Can we judge a person's character by their stance on the case?

[Vertigo Swirl]

Same as it is perfectly acceptable to describe what the police investigation thought at the beginning of the case and the reason why.

No one has said otherwise.

[Robittybob1]

Same as it is perfectly acceptable to describe what the police investigation thought at the beginning of the case and the reason why.

Are you talking about a specific case or cases in general?

[Mr Gray]

Same as it is perfectly acceptable to describe what the police investigation thought at the beginning of the case and the reason why.

That isn't what Amaral did though. In his documentary he said...

00.48 - During the following 50 minutes, I will prove that the child was not abducted, and that she died in the holiday apartment in Praia da Luz.

00.58 - Discover the whole truth about what happened that day – a death that many people want to cover up.

[Robittybob1]

That isn't what Amaral did though. In his documentary he said...

00.48 - During the following 50 minutes, I will prove that the child was not abducted, and that she died in the holiday apartment in Praia da Luz.

00.58 - Discover the whole truth about what happened that day – a death that many people want to cover up.

Wow that was good, now what was the source?    It wouldn't have been so bad if he actually followed through, but I feel Goncalo Amaral failed in proving it.

[Holly Goodhead]

It doesn't matter where the plaintiffs come from, though if they have any sense, the McCanns will have obtained Irish citizenship to avoid the worse of Brexit.

The case is being brought against a signature of the ECHR and that's all that matters

Yes I see now, thanks.

I still don't understand how the McCanns attempting to sue Amaral will assist in finding out what happened to Madeleine?

[Mr Gray]

Yes I see now, thanks.

I still don't understand how the McCanns attempting to sue Amaral will assist in finding out what happened to Madeleine?

In the case of a stranger abduction the help of the public to supply informtion is paramount. if the portuguese public beleive maddie died in the apartmnet and her parents covered up the death then there will be little help.
The mcCanns went to court to stop amaral making the claim that maddie was dead and they were involved. There is no real evidence to support this but amaral has gone on TV and said he can prove it happened.

Unfortunately the portuguese court have allowed him to make the unproven claim that he has proof maddie died in the  apartment

[jassi]

Yes I see now, thanks.

I still don't understand how the McCanns attempting to sue Amaral will assist in finding out what happened to Madeleine?

I don't think that was ever the intent

1 Shut him up

2 Screw him for lots and lots of lovely money and make him feel fear.

IMO

[G-Unit]

That isn't what Amaral did though. In his documentary he said...

00.48 - During the following 50 minutes, I will prove that the child was not abducted, and that she died in the holiday apartment in Praia da Luz.

00.58 - Discover the whole truth about what happened that day – a death that many people want to cover up.

I think that could be a mistranslation.

[Mr Gray]

I think that could be a mistranslation.

I understand your embarrassmnet but in this case we have amaral speaking these words so any translation can be checked

[jassi]

The questions would be  - has it been checked and if so, by whom ?

[Mr Gray]

The questions would be  - has it been checked and if so, by whom ?

its on the Joanna morais website.

so suddenly you question a transaltion...at lest this one can be checked

[Mr Gray]

Madeleine McCann's death 'covered up by parents who faked kidnap', court hears

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/portugal/6974917/Madeleine-McCanns-death-covered-up-by-parents-who-faked-kidnap-court-hears.html

[jassi]

its on the Joanna morais website.

so suddenly you question a transaltion...at lest this one can be checked

No, I was trying to clarify what you said - ie it can be checked - by asking if it had been checked

Not querying the validity at all.

[Holly Goodhead]

Maybe Holly has spent too much time discussing Bamber who can’t be libelled as he was found guilty of murder.

Nothing to do with Bamber per se. 

In a nutshell the person responsible for the murders can only have been either Bamber or his adopted sister Sheila Caffell, nee Bamber.  The fact myself and others who 'support' Bamber have expressed such views on forums etc means by default we are claiming the courts are wrong and that Bamber is the victim of a moj and the perp is Sheila Cafell but no one has mentioned the words libel or sue.

Some at the extreme end have posted ghastly and often totally unfounded comments about Sheila Caffell, her former husband, the adoptive parents, the extended family, the chief prosecution witness and many others but afaik no one has attempted to sue anyone.  And the extended family are not without financial means. 

[Mr Gray]

Nothing to do with Bamber per se. 

In a nutshell the person responsible for the murders can only have been either Bamber or his adopted sister Sheila Caffell, nee Bamber.  The fact myself and others who 'support' Bamber have expressed such views on forums etc means by default we are claiming the courts are wrong and that Bamber is the victim of a moj and the perp is Sheila Cafell but no one has mentioned the words libel or sue.

Some at the extreme end have posted ghastly and often totally unfounded comments about Sheila Caffell, her former husband, the adoptive parents, the extended family, the chief prosecution witness and many others but afaik no one has attempted to sue anyone.  And the extended family are not without financial means.

any posts on small forums with limited readership would probably not be deemed to substantially harm someones reputation. Its part of libel law