Defamation and defamatory ...

[Redblossom]

Reported
 

you really should follow forum rules and warnings registrar

I see no evidence of BS being a fallen anything, jealous of his creative thought and astuteness? His writings and opinions are based on facts, likening him to people like the stupid coldwater is clutching at straws at best, but you can only cling onto what you can I guess

Your choice to take a shine to him

Not reported btw - not childish enough

I take a shine to anyone who speaks sense whatever side of the grisly divide they come from, sense is severely lacking in this case

[Rachel Granada]

Martha said; Maybe Amaral's ace and Blacksmith's squirrel are one and the same...? (ie: imaginary...)

Yup.  Had Amaral's ace and the PJs "stand alone evidence" had any credibility, both would have been played long ago.  As for Blacksmith - an attention-seeker with nothing credible to say in general, although to be fair I thoroughly enjoyed his demolition job on Bennett back in December/January - it was spot on.  About the only sensible contribution he has ever made.

Well it would be to your turn of view, cherry picking at its best, same happens all the time with every source, BS is wrong unless he attacks x y z, the files are wrong unless they support x y z, the PP final report, the Police summary,  the papers are wrong unless....you get the drift

Let's get down to the nitty gritty.  Do you believe Amaral's thesis that Madeleine's remains were hidden for 3 weeks and then removed in the Scenic? And if so, why?

Not thought about it and irrelevant to this thread

Not irrelevant at all.  It is the central plank of Amaral's claims against Kate and Gerry McCann - and that is why they are suing him.  So put your money where your mouth is.  Do you believe Amaral's claims that Kate and Gerry concealed Madeleine's remains for 3 weeks then moved them in the Scenic?

[Eleanor]

Faithlilly said; Perhaps at the libel trial when iI is revealed the McCanns did indeed ask to settle 


No-one knows who asked for the settlement.  Those who purport that the McCanns have asked for a settlement are those bastions of truth - the PT press and no-mark blogger Blacksmith.

If The McCanns had wanted a Settlement they would have gotten one.  As it is, they were forced to listen to what Amaral wanted to offer.  Obviously not enough.

What evidence supports that claim ?

Common sense.  If they are as desperate as some believe, why would they refuse any offer that Amaral was prepared to make?
As for being forced to listen, if The Defendant wants to make an offer The Plaintiff is obliged to consider that offer, but The Plaintiff can then refuse the offer if they wish.  Retaining at all times, the right to go back to The Court, which is what has happened.

[icabodcrane]

Faithlilly said; Perhaps at the libel trial when iI is revealed the McCanns did indeed ask to settle 


No-one knows who asked for the settlement.  Those who purport that the McCanns have asked for a settlement are those bastions of truth - the PT press and no-mark blogger Blacksmith.

If The McCanns had wanted a Settlement they would have gotten one.  As it is, they were forced to listen to what Amaral wanted to offer.  Obviously not enough.

What evidence supports that claim ?

Common sense.  If they are as desperate as some believe, why would they refuse any offer that Amaral was prepared to make?
As for being forced to listen, if The Defendant wants to make an offer The Plaintiff is obliged to consider that offer, but The Plaintiff can then refuse the offer if they wish.  Retaining at all times, the right to go back to The Court, which is what has happened.

The Plaintiff is most certainly NOT  'obliged'  to consider any offer made by the person they are taking to court

If Amaral asked them to negotiate an out of court settlement they could have told him to go and whistle  ...  they could have said  "Not a chance in hell ...  we've got you over a barrel and we're going to publically vilify you and your wicked lies"

If they were confident of victory, I believe that is how they would have responded to any  'offer'  from Amaral  ...  and, furthermore, I believe  his approach would have been made known to the press, and presented as proof that Amaral was a desperate man begging for an out

[faithlilly]

Faithlilly said; Perhaps at the libel trial when iI is revealed the McCanns did indeed ask to settle 


No-one knows who asked for the settlement.  Those who purport that the McCanns have asked for a settlement are those bastions of truth - the PT press and no-mark blogger Blacksmith.

If The McCanns had wanted a Settlement they would have gotten one.  As it is, they were forced to listen to what Amaral wanted to offer.  Obviously not enough.

Exactly, Eleanor.
I see somebody is holding back. Seems they don't want anyone knowing about what underhand means were used, to gain info.
If I remember correctly, they asked about rumours and were worried about the fund, if Kate and Gerry settled.
By the way, as I read them on BS it was webmasters own reply, and not Kate's.
I have them all somewhere, will try and dig them out  >@@(*&)

A perfectly reasonable question was asked. The webmaster said she would have to check with Kate before answering then came back with an answer from Kate. There is no ambiguity. The webmaster was quite happy to let it be known privately what Kate had told her to say and only denied the source, and threaened legal action,when the correspondence was made public.

[Redblossom]

Martha said; Maybe Amaral's ace and Blacksmith's squirrel are one and the same...? (ie: imaginary...)

