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

Shall we have a little bet.

Page 1 of 3 1, 2, 3  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Shall we have a little bet.

Post  Panda on Sat 16 Nov - 16:03



Because we are in the doldrums eagerly awaiting the result of the Trial how about a little bet on who will win. You can bet however much you like but you must say why you think the person you bet on will win.

I'll start us off. Because Kate is piling on the agony, I think The McCanns will win, sad to say. This is because there is no evidence that Madeleine is alive or dead, nor rhat she died in 5a. My bet is 2/1 on the McCanns.

Panda
Platinum Poster
Platinum Poster

Female
Number of posts : 30555
Age : 59
Location : Wales
Warning :
0 / 1000 / 100

Registration date : 2010-03-27

Back to top Go down

Re: Shall we have a little bet.

Post  keepingmum on Sat 16 Nov - 16:16

sadly I think you are probably right Panda. On the other hand there is no evidence of an abduction either so i'll bet on Dr. Amaral as an outsider - after all nobody thought Foinavon would win the Grand National!

keepingmum
Elite Member
Elite Member

Number of posts : 325
Warning :
0 / 1000 / 100

Registration date : 2009-11-28

Back to top Go down

Re: Shall we have a little bet.

Post  Panda on Sat 16 Nov - 16:30

keepingmum wrote:sadly I think you are probably right Panda.  On the other hand there is no evidence of an abduction either so i'll bet on Dr. Amaral as an outsider - after all nobody thought Foinavon would win the Grand National!
Hi keepingmum, we know there is a lot of circumstantial evidence , but although Amaral is suggesting that Madeleine died in 5a is one of the theories
the Portugese came up with . There were 4 suggestions I remember:-

1.that Madeleine died in 5a

2. That she was abducted

3 and 4 I can't remember so hopefully one of our Members will find that bit of the Report and we can try and work out what conclusion the Judge will reach.......wev'e been playing Detective all these years anyway. 

Panda
Platinum Poster
Platinum Poster

Female
Number of posts : 30555
Age : 59
Location : Wales
Warning :
0 / 1000 / 100

Registration date : 2010-03-27

Back to top Go down

Re: Shall we have a little bet.

Post  MaryB on Sat 16 Nov - 16:58

I think we might be in for a surprise. Quite what it is I'm not sure. I wonder if the judge will defer a decision until the outcome of the re-investigation. I can't see Mr Amaral having to pay them £1.2m. But who knows.

MaryB
Platinum Poster
Platinum Poster

Number of posts : 1581
Warning :
0 / 1000 / 100

Registration date : 2009-09-15

Back to top Go down

Re: Shall we have a little bet.

Post  malena stool on Sat 16 Nov - 17:09

MaryB wrote:I think we might be in for a surprise.  Quite what it is I'm not sure.  I wonder if the judge will defer a decision until the outcome of the re-investigation.  I can't see Mr Amaral having to pay them £1.2m.  But who knows.
I'd see them in hell before I paid them a bent penny....

malena stool
Platinum Poster
Platinum Poster

Male
Number of posts : 13385
Location : Spare room above the kitchen
Warning :
0 / 1000 / 100

Registration date : 2009-10-04

Back to top Go down

Re: Shall we have a little bet.

Post  mossman on Sat 16 Nov - 17:13

Yes, there could well be a surprise.  The decision to allow them to be witnesses or not will be interesting.

That said I'm neither a lawyer or Portugese so don't understand the workings of either system

For me one of the interesting questions asked by the judge to date was if the book is faithful to the investigation (the answer of the witness was yes).  If that is the case, and given that the Portugese system allows for the files to be available for public viewing, then I cannot see why the McCanns should win.  

As a person, I can read the police files or the book.  If both have the same content, how is one libel ?

I am sure there is a hugely complicated legal argument against me, but I like simple.  

mossman
Platinum Poster
Platinum Poster

Number of posts : 1639
Warning :
0 / 1000 / 100

Registration date : 2011-05-25

Back to top Go down

Re: Shall we have a little bet.

