Goncalo Amaral.

[Holly Goodhead]

He may be implying it but hes not saying it...and he hasnt for a long time.
I dont know if his assets have been unfrozen... Do you

The article refers to his assets being unfrozen.

[Mr Gray]

The article refers to his assets being unfrozen.

I wonder if its true... I didnt see that in thhe article

[Billy Whizz Fan Club]

Amaral says Brueckner is innocent,  how would he know that?   Did he interview him?   Or did he not bother when the Police Officers found he wasn't in.

I find it Bizarre he can say such things.   He is just protecting his book.

I also find it strange that only Kate's fingerprints were found on the window.   So the cleaner didn't touch the window frame when cleaning the window?

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.

[Mr Gray]

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.

Perhaps the ECHR will shut him up

[Billy Whizz Fan Club]

Perhaps the ECHR will shut him up

I actually believe Amaral's opinion, even if wrong, is a reasonable opinion to hold given the evidence available to him. The world won't be a better place if large sums of money spent on legal fees are used to silence opinion.

[Mr Gray]

I actually believe Amaral's opinion, even if wrong, is a reasonable opinion to hold given the evidence available to him. The world won't be a better place if large sums of money spent on legal fees are used to silence opinion.

The world wil be a better place if people like amaral are stopped fron commiting defamation...

[Billy Whizz Fan Club]

The world wil be a better place if people like amaral are stopped fron commiting defamation...

How do you know for sure that he is? What if his opinion is correct? Surely you see he has valid reasons to hold that opinion even if he is wrong?

Furthermore Voltaire springs to mind here!

[Erngath]

How do you know for sure that he is? What if his opinion is correct? Surely you see he has valid reasons to hold that opinion even if he is wrong?

Furthermore Voltaire springs to mind here!

Are you saying that it is acceptable to defame someone with your opinion even if it is wrong?

[jassi]

Are you saying that it is acceptable to defame someone with your opinion even if it is wrong?

But who is to say it's wrong ?

[Erngath]

But who is to say it's wrong ?

BWK said it could be wrong .
And it could be.
So while it could be right or wrong, does anyone have the right to defame someone without knowing whether their opinion is right or wrong.

[jassi]

BWK said it could be wrong .
And it could be.
So while it could be right or wrong, does anyone have the right to defame someone without knowing whether their opinion is right or wrong.

It would appear so, in the absence of a court ruling to the contrary.

[Erngath]

It would appear so, in the absence of a court ruling to the contrary.

Interesting theory.

[Billy Whizz Fan Club]

Are you saying that it is acceptable to defame someone with your opinion even if it is wrong?

No I am saying people should be free to express a reasonable opinion. If the opinion can be reasonably justified with the evidence that is available to them then I believe that shutting that opinion down should not be the preserve of people with enough money to pay huge sums in legal fees. Justice and freedom of expression should be equitable but also reasonable.

Furthermore as I said it’s worth considering Voltaire.

[Erngath]

No I am saying people should be free to express a reasonable opinion. If the opinion can be reasonably justified with the evidence that is available to them then I believe that shutting that opinion down should not be the preserve of people with enough money to pay huge sums in legal fees. Justice and freedom of expression should be equitable but also reasonable.

Furthermore as I said it’s worth considering Voltaire.

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.

[Mr Gray]

No I am saying people should be free to express a reasonable opinion. If the opinion can be reasonably justified with the evidence that is available to them then I believe that shutting that opinion down should not be the preserve of people with enough money to pay huge sums in legal fees. Justice and freedom of expression should be equitable but also reasonable.

Furthermore as I said it’s worth considering Voltaire.

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