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 23, 2016, 09:24:44 AM
-
What is libel?
And what isn't it?
Discuss.
183
-
It may help you understand where you go wrong.
-
Is it libellous to suggest the McCanns are hiding something?
-
Is it libellous to suggest the McCanns are hiding something?
John Stalker wrote it and wasn't sued.
-
Is it libellous to suggest the McCanns are hiding something?
It is, especially in the context that John Stalker wrote it, apart from that he added, in the same article, that he didn't believe, for one moment, that McCanns were guilty of anything nefarious in respect of Madeleine's disappearance.
That is an important point about libel.
Statements that are, in themselves true, can still be libellous if they impute a meaning that would otherwise not be present if they are quoted in full, rather than partially.
-
John Stalker wrote it and wasn't sued.
So a comment cannot be described as libellous until the author has been sued, is that your contention?
-
This might help ?{)(**
http://www.urban75.org/info/libel.html
it might be out of date so look at this as well
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2013/26/contents/enacted
English defamation law puts the burden of proving the truth of allegedly defamatory statements on the defendant, rather than the plaintiff, and has been considered an impediment to free speech in much of the developed world. In many cases of libel tourism, plaintiffs sued in England to censor critical works when their home countries would reject the case outright. In the United States, the 2010 SPEECH Act makes foreign libel judgements unenforceable in U.S. courts if they don't comply with US free speech law, largely in response to the English laws.
"The Defamation Act 2013 substantially reformed English defamation law in recognition of these concerns, by strengthening the criteria (including geographical relevance criteria) for a successful claim, mandating evidence of actual or probable harm, curtailing sharply the scope for claims of continuing defamation (in which republication or continued visibility comprises ongoing renewed defamation), and enhancing the scope of existing defences for website operators, public interest, and privileged publications, including peer reviewed scientific journals.[5] The 2013 law applies to causes of action occurring after its commencement on 1 January 2014;[6] old libel law will therefore still apply in many 2014–2015 defamation cases where the events complained of took place before commencement. Northern Ireland is not subject to the Defamation Act 2013 and has not passed a similar reform. This has already caused controversy regarding the publishing of the book and broadcasting of the documentary Going Clear.[7]"
-
So a comment cannot be described as libellous until the author has been sued, is that your contention?
If that is, indeed, G-Unit's contention, then then the answer is 'no' (as I'm sure Alfie knows).
-
You commit libel if you say that Colin Stagg stood trial for the murder of Rachel Nickel (even though that is true).
But not if you add that, at his trial, he was acquitted.
-
If that is, indeed, G-Unit's contention, then then the answer is 'no' (as I'm sure Alfie knows).
In the context of this case it's only libel if you are rich enough to sue.
-
People on this board libel J.... .... when they talk about his use of low copy number in parallel with criticism of the technique voiced by the judge who presided over the trials of those accused of the Omagh bombings.
-
John has referred to the FSS as feeding duff information to amaral...is that libellous
-
You commit libel if you say that Colin Stagg stood trial for the murder of Rachel Nickel (even though that is true).
But not if you add that, at his trial, he was acquitted.
I see why you keep falling foul of the rules.
It would be libel if you told a prospective employer of Colin Stagg that he stood trial for the murder of Rachel Nickel, it is not libel if you stated it on a public forum.
-
I see why you keep falling foul of the rules.
It would be libel if you told a prospective employer of Colin Stagg that he stood trial for the murder of Rachel Nickel, it is not libel if you stated it on a public forum.
neither would be libel as it is true
-
neither would be libel as it is true
The first can be sued.
-
The first can be sued.
libel is a statement that is untrue...he was tried for murder...therefore it is not libel
-
libel is a statement that is untrue...he was tried for murder...therefore it is not libel
No Libel is about damaging someones reputation or reputation of a company to adverse affect. If Colin Stagg applied for a job as a bus driver and you gave a reference as his previous employer, and said he was tried for murder.full stop. and Colin didn't get the job you could be sued. You would have to declare that he was tried and found NOT GUILTY. That would enable the new employer to quetion him about this if they felt he was a risk.
You must show evidence that you have suffered as a result of accusations ie you lost a contract or a job or worse.
-
No Libel is about damaging someones reputation or reputation of a company to adverse affect. If Colin Stagg applied for a job as a bus driver and you gave a reference as his previous employer, and said he was tried for murder.full stop. and Colin didn't get the job you could be sued. You would have to declare that he was tried and found NOT GUILTY. That would enable the new employer to quetion him about this if they felt he was a risk.
You must show evidence that you have suffered as a result of accusations ie you lost a contract or a job or worse.
why is it libel if it is true...please explain.......we are talking specifically re libel
if you gave a reference taht was misleading...you could be sued for damages...but not libel
-
There must be few on here who have very lucrative legal practices advising the populace on English defamation law.
"The laws of defamation are a legal minefield, not just for journalists but for potential complainants".
https://www.carson-mcdowell.com/news-and-events/insights/the-defamation-act-2013-and-its-explanatory-notes
-
why is it libel if it is true...please explain.......we are talking specifically re libel
if you gave a reference taht was misleading...you could be sued for damages...but not libel
Damages ? under what law? libel? anyway. Alice has given links.
-
Part of my job is to protect the forum from legal action and as such I will err on the side of caution.most of the time it is clear cut.
Is it OK for me to suggest that the McCanns are hiding something?
-
Is it OK for me to suggest that the McCanns are hiding something?
If you give your reasons for thinking so, assuming those reasons are within the scope of your knowledge and experience.
-
Is it OK for me to suggest that the McCanns are hiding something?
You can say The McCanns told a story which you don't believe. Or you can say you suspect what they said wasn't true. But don't post someone elses theory bad , very bad , very very bad.
-
English law allows actions for libel to be brought in the High Court for any published statements which are alleged to defame a named or identifiable individual in a manner which causes them loss in their trade or profession, or causes a reasonable person to think worse of him, her or them. Allowable defences are justification, fair comment, and privilege. An offer of amends is a barrier to litigation.
A defamatory statement is presumed to be false, unless the defendant can prove its truth. Furthermore, to collect compensatory damages, a public official or public figure must prove actual malice. A private individual must only prove negligence to collect compensatory damages. In order to collect punitive damages, all individuals must prove actual malice.
English defamation law puts the burden of proving the truth of allegedly defamatory statements on the defendant, rather than the plaintiff, which is the case in Portugal.
-
English law allows actions for libel to be brought in the High Court for any published statements which are alleged to defame a named or identifiable individual in a manner which causes them loss in their trade or profession, or causes a reasonable person to think worse of him, her or them. Allowable defences are justification, fair comment, and privilege. An offer of amends is a barrier to litigation.
A defamatory statement is presumed to be false, unless the defendant can prove its truth. Furthermore, to collect compensatory damages, a public official or public figure must prove actual malice. A private individual must only prove negligence to collect compensatory damages. In order to collect punitive damages, all individuals must prove actual malice.
English defamation law puts the burden of proving the truth of allegedly defamatory statements on the defendant, rather than the plaintiff, which is the case in Portugal.
a private individual doesn't have to prove anything
-
I see why you keep falling foul of the rules.
It would be libel if you told a prospective employer of Colin Stagg that he stood trial for the murder of Rachel Nickel, it is not libel if you stated it on a public forum.
Completely untrue (what you said).
-
"A claimant will need to satisfy the court that the imputation, context, nature, extent and impact of the publication are such that significant reputational damage has been suffered".
http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/law/legal-updates/the-defamation-act-2013/5039959.fullarticle
-
"A claimant will need to satisfy the court that the imputation, context, nature, extent and impact of the publication are such that significant reputational damage has been suffered".
http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/law/legal-updates/the-defamation-act-2013/5039959.fullarticle
John posted...
. A private individual must only prove negligence to collect compensatory damagesto which I replied a private individual does not have to prove anything
-
John posted...
. A private individual must only prove negligence to collect compensatory damagesto which I replied a private individual does not have to prove anything
So you are an expert in law as well. @)(++(*
-
John posted...
. A private individual must only prove negligence to collect compensatory damagesto which I replied a private individual does not have to prove anything
So?
-
a lot of people are dishonest, but don't have a conviction. So by what you are saying not having a conviction for anything makes people very honest?
-
What is libel?
And what isn't it?
Discuss.
23
Why does it matter at all
-
Is it OK for me to suggest that the McCanns are hiding something?
If, like John Stalker, you go on to add that you don't think, for one minute, you believe the McCanns are responsible for anything nefarious in respect of Madeleine's disappearance, no.
But if you quote John Stalker as saying what he said (without the qualification) then you, but - not John Stalker - are guilty of Libel.
-
Find Laws, Legal Information, News & Solicitors - Findlaw UK > Accidents and Injuries > Defamation > What difficulties are involved in bringing a defamation claim?
