McCanns appeal to the European Court of Human Rights

[Eleanor]

Why was he unable to claim honest opinion?

Because Amaral isn't an honest man.  A conviction for Perjury alone proves that.

[Mr Gray]

Freedom of speech isn't absolute in Portugal either, but in this case the McCanns were unable to prove that Amaral's was restricted. Both the UK and Portugal are required to abide by ECHR law, so why would the book be cleared by Portugal and the ECHR but found guilty by the UK courts?

I understand precisely why...I'm not surprised you dont

[Eleanor]

Freedom of speech isn't absolute in Portugal either, but in this case the McCanns were unable to prove that Amaral's was restricted. Both the UK and Portugal are required to abide by ECHR law, so why would the book be cleared by Portugal and the ECHR but found guilty by the UK courts?

Another silly question.  So why wasn't The Book published in Britain?  You surely must have an answer for that.  Publishers don't turn down profit for a bit of fun.

[Eleanor]

He could have claimed whatever he liked, the fact that he didn't even attempt to get his book published in this country (potentially its biggest market) tells you everything you need to know.

I think he might have tried, but the details escape me after so long.  But whatever which way, it didn't happen.  Perhaps someone pointed out that he had too many convictions for dishonesty.

[Mr Gray]

Freedom of speech isn't absolute in Portugal either, but in this case the McCanns were unable to prove that Amaral's was restricted. Both the UK and Portugal are required to abide by ECHR law, so why would the book be cleared by Portugal and the ECHR but found guilty by the UK courts?

The McCann's lawyers did not challenge the facts..probably because it wasn't initially a libel trial
In any future libel trial the factsvwiukd be examined

[G-Unit]

Because Amaral isn't an honest man.  A conviction for Perjury alone proves that.

Amaral's book was clearly an opinion as was the McCanns' abduction opinion. Neither could be proved correct or not. He didn't accuse them, the PJ investigation did and he said he still held the same opinions and explained why.

[Eleanor]

Amaral's book was clearly an opinion as was the McCanns' abduction opinion. Neither could be proved correct or not. He didn't accuse them, the PJ investigation did and he said he still held the same opinions and explained why.

Amaral's Book isn't clearly an opinion to me.  In My Opinion.

The McCann's stance is either The Truth or A Lie. It is not an Opinion.  In My Opinion.  But there has never been any proof that it is A Lie.  So please don't assume. Either The McCanns lied or they didn't.  You appear to think that The McCanns Lied. I think that they didn't Lie.  So these opinions lie only between thee and me.  But you have no proof and I don't need any proof.

[Brietta]

Under which law has he been found guilty of libelling the McCanns?
Or are you posting your opinion as a fact?

Do please read my post again, but this time give it some pertinent thought.

You've latched onto my reply to VS and I really find it hard to believe your ignorance of what may constitute libel.
I posted - "To illustrate your point ~ there is no English language edition of the books in which he libels the McCanns."

I'll give you a hint by asking you to ponder why there was no English Language translation of Amaral's books published for distribution and sale in Britain.

[G-Unit]

Amaral's Book isn't clearly an opinion to me.  In My Opinion.

The McCann's stance is either The Truth or A Lie. It is not an Opinion.  In My Opinion.  But there has never been any proof that it is A Lie.  So please don't assume. Either The McCanns lied or they didn't.  You appear to think that The McCanns Lied. I think that they didn't Lie.  So these opinions lie only between thee and me.  But you have no proof and I don't need any proof.

Well the Portuguese courts and the ECHR ruled that Amaral's book was an opinion, so what you think is irrelevant. It was also pointed out that the last word by the Portuguese authorities was that the crime wasn't known.

The situation in the UK is slightly different in that an ongoing investigation into stranger abduction exists. No-one knows why that is so, but it's not suceeded in finding a guilty party and neither has anyone else. The McCanns could ask Operation Grange to testify with their proof that it was stranger abduction, but I very much doubt they would do so. Even if they did, there's nothing to prevent people from disagreeing, especially in a book published in 2008.

[Brietta]

Well the Portuguese courts and the ECHR ruled that Amaral's book was an opinion, so what you think is irrelevant. It was also pointed out that the last word by the Portuguese authorities was that the crime wasn't known.

The situation in the UK is slightly different in that an ongoing investigation into stranger abduction exists. No-one knows why that is so, but it's not suceeded in finding a guilty party and neither has anyone else. The McCanns could ask Operation Grange to testify with their proof that it was stranger abduction, but I very much doubt they would do so. Even if they did, there's nothing to prevent people from disagreeing, especially in a book published in 2008.

I don't think we have heard the "last word" from the Portuguese authorities if the constitution of Brueckner as arguido in a crime against Madeleine is taken into consideration.

[Eleanor]

Well the Portuguese courts and the ECHR ruled that Amaral's book was an opinion, so what you think is irrelevant. It was also pointed out that the last word by the Portuguese authorities was that the crime wasn't known.

The situation in the UK is slightly different in that an ongoing investigation into stranger abduction exists. No-one knows why that is so, but it's not suceeded in finding a guilty party and neither has anyone else. The McCanns could ask Operation Grange to testify with their proof that it was stranger abduction, but I very much doubt they would do so. Even if they did, there's nothing to prevent people from disagreeing, especially in a book published in 2008.

The McCann's stance is not an Opinion. It is either A Lie or it is The Truth.  Why can you not understand this?

[Eleanor]

I don't think we have heard the "last word" from the Portuguese authorities if the constitution of Brueckner as arguido in a crime against Madeleine is taken into consideration.

And then there is that Fact. Portugal must have some evidence against Brueckner.  Or not, as the case may be.

[Mr Gray]

Amaral's book was clearly an opinion as was the McCanns' abduction opinion. Neither could be proved correct or not. He didn't accuse them, the PJ investigation did and he said he still held the same opinions and explained why.

You really are showing your total ignorance.
Anaral claimed he could prove Maddie died in the apartment...based in the dog alerts.
You must be daft if you can't see that's undefendable libel.

[G-Unit]

There's a lot of opinions being aired, but in fact no-one knows how a court case will end until the evidence is heard and a decision is reached.

[Mr Gray]

Stop posting absolute junk...typical uninformed sceptic