Post  Panda on Sat 16 Nov - 17:15

MaryB wrote:I think we might be in for a surprise.  Quite what it is I'm not sure.  I wonder if the judge will defer a decision until the outcome of the re-investigation.  I can't see Mr Amaral having to pay them £1.2m.  But who knows.
Hi Mary B....are you any good at finding stuff? if so,it would be good to read the 4 theories in the Final Report . That is really all that the Judge can go by, I don't think there is a Jury . I hope the Mccanns are not allowed to be "assistentes" That is a wierd set up, normally the Lawyer leads the Witnesses.

Panda
Platinum Poster
Platinum Poster

Female
Number of posts : 30555
Age : 59
Location : Wales
Warning :
0 / 1000 / 100

Registration date : 2010-03-27

Back to top Go down

Re: Shall we have a little bet.

Post  mossman on Sat 16 Nov - 17:21

Panda wrote:
MaryB wrote:I think we might be in for a surprise.  Quite what it is I'm not sure.  I wonder if the judge will defer a decision until the outcome of the re-investigation.  I can't see Mr Amaral having to pay them £1.2m.  But who knows.
Hi Mary B....are you any good at finding stuff? if so,it would be good to read  the 4 theories in the Final Report . That is really all that the Judge can go by, I don't think there is a Jury . I hope the Mccanns are not allowed to be "assistentes" That is a wierd set up, normally the Lawyer leads the Witnesses.

Panda, the assistente status they are reported to be applying for is nothing to do with this trial. That relates to the criminal investigation.

They have asked to be heard at the libel trial as witnesses instead of plaintiffs which I'm guessing will allow them to recite a sad story and not be questioned, along the lines of making a victim impact statement. The judge has to decide two things - 1. If she wants to hear from them at all. And. 2. If they will speak as witnesses or plaintiffs, if she allows them to speak.

That's what I understand at any rate

mossman
Platinum Poster
Platinum Poster

Number of posts : 1639
Warning :
0 / 1000 / 100

Registration date : 2011-05-25

Back to top Go down

Re: Shall we have a little bet.

Post  Claudia79 on Sat 16 Nov - 17:26

Panda wrote:
MaryB wrote:I think we might be in for a surprise.  Quite what it is I'm not sure.  I wonder if the judge will defer a decision until the outcome of the re-investigation.  I can't see Mr Amaral having to pay them £1.2m.  But who knows.
Hi Mary B....are you any good at finding stuff? if so,it would be good to read  the 4 theories in the Final Report . That is really all that the Judge can go by, I don't think there is a Jury . I hope the Mccanns are not allowed to be "assistentes" That is a wierd set up, normally the Lawyer leads the Witnesses.
The request to become 'assistentes' has nothing whatsoever to do with the libel trial.

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: Shall we have a little bet.

Post  MaryB on Sat 16 Nov - 17:28

The only thing that I have thought is that wouldn't a policeman have to sign a confidentiality clause about cases whether they were solved or not or even if they never got to court. But on the other hand if everything in the book was in the case files then it's the publication of the case files that was wrong if it's libel.

MaryB
Platinum Poster
Platinum Poster

Number of posts : 1581
Warning :
0 / 1000 / 100

Registration date : 2009-09-15

Back to top Go down

Re: Shall we have a little bet.

Post  Panda on Sat 16 Nov - 17:32

mossman wrote:
Panda wrote:
MaryB wrote:I think we might be in for a surprise.  Quite what it is I'm not sure.  I wonder if the judge will defer a decision until the outcome of the re-investigation.  I can't see Mr Amaral having to pay them £1.2m.  But who knows.
Hi Mary B....are you any good at finding stuff? if so,it would be good to read  the 4 theories in the Final Report . That is really all that the Judge can go by, I don't think there is a Jury . I hope the Mccanns are not allowed to be "assistentes" That is a wierd set up, normally the Lawyer leads the Witnesses.
Panda, the assistente status they are reported to be applying for is nothing to do with this trial.  That relates to the criminal investigation.

They have asked to be heard at the libel trial as witnesses instead of plaintiffs which I'm guessing will allow them to recite a sad story and not be questioned, along the lines of making a victim impact statement.  The judge has to decide two things - 1. If she wants to hear from them at all. And. 2.  If they will speak as witnesses or plaintiffs, if she allows them to speak.

