UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
Disappeared and Abducted Children and Young Adults => Madeleine McCann (3) disappeared from her parent's holiday apartment at Ocean Club, Praia da Luz, Portugal on 3 May 2007. No trace of her has ever been found. => Topic started by: ferryman on May 11, 2013, 05:20:39 PM
-
This came up on another thread, but rather than derail it, I thought I'd start a new one.
I contend that there is a legal distinction between that which is defamation and that which is defamatory.
I cite from the Carter Ruck website:
Note, crucially, that there is no precise definition of defamatory, and that that considered defamatory can be defended.
Clearly if defamatory and defamation were the same, there would be no defence to anything that meets the (loose) criteria of defamatory.
That which does not fit the framework of defamation remains defamatory, but just not actionable.
When are words defamatory?
There is no set definition of 'defamatory'. A statement may be considered to be defamatory if it tends to do any one of the following:
lower the claimant in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally;
disparage a claimant in his business, trade, office or profession;
expose the claimant to hatred, ridicule or contempt; or
cause the claimant to be shunned or avoided.
Whether or not a statement has that effect is measured against the standard of the reasonable man generally and not a limited class of people who may have different standards from the majority of members of society.
Common examples of what may be considered defamatory are allegations that suggest a person is:
Immoral
Dishonest
Corrupt
Insolvent or in serious financial difficulties
Incompetent
Guilty of a criminal offence
The producer of shoddy goods
Standards of morality constantly change and so what would have been immoral twenty years ago may not necessarily be so today.
Determining the meaning of words gives rise to a great degree of uncertainty in a libel action. It is not only the superficial meaning that may be defamatory but also any 'hidden' meaning which can be inferred. There are three levels of meaning to be aware of:
inference, in other words a meaning that can be read between the lines without any specialist knowledge; and innuendo, a meaning which can be attributed to the words by readers who have a specialist knowledge.
The onus is on the claimant to show the facts giving rise to the innuendo and that these facts are known to the readers. For example, to say that a person eats meat is not defamatory on its face; if, however, some readers know that the person professes to be a committed vegetarian, the statement may be considered defamatory, suggesting he is hypocritical or dishonest.
The words must be put in their full context, including headings and captions to any photographs. For the purpose of deciding whether words are defamatory, the intention of the author is irrelevant. All that matters is the impression which the words give to readers.
It is important to bear in mind that a person can sue for the repetition of a defamatory statement made by somebody else. However if it is made absolutely clear, when the words are read as a whole, that there is no truth in a rumour then this may be sufficient to remove the defamatory 'sting'. Be aware however that it is often considered that there is 'no smoke without fire' and it is possible that the publication even of rumour can be defamatory. Simply to make an allegation and add 'allegedly' or 'it has been alleged' will not in itself protect someone from a libel complaint, as readers will usually still understand there to be some truth in the allegation being made.
< back to top
Must the defamatory material refer to the claimant?
Yes. Clearly if someone is named they are identifiable to readers. However, even if the claimant is not named he may still be identifiable to some readers. It is sufficient that he is reasonably identifiable to even one person with whom he is acquainted. For instance, people with whom an individual works may know to whom the allegation is referring from its context.
If a defamatory allegation is made of a large, indeterminate group, no one individual may be able to show that the words would be understood to refer to him (and therefore that the words would have damaged his reputation). However, if the group is determinate and comprises only a small number of people, it may be possible for every member of that group to sue.
< back to top
To how many people must the defamatory allegations have been published?
Making a defamatory allegation, whether orally or in writing, even to one individual other than the claimant himself is sufficient to give rise to a claim. However, the court has the power to stop a case proceeding in limited publication cases if it would be disproportionate to proceed to trial.
Any communication to anyone other than the person actually defamed is, in law, capable of constituting publication. A draft manuscript sent by an author to his or her editor is a publication.
A claimant can take action against any or all of those involved in the process of publication, including the author who wrote the book, the editor responsible for the content of the book and the company which publishes it.
< back to top
Who can be sued?
Any person, company or other legal body involved in publishing the defamatory material. This includes the author, any editor and any publishing company. Sometimes, distributors of defamatory material can also be sued.
Can the claim be defended?
There are three main defences available to a defendant in a libel action; namely, justification, fair comment and privilege.
1) Justification
The defence of justification, or truth, is a complete defence to a libel action. The onus is on the defendant to prove that the allegations are true.
Whilst the defendant does not, necessarily, have to prove the truth of each and every fact, he does have to prove the truth of the substance of the allegation, the defamatory 'sting'.
Even if a defendant is unable or unwilling to prove that the allegations are substantially true, he may nonetheless be able to defend the claim if he can show that it was fair comment or protected by privilege.
2) Honest comment
The defence of honest comment (formerly known as 'fair comment' until the Supreme Court judgment of Joseph v Spiller [2010] UKSC 53) applies only to expressions of opinion, rather than to statements of fact.
A restaurant or theatre review is a classic example of a publication which may be protected by honest comment, although this defence may apply in a variety of different situations.
To succeed in the defence of honest comment the defendant must show that the comment:
is on a matter of public interest;
is recognisable as comment, as distinct from an allegation of fact;
is based on facts which are true (or protected by the defence of privilege);
is on a matter which has been expressly or implicitly put before the public for judgment, or is otherwise on a matter with which the public has a legitimate concern; and
must explicitly or implicitly indicate, at least in general terms, the facts on which it is based (i.e. what it is that has led the commentator to make the comment). Previously, the facts had to be identified sufficiently so as to enable the reader to judge for himself how far the comment was well founded, but following Joseph v Spiller this is no longer the case.
(Carter Ruck)
-
Wriggle all you want.
You are misusing the word.
Look at a dictionary.
-
Come on, people! Does this really matter when Bennett's lies and harassment have been stopped and Amaral is going to be squished in a PT Court very soon? Let's just be thankful for the expertise of Carter Ruck and Isabel Duarte in stopping those who seek to spread lies about Kate and Gerry McCann!
-
Wriggle all you want.
You are misusing the word.
Look at a dictionary.
Why would I want to look at a dictionary?
That which is defamatory can be defended.
That which is (legally proven) defemation cannot, only appealed against (which is different).
-
... and Amaral is going to be squished in a PT Court very soon?
I'm satisfied he'll be squashed.
I'm far from sure about soon ...
-
... and Amaral is going to be squished in a PT Court very soon?
I'm satisfied he'll be squashed.
I'm far from sure about soon ...
Is he not squish squashed already?
-
... and Amaral is going to be squished in a PT Court very soon?
I'm satisfied he'll be squashed.
I'm far from sure about soon ...
Is he not squish squashed already?
On paper he is.
Just about the only point worthy of note the unlamented blogger Blacksmith raised was that when sides seek an out-of-court settlement it's usually because one side or another sees very little prospect of success, making the interminable rounds of appeals and counter-appeals less likely.
But how long can he keep the case out of the courts?
Dunno!
-
... and Amaral is going to be squished in a PT Court very soon?
I'm satisfied he'll be squashed.
I'm far from sure about soon ...
Is he not squish squashed already?
On paper he is.
Just about the only point worthy of note the unlamented blogger Blacksmith raised was that when sides seek an out-of-court settlement it's usually because one side or another sees very little prospect of success, making the interminable rounds of appeals and counter-appeals less likely.
But how long can he keep the case out of the courts?
Dunno!
On paper the very fact that he overturned the banning of his book shows that Amaral is very far from being 'squished'.
-
... and Amaral is going to be squished in a PT Court very soon?
I'm satisfied he'll be squashed.
I'm far from sure about soon ...
Is he not squish squashed already?
On paper he is.
Just about the only point worthy of note the unlamented blogger Blacksmith raised was that when sides seek an out-of-court settlement it's usually because one side or another sees very little prospect of success, making the interminable rounds of appeals and counter-appeals less likely.
But how long can he keep the case out of the courts?
Dunno!
On paper the very fact that he overturned the banning of his book shows that Amaral is very far from being 'squished'.
The vaguaries of Portuguese laws that allow ex-parte judgments to determine such things is best overlooked, in all respects except that Portuguese authorities might want to contemplate some much needed reform.
-
... and Amaral is going to be squished in a PT Court very soon?
I'm satisfied he'll be squashed.
I'm far from sure about soon ...
Is he not squish squashed already?
On paper he is.
Just about the only point worthy of note the unlamented blogger Blacksmith raised was that when sides seek an out-of-court settlement it's usually because one side or another sees very little prospect of success, making the interminable rounds of appeals and counter-appeals less likely.
But how long can he keep the case out of the courts?
Dunno!
On paper the very fact that he overturned the banning of his book shows that Amaral is very far from being 'squished'.
The vaguaries of Portuguese laws that allow ex-parte judgments to determine such things is best overlooked, in all respects except that Portuguese authorities might want to contemplate some much needed reform.
Your jingoism aside, the overturning of the ban certainly cannot be ignored and is probably the reason the McCanns were advised to negotiate for a settlement.
-
... and Amaral is going to be squished in a PT Court very soon?
I'm satisfied he'll be squashed.
I'm far from sure about soon ...
Is he not squish squashed already?
On paper he is.
Just about the only point worthy of note the unlamented blogger Blacksmith raised was that when sides seek an out-of-court settlement it's usually because one side or another sees very little prospect of success, making the interminable rounds of appeals and counter-appeals less likely.
But how long can he keep the case out of the courts?
Dunno!
On paper the very fact that he overturned the banning of his book shows that Amaral is very far from being 'squished'.
The vaguaries of Portuguese laws that allow ex-parte judgments to determine such things is best overlooked, in all respects except that Portuguese authorities might want to contemplate some much needed reform.
Your jingoism aside, the overturning of the ban certainly cannot be ignored and is probably the reason the McCanns were advised to negotiate for a settlement.
LOL! Amaral is going to get well and truly squished!!
-
... and Amaral is going to be squished in a PT Court very soon?
I'm satisfied he'll be squashed.
I'm far from sure about soon ...
Is he not squish squashed already?
Yes, I think he very probably is, John.
-
...and is probably the reason the McCanns were advised to negotiate for a settlement.
Those of a certain persuasion do it, time and time again, don't they?
Take an outrageous, undefended statement, nonchalantly touted as if fact, and append some other outrageous undefended statement to it as if that were also fact.
They will never learn ...
-
Your jingoism aside, the overturning of the ban certainly cannot be ignored and is probably the reason the McCanns were advised to negotiate for a settlement.
I agree with your initial contention Faith but not your last one.
The overturning of the ban is strange but could be put down to the vagaries of Portuguese Courts.
It was the Court of Appeal in Lisbon which granted the libel action against the Morning Post but which Court was it which overturned the book ban? Was it also the Lisbon Court?
The McCanns offered to settle so it is up to Mr Amaral to make an offer of compensation. The problem for him though is that in settling the action he will have acknowledged that he wronged the McCanns.
-
Wriggle all you want.
You are misusing the word.
Look at a dictionary.
Why would I want to look at a dictionary?
That which is defamatory can be defended.
That which is (legally proven) defemation cannot, only appealed against (which is different).
You might want to look at a dictionary because modern English Dictionaries reflect the usage of a word, the describe rather than prescribe (as is the case in France!).
Now while it is true that "defamatory" has a minor definition (which you can find if you go to a comprehensive dictionary) where it may be used to mean potentially defamatory, its main usage as attested by all sources I have seen as its first an major usage is as the direct adjective or adverb meaning "a speech act or piece of writing or behavior which defames".
Now I have had the good grace to admit that it is a minor usage, perhaps you could admit that its major usage is as I have stated.
One of the fascinating things about English is the variety of synonyms and near synonyms that have marginal shades of meaning.
defamatory [dih-fam-uh-tawr-ee, -tohr-ee] Show IPA
Part of Speech: adjective
Definition: libelous, slanderous
Synonyms: abusive, calumnious, contumelious, denigrating, derogatory, detracting, detractive, disparaging, injurious, insulting, maligning, opprobrious, traducing, vilifying, vituperative
Antonyms: approving, commending, complimentary, exalting, praising
http://thesaurus.com/browse/defamatory?s=b&path=/
-
Your jingoism aside, the overturning of the ban certainly cannot be ignored and is probably the reason the McCanns were advised to negotiate for a settlement.
I agree with your initial contention Faith but not your last one.
The overturning of the ban is strange but could be put down to the vagaries of Portuguese Courts.
It was the Court of Appeal in Lisbon which granted the libel action against the Morning Post but which Court was it which overturned the book ban? Was it also the Lisbon Court?
The McCanns offered to settle so it is up to Mr Amaral to make an offer of compensation. The problem for him though is that in settling the action he will have acknowledged that he wronged the McCanns.
What I don't understand is why, if the McCanns are in an unassailable position of strength, they would be prepared to 'settle' with Amaral at all
I mean, if they have him over a barrel, as you an others seem to be suggesting, then why not just take him to court, publically humiliate him, and take him for every penny he's got ?
My own feeling is that the McCanns are offering to settle out of court for the most obvious of reasons ... they are not that confidant that they will win
-
Your jingoism aside, the overturning of the ban certainly cannot be ignored and is probably the reason the McCanns were advised to negotiate for a settlement.
I agree with your initial contention Faith but not your last one.
The overturning of the ban is strange but could be put down to the vagaries of Portuguese Courts.
It was the Court of Appeal in Lisbon which granted the libel action against the Morning Post but which Court was it which overturned the book ban? Was it also the Lisbon Court?
The McCanns offered to settle so it is up to Mr Amaral to make an offer of compensation. The problem for him though is that in settling the action he will have acknowledged that he wronged the McCanns.
What I don't understand is why, if the McCanns are in an unassailable position of strength, they would be prepared to 'settle' with Amaral at all
I mean, if they have him over a barrel, as you an others seem to be suggesting, then why not just take him to court, publically humiliate him, and take him for every penny he's got ?
My own feeling is that the McCanns are offering to settle out of court for the most obvious of reasons ... they are not that confidant that they will win
But we don't know who made the first move to try to settle out of court. It seems to have been assumed that because the McCanns applied to the Court for a 'stay' in proceedings that they were the instigators. But that may not be the case. I understand that only the Plaintiffs can make such an application to the court - the Defendant has no legal right to do that. Therefore regardless of who it was who suggested an attempt to settle, it could only be the McCanns (the plaintiffs) who had the legal power to apply to the court for a stay so that negotiations could take place.
-
Your jingoism aside, the overturning of the ban certainly cannot be ignored and is probably the reason the McCanns were advised to negotiate for a settlement.
I agree with your initial contention Faith but not your last one.
The overturning of the ban is strange but could be put down to the vagaries of Portuguese Courts.
It was the Court of Appeal in Lisbon which granted the libel action against the Morning Post but which Court was it which overturned the book ban? Was it also the Lisbon Court?
The McCanns offered to settle so it is up to Mr Amaral to make an offer of compensation. The problem for him though is that in settling the action he will have acknowledged that he wronged the McCanns.
What I don't understand is why, if the McCanns are in an unassailable position of strength, they would be prepared to 'settle' with Amaral at all
I mean, if they have him over a barrel, as you an others seem to be suggesting, then why not just take him to court, publically humiliate him, and take him for every penny he's got ?
My own feeling is that the McCanns are offering to settle out of court for the most obvious of reasons ... they are not that confidant that they will win
I would suggest that the way they have used the courts so far points to a reason. They only sued the Express Group who were admittedly the most vociferous and most defamatory. Once that action jhad been settled, the whole British Press (and foreign press distributing in the UK) stopped the defamation. They did not sue other media as it was stopping more than the money that was the goal. Job Done. The McCanns have largely ignored the internet, the forums and the blogosphere except where people were gaining traction with defamation. They sent a cease and desist letter to Amazon abot a pretendy profiler and had her book withdraw. Amazon will not sell any other book that would be defamatory. Job Done. Tony Bennett left the blogosphre and started defamation in the real world. He has been stopped. Job Done. They did not even bankrupt him as was their right.
I suggest that the major aim with Amaral is for him to stop the defamation. I suspect that there is some sort of similar offer as to Tony Bennett- give up the fight to defame and we will stop pursuing you for money.
-
Your jingoism aside, the overturning of the ban certainly cannot be ignored and is probably the reason the McCanns were advised to negotiate for a settlement.
I agree with your initial contention Faith but not your last one.
The overturning of the ban is strange but could be put down to the vagaries of Portuguese Courts.
It was the Court of Appeal in Lisbon which granted the libel action against the Morning Post but which Court was it which overturned the book ban? Was it also the Lisbon Court?
The McCanns offered to settle so it is up to Mr Amaral to make an offer of compensation. The problem for him though is that in settling the action he will have acknowledged that he wronged the McCanns.
What I don't understand is why, if the McCanns are in an unassailable position of strength, they would be prepared to 'settle' with Amaral at all
I mean, if they have him over a barrel, as you an others seem to be suggesting, then why not just take him to court, publically humiliate him, and take him for every penny he's got ?
