Is there more circumstantial evidence against the mccanns than there is CB

[Mr Gray]

Bennett caved in when threatened with libel and gave an undertaking to the court not to repeat the claims. He did.. So was charged with contempt by the court

[faithlilly]

Bennett caved in when threatened with libel and gave an undertaking to the court not to repeat the claims. He did.. So was charged with contempt by the court

He did indeed...silly only goat.

[kizzy]

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

Several newspapers all printed the same thing ...so are you saying they libelled the mccs.

If that was the case, why didn't the mcs do anything about it?

Also, the ban on the book was overturned, so is the book libelling the mcs also.

The facts that are documented in the investigation.


he means of obtaining evidence and the evidence referred to in the book are those of the criminal investigation and most of the facts that the book is concerned with (as well as those referred to in the documentary and interview), when related to the criminal investigation, are mostly facts that occurred or are documented in the investigation (n° 80 of the proven facts).

In our view, the issue, in this trial, is the exercise of the right of opinion by the defendant in that context.

This kind of view is, moreover, evident in the final conclusions of the book when the author himself says : For me and for detective inspectors who worked with me on the case up to October 2007, the results we have reached are as follows:

1. The minor Madeleine McCann died in apartment 5a of the Ocean Club, in Vila da Luz on the night of May 3, 2007;

2. A kidnapping simulation occurred;

3. Kate Healy and Gerald McCann are suspected of involvement in hiding the corpse of their daughter;

4. Death may have resulted from a tragic accident.

5.There is evidence of negligence in the guard and safety of the children (n° 24)."

The interview given by Gonçalo Amaral to the newspaper CdM 2 and published in the edition of July 24, 2008 is a way to advertise the book and therefore the thesis developed in it. Here the defendant reaffirms that thesis in so many answers as questions put to him : 1° the girl died in the apartment 2° the testimonies of Jane Tanner and Kate McCann are not credible 3° there are clues of crime simulation 4° there was concealment of the body (n°

[Mr Gray]

Several newspapers all printed the same thing ...so are you saying they libelled the mccs.

If that was the case, why didn't the mcs do anything about it?

Also, the ban on the book was overturned, so is the book libelling the mcs also.

The facts that are documented in the investigation.


he means of obtaining evidence and the evidence referred to in the book are those of the criminal investigation and most of the facts that the book is concerned with (as well as those referred to in the documentary and interview), when related to the criminal investigation, are mostly facts that occurred or are documented in the investigation (n° 80 of the proven facts).

In our view, the issue, in this trial, is the exercise of the right of opinion by the defendant in that context.

This kind of view is, moreover, evident in the final conclusions of the book when the author himself says : For me and for detective inspectors who worked with me on the case up to October 2007, the results we have reached are as follows:

1. The minor Madeleine McCann died in apartment 5a of the Ocean Club, in Vila da Luz on the night of May 3, 2007;

2. A kidnapping simulation occurred;

3. Kate Healy and Gerald McCann are suspected of involvement in hiding the corpse of their daughter;

4. Death may have resulted from a tragic accident.

5.There is evidence of negligence in the guard and safety of the children (n° 24)."

The interview given by Gonçalo Amaral to the newspaper CdM 2 and published in the edition of July 24, 2008 is a way to advertise the book and therefore the thesis developed in it. Here the defendant reaffirms that thesis in so many answers as questions put to him : 1° the girl died in the apartment 2° the testimonies of Jane Tanner and Kate McCann are not credible 3° there are clues of crime simulation 4° there was concealment of the body (n°

I'm stating as a fact.. 100%.. The SC did not state that the McCanns had not been proven innocent. That's a fact not opinion. If you think they did you are wrong and need ro read what the SC actually said. If you actually read the article you quoted you would see it does give the precise quote later in the article. Just accept that you and others who misquote the SC are wrong

[G-Unit]

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

As I'm unable to see any cites supporting your statements I can only repeat; no judgement was given as to whether Bennett libelled the McCanns, because no trial of Bennett for libel took place.