What difficulties are involved in bringing a defamation claim?
by FindLaw UK
What is defamation?
Defamation occurs when, for example, person A uses untrue words about person B – either verbally or in writing – that have the effect of making other people (such as persons C, D and E) think less of person B, therefore damaging person B’s reputation.
Defamation is a ‘strict liability’ tort. In other words, it does not matter if the person who made the statement did not mean to defame the subject of it. In the above example, the intentions of person A towards person B, in making the statement, are irrelevant.
What is the difference between libel and slander and what connection do they have to defamation?
Libel and slander are legal actions that protect a reputation against defamation.
If the defamatory words are communicated, or ‘published’, in a permanent form (such as in a book, magazine or film), the defamation is ‘libel’. If the publication is in a temporary form (for instance, spoken words), it is known as ‘slander’.
Who can sue for defamation?
Any ‘legal entity’ – an individual, trading company or partnership – can sue for defamation.
What are the main obstacles facing people who want to bring a defamation claim?
COMPLEXITIES OF DEFAMATION CASES
Interpreting the meaning of words can create uncertainty in libel claims. Both the literal and any hidden meaning of words are capable of being defamatory.
For instance, it is not defamatory – on the face of it – to say that a person eats meat. However, if people who come to read the statement know that the person who is said to be a meat-eater publicly professes to be a dedicated vegan, the statement can be considered defamatory because it suggests that the person is hypocritical or dishonest. In this instance, it is the responsibility of the claimant to demonstrate the facts supporting an innuendo.
LENGTH OF DEFAMATION CASES
It takes approximately 12 months from the issue of defamation court proceedings until trial. However, it is not uncommon for defamation cases to take several years to reach completion.
COST OF DEFAMATION CASES
Legal aid is unavailable to people bringing or defending a defamation action. Therefore, the cost of legal proceedings has to be paid for privately.
However, when the prospects of success are sufficiently good, some lawyers may be willing to act under a Conditional Fee Arrangement – commonly known as a ‘no win, no fee‘ arrangement.
You may also like:
What is an injunction?
What do I need to know about libel?
What do I need to know about defamation?
What are the legal implications of false allegations?
What do I need to know about slander and the…
Disclaimer:
If you cannot find what you are looking for on Findlaw.co.uk please let us know by contacting us at: findlaw.portalmanager@thomsonreuters.com.
Furthermore, please be aware that while we attempt to ensure all our information is as up-to-date and relevant as possible occasionally some our articles may no longer be accurate.
So simply by saying someone is a meat-eater, you can libel them (if they have a reputation based and built on eating a vegan diet and campaign vigorously against the killing of animals for food on basis of cruelty).
http://findlaw.co.uk/law/accidents_and_injuries/defamation/what-difficulties-are-involved-in-bringing-a-defamation-claim.html
(link 2016)
-
I don't suppose you were able to provide examples to support your assertions. I haven't seen anyone calling the McCanns liars. I've seen (and posted) examples of their contradictory statements, which is quite another matter.
So alfie, if the mccanns make contradictory statements, what does that make them ?
-
Questioning the McCanns veracity is quite a common occurrence on this forum.
Posts like... 'We only have their word for it' and.... 'There is no evidence she is telling the truth' ... etc etc. leave the reader in very little doubt of what is actually being proposed by the poster.
Such comments usually occur when the poster cannot challenge the content of the post they are replying to -and IMO it's become a set way of overcoming that problem.
The general pattern seems to be that if what was said by K&G suits them - then they are telling the truth - but if what they said doesn't suit them - then they are almost certainly not telling the truth.
Totally illogical IMO - and of course you can make a case against anyone - about anything - by using those cherry-picking tactics, which imo is exactly what Amaral did.
AIMHO
-
So alfie, if the mccanns make contradictory statements, what does that make them ?
Why don't you tell us your opinion Stephen, let's put forum rules to the test.
-
Questioning the McCanns veracity is quite a common occurrence on this forum.
Posts like... 'We only have their word for it' and.... 'There is no evidence she is telling the truth' ... etc etc. leave the reader in very little doubt of what is actually being proposed by the poster.
Such comments usually occur when the poster cannot challenge the content of the post they are replying to -and IMO it's become a set way of overcoming that problem.
The general pattern seems to be that if what was said by K&G suits them - then they are telling the truth - but if what they said doesn't suit them - then they are almost certainly not telling the truth.
Totally illogical IMO - and of course you can make a case against anyone - about anything - by using those cherry-picking tactics, which imo is exactly what Amaral did.
AIMHO
Also the honesty of Jane Tanner and Andy Redwood are constantly called into question...
-
Why don't you tell us your opinion Stephen, let's put forum rules to the test.
I asked you the question.
-
I asked you the question.
I don't think the McCanns are liars and that contradictions in statements are not uncommon in honest witness testimony can be explained, now what do you think?
-
This latest ruling in the McCann v Amaral libel trial (so far as I can judge) doesn't dispute that Amaral breached judicial secrecy in writing his book, but rather argues that because Amaral quit the PJ before he wrote it, he can't be held responsible (for breaching judicial secrecy).
However, if there is, in Portuguese law, a concept of accountability, then Amaral might be held accountable for the leaks on his watch (much shorter than Rebelo's watch, even though, under Rebelo, there was one leak, not particularly injurious to Kate and Gerry; even though media scrutiny of the investigation was just as intense, and even though Rebelo's tenure in charge was much longer than Amaral's).
If Rebelo could do it, why couldn't Amaral?
And if Amaral is accountable (for the leaks during his tenure in charge) even if he can't be held, personally and directly, responsible for them, sanity (and proper order) should be restored.
-
The good thing about an internet forum is that if you don't like the rules you don't have to join in the game.
-
John has referred to the FSS as feeding duff information to amaral...is that libellous
The FSS no longer exists.
But John Lowe (so far as I am aware) is very much still alive, as are his colleagues who worked with him on the (meagre) material they were presented with to work on.
If John Lowe (and his colleagues) could be thought identifiable and referred to by John's comments, then yes! (in short)
-
The FSS no longer exists.
But John Lowe (so far as I am aware) is very much still alive, as are his colleagues who worked with him on the (meagre) material they were presented with to work on.
If John Lowe (and his colleagues) could be thought identifiable and referred to by John's comments, then yes! (in short)
I would love to know who provided the original information to Amaral which led him to take the actions he did in advance of the final Report.
-
I would love to know who provided the original information to Amaral which led him to take the actions he did in advance of the final Report.
Not only who, but why.
-
This latest ruling in the McCann v Amaral libel trial (so far as I can judge) doesn't dispute that Amaral breached judicial secrecy in writing his book, but rather argues that because Amaral quit the PJ before he wrote it, he can't be held responsible (for breaching judicial secrecy).
However, if there is, in Portuguese law, a concept of accountability, then Amaral might be held accountable for the leaks on his watch (much shorter than Rebelo's watch, even though, under Rebelo, there was one leak, not particularly injurious to Kate and Gerry; even though media scrutiny of the investigation was just as intense, and even though Rebelo's tenure in charge was much longer than Amaral's).
If Rebelo could do it, why couldn't Amaral?
And if Amaral is accountable (for the leaks during his tenure in charge) even if he can't be held, personally and directly, responsible for them, sanity (and proper order) should be restored.
Why do insist on posting about this when you don't understand anything in the ruling?
-
Why do insist on posting about this when you don't understand anything in the ruling?
Because it is in his/her/their script?
-
Because it is in his/her/their script?
What are you insinuating?
-
What are you insinuating?
By "his/her/their" nothing other than I know not whether ferryman is male, female or a syndicate down a pub having a laugh.
By it is "in the script" merely a variation on the old "press this button here and that motor over there will fire up" comment.
Clear enough now?
-
What are you insinuating?
You mean you don't know. &%+((£
-
This latest ruling in the McCann v Amaral libel trial (so far as I can judge) doesn't dispute that Amaral breached judicial secrecy in writing his book, but rather argues that because Amaral quit the PJ before he wrote it, he can't be held responsible (for breaching judicial secrecy).
However, if there is, in Portuguese law, a concept of accountability, then Amaral might be held accountable for the leaks on his watch (much shorter than Rebelo's watch, even though, under Rebelo, there was one leak, not particularly injurious to Kate and Gerry; even though media scrutiny of the investigation was just as intense, and even though Rebelo's tenure in charge was much longer than Amaral's).
If Rebelo could do it, why couldn't Amaral?
And if Amaral is accountable (for the leaks during his tenure in charge) even if he can't be held, personally and directly, responsible for them, sanity (and proper order) should be restored.
So what is the only "leak" attributable to Rebelo and are you really sure it was just the one?
-
So what is the only "leak" attributable to Rebelo and are you really sure it was just the one?
Careless wording.
Attributable to Rebelo's watch, I should have said.
-
Careless wording.
