Goncalo Amaral.

[Billy Whizz Fan Club]

So you do believe that anyone who has an opinion that a named person is guilty of a crime has the right to name that person as being guilty of that crime without having to present any evidence in court.

No I don’t.

My belief is that if a person has reasonable grounds to form an opinion as to a named person’s alleged responsibility for said crime then they should be free to say “I suspect named person is guilty”. Without a court case they can not say “named person is guilty”.

I don’t believe Wolter’s should say “CB killed Madeleine McCann”. I do believe he should be free to say “I believe CB killed Madeleine McCann”

[Billy Whizz Fan Club]

As I have said many times. The ECHR will decide if his opinion is supprted by evidence... Thats one of their tests.... I think you will find his opinion isnt and he should realise that

If you respect the ECHR as the arbiter on permissible opinion then you’ll have to wait for any case against Amaral to conclude before you express an opinion either way.

[Erngath]

No I don’t.

My belief is that if a person has reasonable grounds to form an opinion as to a named person’s alleged responsibility for said crime them they should be free to say “I suspect named person is guilty”. Without a court case they can not say “named person is guilty”.

I don’t believe Wolter’s should say “CB killed Madeleine McCann”. I do believe he should be free to say “I believe CB killed Madeleine McCann”

Perhaps you should give the same advice to Amaral.

[Billy Whizz Fan Club]

It’s my opinion that the principle should also apply to Amaral. He can not say “the parents are guilty of staging an abduction and concealing a corpse” without a court ruling on said crime. I do believe however that he should be free to express his opinion that this is what he believed happened.

[G-Unit]

No I don’t.

My belief is that if a person has reasonable grounds to form an opinion as to a named person’s alleged responsibility for said crime then they should be free to say “I suspect named person is guilty”. Without a court case they can not say “named person is guilty”.

I don’t believe Wolter’s should say “CB killed Madeleine McCann”. I do believe he should be free to say “I believe CB killed Madeleine McCann”

Well expressed! 

[Venturi Swirl]

It’s my opinion that the principle should also apply to Amaral. He can not say “the parents are guilty of staging an abduction and concealing a corpse” without a court ruling on said crime. I do believe however that he should be free to express his opinion that this is what he believed happened.

He does say that though.  His book presents certain claims as facts.  Eg:  Madeleine died in the apartment.

[Mr Gray]

If you respect the ECHR as the arbiter on permissible opinion then you’ll have to wait for any case against Amaral to conclude before you express an opinion either way.

Amarals opinion is based on his misunderstanding of the evidence... I knnow that already.

[Billy Whizz Fan Club]

Amarals opinion is based on his misunderstanding of the evidence... I knnow that already.

That’s just your opinion. It’s not shared by others who are also well grounded in criminology, forensics , investigative methodology and criminal profiling.

[Mr Gray]

That’s just your opinion. It’s not shared by others who are also well grounded in criminology, forensics , investigative methodology and criminal profiling.

It isnt..Amaral claimed the alerts confirmed maddies body had been in apartment and he thought the DNA confirmed maddie DNA...neither of these is true. have you raed his book...he hasnt got a clue. So which experts support his evauation of this evidence...none

[Lace]

It is what he believes.

In much the same way people assert that the McCann's are innocent.

With regards to cleaning a glass window people tend to want to avoid touching the glass with their fingers. It's better cleaned if the only contact is a cloth, imo.

I have never seen a cleaner clean the windows,  usually they just change the beds and towels and tidy up.

[Lace]

No I don’t.

My belief is that if a person has reasonable grounds to form an opinion as to a named person’s alleged responsibility for said crime then they should be free to say “I suspect named person is guilty”. Without a court case they can not say “named person is guilty”.

I don’t believe Wolter’s should say “CB killed Madeleine McCann”. I do believe he should be free to say “I believe CB killed Madeleine McCann”

Amaral states as fact that Madeleine was dead in the apartment,  based on the DNA evidence and the dog alerts.  He doesn't say he 'believes' Madeleine died and the McCann's staged an abduction he says that 'Madeleine died' and the McCann's staged an abduction.

[Lace]

It is what he believes.

In much the same way people assert that the McCann's are innocent.

With regards to cleaning a glass window people tend to want to avoid touching the glass with their fingers. It's better cleaned if the only contact is a cloth, imo.

I assert the McCann's innocent by reading the facts of the case.   There is nothing to say that Amaral even spoke to CB.

[Billy Whizz Fan Club]

I assert the McCann's innocent by reading the facts of the case.   There is nothing to say that Amaral even spoke to CB.

That is your opinion. I believe you should be free to express it. But it doesn’t prove anything.

[G-Unit]

Maddie; Basta de Mentiras

Amaral's new book will be released on 13th October. Will he be sued I wonder?

[Venturi Swirl]

Maddie; Basta de Mentiras

Amaral's new book will be released on 13th October. Will he be sued I wonder?

If his book is full of lies and unsubstantiated accusations I hope he will.