My own feeling is that the McCanns are offering to settle out of court for the most obvious of reasons ... they are not that confidant that they will win
I would suggest that the way they have used the courts so far points to a reason. They only sued the Express Group who were admittedly the most vociferous and most defamatory. Once that action jhad been settled, the whole British Press (and foreign press distributing in the UK) stopped the defamation. They did not sue other media as it was stopping more than the money that was the goal. Job Done. The McCanns have largely ignored the internet, the forums and the blogosphere except where people were gaining traction with defamation. They sent a cease and desist letter to Amazon abot a pretendy profiler and had her book withdraw. Amazon will not sell any other book that would be defamatory. Job Done. Tony Bennett left the blogosphre and started defamation in the real world. He has been stopped. Job Done. They did not even bankrupt him as was their right.
I suggest that the major aim with Amaral is for him to stop the defamation. I suspect that there is some sort of similar offer as to Tony Bennett- give up the fight to defame and we will stop pursuing you for money.
I tend to agree with that. The McCanns are not interested in the money, except that it seemed morally wrong for Amaral to profit at their daughter's expense and I suspect that was the reason for the original amount claimed.
IMO Their main aim as you say is to prevent Amaral from continuing to defame them.
-
The route of least resistance. Mr Amaral stops being a naughty boy and everyone lives happily ever after?
-
Your jingoism aside, the overturning of the ban certainly cannot be ignored and is probably the reason the McCanns were advised to negotiate for a settlement.
I agree with your initial contention Faith but not your last one.
The overturning of the ban is strange but could be put down to the vagaries of Portuguese Courts.
It was the Court of Appeal in Lisbon which granted the libel action against the Morning Post but which Court was it which overturned the book ban? Was it also the Lisbon Court?
The McCanns offered to settle so it is up to Mr Amaral to make an offer of compensation. The problem for him though is that in settling the action he will have acknowledged that he wronged the McCanns.
What I don't understand is why, if the McCanns are in an unassailable position of strength, they would be prepared to 'settle' with Amaral at all
I mean, if they have him over a barrel, as you an others seem to be suggesting, then why not just take him to court, publically humiliate him, and take him for every penny he's got ?
My own feeling is that the McCanns are offering to settle out of court for the most obvious of reasons ... they are not that confidant that they will win
I think it depends, to a very large extent, what the McCanns want from the settlement.
Money is a secondary consideration, because the fund is awash with proceeds from the sale of Kate's book. Above all, the McCanns want a judicial ruling that Amaral's book is, indeed, a work of lies, distortion and defamation.
And there would actually be a certain, delicious, irony in Amaral slinking off into the sunset with the majority of the cash locked away in a bank account bulging his own pockets, in return for a judicial ruling that his work is, indeed, a work of libel and (perhaps) a bit over for the fund.
In a country where face means so much, Amaral will be depicted as a man who kept hold of most of what matters most to him (cash) yet sold his principles down the line with a book judicially condemned as a work of libel and fiction ...
Ally that to certainty that the book will never see light of day again, and I think the McCanns will be content; Amaral's humiliation complete ...
-
I thought the book was on sale again.
-
It is always advisable to negotiate a settlement out of court if possible. The fact that Murat has won his recent libel case must be causing Amaral some discomfort (I hope!)
I don't hope so, but may be the fact Murat now won his appeal reminds him he won the appeal concerning the ban and that if he loses he can appeal as well.
-
The route of least resistance. Mr Amaral stops being a naughty boy and everyone lives happily ever after?
If Scotland Yard's review fails to produce evidence that convinces the Portuguese to reopen the case ( which seems likely ) then the McCanns will be back in the position where no police force is actively looking for Madeleine
It will fall to them, once again, to fund their ongoing search from the fund
That prospect alone would surely enough for the McCanns, if they are entirely confident of victory, to take Amaral to court and look for damages in an amount that would enable the search to continue for as long as possible
Why settle for Amaral's silence if they were sure they could have been vindicated in open court and collected a huge sum for the fund in the process ?
-
has amaral got a huge sum?
-
It is always advisable to negotiate a settlement out of court if possible. The fact that Murat has won his recent libel case must be causing Amaral some discomfort (I hope!)
I don't hope so, but may be the fact Murat now won his appeal reminds him he won the appeal concerning the ban and that if he loses he can appeal as well.
I thought Amaral had used all his appeals, on the book action, Anne.
-
I think it depends, to a very large extent, what the McCanns want from the settlement.
Money is a secondary consideration, because the fund is awash with proceeds from the sale of Kate's book. Above all, the McCanns want a judicial ruling that Amaral's book is, indeed, a work of lies, distortion and defamation.
And there would actually be a certain, delicious, irony in Amaral slinking off into the sunset with the majority of the cash locked away in a bank account bulging his own pockets, in return for a judicial ruling that his work is, indeed, a work of libel and (perhaps) a bit over for the fund.
In a country where face means so much, Amaral will be depicted as a man who kept hold of most of what matters most to him (cash) yet sold his principles down the line with a book judicially condemned as a work of libel and fiction ...
Ally that to certainty that the book will never see light of day again, and I think the McCanns will be content; Amaral's humiliation complete ...
Do they want a judicial ruling the book is "a work of lies, distortion and defamation." or Gonçalo Amaral's "complete humiliation" ?
The book is on sale, I doubt it sales yet, too old.
-
has amaral got a huge sum?
rumours abound that he is heavily in debt or even bankrupt
probably still getting some money from his TV interview/shows though
-
I think it depends, to a very large extent, what the McCanns want from the settlement.
Money is a secondary consideration, because the fund is awash with proceeds from the sale of Kate's book. Above all, the McCanns want a judicial ruling that Amaral's book is, indeed, a work of lies, distortion and defamation.
And there would actually be a certain, delicious, irony in Amaral slinking off into the sunset with the majority of the cash locked away in a bank account bulging his own pockets, in return for a judicial ruling that his work is, indeed, a work of libel and (perhaps) a bit over for the fund.
In a country where face means so much, Amaral will be depicted as a man who kept hold of most of what matters most to him (cash) yet sold his principles down the line with a book judicially condemned as a work of libel and fiction ...
Ally that to certainty that the book will never see light of day again, and I think the McCanns will be content; Amaral's humiliation complete ...
Do they want a judicial ruling the book is "a work of lies, distortion and defamation." or Gonçalo Amaral's "complete humiliation" ?
The book is on sale, I doubt it sales yet, too old.
I don't mind which, to be honest. He's humilated the McCann's for the last 6 years 8()(((@#
-
he has accused and try to embarrass the Mccanns - I think think have risen far above humiliation though.
-
Humiliated the McCanns ? Was he even a pain in the neck ?
-
an unnecessary thorn in their side who had a lot of influence over how Portuguese people viewed the Mccanns.
-
an unnecessary thorn in their side who had a lot of influence over how Portuguese people viewed the Mccanns.
Imo the Portugueses felt mainly humiliated in this case. They're certainly not interested in Mr Amaral nor in Mr and Mrs McCann.
-
Your jingoism aside, the overturning of the ban certainly cannot be ignored and is probably the reason the McCanns were advised to negotiate for a settlement.
I agree with your initial contention Faith but not your last one.
The overturning of the ban is strange but could be put down to the vagaries of Portuguese Courts.
It was the Court of Appeal in Lisbon which granted the libel action against the Morning Post but which Court was it which overturned the book ban? Was it also the Lisbon Court?
The McCanns offered to settle so it is up to Mr Amaral to make an offer of compensation. The problem for him though is that in settling the action he will have acknowledged that he wronged the McCanns.
What I don't understand is why, if the McCanns are in an unassailable position of strength, they would be prepared to 'settle' with Amaral at all
I mean, if they have him over a barrel, as you an others seem to be suggesting, then why not just take him to court, publically humiliate him, and take him for every penny he's got ?
My own feeling is that the McCanns are offering to settle out of court for the most obvious of reasons ... they are not that confidant that they will win
I think it depends, to a very large extent, what the McCanns want from the settlement.
Money is a secondary consideration, because the fund is awash with proceeds from the sale of Kate's book. Above all, the McCanns want a judicial ruling that Amaral's book is, indeed, a work of lies, distortion and defamation.
And there would actually be a certain, delicious, irony in Amaral slinking off into the sunset with the majority of the cash locked away in a bank account bulging his own pockets, in return for a judicial ruling that his work is, indeed, a work of libel and (perhaps) a bit over for the fund.
In a country where face means so much, Amaral will be depicted as a man who kept hold of most of what matters most to him (cash) yet sold his principles down the line with a book judicially condemned as a work of libel and fiction ...
Ally that to certainty that the book will never see light of day again, and I think the McCanns will be content; Amaral's humiliation complete ...
Strange how the OFM webmaster would not admit publically that Kate had told her that they did not request a settlement yet admitted as much in a private email. Seems Kate doesn't want to be publically connected to a comment that later on turns out to be false.
-
Your jingoism aside, the overturning of the ban certainly cannot be ignored and is probably the reason the McCanns were advised to negotiate for a settlement.
I agree with your initial contention Faith but not your last one.
The overturning of the ban is strange but could be put down to the vagaries of Portuguese Courts.
It was the Court of Appeal in Lisbon which granted the libel action against the Morning Post but which Court was it which overturned the book ban? Was it also the Lisbon Court?
The McCanns offered to settle so it is up to Mr Amaral to make an offer of compensation. The problem for him though is that in settling the action he will have acknowledged that he wronged the McCanns.
What I don't understand is why, if the McCanns are in an unassailable position of strength, they would be prepared to 'settle' with Amaral at all
I mean, if they have him over a barrel, as you an others seem to be suggesting, then why not just take him to court, publically humiliate him, and take him for every penny he's got ?
My own feeling is that the McCanns are offering to settle out of court for the most obvious of reasons ... they are not that confidant that they will win
I think it depends, to a very large extent, what the McCanns want from the settlement.
Money is a secondary consideration, because the fund is awash with proceeds from the sale of Kate's book. Above all, the McCanns want a judicial ruling that Amaral's book is, indeed, a work of lies, distortion and defamation.
And there would actually be a certain, delicious, irony in Amaral slinking off into the sunset with the majority of the cash locked away in a bank account bulging his own pockets, in return for a judicial ruling that his work is, indeed, a work of libel and (perhaps) a bit over for the fund.
In a country where face means so much, Amaral will be depicted as a man who kept hold of most of what matters most to him (cash) yet sold his principles down the line with a book judicially condemned as a work of libel and fiction ...
Ally that to certainty that the book will never see light of day again, and I think the McCanns will be content; Amaral's humiliation complete ...
Strange how the OFM webmaster would not admit publically that Kate had told her that they did not request a settlement yet admitted as much in a private email. Seems Kate doesn't want to be publically connected to a comment that later on turns out to be false.
I'm presuming that a confidentiality clause was signed up to by both parties at the onset of negotiations -ie. that no public announcements would be made. As far as I know neither party have made any public official comments about who it was who suggested exploring the possibility of an out of court settlement.
-
No settlement was reached, so it is unlikely that we will ever know what happened in this instance. But it is interesting that the time limit first quoted by those who profess to be in the know was six months, when in fact it was thirty days, so I am not placing too much importance on what they have to say.
As for Defamation and Defamatory. They are just two parts of the same thing in this Case.
-
Your jingoism aside, the overturning of the ban certainly cannot be ignored and is probably the reason the McCanns were advised to negotiate for a settlement.
I agree with your initial contention Faith but not your last one.
The overturning of the ban is strange but could be put down to the vagaries of Portuguese Courts.
It was the Court of Appeal in Lisbon which granted the libel action against the Morning Post but which Court was it which overturned the book ban? Was it also the Lisbon Court?
The McCanns offered to settle so it is up to Mr Amaral to make an offer of compensation. The problem for him though is that in settling the action he will have acknowledged that he wronged the McCanns.
What I don't understand is why, if the McCanns are in an unassailable position of strength, they would be prepared to 'settle' with Amaral at all
I mean, if they have him over a barrel, as you an others seem to be suggesting, then why not just take him to court, publically humiliate him, and take him for every penny he's got ?
My own feeling is that the McCanns are offering to settle out of court for the most obvious of reasons ... they are not that confidant that they will win
I think it depends, to a very large extent, what the McCanns want from the settlement.
Money is a secondary consideration, because the fund is awash with proceeds from the sale of Kate's book. Above all, the McCanns want a judicial ruling that Amaral's book is, indeed, a work of lies, distortion and defamation.
And there would actually be a certain, delicious, irony in Amaral slinking off into the sunset with the majority of the cash locked away in a bank account bulging his own pockets, in return for a judicial ruling that his work is, indeed, a work of libel and (perhaps) a bit over for the fund.
In a country where face means so much, Amaral will be depicted as a man who kept hold of most of what matters most to him (cash) yet sold his principles down the line with a book judicially condemned as a work of libel and fiction ...
Ally that to certainty that the book will never see light of day again, and I think the McCanns will be content; Amaral's humiliation complete ...
Strange how the OFM webmaster would not admit publically that Kate had told her that they did not request a settlement yet admitted as much in a private email. Seems Kate doesn't want to be publically connected to a comment that later on turns out to be false.
I'm presuming that a confidentiality clause was signed up to by both parties at the onset of negotiations -ie. that no public announcements would be made. As far as I know neither party have made any public official comments about who it was who suggested exploring the possibility of an out of court settlement.
You are probably right Benice which makes you wonder why Kate, via her webmaster, made any comment about it at all.
-
debunker said: I would suggest that the way they have used the courts so far points to a reason. They only sued the Express Group who were admittedly the most vociferous and most defamatory. Once that action jhad been settled, the whole British Press (and foreign press distributing in the UK) stopped the defamation. They did not sue other media as it was stopping more than the money that was the goal. Job Done. The McCanns have largely ignored the internet, the forums and the blogosphere except where people were gaining traction with defamation. They sent a cease and desist letter to Amazon abot a pretendy profiler and had her book withdraw. Amazon will not sell any other book that would be defamatory. Job Done. Tony Bennett left the blogosphre and started defamation in the real world. He has been stopped. Job Done. They did not even bankrupt him as was their right.
I suggest that the major aim with Amaral is for him to stop the defamation. I suspect that there is some sort of similar offer as to Tony Bennett- give up the fight to defame and we will stop pursuing you for money.
I agree with all you've said, db. In my opinion, it's not about the money for Kate and Gerry McCann. They just want these people to stop. They could have got the papers into court and got 5 times the payout. They didn't. They could have bankrupted Bennett - they didn't. Ed Smethurst could have pursued the £50k damages from Bennett - he didn't. They just want these people to stop.
I have a point for debate; If they were involved in Madeleine's disappearance, why on earth would they have dared to mount legal action - especially against the UK Press as they were still arguido at this time. Why did they push for the SY Review? Surely if they were involved, they would have just breathed a big sigh of relief in July 2008 when the case was shelved, and slunk away never to be heard of again?
-
What are you talking about Faithlilly?
This
http://twittweb.com/adds+hope+hoping+john+b-30375486
-
What are you talking about Faithlilly?
This
http://twittweb.com/adds+hope+hoping+john+b-30375486
And the woman that did it, couldn't help bragging about it, could she? Its no secret on Haverns who it was. I even got a PM @)(++(*
-
Quite, they could have slinked away quietly
Having lived in the Netherlands and NZ before and having skills that are applicable in any country in the world
They could have just done that - shipped out - but they haven't
And yesterday's newspapers are, as we know - today's chip papers. There soon would have been no media noise about them - had they moved abroad.
They persued their search for their first born - based in the UK - determined that Madeleine (or indeed her body) is findable.
And who in their right mind could begrudge them that?
-
dbl post
-
What are you talking about Faithlilly?
This
http://twittweb.com/adds+hope+hoping+john+b-30375486
Oh dear, that - written shortly before Blacksmith lost the plot completely and vanished off the face of the earth. And these are the desperate, nonsensical scraps to which the fervent "sceptics" cling to for comfort to reassure themselves that they are on the right track. Pitiful really.
To quote Blacksmith - is being desperate indeed
The guy never had any credibility - most sane '[ censored word] realised this about 6 months ago
when he went into meltdown
-
I have a point for debate; If they were involved in Madeleine's disappearance, why on earth would they have dared to mount legal action - especially against the UK Press as they were still arguido at this time. Why did they push for the SY Review?
May be because no body, no case.
-
What are you talking about Faithlilly?
This
http://twittweb.com/adds+hope+hoping+john+b-30375486
Oh dear, that - written shortly before Blacksmith lost the plot completely and vanished off the face of the earth. And these are the desperate, nonsensical scraps to which the fervent "sceptics" cling to for comfort to reassure themselves that they are on the right track. Pitiful really.
No the point is that the exchange took place on the OFM website which some people say is a myth, it is not, I saw it myself, and Blacksmiths retelling of being threatened with legal action is laughable at best, foot goal etc
-
What are you talking about Faithlilly?
This
http://twittweb.com/adds+hope+hoping+john+b-30375486
Oh dear, that - written shortly before Blacksmith lost the plot completely and vanished off the face of the earth. And these are the desperate, nonsensical scraps to which the fervent "sceptics" cling to for comfort to reassure themselves that they are on the right track. Pitiful really.
