So what's next in the libel trial saga?

[stephen25000]

That's like saying...someone's going to win...you don't have the conviction to make a prediction

I already have dave.

The mccanns have failed to prove their case for damages.

and all your bluster won't change that.

[Mr Gray]

I already have dave.

The mccanns have failed to prove their case for damages.

and all your bluster won't change that.

Then hopefully we will see who is right and who is wrong after Christmas. The McCanns certainly have proved their case. It would be impossible not to be damaged by a widely sold book that accused you of being a criminal. What is in question is the extent of the damage.

[stephen25000]

Then hopefully we will see who is right and who is wrong after Christmas. The McCanns certainly have proved their case. It would be impossible not to be damaged by a widely sold book that accused you of being a criminal. What is in question is the extent of the damage.

The nature of the crime has not yet been determined.

Don't forget that.

[Mr Gray]

The nature of the crime has not yet been determined.

Don't forget that.

that proves libel

[Jean-Pierre]

The nature of the crime has not yet been determined.

Don't forget that.

#
Completely irrelevant.  If A accuses B of committing a crime, and B has not even been charged, then A is up the creek without a paddle. 

If the nature of the crime has not been determined that actually makes it worse - it means that A is accusing B on the basis of speculation. 

[Benice]

#
Completely irrelevant.  If A accuses B of committing a crime, and B has not even been charged, then A is up the creek without a paddle. 

If the nature of the crime has not been determined that actually makes it worse - it means that A is accusing B on the basis of speculation.

An excellent point Jean-Pierre.   

[stephen25000]

#
Completely irrelevant.  If A accuses B of committing a crime, and B has not even been charged, then A is up the creek without a paddle. 

If the nature of the crime has not been determined that actually makes it worse - it means that A is accusing B on the basis of speculation.

Tell me jp, what did kate mccann want to happen to Robert Murat ?

What did she base her 'view' on ?

The book was written based upon the available evidence. He was not the only one with that view. he misinterpreted the forensic evidence. 


Abduction remains one scenario.

Accidental death in the apartment remains another, and with all the connotations that implies.

She walked out of the apartment is another.

The book never harmed the search. That is a fallacy.

Many other people share Amaral's view of what happened, so why haven't the mccanns sued them ?

There are two other 'defendents' in the trial.

and of course there is your personal bias in your answer.

[stephen25000]

that proves libel

That is not libel dave.

[ferryman]

Tell me jp, what did kate mccann want to happen to Robert Murat ?

What did she base her 'view' on ?

The book was written based upon the available evidence. He was not the only one with that view. he misinterpreted the forensic evidence. 


Abduction remains one scenario.

Accidental death in the apartment remains another, and with all the connotations that implies.

She walked out of the apartment is another.

The book never harmed the search. That is a fallacy.

Many other people share Amaral's view of what happened, so why haven't the mccanns sued them ?

There are two other 'defendents' in the trial.

and of course there is your personal bias in your answer.

So you approve of publication by others of a private diary, do you, Stephen?

[stephen25000]

So which is it, then, Stephen?

Madeleine's concealed remains in close proximity to the apartment (falsely attributed to Harrison by Amaral)?

Or the later evolution of Madeleine driven somewhere dead in the Renault scenic?

And on-topic, because these inconsistencies are what ought to bode ill for Amaral in respect of the verdict in the libel trial

Let's see what the judge decides.

[stephen25000]

So you approve of publication by others of a private diary, do you, Stephen?

Ask kate mccann.

[Jean-Pierre]

Tell me jp, what did kate mccann want to happen to Robert Murat ?

What did she base her 'view' on ?

The book was written based upon the available evidence. He was not the only one with that view. he misinterpreted the forensic evidence. 


Abduction remains one scenario.

Accidental death in the apartment remains another, and with all the connotations that implies.

She walked out of the apartment is another.

The book never harmed the search. That is a fallacy.

Many other people share Amaral's view of what happened, so why haven't the mccanns sued them ?

There are two other 'defendents' in the trial.

and of course there is your personal bias in your answer.

Publication of private diary by the NOTW.

The others who "share the view" have, in the most part, not engaged in such an active campaign - books, interiew, documentary, TV shows. 

Bennet was another, btw. 

[Alice Purjorick]

the length of time this trial has taken is a poor reflection on the Portuguese justice system and of amaral himself..imo..

however progress seems to have been made and hopefully we will have a judgement early next year. I realise appeals may happen but a positive initial judgement for the mccanns will happen and I think that will be fantastic

I feel a Mandy Rice-Davies paraphrase coming on here  .

[Alice Purjorick]

Then hopefully we will see who is right and who is wrong after Christmas. The McCanns certainly have proved their case. It would be impossible not to be damaged by a widely sold book that accused you of being a criminal. What is in question is the extent of the damage.

I thought you posted that it was a flop?
I must be mistaken I frequently am.

[Mr Gray]

I thought you posted that it was a flop?
I must be mistaken I frequently am.

you are mistaken