Yup.  Had Amaral's ace and the PJs "stand alone evidence" had any credibility, both would have been played long ago.  As for Blacksmith - an attention-seeker with nothing credible to say in general, although to be fair I thoroughly enjoyed his demolition job on Bennett back in December/January - it was spot on.  About the only sensible contribution he has ever made.

Well it would be to your turn of view, cherry picking at its best, same happens all the time with every source, BS is wrong unless he attacks x y z, the files are wrong unless they support x y z, the PP final report, the Police summary,  the papers are wrong unless....you get the drift

Let's get down to the nitty gritty.  Do you believe Amaral's thesis that Madeleine's remains were hidden for 3 weeks and then removed in the Scenic? And if so, why?

Not thought about it and irrelevant to this thread

Not irrelevant at all.  It is the central plank of Amaral's claims against Kate and Gerry McCann - and that is why they are suing him.  So put your money where your mouth is.  Do you believe Amaral's claims that Kate and Gerry concealed Madeleine's remains for 3 weeks then moved them in the Scenic?

My apologies, I thought  this was the Murat libel case thread.Easy to get confused. As I said I dont know, you dont and I dont so even if Mr Amaral or anyone else claims it, no one knows. I would think it unlikely though just for the fact that if they wanted to get rid of a body they wouldnt wait that long and certainly not use their own car.

BTW the Mccanns are not suing him for saying they disposed of a body in their car. They are suing him for repeating the intermediary POLICE report of Sept 07 shortly before he left the case that the POLICE believed they faked the abduction and by doing so are painting him as a rogue cop which is a lie

[icabodcrane]

Faithlilly said; Perhaps at the libel trial when iI is revealed the McCanns did indeed ask to settle 


No-one knows who asked for the settlement.  Those who purport that the McCanns have asked for a settlement are those bastions of truth - the PT press and no-mark blogger Blacksmith.

If The McCanns had wanted a Settlement they would have gotten one.  As it is, they were forced to listen to what Amaral wanted to offer.  Obviously not enough.

Exactly, Eleanor.
I see somebody is holding back. Seems they don't want anyone knowing about what underhand means were used, to gain info.
If I remember correctly, they asked about rumours and were worried about the fund, if Kate and Gerry settled.
By the way, as I read them on BS it was webmasters own reply, and not Kate's.
I have them all somewhere, will try and dig them out  >@@(*&)

A perfectly reasonable question was asked. The webmaster said she would have to check with Kate before answering then came back with an answer from Kate. There is no ambiguity. The webmaster was quite happy to let it be known privately what Kate had told her to say and only denied the source, and threaened legal action,when the correspondence was made public.

I'm not sure what this is about  ...  are you saying that an official website confirmed that it was  not the McCanns who asked for an out of court settlement   ....   and then  'took it back'   ?

[Eleanor]

Faithlilly said; Perhaps at the libel trial when iI is revealed the McCanns did indeed ask to settle 


No-one knows who asked for the settlement.  Those who purport that the McCanns have asked for a settlement are those bastions of truth - the PT press and no-mark blogger Blacksmith.

If The McCanns had wanted a Settlement they would have gotten one.  As it is, they were forced to listen to what Amaral wanted to offer.  Obviously not enough.

What evidence supports that claim ?

Common sense.  If they are as desperate as some believe, why would they refuse any offer that Amaral was prepared to make?
As for being forced to listen, if The Defendant wants to make an offer The Plaintiff is obliged to consider that offer, but The Plaintiff can then refuse the offer if they wish.  Retaining at all times, the right to go back to The Court, which is what has happened.

The Plaintiff is most certainly NOT  'obliged'  to consider any offer made by the person they are taking to court

If Amaral asked them to negotiate an out of court settlement they could have told him to go and whistle  ...  they could have said  "Not a chance in hell ...  we've got you over a barrel and we're going to publically vilify you and your wicked lies"

If they were confident of victory, I believe that is how they would have responded to any  'offer'  from Amaral  ...  and, furthermore, I believe  his approach would have been made known to the press, and presented as proof that Amaral was a desperate man begging for an out

PLease yourself.  You obviously know nothing of Protocol and Good Manners.

[DCI]

Faithlilly said; Perhaps at the libel trial when iI is revealed the McCanns did indeed ask to settle 


No-one knows who asked for the settlement.  Those who purport that the McCanns have asked for a settlement are those bastions of truth - the PT press and no-mark blogger Blacksmith.

If The McCanns had wanted a Settlement they would have gotten one.  As it is, they were forced to listen to what Amaral wanted to offer.  Obviously not enough.

Exactly, Eleanor.
I see somebody is holding back. Seems they don't want anyone knowing about what underhand means were used, to gain info.
If I remember correctly, they asked about rumours and were worried about the fund, if Kate and Gerry settled.
By the way, as I read them on BS it was webmasters own reply, and not Kate's.
I have them all somewhere, will try and dig them out  >@@(*&)

A perfectly reasonable question was asked. The webmaster said she would have to check with Kate before answering then came back with an answer from Kate. There is no ambiguity. The webmaster was quite happy to let it be known privately what Kate had told her to say and only denied the source, and threaened legal action,when the correspondence was made public.