That's what I understand at any rate
Uum, what crime? I thought when the McCanns saw how ineffectual their first Witnesses were, they hotfooted it to Portugal to ask permission so they can see the files and kind of "coach" their next Witnesses. You found something for me the other day, can you go to McCannfiles , look up Final Report and copy and paste the 4 theories the PJ concluded. It could be the Judge will choose one of the two I couldn't remember. Mucho Gracias

Panda
Platinum Poster
Platinum Poster

Female
Number of posts : 30555
Age : 59
Location : Wales
Warning :
0 / 1000 / 100

Registration date : 2010-03-27

Back to top Go down

Re: Shall we have a little bet.

Post  Panda on Sat 16 Nov - 17:37

MaryB wrote:The only thing that I have thought is that wouldn't a policeman have to sign a confidentiality clause about cases whether they were solved or not or even if they never got to court.  But on the other hand if everything in the book was in the case files then it's the publication of the case files that was wrong if it's libel.
I think when the case was shelved the Final Report was accessible to anyone , that's why it is in the mccannfiles. However , since there were 4 assumptions, Amaral has chosen one, that Madeleine died in 5a, there is no evidence so the judge has to make a decision based on the Law of probability.

Panda
Platinum Poster
Platinum Poster

Female
Number of posts : 30555
Age : 59
Location : Wales
Warning :
0 / 1000 / 100

Registration date : 2010-03-27

Back to top Go down

Re: Shall we have a little bet.

Post  Panda on Sat 16 Nov - 17:38

Claudia79 wrote:
Panda wrote:
MaryB wrote:I think we might be in for a surprise.  Quite what it is I'm not sure.  I wonder if the judge will defer a decision until the outcome of the re-investigation.  I can't see Mr Amaral having to pay them £1.2m.  But who knows.
Hi Mary B....are you any good at finding stuff? if so,it would be good to read  the 4 theories in the Final Report . That is really all that the Judge can go by, I don't think there is a Jury . I hope the Mccanns are not allowed to be "assistentes" That is a wierd set up, normally the Lawyer leads the Witnesses.
The request to become 'assistentes' has nothing whatsoever to do with the libel trial.
Explain exactly what the role is then Claudia , if it is nothing to do with the Libel Trial , what are the Mccanns there for?

Panda
Platinum Poster
Platinum Poster

Female
Number of posts : 30555
Age : 59
Location : Wales
Warning :
0 / 1000 / 100

Registration date : 2010-03-27

Back to top Go down

Re: Shall we have a little bet.

Post  mossman on Sat 16 Nov - 17:39

Panda wrote:
mossman wrote:
Panda wrote:
MaryB wrote:I think we might be in for a surprise.  Quite what it is I'm not sure.  I wonder if the judge will defer a decision until the outcome of the re-investigation.  I can't see Mr Amaral having to pay them £1.2m.  But who knows.
Hi Mary B....are you any good at finding stuff? if so,it would be good to read  the 4 theories in the Final Report . That is really all that the Judge can go by, I don't think there is a Jury . I hope the Mccanns are not allowed to be "assistentes" That is a wierd set up, normally the Lawyer leads the Witnesses.
Panda, the assistente status they are reported to be applying for is nothing to do with this trial.  That relates to the criminal investigation.

They have asked to be heard at the libel trial as witnesses instead of plaintiffs which I'm guessing will allow them to recite a sad story and not be questioned, along the lines of making a victim impact statement.  The judge has to decide two things - 1. If she wants to hear from them at all. And. 2.  If they will speak as witnesses or plaintiffs, if she allows them to speak.

That's what I understand at any rate
Uum, what crime? I thought when the McCanns saw how ineffectual their first Witnesses were, they hotfooted it to Portugal to ask permission so they can see the files and kind of "coach" their next Witnesses. You found something for me the other day, can you go to McCannfiles , look up Final Report and copy and paste the 4 theories the PJ concluded. It could be the Judge will choose one of the two I couldn't remember.  Mucho Gracias

I use the word "criminal investigation" to distinguish it from the libel trial. It is the investigation re-opened in recent weeks by the PJ. It is Alvers (spelling) the couples crimininal lawyer who has been mouthing off about them applying for the status in relation to that.

