The McCann v Gonçalo Amaral libel trial as it happens.

[Montclair]

I think the other authors were careful not to make libellous statements wheras amaral was not so careful

Please tell me what libellous statements did he make in the book?

[Lyall]

On the contrary what does happen in that Courtroom is relevant Since when has the First  Amendment and Article 10 of the European Convention of Rights given immunity to defamation?

A question for the lawyers I think.

[Montclair]

Haven't you read his allegations?   Allegations not facts.

What you love to call allegations are based on the FACTS of the investigation and the conclusions of the interim report of 10 September 2007, which is just as viable as the archiving report of 2008, despite what you would like to believe.

[Rogerandout]

What you love to call allegations are based on the FACTS of the investigation and the conclusions of the interim report of 10 September 2007, which is just as viable as the archiving report of 2008, despite what you would like to believe.

Except that one is a report based on police suspicions and the other is based on the actual legal position. Additionally, the latter report is of greater power in describing the truce position as it assessed the police case and found it wanting. This is just desperation on the part of anti McCann's.

[Lyall]

Except that one is a report based on police suspicions and the other is based on the actual legal position. Additionally, the latter report is of greater power in describing the truce position as it assessed the police case and found it wanting. This is just desperation on the part of anti McCann's.

Did that report include any indication of an alternative?

[Lyall]

Lyall

If it had don 't don't you think the PAG would have picked up on it?   Assuming you think that is.

It was a rhetorical question

[Rogerandout]

Did that report include any indication of an alternative?

I am sure it allowed alternatives, but it was clear that there were no indications of any crime by the arguidos.

[Montclair]

I'm sure you'd appreciate like me Roger that no Attorney General (the senior law office in whatever country) would shut down a case without all due deliberation and consideration.

What is Montclair trying to suggest?  That the Portuguese Attorney General dropped the judicial equivalent of a clanger?

As the judge has pointed out during the current libel trial, the archiving report (BTW, the case had not been closed, only shelved until better evidence was obtained) was not a conclusion nor a judgement and no one was exonerated. I believe that some of the witnesses for the McCanns were surprised to hear this since they had been told by the couple that they had been cleared.

[Mr Gray]

As the judge has pointed out during the current libel trial, the archiving report (BTW, the case had not been closed, only shelved until better evidence was obtained) was not a conclusion nor a judgement and no one was exonerated. I believe that some of the witnesses for the McCanns were surprised to hear this since they had been told by the couple that they had been cleared.

 they were cleared

[Montclair]

they were cleared

You still believe that fairy tale!   

[Eleanor]

The McCanns are not suspects.  That means that they have been cleared.

[Rogerandout]

they were cleared

THEY WERE NOT 'CLEARED'. THERE IS NO SUCH PROCESS. THEY ARE, WHOEVER, PRESUMED INNOCENT.

[Mr Gray]

THEY WERE NOT 'CLEARED'. THERE IS NO SUCH PROCESS. THEY ARE, WHOEVER, PRESUMED INNOCENT.

 I know there is no such legal process..just try googling it...as there is no such legal process I can use the word in  a non legal sense...therefore I am free to say they have been cleared and no one can contradict me

[Mr Gray]

THEY WERE NOT 'CLEARED'. THERE IS NO SUCH PROCESS. THEY ARE, WHOEVER, PRESUMED INNOCENT.

Just to put you in your place "presumed innocent " does not mean innocent. Even after a trial a verdict of not guilty does not mean innocent...no one can ever be declared innocent

[Lyall]

Just to put you in your place "presumed innocent " does not mean innocent. Even after a trial a verdict of not guilty does not mean innocent...no one can ever be declared innocent

You hit the nail right on the head there. Of course people are considered completely innocent if somebody else is subsequently proven to have been responsible. We can all think of high profile cases where this is not the case, and compensation has been refused after release from prison.

In the McCann case it doesn't matter how many times you state the police have declared they aren't suspects, six and a half years later the public has yet to see a single piece of evidence to suggest others were responsible. That's your problem.