wrongly) it is a secret. Just because you don't know, it doesn't mean it's a secret.

Well I understand the Ricardo Paiva account was said by some to be real and by others to be fake. Can't help wondering about the Goncalo Amaral one.

As for me assuming anything. You are wrong. It isn't an assumption and it isn't based on the fact I don't know.

I am right it is a secret. And what is that knowledge (not assumption) based on? Well on the fact that those who claim to know the reason are not willing to tell others. Thats the definition of keeping a secret. So if you do know then you are keeping it secret, isn't that right.

I wasn't asking whether it was a secret. I know that it is from the reaction of those who claim to know the facts. What I am asking myself is what that secret is because it is odd that a person should change his lawyer at such a crucial time. There aren't too many reasons why people would do that.

I don't see why this is of such interest to you. There are people who seem to be enjoying getting into wild speculation about why GA changed his lawyer, as though they had not very much else to think about. You could join them if what you want to do is indulge in speculating what those not too many reasons are. if that's what you want to put your time and energy into, well go for it, but somewhere else. Simple. Nae wurries!

_________________________________________________________________________________________________
"You can run on for a long time, Run on for a long time, Run on for a long time, Sooner or later God'll cut you down." (Johnny Cash)

AnnaEsse
Administrator
Administrator

Female
Number of posts : 18417
Age : 105
Location : Casa Nostra
Warning :
0 / 1000 / 100

Registration date : 2009-09-23

http://frommybigdesk.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: McCanns v Amaral

Post  Lillyofthevalley on Mon 30 Jan - 9:23

Just found this Joana Moris blog


http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2012/01/mccanns-libel-action-marinho-pinto-is.html?utm_source=BP_recent

Post 12 onwards very interesting!!!

Lillyofthevalley
Platinum Poster
Platinum Poster

Number of posts : 1552
Warning :
0 / 1000 / 100

Registration date : 2009-08-20

Back to top Go down

Re: McCanns v Amaral

Post  Palmeras16 on Mon 30 Jan - 9:34

[quote="Navigator] Just wondering why anybody changes their lawyer at such a crucial stage and why the reason for doing that has to be kept a secret?[/quote]

Perhaps the reason is simply that Antonio Cabrita no longer wishes to represent Mr Amaral and Claudia has yet to think up a positive spin on this embarrassing setback.

Palmeras16
Reg Member
Reg Member

Number of posts : 275
Warning :
66 / 10066 / 100

Registration date : 2010-06-03

Back to top Go down

Re: McCanns v Amaral

Post  AnnaEsse on Mon 30 Jan - 10:49

Palmeras16 wrote:[quote="Navigator] Just wondering why anybody changes their lawyer at such a crucial stage and why the reason for doing that has to be kept a secret?

Perhaps the reason is simply that Antonio Cabrita no longer wishes to represent Mr Amaral and Claudia has yet to think up a positive spin on this embarrassing setback.[/quote]

Well, if we wait, I'm sure we'll find out. Speculating is going to get us nowhere. It might just end up with some folks being guilty of libel, but hey ho, that's their problem.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________
"You can run on for a long time, Run on for a long time, Run on for a long time, Sooner or later God'll cut you down." (Johnny Cash)

AnnaEsse
Administrator
Administrator

Female
Number of posts : 18417
Age : 105
Location : Casa Nostra
Warning :
0 / 1000 / 100

Registration date : 2009-09-23

http://frommybigdesk.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: McCanns v Amaral

Post  Oldartform on Mon 30 Jan - 11:42

Navigator wrote:
Oldartform wrote:Goncalo obviously prefers to keep his cards close to his chest, in contrast to Tony who is broadcasting nearly every bit of info about his case, giving the enemy everything they need to know. I admire Tony for his devotion to justice, but think he should play things cooler.

Yes I can see that but does nobody else here wonder what happened to make him change lawyers at such a crucial point in the case? To me its a very odd thing for anyone to do. Thats all and I wonder why he did it.

Yes, of course we wonder why, but we understand it might not be wise for the whole world to know at this moment in time. That would be silly and GA doesn`t strike me as silly. If you were Goncalo, would you tell the whole word why? If the McCanns changed their lawyer, would they tell the whole world why? As someone has said, it will all be revealed eventually.

