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

[G-Unit]

So what?  On that basis should we be allowed to libel anyone we like?

I don't know why we're interested to be honest. The McCanns accused Amaral of 'libel' but were unable to prove it. All he did was tell the story of the investigation from May to September 2007. His conclusions were the conclusions of the investigation at that point in time.

The McCanns sued because they believed that the archiving report declared them innocent. It didn't.

[Venturi Swirl]

I don't know why we're interested to be honest. The McCanns accused Amaral of 'libel' but were unable to prove it. All he did was tell the story of the investigation from May to September 2007. His conclusions were the conclusions of the investigation at that point in time.

The McCanns sued because they believed that the archiving report declared them innocent. It didn't.

As far as I rcall the Portuguese court was not interested in proving libel or otherwise.  Clearly the McCanns WERE libelled otherwise perhaps you could explain why no one has published a best selling book in this country claiming the McCanns as sole culprits in their daughter’s disappearance?

[Venturi Swirl]

I don't know why we're interested to be honest. The McCanns accused Amaral of 'libel' but were unable to prove it. All he did was tell the story of the investigation from May to September 2007. His conclusions were the conclusions of the investigation at that point in time.

The McCanns sued because they believed that the archiving report declared them innocent. It didn't.

If the McCanns are not innocent in the eyes of the law what are they?

[Mr Gray]

I don't know why we're interested to be honest. The McCanns accused Amaral of 'libel' but were unable to prove it. All he did was tell the story of the investigation from May to September 2007. His conclusions were the conclusions of the investigation at that point in time.

The McCanns sued because they believed that the archiving report declared them innocent. It didn't.

IMO you have both these facts wrong...
Part if the mccanns claim was, defamation... The SC ruled amarals right to free speech allowed him to defame the mccanns
The mccanns claimed they had the right to presumption of innocence and the, archiving report was evidence of innocence... The SC disagreed and will be heavily criticised by the ECHR.. IMO

[barrier]

He needs evidence to prove him right...

Seeing as the thread is about his book and his right under Portuguese law to write it,why does he need evidence to prove him right,Hogan Howe,Rowley,Redwood,Do Carmo,Dick not one of them has said they believe she left 5a alive on the evening/night 3/05/2007.

[Mr Gray]

Seeing as the thread is about his book and his right under Portuguese law to write it,why does he need evidence to prove him right,Hogan Howe,Rowley,Redwood,Do Carmo,Dick not one of them has said they believe she left 5a alive on the evening/night 3/05/2007.

If he claims he has evidence and he doesn't... Then he looks a bit of a fool imo

If he is stating opinion with no evidence he should say so..
Those you quote have not said they can prove what happened

[Robittybob1]

If the McCanns are not innocent in the eyes of the law what are they?

The McCanns have declared that they played no part in the disappearance of their child.  Have the others said the same?   

[G-Unit]

IMO you have both these facts wrong...
Part if the mccanns claim was, defamation... The SC ruled amarals right to free speech allowed him to defame the mccanns
The mccanns claimed they had the right to presumption of innocence and the, archiving report was evidence of innocence... The SC disagreed and will be heavily criticised by the ECHR.. IMO

There is only one fact at this moment in time. Amaral is free to express his opinion on the case because the McCanns bid to silence him failed.

[jassi]

If the McCanns are not innocent in the eyes of the law what are they?

A bit like that darned cat - neither one thing nor the other - or possibly both at the same time   

Consider the case of the CPS who decline to bring a case to court because they consider they have little chance of a conviction.  Do they then consider their 'target' to be innocent ?

[Robittybob1]

If he claims he has evidence and he doesn't... Then he looks a bit of a fool imo

If he is stating opinion with no evidence he should say so..
Those you quote have not said they can prove what happened

What he has got are the discrepancies in the Tapas 9 statements, particularly the bit about how long DP stayed in 5A.
The forensic evidence showed there was no break-in.
Three of the Tapas 7 claimed they saw Robert Murat there on the night of the 3rd.  No one else claimed to have seen him.
The two timelines written on the sticker book covers were at odds with the established facts later revealed through the statements.

[Mr Gray]

There is only one fact at this moment in time. Amaral is free to express his opinion on the case because the McCanns bid to silence him failed.

He seems to have gone very quiet... With a favourable ECHR ruling anything he says now could see him back in court with no defence

[Robittybob1]

There is only one fact at this moment in time. Amaral is free to express his opinion on the case because the McCanns bid to silence him failed.

Amaral might actually see where he went wrong hence saying nothing ATM.

[Mr Gray]

What he has got are the discrepancies in the Tapas 9 statements, particularly the bit about how long DP stayed in 5A.
The forensic evidence showed there was no break-in.
Three of the Tapas 7 claimed they saw Robert Murat there on the night of the 3rd.  No one else claimed to have seen him.
The two timelines written on the sticker book covers were at odds with the established facts later revealed through the statements.

Leaving A-side the statements may not be accurate... That does not in any sense constitute proof... There are, also discrepancies in murats statement... And others I believe... Evidently it's not unusual

[barrier]

He seems to have gone very quiet... With a favourable ECHR ruling anything he says now could see him back in court with no defence

What do you expect of him,the McCanns are also quiet,plus its still not confirmed anything is at the ECHR.

[Mr Gray]

What do you expect of him,the McCanns are also quiet,

What happened to the claims of suing the mccanns and his new book