[kizzy]

I'm stating as a fact.. 100%.. The SC did not state that the McCanns had not been proven innocent. That's a fact not opinion. If you think they did you are wrong and need ro read what the SC actually said. If you actually read the article you quoted you would see it does give the precise quote later in the article. Just accept that you and others who misquote the SC are wrong

OK whatever D

Judges made it clear in their decision their job was not to decide whether the McCanns bore any criminal responsibility over their daughter’s disappearance and it would be wrong for anyone to draw any inferences about the couple’s guilt or innocence from their ruling.  But they added: ‘It should not be said that the appellants were cleared via the ruling announcing the archiving of the criminal case. ‘In truth, that ruling was not made in virtue of Portugal’s Public Prosecution Service having acquired the conviction that the appellants hadn’t committed a crime. ‘The archiving of the case was determined by the fact that public prosecutors hadn’t managed to obtain sufficient evidence of the practice of crimes by the appellants.


Seems the same will happen with CB - would that also convince you he is innocent of any involvement in abducting Maddie.

[Eleanor]

As I'm unable to see any cites supporting your statements I can only repeat; no judgement was given as to whether Bennett libelled the McCanns, because no trial of Bennett for libel took place.

So you don't believe that Tony Bennett was threatened with a Charge of Libel and backed down and then continued to by innuendo and insinuation after giving an undertaking not to do so?

Heaven knows what he must have been doing In Court.

[G-Unit]

So you don't believe that Tony Bennett was threatened with a Charge of Libel and backed down and then continued to by innuendo and insinuation after giving an undertaking not to do so?

Heaven knows what he must have been doing In Court.

So he was never tried for libel/defamation? I thought not.

[Eleanor]

So he was never tried for libel/defamation? I thought not.

He might as well have been.  Judge Tugendhat thought he had Libelled The McCanns.  And It didn't half cost him a lot of money.

[barrier]

You are a moderator... Moderating on libel... You should know

I'll give an example of where even courts don't understand.

Archer wins record £500,000 damages

Guess who had to pay back with interest.

Archer pays back libel award in £1.5m settlement with Star


Is it honestly suggested there are those on here who understand.

[barrier]

The SC never said the McCanns had not been ruled innocent....so your statement would be libellous. Ive pointed out enough times what they said so wont bother repeating it.

Why weren't the tabloids sued for this then.

Madeleine McCann’s parents have not been ruled innocent, judge says

[Vertigo Swirl]

I'll give an example of where even courts don't understand.

Archer wins record £500,000 damages

Guess who had to pay back with interest.

Archer pays back libel award in £1.5m settlement with Star


Is it honestly suggested there are those on here who understand.

It's very simple to understand, I'm amazed you don't frankly.

[barrier]

The SC never said the McCanns had not been ruled innocent....so your statement would be libellous. Ive pointed out enough times what they said so wont bother repeating it.

And let not be said, too, that the appellants were cleared by the order of filing the criminal proceedings.


https://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7971.60

[G-Unit]

A really good Vidio IMO it looks at both sides of what happened -  as in are the mccs involved in what happened to Maddie or just a lot of strange/cold behaviour

Amazed at the things mentioned that have been brought up over the years as being very very odd.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DpJvln-Flco&feature=emb_logo

Haven't seen it all yet as on longer than I expected so don't know their conclusion of what they think happened..

I finally got round to watching this. No firm conclusion was reached, and I think that's the only conclusion possible because I don't think there's enough evidence to be sure what happened. One of them explained really well why people feel uneasy about the parents.

[Vertigo Swirl]

I finally got round to watching this. No firm conclusion was reached, and I think that's the only conclusion possible because I don't think there's enough evidence to be sure what happened. One of them explained really well why people feel uneasy about the parents.

Not all people.