Latest theory lands on Portuguese AG's desk

[Mr Gray]

The SC judgement supported Amaral's right to freedom of speech. It didn't say it agreed with what he said.

It supported amarals right to claim Maddie was dead

[G-Unit]

It supported amarals right to claim Maddie was dead

It supported his right to express his opinion. It can't be demonstrated that the SC judges agreed with his opinion.

[Venturi Swirl]

It supported his right to express his opinion. It can't be demonstrated that the SC judges agreed with his opinion.

It's fascinating that his rights to express an opinion outweighed the missing child's right to be considered alive and findable, and also the rights of her parents not to be defamed in such a cruel manner.

[Mr Gray]

It supported his right to express his opinion. It can't be demonstrated that the SC judges agreed with his opinion.

It doesn't matter whether they agree with him or not... They supported his right to express his, opinion which the ECHR may well decide violated the human rights of maddie and her parents

[barrier]

It doesn't matter whether they agree with him or not... They supported his right to express his, opinion which the ECHR may well decide violated the human rights of maddie and her parents

There again they mighten,round and round the mulberry bush.

[Carana]

It supported amarals right to claim Maddie was dead

It supported his right to express his opinion. It can't be demonstrated that the SC judges agreed with his opinion.

I find both of your points valid.

However, weighing up both, IMO, Madeleine's right to be considered as potentially alive, in the absence of any proof of death, nor even any criminal trial, should have taken precedence over a short-term coordinator's lucrative and prolonged assertions to the contrary.

On the other hand, proving that whatever he said or wrote had a direct influence on public opinion is impossible: a precursor was the multitude of half-baked leaks during his relatively short tenure, but without any proof of who was actually leaking.

[slartibartfast]

It supported amarals right to claim Maddie was dead

Do you realise how insignificant that sounds? You appear to be suggesting that anyone who claims someone is dead is infringing their rights in some way? Please do elaborate.

[Carana]

Do you realise how insignificant that sounds? You appear to be suggesting that anyone who claims someone is dead is infringing their rights in some way? Please do elaborate.

If you are convinced that someone is dead because someone once in authority and with a "credibility" factor keeps on repeating it, how many people who took those assertions at face value would remain vigilant?

It may be worth remembering that this lawsuit was filed once the official investigation had been archived, with no ongoing active investigation, either from the UK side, nor the PT side.

[jassi]

If you are convinced that someone is dead because someone once in authority and with a "credibility" factor keeps on repeating it, how many people who took those assertions at face value would remain vigilant?

It may be worth remembering that this lawsuit was filed once the official investigation had been archived, with no ongoing active investigation, either from the UK side, nor the PT side.

I assume you are meaning the general public?
My question is 'why should they'? Why should parents who lose their children expect other to spend the rest of their lives looking for them?

[Carana]

I assume you are meaning the general public?
My question is 'why should they'? Why should parents who lose their children expect other to spend the rest of their lives looking for them?

I didn't say that others should spend their lives looking for her, did I?

She hasn't been found - dead or alive.

[Robittybob1]

I didn't say that others should spend their lives looking for her, did I?

She hasn't been found - dead or alive.

Hide and seek.

[jassi]

Hide and seek.

Just hide, not much in the way of seek  IMO

[Mr Gray]

Do you realise how insignificant that sounds? You appear to be suggesting that anyone who claims someone is dead is infringing their rights in some way? Please do elaborate.

Writing a book... Going on tv... Professing to have proof of death... And then we have the accusations against her parents

[Mr Gray]

I'm simply speculating... But is it a human right to be considered alive and findable if there is no real evidence to the lattter..

[Robittybob1]

I'm simply speculating... But is it a human right to be considered alive and findable if there is no real evidence to the lattter..

In some countries you are considered alive until there has been no proof of being alive for 7 years at which time you can be legally considered dead.