GoFundMe removes search link to Goncalo Amaral legal defence fund page.

[slartibartfast]

this was a 3 month old baby...cant see how this could happen to a nearly 4 yr old

You wanted an example, I have given you one. You will probably object to any example until we get to the point of you requiring an example of a girl of 3 called Madeleine in Portugal.

[Mr Gray]

You wanted an example, I have given you one. You will probably object to any example until we get to the point of you requiring an example of a girl of 3 called Madeleine in Portugal.

I asked for an example that fits...
the plastic bag was the original story given to the mother by the police...it is not clear exactly what happened

[Mr Gray]

You wanted an example, I have given you one. You will probably object to any example until we get to the point of you requiring an example of a girl of 3 called Madeleine in Portugal.

the mother has been charged with manslaughter...looks like there was no accident

[Anna]

Please take the accidental death discussion to an appropriate thread

[ferryman]

You must love whooshing any adverse opinions! I find what you did totally despicable and shows that you do not believe in freedom of opinion, especially when it concerns your dear beloved devious duo of parents.  What you did is nothing to be proud of.

If you did not agree with what was written, all you had to do was point out the "errors" out in the review section, which would have been much more effective than just making the book disappear. BTW, I read it and did not find anything libelous in Pat Brown's kindle book. I would be interested if you would please let us know what exactly in the book could have been considered libelous.

If the McCanns felt that the book was truly damaging, all they had to do was hire a lawyer in the US and sue Pat Brown. However, since freedom of opinion is highly regarded there, they probably wouldn't have gotten anywhere. So that's why they sent their henchmen, Carter Ruck, to threaten Amazon.

US law is complicated because there is federal law (applicable in all states) and there is individual legislature of each state (state law).  But as I've always understood it, broadly on libel, there is a set of rules that applies to private citizens (where the bar of what amounts to libel is relatively low) and there is libel of people in public or professional positions (where the bar is much higher and libel is much more difficult to prove). 

Portugal has a guarantee in its constitution that protects the right of citizens and (by extension) visitors to a good name.

From a position of first co-ordinator of the shelved enquiry Amaral has trampled rough-shod over the McCanns' right to a good name.

That's why he is in the fix he's in.

And a group of (mainly) foreigners to Portugal are trying to bale him out.

[Montclair]

US law is complicated because there is federal law (applicable in all states) and there is individual legislature of each state (state law).  But as I've always understood it, broadly on libel, there is a set of rules that applies to private citizens (where the bar of what amounts to libel is relatively low) and there is libel of people in public or professional positions (where the bar is much higher and libel is much more difficult to prove). 

Portugal has a guarantee in its constitution that protects the right of citizens and (by extension) visitors to a good name.

From a position of first co-ordinator of the shelved enquiry Amaral has trampled rough-shod over the McCanns' right to a good name.

That's why he is in the fix he's in.

And a group of (mainly) foreigners to Portugal are trying to bale him out.

When the book was overturned by the Tribunal da Relação, the acordão stated that their right to a good name was not trampled, especially as the couple sought the limelight with the press and other media.

[Mr Gray]

US law is complicated because there is federal law (applicable in all states) and there is individual legislature of each state (state law).  But as I've always understood it, broadly on libel, there is a set of rules that applies to private citizens (where the bar of what amounts to libel is relatively low) and there is libel of people in public or professional positions (where the bar is much higher and libel is much more difficult to prove). 

Portugal has a guarantee in its constitution that protects the right of citizens and (by extension) visitors to a good name.

From a position of first co-ordinator of the shelved enquiry Amaral has trampled rough-shod over the McCanns' right to a good name.

That's why he is in the fix he's in.

And a group of (mainly) foreigners to Portugal are trying to bale him out.

I've looked at US libel law and it appears in most states things change when libel implies criminal behaviour and reputation overrides freedom of speech

[Eleanor]

Okay.  I shall be Deleting all Off Topic Posts shortly.  Any that follow this post will be deleted immediately.

[pegasus]

US law is complicated because there is federal law (applicable in all states) and there is individual legislature of each state (state law).  But as I've always understood it, broadly on libel, there is a set of rules that applies to private citizens (where the bar of what amounts to libel is relatively low) and there is libel of people in public or professional positions (where the bar is much higher and libel is much more difficult to prove). 

Portugal has a guarantee in its constitution that protects the right of citizens and (by extension) visitors to a good name.

From a position of first co-ordinator of the shelved enquiry Amaral has trampled rough-shod over the McCanns' right to a good name.

That's why he is in the fix he's in.

And a group of (mainly) foreigners to Portugal are trying to bale him out.

In fact some portuguese people who live in portugal (PJGA) organised help to pay Mr Amaral's legal costs.
Just as some english people who live in england (MFLNSUL) had kindly organised help to pay legal costs to initiate the case.

[ferryman]

When the book was overturned by the Tribunal da Relação, the acordão stated that their right to a good name was not trampled, especially as the couple sought the limelight with the press and other media.

That ruling judged between the conflicting rights in the Portuguese constitution of free expression and a good reputation (both guaranteed).  The judgement itself made plain that it did not, at all, consider questions of libel.

Libel was a separate issue, considered in the ruling completed in April this year.  The outcome of those proceedings was in favour of the McCanns ....

It has long been a festering sore-point of those on your side of the fence that the ruling on the injunction was not sacrosanct and inviolable ...

[Mr Gray]

That ruling judged between the conflicting rights in the Portuguese constitution of free expression and a good reputation (both guaranteed).  The judgement itself made plain that it did not, at all, consider questions of libel.

Libel was a separate issue, considered in the ruling completed in April this year.  The outcome of those proceedings was in favour of the McCanns ....

It has long been a festering sore-point of those on your side of the fence that the ruling on the injunction was not sacrosanct and inviolable ...
[/quotyou are absolutely right ....
the ban on the book was unlawful until the question of libel had been settled...it has now been settled and the book found to be libellous and hence now banned

[misty]

In fact some portuguese people who live in portugal (PJGA) organised help to pay Mr Amaral's legal costs.
Just as some english people who live in england (MFLNSUL) had kindly organised help to pay legal costs to initiate the case.

Didn't Amaral accuse the Madeleine Fund of being fraudulent in his book, well before legal action was started against him?

BTW Nothing explains why GFM didn't remove the link to their directory immediately the appeal changed hands to a non-F/Book verified account. It took 2 months.

[faithlilly]

Didn't Amaral accuse the Madeleine Fund of being fraudulent in his book, well before legal action was started against him?

BTW Nothing explains why GFM didn't remove the link to their directory immediately the appeal changed hands to a non-F/Book verified account. It took 2 months.

I'll tell you something misty for someone who claims she's  not obsessed by the case you're making a good effort to prove the opposite.

[Eleanor]

Topic. Please.

[mercury]

Nothing explains why GFM didn't remove the link to their directory immediately the appeal changed hands to a non-F/Book verified account. It took 2 months.

I don't think anyone is concerned about any of this (whatever it is supposed to mean)  except you?