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

[Mr Gray]

We don't know what went on between the McCanns and Duarte. She may have advised against proceeding for all we know. All we do know is that she accepted the case and then lost it.

Unless the judges were biased, which is unlikely in my opinion, she lot the case for one of two reasons;

1. It was a lost cause from the beginning as there was no defamation.
2. It was winnable, but her arguments were inadequate.

3. The SC incorrectly interpreted ECHR law

[G-Unit]

If they printed facts, about his behavioural traits then according to you he, would have to prove them wrong... I don't  see how Portugal could be so at odds with ECHR law... where in the cases I've quoted those defamed have not have to have proved themselves innocent

I think you are, quite mistaken

The law in England and Wales;

"the plaintiff must prove that the defendant made a false and defamatory statement concerning the plaintiff."
https://injury.findlaw.com/torts-and-personal-injuries/elements-of-libel-and-slander.html

[Mr Gray]

The law in England and Wales;

"the plaintiff must prove that the defendant made a false and defamatory statement concerning the plaintiff."
https://injury.findlaw.com/torts-and-personal-injuries/elements-of-libel-and-slander.html

So you think in the UK the plaintiff has to prove the allegation false... You are totally mistaken

[Brietta]

Correio da Manhã printed as fact rumours about Murat's personality and behavioural traits. They lied when they said that the police believed these rumours to be true.

Amaral documented what the police actually believed during the period covered by his book.

Two very different scenarios imo.

 ... wrote Correio da Manhã in May 2007. "It's this 33-year-old Englishman who the Judiciary Police believes dragged little Maddie from the bed where she slept to the house where she lives with her mother. "
https://www.publico.pt/2013/05/06/sociedade/noticia/correio-da-manha-condenado-a-pagar-15-mil-euros-a-robert-murat-1593550

Lies may have been printed by Correio da Manhã  as proved by the fact the Portuguese court ruled he had been libelled.

Apart from your opinion do you have a cite verifying that the police were traduced by them too?

[G-Unit]

from http://pjga.blogspot.com/?m=0



1. The McCanns have invoked the principle of presumption of innocence to justify the restrictions they want imposed on dr. Amaral's freedom of expression;

2. The Supreme Court stated, in its ruling, that the above is no argument because the McCanns were not considered innocent by the investigation and the case was archived because not enough evidence was found to charge them.

3. The McCanns, because they believe the above argument is false, request for the Supreme Court's decision to be nullified.



so 1 says the mccanns invoked the presumption of innocence...and 2 ...the SC say they were not entitled to it because the archiving despatch did not clear them.......which is contrary to ECHR law as i understand.. This also confirms the mccanns were not claiming to have been proven innocent... They simply felt they were entitled to the presumption  of innocence

I don't know who wrote that, but it's just an opinion.

If anyone is interested in understanding the legal points there's a good piece here which explains them;

Legal explanations with the valuable insight of a Portuguese jurist
https://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2017/03/on-mccanns-request-for-annulment-of.html

[G-Unit]

... wrote Correio da Manhã in May 2007. "It's this 33-year-old Englishman who the Judiciary Police believes dragged little Maddie from the bed where she slept to the house where she lives with her mother. "
https://www.publico.pt/2013/05/06/sociedade/noticia/correio-da-manha-condenado-a-pagar-15-mil-euros-a-robert-murat-1593550

Lies may have been printed by Correio da Manhã  as proved by the fact the Portuguese court ruled he had been libelled.

Apart from your opinion do you have a cite verifying that the police were traduced by them too?

I'm not sure what you're asking, sorry. There were nasty allegations against Murat and rhey were investigated by the PJ. No evidence was found to support them.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/ROBERT-MURAT.htm

[Mr Gray]

I don't know who wrote that, but it's just an opinion.

If anyone is interested in understanding the legal points there's a good piece here which explains them;

Legal explanations with the valuable insight of a Portuguese jurist
https://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2017/03/on-mccanns-request-for-annulment-of.html

and the link you have posted is just opinion...it ends with...


benefit from the presumption of innocence should criminal proceedings eventually be brought against the Appellants

which of course is incorrect which makes the rest suspect....there does not have to be criminal charges befire a suspect is guaranteed the presumption of innocence

[Mr Gray]

I don't target you Davel. You target everyone who is a sceptic.  I care about you too.   

Cite for I target everyone  who is, a, sceptic.....

[Venturi Swirl]

If something is in quotation marks and is followed by "said the SC" you are not quoting me.
Of course the book wasn't libelous.

Of course it is, if not then you try writing your opinion of what you think the McCanns did that night and see how long it lasts on this forum.  Then, when it has been removed, ask yourself why.

[Venturi Swirl]

I'm not sure what you're asking, sorry. There were nasty allegations against Murat and rhey were investigated by the PJ. No evidence was found to support them.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/ROBERT-MURAT.htm

What sort of evidence would you expect the police to find to support such historic allegations?

[Robittybob1]

What sort of evidence would you expect the police to find to support such historic allegations?

'I suppose they could ask the cat.

[Mr Gray]

'I suppose they could ask the cat.

Yes... Cats don't lie

[Mr Gray]

I'm not sure what you're asking, sorry. There were nasty allegations against Murat and rhey were investigated by the PJ. No evidence was found to support them.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/ROBERT-MURAT.htm

So no evidence to support the claim is evidence of innocence

[Venturi Swirl]

I'm not sure what you're asking, sorry. There were nasty allegations against Murat and rhey were investigated by the PJ. No evidence was found to support them.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/ROBERT-MURAT.htm

The archiving report quantified the amount of evidence against Murat in the same terms as that against the McCanns.  I guess that means it would have been OK for any ex cop on the case to have written a lurid book about Murat’s involvement in Madeleine’s disappearance on that basis, and get away with it.

[Brietta]

I'm not sure what you're asking, sorry. There were nasty allegations against Murat and rhey were investigated by the PJ. No evidence was found to support them.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/ROBERT-MURAT.htm

All very perplexing is it not.
There were nasty allegations against the McCanns and they were investigated by the Judicial Police.  No evidence was found to support them.

But Amaral wrote a book reinforcing and embellishing the nasty allegations against the McCanns ... why do you suppose that was?