No the point is that the exchange took place on the OFM website which some people say is a myth, it is not, I saw it myself, and Blacksmiths retelling of being threatened with legal action is laughable at best, foot goal etc
Where is the proof of Blacksmith being threatened with legal action? I never saw that. It's a giant misunderstanding on Blacksmith's part if you ask me, he seemed to be having some comprehension issues latterly before his disappearance.
I suspect, if Blacksmith had been threatened with legal action, he'd have pulled everything completely.
He hasn't.
He's shunted most of his blogs onto some sort of archive site that can be accessed only by the "privileged" (ho! ho!) few ...
-
I have a point for debate; If they were involved in Madeleine's disappearance, why on earth would they have dared to mount legal action - especially against the UK Press as they were still arguido at this time. Why did they push for the SY Review?
May be because no body, no case.
Can't agree with you there, Anne, unfortunately. Gerry and Kate McCann must have nerves of steel to mount all this legal action and keep in the public eye were they guilty of anything. IMO they would have just slunk away quietly in July 2008.
-
What are you talking about Faithlilly?
This
http://twittweb.com/adds+hope+hoping+john+b-30375486
Oh dear, that - written shortly before Blacksmith lost the plot completely and vanished off the face of the earth. And these are the desperate, nonsensical scraps to which the fervent "sceptics" cling to for comfort to reassure themselves that they are on the right track. Pitiful really.
No the point is that the exchange took place on the OFM website which some people say is a myth, it is not, I saw it myself, and Blacksmiths retelling of being threatened with legal action is laughable at best, foot goal etc
Where is the proof of Blacksmith being threatened with legal action? I never saw that. It's a giant misunderstanding on Blacksmith's part if you ask me, he seemed to be having some comprehension issues latterly before his disappearance.
Its in the link from earlier, the webmaster of the ofm fb page threatened it, do read
-
What are you talking about Faithlilly?
This
http://twittweb.com/adds+hope+hoping+john+b-30375486
Oh dear, that - written shortly before Blacksmith lost the plot completely and vanished off the face of the earth. And these are the desperate, nonsensical scraps to which the fervent "sceptics" cling to for comfort to reassure themselves that they are on the right track. Pitiful really.
No the point is that the exchange took place on the OFM website which some people say is a myth, it is not, I saw it myself, and Blacksmiths retelling of being threatened with legal action is laughable at best, foot goal etc
Where is the proof of Blacksmith being threatened with legal action? I never saw that. It's a giant misunderstanding on Blacksmith's part if you ask me, he seemed to be having some comprehension issues latterly before his disappearance.
Its in the link from earlier, the webmaster of the ofm fb page threatened it, do read
Which link is this?
Can you produce it?
-
I have a point for debate; If they were involved in Madeleine's disappearance, why on earth would they have dared to mount legal action - especially against the UK Press as they were still arguido at this time. Why did they push for the SY Review?
May be because no body, no case.
Can't agree with you there, Anne, unfortunately. Gerry and Kate McCann must have nerves of steel to mount all this legal action and keep in the public eye were they guilty of anything. IMO they would have just slunk away quietly in July 2008.
I'm not sure I understand this, Rachel.
Were they guilty, they would have just slunk away ?
-
@ Ferryman, The link I gave earlier,I suggest you read back
Direct copy of blacksmiths blog post copied on many other sites too
-
What are you talking about Faithlilly?
This
http://twittweb.com/adds+hope+hoping+john+b-30375486
Oh dear, that - written shortly before Blacksmith lost the plot completely and vanished off the face of the earth. And these are the desperate, nonsensical scraps to which the fervent "sceptics" cling to for comfort to reassure themselves that they are on the right track. Pitiful really.
No the point is that the exchange took place on the OFM website which some people say is a myth, it is not, I saw it myself, and Blacksmiths retelling of being threatened with legal action is laughable at best, foot goal etc
Where is the proof of Blacksmith being threatened with legal action? I never saw that. It's a giant misunderstanding on Blacksmith's part if you ask me, he seemed to be having some comprehension issues latterly before his disappearance.
Its in the link from earlier, the webmaster of the ofm fb page threatened it, do read
Which link is this?
Can you produce it?
I wouldn't bother if I were you. It is infinitely boring and doesn't make a lot of sense.
-
Everything is boring senseless and unimportant in your eyes eleanor, if it challenges your view, truth is wishful thinking and unnerring belief does not reality make unless you make it up as you go along to suit your beliefs
You DO deserve a medal though for the funniest and mosg ridiculous post ever, that cadaver and blood dogs react to skin cells, CONGRATS
-
I've seen Blacksmith's own account of it but where is the actual evidence?
NEWSFLASH - I don't accept as true everything Blacksmith tells me.
****
One doesnt need hard evidende as the OFM WM has a record of being rude and threatening, besides what you are sayng is BS fabricated this, for what purpose? I think he has bigger and better things to do myself but you are free to think what you want of course
8((()*/
-
I have a point for debate; If they were involved in Madeleine's disappearance, why on earth would they have dared to mount legal action - especially against the UK Press as they were still arguido at this time. Why did they push for the SY Review?
May be because no body, no case.
Can't agree with you there, Anne, unfortunately. Gerry and Kate McCann must have nerves of steel to mount all this legal action and keep in the public eye were they guilty of anything. IMO they would have just slunk away quietly in July 2008.
I'm not sure I understand this, Rachel.
Were they guilty, they would have just slunk away ?
Hi Anne, yes in my opinion had they been guilty they would have simply melted into obscurity in 2008. They haven't. They have continued to keep Madeleine's profile high, pushed for the SY Review and taken legal action to stop defamation. This is just another reason why I believe Kate and Gerry McCann to be innocent.
-
What are you talking about Faithlilly?
This
http://twittweb.com/adds+hope+hoping+john+b-30375486
Oh dear, that - written shortly before Blacksmith lost the plot completely and vanished off the face of the earth. And these are the desperate, nonsensical scraps to which the fervent "sceptics" cling to for comfort to reassure themselves that they are on the right track. Pitiful really.
No the point is that the exchange took place on the OFM website which some people say is a myth, it is not, I saw it myself, and Blacksmiths retelling of being threatened with legal action is laughable at best, foot goal etc
Where is the proof of Blacksmith being threatened with legal action? I never saw that. It's a giant misunderstanding on Blacksmith's part if you ask me, he seemed to be having some comprehension issues latterly before his disappearance.
It wasn't Blacksmith that was threatened with legal action, it was the woman that gave the emails, to Blacksnitch!
-
It wasn't Blacksmith that was threatened with legal action, it was the woman that gave the emails, to Blacksnitch!
***
Yes, you are right there, my error, and his name is BlackSMITH, being peurile doesnt do you any good
-
And the evidence of this woman being threatened with legal action is where?
In BS's blog, it wouldn't be on the OFM website WOULD it? not in a month of Sundays, so basically you are calling BS a liar, your prerogative of course but doesnt make it true
-
so basically you are calling BS a liar
all together now.......
-
And the evidence of this woman being threatened with legal action is where?
In BS's blog, it wouldn't be on the OFM website WOULD it? not in a month of Sundays, so basically you are calling BS a liar, your prerogative of course but doesnt make it true
Was it not Blackmsith who claimed Gerry's thought that the abductor might have been in the apartment at the time of his final check was at the time rather than retrospective?
-
so basically you are calling BS a liar
all together now.......
No point if you cant prove it is there? Just because you disagree with his views doesnt make any of his assertions, not opinions, but assertions of facts, untrue
-
And the evidence of this woman being threatened with legal action is where?
In BS's blog, it wouldn't be on the OFM website WOULD it? not in a month of Sundays, so basically you are calling BS a liar, your prerogative of course but doesnt make it true
Was it not Blackmsith who claimed Gerry's thought that the abductor might have been in the apartment at the time of his final check was at the time rather than retrospective?
I dont know, sorry
-
It wasn't Blacksmith that was threatened with legal action, it was the woman that gave the emails, to Blacksnitch!
***
Yes, you are right there, my error, and his name is BlackSMITH, being peurile doesnt do you any good
It was both Redblossom. Seems even their webmaster has her own legal representation. >@@(*&)
-
And the evidence of this woman being threatened with legal action is where?
In BS's blog, it wouldn't be on the OFM website WOULD it? not in a month of Sundays, so basically you are calling BS a liar, your prerogative of course but doesnt make it true
Blacksmith a Liar? What a suggestion. He just tells Big Porkies. Everybody knows that.
-
I have a point for debate; If they were involved in Madeleine's disappearance, why on earth would they have dared to mount legal action - especially against the UK Press as they were still arguido at this time. Why did they push for the SY Review?
May be because no body, no case.
Can't agree with you there, Anne, unfortunately. Gerry and Kate McCann must have nerves of steel to mount all this legal action and keep in the public eye were they guilty of anything. IMO they would have just slunk away quietly in July 2008.
I'm not sure I understand this, Rachel.
Were they guilty, they would have just slunk away ?
Hi Anne, yes in my opinion had they been guilty they would have simply melted into obscurity in 2008. They haven't. They have continued to keep Madeleine's profile high, pushed for the SY Review and taken legal action to stop defamation. This is just another reason why I believe Kate and Gerry McCann to be innocent.
Yes, it is possible, Rachel.
But, supposing they know no body will ever be found, it's smarter not to retreat.
Doubt remains over their heads and they'll likely never get rid of it, but doubt would certainly be much heavier were people like you - and you are many - not thinking that reasonably, if guilty, they had stepped backstage.
-
Let me get this straight. Blacksmith was told some stuff by another anonymous person on the internet and then he writes about it on his (often unreliable and always anti McCann propaganda) blog and we're supposed to just accept it's absolutely the truth? LOL.
No,a poster went on the OFM website on FB and asked a question about whether it was true the Mccanns offered Amaral an out of court settlement, to which the website master said, let me ask Kate and get back to you. The WM came back and said it was unfounded rumours. This is fact as I and many others saw it at the time. Further to that what went on with BS and whoever emailed him about the matter is not in the public domain as in copies of the emails well I should think not, but BS blogged about it. As said you prerogative to call him a liar.But I see no reason for him to make any such thing up.
-
This is fact as I and many others saw it at the time.
Who screenshot it?
-
Let me get this straight. Blacksmith was told some stuff by another anonymous person on the internet and then he writes about it on his (often unreliable and always anti McCann propaganda) blog and we're supposed to just accept it's absolutely the truth? LOL.
The emails from the webmaster to the anonymous source are safely squirrelled away for future reference I can assure you. Blacksmith removed the references to the emails, after being threatened with legal action ( an absurd over-reaction by the webmaster if the quotes weren't absolutely genuine ) but the originals still exist.
-
Let me get this straight. Blacksmith was told some stuff by another anonymous person on the internet and then he writes about it on his (often unreliable and always anti McCann propaganda) blog and we're supposed to just accept it's absolutely the truth? LOL.
No,a poster went on the OFM website on FB and asked a question about whether it was true the Mccanns offered Amaral an out of court settlement, to which the website master said, let me ask Kate and get back to you. The WM came back and said it was unfounded rumours. This is fact as I and many others saw it at the time. Further to that what went on with BS and whoever emailed him about the matter is not in the public domain as in copies of the emails well I should think not, but BS blogged about it. As said you prerogative to call him a liar.But I see no reason for him to make any such thing up.
That's because he didn't.
-
Let me get this straight. Blacksmith was told some stuff by another anonymous person on the internet and then he writes about it on his (often unreliable and always anti McCann propaganda) blog and we're supposed to just accept it's absolutely the truth? LOL.
The emails from the webmaster to the anonymous source are safely squirrelled away for future reference I can assure you. Blacksmith removed the references to the emails, after being threatened with legal action ( an absurd over-reaction by the webmaster if the quotes weren't absolutely genuine ) but the originals still exist.
Ah!
Faith's assurances.
Must be true, then ...
-
Let me get this straight. Blacksmith was told some stuff by another anonymous person on the internet and then he writes about it on his (often unreliable and always anti McCann propaganda) blog and we're supposed to just accept it's absolutely the truth? LOL.
No,a poster went on the OFM website on FB and asked a question about whether it was true the Mccanns offered Amaral an out of court settlement, to which the website master said, let me ask Kate and get back to you. The WM came back and said it was unfounded rumours. This is fact as I and many others saw it at the time. Further to that what went on with BS and whoever emailed him about the matter is not in the public domain as in copies of the emails well I should think not, but BS blogged about it. As said you prerogative to call him a liar.But I see no reason for him to make any such thing up.
That's because he didn't.
Well you should know Faith ?>)()<
-
It wasn't Blacksmith that was threatened with legal action, it was the woman that gave the emails, to Blacksnitch!
***
Yes, you are right there, my error, and his name is BlackSMITH, being peurile doesnt do you any good
Then why has Blacksmith himself said on his blog (I think, more than once, certainly at least once) that his name is Anthony Sharples?
-
Let me get this straight. Blacksmith was told some stuff by another anonymous person on the internet and then he writes about it on his (often unreliable and always anti McCann propaganda) blog and we're supposed to just accept it's absolutely the truth? LOL.
The emails from the webmaster to the anonymous source are safely squirrelled away for future reference I can assure you. Blacksmith removed the references to the emails, after being threatened with legal action ( an absurd over-reaction by the webmaster if the quotes weren't absolutely genuine ) but the originals still exist.
Ah!
Faith's assurances.
Must be true, then ...
No matter whether you believe me or not, suffice to say that when the time is right those emails will play a part in exposing Kate's duplicity.
-
Let me get this straight. Blacksmith was told some stuff by another anonymous person on the internet and then he writes about it on his (often unreliable and always anti McCann propaganda) blog and we're supposed to just accept it's absolutely the truth? LOL.
The emails from the webmaster to the anonymous source are safely squirrelled away for future reference I can assure you. Blacksmith removed the references to the emails, after being threatened with legal action ( an absurd over-reaction by the webmaster if the quotes weren't absolutely genuine ) but the originals still exist.
Ah!
Faith's assurances.
Must be true, then ...
No matter whether you believe me or not, suffice to say that when the time is right those emails will play a part in exposing Kate's duplicity.
When do you think that "when the time is right" will happen? When they are charged? Ain't going to happen. They are innocent.
-
Let me get this straight. Blacksmith was told some stuff by another anonymous person on the internet and then he writes about it on his (often unreliable and always anti McCann propaganda) blog and we're supposed to just accept it's absolutely the truth? LOL.
The emails from the webmaster to the anonymous source are safely squirrelled away for future reference I can assure you. Blacksmith removed the references to the emails, after being threatened with legal action ( an absurd over-reaction by the webmaster if the quotes weren't absolutely genuine ) but the originals still exist.
Ah!
Faith's assurances.
Must be true, then ...
No matter whether you believe me or not, suffice to say that when the time is right those emails will play a part in exposing Kate's duplicity.
No screenshots?
-
Let me get this straight. Blacksmith was told some stuff by another anonymous person on the internet and then he writes about it on his (often unreliable and always anti McCann propaganda) blog and we're supposed to just accept it's absolutely the truth? LOL.
The emails from the webmaster to the anonymous source are safely squirrelled away for future reference I can assure you. Blacksmith removed the references to the emails, after being threatened with legal action ( an absurd over-reaction by the webmaster if the quotes weren't absolutely genuine ) but the originals still exist.
Ah!
Faith's assurances.
Must be true, then ...
No matter whether you believe me or not, suffice to say that when the time is right those emails will play a part in exposing Kate's duplicity.
When do you think that "when the time is right" will happen? When they are charged? Ain't going to happen. They are innocent.
Perhaps at the libel trial when iI is revealed the McCanns did indeed ask to settle 8)-)))
-
No screenshots?
(sic):
Further to that what went on with BS and whoever emailed him about the matter is not in the public domain
Indeed, no screenshots ...
-
Of course, never forget, it was Blacksmith who brought us Murat v Tanner (cough, cough).
This time, Blacksmith has such stalwarts as Faith and the delightfully fragrant Red Blossom to back him up ...
-
Faithlilly said; Perhaps at the libel trial when iI is revealed the McCanns did indeed ask to settle
No-one knows who asked for the settlement. Those who purport that the McCanns have asked for a settlement are those bastions of truth - the PT press and no-mark blogger Blacksmith.
-
and Coldwater - another notorious stirrer idolised by the sceptics
has a cold sheet of metal
-
And sentimental agent keeps stirring the broth - for 6 years now
-
It wasn't Blacksmith that was threatened with legal action, it was the woman that gave the emails, to Blacksnitch!
***
Yes, you are right there, my error, and his name is BlackSMITH, being peurile doesnt do you any good
Then why has Blacksmith himself said on his blog (I think, more than once, certainly at least once) that his name is Anthony Sharples?
I mentioned the discrepancy between blackSMITH and DCIs blackSNITCH
His real name is irrelevant there
-
Let me get this straight. Blacksmith was told some stuff by another anonymous person on the internet and then he writes about it on his (often unreliable and always anti McCann propaganda) blog and we're supposed to just accept it's absolutely the truth? LOL.
The emails from the webmaster to the anonymous source are safely squirrelled away for future reference I can assure you. Blacksmith removed the references to the emails, after being threatened with legal action ( an absurd over-reaction by the webmaster if the quotes weren't absolutely genuine ) but the originals still exist.