Attributable to Rebelo's watch, I should have said.
Ok so on his "watch" whch story was leaked whch was what i bleedin well asked in the first place
-
Ok so on his "watch" whch story was leaked whch was what i bleedin well asked in the first place
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/mccanns-launch-furious-counter-attack-on-portuguese-police-after-maddie-in-tears-leak-7302079.html
-
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/mccanns-launch-furious-counter-attack-on-portuguese-police-after-maddie-in-tears-leak-7302079.html
Oh!
Well, what can i say, there were loads of leaks post amaral departing, and that wasnt one i had n mind, loads of them, so your argument about only one is dud
Lets start with november 2007 and madeleines part dna beng found on a pair of jeans chucked outside airport
The list is looooong
-
Why do insist on posting about this when you don't understand anything in the ruling?
Care to expand?
-
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/mccanns-launch-furious-counter-attack-on-portuguese-police-after-maddie-in-tears-leak-7302079.html
"
Mr Mitchell told Sky News: "This is a blatant and timed attempt against Kate and Gerry to try to deflect attention in the headlines from the success they had at the European Parliament... to try to divert attention onto negative headlines questioning their suitability as parents."
So was this story not true or was their complaint that it was true, and should never have been told? and why not question their parenting- they attack everyone who challenges them on anything.
The Parents started the attack and leaks on the night the parents claimed Maddie disappeared.
-
"
Mr Mitchell told Sky News: "This is a blatant and timed attempt against Kate and Gerry to try to deflect attention in the headlines from the success they had at the European Parliament... to try to divert attention onto negative headlines questioning their suitability as parents."
So was this story not true or was their complaint that it was true, and should never have been told? and why not question their parenting- they attack everyone who challenges them on anything.
The Parents started the attack and leaks on the night the parents claimed Maddie disappeared.
Precisely.
It is part of the orchestrated campaign to promote the mccanns.
-
"
Mr Mitchell told Sky News: "This is a blatant and timed attempt against Kate and Gerry to try to deflect attention in the headlines from the success they had at the European Parliament... to try to divert attention onto negative headlines questioning their suitability as parents."
So was this story not true or was their complaint that it was true, and should never have been told? and why not question their parenting- they attack everyone who challenges them on anything.
The Parents started the attack and leaks on the night the parents claimed Maddie disappeared.
Is this anything to do with libel? It was true, after all.
They never seemed to grasp the irony of them campaigning for the Amber Alert system while still arguidos in respect of their daughter's disappearance. . Obviously someone did and decided to speak out. They also chose to ignore the fact that an alert would have been very unlikely to have been issued in their case.
It was also ironic the the MEP associated with them going to the European Parliament used the Shannon Matthews case to highlight the deficiencies in the system used at the time of her disappearance. As we know now, an alert wouldn't have helped her to be found.
Was this a leak by the PJ? Not proven.
-
I've no complaint with Rebelo (neither so far as I am aware, the McCanns).
The leaks on Amaral's watch traduced and maligned the McCanns.
If Amaral can be held accountable for the leaks on his watch (even if it can't be proved he was personally, and directly, (ir)resposonsible) then proper order in the libel trial should be restored.
-
I've no complaint with Rebelo (neither so far as I am aware, the McCanns).
The leaks on Amaral's watch traduced and maligned the McCanns.
If Amaral can be held accountable for the leaks on his watch (even if it can't be proved he was personally, and directly, (ir)resposonsible) then proper order in the libel trial should be restored.
Utter rubbish.
Where in the court papers did it say libel trial ferryman ?
-
I've no complaint with Rebelo (neither so far as I am aware, the McCanns).
The leaks on Amaral's watch traduced and maligned the McCanns.
If Amaral can be held accountable for the leaks on his watch (even if it can't be proved he was personally, and directly, (ir)resposonsible) then proper order in the libel trial should be restored.
Absolutely utterly and completely nothing at all to do with it.
-
Absolutely utterly and completely nothing at all to do with it.
Why not?
-
Why not?
Have you tried reading.
-
Why not?
I'm not falling for that. You demonstrate their alleged relevance first.
-
I'm not falling for that. You demonstrate their alleged relevance first.
In what sense what you describe it as (ir)relevant that Amaral:
misrepresents the reports of Mark Harrison in a way that traduces the McCanns?
Describes Eddie as "scenting death" all over the place when both Grime Harrison make plain no incriminating inference can be made from the reactions of (either!) dog?
Reports that Prior phoned the FSS to berate them on the PJ's powers of arrest (having first contradicted and corrected Prior on interpretation of the results) when (we can confidently predict) that is all a pile of crock?
Says that Kate and Gerry killed Madeleine (with an overdose of calpol!) then covered up the crime (and disposed of their dead daughter's body) when the Portuguese prosecutors say they can find no evidence (from the entirety of the files, which they carefully scrutinised before penning the archiving dispatch) that they could find no evidence that the McCanns committed any crime.
How could Amaral have said all that (in defiance of a wealth of evidence to the contrary), yet not have libelled the McCanns?
-
In what sense what you describe it as (ir)relevant that Amaral:
misrepresents the reports of Mark Harrison in a way that traduces the McCanns?
Describes Eddie as "scenting death" all over the place when both Grime Harrison make plain no incriminating inference can be made from the reactions of (either!) dog?
Reports that Prior phoned the FSS to berate them on the PJ's powers of arrest (having first contradicted and corrected Prior on interpretation of the results) when (we can confidently predict) that is all a pile of crock?
Says that Kate and Gerry killed Madeleine (with an overdose of calpol!) then covered up the crime (and disposed of their dead daughter's body) when the Portuguese prosecutors say they can find no evidence (from the entirety of the files, which they carefully scrutinised before penning the archiving dispatch) that they could find no evidence that the McCanns committed any crime.
How could Amaral have said all that (in defiance of a wealth of evidence to the contrary), yet not have libelled the McCanns?
This has been dealt with by the Portuguese Court in their recent decision.
-
This has been dealt with by the Portuguese Court in their recent decision.
No it hasn't.
This (recent) court ruling says Amaral is entitled to libel the McCanns.
Which is different.
-
No it hasn't.
This (recent) court ruling says Amaral is entitled to libel the McCanns.
Which is different.
Incorrect again.
-
In what sense what you describe it as (ir)relevant that Amaral:
misrepresents the reports of Mark Harrison in a way that traduces the McCanns?
Describes Eddie as "scenting death" all over the place when both Grime Harrison make plain no incriminating inference can be made from the reactions of (either!) dog?
Reports that Prior phoned the FSS to berate them on the PJ's powers of arrest (having first contradicted and corrected Prior on interpretation of the results) when (we can confidently predict) that is all a pile of crock?
Says that Kate and Gerry killed Madeleine (with an overdose of calpol!) then covered up the crime (and disposed of their dead daughter's body) when the Portuguese prosecutors say they can find no evidence (from the entirety of the files, which they carefully scrutinised before penning the archiving dispatch) that they could find no evidence that the McCanns committed any crime.
How could Amaral have said all that (in defiance of a wealth of evidence to the contrary), yet not have libelled the McCanns?
I'm afraid everything you're talking about has been considered and ruled upon by two courts. Both courts found that the contents of his book were mostly facts which could be found in the files. His interpretation differed, but he was entitled to present his own interpretation in a literary work. The book will not be considered again by the Portuguese Supreme Court, which will consider only points of law.
-
Just to pre-warn members on this forum. It would appear that one of our number is crowing elsewhere about the construction of a new dossier of sceptics and their comments.
-
Just to pre-warn members on this forum. It would appear that one of our number is crowing elsewhere about the construction of a new dossier of sceptics and their comments.
No prizes for guessing who.
The first dossier wasn't that successful now was it ? and we have all heard ducks fart before haven't we Johnny ?
-
Just to pre-warn members on this forum. It would appear that one of our number is crowing elsewhere about the construction of a new dossier of sceptics and their comments.
fantastic news....perhaps the mccanns can raise some money by suing some of these people for libel..
-
I would suggest the Mccanns should now be worried about Amaral's claims against them and other parties.
-
I would suggest the Mccanns should now be worried about Amaral's claims against them and other parties.
what claims..
sil made a very informed post which confirmed what I had already posted that amaral does not have a case...explain the grounds
-
Just to pre-warn members on this forum. It would appear that one of our number is crowing elsewhere about the construction of a new dossier of sceptics and their comments.
It was a wind-up nothing more.
-
Irrelevant.
Is she an expert in Portuguese Law ?
Keep your eye out.
All good things come to those who wait.
-
Irrelevant.
Is she an expert in Portuguese Law ?
Keep your eyes out.
All good things come to those who wait.
so you cant come up with any grounds...and its keep an eye out
-
so you cant come up with any grounds...and its keep an eye out
I don't need to.
Amaral's lawyers already have.
Like I said, wait and see.
