Why don’t you leave our Gandy and his absolute conviction to consider his own version of history and join the rest of us on the other thread.

That is a lie, Gandolf.

Just because the Attorney General came down like a ton of bricks on the McCanns there is no reason for you to have a fit of sulks.

And whilst I am usually tolerant of the give and take of debate I do not propose to tolerate you lying about my posts on this blog.

Nor should you have a hissy fit just because the Judge refused to repeat Scott’s opening claim that Madeleine had been abducted.

The Police won, the McCanns lost, and Madeleine’s interests were and are the ones which matter, insofar as they do not prejudice the public interest…

sorry!

I’d go through it for free

—————————–

So would I; perhaps we could offer our services should the sun rise in the west tomorrow…

Yes, and that was good to hear.

I’m being somewhat economical with what I say until the full judgement is published, since I would not wish to inadvertently drop Anorak in it…

But of course! Your place or mine???

I’d go through it for free
****
May I help you then?

“I ponder about that person - whether that person has a heart and might understand what it must be like for Madeleine to have been taken and secreted from her parents and siblings and those she loved and felt secure with.

One person not two not seven not nine, how does one person concoct a conspiracy.

As I said Chenny simply at variance with the Portuguese take.
———————-

Tosh.

It was the McCanns who claimed a conspiracy, and carried on claiming a conspiracy right up until the trip to Strasbourg when they flip-flopped and started talking about a single criminal.

I assume that was because it finally dawned on them that they could not get anyone who knows anything about organised crime to believe in the dastardly gang kidnapping a little blonde girl for some filthy rich Arab pervert…

sorry!

I’d go through it for free

‘Just as she was careful to say that the McCanns had acted reasonably and responsibly in the Family Court Proceedings.’

You mean that she was careful NOT to say the above??

All that excitement

did you take any piccy’s???

Did you estimate the cost of this mornings public relations stunt?

any clues who’s funding it????

————————————-

No; she did say it. I’m merely pointing out that she said it in the context of the Family Court proceedings, not any period prior to that, irrespective of what Clarrie might wish to spin.

No, I didn’t take any piccies.

Vast sums of money.

I would imagine that the Constabulary and the Attorney General paid for their own lawyers, and the McCanns paid for theirs.

But at least the trustees of the Fund, placing their ‘Madeleine’s best interests hat’ upon their heads, can heave a sigh of relief that they don’t have to pay for someone to go through the 11,000 pieces of paper in the files…

“I ponder about that person - whether that person has a heart and might understand what it must be like for Madeleine to have been taken and secreted from her parents and siblings and those she loved and felt secure with.

One person not two not seven not nine, how does one person concoct a conspiracy.

As I said Chenny simply at variance with the Portuguese take.

Its been a long time coming!

which could be read as -I could not bear to see them in my court this early on a Monday morning - judges have strong stomachs but there is a limit…

‘Just as she was careful to say that the McCanns had acted reasonably and responsibly in the Family Court Proceedings.’

You mean that she was careful NOT to say the above??

All that excitement

did you take any piccy’s???

Did you estimate the cost of this mornings public relations stunt?

any clues who’s funding it????

What a wonderful thoughtful woman, perhaps justice is not dead after all.

Yes; I really did like the fact that she made it clear that it was about Madeleine.

About time someone did…