Ah, so not only has Amaral got an ace up his sleeve but Blacksmith also has a squirrel up his sleeve for safe-keeping. LOL.
I can't wait to see Amaral's fabled ace! Maybe he's been storing it for safe-keeping in the fabled fridge that Madeleine's remains were stored in.....
-
No screenshots?
(sic):
Further to that what went on with BS and whoever emailed him about the matter is not in the public domain
Indeed, no screenshots ...
What a stupid question. How could there be screenshots of private emails? There are screenshots though of the original debacle on FB though not complete
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/FB.htm
-
Let me get this straight. Blacksmith was told some stuff by another anonymous person on the internet and then he writes about it on his (often unreliable and always anti McCann propaganda) blog and we're supposed to just accept it's absolutely the truth? LOL.
No,a poster went on the OFM website on FB and asked a question about whether it was true the Mccanns offered Amaral an out of court settlement, to which the website master said, let me ask Kate and get back to you. The WM came back and said it was unfounded rumours. This is fact as I and many others saw it at the time. Further to that what went on with BS and whoever emailed him about the matter is not in the public domain as in copies of the emails well I should think not, but BS blogged about it. As said you prerogative to call him a liar.But I see no reason for him to make any such thing up.
If you read back you will see quite clearly that I haven't called him a liar, that doesn't mean I think what he writes is always (or even ever) accurate.
Swings and roundabouts here
-
And sentimental agent keeps stirring the broth - for 6 years now
Oh yes, forgot about Sentimental Agent. Was he the one who claimed that the PJ had "stand alone" evidence?
-
Faithlilly said; Perhaps at the libel trial when iI is revealed the McCanns did indeed ask to settle
No-one knows who asked for the settlement. Those who purport that the McCanns have asked for a settlement are those bastions of truth - the PT press and no-mark blogger Blacksmith.
The webmaster's extreme reaction tells you exactly who asked for a settlement.
-
And sentimental agent keeps stirring the broth - for 6 years now
Oh yes, forgot about Sentimental Agent. Was he the one who claimed that the PJ had "stand alone" evidence?
Yes that's him
he was constantly at PJ barbecues - and excited the gullible with 'knowledge' gleaned there
-
Faithlilly said; Perhaps at the libel trial when iI is revealed the McCanns did indeed ask to settle
No-one knows who asked for the settlement. Those who purport that the McCanns have asked for a settlement are those bastions of truth - the PT press and no-mark blogger Blacksmith.
If The McCanns had wanted a Settlement they would have gotten one. As it is, they were forced to listen to what Amaral wanted to offer. Obviously not enough.
-
Martha said; Maybe Amaral's ace and Blacksmith's squirrel are one and the same...? (ie: imaginary...)
Yup. Had Amaral's ace and the PJs "stand alone evidence" had any credibility, both would have been played long ago. As for Blacksmith - an attention-seeker with nothing credible to say in general, although to be fair I thoroughly enjoyed his demolition job on Bennett back in December/January - it was spot on. About the only sensible contribution he has ever made.
-
Martha said; Maybe Amaral's ace and Blacksmith's squirrel are one and the same...? (ie: imaginary...)
Yup. Had Amaral's ace and the PJs "stand alone evidence" had any credibility, both would have been played long ago. As for Blacksmith - an attention-seeker with nothing credible to say in general, although to be fair I thoroughly enjoyed his demolition job on Bennett back in December/January - it was spot on. About the only sensible contribution he has ever made.
Well it would be to your turn of view, cherry picking at its best, same happens all the time with every source, BS is wrong unless he attacks x y z, the files are wrong unless they support x y z, the PP final report, the Police summary, the papers are wrong unless....you get the drift
-
Faithlilly said; Perhaps at the libel trial when iI is revealed the McCanns did indeed ask to settle
and the importance of that is what?
-
Martha said; Maybe Amaral's ace and Blacksmith's squirrel are one and the same...? (ie: imaginary...)
Yup. Had Amaral's ace and the PJs "stand alone evidence" had any credibility, both would have been played long ago. As for Blacksmith - an attention-seeker with nothing credible to say in general, although to be fair I thoroughly enjoyed his demolition job on Bennett back in December/January - it was spot on. About the only sensible contribution he has ever made.
Well it would be to your turn of view, cherry picking at its best, same happens all the time with every source, BS is wrong unless he attacks x y z, the files are wrong unless they support x y z, the PP final report, the Police summary, the papers are wrong unless....you get the drift
Well I always thought BS was a wrong 'un
200 words where 2 would have done
another fallen saint of the h a t e r s
-
Faithlilly said; Perhaps at the libel trial when iI is revealed the McCanns did indeed ask to settle
and the importance of that is what?
It will go to the very heart of their credibility and show in stark relief their manipulation of the truth. If the McCanns have asked to settle yet Kate, via her webmaster, has denied it we will all see how far they will go to hide the truth.
-
And sentimental agent keeps stirring the broth - for 6 years now
Oh yes, forgot about Sentimental Agent. Was he the one who claimed that the PJ had "stand alone" evidence?
Yes that's him
he was constantly at PJ barbecues - and excited the gullible with 'knowledge' gleaned there
Yep, it's coming back to me now. Another spreader of PJ misinformation and lies.
-
Reported
8((()*/
you really should follow forum rules and warnings registrar
I see no evidence of BS being a fallen anything, jealous of his creative thought and astuteness? His writings and opinions are based on facts, likening him to people like the stupid coldwater is clutching at straws at best, but you can only cling onto what you can I guess
-
Faithlilly said; Perhaps at the libel trial when iI is revealed the McCanns did indeed ask to settle
and the importance of that is what?
It will go to the very heart of their credibility and show in stark relief their manipulation of the truth. If the McCanns have asked to settle yet Kate, via her webmaster, has denied it we will all see how far they will go to hide the truth.
ah - I see
-
Martha said; Maybe Amaral's ace and Blacksmith's squirrel are one and the same...? (ie: imaginary...)
Yup. Had Amaral's ace and the PJs "stand alone evidence" had any credibility, both would have been played long ago. As for Blacksmith - an attention-seeker with nothing credible to say in general, although to be fair I thoroughly enjoyed his demolition job on Bennett back in December/January - it was spot on. About the only sensible contribution he has ever made.
Well it would be to your turn of view, cherry picking at its best, same happens all the time with every source, BS is wrong unless he attacks x y z, the files are wrong unless they support x y z, the PP final report, the Police summary, the papers are wrong unless....you get the drift
Let's get down to the nitty gritty. Do you believe Amaral's thesis that Madeleine's remains were hidden for 3 weeks and then removed in the Scenic? And if so, why?
-
Reported
8((()*/
you really should follow forum rules and warnings registrar
I see no evidence of BS being a fallen anything, jealous of his creative thought and astuteness? His writings and opinions are based on facts, likening him to people like the stupid coldwater is clutching at straws at best, but you can only cling onto what you can I guess
Your choice to take a shine to him
Not reported btw - not childish enough 8(0(*
-
Faithlilly said; Perhaps at the libel trial when iI is revealed the McCanns did indeed ask to settle
and the importance of that is what?
It will go to the very heart of their credibility and show in stark relief their manipulation of the truth. If the McCanns have asked to settle yet Kate, via her webmaster, has denied it we will all see how far they will go to hide the truth.
The truth. Here's the truth. Kate and Gerry McCann weren't even arrested, never mind charged or convicted. Why do you think that might be? And while we're about it, explain where they hid Madeleine's remains for 3 weeks?
-
Faithlilly said; Perhaps at the libel trial when iI is revealed the McCanns did indeed ask to settle
No-one knows who asked for the settlement. Those who purport that the McCanns have asked for a settlement are those bastions of truth - the PT press and no-mark blogger Blacksmith.
If The McCanns had wanted a Settlement they would have gotten one. As it is, they were forced to listen to what Amaral wanted to offer. Obviously not enough.
What evidence supports that claim ?
-
Faithlilly said; Perhaps at the libel trial when iI is revealed the McCanns did indeed ask to settle
No-one knows who asked for the settlement. Those who purport that the McCanns have asked for a settlement are those bastions of truth - the PT press and no-mark blogger Blacksmith.
If The McCanns had wanted a Settlement they would have gotten one. As it is, they were forced to listen to what Amaral wanted to offer. Obviously not enough.
Exactly, Eleanor.
I see somebody is holding back. Seems they don't want anyone knowing about what underhand means were used, to gain info.
If I remember correctly, they asked about rumours and were worried about the fund, if Kate and Gerry settled.
By the way, as I read them on BS it was webmasters own reply, and not Kate's.
I have them all somewhere, will try and dig them out >@@(*&)
-
are we talking about the same blacksmith that got pissed off cos amaral didn't listen to him?
-
Martha said; Maybe Amaral's ace and Blacksmith's squirrel are one and the same...? (ie: imaginary...)
Yup. Had Amaral's ace and the PJs "stand alone evidence" had any credibility, both would have been played long ago. As for Blacksmith - an attention-seeker with nothing credible to say in general, although to be fair I thoroughly enjoyed his demolition job on Bennett back in December/January - it was spot on. About the only sensible contribution he has ever made.
Well it would be to your turn of view, cherry picking at its best, same happens all the time with every source, BS is wrong unless he attacks x y z, the files are wrong unless they support x y z, the PP final report, the Police summary, the papers are wrong unless....you get the drift
Let's get down to the nitty gritty. Do you believe Amaral's thesis that Madeleine's remains were hidden for 3 weeks and then removed in the Scenic? And if so, why?
Not thought about it and irrelevant to this thread
-
are we talking about the same blacksmith that got pissed off cos amaral didn't listen to him?
yep, his ego was hurt by that
-
Reported
8((()*/
you really should follow forum rules and warnings registrar
I see no evidence of BS being a fallen anything, jealous of his creative thought and astuteness? His writings and opinions are based on facts, likening him to people like the stupid coldwater is clutching at straws at best, but you can only cling onto what you can I guess
Your choice to take a shine to him
Not reported btw - not childish enough 8(0(*
I take a shine to anyone who speaks sense whatever side of the grisly divide they come from, sense is severely lacking in this case
-
Martha said; Maybe Amaral's ace and Blacksmith's squirrel are one and the same...? (ie: imaginary...)
Yup. Had Amaral's ace and the PJs "stand alone evidence" had any credibility, both would have been played long ago. As for Blacksmith - an attention-seeker with nothing credible to say in general, although to be fair I thoroughly enjoyed his demolition job on Bennett back in December/January - it was spot on. About the only sensible contribution he has ever made.
Well it would be to your turn of view, cherry picking at its best, same happens all the time with every source, BS is wrong unless he attacks x y z, the files are wrong unless they support x y z, the PP final report, the Police summary, the papers are wrong unless....you get the drift
Let's get down to the nitty gritty. Do you believe Amaral's thesis that Madeleine's remains were hidden for 3 weeks and then removed in the Scenic? And if so, why?
Not thought about it and irrelevant to this thread
Not irrelevant at all. It is the central plank of Amaral's claims against Kate and Gerry McCann - and that is why they are suing him. So put your money where your mouth is. Do you believe Amaral's claims that Kate and Gerry concealed Madeleine's remains for 3 weeks then moved them in the Scenic?
-
Faithlilly said; Perhaps at the libel trial when iI is revealed the McCanns did indeed ask to settle
No-one knows who asked for the settlement. Those who purport that the McCanns have asked for a settlement are those bastions of truth - the PT press and no-mark blogger Blacksmith.
If The McCanns had wanted a Settlement they would have gotten one. As it is, they were forced to listen to what Amaral wanted to offer. Obviously not enough.
What evidence supports that claim ?
Common sense. If they are as desperate as some believe, why would they refuse any offer that Amaral was prepared to make?
As for being forced to listen, if The Defendant wants to make an offer The Plaintiff is obliged to consider that offer, but The Plaintiff can then refuse the offer if they wish. Retaining at all times, the right to go back to The Court, which is what has happened.
-
Faithlilly said; Perhaps at the libel trial when iI is revealed the McCanns did indeed ask to settle
No-one knows who asked for the settlement. Those who purport that the McCanns have asked for a settlement are those bastions of truth - the PT press and no-mark blogger Blacksmith.
If The McCanns had wanted a Settlement they would have gotten one. As it is, they were forced to listen to what Amaral wanted to offer. Obviously not enough.
What evidence supports that claim ?
Common sense. If they are as desperate as some believe, why would they refuse any offer that Amaral was prepared to make?
As for being forced to listen, if The Defendant wants to make an offer The Plaintiff is obliged to consider that offer, but The Plaintiff can then refuse the offer if they wish. Retaining at all times, the right to go back to The Court, which is what has happened.
The Plaintiff is most certainly NOT 'obliged' to consider any offer made by the person they are taking to court
If Amaral asked them to negotiate an out of court settlement they could have told him to go and whistle ... they could have said "Not a chance in hell ... we've got you over a barrel and we're going to publically vilify you and your wicked lies"
If they were confident of victory, I believe that is how they would have responded to any 'offer' from Amaral ... and, furthermore, I believe his approach would have been made known to the press, and presented as proof that Amaral was a desperate man begging for an out
-
Faithlilly said; Perhaps at the libel trial when iI is revealed the McCanns did indeed ask to settle
No-one knows who asked for the settlement. Those who purport that the McCanns have asked for a settlement are those bastions of truth - the PT press and no-mark blogger Blacksmith.
If The McCanns had wanted a Settlement they would have gotten one. As it is, they were forced to listen to what Amaral wanted to offer. Obviously not enough.
Exactly, Eleanor.
I see somebody is holding back. Seems they don't want anyone knowing about what underhand means were used, to gain info.
If I remember correctly, they asked about rumours and were worried about the fund, if Kate and Gerry settled.
By the way, as I read them on BS it was webmasters own reply, and not Kate's.
I have them all somewhere, will try and dig them out >@@(*&)
A perfectly reasonable question was asked. The webmaster said she would have to check with Kate before answering then came back with an answer from Kate. There is no ambiguity. The webmaster was quite happy to let it be known privately what Kate had told her to say and only denied the source, and threaened legal action,when the correspondence was made public.
-
Martha said; Maybe Amaral's ace and Blacksmith's squirrel are one and the same...? (ie: imaginary...)
Yup. Had Amaral's ace and the PJs "stand alone evidence" had any credibility, both would have been played long ago. As for Blacksmith - an attention-seeker with nothing credible to say in general, although to be fair I thoroughly enjoyed his demolition job on Bennett back in December/January - it was spot on. About the only sensible contribution he has ever made.
Well it would be to your turn of view, cherry picking at its best, same happens all the time with every source, BS is wrong unless he attacks x y z, the files are wrong unless they support x y z, the PP final report, the Police summary, the papers are wrong unless....you get the drift
Let's get down to the nitty gritty. Do you believe Amaral's thesis that Madeleine's remains were hidden for 3 weeks and then removed in the Scenic? And if so, why?
Not thought about it and irrelevant to this thread
Not irrelevant at all. It is the central plank of Amaral's claims against Kate and Gerry McCann - and that is why they are suing him. So put your money where your mouth is. Do you believe Amaral's claims that Kate and Gerry concealed Madeleine's remains for 3 weeks then moved them in the Scenic?
My apologies, I thought this was the Murat libel case thread.Easy to get confused. As I said I dont know, you dont and I dont so even if Mr Amaral or anyone else claims it, no one knows. I would think it unlikely though just for the fact that if they wanted to get rid of a body they wouldnt wait that long and certainly not use their own car.
BTW the Mccanns are not suing him for saying they disposed of a body in their car. They are suing him for repeating the intermediary POLICE report of Sept 07 shortly before he left the case that the POLICE believed they faked the abduction and by doing so are painting him as a rogue cop which is a lie
-
Faithlilly said; Perhaps at the libel trial when iI is revealed the McCanns did indeed ask to settle
No-one knows who asked for the settlement. Those who purport that the McCanns have asked for a settlement are those bastions of truth - the PT press and no-mark blogger Blacksmith.
If The McCanns had wanted a Settlement they would have gotten one. As it is, they were forced to listen to what Amaral wanted to offer. Obviously not enough.
Exactly, Eleanor.
I see somebody is holding back. Seems they don't want anyone knowing about what underhand means were used, to gain info.
If I remember correctly, they asked about rumours and were worried about the fund, if Kate and Gerry settled.
By the way, as I read them on BS it was webmasters own reply, and not Kate's.
I have them all somewhere, will try and dig them out >@@(*&)
A perfectly reasonable question was asked. The webmaster said she would have to check with Kate before answering then came back with an answer from Kate. There is no ambiguity. The webmaster was quite happy to let it be known privately what Kate had told her to say and only denied the source, and threaened legal action,when the correspondence was made public.
I'm not sure what this is about ... are you saying that an official website confirmed that it was not the McCanns who asked for an out of court settlement .... and then 'took it back' ?
-
Faithlilly said; Perhaps at the libel trial when iI is revealed the McCanns did indeed ask to settle
No-one knows who asked for the settlement. Those who purport that the McCanns have asked for a settlement are those bastions of truth - the PT press and no-mark blogger Blacksmith.