-
I'm afraid everything you're talking about has been considered and ruled upon by two courts. Both courts found that the contents of his book were mostly facts which could be found in the files. His interpretation differed, but he was entitled to present his own interpretation in a literary work. The book will not be considered again by the Portuguese Supreme Court, which will consider only points of law.
No they didn't.
This, second, ruling says that Amaral can say anything he wants, true or false, lowering reputation or not, and get away with it.
Which (so far) Amaral has.
-
No they didn't.
This, second, ruling says that Amaral can say anything he wants, true or false, lowering reputation or not, and get away with it.
Which (so far) Amaral has.
So not deemed to be libelous, then
-
No they didn't.
This, second, ruling says that Amaral can say anything he wants, true or false, lowering reputation or not, and get away with it.
Which (so far) Amaral has.
You have a strange understanding of court judgements ferryman. Nowhere does it state that Amaral can say what he wants.
-
I don't need to.
Amaral's lawyers already have.
Like I said, wait and see.
amarals lawyers have not said anything...it was the court that froze amarals assets not the mccanns...it was the court that banned his book
-
It was a wind-up nothing more.
Can I ask what age you are misty ?
-
amarals lawyers have not said anything...it was the court that froze amarals assets not the mccanns...it was the court that banned his book
At the McCanns instigation davel.
-
At the McCanns instigation davel.
It was the courts decision
-
It was the courts decision
You really think the court would have done it wasn't part of the writ.
-
You really think the court would have done it wasn't part of the writ.
It was ultimately the courts decision
That is why.... and sil has agreed with me ... amaral has no grounds to sue the McCanns
-
If the Mccanns had not brought the action, then yes, no grounds.
However, they did, and have tried to ruin him.
I believe even his pension was seized as part of the freezing of his assets.
It is a pity the mccanns didn't use the money instead, FROM OTHER PEOPLE, to search for Madeleine.
BTW, that is not goading, that is the truth.
-
If the Mccanns had not brought the action, then yes, no grounds.
However, they did, and have tried to ruin him.
I believe even his pension was seized as part of the freezing of his assets.
It is a pity the mccanns didn't use the money instead, FROM OTHER PEOPLE, to search for Madeleine.
BTW, that is not goading, that is the truth.
#Amaral has tried to ruin the McCanns fortunately most have seen through his book full of untruths
-
#Amaral has tried to ruin the McCanns fortunately most have seen through his book full of untruths
No,No, the McCanns have tried to ruin Amaral.
-
#Amaral has tried to ruin the McCanns fortunately most have seen through his book full of untruths
Incorrect.
Up to this point, it was the mccanns who took Amaral to court.
They have tried to ruin him.
They failed.
All they have done is to ensure Amaral's book and theory have received a wider audience.
BTW, this post is not goading.
-
Incorrect.
Up to this point, it was the mccanns who took Amaral to court.
They have tried to ruin him.
They failed.
All they have done is to ensure Amaral's book and theory have received a wider audience.
BTW, this post is not goading.
Amarals book set out to ruin the McCanns
It accused them of being criminals
-
They seem to have done very well at ruining themselves - IMO
-
They seem to have done very well at ruining themselves - IMO
Precisely Jassi.
This case started with the McCanns.
BTW, this post is not goading.
-
OK! Someone help out here
The Mccanns started a libel action years ago and the fund paid for it for at least a couple of years according to their accounts
Sueing people is always a gamble
Why then have they gambled so much? If the media stories are to be believed, it it could wipe out their fund if they lose?
And why are they blaming Amaral for depleting their fund when it was them doing it all the time??? practically plus gambling?
The amounts talked about are quite astronomical, it really does beggar belief what the thought process was
-
OK! Someone help out here
The Mccanns started a libel action years ago and the fund paid for it for at least a couple of years according to their accounts
Sueing people is always a gamble
Why then have they gambled so much? If the media stories are to be believed, it it could wipe out their fund if they lose?
And why are they blaming Amaral for depleting their fund when it was them doing it all the time??? practically plus gambling?
The amounts talked about are quite astronomical, it really does beggar belief what the thought process was
because GA has been and always will be their scapegoat imo btw this is not a goading post
-
because GA has been and always will be their scapegoat imo btw this is not a goading post
But why chase a scapegoat so expensively and deplete search funds?
-
OK! Someone help out here
The Mccanns started a libel action years ago and the fund paid for it for at least a couple of years according to their accounts
Sueing people is always a gamble
Why then have they gambled so much? If the media stories are to be believed, it it could wipe out their fund if they lose?
And why are they blaming Amaral for depleting their fund when it was them doing it all the time??? practically plus gambling?
The amounts talked about are quite astronomical, it really does beggar belief what the thought process was
Perhaps they believe in principle and justice, whatever the cost. Consider the amount of time and money some court actions take, even when all seems lost, still those who feel that justice has been denied them continue to put their lives on hold and their livelihoods at stake to pursue a principle they believe in. You may consider it foolish, crazy, whatever, but we are not in their shoes, nor can we properly understand how much pain and damage they feel they have been caused them and their family by one man who they clearly believe was out to destroy their reputation and the search for their daughter. If the money in the Fund is all spent I've no doubt they will do all they can to drum up more funds to keep the search going. In any case hasn't a large proportion of the fund been ring-fenced for the search?
-
Perhaps they believe in principle and justice, whatever the cost. Consider the amount of time and money some court actions take, even when all seems lost, still those who feel that justice has been denied them continue to put their lives on hold and their livelihoods at stake to pursue a principle they believe in. You may consider it foolish, crazy, whatever, but we are not in their shoes, nor can we properly understand how much pain and damage they feel they have been caused them and their family by one man who they clearly believe was out to destroy their reputation and the search for their daughter. If the money in the Fund is all spent I've no doubt they will do all they can to drum up more funds to keep the search going. In any case hasn't a large proportion of the fund been ring-fenced for the search?
You didnt read my post fully, the ringfenced money seems to be being reported as gobbled up if they lose! And they are going for the gamble!
its long past ideas about bloody principles....if yu have a pound to look for your kid and you gamble it what can i say
-
Perhaps they believe in principle and justice, whatever the cost. Consider the amount of time and money some court actions take, even when all seems lost, still those who feel that justice has been denied them continue to put their lives on hold and their livelihoods at stake to pursue a principle they believe in. You may consider it foolish, crazy, whatever, but we are not in their shoes, nor can we properly understand how much pain and damage they feel they have been caused them and their family by one man who they clearly believe was out to destroy their reputation and the search for their daughter. If the money in the Fund is all spent I've no doubt they will do all they can to drum up more funds to keep the search going. In any case hasn't a large proportion of the fund been ring-fenced for the search?
To paraphrase George Galloway ' they'll sue to every last penny of someone else's money".
-
To paraphrase George Galloway ' they'll sue to every last penny of someone else's money".
And put in the fund to sue someone else lol sounds like a ponzi scheme reversed
-
Perhaps they believe in principle and justice, whatever the cost. Consider the amount of time and money some court actions take, even when all seems lost, still those who feel that justice has been denied them continue to put their lives on hold and their livelihoods at stake to pursue a principle they believe in. You may consider it foolish, crazy, whatever, but we are not in their shoes, nor can we properly understand how much pain and damage they feel they have been caused them and their family by one man who they clearly believe was out to destroy their reputation and the search for their daughter. If the money in the Fund is all spent I've no doubt they will do all they can to drum up more funds to keep the search going. In any case hasn't a large proportion of the fund been ring-fenced for the search?
The Internet and the papers before them are full of examples of people who decided they were in the right and pursued justice as they saw it without thought as to the consequences.
-
OK! Someone help out here
The Mccanns started a libel action years ago and the fund paid for it for at least a couple of years according to their accounts
Sueing people is always a gamble
Why then have they gambled so much? If the media stories are to be believed, it it could wipe out their fund if they lose?
And why are they blaming Amaral for depleting their fund when it was them doing it all the time??? practically plus gambling?
The amounts talked about are quite astronomical, it really does beggar belief what the thought process was
Not in a country that has proper libel laws like England.
Make no mistake that in England, the recently introduced defence of honest comment notwithstanding, Amaral's book would be blown out of the water.
That's why his book will never be published (for sale) in England.
-
Not in a country that has proper libel laws like England.
Make no mistake that in England, the recently introduced defence of honest comment notwithstanding, Amaral's book would be blown out of the water.
That's why his book will never be published (for sale) in England.
I guess that if it's freely available in English on the internet, then physical publication is less important to him.
-
You didnt read my post fully, the ringfenced money seems to be being reported as gobbled up if they lose! And they are going for the gamble!
its long past ideas about bloody principles....if yu have a pound to look for your kid and you gamble it what can i say
Why ring-fence the money in the first place? I thought we were not to believe everything we read in the papers anyway.... &%+((£
-
Not in a country that has proper libel laws like England.
