In Camera - Amaral seeks to have media excluded from libel trial.

[ferryman]

I'm not suggesting he will actually be able to justify his claims. Theoretically he would have to in order to defend himself.  In reality he will find it very hard to do so, as will the McCanns.

1  The Mccanns shouldn't have to do more than point to the final PJ report as proof that Gerry was in the Tapas Restaurant at the time of the Smith sighting.

2.  They won't have to do more than point to John Lowe's report as proof that Eddie's alert to the Renault had sod-all to do with anything connected to Madeleine

3. I'm sure the McCanns and Isabel will have Stuart Prior's report, which should make mincemeat of Amaral's claim that he contradicted Prior on the forensic results, then ordered him to berate the FSS about the PJ's powers of arrest.

4.  The conclusions of the Prosecutors don't auger well for Amaral's claiims that the McCanns were involved in any sort of crime.

5. The fiasco with the 'cuddle-cat' reaction won't do wonders for faith in reaction of the dogs; neither the conclusion of the prosecutors that there is no evidence the McCanns were involved in any crime.

And at least on last check, there was still no update from The Times in London.

Why not?

Quite a lot seems to have happened since then.

[Sherlock Holmes]

Exactly, if there was no proof, then why get hot and bothered under the collar about it! and then spend sooooo much tme and energy tryng to trash cadaver dogs!!! and failing at every turn, their accolades included.Reminds me of the sayng protest too much...not sure where that saying came from shakespeare maybe

Hamlet's mother no less

[ferryman]

Please get it right.

The forensics were inconclusive.

So it doesn't rule out something happened to Madeleine.

Now this is for you.

Do you concede the possibility MADELEINE DIED IN THE APARTMENT ?

The forensics were inconclusive and the dogs were incompetently handled -- as Harrison (tacitly) acknowledged.

[DCI]

1  The Mccanns shouldn't have to do more than point to the final PJ report as proof that Gerry was in the Tapas Restaurant at the time of the Smith sighting.

2.  They won't have to do more than point to John Lowe's report as proof that Eddie's alert to the Renault had sod-all to do with anything connected to Madeleine

3. I'm sure the McCanns and Isabel will have Stuart Prior's report, which should make mincemeat of Amaral's claim that he contradicted Prior on the forensic results, then ordered him to berate the FSS about the PJ's powers of arrest.

4.  The conclusions of the Prosecutors don't auger well for Amaral's claiims that the McCanns were involved in any sort of crime.

5. The fiasco with the 'cuddle-cat' reaction won't do wonders for faith in reaction of the dogs; neither the conclusion of the prosecutors that there is no evidence the McCanns were involved in any crime.

And at least on last check, there was still no update from The Times in London.

Why not?

Quite a lot seems to have happened since then.

Lee Rainbow's report?

[Redblossom]

Hamlet's mother no less

LOL thanks, must go brush up!

[Sherlock Holmes]

Point 1 of chapter 22 in Amaral's book is a categoric assertion.

Can you cite this fully for me, Ferryman?

I don't want to buy the book....

[Mr Gray]

Please get it right.

The forensics were inconclusive.

So it doesn't rule out something happened to Madeleine.

Now this is for you.

Do you concede the possibility MADELEINE DIED IN THE APARTMENT ?

Absolutely anything is possible. Maddie could have been abducted by the CIA, by aliens, she could have been murdered by her parents. the fact is that you have to examine all possibilities and see where the evidence leads and what is most likely. there is nothing to implicate her parents despite a thorough investigation and sy do not regard them as suspects.
Where amaral got it wrong is that he called his book "The truth"  and accuses the McCanns of criminal activity .

[Redblossom]

Are you saying that the McCanns have to prove amaral wrong...if so...to what degree of certatinty.

Best off asking a lawyer dont you thnk?

[Mr Gray]

'We':

You make a good point Davel, but what Anne draws our attention to is also highly significant.

The use of the word 'we' here is primarily theoretical, in that it refers to our collective knowledge (or lack of). 'We', or 'the world as a whole', do not know what happened to Madeleine.

In other words, there is a distinction, not necessarily a contradiction, between the statement 'we do not know..etc.'  and Amaral's assertion that he believes Madeleine to be dead. One refers to a state of affairs, and the other to a hypothesis yet to be substantiated.

So perhaps he wasn't contradicting himself after all.. will have to ponder this one

Sorry but I think your post is absolute tosh

[ferryman]

Lee Rainbow's report?

Yep.

Lee Rainbow's report stating that there is no evidence the McCanns were involved in any crime, but issuing advice generic in all investigations of this type that those closest to the victim should be ruled out first.

[ferryman]

Can you cite this fully for me, Ferryman?

I don't want to buy the book....

I can pm you the link if you like ...

[Mr Gray]

Best off asking a lawyer dont you thnk?

so you don't know. the point I am making is that there are a lot of claims that the MCCanns have to prove the case whereas the truth is that no one really knows

[Sherlock Holmes]

1  The Mccanns shouldn't have to do more than point to the final PJ report as proof that Gerry was in the Tapas Restaurant at the time of the Smith sighting.

2.  They won't have to do more than point to John Lowe's report as proof that Eddie's alert to the Renault had sod-all to do with anything connected to Madeleine

3. I'm sure the McCanns and Isabel will have Stuart Prior's report, which should make mincemeat of Amaral's claim that he contradicted Prior on the forensic results, then ordered him to berate the FSS about the PJ's powers of arrest.

4.  The conclusions of the Prosecutors don't auger well for Amaral's claiims that the McCanns were involved in any sort of crime.

5. The fiasco with the 'cuddle-cat' reaction won't do wonders for faith in reaction of the dogs; neither the conclusion of the prosecutors that there is no evidence the McCanns were involved in any crime.

And at least on last check, there was still no update from The Times in London.

Why not?

Quite a lot seems to have happened since then.

I don't think the McCanns need to prove they didn't kill / dispose of Madeleine

They need to prove that a significant amount of their overall emotional distress is a direct result of Amaral's stated claims against them, and that those claims resulted in the investigation being hampered - in accordance with their charges against him.

Amaral's claims could be true for all we know, and it doesn't make any difference to the two questions above. Emotional distress could still have been caused to the McCanns even if they were guilty (though they obviously wouldn't admit the fact), and the search could still have been hampered, phoney or not.

[icabodcrane]

I'm not suggesting he will actually be able to justify his claims. Theoretically he would have to in order to defend himself.  In reality he will find it very hard to do so, as will the McCanns.

I disagree

Amaral would certainly find it hard  ( indeed,  impossible  )   to  'prove'  his claims   ...'justifying' them, though,  is quite a different thing

He is not required  to establish,  unquestionably,  that Madeleine died in the aprtment and that her parents subsequently staged an abduction,  but,  rather,   to establish that his opinion is reasonable and grounded,  given the information available to him

The Judge does not have to be convinced that Amaral's conclusions are  correct,  merely that  they are not groundless and insupportable

If Amaral brings witnesses  (  particularly if they are senior police professionals )  who share his opinion that the most probable  explanation for Madeleine's  disappearance is that she died in the apartment,  then it will add to the premise that he was  'justified'  in coming to the conclusions he did

[Sherlock Holmes]

I can pm you the link if you like ...

Yes, great