Did Goncalo Amaral misrepresent Harrison's findings?

[slartibartfast]

To project a message to people across countries of Europe that Mark Harrison declared Madeleine definitely dead ....

And her parents (conceivably) responsible ...

IMO saying Madeleine is dead is not libel, and unless Mark Harrison thinks he has been libelled then it is a moot point.

[Alice Purjorick]

To project a message to people across countries of Europe that Mark Harrison declared Madeleine definitely dead ....

And her parents (conceivably) responsible ...

I guess your reading and interpretation of what Sr Amaral writ is as creative as your posts.

[ferryman]

I guess your reading and interpretation of what St Amaral writ is as creative as your posts.

Just accurate.

[mercury]

Just accurate.

You can't be accurate at all unless you have all of Harrison's reports and conversations and also a professional interpretation of the book

as I said, it's not your problem, it's the courts and the Mccanns one

[ferryman]

You can't be accurate at all unless you have all of Harrison's reports and conversations and also a professional interpretation of the book

as I said, it's not your problem, it's the courts and the Mccanns one

Just accurate.

[mercury]

Just accurate.

Parroting yourself while  sticking two fingers in ears will get you nowhere fast, you've done it before and failed

[ferryman]

Actually, there is a detail I missed, but scarcely one that helps Amaral.

Amaral said that Madeleine had been hidden on the beach, and when asked whether, by that, he meant buried, replied, we do not know.

That comes from Harrison's reference to large, immovable boulders where he says (sic) it would be possible to secrete the body of a small child.

That all ties in with a sequence Amaral relates in his book where he is called away from a meeting in the small hours by his distraught wife.  She has found the body of their dog with head injuries and Amaral attempts to dig a hole to bury it, but finds the ground hard to dig.

And the inspiration hits Amaral how much "easier" it would be to hide, rather than bury, a body.

Perish the very suggestion that all might have had something to with Harrison's observation that it would be possible to conceal the body of a small child in large, free-standing rocks on the beach ....

Figure 2.The boulders in the rock falls are too large
to man handle. Vegetative growth suggests rock
falls have been in situ for some time. The low energy
wave action would not move any of the boulders. It
is possible a small child could be secreted amongst
the rocks in natural voids.

(Mark Harrison)

[slartibartfast]

Actually, there is a detail I missed, but scarcely one that helps Amaral.

Amaral said that Madeleine had been hidden on the beach, and when asked whether, by that, he meant buried, replied, we do not know.

That comes from Harrison's reference to large, immovable boulders where he says (sic) it would be possible to secrete the body of a small child.

That all ties in with a sequence Amaral relates in his book where he is called away from a meeting in the small hours by his distraught wife.  She has found the body of their dog with head injuries and Amaral attempts to dig a hole to bury it, but finds the ground hard to dig.

And the inspiration hits Amaral how much "easier" it would be to hide, rather than bury, a body.

Perish the very suggestion that all might have had something to with Harrison's observation that it would be possible to conceal the body of a small child in large, free-standing rocks on the beach ....

(Mark Harrison)

Confused, you now seem to be saying Amaral's theory was based on Harrison's report?

[mercury]

hiding to nowhere, shame, all that effort and energy for nothing!

[G-Unit]

Discussing what was said in the book is of no use as the judge didn't address that issue or rule on it. The issue, for her, was whether Amaral was entitled to express his opinion. She decided he was not, and awarded damages accordingly.


A first conclusion is that if the book is about an hypothetical checking of the facts or about the opinion of the author on how the evidence collected in the investigation should be read, one shouldn't speak of falsehood, untrue facts, and it doesn't make sense, without a better understanding, to discuss the "exceptio veritatis"

The means of obtaining evidence and the evidence referred to in the book are those of the criminal investigation and most of the facts that the book is concerned with (as well as those referred to in the documentary and interview), when related to the criminal investigation, are mostly facts that occurred or are documented in the investigation (n° 80 of the proved facts).
In our view, the issue, in this trial, is the exercise of the right of opinion by the defendant in that context.

[ferryman]

Confused, you now seem to be saying Amaral's theory was based on Harrison's report?

Try again

[slartibartfast]

Try again

If you meant something different perhaps you need to try again.

[ferryman]

If you meant something different perhaps you need to try again.

Not at all.

Harrison's abstract musings were the basis of Amaral's wild fantasies. 

[slartibartfast]

Not at all.

Harrison's abstract musings were the basis of Amaral's wild fantasies.

You have quoted Harrison's "abstract musings" I.e. Report. If you are suggesting that the PJ were wrong in taking notice of Harrison's report, hmmm.

[ferryman]

Discussing what was said in the book is of no use as the judge didn't address that issue or rule on it. The issue, for her, was whether Amaral was entitled to express his opinion. She decided he was not, and awarded damages accordingly.


A first conclusion is that if the book is about an hypothetical checking of the facts or about the opinion of the author on how the evidence collected in the investigation should be read, one shouldn't speak of falsehood, untrue facts, and it doesn't make sense, without a better understanding, to discuss the "exceptio veritatis"

The means of obtaining evidence and the evidence referred to in the book are those of the criminal investigation and most of the facts that the book is concerned with (as well as those referred to in the documentary and interview), when related to the criminal investigation, are mostly facts that occurred or are documented in the investigation (n° 80 of the proved facts).
In our view, the issue, in this trial, is the exercise of the right of opinion by the defendant in that context.

I think you are confusing the injunction with the libel trial

The (final) ruling in the injunction was that Amaral was entitled to express his opinion.

The libel trial ruled on whether that opinion could be considered factual, or at any rate, was based on purported facts that had not been proven untrue.