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

[Mr Gray]

Well if you don't agree with Amaral, then you are saying he is wrong, YES or NO ?


As to evidence davey boy, what evidence ?

the answer to that question is no...but you obviously cannot follow the logic..you show you cannot follow simple logic so it would be a waste of time trying to explain the evidence

[Mr Moderator]

How exactly is he disrupting the thread? By proving you wrong?

It's pretty clear the trial in Lisbon is a libel trial, and it's a fact that Amaral's book accuses the McCanns of lying, whether he actually uses the word 'liars' or not makes no material difference.

Could I suggest you read the Amaral book before speculating wildly about its contents.

 Unlike Davel who thinks it funny to post irrelevant page numbers from the book in support of the unsupportable can I refer you to the last page ie page 93 and I quote:

"Our conclusions rest on the proven facts and the evidence interpreted within the principles of the law"

[Mr Gray]

Could I suggest you read the Amaral book before speculating wildly about its contents.

 Unlike Davel who thinks it funny to post irrelevant page numbers from the book in support of the unsupportable can I refer you to the last page ie page 93 and I quote:

"Our conclusions rest on the proven facts and the evidence interpreted within the principles of the law"

and what proven facts might they be...there were no proven facts...

[Mr Gray]

Could I suggest you read the Amaral book before speculating wildly about its contents.

 Unlike Davel who thinks it funny to post irrelevant page numbers from the book in support of the unsupportable can I refer you to the last page ie page 93 and I quote:

"Our conclusions rest on the proven facts and the evidence interpreted within the principles of the law"

I think its unsupportable to claim that amaral has not accused the mccanns of lying...hence my derision at poster trying to claim this

[Mr Moderator]

As amaral has accused the mccanns of lying and being criminals I don't think theres much to establish

If you care to view my last post Davel you will note that it is the facts and the evidence which supports the thesis and not Amaral's opinion.

[Mr Moderator]

and what proven facts might they be...there were no proven facts...

There you go again with the falsehoods.  There are many proven facts in this case.

[Mr Gray]

If you care to view my last post Davel you will note that it is the facts and the evidence which supports the thesis and not Amaral's opinion.

there are no facts or evidence to support amarals claims..as shown in the archiving report...again you are welcome to prove me wrong. Amaral misunderstood the evidence...thats why he is so much trouble

[Mr Gray]

There you go again with the falsehoods.  There are many proven facts in this case.

I disagree that there are proven facts that support amarals thesis..perhaps you could post  ONE

[Mr Moderator]

there are no facts or evidence to support amarals claims..as shown in the archiving report...again you are welcome to prove me wrong. Amaral misunderstood the evidence...thats why he is so much trouble

What makes you think he is in trouble, I ask the question for the third time today, have you some special inside knowledge of the libel trial?

[Mr Moderator]

I disagree that there are proven facts that support amarals thesis..perhaps you could post a ONE

You have moved the goalposts but regardless.  A proven fact is that there are several inconsistencies between statements.

Another proven fact is that there was no forced break-in to apartment 5a.

Yet another is that three young children all under the age of four were left on their own for over an hour on occasion.

Shall I go on?

[Carana]

and what proven facts might they be...there were no proven facts...

I'm mystified as well as to what these "proven facts" may be.

[Mr Moderator]

you accuse me of falsehoods re proven facts...could you state one proven fact...you are making posts taht you cannot support..thats against forum rules

First of all you claim Amaral is wrong and now you claim he is in trouble?  I suggest that it is you who is talking bollocks Davel??

[John]

You have moved the goalposts but regardless.  A proven fact is that there are several inconsistencies between statements.

Another proven fact is that there was no forced break-in to apartment 5a.

Yet another is that three young children all under the age of four were left on their own for over an hour on occasion.

Shall I go on?

Dave likes to move the goalposts.   

[Mr Gray]

First of all you claim Amaral is wrong and now you claim he is in trouble?  I suggest that it is you who is talking bollocks Davel??

first I have never claimed amaral is wrong...I claim I think he is wrong..check my posts..

Amaral is in trouble...he has no money and lives with his father..did you read the interview in the norwegian paper

award yourself 20 warning for being abusive

[Mr Moderator]

first I have never claimed amaral is wrong...I claim I think he is wrong..check my posts..

Amaral is in trouble...he has no money and lives with his father..did you read the interview in the norwegian paper

award yourself 20 warning for being abusive

Why has he no money and lives with a parent?  Could it have something to do with the McCanns per chance?

OK you think he is wrong, for the fourth time why do you think this, have you some special inside knowledge?