Make no mistake that in England, the recently introduced defence of honest comment notwithstanding, Amaral's book would be blown out of the water.
That's why his book will never be published (for sale) in England.
It would seem England and Wales are considered to be a backwoods hick town in this respect.
"English defamation law puts the burden of proving the truth of allegedly defamatory statements on the defendant, rather than the plaintiff, and has been considered an impediment to free speech in much of the developed world. In many cases of libel tourism, plaintiffs sued in England to censor critical works when their home countries would reject the case outright. In the United States, the 2010 SPEECH Act makes foreign libel judgements unenforceable in U.S. courts if they don't comply with US free speech law, largely in response to the English laws".[/size]
-
It would seem England and Wales are considered to be a backwoods hick town in this respect.
"English defamation law puts the burden of proving the truth of allegedly defamatory statements on the defendant, rather than the plaintiff, and has been considered an impediment to free speech in much of the developed world. In many cases of libel tourism, plaintiffs sued in England to censor critical works when their home countries would reject the case outright. In the United States, the 2010 SPEECH Act makes foreign libel judgements unenforceable in U.S. courts if they don't comply with US free speech law, largely in response to the English laws".[/size]
Considered by whom?
Yes, in England (the recent defence of honest comment withstanding) the burden of proof is on a person accused of libel to establish the truth of what they say, and please God, it always will be.
Otherwise, people will find themselves in the absurd position the McCanns are in of having to prove the untruth of very serious allegations made against them.
And never mind that the McCanns have established (the untruth of the allegations against them, in spades) this (latest) ruling still says Amaral is not guilty of libel.
Why?
-
It would seem England and Wales are considered to be a backwoods hick town in this respect.
"English defamation law puts the burden of proving the truth of allegedly defamatory statements on the defendant, rather than the plaintiff, and has been considered an impediment to free speech in much of the developed world. In many cases of libel tourism, plaintiffs sued in England to censor critical works when their home countries would reject the case outright. In the United States, the 2010 SPEECH Act makes foreign libel judgements unenforceable in U.S. courts if they don't comply with US free speech law, largely in response to the English laws".[/size]
amarals book would be libellous in most US states......I would much rather live in a country where ex policemen cannot accuse me of a crime on national tv and completely trash my reputation...when he has based his conclusions on evidence that is totally flawed
-
amarals book would be libellous in most US states......I would much rather live in a country where ex policemen cannot accuse me of a crime on national tv and completely trash my reputation...when he has based his conclusions on evidence that is totally flawed
Explain how for example it will be libelous in Montana and Rhode Island
-
Explain how for example it will be libelous in Montana and Rhode Island
most US states adopt the principle of libel per se......Ive explained it you before
-
most US states adopt the principle of libel per se......Ive explained it you before
Don't duck the question.
Explain in Montana law and Rhode Island law.
-
Considered by whom?
Yes, in England (the recent defence of honest comment withstanding) the burden of proof is on a person accused of libel to establish the truth of what they say, and please God, it always will be.
Otherwise, people will find themselves in the absurd position the McCanns are in of having to prove the untruth of very serious allegations made against them.
And never mind that the McCanns have established (the untruth of the allegations against them, in spades) this (latest) ruling still says Amaral is not guilty of libel.
Why?
The McCanns have not established the untruth of the theorem in Amaral's book, for the simple reason they never needed to.
The judgement is clear, and available to anyone who wants to read it.
Amaral was permitted leeway because the McCanns had already given up any right to privacy, and so he was entitled to promote a theory that varied from the McCanns theory. Neither Amaral's theory nor the McCanns theory has been proved or disproved, otherwise we would be a long way further in the case than we are.
-
The McCanns have not established the untruth of the theorem in Amaral's book, for the simple reason they never needed to.
The judgement is clear, and available to anyone who wants to read it.
Amaral was permitted leeway because the McCanns had already given up any right to privacy, and so he was entitled to promote a theory that varied from the McCanns theory. Neither Amaral's theory nor the McCanns theory has been proved or disproved, otherwise we would be a long way further in the case than we are.
Which gives Amaral the 'right' to spout any (otherwise libellous) crap he wants without fear of legal consequence, and effective abolition of the rules of libel.
Meanwhile, the Portuguese prosecutors made plain there is no basis of any accusation against the McCanns.
-
Which gives Amaral the 'right' to spout any (otherwise libellous) crap he wants without fear of legal consequence, and effective abolition of the rules of libel.
Meanwhile, the Portuguese prosecutors made plain there is no basis of any accusation against the McCanns.
No it doesn't.
-
Which gives Amaral the 'right' to spout any (otherwise libellous) crap he wants without fear of legal consequence, and effective abolition of the rules of libel.
Meanwhile, the Portuguese prosecutors made plain there is no basis of any accusation against the McCanns.
It was freedom of speech (Amaral) v right to a good name/privacy (McCanns). And as I'm sure you are aware, the finding was that the McCanns endless publicity surrounding the case meant that Amaral had the right to freedom of speech.
I have yet to see anything in any judgement that assesses either the McCann theorem or the Amaral theorem. The civil action was not about testing either.
The Portuguese made clear the McCanns could not be prosecuted for negligence.
They concluded that in the absence of a reconstitution, there was no way to progress the case, and that it should be archived without charging anyone. That is nothing like 'no basis'. It is insufficient evidence to work out what happened.
The McCanns have not been 'tried' and 'found innocent'.
-
It might help to examine the first judgement. The judge said that Amaral said nothing that hadn't been said before.
Now the thesis that the minor died accidentally in the apartment and that this fact was hidden by her parents, who spread and fed, in order to deceive, an hypothesis of abduction, is not new, there's nothing new neither in the book, in the interview or in the documentary.
One wonders then what is the difference between 1) asserting – as it was done at a certain step of the investigation or as many commentators do – that there are indices of accidental death, concealment of the corpse and simulation of crime and 2) supporting this view as did the defendant Goncalo Amaral in those three mediums.
So far, freedom of speech wins. But there are limits on it;
The presumption of innocence prohibits, according to these decisions, the premature expression of opinions or beliefs of guilt by the courts but also assumptions by public officers involved in procedures which might lead the public to suspect the responsibility of the suspects in the facts under investigation.
Having been in charge of that investigation as a member of the Judicial Police, the defendant Goncalo Amaral, although retired on 1st July 2008, did not enjoy, on the following July 24, in respect of the results of the criminal investigation released on the 21st of the same month and year, a large and full freedom of expression. This freedom was conditioned by the functions he had, functions that imposed him special duties that traverse the status of retirement, including the duty of reserve.
So the judge is saying that Amaral damaged the McCanns not by what he said in the book, the interview and the documentary, but by failing to observe the limitations imposed upon his freedom to speak by his former profession, by which he was still bound in retirement.
Is it, therefore, correct to say he libeled the McCanns in his book? No judge has ever actually said that he did, as far as I can understand it.
-
Don't duck the question.
Explain in Montana law and Rhode Island law.
nein herr fuhrer
-
It might help to examine the first judgement. The judge said that Amaral said nothing that hadn't been said before.
Now the thesis that the minor died accidentally in the apartment and that this fact was hidden by her parents, who spread and fed, in order to deceive, an hypothesis of abduction, is not new, there's nothing new neither in the book, in the interview or in the documentary.
One wonders then what is the difference between 1) asserting – as it was done at a certain step of the investigation or as many commentators do – that there are indices of accidental death, concealment of the corpse and simulation of crime and 2) supporting this view as did the defendant Goncalo Amaral in those three mediums.
So far, freedom of speech wins. But there are limits on it;
The presumption of innocence prohibits, according to these decisions, the premature expression of opinions or beliefs of guilt by the courts but also assumptions by public officers involved in procedures which might lead the public to suspect the responsibility of the suspects in the facts under investigation.
Having been in charge of that investigation as a member of the Judicial Police, the defendant Goncalo Amaral, although retired on 1st July 2008, did not enjoy, on the following July 24, in respect of the results of the criminal investigation released on the 21st of the same month and year, a large and full freedom of expression. This freedom was conditioned by the functions he had, functions that imposed him special duties that traverse the status of retirement, including the duty of reserve.
So the judge is saying that Amaral damaged the McCanns not by what he said in the book, the interview and the documentary, but by failing to observe the limitations imposed upon his freedom to speak by his former profession, by which he was still bound in retirement.
Is it, therefore, correct to say he libeled the McCanns in his book? No judge has ever actually said that he did, as far as I can understand it.
A reasonable summation.
-
It was freedom of speech (Amaral) v right to a good name/privacy (McCanns). And as I'm sure you are aware, the finding was that the McCanns endless publicity surrounding the case meant that Amaral had the right to freedom of speech.
I have yet to see anything in any judgement that assesses either the McCann theorem or the Amaral theorem. The civil action was not about testing either.
