Would the libel case had a different result if pecuniary damages weren't sought?

[slartibartfast]

I disagree and have posted cases ti support my view

No you haven’t IMO. You have select Media and Blogger cases.

[carlymichelle]

No you haven’t IMO. You have select Media and Blogger cases.

biased   ones too no doubt  what davel wants in this case isnt  what he will get   the mcanns    court  case doesnt  exsist imo

[Mr Gray]

No you haven’t IMO. You have select Media and Blogger cases.

Look again... The last one I quoted was a newspaper article

[Lace]

I think it is you who need to do a bit of reading.  Amaral set out a theory based on the evidence available to the police, he has carefully avoided making accusations.

What evidence?

[Robittybob1]

What evidence?

Good question.

[Angelo222]

What evidence?

You are kidding right?   Evidence is everything the police found out about Maddie's disappearance, the movements and activities of everyone who was there that night, the men seen carrying a young girl by other witnesses, the crime scene investigation of the apartment, the tracker dogs, the CSI and EVRD inspections etc etc...

Evidence can point different ways at different times as an investigation develops.  It is correct that Amaral was removed from the investigation before he could complete his enquiries, changing the lead investigator is always a bad move.  It sent the wrong message to those detectives already working the case.

[Mr Gray]

You are kidding right?   Evidence is everything the police found out about Maddie's disappearance, the movements and activities of everyone who was there that night, the men seen carrying a young girl by other witnesses, the crime scene investigation of the apartment, the tracker dogs, the CSI and EVRD inspections etc etc...

Evidence can point different ways at different times as an investigation develops.  It is correct that Amaral was removed from the investigation before he could complete his enquiries, changing the lead investigator is always a bad move.  It sent the wrong message to those detectives already working the case.

The archiving report said no evidence of any crime by the mccanns......changing the lead investigator is not always a bad move...thats your opinion....obviously sometimes it is necessarry

[Gertrude]

So back to the 'no evidence' thing, it seems like circular arguments.   Ignoring the fact that the case was archived due to not enough evidence to prove a criminal act - it does not equate to 'no evidence'.   

"public prosecutors hadn’t managed to obtain sufficient evidence of the practice of crimes by the appellants.''

“It should not be said that the appellants were cleared via the ruling announcing the archiving of the criminal case.”



 Dictionary definition "insufficient: of a quantity not able to fulfill a need or requirement'' as in , there is a quantity but it's not enough!


Also ignoring the fact that the McCanns defamed themselves so do not have a cat in hells chance of convincing a court that someone else is responsible for their own mess and bad reputation.

   

[Lace]

You are kidding right?   Evidence is everything the police found out about Maddie's disappearance, the movements and activities of everyone who was there that night, the men seen carrying a young girl by other witnesses, the crime scene investigation of the apartment, the tracker dogs, the CSI and EVRD inspections etc etc...

Evidence can point different ways at different times as an investigation develops.  It is correct that Amaral was removed from the investigation before he could complete his enquiries, changing the lead investigator is always a bad move.  It sent the wrong message to those detectives already working the case.

There was no evidence found against the McCann's.   

[slartibartfast]

Look again... The last one I quoted was a newspaper article

I wonder when newspapers stopped being part of the media?

[Mr Gray]

I wonder when newspapers stopped being part of the media?

Amara made a TV programme... That's part of the media

[Miss Taken Identity]

There was no evidence found against the McCann's.

Who said that?   insufficient evidence=not enough.  This is what has been pointed out.

[Mr Gray]

Who said that?   insufficient evidence=not enough.  This is what has been pointed out.

the archiving report said no evidence of any crime



pedro de Carmo says theres no evidence against the mccanns

[Miss Taken Identity]

the archiving report said no evidence of any crime



pedro de Carmo says theres no evidence against the mccanns

Is this the same archiving report that you claimed was not translated properly?

[Gertrude]

the archiving report said no evidence of any crime



pedro de Carmo says theres no evidence against the mccanns

 Yes as I said. No evidence of a crime does not = no evidence. It means not enough of the evidence to prove a 'criminal act'.

    We are going in circles again. and you seem to be changing the subject.