Defamation and defamatory ...

[ferryman]

Let's see if the Find Madeleine Campaign are prepared to offer any answers at this point in time which will put an end to these rumours.  We have written to them asking for clarification.  Given their past efforts though I wouldn't hold my breath!

To be honest, I wouldn't expect them to. Whatever negotiations may or may not have taken place are a private matter between the McCanns and Amaral.

The substance of the negotiations may be private,  but that is not what is being asked about

There is no reason at all for the McCanns not to clear up the simple question :

Did Amaral approach you for an out of court settlement  ...  or did you approach him ?

If you were in private litigation with someone, would you feel obliged to divulge what may be sub judice information to satisfy the curiosity of some anonymous noseyparker on the Internet?

When the McCanns first took legal action against Amaral the media were fully briefed on their intentions.  A lengthy and detailed statement was given, and the Mirror even claimed to have been given a copy of the complete 24 page writ  ( parts of which were printed )

There was no reticence on the McCanns' part in that instance, and no element of  'sub judice' in their open declarations

There is a marked difference this time round

Is that still on the net?

[Redblossom]

Of course all articles  are on the net, why shouldn't they be,as are the tv interviews with Gerry saying if anyone crosses the line they can expect to be punished, as is Kate Mccanns book in print detailing how Mr Amaral deserves to feel fear and be miserable

[icabodcrane]

Let's see if the Find Madeleine Campaign are prepared to offer any answers at this point in time which will put an end to these rumours.  We have written to them asking for clarification.  Given their past efforts though I wouldn't hold my breath!

To be honest, I wouldn't expect them to. Whatever negotiations may or may not have taken place are a private matter between the McCanns and Amaral.

The substance of the negotiations may be private,  but that is not what is being asked about

There is no reason at all for the McCanns not to clear up the simple question :

Did Amaral approach you for an out of court settlement  ...  or did you approach him ?

If you were in private litigation with someone, would you feel obliged to divulge what may be sub judice information to satisfy the curiosity of some anonymous noseyparker on the Internet?

When the McCanns first took legal action against Amaral the media were fully briefed on their intentions.  A lengthy and detailed statement was given, and the Mirror even claimed to have been given a copy of the complete 24 page writ  ( parts of which were printed )

There was no reticence on the McCanns' part in that instance, and no element of  'sub judice' in their open declarations

There is a marked difference this time round

Is that still on the net?

It's all archived on the McCannfiles site