Oldartform
Forum Addict
Forum Addict

Number of posts : 625
Warning :
0 / 1000 / 100

Registration date : 2011-06-04

Back to top Go down

Re: McCanns v Amaral

Post  dutchclogs on Mon 30 Jan - 11:56

[quote="Iris"]If I had a court case coming up, I wouldn't put my business all over the internet for any Troll, Dick or Harry to discuss. Goncalo Amaral is not obliged to tell anybody anything.[/quote

Exactly, Why should he, DO the McCanns tell us every thing they are going to do, No they don't, only the things they want to SPIN[b]

dutchclogs
Platinum Poster
Platinum Poster

Female
Number of posts : 1062
Age : 61
Location : Scotland/Nertherlands
Warning :
0 / 1000 / 100

Registration date : 2009-08-22

Back to top Go down

Re: McCanns v Amaral

Post  Claudia79 on Mon 30 Jan - 13:02

Navigator wrote:
Claudia79 wrote:
Navigator wrote:
Claudia79 wrote:
Navigator wrote:

Anyone who is partially explaining things.

Why don't you add GA on Facebook and ask him to explain things to you? Everything. Bit by bit. New lawyer's name. Witnesses. Legal strategy. I know some people who are also dying to know.

How do we know that is a real Facebook account?

I haven't asked for all that information anyway. Just wondering why anybody changes their lawyer at such a crucial stage and why the reason for doing that has to be kept a secret?

I know it is. If you don't, well, it is your problem.
You are assuming (wrongly) it is a secret. Just because you don't know, it doesn't mean it's a secret.

Well I understand the Ricardo Paiva account was said by some to be real and by others to be fake. Can't help wondering about the Goncalo Amaral one.

As for me assuming anything. You are wrong. It isn't an assumption and it isn't based on the fact I don't know.

I am right it is a secret. And what is that knowledge (not assumption) based on? Well on the fact that those who claim to know the reason are not willing to tell others. Thats the definition of keeping a secret. So if you do know then you are keeping it secret, isn't that right.

I wasn't asking whether it was a secret. I know that it is from the reaction of those who claim to know the facts. What I am asking myself is what that secret is because it is odd that a person should change his lawyer at such a crucial time. There aren't too many reasons why people would do that.

Nope. A secret is something one person hides. If more than one person knows about it, then it's not a secret anymore. And this certainly is not a secret as lots of people know. In fact, one of the reasons was already given. It was not believed because it is not 'juicy' enough for some. There's also another reason I know about (there may be others I don't know about, obviously) and it is equally born out of common sense and practicality. However, when the name of the new lawyer is revealed, the 'big secret' will become clear. And will probably disappoint many people who, I'm sure, will immediately find something to speculate about because the truth will be too boring for them.

Claudia79
Administrator
Administrator

Female
Number of posts : 7004
Age : 37
Location : Portugal
Warning :
0 / 1000 / 100

Registration date : 2009-08-25

http://proud-of-the-pj.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: McCanns v Amaral

Post  Claudia79 on Mon 30 Jan - 13:07

Palmeras16 wrote:[quote="Navigator] Just wondering why anybody changes their lawyer at such a crucial stage and why the reason for doing that has to be kept a secret?

Perhaps the reason is simply that Antonio Cabrita no longer wishes to represent Mr Amaral and Claudia has yet to think up a positive spin on this embarrassing setback.[/quote]

Nope. Far, very far from it.
Insinuating I'm a liar, Palmeras? Or that I'm not bright enough to be one?
One thing you don't seem to know about me is that I live in reality and don't have high expectations (generally speaking). Good news are good news, bad news are bad news and other news are neither good nor bad. Whatever happens in this trial, whatever the first result is, people will most likely have to wait years to have a final decision because both parties will appeal if things don't go their way.
The fact that there is a new lawyers means absolutely nothing. Just like the fact that Rogério Alves stopped representing the McCanns meant zilch.

