McCanns appeal to the European Court of Human Rights

[faithlilly]

Amaral restricted himself to the facts of the investigation from 3rd May 2007 to 10th September 2007. Which facts were discredited between 10th September 2007 and 21st July 2008?

In fact with the reconstruction and further questioning requested by Rebelo I think it would be safe to assume that he was also steering the investigation in the same direction as Amaral.

[Brietta]

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.

Based on a work in progress the book and documentary express an opinion which was superseded by further investigation therefore when Amaral published his book he was aware that there was no foundation to any of the reasons his investigation used to make the McCanns arguidos.  Not one.  Therefore his thesis was proved wrong.

[Brietta]

Not really, its his opinion that he can prove it from his hypothesis of the evidence.

Why were his and subsequent investigations unable to prove his hypothesis?

[Venturi Swirl]

Why were his and subsequent investigations unable to prove his hypothesis?

I guess they just didn’t have the genius of Amaral, that’s why.

[faithlilly]

Based on a work in progress the book and documentary express an opinion which was superseded by further investigation therefore when Amaral published his book he was aware that there was no foundation to any of the reasons his investigation used to make the McCanns arguidos.  Not one.  Therefore his thesis was proved wrong.

Until those ‘works in progress’ reach their conclusion...or not...nothing is certain.

[kizzy]

Why were his and subsequent investigations unable to prove his hypothesis?

Because he was taken off the case.

[Wonderfulspam]

How would one go about proving that though, seriously?  If it is accepted that libel can cause harm or increase suffering but only with proof then what are the standards of proof require by the court?  How for example would the McCanns prove that the book specifically increased their suffering from a moral point of view?  I guess they should have really laid it on thick, had nervous breakdowns in the court, put on a real show if suffering, maybe that would have done as "proof".  But in reality, it's a no brainer.  Of course a best selling book promoted by the media that describes you as body occulters of you own daughter's body is going to cause anyone to be upset, and cause harm to their family and social relationships. How could it not?

How have the McCanns family &/or social relationships been affected by Amarals book?

Have they been shunned by family members?

Was Kate prevented from becoming ambassador for missing people on account of the damage the book has done?

[jassi]

How have the McCanns family &/or social relationships been affected by Amarals book?

Have they been shunned by family members?

Was Kate prevented from becoming ambassador for missing people on account of the damage the book has done?

We've never been told how they've suffered, only that they have.
The closing scene from the Body Snatchers comes to mind.

[Venturi Swirl]

How have the McCanns family &/or social relationships been affected by Amarals book?

Have they been shunned by family members?

Was Kate prevented from becoming ambassador for missing people on account of the damage the book has done?

I don’t believe I claimed either of those things.  I wouldn’t expect you to understand so I won’t even bother trying to explain , WUMs aren’t really interested in reasoned discussion.

[Venturi Swirl]

We've never been told how they've suffered, only that they have.
The closing scene from the Body Snatchers comes to mind.

Of course they’ve not suffered.  They’ve loved every minute of being publicly accused by a sweaty ex-cop of faking an abduction and hiding their daughter’s corpse and knowing that he’s made a career out of their daughter’s disappearance. 

[Brietta]

FGS it was a year after Maddie went missing so it seems you think they were getting over it.

Yet they are still not over the book after thirteen years .WOW

That must rank as surely one of the most insensitive posts I've read in a long time.

[Brietta]

Please expect ALL Off Topic posts to be deleted from this point on.

[G-Unit]

The validity of the dog alerts. Amaral failed to mention they had no evidential value even though the pj files confirmed btjis

Gerry McCann tried to talk about dogs when he gave evidence. The judge wasn't interested;

GMC - I want to speak about the sniffer dogs. They never alerted to any blood in the car and they never alerted to cadaver odour...

Judge [interrupts] – We are not here to ascertain that, our perspective here in this court is to analyse your claim.
GMC – But the book mentions facts that aren't true.

Judge – To decide that there are already forensic experts. We are not here to prove if the contents of the book are truthful or not. Here we are only trying to establish if the freedom of expression of the defendants has affected the rights of the claimants. This court cannot be a substitute of the criminal investigation. [Turns to the interpreter] Tell the gentleman that he is excused.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=4746.0

[Venturi Swirl]

Gerry McCann tried to talk about dogs when he gave evidence. The judge wasn't interested;

GMC - I want to speak about the sniffer dogs. They never alerted to any blood in the car and they never alerted to cadaver odour...

Judge [interrupts] – We are not here to ascertain that, our perspective here in this court is to analyse your claim.
GMC – But the book mentions facts that aren't true.

Judge – To decide that there are already forensic experts. We are not here to prove if the contents of the book are truthful or not. Here we are only trying to establish if the freedom of expression of the defendants has affected the rights of the claimants. This court cannot be a substitute of the criminal investigation. [Turns to the interpreter] Tell the gentleman that he is excused.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=4746.0

You’ve just managed to prove that Amaral was not found not guilty of libel, well done!

[Robittybob1]

Gerry McCann tried to talk about dogs when he gave evidence. The judge wasn't interested;

GMC - I want to speak about the sniffer dogs. They never alerted to any blood in the car and they never alerted to cadaver odour...

Judge [interrupts] – We are not here to ascertain that, our perspective here in this court is to analyse your claim.
GMC – But the book mentions facts that aren't true.

Judge – To decide that there are already forensic experts. We are not here to prove if the contents of the book are truthful or not. Here we are only trying to establish if the freedom of expression of the defendants has affected the rights of the claimants. This court cannot be a substitute of the criminal investigation. [Turns to the interpreter] Tell the gentleman that he is excused.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=4746.0

That bit I do understand, the court was not there to examine facts, but just the rights of the ex-policeman telling all sorts of stories about the McCanns. 
The balance of the two rights tips in the favour of the authorities I'd imagine.  Had it been the McCanns writing about Amaral the outcome would have been different IMO.