I will look for the info you want later.

mossman
Platinum Poster
Platinum Poster

Number of posts : 1639
Warning :
0 / 1000 / 100

Registration date : 2011-05-25

Back to top Go down

Re: Shall we have a little bet.

Post  Claudia79 on Sat 16 Nov - 17:40

Panda wrote:
Claudia79 wrote:
Panda wrote:
MaryB wrote:I think we might be in for a surprise.  Quite what it is I'm not sure.  I wonder if the judge will defer a decision until the outcome of the re-investigation.  I can't see Mr Amaral having to pay them £1.2m.  But who knows.
Hi Mary B....are you any good at finding stuff? if so,it would be good to read  the 4 theories in the Final Report . That is really all that the Judge can go by, I don't think there is a Jury . I hope the Mccanns are not allowed to be "assistentes" That is a wierd set up, normally the Lawyer leads the Witnesses.
The request to become 'assistentes' has nothing whatsoever to do with the libel trial.
Explain exactly what the role is then Claudia , if it is nothing to do with the Libel Trial , what are the Mccanns there for?
The request to become 'assistentes' is connected to the reopening of the case and its investigation. Nothing to do with the libel trial.

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: Shall we have a little bet.

Post  Panda on Sat 16 Nov - 17:49

[quote="Claudia79"]
Panda wrote:
Claudia79 wrote:
Panda wrote:
MaryB wrote:I think we might be in for a surprise.  Quite what it is I'm not sure.  I wonder if the judge will defer a decision until the outcome of the re-investigation.  I can't see Mr Amaral having to pay them £1.2m.  But who knows.
Hi Mary B....are you any good at finding stuff? if so,it would be good to read  the 4 theories in the Final Report . That is really all that the Judge can go by, I don't think there is a Jury . I hope the Mccanns are not allowed to be "assistentes" That is a wierd set up, normally the Lawyer leads the Witnesses.
The request to become 'assistentes' has nothing whatsoever to do with the libel trial.
Explain exactly what the role is then Claudia , if it is nothing to do with the Libel Trial , what are the Mccanns there for?
The request to become 'assistentes' is connected to the reopening of the case and its investigation. Nothing to do with t

So the McCanns could have asked for this before the Trial and coached their Witnesses?

Panda
Platinum Poster
Platinum Poster

Female
Number of posts : 30555
Age : 59
Location : Wales
Warning :
0 / 1000 / 100

Registration date : 2010-03-27

Back to top Go down

Re: Shall we have a little bet.

Post  pennylane on Sat 16 Nov - 17:49

Panda wrote:

Because we are in the doldrums eagerly awaiting the result of the Trial how about a little bet on who will win. You can bet however much you like but you must say why you think the person you bet on will win.

I'll start us off. Because Kate is piling on the agony, I think The McCanns will win, sad to say. This is because there is no evidence that Madeleine is alive or dead, nor rhat she died in 5a. My bet is 2/1 on the McCanns.
I personally believe Dr Amaral will win!

pennylane
Platinum Poster
Platinum Poster

Number of posts : 5351
Warning :
0 / 1000 / 100

Registration date : 2010-03-10

Back to top Go down

Re: Shall we have a little bet.

Post  Panda on Sat 16 Nov - 17:52

mossman wrote:
Panda wrote:
mossman wrote:
Panda wrote:
MaryB wrote:I think we might be in for a surprise.  Quite what it is I'm not sure.  I wonder if the judge will defer a decision until the outcome of the re-investigation.  I can't see Mr Amaral having to pay them £1.2m.  But who knows.
Hi Mary B....are you any good at finding stuff? if so,it would be good to read  the 4 theories in the Final Report . That is really all that the Judge can go by, I don't think there is a Jury . I hope the Mccanns are not allowed to be "assistentes" That is a wierd set up, normally the Lawyer leads the Witnesses.
Panda, the assistente status they are reported to be applying for is nothing to do with this trial.  That relates to the criminal investigation.

They have asked to be heard at the libel trial as witnesses instead of plaintiffs which I'm guessing will allow them to recite a sad story and not be questioned, along the lines of making a victim impact statement.  The judge has to decide two things - 1. If she wants to hear from them at all. And. 2.  If they will speak as witnesses or plaintiffs, if she allows them to speak.