The Portuguese made clear the McCanns could not be prosecuted for negligence.
They concluded that in the absence of a reconstitution, there was no way to progress the case, and that it should be archived without charging anyone. That is nothing like 'no basis'. It is insufficient evidence to work out what happened.
The McCanns have not been 'tried' and 'found innocent'.
no one is found innocent at trial
-
The McCanns have not established the untruth of the theorem in Amaral's book, for the simple reason they never needed to.
The judgement is clear, and available to anyone who wants to read it.
Amaral was permitted leeway because the McCanns had already given up any right to privacy, and so he was entitled to promote a theory that varied from the McCanns theory. Neither Amaral's theory nor the McCanns theory has been proved or disproved, otherwise we would be a long way further in the case than we are.
Nevertheless there was no recognition of the involuntary nature of the McCann's loss of privacy in the success of the appeal which suggests to me the ignorance of the appeal court judges to the importance of immediate publicity when a child goes missing whether in suspicious circumstances or just lost.
-
Nevertheless there was no recognition of the involuntary nature of the McCann's loss of privacy in the success of the appeal which suggests to me the ignorance of the appeal court judges to the importance of immediate publicity when a child goes missing whether in suspicious circumstances or just lost.
Do the Portuguese subscribe to the idea of immediate publicity being important? If not, then the McCanns loss of privacy will be seen as voluntary.
-
No it doesn't.
So what does it do, then?
-
Nevertheless there was no recognition of the involuntary nature of the McCann's loss of privacy in the success of the appeal which suggests to me the ignorance of the appeal court judges to the importance of immediate publicity when a child goes missing whether in suspicious circumstances or just lost.
You may have lost me, but I'll have a stab at responding to this anyway.
There are at two quite separate issues here.
One is best procedure in a missing child case, and I'd rather not debate what best practice was in 2007.
The relevant issue is that the incident occurred in Portugal and consequently was subject to Portuguese law. This happens to impose conditions, one being no media. Kate's book made clear media was discussed with the first PJ team, who insisted there was to be no leak to the media.
And members of the Tapas 9 decided they knew better than the PJ so before the group gave first interviews, the media circus was in town.
I have never seen a suggestion the story was first leaked to the media by the Portuguese police, irrespective of what happened later. The simple fact is the genie could not be put back into the lamp.
And that means the police were working in totally unfamiliar mode, so we are never going to find out what would have happened if normal procedure had been applied.
-
The McCanns have not established the untruth of the theorem in Amaral's book, for the simple reason they never needed to.
The judgement is clear, and available to anyone who wants to read it.
Amaral was permitted leeway because the McCanns had already given up any right to privacy, and so he was entitled to promote a theory that varied from the McCanns theory. Neither Amaral's theory nor the McCanns theory has been proved or disproved, otherwise we would be a long way further in the case than we are.
Alright, the Portuguese prosecutors have:
The parents didn't even represent the realisation of the fact, they trusted that everything would go well, as it had gone on the previous evenings, thus not equating, nor was it demanded from them, the possibility of the occurrence of an abduction of any of the children that were in their respective apartments.
Reinforcing what was said is also the fact that despite leaving their daughter alone with her siblings in the apartment during more or less dilated moments, it is certain that in any case they checked on them. Without any pretension or compensatory effect, we must also recognise that the parents already expiate a heavy penalty - the disappearance of Madeleine - due to their lack of caution in the surveillance and protection of their children.
Concerning the other indicated crimes, they are no more than that and despite our perception that, due to its high degree of probability, the occurrence of a homicide cannot be discarded, such cannot be more than a mere supposition, due to the lack of sustaining elements in the files.
The McCanns (to prove their own innocence, in separate, civil, libel proceedings) surely need do no more than cite the words of the Prosecutors who dropped their arguido statuses as the climax of a police investigation that accused them (short of actual charges) of murdering their daughter.
Would you not agree?
-
Alright, the Portuguese prosecutors have:
The parents didn't even represent the realisation of the fact, they trusted that everything would go well, as it had gone on the previous evenings, thus not equating, nor was it demanded from them, the possibility of the occurrence of an abduction of any of the children that were in their respective apartments.
Reinforcing what was said is also the fact that despite leaving their daughter alone with her siblings in the apartment during more or less dilated moments, it is certain that in any case they checked on them. Without any pretension or compensatory effect, we must also recognise that the parents already expiate a heavy penalty - the disappearance of Madeleine - due to their lack of caution in the surveillance and protection of their children.
Concerning the other indicated crimes, they are no more than that and despite our perception that, due to its high degree of probability, the occurrence of a homicide cannot be discarded, such cannot be more than a mere supposition, due to the lack of sustaining elements in the files.
The McCanns (to prove their own innocence, in separate, civil, libel proceedings) surely need do no more than cite the words of the Prosecutors who dropped their arguido statuses as the climax of a police investigation that accused them (short of actual charges) of murdering their daughter.
Would you not agree?
No.
The archiving report mentions homicide as one possibility. it does not say that a killer had to be one of the McCanns but leaves open the alternatives.
And if the archiving report had made the suggestion that the McCanns probably committed homicide, the damages trial would have been against the report author, not Amaral.
-
No.
The archiving report mentions homicide as one possibility. it does not say that a killer had to be one of the McCanns but leaves open the alternatives.
And if the archiving report had made the suggestion that the McCanns probably committed homicide, the damages trial would have been against the report author, not Amaral.
No. In Portugal (as in England) anything said within the confines of a police investigation is absolutely protected against action in libel (there is similar protection, in England and Portugal, for statements made in court; also (in England), for Members of Parliament speaking from the House of Commons (don't know if Portuguese government officials are afforded the same protection).
The archiving dispatch makes plain that there was no basis of accusation against the McCanns.
The investigation (initially) didn't either.
The enquiry became a murder enquiry from the point of the arrival of the English because the Portuguese had (by then) exhausted their (genuinely valiant) efforts to try to find Madeleine alive.
At that stage, however, the focus was not on the McCanns or their friends (at least officially, even though Amaral insists the McCanns were suspects from the very beginning).
But then suspicion fell on the McCanns.
-
No. In Portugal (as in England) anything said within the confines of a police investigation is absolutely protected against action in libel (there is similar protection, in England and Portugal, for statements made in court; also (in England), for Members of Parliament speaking from the House of Commons (don't know if Portuguese government officials are afforded the same protection).
The archiving dispatch makes plain that there was no basis of accusation against the McCanns.
The investigation (initially) didn't either.
The enquiry became a murder enquiry from the point of the arrival of the English because the Portuguese had (by then) exhausted their (genuinely valiant) efforts to try to find Madeleine alive.
At that stage, however, the focus was not on the McCanns or their friends (at least officially, even though Amaral insists the McCanns were suspects from the very beginning).
But then the reactions of the dogs were mangled and misinterpreted and suspicion fell on the McCanns.
The investigation in the early stages was never a murder inquiry ferryman. Just as it was in 2007/2008, SY is pursuing all possibilities, it remains a missing person investigation since no evidence has ever been found to call it anything else.
-
The investigation in the early stages was never a murder inquiry ferryman. It was an abduction and/or an accidental death investigation.
Depends which early stages you are talking about?
If you mean the investigation before the arrival of the English, yes!
But after, it became a murder enquiry.
Read Mark Harrison's report.
It's all in there.
-
Depends which early stages you are talking about?
If you mean the investigation before the arrival of the English, yes!
But after, it became a murder enquiry.
Read Mark Harrison's report.
It's all in there.
Harrison said it was a possibility, nothing more.
-
Harrison said it was a possibility, nothing more.
Harrison said nothing of the kind.
Harrison was handed a brief by the PJ to investigate that Madeleine had been murdered and worked to it.
-
Harrison said nothing of the kind.
Harrison was handed a brief by the PJ to investigate that Madeleine had been murdered and worked to it.
This report has highlighted the extensive and professional efforts made by the Portuguese authorities regarding the search to locate Madeleine McCann alive. It has now begun to consider further opportunities to re search locations in order to address the possibility that she has been murdered and concealed nearby. This would be a proportionate and appropriate response given the elapsed time since her disappearance and previous experience in such similar cases. Should the investigators wish to discuss and develop the issues raised
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARK_HARRISON.htm
!
-
This report has highlighted the extensive and professional efforts made by the Portuguese authorities regarding the search to locate Madeleine McCann alive. It has now begun to consider further opportunities to re search locations in order to address the possibility that she has been murdered and concealed nearby. This would be a proportionate and appropriate response given the elapsed time since her disappearance and previous experience in such similar cases. Should the investigators wish to discuss and develop the issues raised
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARK_HARRISON.htm
!
It is not unreasonable for a police service to investigate all possibilities, if stranger abduction was a serious contender then murder would be considrered, as it can be a paedophile ritual to rape and throw away...we see that in a lot of cases.
