What is the lie in Amarals book. The truth of the lie.

[jassi]

There does seem to be an indomitable disliking of the guy.

That's because he dared to call the McCanns out - IMO

Not only that, he trounced them in the courts.

[Mr Gray]

Merdely your opinion then.
So three courts have stated that the McCanns rights were not infringed yet you maintain those judgements contain serious flaws?
Serious flaws according to whom? Anyone who is actually knowledgable on the appropriate laws and their interpretation?. I mean stated flaws by an appropriately experienced lawyer not your interpolation.

the argumnet from ...you are not an expert.... fallacy...based on your logic ...amaral had no right to draw conclusions re the dna or the dogs...hes not qualified in either...no right to suspect sedation...no knowledge their either...no one here has the right to say the SC judgement was correct...not qualified to do so.....no right to judge the evidence...not qualified to do so...etc..etc...etc...I remember when you used to make some sensible posts...whats happened

[Eleanor]

In my opinion that is just your prejudice

You think he should?

[jassi]

You think he should?

Should what ?

[Mr Gray]

That's because he dared to call the McCanns out - IMO

Not only that, he trounced them in the courts.

amaral didnt trounce anyone in any court...he hardly said a word...amaral was in no way responsible for the SC ruling.....apart from the mere fact he was part of the portuguese establishmnet...I can see the ECHR taking a totally different view

[Robittybob1]

Good point.

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=10458.msg507131#msg507131
"... Amaral's 'leadership' was controlled by his superiors; Encarnacao and Neves."

The two we know about.

[Robittybob1]

Should what ?

"He should never have been allowed to coordinate that investigation in the first place."
OR
He should be allowed to coordinate that investigation in the first place.

[G-Unit]

I have requested a cite several times from you and none has been forthcoming.

Your request is impossible to fulfill, that's why. The 'libel' word was used by the McCanns and the UK media. As far as I know none of them ever said that Amaral didn't libel the McCcanns. The Portuguese media used the word 'damages' rather than libel.

[barrier]

Your request is impossible to fulfill, that's why. The 'libel' word was used by the McCanns and the UK media. As far as I know none of them ever said that Amaral didn't libel the McCcanns. The Portuguese media used the word 'damages' rather than libel.

The argument could be easily put to bed if its known just what the McCanns lawyers had written on the writ,any one have a copy to hand?

[Venturi Swirl]

Your request is impossible to fulfill, that's why. The 'libel' word was used by the McCanns and the UK media. As far as I know none of them ever said that Amaral didn't libel the McCcanns. The Portuguese media used the word 'damages' rather than libel.

Then it is not true to say the courts rejected libel, they simply never even considered it.

[barrier]

Then it is not true to say the courts rejected libel, they simply never even considered it.

Were they asked to?

[G-Unit]

amaral didnt trounce anyone in any court...he hardly said a word...amaral was in no way responsible for the SC ruling.....apart from the mere fact he was part of the portuguese establishmnet...I can see the ECHR taking a totally different view

The McCanns could be said to have trounced themselves. They made assertions and accusations that they were unable to prove and got what they deserved imo.

[Eleanor]

Amaral wasn't fit for anything.  He understood nothing and accomplished nothing.  He produced No Evidence.  And was completely useless.

And then he wrote a dreadful book because Cristovao had done the same thing, and made a few bob.  This is all a bit beyond me.

I will never understand what Amaral served to do.  But whatever it was he failed miserably.

[Venturi Swirl]

Were they asked to?

I’ve no idea, I simply made the statement that obviously Amaral did libel the McCanns and was told that my view was not shared by the courts.  I am correcting that incorrect statement.

[G-Unit]

Then it is not true to say the courts rejected libel, they simply never even considered it.

Well the McCanns used the word ad infimitum. They never said they were suing Amaral for damages, which is what they actually did. Whatever it's called they were unsuccessful.