The McCann v Gonçalo Amaral libel trial as it happens.

[John]

As if anyone thought it wasn't, false John.

Quite a few didn't actually.  I meant to clarify this earlier but got sidetracked.

For those who are interested Anne is doing a short Report on todays events.

[ferryman]

As far as I know he says Maddie died in the apt and the MCCanns covered it up...staged an abduction...told lies...disposed of the body one month later ... I think police reports may well be covered by privilege..as are court proceedings and statements made in parliament...amaral wrote it all in a book

Is exactly right ....

[Redblossom]

So who sent in that one?  We were supposed to be frightfully impressed by this.  The whole world is supporting Amaral?

Oh Dear.  Not true.

One tweeter said something...it may have been true, it may have not, no one knows if a tweet is true until corroborated by different people sayng the same.....and that does not include retweets.....no one was supposed to be impressed let alone think the whole world is supporting amaral
 

your love of exagerrating at the highest order is hilarious eleanor...oh btw next time dont pick me up on my punctuation, or lack of it, answering a post is normally more civil and conducive to debate than petty nitpickings of nothing important....



eta oops cross posted with John.....

[Lyall]

Let's see.

How many people think Stuart Prior said, in England, people have been arrested on less than the PJ had against the McCanns?

That's from Amaral's book.

Oh yes, I can believe that. Police generally don't mess about in any country in cases where children have disappeared without any trace.

[Benice]

What lies did he tell??  Wasn't the shelving of the case based on the same evidence?

Well unless his book has been incorrectly translated - it is littered with downright lies, lies by omission, gross distortions of the truth, and spiteful innuendo designed to make the reader believe what he wants them to believe regardless of whether it is factually correct or not.   

Have you not read it?   

[ferryman]

Oh yes, I can believe that. Police generally don't mess about in any country in cases where children have disappeared without any trace.

Of course you believe it.

You read it in Amaral's book

And the book has not harmed the search for Madeleine?

[Lyall]

Of course you believe it.

You read it in Amaral's book

And the book has not harmed the search for Madeleine?

It's a missing child case. Considerations for everyone else, including the family, are secondary. By September they had not a single clue pointing elsewhere, so you blame the police for thinking the unthinkable? It would be the same in any country: they are the police and it's their job to make decisions that might be unpalatable for members of the public - because they're thinking about what happened to the child, not about what happens to the child's family.

[Lyall]

Of course you believe it.

You read it in Amaral's book

And the book has not harmed the search for Madeleine?

And there was also not a single clue pointing elsewhere by the time of the shelving of the case, or on the day Amaral's book was published.

Or by this day, six and a half years later.

[DCI]

Quite a few didn't actually.  I meant to clarify this earlier but got sidetracked.

For those who are interested Anne is doing a short Report on todays events.

Cheers John. But you only had to see who tweeted it to know it was BS.

Look forward to the report. Short and sweet, by all accounts!

[ferryman]

It's a missing child case. Considerations for everyone else, including the family, are secondary. By September they had not a single clue pointing elsewhere, so you blame the police for thinking the unthinkable? It would be the same in any country: they are the police and it's their job to make decisions that might be unpalatable for members of the public - because they're thinking about what happened to the child, not about what happens to the child's family.

It's a slightly obscure and off-beat line of reasoning that blaming someone -- anyone -- should take priority over identifying true culprits of crimes and establishing what crimes they are (or are not) guilty of ...

[DCI]

I don't think it's the book that's the problem. It can't be denied the film is a good deal more dogmatic. >@@(*&)

True Lyall.

According to

Jerry Lawton ‏@JerryLawton   
Libel trial hears Goncalo Amaral - in TV documentary - accused Madeleine #McCann parents of staging 'pseudo-abduction.

Seems this judge has been quite thorough.

[Lyall]

It's a slightly obscure and off-beat line of reasoning that blaming someone -- anyone -- should take priority over identifying true culprits of crimes and establishing what crimes they are (or are not) guilty of ...

Because it was four months after the child disappeared and believe it or not those policemen would be frantic to find out what happened to her. They had the dog alerts, and they had an interim forensics report. So they had a good deal more pointing to the child's parents than they had pointing in any other direction. Four months after the disappearance police can't hang about worrying about the feelings of the child's family.

If you don't believe by the way what Amaral claims Prior said, you should look into the evidence held by police at the moment people have been charged never mind arrested. Not much in many cases, including high-profile ones - in UK and other countries. Check, for instance, the evidence held by the US police at the moment Casey Anthony was indicted, in a case very similar to this one in many respects. Not much - dog alerts, single hair, smell of Chloroform. That was more or less it. No body.

[Eleanor]

I have never thought that The Book was a real problem.  But Amaral just had to go on and on. 
He thought that because The McCanns didn't challenge his book initially, then he could just say whatever he liked.  Stupid, stupid man.
But then stupid people like him never do know when to stop.  He is the source of his own destruction.  This is Karma.  Here and now.

[Lyall]

Oh golly gosh.  Casey Anthony was acquitted.  And I should think so too.

Only because the jury couldn't decide if it was her or her father.

[Rogerandout]

It's a missing child case. Considerations for everyone else, including the family, are secondary. By September they had not a single clue pointing elsewhere, so you blame the police for thinking the unthinkable? It would be the same in any country: they are the police and it's their job to make decisions that might be unpalatable for members of the public - because they're thinking about what happened to the child, not about what happens to the child's family.

Except they decided to arguido the McCanns just one day before the Portuguese LAw changed to require reasonable suspicion rather than just suspicion to force arguido status and question belligerently- a decision forced on the Police by the ECHR. The following week they could not have been made arguido and so questioned.