If The McCanns had wanted a Settlement they would have gotten one. As it is, they were forced to listen to what Amaral wanted to offer. Obviously not enough.
What evidence supports that claim ?
Common sense. If they are as desperate as some believe, why would they refuse any offer that Amaral was prepared to make?
As for being forced to listen, if The Defendant wants to make an offer The Plaintiff is obliged to consider that offer, but The Plaintiff can then refuse the offer if they wish. Retaining at all times, the right to go back to The Court, which is what has happened.
The Plaintiff is most certainly NOT 'obliged' to consider any offer made by the person they are taking to court
If Amaral asked them to negotiate an out of court settlement they could have told him to go and whistle ... they could have said "Not a chance in hell ... we've got you over a barrel and we're going to publically vilify you and your wicked lies"
If they were confident of victory, I believe that is how they would have responded to any 'offer' from Amaral ... and, furthermore, I believe his approach would have been made known to the press, and presented as proof that Amaral was a desperate man begging for an out
PLease yourself. You obviously know nothing of Protocol and Good Manners.
-
Faithlilly said; Perhaps at the libel trial when iI is revealed the McCanns did indeed ask to settle
No-one knows who asked for the settlement. Those who purport that the McCanns have asked for a settlement are those bastions of truth - the PT press and no-mark blogger Blacksmith.
If The McCanns had wanted a Settlement they would have gotten one. As it is, they were forced to listen to what Amaral wanted to offer. Obviously not enough.
Exactly, Eleanor.
I see somebody is holding back. Seems they don't want anyone knowing about what underhand means were used, to gain info.
If I remember correctly, they asked about rumours and were worried about the fund, if Kate and Gerry settled.
By the way, as I read them on BS it was webmasters own reply, and not Kate's.
I have them all somewhere, will try and dig them out >@@(*&)
A perfectly reasonable question was asked. The webmaster said she would have to check with Kate before answering then came back with an answer from Kate. There is no ambiguity. The webmaster was quite happy to let it be known privately what Kate had told her to say and only denied the source, and threaened legal action,when the correspondence was made public.
No she didn't. She gave her answer from herself, not Kate. And pretending to be a Kate and Gerry supporter, was despicable. The email from the pretendy supporter said "she would assume it was from Kate". When it was not.
-
No she didn't. She gave her answer from herself, not Kate.
Oh really, and HOW WOULD SHE HE know about it? LOL and why say have to check with Kate in first place blah
-
Faithlilly said; Perhaps at the libel trial when iI is revealed the McCanns did indeed ask to settle
No-one knows who asked for the settlement. Those who purport that the McCanns have asked for a settlement are those bastions of truth - the PT press and no-mark blogger Blacksmith.
If The McCanns had wanted a Settlement they would have gotten one. As it is, they were forced to listen to what Amaral wanted to offer. Obviously not enough.
Exactly, Eleanor.
I see somebody is holding back. Seems they don't want anyone knowing about what underhand means were used, to gain info.
If I remember correctly, they asked about rumours and were worried about the fund, if Kate and Gerry settled.
By the way, as I read them on BS it was webmasters own reply, and not Kate's.
I have them all somewhere, will try and dig them out >@@(*&)
A perfectly reasonable question was asked. The webmaster said she would have to check with Kate before answering then came back with an answer from Kate. There is no ambiguity. The webmaster was quite happy to let it be known privately what Kate had told her to say and only denied the source, and threaened legal action,when the correspondence was made public.
I'm not sure what this is about ... are you saying that an official website confirmed that it was not the McCanns who asked for an out of court settlement .... and then 'took it back' ?
The webmaster, after speaking to Kate, said the rumours of the McCanns seeking a settlement were false but once this was made public , webmaster denied the answer had come from Kate. Why deny it was from Kate if it was true ? Why didn't the webmaster simply say that during the delicate negotiations they wouldn't be commenting ?
-
@ DCI
'The email from the pretendy supporter said "she would assume it was from Kate". When it was not.'
And you know this how ?
-
@ DCI
'The email from the pretendy supporter said "she would assume it was from Kate". When it was not.'
And you know this how ?
Well when emails are passed from member to member on certain forums, They should make sure the persons name and email are removed, first. So thats how I know 8((()*/
-
Martha said; Maybe Amaral's ace and Blacksmith's squirrel are one and the same...? (ie: imaginary...)
Yup. Had Amaral's ace and the PJs "stand alone evidence" had any credibility, both would have been played long ago. As for Blacksmith - an attention-seeker with nothing credible to say in general, although to be fair I thoroughly enjoyed his demolition job on Bennett back in December/January - it was spot on. About the only sensible contribution he has ever made.
Well it would be to your turn of view, cherry picking at its best, same happens all the time with every source, BS is wrong unless he attacks x y z, the files are wrong unless they support x y z, the PP final report, the Police summary, the papers are wrong unless....you get the drift
Let's get down to the nitty gritty. Do you believe Amaral's thesis that Madeleine's remains were hidden for 3 weeks and then removed in the Scenic? And if so, why?
Not thought about it and irrelevant to this thread
Not irrelevant at all. It is the central plank of Amaral's claims against Kate and Gerry McCann - and that is why they are suing him. So put your money where your mouth is. Do you believe Amaral's claims that Kate and Gerry concealed Madeleine's remains for 3 weeks then moved them in the Scenic?
My apologies, I thought this was the Murat libel case thread.Easy to get confused. As I said I dont know, you dont and I dont so even if Mr Amaral or anyone else claims it, no one knows. I would think it unlikely though just for the fact that if they wanted to get rid of a body they wouldnt wait that long and certainly not use their own car.
BTW the Mccanns are not suing him for saying they disposed of a body in their car. They are suing him for repeating the intermediary POLICE report of Sept 07 shortly before he left the case that the POLICE believed they faked the abduction and by doing so are painting him as a rogue cop which is a lie
The intermediary police report of Sept 2007 is worthless. It was supersded by the AG Archiving Despatch in JULY 2008. As for Amaral being painted as a "rogue cop".... well I think the cap fits there. Convicted of perjury and another case coming up soon, I believe, related to the Cipriano case?
-
The intermediary police report of Sept 2007 is worthless. It was supersded by the AG Archiving Despatch in JULY 2008. As for Amaral being painted as a "rogue cop".... well I think the cap fits there. Convicted of perjury and another case coming up soon, I believe, related to the Cipriano case?
****
Worthless? It was the police theory, that no concrete evidence could be provided to consolidate it is another matter. I see nowhere was it ever refuted outright. And yes, you are wrong about Mr Amaral as a rogue cop in the Madeleine case as PROVED in the book banning trial in early 2010, much to the Mccanns anger,, diverting with other questionable at best issues doesnt cut the mustard at all
-
The intermediary police report of Sept 2007 is worthless. It was supersded by the AG Archiving Despatch in JULY 2008. As for Amaral being painted as a "rogue cop".... well I think the cap fits there. Convicted of perjury and another case coming up soon, I believe, related to the Cipriano case?
****
Worthless? It was the police theory, that no concrete evidence could be provided to consolidate it is another matter. I see nowhere was it ever refuted outright. And yes, you are wrong about Mr Amaral as a rogue cop in the Madeleine case, diverting with other questionable at best issues doesnt cut the mustard at all
So you tend to the view that it hasn't been refuted outright that Kate's father "contradicted" Kate and Gerry on Madeleine being given sedatives?
Or that Almeida's references to "findings" of cadaver scent are contradicted by both Grime and Harrison, who both make plain that there was no corroboration (other than innocent!) of dog alerts?
Or that the Mcanns' response to being accused of "sedating" their children was a response to the accusation (raised for the first time) making a mockery of Almeida's claim that they "asked too late" for the twins to be tested?
-
Its not up to me ferryman its up to the police and the judiciairy and yes btw the mccanns dis NOT make the time or effort to test their children for drugs until months later, bit late in the day dont you think? and POINTLESS considering on May 5th they were worried about drugs being administered and asking uk police if ere was any evidence theyhad been, like anyone would know if no tests were done so why didnt they get them tested?
-
The intermediary police report of Sept 2007 is worthless. It was supersded by the AG Archiving Despatch in JULY 2008. As for Amaral being painted as a "rogue cop".... well I think the cap fits there. Convicted of perjury and another case coming up soon, I believe, related to the Cipriano case?
****
Worthless? It was the police theory, that no concrete evidence could be provided to consolidate it is another matter. I see nowhere was it ever refuted outright. And yes, you are wrong about Mr Amaral as a rogue cop in the Madeleine case as PROVED in the book banning trial in early 2010, much to the Mccanns anger,, diverting with other questionable at best issues doesnt cut the mustard at all
It was supersded in July 2008, when the full forensics results were in, therefore it has no further worth, ie. worthless. So a convicted perjuror is not a rogue cop then? I would argue that that is not the case. What do you make of his fridge theory?
-
Its not up to me ferryman its up to the police and the judiciairy and yes btw the mccanns dis NOT make the time or effort to test their children for drugs until months later, bit late in the day dont you think?
It was up to the PJ to test the twins for drugs. not the McCanns.
-
Its not up to me ferryman its up to the police and the judiciairy and yes btw the mccanns dis NOT make the time or effort to test their children for drugs until months later, bit late in the day dont you think?
No!
The McCanns first raised the possibility of drug use in the abduction within 48 hours with the PJ.
The McCanns never got a response.
Medically, I would trust Kate (a qualified anaesthetist) to have monitored the twins on the night and to have made a correct judgment call that the twins were not in need of medical attention.
-
Its not up to me ferryman its up to the police and the judiciairy and yes btw the mccanns dis NOT make the time or effort to test their children for drugs until months later, bit late in the day dont you think?
It was up to the PJ to test the twins for drugs. not the McCanns.
where there asked to? What reason would the pj have to do this?
-
The intermediary police report of Sept 2007 is worthless. It was supersded by the AG Archiving Despatch in JULY 2008. As for Amaral being painted as a "rogue cop".... well I think the cap fits there. Convicted of perjury and another case coming up soon, I believe, related to the Cipriano case?
****
Worthless? It was the police theory, that no concrete evidence could be provided to consolidate it is another matter. I see nowhere was it ever refuted outright. And yes, you are wrong about Mr Amaral as a rogue cop in the Madeleine case as PROVED in the book banning trial in early 2010, much to the Mccanns anger,, diverting with other questionable at best issues doesnt cut the mustard at all
It was supersded in July 2008, when the full forensics results were in, therefore it has no further worth, ie. worthless. So a convicted perjuror is not a rogue cop then? I would argue that that is not the case. What do you make of his fridge theory?
thats YOUR interpretation which you are entitled to.
A convicted perjuror, many would dispute that anyhow, is a rogue cop how? What has one to do with the other? nothing at all. its like saying Chris Huhne convicted for lying was a rogue mp
-
The intermediary police report of Sept 2007 is worthless. It was supersded by the AG Archiving Despatch in JULY 2008. As for Amaral being painted as a "rogue cop".... well I think the cap fits there. Convicted of perjury and another case coming up soon, I believe, related to the Cipriano case?
****
Worthless? It was the police theory, that no concrete evidence could be provided to consolidate it is another matter. I see nowhere was it ever refuted outright. And yes, you are wrong about Mr Amaral as a rogue cop in the Madeleine case as PROVED in the book banning trial in early 2010, much to the Mccanns anger,, diverting with other questionable at best issues doesnt cut the mustard at all
It was supersded in July 2008, when the full forensics results were in, therefore it has no further worth, ie. worthless. So a convicted perjuror is not a rogue cop then? I would argue that that is not the case. What do you make of his fridge theory?
thats YOUR interpretation which you are entitled to.
A convicted perjuror, many would dispute that anyhow, is a rogue cop how? What has one to do with the other? nothing at all. its like saying Chris Huhne convicted for lying was a rogue mp
So a convicted perjuror is an honest, trustworthy and upstanding person then?
-
@ DCI
'The email from the pretendy supporter said "she would assume it was from Kate". When it was not.'
And you know this how ?
Well when emails are passed from member to member on certain forums, They should make sure the persons name and email are removed, first. So thats how I know 8((()*/
And this is what they said
Dear xxx
I'm checking with Kate on this and will get back with you once I've had a chance to talk with her about this.
Thanks.
FM Webmaster
Find Madeleine Campaign
Dear xxx
The rumours are just that--rumours. Unfounded and not based on fact.
Thanks for the feedback.
FM Webmaster
Find Madeleine Campaign
--------------------
And this is the secret squirrel ace Amaral is going to use at his libel trial? @)(++(*
Why do you think this is what Mr Amaral is going to use in the libel trial? getting overexcited are we about nothing? Anything to paint Mr Amaral in the black of course, silly me, its NOTHING to do with him or the libel trial, its just an embarrassing episode for the OFM FB page and its wierd WM thats all
@)(++(*
-
The intermediary police report of Sept 2007 is worthless. It was supersded by the AG Archiving Despatch in JULY 2008. As for Amaral being painted as a "rogue cop".... well I think the cap fits there. Convicted of perjury and another case coming up soon, I believe, related to the Cipriano case?
****
Worthless? It was the police theory, that no concrete evidence could be provided to consolidate it is another matter. I see nowhere was it ever refuted outright. And yes, you are wrong about Mr Amaral as a rogue cop in the Madeleine case as PROVED in the book banning trial in early 2010, much to the Mccanns anger,, diverting with other questionable at best issues doesnt cut the mustard at all
It was supersded in July 2008, when the full forensics results were in, therefore it has no further worth, ie. worthless. So a convicted perjuror is not a rogue cop then? I would argue that that is not the case. What do you make of his fridge theory?
thats YOUR interpretation which you are entitled to.
A convicted perjuror, many would dispute that anyhow, is a rogue cop how? What has one to do with the other? nothing at all. its like saying Chris Huhne convicted for lying was a rogue mp
So a convicted perjuror is an honest, trustworthy and upstanding person then?
It might help your case if you answered issues instead of continually shifting goalposts
-
Anything to paint Mr Amaral in the black of course ...
Who is the lying, good-for-nothing bounder who is depicting Amaral as financially solvent?
-
The intermediary police report of Sept 2007 is worthless. It was supersded by the AG Archiving Despatch in JULY 2008. As for Amaral being painted as a "rogue cop".... well I think the cap fits there. Convicted of perjury and another case coming up soon, I believe, related to the Cipriano case?
****
Worthless? It was the police theory, that no concrete evidence could be provided to consolidate it is another matter. I see nowhere was it ever refuted outright. And yes, you are wrong about Mr Amaral as a rogue cop in the Madeleine case as PROVED in the book banning trial in early 2010, much to the Mccanns anger,, diverting with other questionable at best issues doesnt cut the mustard at all
It was supersded in July 2008, when the full forensics results were in, therefore it has no further worth, ie. worthless. So a convicted perjuror is not a rogue cop then? I would argue that that is not the case. What do you make of his fridge theory?
thats YOUR interpretation which you are entitled to.
A convicted perjuror, many would dispute that anyhow, is a rogue cop how? What has one to do with the other? nothing at all. its like saying Chris Huhne convicted for lying was a rogue mp
So a convicted perjuror is an honest, trustworthy and upstanding person then?
It might help case if you answered issues instead of continually shifting goalposts
I've answered them perfectly adequately. The intercalary report is worthless and Amaral is a convicted perjuror. NEXT!
-
@ DCI
'The email from the pretendy supporter said "she would assume it was from Kate". When it was not.'
And you know this how ?
Well when emails are passed from member to member on certain forums, They should make sure the persons name and email are removed, first. So thats how I know 8((()*/
And this is what they said
Dear xxx
I'm checking with Kate on this and will get back with you once I've had a chance to talk with her about this.
Thanks.
FM Webmaster
Find Madeleine Campaign
Dear xxx
The rumours are just that--rumours. Unfounded and not based on fact.
Thanks for the feedback.
FM Webmaster
Find Madeleine Campaign
--------------------
And this is the secret squirrel ace Amaral is going to use at his libel trial? @)(++(*
Why do you think this is what Mr Amaral is going to use in the libel trial? getting overexcited are we about nothing? Anything to paint Mr Amaral in the black of course, silly me, its NOTHING to do with him oe the libel trial, its just an embarrassing episode for the OFM FB page and its wierd WM thats all
@)(++(*
Because Faithlilly has it just informed us that this correpondence has been secretly squirrelled away until Amaral's trial to"prove" Kate's duplicity! Laughable really, isn't it?! @)(++(*
Like mine was, you mean Martha? @)(++(*
At least mine will prove someones duplicity, and it won't be Kate McCann's ?>)()<
-
Faithlilly said; Perhaps at the libel trial when iI is revealed the McCanns did indeed ask to settle
No-one knows who asked for the settlement. Those who purport that the McCanns have asked for a settlement are those bastions of truth - the PT press and no-mark blogger Blacksmith.
If The McCanns had wanted a Settlement they would have gotten one. As it is, they were forced to listen to what Amaral wanted to offer. Obviously not enough.
Exactly, Eleanor.
I see somebody is holding back. Seems they don't want anyone knowing about what underhand means were used, to gain info.
