Why don't people believe the Mccanns story of Abduction ?

[Eleanor]

There is nothing libelous about my post. And if it were, then bring it on in court because she would then have to prove that I had commited liable by...providing physical evidence to back up her statement...hmmm

Not going to happen is it...hahaha

No she wouldn't have to prove it.

[G-Unit]

There is nothing libelous about my post. And if it were, then bring it on in court because she would then have to prove that I had commited liable by...providing physical evidence to back up her statement...hmmm

Not going to happen is it...hahaha

Would that be more or less difficult than proving that Amaral's book harmed the search for Madeleine, I wonder.

[Mr Gray]

Would that be more or less difficult than proving that Amaral's book harmed the search for Madeleine, I wonder.

In a libel case in the uk the plaintif does not have to prove anything

[stephen25000]

In UK law the plaintiff must prove the defendent made a defamatory or false statement.

[Mr Gray]

In UK law the plaintiff must prove the defendent made a defamatory or false statement.

The plaintiff does not have to prove anything... It is self evident if a statement is defamatory
The plaintif does not have to prove it is false
You do not understand libel law

[Miss Taken Identity]

In UK law the plaintiff must prove the defendent made a defamatory or false statement.

and there you have it... They do have to prove I was wrong in claiming there was no physical evidence of any window being jemmied by providing evidence that what they claimed was true.   

and there aint nun... sooooo

There is also my human right to question where my tax is being used and for what purpose, there is also my freedom to express an opinion... oh tusks  what they gonna do now....

[Eleanor]

The plaintiff does not have to prove anything... It is self evident if a statement is defamatory
The plaintif does not have to prove it is false
You do not understand libel law

Thank You, Davel.

[Eleanor]

and there you have it... They do have to prove I was wrong in claiming there was no physical evidence of any window being jemmied by providing evidence that what they claimed was true.   

and there aint nun... sooooo

There is also my human right to question where my tax is being used and for what purpose, there is also my freedom to express an opinion... oh tusks  what they gonna do now....

No they don't have to prove it.  You are wrong.  Again.

[stephen25000]

There is no evidence the window was open, other than saying it was.

No forensic Back up and let's remember the words of Mitchell.

No evidence of a break-in , in the apartment.

[sadie]

There is no evidence the window was open, other than saying it was.

No forensic Back up and let's remember the words of Mitchell.

No evidence of a break-in , in the apartment.

For the second time:

There was no evidence that Ben Needhams grandparents were nearby in the house, but you have never challenged that.

Any unbiased person is prepared to take some things as read, unless there is proof otherwise .... but not you, stephen when it comes to the Mccanns

[Benice]

There is no evidence the window was open, other than saying it was.

No forensic Back up and let's remember the words of Mitchell.

No evidence of a break-in , in the apartment.

So if you came home and found an empty space where your TV was when you went out  - and the police couldn't find any forensic evidence of a break in - would you expect them to insist that no burglary ever took place?

Common sense please.

[Miss Taken Identity]

There is no evidence the window was open, other than saying it was.

No forensic Back up and let's remember the words of Mitchell.

No evidence of a break-in , in the apartment.

Exactly.
UK law is different. Civil law is different from criminal law.

[stephen25000]

So if you came home and found an empty space where your TV was when you went out  - and the police couldn't find any forensic evidence of a break in - would you expect them to insist that no burglary ever took place?

Common sense please.

You do not know the mccanns told the truth.

Now provide independent verification the window was open before 10 pm, and the shutters were altered/jemmied.

As it stands, the only identified fingerprints were kate mccanns.

[stephen25000]

For the second time:

There was no evidence that Ben Needhams grandparents were nearby in the house, but you have never challenged that.

Any unbiased person is prepared to take some things as read, unless there is proof otherwise .... but not you, stephen when it comes to the Mccanns

WSe are not talking about Ben Needhams case.

That would be on a separate thread.

[stephen25000]

So if you came home and found an empty space where your TV was when you went out  - and the police couldn't find any forensic evidence of a break in - would you expect them to insist that no burglary ever took place?

Common sense please.

Some people can also pretend there was a break in to claim on Insurance, and don't bother saying it doesn't happen.