That's what I understand at any rate
Uum, what crime? I thought when the McCanns saw how ineffectual their first Witnesses were, they hotfooted it to Portugal to ask permission so they can see the files and kind of "coach" their next Witnesses. You found something for me the other day, can you go to McCannfiles , look up Final Report and copy and paste the 4 theories the PJ concluded. It could be the Judge will choose one of the two I couldn't remember.  Mucho Gracias
I use the word "criminal investigation" to distinguish it from the libel trial. It is the investigation re-opened in recent weeks by the PJ.  It is Alvers (spelling) the couples crimininal lawyer who has been mouthing off about them applying for the status in relation to that.

I will look for the info you want later.  
O.K. Thanks it is important , I am signing off for a while will catch up later.

Panda
Platinum Poster
Platinum Poster

Female
Number of posts : 30555
Age : 59
Location : Wales
Warning :
0 / 1000 / 100

Registration date : 2010-03-27

Back to top Go down

Re: Shall we have a little bet.

Post  Claudia79 on Sat 16 Nov - 17:56

Panda wrote:
Claudia79 wrote:
Panda wrote:
Claudia79 wrote:
Panda wrote:
MaryB wrote:I think we might be in for a surprise.  Quite what it is I'm not sure.  I wonder if the judge will defer a decision until the outcome of the re-investigation.  I can't see Mr Amaral having to pay them £1.2m.  But who knows.
Hi Mary B....are you any good at finding stuff? if so,it would be good to read  the 4 theories in the Final Report . That is really all that the Judge can go by, I don't think there is a Jury . I hope the Mccanns are not allowed to be "assistentes" That is a wierd set up, normally the Lawyer leads the Witnesses.
The request to become 'assistentes' has nothing whatsoever to do with the libel trial.
Explain exactly what the role is then Claudia , if it is nothing to do with the Libel Trial , what are the Mccanns there for?
The request to become 'assistentes' is connected to the reopening of the case and its investigation. Nothing to do with t

So the McCanns could have asked for this before the Trial and coached their Witnesses?  
No, Panda. Forget the libel trial. It has nothing to do with the 'assistentes' request. They apparently want to become 'assistentes' in the criminal investigation which was shelved some years ago and which was recently reopened.

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: Shall we have a little bet.

Post  mossman on Sat 16 Nov - 18:18



pages 1 and 2

Ministry Of Justice

Judiciary Police

Investigative Criminal Department of Portimão

NUIPC-201/07.0 GALGS

4th Brigade

Inspector João Carlos

Denouncer/Offended – Judiciary Police

Denunciated/Arguidos - Robert James Queriol Evelegh Murat, identified and questioned at fls. 1170, 1947 and 1959.

*Gerald Patrick McCann, identified and questioned at fls. 2569.

*Kate Marie Healy, identified and questioned at fls. 2557.

Witnesses/Persons inquired – see Index

Type of Crime – Unknown

Time and Place – Between 21H05 and 22H00 of the day 3 May of 2007, at the G5A apartment, located at the touristic resort ‘Ocean Club’, Vila da Luz, Lagos.

Apprehended Objects – see Index (all the apprehended objects were given back to the owners by means of term)

Examinations done – see Index

Final Report

Introduction

These documents relate to an occurrence which describes the disappearance of a minor of British nationality, MADELEINE BETH MCCANN daughter of GERALD PATRICK MCCANN and KATE MARIE HEALY, on the date with three (almost four) years old.

According to the Time and Place, the facts occurred on the day 3 of May of 2007, in a temporal hiatus, understood to be between 21H05 and 22H00 (being certain that after 17H30, only GERALD and KATE had contact with MADELEINE) at the resort named 'Ocean Club', located in Vila da Luz, Lagos, place, where the minor’s family, along with seven other persons, with whom they had a friendship relationship, where enjoying some holidays, with the duration of one week.