No she didn't. She gave her answer from herself, not Kate. And pretending to be a Kate and Gerry supporter, was despicable. The email from the pretendy supporter said "she would assume it was from Kate". When it was not.

[Redblossom]

No she didn't. She gave her answer from herself, not Kate.

Oh really, and HOW WOULD SHE HE know about it? LOL and why say have to check with Kate in first place blah

[faithlilly]

Faithlilly said; Perhaps at the libel trial when iI is revealed the McCanns did indeed ask to settle 


No-one knows who asked for the settlement.  Those who purport that the McCanns have asked for a settlement are those bastions of truth - the PT press and no-mark blogger Blacksmith.

If The McCanns had wanted a Settlement they would have gotten one.  As it is, they were forced to listen to what Amaral wanted to offer.  Obviously not enough.

Exactly, Eleanor.
I see somebody is holding back. Seems they don't want anyone knowing about what underhand means were used, to gain info.
If I remember correctly, they asked about rumours and were worried about the fund, if Kate and Gerry settled.
By the way, as I read them on BS it was webmasters own reply, and not Kate's.
I have them all somewhere, will try and dig them out  >@@(*&)

A perfectly reasonable question was asked. The webmaster said she would have to check with Kate before answering then came back with an answer from Kate. There is no ambiguity. The webmaster was quite happy to let it be known privately what Kate had told her to say and only denied the source, and threaened legal action,when the correspondence was made public.

I'm not sure what this is about  ...  are you saying that an official website confirmed that it was  not the McCanns who asked for an out of court settlement   ....   and then  'took it back'   ?

The webmaster, after speaking to Kate, said the rumours of the McCanns seeking a settlement were false but once this was made public , webmaster denied the answer had come from Kate. Why deny it was from Kate if it was true ? Why didn't the webmaster simply say that  during the delicate negotiations they wouldn't be commenting ?

[faithlilly]

@ DCI


'The email from the pretendy supporter said "she would assume it was from Kate". When it was not.'

And you know this how ?

[DCI]

@ DCI


'The email from the pretendy supporter said "she would assume it was from Kate". When it was not.'

And you know this how ?

Well when emails are passed from member to member on certain forums, They should make sure the persons name and email are removed, first. So thats how I know 

[Rachel Granada]

Martha said; Maybe Amaral's ace and Blacksmith's squirrel are one and the same...? (ie: imaginary...)

Yup.  Had Amaral's ace and the PJs "stand alone evidence" had any credibility, both would have been played long ago.  As for Blacksmith - an attention-seeker with nothing credible to say in general, although to be fair I thoroughly enjoyed his demolition job on Bennett back in December/January - it was spot on.  About the only sensible contribution he has ever made.

Well it would be to your turn of view, cherry picking at its best, same happens all the time with every source, BS is wrong unless he attacks x y z, the files are wrong unless they support x y z, the PP final report, the Police summary,  the papers are wrong unless....you get the drift

Let's get down to the nitty gritty.  Do you believe Amaral's thesis that Madeleine's remains were hidden for 3 weeks and then removed in the Scenic? And if so, why?

Not thought about it and irrelevant to this thread

Not irrelevant at all.  It is the central plank of Amaral's claims against Kate and Gerry McCann - and that is why they are suing him.  So put your money where your mouth is.  Do you believe Amaral's claims that Kate and Gerry concealed Madeleine's remains for 3 weeks then moved them in the Scenic?

My apologies, I thought  this was the Murat libel case thread.Easy to get confused. As I said I dont know, you dont and I dont so even if Mr Amaral or anyone else claims it, no one knows. I would think it unlikely though just for the fact that if they wanted to get rid of a body they wouldnt wait that long and certainly not use their own car.

BTW the Mccanns are not suing him for saying they disposed of a body in their car. They are suing him for repeating the intermediary POLICE report of Sept 07 shortly before he left the case that the POLICE believed they faked the abduction and by doing so are painting him as a rogue cop which is a lie

The intermediary police report of Sept 2007 is worthless.  It was supersded by the AG Archiving Despatch in JULY 2008.  As for Amaral being painted as a "rogue cop".... well I think the cap fits there. Convicted of perjury and another case coming up soon, I believe, related to the Cipriano case?

[Redblossom]

The intermediary police report of Sept 2007 is worthless.  It was supersded by the AG Archiving Despatch in JULY 2008.  As for Amaral being painted as a "rogue cop".... well I think the cap fits there. Convicted of perjury and another case coming up soon, I believe, related to the Cipriano case?

****

Worthless? It was the police theory, that no concrete evidence could be provided to consolidate it is another matter. I see nowhere was it ever refuted outright. And yes, you are wrong about Mr Amaral as a rogue cop in the Madeleine case as PROVED in the book banning trial in early 2010, much to the Mccanns anger,, diverting with other questionable at best  issues doesnt cut the mustard at all