Luz declares the Portuguese libel trial is not a libel trial ?

[jassi]

Is it a bad thing? It is for Amaral if it's shown to be so in court!

And if it isn't ?

[ferryman]

Is there a real difference?

Huge ...

[ferryman]

Is that a bad thing?  Would you want to restrict freedom of thought?

Would you want people to have "freedom of thought" to accuse you of being responsible for death of your own daughter, covering up that death and launching a fraudulent fund in your (deceased!) daughter's name?

[Wonderfulspam]

That's up to you...however if you were to publish libellous thoughts in the uk you would be in trouble

Ooooh I'm scared.

[Alfred R Jones]

And if it isn't ?

It is still a bad thing.  If someone (Amaral) goes out of their way to convince people (by publishing a book full or errors and with dubious, unproven conclusions) that innocent people have committed a heinous crime, then that is a bad thing - for the people being accused, for their family, for anyone who cares about truth and justice.  You have to ask yourself whether or not you would think it a bad thing if it were YOU who were the subject of a book which claimed you had committed a heinous act that you knew you hadn't done, a book that sold thousands of copies and made the author rich.  Would you think it a good thing and shrug it off as "freedom of speech" then?

[Mr Gray]

It is still a bad thing.  If someone (Amaral) goes out of their way to convince people (by publishing a book full or errors and with dubious, unproven conclusions) that innocent people have committed a heinous crime, then that is a bad thing - for the people being accused, for their family, for anyone who cares about truth and justice.  You have to ask yourself whether or not you would think it a bad thing if it were YOU who were the subject of a book which claimed you had committed a heinous act that you knew you hadn't done, a book that sold thousands of copies and made the author rich.  Would you think it a good thing and shrug it off as "freedom of speech" then?

 I think it's called hiding behind freedom of speech. Amaral thought he was untouchable.....he is a sorry sight now...let's see what the future brings

[Alfred R Jones]

Ok, maybe Amaral was a few hours ahead of me, I thought the story was iffy as soon as I first heard it & then,on the evening of May 4th, when Gerry read a statement & Kate couldn't get any tears to come out of her eyes, I thought to myself, 'they look iffy'.

I always find the claim "I knew they dunnit from day 1" very dubious.  Having followed this case on internet forums from the start - at the beginning no one (as far as I recall) voiced any suspicion that the McCanns had actually  done away with their daughter -  it was just a cacophony of screaming indignation about what terrible parents they were and that they should be done for child neglect.  The idea that they had "dunnit" took a while to foment, and only really took hold in the Summer.

[ferryman]

I think your favourite word is 'wrong'.

The civil libel laws in Portugal as Carana has pointed out puts the onus on the plaintiff to prove his or her case.  The defender does not have to establish anything unless he or she chooses to do so.  It was exactly the same when Murat sued the Portuguese Press, he had to establish that his reputation and honour had been impinged by the articles written about him. 

Free speech is very important to the Portuguese and this is also reflected in their libel laws.  As you know Amaral eventually won his case over the book and DVD ban because in the end the Court accepted they were in accordance with that which was already in the public domain.

If the libel action fails I wholly expect Amaral to raise a case for damages and that then will be for him to prove.

So which was it that prompted Amaral to proclaim that:

*Harrison switched the enquiry to one for a little girl assumed dead?

*Harrison stated that her concealed remains were somewhere within PdL?

*Harrison hinted that someone close to Madeleine, and maybe even her parents, might be responsible for Madeleine's death?

"Mere" incompetence?  Or lies?

Does Portuguese libel law allow Amaral to get away with plagiarising the proper detective work of Mark Harrison to conclude that Gerry hid Madeleine's body on the beach?

PJ Inspector Dias could tell from looking at the videos that there was something awry about the deployment of the dogs.

Why couldn't Amaral?

Does Prior's report reflect that Amaral "corrected" Prior on interpretation of the forensic results?

If it doesn't, who will learned Portuguese judges believe?

Amaral?
?
Or Prior?

[jassi]

It is still a bad thing.  If someone (Amaral) goes out of their way to convince people (by publishing a book full or errors and with dubious, unproven conclusions) that innocent people have committed a heinous crime, then that is a bad thing - for the people being accused, for their family, for anyone who cares about truth and justice.  You have to ask yourself whether or not you would think it a bad thing if it were YOU who were the subject of a book which claimed you had committed a heinous act that you knew you hadn't done, a book that sold thousands of copies and made the author rich.  Would you think it a good thing and shrug it off as "freedom of speech" then?

You are careless in your reading . I referred to freedom of thought.

[Wonderfulspam]

I always find the claim "I knew they dunnit from day 1" very dubious.  Having followed this case on internet forums from the start - at the beginning no one (as far as I recall) voiced any suspicion that the McCanns had actually  done away with their daughter -  it was just a cacophony of screaming indignation about what terrible parents they were and that they should be done for child neglect.  The idea that they had "dunnit" took a while to foment, and only really took hold in the Summer.

I don't do other forums, only joined here in October last year.

I thought they were iffy from day one, it was a while later that "I knew they dunnit".

No amount of gypsies, tractor drivers or burgundy T shirts have succeeded in convincing me otherwise.

[Mr Gray]

You are careless in your reading . I referred to freedom of thought.

and you are careless in your reasoning...libel is nothing to do with freedom of thought

[Alfred R Jones]

You are careless in your reading . I referred to freedom of thought.

As no one can restrict freedom of thought without resorting to harsh brainwashing techniques, your original question "do you seek to restrict freedom of thought" was a bit absurd imo. 

[Mr Gray]

I don't do other forums, only joined here in October last year.

I thought they were iffy from day one, it was a while later that "I knew they dunnit".

No amount of gypsies, tractor drivers or burgundy T shirts have succeeded in convincing me otherwise.

There are people who think Bush was responsible for 9/11...there are people who think the Queen is a shapeshifting lizard...so it is not surprising  that some believe the McCanns are guilty....what's important is that SY believe they are not involved

[Alfred R Jones]

I don't do other forums, only joined here in October last year.

I thought they were iffy from day one, it was a while later that "I knew they dunnit".

No amount of gypsies, tractor drivers or burgundy T shirts have succeeded in convincing me otherwise.

It was a while later you knew they dunnit, based (one could probably successfully argue) on much of the PJ & then Amaral sponsored propaganda that poured out of PT from the Summer of 2007 onwards. 

[jassi]

As no one can restrict freedom of thought without resorting to harsh brainwashing techniques, your original question "do you seek to restrict freedom of thought" was a bit absurd imo.

You are entitled to think what you like