Author Topic: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB  (Read 300514 times)

0 Members and 4 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Mr Gray

Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
« Reply #2925 on: February 05, 2021, 10:40:41 AM »
Can you prove that I'm wrong?  Can you give me an example of a libel case of that sort?
It's not important to prove you wrong... I know you are wrong

Offline Robittybob1

Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
« Reply #2926 on: February 05, 2021, 10:42:48 AM »
It's not important to prove you wrong... I know you are wrong
I was asking Eleanor to show her understanding of libel.
Moderation
John has instructed all moderators to take a very strong line with posters who constantly breach the rules of this forum.  This sniping, goading, name calling and other various forms of disruption will cease.

Offline Eleanor

Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
« Reply #2927 on: February 05, 2021, 10:44:00 AM »
Can you prove that I'm wrong?  Can you give me an example of a libel case of that sort?

A lot of what Tony Bennett had to say was innuendo and insinuation.  He lost at some great cost to himself.

Offline Mr Gray

Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
« Reply #2928 on: February 05, 2021, 10:48:46 AM »
I was asking Eleanor to show her understanding of libel.

Ist it a bit late for that. All those supposedly libellous posts removed by mods who don't understand libel

Offline Robittybob1

Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
« Reply #2929 on: February 05, 2021, 10:50:28 AM »
A lot of what Tony Bennett had to say was innuendo and insinuation.  He lost at some great cost to himself.
That could be true but it didn't really answer my question.

Ist it a bit late for that. All those supposedly libellous posts removed by mods who don't understand libel

What is libel to me is not the same libel to you.
Moderation
John has instructed all moderators to take a very strong line with posters who constantly breach the rules of this forum.  This sniping, goading, name calling and other various forms of disruption will cease.

Offline Mr Gray

Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
« Reply #2930 on: February 05, 2021, 10:53:01 AM »
That could be true but it didn't really answer my question.

What is libel to me is not the same libel to you.

Libel is libel... It isn't what you or anyone else believes. It's established in law and it's clear you don't understand what it means.. I do

Offline Eleanor

Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
« Reply #2931 on: February 05, 2021, 10:55:34 AM »
That could be true but it didn't really answer my question.

What is libel to me is not the same libel to you.

It wasn't "Could be True."  It happened.  But each case has to be looked at individually.  Judge Tugendhat did just that.
Perhaps you should look at The Trial Transcript.

Offline Robittybob1

Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
« Reply #2932 on: February 05, 2021, 10:56:47 AM »
Libel is libel... It isn't what you or anyone else believes. It's established in law and it's clear you don't understand what it means.. I do
I'm not a lawyer or a judge trained in the finer details of libel law. 
Moderation
John has instructed all moderators to take a very strong line with posters who constantly breach the rules of this forum.  This sniping, goading, name calling and other various forms of disruption will cease.

Offline Robittybob1

Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
« Reply #2933 on: February 05, 2021, 10:59:12 AM »
It wasn't "Could be True."  It happened.  But each case has to be looked at individually.  Judge Tugendhat did just that.
Perhaps you should look at The Trial Transcript.
Bennet's trial transcript?
Moderation
John has instructed all moderators to take a very strong line with posters who constantly breach the rules of this forum.  This sniping, goading, name calling and other various forms of disruption will cease.

Offline Eleanor

Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
« Reply #2934 on: February 05, 2021, 11:06:51 AM »
Bennet's trial transcript?

Yes.  When he was sued for Libelling The McCanns.

Offline Mr Gray

Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
« Reply #2935 on: February 05, 2021, 11:10:58 AM »
I'm not a lawyer or a judge trained in the finer details of libel law.

If you don't understand the basics you  shouldn't be moderating it

Offline kizzy

Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
« Reply #2936 on: February 05, 2021, 11:40:07 AM »
If you don't understand the basics you  shouldn't be moderating it


What is there to not understand about this.


Portugal’s highest court has said that Madeleine McCann’s parents have still not been proved innocent over their daughter’s disappearance. Kate and Gerry McCann have strenuously denied any wrongdoing despite extraordinary and unverified claims from former police chief that Maddie died in their flat and that they faked her abduction to cover it up. Hospital worker dead after stabbing at hospital moments before daughter killed But Portuguese Supreme Court judges who ruled last week against their last-ditch appeal over Amaral’s 2008 book ‘The Truth of the Lie’ said the lifting of their status as ‘arguidos’ or formal suspects and the archiving of the criminal case into Maddie’s disappearance did not mean they were innocent.



Read more: https://metro.co.uk/2017/02/09/kate-and-gerry-mccann-havent-been-proved-innocent-over-maddies-disappearance-6436728/?ito=cbshare


TOTL is also freely available for anyone to read.


Offline Mr Gray

Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
« Reply #2937 on: February 05, 2021, 11:48:52 AM »

What is there to not understand about this.


Portugal’s highest court has said that Madeleine McCann’s parents have still not been proved innocent over their daughter’s disappearance. Kate and Gerry McCann have strenuously denied any wrongdoing despite extraordinary and unverified claims from former police chief that Maddie died in their flat and that they faked her abduction to cover it up. Hospital worker dead after stabbing at hospital moments before daughter killed But Portuguese Supreme Court judges who ruled last week against their last-ditch appeal over Amaral’s 2008 book ‘The Truth of the Lie’ said the lifting of their status as ‘arguidos’ or formal suspects and the archiving of the criminal case into Maddie’s disappearance did not mean they were innocent.



Read more: https://metro.co.uk/2017/02/09/kate-and-gerry-mccann-havent-been-proved-innocent-over-maddies-disappearance-6436728/?ito=cbshare


TOTL is also freely available for anyone to read.

Whats to understand is that is a newspaper report and its wrong.. If you read the court judgement available on this forum it certainly doesn't say that. That's the problem with people who don't understand the true facts
« Last Edit: February 05, 2021, 11:52:45 AM by Davel »

Offline G-Unit

Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
« Reply #2938 on: February 05, 2021, 11:53:11 AM »
It wasn't "Could be True."  It happened.  But each case has to be looked at individually.  Judge Tugendhat did just that.
Perhaps you should look at The Trial Transcript.

Which trial transcript? As I understand it Bennett agreed to some restrictions on his behaviour in 2009 after being accused using the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. He was later convicted of Contempt of Court for breaching those undertakings. Was he ever sued for or convicted of libel?
Read and abide by the forum rules.
Result = happy posting.
Ignore and break the rules
Result = edits, deletions and unhappiness
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?board=2.0

Offline Eleanor

Re: Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB
« Reply #2939 on: February 05, 2021, 11:59:30 AM »
Which trial transcript? As I understand it Bennett agreed to some restrictions on his behaviour in 2009 after being accused using the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. He was later convicted of Contempt of Court for breaching those undertakings. Was he ever sued for or convicted of libel?

Bennett breached those undertakings by continuing with innuendo and insinuation, as Judge Tugendhat Ruled.