Claudia79
Administrator
Administrator

Female
Number of posts : 7004
Age : 37
Location : Portugal
Warning :
0 / 1000 / 100

Registration date : 2009-08-25

http://proud-of-the-pj.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: McCanns v Amaral

Post  Annabel on Mon 30 Jan - 14:52

Witness list as provided by Blacksmith
Ed Smethurst
Emma Loach
Susan Hubbard
Susan Healy
Alan Pike
Patricia Cameron
Jim Gamble
Angus McBride
David Trickey
Dave Edgar
Michael Wright

Alípio Ribeiro
José Magalhães e Menezes
João Melchior Gomes
António Marinho e Pinto
Paulo Rebelo
José Barra da Costa

http://blacksmithbureau.blogspot.com/


Last edited by Annabel on Mon 30 Jan - 19:46; edited 1 time in total

Annabel
Platinum Poster
Platinum Poster

Female
Number of posts : 3528
Location : Europe
Warning :
0 / 1000 / 100

Registration date : 2009-08-25

Back to top Go down

Re: McCanns v Amaral

Post  Navigator on Mon 30 Jan - 15:06

Claudia79 wrote:
Navigator wrote:
Claudia79 wrote:
Navigator wrote:
Claudia79 wrote:

Why don't you add GA on Facebook and ask him to explain things to you? Everything. Bit by bit. New lawyer's name. Witnesses. Legal strategy. I know some people who are also dying to know.

How do we know that is a real Facebook account?

I haven't asked for all that information anyway. Just wondering why anybody changes their lawyer at such a crucial stage and why the reason for doing that has to be kept a secret?

I know it is. If you don't, well, it is your problem.
You are assuming (wrongly) it is a secret. Just because you don't know, it doesn't mean it's a secret.

Well I understand the Ricardo Paiva account was said by some to be real and by others to be fake. Can't help wondering about the Goncalo Amaral one.

As for me assuming anything. You are wrong. It isn't an assumption and it isn't based on the fact I don't know.

I am right it is a secret. And what is that knowledge (not assumption) based on? Well on the fact that those who claim to know the reason are not willing to tell others. Thats the definition of keeping a secret. So if you do know then you are keeping it secret, isn't that right.

I wasn't asking whether it was a secret. I know that it is from the reaction of those who claim to know the facts. What I am asking myself is what that secret is because it is odd that a person should change his lawyer at such a crucial time. There aren't too many reasons why people would do that.

Nope. A secret is something one person hides. If more than one person knows about it, then it's not a secret anymore. And this certainly is not a secret as lots of people know. In fact, one of the reasons was already given. It was not believed because it is not 'juicy' enough for some. There's also another reason I know about (there may be others I don't know about, obviously) and it is equally born out of common sense and practicality. However, when the name of the new lawyer is revealed, the 'big secret' will become clear. And will probably disappoint many people who, I'm sure, will immediately find something to speculate about because the truth will be too boring for them.

Nope. Thats not what a secret is.

For example from dictionary.com

a method, formula, plan, etc., known only to the initiated or the few

and from thefreedictionary.com

Something kept hidden from others or known only to oneself or to a few

Now did Cabrita decide to withdraw or was he dismissed by Amaral?

If the PT system is in any way honourable a lawyer withdrawing from a case at such a late stage when such an action could damage the chances of his client would have to have a very good reason. In the US there is a code and the only reasons allowed are very serious where the client is about to commit fraud for example.

http://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_rules_of_professional_conduct/rule_1_16_declining_or_terminating_representation.html

Or did Amaral dismiss Cabrita? But why would anybody do that to his own lawyer just a couple of weeks before the big trial?

Or was it simple money problems?

As for the excuse given that it was such a long way away. That doesn't wash really. Amaral could simply spend more time in the Algarve where his home is surely? That way distance wouldn't be a problem at all. But anyway its only 2.5 hours by car between the two so whats the big deal?

Navigator
Newbie
Newbie

Number of posts : 35
Warning :
0 / 1000 / 100

Registration date : 2012-01-23

Back to top Go down

Re: McCanns v Amaral

Post  Navigator on Mon 30 Jan - 15:09

Annabel wrote:Witness list as provided by Blacksmith
Ed Smethurst
Emma Loach
Susan Hubbard
Susan Healy
Alan Pike
Patricia Cameron
Jim Gamble
Angus McBride
David Trickey
Dave Edgar
Michael Wright

Alípio Ribeiro
José Magalhães e Menezes
João Melchior Gomes
António Marinho e Pinto
Paulo Rebelo
José Barra da Costa

Wonder where Blacksmith got this list from? Is he a friend of the McCanns? Or is he a friend of Goncalo Amaral? Who is doing the leaking of information I wonder?