For Panda :



As such, consider:

1. abduction, for sexual exploration or other (e.g, later adoption, child trafficking, organ trafficking), without homicide;

2. abduction, followed by homicide with (or without) hiding of the corpse;

3. accidental death, with later hiding of the corpse;

pages 7 and 8

The Hypothesis 1 and 2 were considered in the double notion of the illicit of abduction (if that happened) that could have had occurred due to feelings of revenge by the
Kidnapper(s) towards the parents (intended abduction) or by taking merely the opportunity of the child being at a vulnerable situation (opportunity abduction).

As a remote hypothesis, the possibility of the minor leaving the apartment by her own means was explored – that would be highly unlikely physically – and after, because of an accident or by a third person intervention, she would have disappeared.

mossman
Platinum Poster
Platinum Poster

Number of posts : 1639
Warning :
0 / 1000 / 100

Registration date : 2011-05-25

Back to top Go down

Re: Shall we have a little bet.

Post  comperedna on Sat 16 Nov - 18:45

I think Amaral will win the libel action because the MCcanns have merely said that the book made them feel very unhappy and not shown it 'hindered the search' for Madeleine in any way. Tomorrow I may feel differently . :-D No I WON'T!

comperedna
Golden Poster
Golden Poster

Number of posts : 855
Warning :
0 / 1000 / 100

Registration date : 2009-08-24

Back to top Go down

Re: Shall we have a little bet.

Post  Krisy22 on Sat 16 Nov - 18:55

Dr Amaral will win ...if not then its a crime.

Krisy22
Platinum Poster
Platinum Poster

Female
Number of posts : 3380
Location : good old Oxfordshire no goats... lots of RAIN....
Warning :
0 / 1000 / 100

Registration date : 2008-07-27

Back to top Go down

Re: Shall we have a little bet.

Post  AnnaEsse on Sat 16 Nov - 19:00

comperedna wrote:I think Amaral will win the libel action because the MCcanns have merely said that the book made them feel very unhappy and not shown it 'hindered the search' for Madeleine in any way. Tomorrow I may feel differently . :-D  No I WON'T!
Their feeling unhappy about the book is no more something they should be compensated for than anyone feeling unhappy about something in the press that happens to be true. For me, the important factor is that Amaral's book is an account of the police investigation. The police are allowed to develop theories! It's their job, whether the suspects like it or not!

_________________________________________________________________________________________________
"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 : 18466
Age : 105
Location : Casa Nostra
Warning :
0 / 1000 / 100

Registration date : 2009-09-23

http://frommybigdesk.blogspot.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: Shall we have a little bet.

Post  Panda on Sat 16 Nov - 19:24

Claudia79 wrote:
Panda wrote:
Claudia79 wrote:
Panda wrote:
MaryB wrote:I think we might be in for a surprise.  Quite what it is I'm not sure.  I wonder if the judge will defer a decision until the outcome of the re-investigation.  I can't see Mr Amaral having to pay them £1.2m.  But who knows.
Hi Mary B....are you any good at finding stuff? if so,it would be good to read  the 4 theories in the Final Report . That is really all that the Judge can go by, I don't think there is a Jury . I hope the Mccanns are not allowed to be "assistentes" That is a wierd set up, normally the Lawyer leads the Witnesses.
The request to become 'assistentes' has nothing whatsoever to do with the libel trial.
Explain exactly what the role is then Claudia , if it is nothing to do with the Libel Trial , what are the Mccanns there for?
The request to become 'assistentes' is connected to the reopening of the case and its investigation. Nothing to do with the libel trial.
thanks, so they couldn't wait for the Trial to be over....more grandstanding.!!!

Panda
Platinum Poster
Platinum Poster

Female
Number of posts : 30555
Age : 59
Location : Wales
Warning :
0 / 1000 / 100

Registration date : 2010-03-27

Back to top Go down

Re: Shall we have a little bet.

Post  pennylane on Sat 16 Nov - 19:36

To this day, we are still learning of ways the infamous doctors' McCann harmed the search for Madeleine.


Dr Amaral will win the Libel trial!

pennylane
Platinum Poster
Platinum Poster

Number of posts : 5351
Warning :
0 / 1000 / 100

Registration date : 2010-03-10

Back to top Go down

Re: Shall we have a little bet.

Post  Sponsored content Today at 10:44


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 1 of 3 1, 2, 3  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


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