If I remember correctly, they asked about rumours and were worried about the fund, if Kate and Gerry settled.
By the way, as I read them on BS it was webmasters own reply, and not Kate's.
I have them all somewhere, will try and dig them out >@@(*&)
A perfectly reasonable question was asked. The webmaster said she would have to check with Kate before answering then came back with an answer from Kate. There is no ambiguity. The webmaster was quite happy to let it be known privately what Kate had told her to say and only denied the source, and threaened legal action,when the correspondence was made public.
I'm not sure what this is about ... are you saying that an official website confirmed that it was not the McCanns who asked for an out of court settlement .... and then 'took it back' ?
The webmaster, after speaking to Kate, said the rumours of the McCanns seeking a settlement were false but once this was made public , webmaster denied the answer had come from Kate. Why deny it was from Kate if it was true ? Why didn't the webmaster simply say that during the delicate negotiations they wouldn't be commenting ?
I see, thanks
Why would the webmaster need to 'deny' that Kate had said it was a rumour ... more to the point, why would Kate not have confirmed it was a rumour ?
Why havn't the McCanns made a simple, clear, and unequivical statement ... "Amaral has asked for an out of court settlement"
-
Anything to paint Mr Amaral in the black of course ...
Who is the lying, good-for-nothing bounder who is depicting Amaral as financially solvent?
@)(++(*
-
Why would the webmaster need to 'deny' that Kate had said it was a rumour ... more to the point, why would Kate not have confirmed it was a rumour ?
Why havn't the McCanns made a simple, clear, and unequivical statement ... "Amaral has asked for an out of court settlement"
Could be, because its nobody's business, but theirs.
Why doesn't Amaral do like wise? If it had been the McCann's wanting it, he would have been on Dear Julier's couch, sprouting about it.
-
Interesting read, re BS.
http://.....2.forumotion.co.uk/t2844-bullsht-from-bs
-
Why would the webmaster need to 'deny' that Kate had said it was a rumour ... more to the point, why would Kate not have confirmed it was a rumour ?
Why havn't the McCanns made a simple, clear, and unequivical statement ... "Amaral has asked for an out of court settlement"
Could be, because its nobody's business, but theirs.
Why doesn't Amaral do like wise? If it had been the McCann's wanting it, he would have been on Dear Julier's couch, sprouting about it.
Portuguese press and TV have been reporting that it was the McCanns who asked for a settlement, and I would guess that can only have come from Amaral's camp
The McCanns have spent a lot of fund money on PR and media management ... it makes no sense that they would miss the opportunity to expose such a capitulation by Amaral
-
Why would the webmaster need to 'deny' that Kate had said it was a rumour ... more to the point, why would Kate not have confirmed it was a rumour ?
Why havn't the McCanns made a simple, clear, and unequivical statement ... "Amaral has asked for an out of court settlement"
Could be, because its nobody's business, but theirs.
Why doesn't Amaral do like wise? If it had been the McCann's wanting it, he would have been on Dear Julier's couch, sprouting about it.
Portuguese press and TV have been reporting that it was the McCanns who asked for a settlement, and I would guess that can only have come from Amaral's camp
The McCanns have spent a lot of fund money on PR and media management ... it makes no sense that they would miss the opportunity to expose such a capitulation by Amaral
Portugeuese Press and TV! The twin bastions of truth and honesty!
-
Why would the webmaster need to 'deny' that Kate had said it was a rumour ... more to the point, why would Kate not have confirmed it was a rumour ?
Why havn't the McCanns made a simple, clear, and unequivical statement ... "Amaral has asked for an out of court settlement"
Could be, because its nobody's business, but theirs.
Why doesn't Amaral do like wise? If it had been the McCann's wanting it, he would have been on Dear Julier's couch, sprouting about it.
Portuguese press and TV have been reporting that it was the McCanns who asked for a settlement, and I would guess that can only have come from Amaral's camp
The McCanns have spent a lot of fund money on PR and media management ... it makes no sense that they would miss the opportunity to expose such a capitulation by Amaral
Exactly
-
Where did the webmaster deny that Kate said it was a rumour? In any case - have the McCanns settled on Amaral's terms? Of course they haven't, so it's absolutely true that the rumours were unfounded. This is such idiotic, straw-grasping nonsense.
Isn't everything, straw-grasping nonsense, about these emails, Martha 8(0(*
-
Or that the Mcanns' response to being accused of "sedating" their children was a response to the accusation (raised for the first time) making a mockery of Almeida's claim that they "asked too late" for the twins to be tested?
"The fact that, despite all that confusion and all that noise, the twins continued to sleep, as mentioned by GNR Officer José Maria Baptista Roque, a member of the patrol that was first to arrive at the apartment "the children never woke up, remaining in a ventral decubitus position, not moving during the search and afterwards" [28], remains unexplained."
PGR's dispatch
-
Portugeuese Press and TV! The twin bastions of truth and honesty!
Rachel, let me invite you here in Lisbon. I have a bedroom for a guest, a terrace on the Tagus, you'll be able to observe whether this country is as awful as you imagine ! I'm not pretending people are better than elsewhere in Europe, but they're not worse.
-
Or that the Mcanns' response to being accused of "sedating" their children was a response to the accusation (raised for the first time) making a mockery of Almeida's claim that they "asked too late" for the twins to be tested?
"The fact that, despite all that confusion and all that noise, the twins continued to sleep, as mentioned by GNR Officer José Maria Baptista Roque, a member of the patrol that was first to arrive at the apartment "the children never woke up, remaining in a ventral decubitus position, not moving during the search and afterwards" [28], remains unexplained."
PGR's dispatch
But it was Amaral, that said they used Calpol, not GNR, Anne. Calpol does not have sedative properties.
Its in his book.
He slipped up though, because he said they used "Calpol Night". Which wasn't available in 2007.
-
Portugeuese Press and TV! The twin bastions of truth and honesty!
Rachel, let me invite you here in Lisbon. I have a bedroom for a guest, a terrace on the Tagus, you'll be able to observe whether this country is as awful as you imagine ! I'm not pretending people are better than elsewhere in Europe, but they're not worse.
Anne, thank you for your invite and who knows I may take you up on it! I have never intimated that PT is an awful country. In fact, from what I have heard, the PT people are warm, friendly and welcoming. What I don't like about PT is the attempt by the PJ to stitch up Kate and Gerry McCann on non-existent evidence.
-
Portugeuese Press and TV! The twin bastions of truth and honesty!
Rachel, let me invite you here in Lisbon. I have a bedroom for a guest, a terrace on the Tagus, you'll be able to observe whether this country is as awful as you imagine ! I'm not pretending people are better than elsewhere in Europe, but they're not worse.
Anne, thank you for your invite and who knows I may take you up on it! I have never intimated that PT is an awful country. In fact, from what I have heard, the PT people are warm, friendly and welcoming. What I don't like about PT is the attempt by the PJ to stitch up Kate and Gerry McCann on non-existent evidence.
And, the posters that help, them do it.
-
Portugeuese Press and TV! The twin bastions of truth and honesty!
Rachel, let me invite you here in Lisbon. I have a bedroom for a guest, a terrace on the Tagus, you'll be able to observe whether this country is as awful as you imagine ! I'm not pretending people are better than elsewhere in Europe, but they're not worse.
Anne, thank you for your invite and who knows I may take you up on it! I have never intimated that PT is an awful country. In fact, from what I have heard, the PT people are warm, friendly and welcoming. What I don't like about PT is the attempt by the PJ to stitch up Kate and Gerry McCann on non-existent evidence.
And, the posters that help, them do it.
And The Two Huge Bloggers.
-
who knows I may take you up on it!
Then it's settled ! I can borrow you my old car so that you can go to PDL if you feel like. You're wellcome, Rachel !
-
Or that the Mcanns' response to being accused of "sedating" their children was a response to the accusation (raised for the first time) making a mockery of Almeida's claim that they "asked too late" for the twins to be tested?
"The fact that, despite all that confusion and all that noise, the twins continued to sleep, as mentioned by GNR Officer José Maria Baptista Roque, a member of the patrol that was first to arrive at the apartment "the children never woke up, remaining in a ventral decubitus position, not moving during the search and afterwards" [28], remains unexplained."
PGR's dispatch
But it was Amaral, that said they used Calpol, not GNR, Anne. Calpol does not have sedative properties.
Its in his book.
He slipped up though, because he said they used "Calpol Night". Which wasn't available in 2007.
What he actually said about calpol night is that in recent years a drug has been introduced called calpol night that has a sedative.
Amaral failed to make plain that the McCann children had never been given it, and left open the possibility (to the unwary reader) that the McCanns might have been given it.
It was left to Morais to make all the running of a "case" that the McCanns' children might have been drugged with it.
Certainly by English libel law, Amaral's allusion would be libel.
Don't know about Portuguese ...
-
who knows I may take you up on it!
Then it's settled ! I can borrow you my old car so that you can go to PDL if you feel like. You're wellcome, Rachel !
Anne, I would love to visit PT! My local airport (2 mins away) does a flight to Faro (is that near to you?). I have some work to do though. My health is not good at the moment, and I need to renew my passport. But once these things are sorted I may very well take you up on your offer! Ps) I have university-level French so we can talk. We can really talk about the McCann case. Nous pouvons discuter!!!
-
Or that the Mcanns' response to being accused of "sedating" their children was a response to the accusation (raised for the first time) making a mockery of Almeida's claim that they "asked too late" for the twins to be tested?
"The fact that, despite all that confusion and all that noise, the twins continued to sleep, as mentioned by GNR Officer José Maria Baptista Roque, a member of the patrol that was first to arrive at the apartment "the children never woke up, remaining in a ventral decubitus position, not moving during the search and afterwards" [28], remains unexplained."
PGR's dispatch
But it was Amaral, that said they used Calpol, not GNR, Anne. Calpol does not have sedative properties.
Its in his book.
He slipped up though, because he said they used "Calpol Night". Which wasn't available in 2007.
What he actually said about calpol night is that in recent years a drug has been introduced called calpol night that has a sedative.
Amaral failed to make plain that the McCann children had never been given it, and left open the possibility (to the unwary reader) that the McCanns might have been given it.
It was left to Morais to make all the running of a "case" that the McCanns' children might have been drugged with it.
Certainly by English libel law, Amaral's allusion would be libel.
Don't know about Portuguese ...
Where does he say that in his book, Ferryman? Thats not what I read.
-
Or that the Mcanns' response to being accused of "sedating" their children was a response to the accusation (raised for the first time) making a mockery of Almeida's claim that they "asked too late" for the twins to be tested?
"The fact that, despite all that confusion and all that noise, the twins continued to sleep, as mentioned by GNR Officer José Maria Baptista Roque, a member of the patrol that was first to arrive at the apartment "the children never woke up, remaining in a ventral decubitus position, not moving during the search and afterwards" [28], remains unexplained."
PGR's dispatch
But it was Amaral, that said they used Calpol, not GNR, Anne. Calpol does not have sedative properties.
Its in his book.
He slipped up though, because he said they used "Calpol Night". Which wasn't available in 2007.
What he actually said about calpol night is that in recent years a drug has been introduced called calpol night that has a sedative.
Amaral failed to make plain that the McCann children had never been given it, and left open the possibility (to the unwary reader) that the McCanns might have been given it.
It was left to Morais to make all the running of a "case" that the McCanns' children might have been drugged with it.
Certainly by English libel law, Amaral's allusion would be libel.
Don't know about Portuguese ...
Where does he say that in his book, Ferryman? Thats not what I read.
Chapter 4, The real victim is the missing child
The paternal grandfather stated that Kate gave the little girl - and also the twins - Calpol, a medication designed to facilitate falling asleep. That seems to be a common practice in Great Britain; they even talk about a "Calpol generation." In recent years, the possible presence of an antihistamine with sedative effects in Calpol has aroused great controversy. Recently, the same laboratory put Calpol Night on the market, whose ingredients clearly list that it contains an antihistamine.
ETA: In my earlier post, I should, of course have said the McCanns' children, not the McCanns
-
Or that the Mcanns' response to being accused of "sedating" their children was a response to the accusation (raised for the first time) making a mockery of Almeida's claim that they "asked too late" for the twins to be tested?
"The fact that, despite all that confusion and all that noise, the twins continued to sleep, as mentioned by GNR Officer José Maria Baptista Roque, a member of the patrol that was first to arrive at the apartment "the children never woke up, remaining in a ventral decubitus position, not moving during the search and afterwards" [28], remains unexplained."
PGR's dispatch
But it was Amaral, that said they used Calpol, not GNR, Anne. Calpol does not have sedative properties.
Its in his book.
He slipped up though, because he said they used "Calpol Night". Which wasn't available in 2007.
What he actually said about calpol night is that in recent years a drug has been introduced called calpol night that has a sedative.
Amaral failed to make plain that the McCann children had never been given it, and left open the possibility (to the unwary reader) that the McCanns might have been given it.
It was left to Morais to make all the running of a "case" that the McCanns' children might have been drugged with it.
Certainly by English libel law, Amaral's allusion would be libel.
Don't know about Portuguese ...
Where does he say that in his book, Ferryman? Thats not what I read.
Chapter 4, The real victim is the missing child
The paternal grandfather stated that Kate gave the little girl - and also the twins - Calpol, a medication designed to facilitate falling asleep. That seems to be a common practice in Great Britain; they even talk about a "Calpol generation." In recent years, the possible presence of an antihistamine with sedative effects in Calpol has aroused great controversy. Recently, the same laboratory put Calpol Night on the market, whose ingredients clearly list that it contains an antihistamine.
My apologies, Ferryman.
Did anyone ever see Kate's father make that statement?
Amarals statement saying, "Calpol, a medication designed to facilitate falling asleep", is a lie.
-
Or that the Mcanns' response to being accused of "sedating" their children was a response to the accusation (raised for the first time) making a mockery of Almeida's claim that they "asked too late" for the twins to be tested?
"The fact that, despite all that confusion and all that noise, the twins continued to sleep, as mentioned by GNR Officer José Maria Baptista Roque, a member of the patrol that was first to arrive at the apartment "the children never woke up, remaining in a ventral decubitus position, not moving during the search and afterwards" [28], remains unexplained."
PGR's dispatch
But it was Amaral, that said they used Calpol, not GNR, Anne. Calpol does not have sedative properties.
Its in his book.
He slipped up though, because he said they used "Calpol Night". Which wasn't available in 2007.
What he actually said about calpol night is that in recent years a drug has been introduced called calpol night that has a sedative.
Amaral failed to make plain that the McCann children had never been given it, and left open the possibility (to the unwary reader) that the McCanns might have been given it.
It was left to Morais to make all the running of a "case" that the McCanns' children might have been drugged with it.
Certainly by English libel law, Amaral's allusion would be libel.
Don't know about Portuguese ...
Where does he say that in his book, Ferryman? Thats not what I read.
Chapter 4, The real victim is the missing child
The paternal grandfather stated that Kate gave the little girl - and also the twins - Calpol, a medication designed to facilitate falling asleep. That seems to be a common practice in Great Britain; they even talk about a "Calpol generation." In recent years, the possible presence of an antihistamine with sedative effects in Calpol has aroused great controversy. Recently, the same laboratory put Calpol Night on the market, whose ingredients clearly list that it contains an antihistamine.
My apologies, Ferryman.
Did anyone ever see Kate's father make that statement?
Amarals statement saying, "Calpol, a medication designed to facilitate falling asleep", is a lie.
Kate's father did make a statement reported in (I think) The Sun, and I can tell you exactly how the confusion arose.
Mr Healey said something like that Kate and Gerry only occasionally gave their children calpol and the reporter added in brackets in a verbatim quote (sic) to help her (Madleine) sleep.
To stress, those were the reporter's words, not Mr Healey's.
-
@ DCI
'The email from the pretendy supporter said "she would assume it was from Kate". When it was not.'
And you know this how ?
Well when emails are passed from member to member on certain forums, They should make sure the persons name and email are removed, first. So thats how I know 8((()*/
Huh, huh DCI. These emails have been seen by no one on any forum so you must be either the webmaster or spreading disinformation for her.
-
Dci spreading disinformation as per form thats all
-
So perhaps "Faithlilly" can tell me - where is this evidence of Kate lying?
There is no concrete evidence yet, just speculation based on the webmaster's reaction to Kate's claim being made public. For confirmation of my suspicions we will have to wait to the libel trial.
-
@ DCI
'The email from the pretendy supporter said "she would assume it was from Kate". When it was not.'
And you know this how ?
Well when emails are passed from member to member on certain forums, They should make sure the persons name and email are removed, first. So thats how I know 8((()*/
Huh, huh DCI. These emails have been seen by no one on any forum so you must be either the webmaster or spreading disinformation for her.
So how did BS get them?
Believe what you like, I know what I've got and its from no webmaster, and I don't do Facebook. END OF!
-
But it was Amaral, that said they used Calpol, not GNR, Anne. Calpol does not have sedative properties.
Its in his book.
He slipped up though, because he said they used "Calpol Night". Which wasn't available in 2007.
