Gonçalo Amaral confirms he will appeal the damages decision to higher Court.

[Mr Gray]

To their reputation, not to "the search" and libel cannot be determinedd can it ? without knowing the truth, which no one seems to, bizarre

you do not need to determine the truth to determine libel...that's quite basic

[stephen25000]

you do not need to determine the truth to determine libel...that's quite basic

and what happens if Amaral was correct in saying Madeleine had an accident in the apartment and subsequently died ?

[mercury]

you do not need to determine the truth to determine libel...that's quite basic

Oh really? Do explain then ....this is going to be interesting

[Jean-Pierre]

Oh really? Do explain then ....this is going to be interesting

But firstly, are you suggesting that until Madeleine's fate is determined, the question of the libel of the McCanns by Amaral cannot be settled?

[ferryman]

Apparently not, or the newspaper would not have retracted it's statement saying he was. Perhaps you should qualify your post by adding IMO?

Why?

You don't seriously think Amaral contradicted and corrected Prior on interpretation of forensics, do you?

And seeing as the American equipment STU100 has a purpose not remotely to do with detecting cadavers, we can definitively rule out that (according to Amaral!) this equipment, that would have confirmed the death of Madeleine, was blocked by customs [and so not used by the enquiry] ...

[Admin]

Lets not stray too far from the topic theme please.

Admin

[ferryman]

Lets not stray too far from the topic theme please.

Admin

In (I admit) a roundabout sort of way, it is on-topic, because we are being asked to accept Amaral's word that he has confirmed (ahem) the 'damages' decision to the higher court.

[mercury]

But firstly, are you suggesting that until Madeleine's fate is determined, the question of the libel of the McCanns by Amaral cannot be settled?

I am asking how someone can be libelled when libel = defamation by false statements and there is not a benchmark even to start with to determine if those statements are true or false..I am not really that bothered,just curious

[Mr Gray]

I am asking how someone can be libelled when libel = defamation by false statements and there is not a benchmark even to start with to determine if those statements are true or false..I am not really that bothered,just curious

what you are showing is you do not understand the law of libel...

[stephen25000]

what you are showing is you do not understand the law of libel....first you need to check your definition of libel which is wrong

Can you tell me Dave when it was determined how Madeleine disappeared from the apartment.

and no conjecture , by the way.

[mercury]

what you are showing is you do not understand the law of libel....first you need to check your definition of libel which is wrong

enlighten us all then instead of just making the thrust of your post "you do not understand...you are wrong" etc etc..

[Mr Gray]

Can you tell me Dave when it was determined how Madeleine disappeared from the apartment.

and no conjecture , by the way.

another one who does not understand the law of libel

[ferryman]

I am asking how someone can be libelled when libel = defamation by false statements and there is not a benchmark even to start with to determine if those statements are true or false..I am not really that bothered,just curious

Not a bench-mark?

Compare Amaral's assessment of what Mark Harrison said with his report (for example).

Is that not a bench mark?

[Mr Gray]

enlighten us all then instead of just making the thrust of your post "you do not understand...you are wrong" etc etc..

simply...if you accuse the mccanns of covering up Maddie's death...that is libel unless you can prove it is true

[stephen25000]

another one who does not understand the law of libel

The truth of Madeline's disappearance has not been ascertained.

Meanwhile you will say anything in defence of the McCann's.