The Telecinco Affair

[Mr Gray]

So why didn't Crimewatch film the correct locations in 2013?

Would the ocean club give permission

[Brietta]

So why didn't Crimewatch film the correct locations in 2013?

Maybe the BBC might be able to answer your query ... as far as I am concerned the Crimewatch programme did what it was required to do in publicising the fact that the investigation into Madeleine's disappearance was open for business and looking for information from anyone who had anything of interest to impart.

What a shame it is that back in 2007 the Judicial Police didn't place the same value on getting information from those who had been in Luz at the time and who might have had valuable information to share with them.

[The General]

Maybe the BBC might be able to answer your query ... as far as I am concerned the Crimewatch programme did what it was required to do in publicising the fact that the investigation into Madeleine's disappearance was open for business and looking for information from anyone who had anything of interest to impart.

What a shame it is that back in 2007 the Judicial Police didn't place the same value on getting information from those who had been in Luz at the time and who might have had valuable information to share with them.

It is a shame, notwithstanding the 1000 doors knocked on during the first week. The whole abduction nonsense could've been put to bed right there and then. Opportunity missed.

[Mr Gray]

It is a shame, notwithstanding the 1000 doors knocked on during the first week. The whole abduction nonsense could've been put to bed right there and then. Opportunity missed.

1000s of doors ...did they knock on Mrs Fenns in the apt. above.....seems not

[Miss Taken Identity]

The 'reconstruction' filmed by Crimewatch in 2013 was not filmed using the Tapas bar or apartment 5A. I can see no reason why they couldn't have filmed a similar one in 2007.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZ8jmdWlB8Y

Especially if they were doing it to jog memories- not shown in Portugal?   why would that be then?

Totally misled the public with that trick.

[The General]

1000s of doors ...did they knock on Mrs Fenns in the apt. above.....seems not

Prove it.

[Mr Gray]

Prove it.

Laughable... Prove they knocked on 1000s of doors... Who cares... The mccanns are no longer suspects... They are not being investigated by either investigation... It's just a few armchair detectives on the net who don't understand the evidence who think they're still on the radar... Last bit opinion... Rest is fact

[Miss Taken Identity]

Laughable... Prove they knocked on 1000s of doors... Who cares... The mccanns are no longer suspects... They are not being investigated by either investigation... It's just a few armchair detectives on the net who don't understand the evidence who think they're still on the radar... Last bit opinion... Rest is fact

You do not know if the McCanns are suspects or not- nothing recent has been released. If they were  they wouldn't tell us anyway.

[Mr Gray]

You do not know if the McCanns are suspects or not- nothing recent has been released. If they were  they wouldn't tell us anyway.

I do know... It's absolutely obvious to all except to the blinkered ones in denial

[Vertigo Swirl]

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7937.0

just highlight the bit where it says the book was truthful and contained no defamation, ta.

[Mr Gray]

just highlight the bit where it says the book was truthful and contained no defamation, ta.

or even copyand paste...of course gunit wont because shes posted absolute rubbish

[misty]

The Truth of the Lie went to the highest court in Portugal and wasn't found to contain lies or defamation. Anyone thinking it's going to be retried is deluding themselves.

If the book wasn't defamatory, why did the SC judges need to contemplate the balance between ECHR Articles 8 & 10?

[Mr Gray]

If the book wasn't defamatory, why did the SC judges need to contemplate the balance between ECHR Articles 8 & 10?

precisely...gunit seems not to understand the SC judgement

[G-Unit]

just highlight the bit where it says the book was truthful and contained no defamation, ta.

They sued for compensation for damages, not defamation, because they knew they weren't defamed.

[Mr Gray]

They sued for compensation for damages, not defamation, because they knew they weren't defamed.

Have you read and understood the judgement... Obviously not.  Damages in part for defamation..
Why did the SC refer, to the balance of right to a good name and free speech


Page 02
In order to conclude with the unlawfulness of those behaviours, were considered the respective contents of the book, documentary and interview, and the conflict between freedom of speech and right to good name and reputation of the plaintiffs.



You show a complete lack of knowledge and understanding of the court case