Fernergan always had some soothing capacity. My aunt, a doctor, used to give this to me, because I hated sleeping.
Now trained doctors have some other drugs, like benzodiazepins. They've a short half-life.
-
Dci spreading disinformation as per form thats all
Thats a bit rich 8)><(
-
Where did the webmaster deny that Kate said it was a rumour? In any case - have the McCanns settled on Amaral's terms? Of course they haven't, so it's absolutely true that the rumours were unfounded. This is such idiotic, straw-grasping nonsense.
Do you really think the whole correspondence has been revealed ?
-
But it was Amaral, that said they used Calpol, not GNR, Anne. Calpol does not have sedative properties.
Its in his book.
He slipped up though, because he said they used "Calpol Night". Which wasn't available in 2007.
Fernergan always had some soothing capacity. My aunt, a doctor, used to give this to me, because I hated sleeping.
Now trained doctors have some other drugs, like benzodiazepins. They've a short half-life.
Fine Anne, but Calpol has never been a medication designed to facilitate falling sleep.
-
So perhaps "Faithlilly" can tell me - where is this evidence of Kate lying?
There is no concrete evidence yet, just speculation based on the webmaster's reaction to Kate's claim being made public. For confirmation of my suspicions we will have to wait to the libel trial.
Who cares? These fabled e-mails will have no bearing whatsoever in the forthcoming court hearing.
-
Where did the webmaster deny that Kate said it was a rumour? In any case - have the McCanns settled on Amaral's terms? Of course they haven't, so it's absolutely true that the rumours were unfounded. This is such idiotic, straw-grasping nonsense.
Do you really think the whole correspondence has been revealed ?
Who cares? These fabled e-mails will have no bearing whatsoever in the forthcoming court hearing.
-
So perhaps "Faithlilly" can tell me - where is this evidence of Kate lying?
There is no concrete evidence yet, just speculation based on the webmaster's reaction to Kate's claim being made public. For confirmation of my suspicions we will have to wait to the libel trial.
Who cares? These fabled e-mails will have no bearing whatsoever in the forthcoming court hearing.
8@??)( 8@??)( 8@??)(
-
Amarals statement saying, "Calpol, a medication designed to facilitate falling asleep", is a lie.
No, DCI, it's not a lie. It helps ! At least children who really want to sleep. But could Madeleine sleep ? Wasn't she scared to know she was left alone ? isn'it why she was so tired (she hadn't slept properly the night before) ?
-
@ DCI
'The email from the pretendy supporter said "she would assume it was from Kate". When it was not.'
And you know this how ?
Well when emails are passed from member to member on certain forums, They should make sure the persons name and email are removed, first. So thats how I know 8((()*/
Huh, huh DCI. These emails have been seen by no one on any forum so you must be either the webmaster or spreading disinformation for her.
So how did BS get them?
Believe what you like, I know what I've got and its from no webmaster, and I don't do Facebook. END OF!
You have snared yourself deliciously DCI. So who are you the webmaster or someone close to her ?
-
Amarals statement saying, "Calpol, a medication designed to facilitate falling asleep", is a lie.
No, DCI, it's not a lie. It helps ! At least children who really want to sleep. But could Madeleine sleep ? Wasn't she scared to know she was left alone ? isn'it why she was so tired (she hadn't slept properly the night before) ?
Yes, it was/is a lie, except perhaps in one sense.
Children and adults alike sleep better free of pain than in pain.
So if you give a child in obvious discomfort (perhaps because of teething problems) a dose of calpol, the calpol may help take away the discomfort, which in turn may help the child to settle, and a settled child will likely sleep better than one in pain.
But calpol has no sedative property.
-
So perhaps "Faithlilly" can tell me - where is this evidence of Kate lying?
There is no concrete evidence yet, just speculation based on the webmaster's reaction to Kate's claim being made public. For confirmation of my suspicions we will have to wait to the libel trial.
Who cares? These fabled e-mails will have no bearing whatsoever in the forthcoming court hearing.
They will, however, reveal if Kate is willing to tell a lie when the circumstances demand it.
-
But it was Amaral, that said they used Calpol, not GNR, Anne. Calpol does not have sedative properties.
Its in his book.
He slipped up though, because he said they used "Calpol Night". Which wasn't available in 2007.
Fernergan always had some soothing capacity. My aunt, a doctor, used to give this to me, because I hated sleeping.
Now trained doctors have some other drugs, like benzodiazepins. They've a short half-life.
Fine Anne, but Calpol has never been a medication designed to facilitate falling sleep.
According to my late doctor auntie, fenergan had this effect. But of course it would have none on a little c.....e decided not to sleep (as I was).
-
@ DCI
'The email from the pretendy supporter said "she would assume it was from Kate". When it was not.'
And you know this how ?
Well when emails are passed from member to member on certain forums, They should make sure the persons name and email are removed, first. So thats how I know 8((()*/
Huh, huh DCI. These emails have been seen by no one on any forum so you must be either the webmaster or spreading disinformation for her.
So how did BS get them?
Believe what you like, I know what I've got and its from no webmaster, and I don't do Facebook. END OF!
You have snared yourself deliciously DCI. So who are you the webmaster or someone close to her ?
Who cares? These fabled e-mails will have no bearing whatsoever in the forthcoming court hearing.
-
So perhaps "Faithlilly" can tell me - where is this evidence of Kate lying?
There is no concrete evidence yet, just speculation based on the webmaster's reaction to Kate's claim being made public. For confirmation of my suspicions we will have to wait to the libel trial.
Who cares? These fabled e-mails will have no bearing whatsoever in the forthcoming court hearing.
They will, however, reveal if Kate is willing to tell a lie when the circumstances demand it.
You really are grasping at straws now. Who cares? These fabled e-mails will have no bearing whatsoever in the forthcoming court hearing.Who cares? These fabled e-mails will have no bearing whatsoever in the forthcoming court hearing.
-
So perhaps "Faithlilly" can tell me - where is this evidence of Kate lying?
There is no concrete evidence yet, just speculation based on the webmaster's reaction to Kate's claim being made public. For confirmation of my suspicions we will have to wait to the libel trial.
If the McCanns have settled on Amaral's terms (as allegedly denied by Kate McCann) please explain why there is a forth-coming libel trial?
I think the allegation is not that the McCanns 'settled' but that it was they who asked for an out of court settlement
That is what was not denied by Kate McCann, according to the webmaster of an official site, as I understand it
-
Amarals statement saying, "Calpol, a medication designed to facilitate falling asleep", is a lie.
No, DCI, it's not a lie. It helps ! At least children who really want to sleep. But could Madeleine sleep ? Wasn't she scared to know she was left alone ? isn'it why she was so tired (she hadn't slept properly the night before) ?
No it doesn't, Anne.
Calpol - Letter from Johnson & Johnson
by Hael on Wed May 13, 2009 8:59 pm
Our Ref: XXXXXX-Letter
Date: XXXX 2009
Dear Madam/Sir
Thank you for your recent enquiry concerning Calpol Infant Suspension (120mg paracetamol per 5ml).
Calpol Infant Suspension contains paracetamol which is used to relieve pain and reduce fever. As you rightly point out, it does not have sedative properties. We are keen to ensure that consumers understand how to use all of our products correctly. In the case of Calpol, we ensure clear messages in our advertising to ensure correct usage. The product also contains clear instructions for use on the box and within the enclosed patient information leaflet.
Thank you for your concern regarding the reputation of our product and the suggestion that we contact Mr Amaral. We will give your suggestion due consideration.
Yours sincerely
Johnson & Johnson Ltd
XXXXXX XXXXXXXX BSc (Hons)
Medical Information Officer
Professional Information Ltd
on behalf of Johnson & Johnson Ltd
-
So perhaps "Faithlilly" can tell me - where is this evidence of Kate lying?
There is no concrete evidence yet, just speculation based on the webmaster's reaction to Kate's claim being made public. For confirmation of my suspicions we will have to wait to the libel trial.
Who cares? These fabled e-mails will have no bearing whatsoever in the forthcoming court hearing.
They will, however, reveal if Kate is willing to tell a lie when the circumstances demand it.
You really are grasping at straws now. Who cares? These fabled e-mails will have no bearing whatsoever in the forthcoming court hearing.Who cares? These fabled e-mails will have no bearing whatsoever in the forthcoming court hearing
-
So if you give a child in obvious discomfort (perhaps because of teething problems) a dose of calpol, the calpol may help take away the discomfort, which in turn may help the child to settle, and a settled child will likely sleep better than one in pain.
But calpol has no sedative property.
Oh yes, I agree with this. Madeleine had no teething problem, but an anxiety one because she knew she was left alone. No calpol can resolve that. But benzodiazepins could.
-
So if you give a child in obvious discomfort (perhaps because of teething problems) a dose of calpol, the calpol may help take away the discomfort, which in turn may help the child to settle, and a settled child will likely sleep better than one in pain.
But calpol has no sedative property.
Oh yes, I agree with this. Madeleine had no teething problem, but an anxiety one because she knew she was left alone. No calpol can resolve that. But benzodiazepins could.
Are you accusing The McCanns of giving Madeleine Benzodiazepine?
-
So if you give a child in obvious discomfort (perhaps because of teething problems) a dose of calpol, the calpol may help take away the discomfort, which in turn may help the child to settle, and a settled child will likely sleep better than one in pain.
But calpol has no sedative property.
Oh yes, I agree with this. Madeleine had no teething problem, but an anxiety one because she knew she was left alone. No calpol can resolve that. But benzodiazepins could.
Are you accusing The McCanns of giving Madeleine Benzodiazepine?
I'm not accusing, it's only possible ! Would you sleep gently knowing your parents will leave and not knowing where ? I wouldn't, unless I were dumb, which I don't think Madeleine was. How do you think the abductor managed to rapt this little girl without her screaming ? Chloroform ? Quick effect but very short ! And then ?
-
FFS.
8-)(--)
It's also possible that they injected heroin into her isn't it AnneGuedes? Anything's possible, the question is a) is it likely and b) where's the fkin' evidence to support the ludicrous theories?!
hear, hear beat the parents with a large stick and Madeleine on her tenth birthday also
not right
-
So perhaps "Faithlilly" can tell me - where is this evidence of Kate lying?
There is no concrete evidence yet, just speculation based on the webmaster's reaction to Kate's claim being made public. For confirmation of my suspicions we will have to wait to the libel trial.
If the McCanns have settled on Amaral's terms (as allegedly denied by Kate McCann) please explain why there is a forth-coming libel trial?
I think the allegation is not that the McCanns 'settled' but that it was they who asked for an out of court settlement
That is what was not denied by Kate McCann, according to the webmaster of an official site, as I understand it
Wrong. This was the question raised by the pretendy concerned FB'er that was dismissed as unfounded rumour by the OFM webmaster after allegedly consulting with Kate - read it carefully:
I'm also concerned like Mr xxx if the rumours about Kate and Gerry settling their libel claim on Amaral's terms are true there will be no money left for the search if it is needed. Could you please put my mind at rest. Thanks.
Regards
Can you clarify please ?
Has Kate McCann denied the allegation that it was she and Gerry who asked for an out of court settlement, or not ?
The question was raised on the official site, and the webmaster said she would speak to Kate about it ... is that correct ?
So what did Kate say in response ?
-
FFS.
8-)(--)
It's also possible that they injected heroin into her isn't it AnneGuedes? Anything's possible, the question is a) is it likely and b) where's the fkin' evidence to support the ludicrous theories?!
hear, hear beat the parents with a large stick and Madeleine on her tenth birthday also
not right
8@??)( 8@??)( 8@??)(
-
FFS.
8-)(--)
It's also possible that they injected heroin into her isn't it AnneGuedes? Anything's possible, the question is a) is it likely and b) where's the fkin' evidence to support the ludicrous theories?!
Lol, if you think you can inject heroin without the injected screaming you're having a dream !
-
FFS.
8-)(--)
It's also possible that they injected heroin into her isn't it AnneGuedes? Anything's possible, the question is a) is it likely and b) where's the fkin' evidence to support the ludicrous theories?!
Lol, if you think you can inject heroin without the injected screaming you're having a dream !
Yes, very funny. Let's all have a good laugh. Who needs evidence?
-
FFS.
8-)(--)
It's also possible that they injected heroin into her isn't it AnneGuedes? Anything's possible, the question is a) is it likely and b) where's the fkin' evidence to support the ludicrous theories?!
Lol, if you think you can inject heroin without the injected screaming you're having a dream !
I wish not to know of your knowledge of adminstering heroin to a person
Anna Guedes
that should remain between you and your maker
-
FFS.
8-)(--)
It's also possible that they injected heroin into her isn't it AnneGuedes? Anything's possible, the question is a) is it likely and b) where's the fkin' evidence to support the ludicrous theories?!
Lol, if you think you can inject heroin without the injected screaming you're having a dream !
I wish not to know of your knowledge of adminstering heroin to a person
Anna Guedes
that should remain between you and your maker
No use of experimenting heroin injection ! Injection is enough... btw I remember having one heroin experience, many many years ago, but no injection, sniffing ! Gosh, as soon as the effect went away you wish it comes back ! I threw the thing away (though friends had bought it), alienation, beurk !
-
FFS.
8-)(--)
It's also possible that they injected heroin into her isn't it AnneGuedes? Anything's possible, the question is a) is it likely and b) where's the fkin' evidence to support the ludicrous theories?!
Lol, if you think you can inject heroin without the injected screaming you're having a dream !
I wish not to know of your knowledge of adminstering heroin to a person
Anna Guedes
that should remain between you and your maker
No use of experimenting heroin injection ! Injection is enough... btw I remember having one heroin experience, many many years ago, but no injection, sniffing ! Gosh, as soon as the effect went away you wish it comes back ! I threw the thing away (though friends had bought it), alienation, beurk !
It's brave of Anne to share this experience.
-
FFS.
8-)(--)
It's also possible that they injected heroin into her isn't it AnneGuedes? Anything's possible, the question is a) is it likely and b) where's the fkin' evidence to support the ludicrous theories?!
Lol, if you think you can inject heroin without the injected screaming you're having a dream !
I wish not to know of your knowledge of adminstering heroin to a person
Anna Guedes
that should remain between you and your maker
No use of experimenting heroin injection ! Injection is enough... btw I remember having one heroin experience, many many years ago, but no injection, sniffing ! Gosh, as soon as the effect went away you wish it comes back ! I threw the thing away (though friends had bought it), alienation, beurk !
no comment
-
So perhaps "Faithlilly" can tell me - where is this evidence of Kate lying?
There is no concrete evidence yet, just speculation based on the webmaster's reaction to Kate's claim being made public. For confirmation of my suspicions we will have to wait to the libel trial.
If the McCanns have settled on Amaral's terms (as allegedly denied by Kate McCann) please explain why there is a forth-coming libel trial?
m
I think the allegation is not that the McCanns 'settled' but that it was they who asked for an out of court settlement
That is what was not denied by Kate McCann, according to the webmaster of an official site, as I understand it
Wrong. This was the question raised by the pretendy concerned FB'er that was dismissed as unfounded rumour by the OFM webmaster after allegedly consulting with Kate - read it carefully:
I'm also concerned like Mr xxx if the rumours about Kate and Gerry settling their libel claim on Amaral's terms are true there will be no money left for the search if it is needed. Could you please put my mind at rest. Thanks.
Regards
Can you clarify please ?
Has Kate McCann denied the allegation that it was she and Gerry who asked for an out of court settlement, or not ?
The question was raised on the official site, and the webmaster said she would speak to Kate about it ... is that correct ?
So what did Kate say in response ?
There are two different threads to this.
Firstly a member of OFM Facebook page asked if the rumour were true that the McCanns had asked Amaral to settle out of court. The member was told to email the webmaster for an answer. The webmaster answered that email by saying she would ask Kate if the rumours were true and they were only that, rumours. When the emails became public, the webmaster threatened to instigate legal action if the emails, with Kate's answer, weren't pulled from Blacksmith blog.
The statement denying the settlement rumours on the OFM page came several days after the emails and didn't mention Kate.
-
In the overall scheme of things it matters not one whit who it was who first proposed the idea of a settlement. It is always better to try to settle than take the matter to court, because of the uncertainty of the outcome of a full trial, and to reduce the costs.
No matter how strong you think your case is (and the McCanns appear to have a very strong one), there is no guarantee of winning, and likewise the defendant can never be sure that his defence will hold. In this case the defendant has a great deal to lose; apart from financial loss, there is his "standing" in his community ....
In this case a settlement was not reached so the matter will proceed to court - but goodness knows WHEN ...!
-
But it was Amaral, that said they used Calpol, not GNR, Anne. Calpol does not have sedative properties.
Its in his book.
He slipped up though, because he said they used "Calpol Night". Which wasn't available in 2007.
Fernergan always had some soothing capacity. My aunt, a doctor, used to give this to me, because I hated sleeping.
Now trained doctors have some other drugs, like benzodiazepins. They've a short half-life.
Fenergan is Promethazine which is chemically very close to Chlorpromazine, the old fashioned major tranquilizer used with psychosis. It is used as an anti emetic and as a mild sedative with children and has been used for travel sickness. I certsinly know people, medical and non-medical who have used it with their children for various reasons.