Navigator
Newbie
Newbie

Number of posts : 35
Warning :
0 / 1000 / 100

Registration date : 2012-01-23

Back to top Go down

Re: McCanns v Amaral

Post  AnnaEsse on Mon 30 Jan - 15:12

Navigator wrote:
Annabel wrote:Witness list as provided by Blacksmith
Ed Smethurst
Emma Loach
Susan Hubbard
Susan Healy
Alan Pike
Patricia Cameron
Jim Gamble
Angus McBride
David Trickey
Dave Edgar
Michael Wright

Alípio Ribeiro
José Magalhães e Menezes
João Melchior Gomes
António Marinho e Pinto
Paulo Rebelo
José Barra da Costa

Wonder where Blacksmith got this list from? Is he a friend of the McCanns? Or is he a friend of Goncalo Amaral? Who is doing the leaking of information I wonder?

There you go, wondering again! Why not just ask the person who posted the information?

_________________________________________________________________________________________________
"You can run on for a long time, Run on for a long time, Run on for a long time, Sooner or later God'll cut you down." (Johnny Cash)

AnnaEsse
Administrator
Administrator

Female
Number of posts : 18417
Age : 105
Location : Casa Nostra
Warning :
0 / 1000 / 100

Registration date : 2009-09-23

http://frommybigdesk.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: McCanns v Amaral

Post  Navigator on Mon 30 Jan - 15:22

Claudia79 wrote:
Palmeras16 wrote:
Navigator wrote: Just wondering why anybody changes their lawyer at such a crucial stage and why the reason for doing that has to be kept a secret?

Perhaps the reason is simply that Antonio Cabrita no longer wishes to represent Mr Amaral and Claudia has yet to think up a positive spin on this embarrassing setback.

Nope. Far, very far from it.
Insinuating I'm a liar, Palmeras? Or that I'm not bright enough to be one?
One thing you don't seem to know about me is that I live in reality and don't have high expectations (generally speaking). Good news are good news, bad news are bad news and other news are neither good nor bad. Whatever happens in this trial, whatever the first result is, people will most likely have to wait years to have a final decision because both parties will appeal if things don't go their way.
The fact that there is a new lawyers means absolutely nothing. Just like the fact that Rogério Alves stopped representing the McCanns meant zilch.

So now there are two secrets. Why the first lawyer (Cabrita) got dismissed or decided not to carry on. And now who this new lawyer Amaral has retained actually is (if he actually exists of course). I do so love secrets.

Oh and you might say it means nothing but when people are keeping secrets they usually do it for a reason. How can knowing why one lawyer left and the name of this new lawyer you say has been retained damage the case? Can you at least explain that as that seems to be the reason you are giving for this information being kept secret?

Navigator
Newbie
Newbie

Number of posts : 35
Warning :
0 / 1000 / 100

Registration date : 2012-01-23

Back to top Go down

Re: McCanns v Amaral

Post  nospinnaker on Mon 30 Jan - 15:26

Am I the only one who fails completely to comprehend?


nospinnaker
Reg Member
Reg Member

Number of posts : 188
Warning :
0 / 1000 / 100

Registration date : 2009-11-08

Back to top Go down

Re: McCanns v Amaral

Post  Navigator on Mon 30 Jan - 15:27

AnnaEsse wrote:
Navigator wrote:
Annabel wrote:Witness list as provided by Blacksmith
Ed Smethurst
Emma Loach
Susan Hubbard
Susan Healy
Alan Pike
Patricia Cameron
Jim Gamble
Angus McBride
David Trickey
Dave Edgar
Michael Wright

Alípio Ribeiro
José Magalhães e Menezes
João Melchior Gomes
António Marinho e Pinto
Paulo Rebelo
José Barra da Costa

Wonder where Blacksmith got this list from? Is he a friend of the McCanns? Or is he a friend of Goncalo Amaral? Who is doing the leaking of information I wonder?

There you go, wondering again! Why not just ask the person who posted the information?

Because firstly I like mysteries and secondly I don't have access to Blacksmith unless he is on this forum in which case could he please tell us who is doing the leaking of information?

Navigator
Newbie
Newbie

Number of posts : 35
Warning :
0 / 1000 / 100

Registration date : 2012-01-23

Back to top Go down

Re: McCanns v Amaral

Post  Navigator on Mon 30 Jan - 15:28

nospinnaker wrote:Am I the only one who fails completely to comprehend?

