Goncalo Amaral.

[Venturi Swirl]

You think that Amaral knows what heppened to Madeleine McCann and has spent years trying prevent anyone finding out? I think that statement is libelous.

I don't know what Brietta thinks but I know what I think - Amaral does not want to be proven wrong and so will do everything in his power to prevent someone who isn't Madeleine's parents being convicted of the crime.  If that involves throwing out the odd red herring for the hell of it then so be it.  Incidentally you have indirectly libelled Amaral by refusing to accept his word when he says the police knocked on CB's door after Madeleine's disappearance, therefore implying he is a liar.

[Brietta]

You think that Amaral knows what heppened to Madeleine McCann and has spent years trying prevent anyone finding out? I think that statement is libelous.

You mean Amaral didn't appear on television with faked up photographs of Brueckner's van alleging that was how it looked in 2007?

You mean Amaral didn't appear on television with with a faked up photograph of Brueckner in dreadlocks which he alleged represented Brueckner's appearance at the time of Madeleine's disappearance?

Think you should perhaps brush up on what constitutes libel. 

What it isn't is something the truth of which you are in denial.

What it isn't is something for which the evidence supplies proof of the truth.

[G-Unit]

You mean Amaral didn't appear on television with faked up photographs of Brueckner's van alleging that was how it looked in 2007?

You mean Amaral didn't appear on television with with a faked up photograph of Brueckner in dreadlocks which he alleged represented Brueckner's appearance at the time of Madeleine's disappearance?

Think you should perhaps brush up on what constitutes libel. 

What it isn't is something the truth of which you are in denial.

What it isn't is something for which the evidence supplies proof of the truth.

I think it's just as libelous to accuse Amaral of knowing 'the truth' and trying to cover it up as it is to accuse the McCanns of the same.

[Brietta]

You think that Amaral knows what heppened to Madeleine McCann and has spent years trying prevent anyone finding out? I think that statement is libelous.

Change the wording of your post slightly.

Remove the word "Amaral" and substitute "Kate" or "Gerry" or both of them.

That would be "libellous" because false statements constitute libel. 

[Venturi Swirl]

I think it's just as libelous to accuse Amaral of knowing 'the truth' and trying to cover it up as it is to accuse the McCanns of the same.

Is it libellous to accuse Amaral of being a liar?

[Brietta]

I think it's just as libelous to accuse Amaral of knowing 'the truth' and trying to cover it up as it is to accuse the McCanns of the same.

You really do not understand what constitutes libel do you.

[Brietta]

Is it libellous to accuse Amaral of being a liar?

The Portuguese Court gave him a criminal conviction for perjury.  So they most definitely seemed to think so.

[G-Unit]

You really do not understand what constitutes libel do you.

So it's not libelous to accuse the McCanns of knowing the truth and covering it up? Isn't that why they sued Amaral for damaging their reputations though?

[Venturi Swirl]

You think that Amaral knows what heppened to Madeleine McCann and has spent years trying prevent anyone finding out? I think that statement is libelous.

I've re-read Brietta's post several times and I have yet to find the bit where she says Amaral knows what heppened (sic) to Madeleine - can you highlight it please?  Isn't it a fact though that Amaral believes he does know what happened to Madeleine and has made a career out of trying to persuade anyone that will listen that he knows what happened, even to the point of deliberately muddying the waters of the current investigation by putting out false information about the suspect?  Is that libellous?

[G-Unit]

I've re-read Brietta's post several times and I have yet to find the bit where she says Amaral knows what heppened (sic) to Madeleine - can you highlight it please?  Isn't it a fact though that Amaral believes he does know what happened to Madeleine and has made a career out of trying to persuade anyone that will listen that he knows what happened, even to the point of deliberately muddying the waters of the current investigation by putting out false information about the suspect?  Is that libellous?

I think this is a man who has spent years demonstrating that he will do whatever it takes to prevent the truth of what happened to Madeleine McCann from being discovered.http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=11381.msg681071#msg681071

Maybe that doesn't actually say that he knew what the 'truth' was. Maybe, like the McCanns, he just believed he knew. So 'the truth' has yet to be confirmed.

[barrier]

You mean Amaral didn't appear on television with faked up photographs of Brueckner's van alleging that was how it looked in 2007?

You mean Amaral didn't appear on television with with a faked up photograph of Brueckner in dreadlocks which he alleged represented Brueckner's appearance at the time of Madeleine's disappearance?

Think you should perhaps brush up on what constitutes libel. 

What it isn't is something the truth of which you are in denial.

What it isn't is something for which the evidence supplies proof of the truth.

The first two points of your post, who has dismissed the descriptions, certainly the BKA haven't, once again where is the description of CB on the 3/05/2007 .

[Brietta]

So it's not libelous to accuse the McCanns of knowing the truth and covering it up? Isn't that why they sued Amaral for damaging their reputations though?

Amaral has never ceased to libel the McCanns and all connected with them.

While publicly defending the paedophile and rapist who is the police prime suspect in Madeleine's case Amaral continues to traduce Madeleine's parents with the vilest of slurs.

Part of the reason legal action was taken against Amaral was because Madeleine's parents believed his libels were harming their search for their missing daughter.

[Venturi Swirl]

I think this is a man who has spent years demonstrating that he will do whatever it takes to prevent the truth of what happened to Madeleine McCann from being discovered.http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=11381.msg681071#msg681071

Maybe that doesn't actually say that he knew what the 'truth' was. Maybe, like the McCanns, he just believed he knew. So 'the truth' has yet to be confirmed.

So, you misrepresented what Brietta wrote, at least you admit it. 
Believing your child was abducted by persons unknown and promoting that theory = not libellous
Believing a child was killed and  her body disposed of by her parents and promoting that theory = libellous. 
Do you see the difference now?

[Brietta]

The first two points of your post, who has dismissed the descriptions, certainly the BKA haven't, once again where is the description of CB on the 3/05/2007 .

Forgive me - I really do not understand your post and don't have the time to puzzle what you are on about.

[Venturi Swirl]

Forgive me - I really do not understand your post and don't have the time to puzzle what you are on about.

It seems as though Barrier is under the impression that Bruckner may have got himself some rasta hair extensions and a new paint job for the van in the few weeks between the video showing him with short hair and the 3rd May 2007.