-
It is not unreasonable for a police service to investigate all possibilities, if stranger abduction was a serious contender then murder would be considrered, as it can be a paedophile ritual to rape and throw away...we see that in a lot of cases.
G
Of course it is not unreasonable its their duty
Seems the Pj are being lambasted for doing their job
They did it, they presented their evidence, and the final report and prosecutors report said " we dunno"
Ergo the mccanns had never been cleared
But the brigish media Said they were
But the britsh media is just media, they report they speculate and they change are very ephemiral they are the absolute its sometimes but they are great other times
-
G
Of course it is not unreasonable its their duty
Seems the Pj are being lambasted for doing their job
They did it, they presented their evidence, and the final report and prosecutors report said " we dunno"
Ergo the mccanns had never been cleared
But the brigish media Said they were
But the britsh media is just media, they report they speculate and they change are very ephemiral they are the absolute its sometimes but they are great other times
Has Robert Murat been cleared? Yes he has.
When was his arguido status lifted? at the same time as that of the McCanns.
Think of the arguido status as the equivalent of being questioned under caution. They were not charged with any offence ... therefore they have been cleared.
-
Has Robert Murat been cleared? Yes he has.
When was his arguido status lifted? at the same time as that of the McCanns.
Think of the arguido status as the equivalent of being questioned under caution. They were not charged with any offence ... therefore they have been cleared.
I dont thnk so somehow that it means cleared of suspicion if arguido status is lifted, not at all
Perhaps montclair SIL or other PT knowledgable people can help here
-
I dont thnk so somehow that it means cleared of suspicion if arguido status is lifted, not at all
Perhaps montclair SIL or other PT knowledgable people can help here
If it is equivalent to being questioned under caution then "being cleared" doesn't enter into not.
-
If it is equivalent to being questioned under caution then "being cleared" doesn't enter into not.
Being cleared doesn't really have a precise legal definition so the fact taht they are now not suspects could be taken as being cleared...depends how you define it...has Barry Geerge been cleared...some would say yes ...some would say no
-
Harrison said nothing of the kind.
Harrison was handed a brief by the PJ to investigate that Madeleine had been murdered and worked to it.
That is reality not fantasy.
Stranger Danger?
Of all children under age 5 murdered from 1976-2005 —
31% were killed by fathers
29% were killed by mothers
23% were killed by male acquaintances
7% were killed by other relatives
3% were killed by strangers
Missing Children?
When you hear about all the “missing children” remember: There is approximately one child abduction murder for every 10,000 reports of a missing child. (Source: Polly Klaas Foundation.)
http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbse&sid=31
http://www.freerangekids.com/crime-statistics/
-
That is reality not fantasy.
Stranger Danger?
Of all children under age 5 murdered from 1976-2005 —
31% were killed by fathers
29% were killed by mothers
23% were killed by male acquaintances
7% were killed by other relatives
3% were killed by strangers
Missing Children?
When you hear about all the “missing children” remember: There is approximately one child abduction murder for every 10,000 reports of a missing child. (Source: Polly Klaas Foundation.)
http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbse&sid=31
http://www.freerangekids.com/crime-statistics/
Thank you for that Pathfinder.
-
That is reality not fantasy.
Stranger Danger?
Of all children under age 5 murdered from 1976-2005 —
31% were killed by fathers
29% were killed by mothers
23% were killed by male acquaintances
7% were killed by other relatives
3% were killed by strangers
Missing Children?
When you hear about all the “missing children” remember: There is approximately one child abduction murder for every 10,000 reports of a missing child. (Source: Polly Klaas Foundation.)
http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbse&sid=31
http://www.freerangekids.com/crime-statistics/
as no one is suggesting the mccanns killed maddie theses figures are totally irrelevant.....one child abduction per 10,000 missing children......this shows how unlucky maddie and her family were
-
as no one is suggesting the mccanns killed maddie theses figures are totally irrelevant.....one child abduction per 10,000 missing children......this shows how unlucky maddie and her family were
Indeed, almost unbelievable.
-
Indeed, almost unbelievable.
absolutely...the odds are tens of millions to one...that's why they thought it was safe
-
There is no excuse for leaving your children for several hours, with infrequent checks, in any country, where you don't know the language.
As to abduction, it remains one of several possible scenarios, none of which have any evidence to charge anyone.
What I will never understand, is those making excuses for the inexcusable.
When you decide to have children, it is your responsibility to take care of them and keep them as safe as possible.
-
There is no excuse for leaving your children for several hours, with infrequent checks, in any country, where you don't know the language.
As to abduction, it remains one of several possible scenarios, none of which have any evidence to charge anyone.
What I will never understand, is those making excuses for the inexcusable.
When you decide to have children, it is your responsibility to take care of them and keep them as safe as possible.
That'll be why a woman in England, who left a child strapped in to the seat of a car for 10 hours was acquitted (on charges of neglect).
-
That'll be why a woman in England, who left a child strapped in to the seat of a car for 10 hours was acquitted (on charges of neglect).
It was neglect.
Pure and simple.
-
It was neglect.
Pure and simple.
in your opinion
-
That'll be why a woman in England, who left a child strapped in to the seat of a car for 10 hours was acquitted (on charges of neglect).
Seems the exception rather than the rule, do you have a link to this case?
-
absolutely...the odds are tens of millions to one...that's why they thought it was safe
That's why it's almost unbelievable - the odds are on it not being abduction.
-
That's why it's almost unbelievable - the odds are on it not being abduction.
Tell that to Kerry Needham.
-
That's why it's almost unbelievable - the odds are on it not being abduction.
the odds are very likely it was an abduction....you need to think that through
-
the odds are very likely it was an abduction....you need to think that through
Please explain your statistical basis for saying that.
-
the odds are very likely it was an abduction....you need to think that through
Criminal investigations are not based on the throw of a dice davel. Your claim is nonsense.
-
Criminal investigations are not based on the throw of a dice davel. Your claim is nonsense.
not based on the throw of a dice but on all the evidence i have seen and heard...certainly not nonsense...
-
not based on the throw of a dice but on all the evidence i have seen and heard...certainly not nonsense....there is a lot of absolute nonsense on here
Have you worked with the police in criminal investigations davel ?
I would rather take take the word of someone who has, rather than your opinion.
-
Have you worked with the police in criminal investigations davel ?
I would rather take take the word of someone who has, rather than your opinion.
I think you will find that different policemen have different opinions...that means some of them are going to be plain wrong
-
Criminal investigations are not based on the throw of a dice davel. Your claim is nonsense.
the parents are not suspects...so what does that leave...woke and wandered followed by abduction or accident or abducted...that make abduction odds on. not nonsense but perfectly sensible logic
-
absolutely...the odds are tens of millions to one...that's why they thought it was safe
How about a cite or calculation to back that up ?
-
I think you will find that different policemen have different opinions...that means some of them are going to be plain wrong
You mean they could be wrong about the McCanns not being involved?
-
the parents are not suspects...so what does that leave...woke and wandered followed by abduction or accident or abducted...that make abduction odds on. not nonsense but perfectly sensible logic
I would say woke and wandered most likely given the absence of any evidence of an intruder.
-
You mean they could be wrong about the McCanns not being involved?
Touché @)(++(*
-
I would say woke and wandered most likely given the absence of any evidence of an intruder.
the open window and shutter is evidence of an intruder...and if the mccanns are not suspects then they are telling the truth
-
the parents are not suspects...so what does that leave...woke and wandered followed by abduction or accident or abducted...that make abduction odds on. not nonsense but perfectly sensible logic
If the parents (last witnesses) aren't suspects then they aren't doing their job. They aren't going to tell us who the prime suspects are for obvious reasons.
-
the open window and shutter is evidence of an possible intruder.
-
the open window and shutter is evidence of an intruder...and if the mccanns are not suspects then they are telling the truth
And how do they know they are telling the truth when their statements change and contradict e.g. doors, Madeleine on top or under covers, 30 seconds or 30 minutes etc.
-
If the parents (last witnesses) aren't suspects then they aren't doing their job. They aren't going to tell us who the prime suspects are for obvious reasons.
Even the PJ knew enough to say the McCanns weren't suspects when they were. SY are alleged to be superior to them, so surely they would know to do that also?
-
the open window and shutter is evidence of an possible intruder.
so evidence which is more than we can say for the dog alerts
-
so evidence which is more than we can say for the dog alerts
I see no difference, as neither were confirmed by forensic evidence.
-
Even the PJ knew enough to say the McCanns weren't suspects when they were. SY are alleged to be superior to them, so surely they would know to do that also?
it isnt just what SY have said it is the lack of evidence and m,any...many more facts which lead me to know that the mccanns were not involved
-
it isnt just what SY have said it is the lack of evidence and m,any...many more facts which lead me to know that the mccanns were not involved
many = a large number
many many = the large number squared
say many = 15 then many many = 225
Just give us 8.88 % (20) of the facts which demonstrate the McCanns were not involved.