Fails to comprehend what?

Then again it is never easy to understand when people are keeping information secret is it?


Navigator
Newbie
Newbie

Number of posts : 35
Warning :
0 / 1000 / 100

Registration date : 2012-01-23

Back to top Go down

Re: McCanns v Amaral

Post  Colonel Fabien on Mon 30 Jan - 15:29

[quote="dutchclogs"]
Iris wrote:If I had a court case coming up, I wouldn't put my business all over the internet for any Troll, Dick or Harry to discuss. Goncalo Amaral is not obliged to tell anybody anything.[/quote

Exactly, Why should he, DO the McCanns tell us every thing they are going to do, No they don't, only the things they want to SPIN[b]

So right. GA is under no obligation to keep us informed of everything he does. I'm sure he had good reasons to change his lawyer.

Colonel Fabien
Elite Member
Elite Member

Female
Number of posts : 347
Age : 69
Location : Portugal
Warning :
0 / 1000 / 100

Registration date : 2009-09-01

Back to top Go down

Re: McCanns v Amaral

Post  AnnaEsse on Mon 30 Jan - 15:30

Navigator wrote:
AnnaEsse wrote:
Navigator wrote:
Annabel wrote:Witness list as provided by Blacksmith
Ed Smethurst
Emma Loach
Susan Hubbard
Susan Healy
Alan Pike
Patricia Cameron
Jim Gamble
Angus McBride
David Trickey
Dave Edgar
Michael Wright

Alípio Ribeiro
José Magalhães e Menezes
João Melchior Gomes
António Marinho e Pinto
Paulo Rebelo
José Barra da Costa

Wonder where Blacksmith got this list from? Is he a friend of the McCanns? Or is he a friend of Goncalo Amaral? Who is doing the leaking of information I wonder?

There you go, wondering again! Why not just ask the person who posted the information?

Because firstly I like mysteries and secondly I don't have access to Blacksmith unless he is on this forum in which case could he please tell us who is doing the leaking of information?

So, what do you expect to be the result of your wondering on this forum? We don't know. Can't you go wonder somewhere else? There are people who do much better speculation than we do here. Maybe they would help you with your wondering and love of mysteries, which we, obviously, can't help you with.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________
"You can run on for a long time, Run on for a long time, Run on for a long time, Sooner or later God'll cut you down." (Johnny Cash)

AnnaEsse
Administrator
Administrator

Female
Number of posts : 18417
Age : 105
Location : Casa Nostra
Warning :
0 / 1000 / 100

Registration date : 2009-09-23

http://frommybigdesk.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: McCanns v Amaral

Post  AnnaEsse on Mon 30 Jan - 15:31

Navigator wrote:
nospinnaker wrote:Am I the only one who fails completely to comprehend?

Fails to comprehend what?

Then again it is never easy to understand when people are keeping information secret is it?


You don't have to understand. All you have to do is accept that there is no obligation on anyone to tell you anything.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________
"You can run on for a long time, Run on for a long time, Run on for a long time, Sooner or later God'll cut you down." (Johnny Cash)

AnnaEsse
Administrator
Administrator

Female
Number of posts : 18417
Age : 105
Location : Casa Nostra
Warning :
0 / 1000 / 100

Registration date : 2009-09-23

http://frommybigdesk.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: McCanns v Amaral

Post  Navigator on Mon 30 Jan - 15:32

[quote="Colonel Fabien"]
dutchclogs wrote:
Iris wrote:If I had a court case coming up, I wouldn't put my business all over the internet for any Troll, Dick or Harry to discuss. Goncalo Amaral is not obliged to tell anybody anything.[/quote

Exactly, Why should he, DO the McCanns tell us every thing they are going to do, No they don't, only the things they want to SPIN[b]

So right. GA is under no obligation to keep us informed of everything he does. I'm sure he had good reasons to change his lawyer.

No harm in speculating though is there? Got to be a serious reason surely at that stage of a case. There would be a big difference for example if his lawyer effectively dismissed him rather than him dismissing his lawyer.

Navigator
Newbie
Newbie

Number of posts : 35
Warning :
0 / 1000 / 100

Registration date : 2012-01-23

Back to top Go down

Re: McCanns v Amaral

Post  Sponsored content Today at 2:30


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 3 of 5 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

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