The McCann v Gonçalo Amaral Libel Trial trial now set for September 2013

[ferryman]

I really don't want to repeat them here, Stephen - they are really digusting.  IMO Murat has grounds to sue Amaral for them.

By UK libel law, without a doubt.

Not sure about Portuguese ...

[Rachel Granada]

Amarals book, I thought you would have read it 

    

Have you not read it, steve?

[Rachel Granada]

By UK libel law, without a doubt.

Not sure about Portuguese ...

Fair point, ferryman.  Not sure how the PT legal system would be.  There is no doubt though that what Amaral said about Robert Murat in his book was just horrible, vile and nasty.

[stephen25000]

   

Have you not read it, steve?

I have just been sent the relevant link from the book.

You must get your facts right. It wasn't Amaral who accused Murat of sex crimes was it ?

Are you familiar with the phrase 'childhood friend' .. from information proved by a childhood friend of Murat., who was a convict and made the allegations ?

[ferryman]

I have just been sent the relevant link from the book.

You must get your facts right. It wasn't Amaral who accused Murat of sex crimes was it ?

Are you familiar with the phrase 'childhood friend' .. from information proved by a childhood friend of Murat., who was a convict.

If Amaral repeated allegations, then yes, it was ...

[Mr Gray]

I have just been sent the relevant link from the book.

You must get your facts right. It wasn't Amaral who accused Murat of sex crimes was it ?

Are you familiar with the phrase 'childhood friend' .. from information proved by a childhood friend of Murat., who was a convict and made the allegations ?

doesn't matter if Amaral didn't directly accuse. If he repeated the accusation in his book...its libel

[Rachel Granada]

I have just been sent the relevant link from the book.

You must get your facts right. It wasn't Amaral who accused Murat of sex crimes was it ?

Are you familiar with the phrase 'childhood friend' .. from information proved by a childhood friend of Murat., who was a convict and made the allegations ?

What purpose did it serve to put these slurs in his nasty book?

Oh my days, I am so looking forward to this nasty piece of work getting his come-uppance very soon.  Not content with defaming Kate and Gerry McCann, he then turned his foul radar on Robert Murat.

Go, Isabel!

[Rachel Granada]

doesn't matter if Amaral didn't directly accuse. If he repeated the accusation in his book...its libel

Got it in one,  davel.

    

[stephen25000]

doesn't matter if Amaral didn't directly accuse. If he repeated the accusation in his book...its libel

I strongly recommend you read through it again and note the words carefully.

Meanwhile why hasn't Murat sued Amaral for libel then ?

[Albertini]

I have read that the terms of the libel case were released to the Mirror and are, roughly, as follows:

    1) That Amaral's claims were false.
    2) That, in addition, the claims had caused enormous psychological and behavioural damage to the couple which deserved financial compensation.
    3) And that the "search for Madeleine" had been, and was continuing to be, damaged by the inference from Amaral's "thesis" that the child was dead.

Are we in agreement that those are indeed the claims in the case?

[ferryman]

I have read that the terms of the libel case were released to the Mirror and are, roughly, as follows:

    1) That Amaral's claims were false.
    2) That, in addition, the claims had caused enormous psychological and behavioural damage to the couple which deserved financial compensation.
    3) And that the "search for Madeleine" had been, and was continuing to be, damaged by the inference from Amaral's "thesis" that the child was dead.

Are we in agreement that those are indeed the claims in the case?

Correct!

[Albertini]

Correct!

   1) Amaral has a 100% defence.
   2) The claims have not a shred of evidence so to support them and appear to be contradicted in detail by Kate's book.
   3)  No evidence for the claim. in fact written evidence to the contrary.

[ferryman]

   1) Amaral has a 100% defence.
   2) The claims have not a shred of evidence so to support them and appear to be contradicted in detail by Kate's book.
   3)  No evidence for the claim. in fact written evidence to the contrary.

Shades of Blacksmith.

You really should try reading informed comment ...

[stephen25000]

Shades of Blacksmith.

You really should try reading informed comment ...

We shall see.

If and when the libel trial starts and reaches a conclusion.

[Albertini]

Shades of Blacksmith.

You really should try reading informed comment ...

1) Amaral v Marcos Aragão Correia for starters.
2) See the TV interviews and pictures
3) Stopped by the McCann's when the yard took over. No one has claimed that the Yard's investigation has been damaged by Amaral's book or indeed thesis.

So please feel free to counter these with your "informed" comments.