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

[Robittybob1]

Yes... Cats don't lie

My cat cat walks over the keyboard, so I suppose that could be classed as a written confession.
Generally she is silent (takes the 5th amendment).

[G-Unit]

What sort of evidence would you expect the police to find to support such historic allegations?

Follow the link, read the first document and you will understand why the police took Murat's computer to be examined.

[G-Unit]

So you think in the UK the plaintiff has to prove the allegation false... You are totally mistaken

I provided a cite, where's yours?

[Brietta]

The archiving report quantified the amount of evidence against Murat in the same terms as that against the McCanns.  I guess that means it would have been OK for any ex cop on the case to have written a lurid book about Murat’s involvement in Madeleine’s disappearance on that basis, and get away with it.

Having read what is in the files ... and Amaral validated his book on that basis ... the video of the Murat documentary could have had more sensational bits to it than clinking wine glasses and bottles on on the table.
In fact the mind boggles.

[Mr Gray]

I provided a cite, where's yours?

You provided a sentence... It doesn't mean what tiy think it does... So let's be clear.. If I call someone s thief.... I have to show he is... He doesn't have to show he isn't... Do you understand that to be true... Or do you disagree.. In the UK the onus is on the person making the libellous, statement to prove his statement is correct

[Robittybob1]

So you think in the UK the plaintiff has to prove the allegation false... You are totally mistaken

If you have not been convicted of that crime you are presumed innocent (surely that applies to all situations).

"First, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant made a false and defamatory statement concerning the plaintiff."

Being accused of committing a crime which you haven't been convicted of is clearly defamatory.

Defamatory by definition.

[Mr Gray]

If you have not been convicted of that crime you are presumed innocent (surely that applies to all situations).

"First, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant made a false and defamatory statement concerning the plaintiff."

Being accused of committing a crime which you haven't been convicted of is clearly defamatory.

Defamatory by definition.

Which is what amaral did

[Robittybob1]

Which is what amaral did

I find the legal arguments hard to follow.

[G-Unit]

and the link you have posted is just opinion...it ends with...


benefit from the presumption of innocence should criminal proceedings eventually be brought against the Appellants

which of course is incorrect which makes the rest suspect....there does not have to be criminal charges befire a suspect is guaranteed the presumption of innocence

The Supreme Court wasn't rejecting the principle of the presumption of innocence, it was rejecting a specific claim made by the McCann's lawyer. 

They claimed that the McCanns were entitled to the presumption of innocence BECAUSE the archiving dispatch cleared them.

The SC judges responded that the archiving dispatch did not clear them THEREFORE their claim was incorrect.

[Mr Gray]

The Supreme Court wasn't rejecting the principle of the presumption of innocence, it was rejecting a specific claim made by the McCann's lawyer. 

They claimed that the McCanns were entitled to the presumption of innocence BECAUSE the archiving dispatch cleared them.

The SC judges responded that the archiving dispatch did not clear them THEREFORE their claim was incorrect.

Could you provide a cite for that... The mccanns, were entitled to the presumption of innocence irrespective of the archiving despatch so I think you are totally mistaken... So cite please

[Venturi Swirl]

The Supreme Court wasn't rejecting the principle of the presumption of innocence, it was rejecting a specific claim made by the McCann's lawyer. 

They claimed that the McCanns were entitled to the presumption of innocence BECAUSE the archiving dispatch cleared them.

The SC judges responded that the archiving dispatch did not clear them THEREFORE their claim was incorrect.

So whilst no longer being suspects they are still suspects, is that it?

[Mr Gray]

So whilst no longer being suspects they are still suspects, is that it?

What gunit seems to be saying is that as they had not been cleared they were not entitled to the presumption of innocence... Which is patently absurd

[Robittybob1]

The Supreme Court wasn't rejecting the principle of the presumption of innocence, it was rejecting a specific claim made by the McCann's lawyer. 

They claimed that the McCanns were entitled to the presumption of innocence BECAUSE the archiving dispatch cleared them.

The SC judges responded that the archiving dispatch did not clear them THEREFORE their claim was incorrect.

The question remains were they entitled to the presumption of innocence, even after making the wrong claim ( not withstanding the Archiving Report had its own errors in it).

Amaral and the PJ were investigating the case as to a criminal activity, yet the claim for damages was a civil matter.  So if GA claims the McCanns were guilty staging the crime scene and getting rid of the body, he is talking criminal acts committed by the McCanns.  He claims it and he thinks he has the proof, does he worry about their right to be presumed innocent until proving guilty in a court of law?
 Doesn't seem like it.

SC say he is allowed to do that as part of his freedom of speech.

[Alice Purjorick]

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

That's what lawyers do!
Their invoices usually kick off with:
To taking your instructions.

[G-Unit]

Could you provide a cite for that... The mccanns, were entitled to the presumption of innocence irrespective of the archiving despatch so I think you are totally mistaken... So cite please

The SC rejected the reason Duarte gave, not the existence of the entitlement. .