-
many = a large number
many many = the large number squared
say many = 15 then many many = 225
Just give us 8.88 % (20) of the facts which demonstrate the McCanns were not involved.
many ...many is not many squared its a figure of speech indicating an imprecise large number...remember I studied S level maths
-
That would be many, many years ago ?{)(**
-
That would be many, many years ago ?{)(**
it was...although it only seems yesterday
-
many ...many is not many squared its a figure of speech indicating an imprecise large number...remember I studied S level maths
Did you pass ? Am I supposed to be impressed ?
That aside, just a few out the many many figure of speech will do.
-
many ...many is not many squared its a figure of speech indicating an imprecise large number...remember I studied S level maths
You should find it a breeze to answer post 157 then.
-
You should find it a breeze to answer post 157 then.
Please don't start this silly nonsense again. Thread topic is LIBEL.
-
A supporter's wet dream @)(++(*
-
Please don't start this silly nonsense again. Thread topic is LIBEL.
I was asking for a cite from Mr Davel to back up his assertion as per forum rules. His post 142 and my post 157 refer.
Are you saying I can't do that? How does that work then ?
Is it now a free for all where we all make unsubstantiated assertions and pass them off as the truth.? Or only some are allowed to do so?
The correct figure is 1 in 610,000 btw well documented on that tinternet.
-
Did you pass ? Am I supposed to be impressed ?
That aside, just a few out the many many figure of speech will do.
Nope
-
What is libel?
And what isn't it?
Discuss.
55
Libel is a lie that reduces someones reputation etc etc
Ergo you have to prove someone was deliberately lying when writing somethng
http://dictionary.law.com/default.aspx?selected=1153
Libel it seems has to be proven by the plantiff too
Lots of definitions in google so google it
-
Libel is a lie that reduces someones reputation etc etc
Ergo you have to prove someone was deliberately lying when writing somethng
http://dictionary.law.com/default.aspx?selected=1153
Libel it seems has to be proven by the plantiff too
Lots of definitions in google so google it
to publish in print (including pictures), writing or broadcast through radio, television or film, an untruth about another which will do harm to that person or his/her reputation, by tending to bring the target into ridicule, hatred, scorn or contempt of others. Libel is the written or broadcast form of defamation, distinguished from slander, which is oral defamation. It is a tort (civil wrong) making the person or entity (like a newspaper, magazine or political organization) open to a lawsuit for damages by the person who can prove the statement about him/her was a lie. Publication need only be to one person, but it must be a statement which claims to be fact and is not clearly identified as an opinion. While it is sometimes said that the person making the libelous statement must have been intentional and malicious, actually it need only be obvious that the statement would do harm and is untrue. Proof of malice, however, does allow a party defamed to sue for general damages for damage to reputation, while an inadvertent libel limits the damages to actual harm (such as loss of business) called special damages. Libel per se involves statements so vicious that malice is assumed and does not require a proof of intent to get an award of general damages. Libel against the reputation of a person who has died will allow surviving members of the family to bring an action for damages. Most states provide for a party defamed by a periodical to demand a published retraction. If the correction is made, then there is no right to file a lawsuit. Governmental bodies are supposedly immune to actions for libel on the basis that there could be no intent by a non-personal entity, and further, public records are exempt from claims of libel. However, there is at least one known case in which there was a financial settlement as well as a published correction when a state government newsletter incorrectly stated that a dentist had been disciplined for illegal conduct. The rules covering libel against a "public figure" (particularly a political or governmental person) are special, based on U.S. Supreme Court decisions. The key is that to uphold the right to express opinions or fair comment on public figures, the libel must be malicious to constitute grounds for a lawsuit for damages. Minor errors in reporting are not libel, such as saying Mrs. Jones was 55 when she was only 48, or getting an address or title incorrect. 2) v. to broadcast or publish a written defamatory statement.
Read more: http://dictionary.law.com/default.aspx?selected=1153#ixzz4B1bgkpFa
So let's see.
Amaral was feeling sore about being dumped from the investigation.
He contradicts Harrison and Grime in stating that Eddie 'scented death' all over the place.
Amaral mangles and misrepresents the role of Harrison in the investigation (to the detriment of Kate and Gerry, and in a way that accuses Kate and Gerry).
Amaral libels the McCanns and Stuart Prior by claiming Prior rang the FSS to berate them on the PJ's powers of arrest.
Why did these appeal-court judges uphold the appeal?
-
The courts decided the lower court was wrong, why linger in the past, the mccanns gambled,and when you gamble you can lose, simples, they are further gambling now with the supreme court which is their right but they have no right to expect a judgement in their favour and then whinge about no money left when they gambled it all in the first place.
-
The courts decided the lower court was wrong, why linger in the past, the mccanns gambled,and when you gamble you can lose, simples, they are further gambling now with the supreme court which is their right but they have no right to expect a judgement in their favour and then whinge about no money left when they gambled it all in the first place.
When the Appeal Court overturned the injunction banning the book in 2010 they said;
The contents of the book does not offend any of the applicants' fundamental rights.
The exercise of its writing and publication is included in the constitutional rights that are secured to everyone by the European Convention on Human Rights and by the Portuguese Republic’s Constitution, namely in its articles 37º and 38º.
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id344.html
The latest Appeal Court judgement also said;
The respective contents (book, DVD, interview) do not offend any of the claimants' fundamental rights,
The first Appeal Court judgement [injunction] was upheld by the Supreme Court;
on 18 March 2011, the Supreme Court rejects the appeal and authorises the sale of Gonçalo Amaral's book about Madeleine McCann.
As far as the Portuguese Courts are concerned the question of the contents of the book libeling the McCanns is settled. Two Appeal Courts and one Supreme Court judgments have resoundingly rejected that claim.
It seems clear to me that the higher courts in Portugal have made their minds up about the book and the Supreme Court is unlikely to change the above rulings during the latest appeal.
-
The thing is, nobody wants to end up with egg on their face and especially so the Portuguese Justice System. As long as Maddie's fate remains undetermined the higher Courts will play it safe and return neutral judgements. Thus why in this decision the Appeal Court reversed the earlier decision of the lower court and unfroze Amaral's assets.
-
The thing is, nobody wants to end up with egg on their face and especially so the Portuguese Justice System. As long as Maddie's fate remains undetermined the higher Courts will play it safe and return neutral judgements. Thus why in this decision the Appeal Court reversed the earlier decision of the lower court and unfroze Amaral's assets.
I thought John, his assets were still frozen, pending the Supreme Court appeal.
-
I thought John, his assets were still frozen, pending the Supreme Court appeal.
The Supreme Court hasn't accepted the appeal yet.
-
The Supreme Court hasn't accepted the appeal yet.
So have his assets been definitely unfrozen ?
-
So have his assets been definitely unfrozen ?
Pending the Supreme Courts acceptance or refusal of the appeal.
-
Pending the Supreme Courts acceptance or refusal of the appeal.
The Supreme Court cannot refuse the McCanns' appeal and until a ruling has been made by the SC Gonçalo Amaral's assets remain frozen.
When GA appealed the lower court's decision, we had pages of discussion as to the possibility of his appeal being rejected. It was explained many times that the right to appeal is guaranteed in Portugal and that his appeal as well as those of the other defendants had to be accepted by the Tribunal da Relação.
When the SC refused to consider the McCanns' appeal in 2010 on the overturning of the injunction, it was because the SC does not rule on such matters as injunctions..
-
The Supreme Court cannot refuse the McCanns' appeal and until a ruling has been made by the SC Gonçalo Amaral's assets remain frozen.
When GA appealed the lower court's decision, we had pages of discussion as to the possibility of his appeal being rejected. It was explained many times that the right to appeal is guaranteed in Portugal and that his appeal as well as those of the other defendants had to be accepted by the Tribunal da Relação.
When the SC refused to consider the McCanns' appeal in 2010 on the overturning of the injunction, it was because the SC does not rule on such matters as injunctions..
Thank you Montclair for confirming what I said earlier. 8((()*/
-
The Supreme Court cannot refuse the McCanns' appeal and until a ruling has been made by the SC Gonçalo Amaral's assets remain frozen.
When GA appealed the lower court's decision, we had pages of discussion as to the possibility of his appeal being rejected. It was explained many times that the right to appeal is guaranteed in Portugal and that his appeal as well as those of the other defendants had to be accepted by the Tribunal da Relação.
When the SC refused to consider the McCanns' appeal in 2010 on the overturning of the injunction, it was because the SC does not rule on such matters as injunctions..
Mon... I thought the McCanns had to have a reason for challenging the SC ruling before they could appeal ie a point of law to show SC did not act within the law when passing judgement?