McCanns appeal to the European Court of Human Rights

[G-Unit]

Thats your rather odd opinion. If you read the SC judgement you will see that they think it's whos rights should take precedence.. Free speech or honour. They are therefore accepting the McCanns have been defamed but feel the right to free speech should take precedence

The McCanns sued for damages for defamation. You think the SC judges agreed that they had been defamed. Instead of awarding them damages, however, they punished them by ordering them to pay all the costs incurred by those they sued. i don't think I'm the one with an odd opinion.

[Venturi Swirl]

My opinion is meaningless, the facts are the court of 1st instance found him guilty, the higher authorities of the appeal court overturned this verdict so rendering his legal status as not guilty and the ultimate authority agreed with this verdict. So he is not guilty of libel. If you read the Supreme court report it states several times that the McCanns do have the presumption of innocence.

The court found that his right to defame outweighed the McCanns right not to be defamed and therefore he was aquitted.  That's how I read it anyway.

[The General]

The McCanns sued for damages for defamation. You think the SC judges agreed that they had been defamed. Instead of awarding them damages, however, they punished them by ordering them to pay all the costs incurred by those they sued. i don't think I'm the one with an odd opinion.

Pretty sure Davel found your opinion odd because it was yours.

[jassi]

I'm glad we can agree that the McCanns lost their case in the Portuguese Court.

[Icanhandlethetruth]

The court found that his right to defame outweighed the McCanns right not to be defamed and therefore he was aquitted.  That's how I read it anyway.

No one has the right to defame, a defence against defamation is the right to an honest opinion.
Amaral has never said these things definitely happened, just its his opinion that that's how it played out.

[Venturi Swirl]

No one has the right to defame, a defence against defamation is the right to an honest opinion.
Amaral has never said these things definitely happened, just its his opinion that that's how it played out.

I'm pretty sure he has, if not explicitly in his book, then certainly in subsequent interviews and TV programmes.  No one could be left in any doubt that he is pretty certain the McCanns hid their child's body IMO.

[Venturi Swirl]

I'm glad we can agree that the McCanns lost their case in the Portuguese Court.

I don't think anyone was arguing that they won it are they?

[Icanhandlethetruth]

I'm pretty sure he has, if not explicitly in his book, then certainly in subsequent interviews and TV programmes.  No one could be left in any doubt that he is pretty certain the McCanns hid their child's body IMO.

Page 02 of the Supreme Court ruling.

The book is the expression of an opinion, including the account of the conclusions that the author draws from the means of obtaining evidence produced in the investigation in order to formulate a thesis, an hypothesis of ascertainment of the facts.

[Venturi Swirl]

Page 02 of the Supreme Court ruling.

The book is the expression of an opinion, including the account of the conclusions that the author draws from the means of obtaining evidence produced in the investigation in order to formulate a thesis, an hypothesis of ascertainment of the facts.

OK

[Mr Gray]

No one has the right to defame, a defence against defamation is the right to an honest opinion.
Amaral has never said these things definitely happened, just its his opinion that that's how it played out.

Honest opinion is not a licence to say anything you might want...It has caveats which ammaral did not provide.

In his video amaral said....in the next 40 mins I will prove the child died in the apartment...that a claim it definitely happened. He has repeated several times...the child is dead

[Mr Gray]

The McCanns sued for damages for defamation. You think the SC judges agreed that they had been defamed. Instead of awarding them damages, however, they punished them by ordering them to pay all the costs incurred by those they sued. i don't think I'm the one with an odd opinion.

It really is simple....the right to free speech was considered more important than the right to honour. its ther ein teh Judgement

[jassi]

Honest opinion is not a licence to say anything you might want...It has caveats which ammaral did not provide.

In his video amaral said....in the next 40 mins I will prove the child died in the apartment...that a claim it definitely happened. He has repeated several times...the child is dead

Is that not also what Wolters says ?

[Icanhandlethetruth]

Honest opinion is not a licence to say anything you might want...It has caveats which ammaral did not provide.

In his video amaral said....in the next 40 mins I will prove the child died in the apartment...that a claim it definitely happened. He has repeated several times...the child is dead

Well the appeal court and the Supreme Court ruled it was opinion. Neither you or I were there and privy to the information. Your second paragraph is still opinion. It was his opinion he could prove it with his hypothesis of the evidence. It is his opinion that the child is dead. If he said he saw Mr McCann committing the acts mentioned in the book there may well be a case for libel. He doesn’t have to preface every utterance that this is my opinion, it is implied.

[Icanhandlethetruth]

it actually states incorrectly that the presumption of innocence does not apply to  a civil case

Once again it doesn’t quite state that does it?  It actually states that subsequent civil proceedings (mainly compensatory) to criminal proceedings, the presumption of innocence does not apply. The key word is subsequent. The meaning is totally different from your implication.

"Nevertheless, the Court of Justice of the European Union has decided that the principle of presumption of innocence does not apply to subsequent civil proceedings (mainly compensatory) to criminal proceedings, at risk of depriving the victim of her own right to accede to the courts and to be compensated (Cf. the judgements in Y vs Norvvay (56568/00) of 11/ 5/2003 and Diacendo vs Italy (124/04) of 05/07/2012)."

[Venturi Swirl]

Well the appeal court and the Supreme Court ruled it was opinion. Neither you or I were there and privy to the information. Your second paragraph is still opinion. It was his opinion he could prove it with his hypothesis of the evidence. It is his opinion that the child is dead. If he said he saw Mr McCann committing the acts mentioned in the book there may well be a case for libel. He doesn’t have to preface every utterance that this is my opinion, it is implied.

To be fair, claiming he can prove something as a fact goes beyond mere opinion, surely?