What is the lie in Amarals book. The truth of the lie.

[Eleanor]

Pardon?

Don't say Pardon, say What.

[Robittybob1]

Are you suggesting he was lying

This is what I said:  "I don't think I'd class him as a liar just because he made 10 mistakes in writing his book, but it makes me wonder why there were any mistakes at all."

What about you, are you suggesting he was lying?

[Robittybob1]

Don't say Pardon, say What.

What?   

I was just giving Sunny an example of a poor use of the expression "living in cuckoo land".

[Brietta]

This is what I said:  "I don't think I'd class him as a liar just because he made 10 mistakes in writing his book, but it makes me wonder why there were any mistakes at all."

Perhaps if he had taken time to read and fully take on board the details outlined in the archiving report he might have made fewer mistakes.  But deadlines had to be met.  The book was already written ... it was already printed ... and there were book signings and promotions to be attended to.

One of the things which I fail to understand is the ready acceptance that those who have never lived under a police state have so readily accepted and promoted that this one failed cop had the right to set himself up as prosecution, judge and jury on a couple who had undergone legal due process and emerged from it with no charges being laid.

[Robittybob1]

Perhaps if he had taken time to read and fully take on board the details outlined in the archiving report he might have made fewer mistakes.  But deadlines had to be met.  The book was already written ... it was already printed ... and there were book signings and promotions to be attended to.

One of the things which I fail to understand is the ready acceptance that those who have never lived under a police state have so readily accepted and promoted that this one failed cop had the right to set himself up as prosecution, judge and jury on a couple who had undergone legal due process and emerged from it with no charges being laid.

What I see happening is the feeling that favouritism occurred.  It is like someone saying if a poor working class family left their kids alone they would be taken off them but the McCanns got away with it.  So the ones who feel the unfairness side with GA even if he is a "failed cop", because the reason he failed is again blamed on the hierarchy.

[Mr Gray]

Perhaps if he had taken time to read and fully take on board the details outlined in the archiving report he might have made fewer mistakes.  But deadlines had to be met.  The book was already written ... it was already printed ... and there were book signings and promotions to be attended to.

One of the things which I fail to understand is the ready acceptance that those who have never lived under a police state have so readily accepted and promoted that this one failed cop had the right to set himself up as prosecution, judge and jury on a couple who had undergone legal due process and emerged from it with no charges being laid.

I think it's in the interview with the journalist recently  quoted here where he says he did not read the archiving report

[G-Unit]

The SC said it was, a balance between  the mccanns right to reputation and amarals right to free speech.... They decided amarals rights were more important... The ECHR will not support that imo

The onus in a 'libel' trial is on the accuser to prove their case. In this case they failed. The Portuguese State didn't, in my opinion, breach the McCann's human rights.

[G-Unit]

Perhaps if he had taken time to read and fully take on board the details outlined in the archiving report he might have made fewer mistakes.  But deadlines had to be met.  The book was already written ... it was already printed ... and there were book signings and promotions to be attended to.

One of the things which I fail to understand is the ready acceptance that those who have never lived under a police state have so readily accepted and promoted that this one failed cop had the right to set himself up as prosecution, judge and jury on a couple who had undergone legal due process and emerged from it with no charges being laid.

In my opinion the McCann's lawyer was the one who misunderstood the archiving dispatch. According to the Supreme Court she failed to understand that it's contents were at variance with it's conclusions. She also thought it had more significance than it actually possessed.

[Mr Gray]

The onus in a 'libel' trial is on the accuser to prove their case. In this case they failed. The Portuguese State didn't, in my opinion, breach the McCann's human rights.

I think you are totally wrong looking at other cases... Did Murat not win his case... Again looking at other ECHR cases it, seems to me the mccanns have a very solid complaint

[faithlilly]

In my opinion the McCann's lawyer was the one who misunderstood the archiving dispatch. According to the Supreme Court she failed to understand that it's contents were at variance with it's conclusions. She also thought it had more significance than it actually possessed.

To be fair to Duarte I believe she was only taking instructions.

[Mr Gray]

In my opinion the McCann's lawyer was the one who misunderstood the archiving dispatch. According to the Supreme Court she failed to understand that it's contents were at variance with it's conclusions. She also thought it had more significance than it actually possessed.

from http://pjga.blogspot.com/?m=0



1. The McCanns have invoked the principle of presumption of innocence to justify the restrictions they want imposed on dr. Amaral's freedom of expression;

2. The Supreme Court stated, in its ruling, that the above is no argument because the McCanns were not considered innocent by the investigation and the case was archived because not enough evidence was found to charge them.

3. The McCanns, because they believe the above argument is false, request for the Supreme Court's decision to be nullified.



so 1 says the mccanns invoked the presumption of innocence...and 2 ...the SC say they were not entitled to it because the archiving despatch did not clear them.......which is contrary to ECHR law as i understand.. This also confirms the mccanns were not claiming to have been proven innocent... They simply felt they were entitled to the presumption  of innocence

[Mr Gray]

The onus in a 'libel' trial is on the accuser to prove their case. In this case they failed. The Portuguese State didn't, in my opinion, breach the McCann's human rights.

are you saying that if one portuguese citizen accuse another of murder....the accused has to prove he is innocent to show libel.....i think you are 100% wrong

As regards the ECHR... That is, certainly  not correct

[G-Unit]

I think you are totally wrong looking at other cases... Did Murat not win his case... Again looking at other ECHR cases it, seems to me the mccanns have a very solid complaint

Correio da Manhã printed as fact rumours about Murat's personality and behavioural traits. They lied when they said that the police believed these rumours to be true.

Amaral documented what the police actually believed during the period covered by his book.

Two very different scenarios imo.
 

[Mr Gray]

Correio da Manhã printed as fact rumours about Murat's personality and behavioural traits. They lied when they said that the police believed these rumours to be true.

Amaral documented what the police actually believed during the period covered by his book.

Two very different scenarios imo.

If they printed facts, about his behavioural traits then according to you he, would have to prove them wrong... I don't  see how Portugal could be so at odds with ECHR law... where in the cases I've quoted those defamed have not have to have proved themselves innocent

I think you are, quite mistaken

[G-Unit]

To be fair to Duarte I believe she was only taking instructions.

We don't know what went on between the McCanns and Duarte. She may have advised against proceeding for all we know. All we do know is that she accepted the case and then lost it.

Unless the judges were biased, which is unlikely in my opinion, she lot the case for one of two reasons;

1. It was a lost cause from the beginning as there was no defamation.
2. It was winnable, but her arguments were inadequate.