Benzo Diazepines available in tablet form do not have a particulalrly short half life. From memory, DIazepam has a notoriously long half life of some 72 hours and various other have shorter half lives - 12 hours for some used as hypnotics and 6 hours for one common anti anxiety preparation. If the suggestion is that they are therefore difficult to detect because of this claimed short half life, then that is wrong becasue the manner in which the body breaks down benzodiazepines means that identifiable and non-active metabolites remain detectable for many days and in some cases weeks after ingestion.
-
Amarals statement saying, "Calpol, a medication designed to facilitate falling asleep", is a lie.
No, DCI, it's not a lie. It helps ! At least children who really want to sleep. But could Madeleine sleep ? Wasn't she scared to know she was left alone ? isn'it why she was so tired (she hadn't slept properly the night before) ?
Yes, it was/is a lie, except perhaps in one sense.
Children and adults alike sleep better free of pain than in pain.
So if you give a child in obvious discomfort (perhaps because of teething problems) a dose of calpol, the calpol may help take away the discomfort, which in turn may help the child to settle, and a settled child will likely sleep better than one in pain.
But calpol has no sedative property.
There is also of course, the placebo effect. I have at times weakened and given my kids Calpol or other analgesics when they have complained of being ill or in pain, and seen them be effective within minutes when it takes at least 30 minutes for the medication to have any real effect. This also goes for ordinary patients!
-
So if you give a child in obvious discomfort (perhaps because of teething problems) a dose of calpol, the calpol may help take away the discomfort, which in turn may help the child to settle, and a settled child will likely sleep better than one in pain.
But calpol has no sedative property.
Oh yes, I agree with this. Madeleine had no teething problem, but an anxiety one because she knew she was left alone. No calpol can resolve that. But benzodiazepins could.
Your mond-reading amazes me. How do you have direct access to a child's state of mind in 2007?
-
FFS.
8-)(--)
It's also possible that they injected heroin into her isn't it AnneGuedes? Anything's possible, the question is a) is it likely and b) where's the fkin' evidence to support the ludicrous theories?!
Lol, if you think you can inject heroin without the injected screaming you're having a dream !
I can think of one very safe and easy way in which to quickly sedate a child using something other than what would be called medication. And at the time it was thought to be being used to rob people in motor homes and such in France and Southern Europe. Nitrous Oxide- laughing gas!
-
FFS.
8-)(--)
It's also possible that they injected heroin into her isn't it AnneGuedes? Anything's possible, the question is a) is it likely and b) where's the fkin' evidence to support the ludicrous theories?!
Lol, if you think you can inject heroin without the injected screaming you're having a dream !
I wish not to know of your knowledge of adminstering heroin to a person
Anna Guedes
that should remain between you and your maker
I have frequently adminisitered heroin and other drugs. It can be done painlessly, especially if the person is already half asleep or asleep.
-
I have frequently adminisitered heroin and other drugs. It can be done painlessly, especially if the person is already half asleep or asleep.
heroin to toddlers ? Why ? How long did it take to knock them out ?
-
I find it disturbing that AnneGuedes rejects the premise of heroin injection by the McCanns on the grounds that it would cause their child to scream, not because it is a thoroughly abhorrent and obscene concept for any normal, loving parent to inject heroin into their child's veins, (not to mention also completely and utterly lacking in any supporting evidence whatsoever!)
I find disturbing being interpreted this crazy way : the McCanns injecting their kids with heroin !
-
I have frequently adminisitered heroin and other drugs. It can be done painlessly, especially if the person is already half asleep or asleep.
heroin to toddlers ? Why ? How long did it take to knock them out ?
Not heroin to toddlers, but heroin to adults, and other drugs to toddlers. Done well, injections barely pain at all.
-
This is bullshit as I have alread shown by reproducing the actual question and answers that appeared on OFM. One of these messages from the OFM DID mention asking Kate. The question itself was NOT about whether the McCann had ASKED Amaral to settle but whether the McCanns HAD settled on Amaral's terms.
Why are you desperate to twist this complete non-event into something significant? It's really quite pathetic.
The questions you posted came from the emails that were sent from the webmaster and reproduced on Blacksmith's blog and not from the OFM page.
-
Rubbish. I saw this exchange or one virtually identical to it on the OFM page, before it was deleted by the webmaster when the trolling of the inquisitor became apparent.
Stop playing silly b....rs.
The post on the OFM page did not mention Kate, the emails did. If the McCanns did not ask Amaral to settle why are they so desperate to avoid putting their name to the fact ?
-
Here it is again - the alleged exchange of e-mails between a McCann sceptic masquerading as a concerned member of the public and the OFM webmaster -
Sceptic: Hi
I'm also concerned like Mr xxx if the rumours about Kate and Gerry settling their libel claim on Amaral's terms are true there will be no money left for the search if it is needed. Could you please put my mind at rest. Thanks.
Regards
OFM Webmaster: Dear xxx
I'm checking with Kate on this and will get back with you once I've had a chance to talk with her about this.
Thanks.
FM Webmaster
Find Madeleine Campaign
OFM Webmaster: Dear xxx
The rumours are just that--rumours. Unfounded and not based on fact.
Thanks for the feedback.
FM Webmaster
Find Madeleine Campaign
Now, where in that is there any confirmation from Kate McCann that the McCanns asked Amaral for a settlement, or indeed any deception of any kind from either the webmaster or Kate McCann? >@@(*&)
As I said many pages ago we will have to wait to the libel trial to see whether Kate or the webmaster were telling the truth. The correspondence already made public does not contain the webmaster's threats of litigation to both the recipient of the emails and Blacksmith which, I'm sure you'll agree, is a bit of an overreaction if what Kate, and the webmaster, say is true ?
-
So, we'll have to wait and see if Kate was lying when nowhere is she on record of having said anything. I see.
-
The correspondence already made public does not contain the webmaster's threats of litigation to both the recipient of the emails and Blacksmith which, I'm sure you'll agree, is a bit of an overreaction ...
Not publicising the threats of litigation was a bit of an over-reaction?
That might be one way of describing the, apparent, decision not to do so ...
-
Here it is again - the alleged exchange of e-mails between a McCann sceptic masquerading as a concerned member of the public and the OFM webmaster -
Sceptic: Hi
I'm also concerned like Mr xxx if the rumours about Kate and Gerry settling their libel claim on Amaral's terms are true there will be no money left for the search if it is needed. Could you please put my mind at rest. Thanks.
Regards
OFM Webmaster: Dear xxx
I'm checking with Kate on this and will get back with you once I've had a chance to talk with her about this.
Thanks.
FM Webmaster
Find Madeleine Campaign
OFM Webmaster: Dear xxx
The rumours are just that--rumours. Unfounded and not based on fact.
Thanks for the feedback.
FM Webmaster
Find Madeleine Campaign
Now, where in that is there any confirmation from Kate McCann that the McCanns asked Amaral for a settlement, or indeed any deception of any kind from either the webmaster or Kate McCann? >@@(*&)
As I said many pages ago we will have to wait to the libel trial to see whether Kate or the webmaster were telling the truth. The correspondence already made public does not contain the webmaster's threats of litigation to both the recipient of the emails and Blacksmith which, I'm sure you'll agree, is a bit of an overreaction if what Kate, and the webmaster, say is true ?
Once again, I ask you - where is there ANYTHING AT ALL THAT COULD BE CONSTRUED AS DISHONESTY FROM KATE MCCANN IN THOSE E-MAILS???!
The question asked was - "is it true that the McCanns have settled with Amaral", to which the response from the OFM Webmaster was (after checking with Kate) that the rumours were unfounded. The McCanns HAVE NOT SETTLED WITH AMARAL AS WE KNOW THE LIBEL TRIAL IS GOING AHEAD ergo the rumours WERE UNFOUNDED!!!!
Are you able to understand plain English Faithlilly? Can you now explain how these e-mails constitute evidence that may be useful to Amaral at his trial?
And - if I knew that sly and devious idiots were trying to twist my private e-mails into some evidence of dishonesty on my part and had re-produced them without my permission on a blog that was devoted to libelling me then I'd be bloody pissed off too and might well threaten to sue!
The initial email said 'settling' and not 'settled'. There is a vast difference.
As to the emails being useful to Amaral, could you please point out where I have claimed this ? I said the emails, in due course, would be evidence, or not, of Kate's ability to mislead her supporters when it is expedient.
-
Jean-Pierre made all this perfectly clear on another board.
Either side might have suggested an out-of-court settlement.
But (even if that was the McCanns) that clearly does not mean that the McCanns are seeking to settle on Amaral's terms, because the McCanns have the option, simply of pulling their action if they see no realistic prospect of winning.
Attractions to the McCanns of an out-of-court settlement is that the prospect of matters dragging on interminably in appeal after appeal is removed; also swift settlement with no delays over transfer of cash pending appeal.
All seems perfectly clear to me ...
-
Jean Pierre has also made clear that an offer from The Defendant must be considered.
The Plaintiff never has to make any offer.
-
Jean Pierre has also made clear that an offer from The Defendant must be considered.
The Plaintiff never has to make any offer.
I confess, I'd missed that point (of JP's) but clearly also highly relevant ...
-
amaral: "I now call webmaster for my next witness that I didn't libel the Mccanns"
a gasp from the packed court.
-
Proof as requested that you wrote that the e-mails would be useful to Amaral Faithlilly -
Faithlilly wrote:
No matter whether you believe me or not, suffice to say that when the time is right those emails will play a part in exposing Kate's duplicity.
Eleanor wrote:
When do you think that "when the time is right" will happen? When they are charged? Ain't going to happen. They are innocent.
Faithlilly wrote:
Perhaps at the libel trial when iI is revealed the McCanns did indeed ask to settle 8)-)))
Also, do you concede that there is a world of difference between "settling on Amaral's terms" and "asking to settle on Amaral's terms"?
You're floundering now aren't you Faithlilly, hmmm....?
As usual Martha, you put two and two together and make five. What I said is that Kate's duplicity may be revealed at the libel trial when it should become clear who did ask to settle. This will not help Amaral, and I never claimed it would. It will however reveal how easily Kate obscures the truth when she needs to.
As to whether they 'were settling', which Kate said was a rumour or 'asked to settle', it is still capitulation no matter what way you look at it.
-
amaral: "I now call webmaster for my next witness that I didn't libel the Mccanns"
a gasp from the packed court.
-
I'm quite sure that the existence of an email of dubious origin where Kate have NOT been quoted to have confirmed or not confirmed anything at all would do very little to discredit HER honesty & trustworthiness, compared to that of Amaral who happens to have a criminal conviction & an 18 months suspended prison sentence (now served) for giving a false witness statement in a court of law.
-
There is no capitulation. No one has capitulated. So what the f*ck are we talking about? Why is anyone spending so much time on something that hasn't happened?
Amaral will lose because he has Libelled The McCanns without any proof. Whether or not his theory is correct is entirely beside the point.
-
@ Martha
I have made my position perfectly clear. Shall we now let the reader decide the truth of the matter ?
-
I have decided
-
The reader will decide, good idea.
-
Dear me, no judge would allow hearsay in a court of law, let alone hearsay by email addressed to someone with a fake identity. I do hope for Amaral's sake that he has something better to pin his defense strategy on, if not, he is truly done for.
-
The reader will decide, good idea.
And what have you decided, dear reader...? >@@(*&)
Nothing, Martha, I didn't read this topic !
-
The giveaway is that the contentious article has not been pulled, just pulled from Blacksmith's blog (available elsewhere).
If there really were legal issues, the blog would not be available at all
-
Am I right that Blacksmith is claiming he was threatened with legal action over his article?
-
Am I right that Blacksmith is claiming he was threatened with legal action over his article?
Allegedly so.
In which case Blacksmith is a dunderhead, because the article is still available, just not on his blog.
If he was genuinely worried about legal action, he would be sure there was no trace of the article:
http://twittweb.com/adds+hope+hoping+john+b-30375486
For example, one article of Blacksmith's I took apart in a blog you will find no trace of other than on the blog I wrote ...
-
Let's see if the Find Madeleine Campaign are prepared to offer any answers at this point in time which will put an end to these rumours. We have written to them asking for clarification. Given their past efforts though I wouldn't hold my breath!
-
The reader will decide, good idea.
And what have you decided, dear reader...? >@@(*&)
Nothing, Martha, I didn't read this topic !
Always best to read the topic before commenting I find.
Sure, as you will note, Martha, I made no comment on the topic.
-
Let's see if the Find Madeleine Campaign are prepared to offer any answers at this point in time which will put an end to these rumours. We have written to them asking for clarification. Given their past efforts though I wouldn't hold my breath!
To be honest, I wouldn't expect them to. Whatever negotiations may or may not have taken place are a private matter between the McCanns and Amaral.
-
Let's see if the Find Madeleine Campaign are prepared to offer any answers at this point in time which will put an end to these rumours. We have written to them asking for clarification. Given their past efforts though I wouldn't hold my breath!
To be honest, I wouldn't expect them to. Whatever negotiations may or may not have taken place are a private matter between the McCanns and Amaral.
The substance of the negotiations may be private, but that is not what is being asked about
There is no reason at all for the McCanns not to clear up the simple question :
Did Amaral approach you for an out of court settlement ... or did you approach him ?
-
Let's see if the Find Madeleine Campaign are prepared to offer any answers at this point in time which will put an end to these rumours. We have written to them asking for clarification. Given their past efforts though I wouldn't hold my breath!
To be honest, I wouldn't expect them to. Whatever negotiations may or may not have taken place are a private matter between the McCanns and Amaral.
The substance of the negotiations may be private, but that is not what is being asked about
There is no reason at all for the McCanns not to clear up the simple question :
Did Amaral approach you for an out of court settlement ... or did you approach him ?
If you were in private litigation with someone, would you feel obliged to divulge what may be sub judice information to satisfy the curiosity of some anonymous noseyparker on the Internet?
-
Let's see if the Find Madeleine Campaign are prepared to offer any answers at this point in time which will put an end to these rumours. We have written to them asking for clarification. Given their past efforts though I wouldn't hold my breath!
To be honest, I wouldn't expect them to. Whatever negotiations may or may not have taken place are a private matter between the McCanns and Amaral.
The substance of the negotiations may be private, but that is not what is being asked about
There is no reason at all for the McCanns not to clear up the simple question :
Did Amaral approach you for an out of court settlement ... or did you approach him ?
If you were in private litigation with someone, would you feel obliged to divulge what may be sub judice information to satisfy the curiosity of some anonymous noseyparker on the Internet?
When the McCanns first took legal action against Amaral the media were fully briefed on their intentions. A lengthy and detailed statement was given, and the Mirror even claimed to have been given a copy of the complete 24 page writ ( parts of which were printed )
There was no reticence on the McCanns' part in that instance, and no element of 'sub judice' in their open declarations
There is a marked difference this time round
-
Let's see if the Find Madeleine Campaign are prepared to offer any answers at this point in time which will put an end to these rumours. We have written to them asking for clarification. Given their past efforts though I wouldn't hold my breath!
To be honest, I wouldn't expect them to. Whatever negotiations may or may not have taken place are a private matter between the McCanns and Amaral.
The substance of the negotiations may be private, but that is not what is being asked about
There is no reason at all for the McCanns not to clear up the simple question :
Did Amaral approach you for an out of court settlement ... or did you approach him ?
If you were in private litigation with someone, would you feel obliged to divulge what may be sub judice information to satisfy the curiosity of some anonymous noseyparker on the Internet?
When the McCanns first took legal action against Amaral the media were fully briefed on their intentions. A lengthy and detailed statement was given, and the Mirror even claimed to have been given a copy of the complete 24 page writ ( parts of which were printed )
There was no reticence on the McCanns' part in that instance, and no element of 'sub judice' in their open declarations
There is a marked difference this time round
Is that still on the net?
-
Of course all articles are on the net, why shouldn't they be,as are the tv interviews with Gerry saying if anyone crosses the line they can expect to be punished, as is Kate Mccanns book in print detailing how Mr Amaral deserves to feel fear and be miserable
-
Let's see if the Find Madeleine Campaign are prepared to offer any answers at this point in time which will put an end to these rumours. We have written to them asking for clarification. Given their past efforts though I wouldn't hold my breath!
To be honest, I wouldn't expect them to. Whatever negotiations may or may not have taken place are a private matter between the McCanns and Amaral.
The substance of the negotiations may be private, but that is not what is being asked about
There is no reason at all for the McCanns not to clear up the simple question :
Did Amaral approach you for an out of court settlement ... or did you approach him ?
If you were in private litigation with someone, would you feel obliged to divulge what may be sub judice information to satisfy the curiosity of some anonymous noseyparker on the Internet?
When the McCanns first took legal action against Amaral the media were fully briefed on their intentions. A lengthy and detailed statement was given, and the Mirror even claimed to have been given a copy of the complete 24 page writ ( parts of which were printed )
There was no reticence on the McCanns' part in that instance, and no element of 'sub judice' in their open declarations
There is a marked difference this time round
Is that still on the net?
It's all archived on the McCannfiles site