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

[Alice Purjorick]

In the common law of libel, the claimant has the burden only of proving that the statement was made by the defendant, and that it was defamatory.

The Defamation Act 2013 substantially reformed English defamation law in recognition of these concerns, by strengthening the criteria (including geographical relevance criteria) for a successful claim, mandating evidence of actual or probable harm, curtailing sharply the scope for claims of continuing defamation (in which republication or continued visibility comprises ongoing renewed defamation), and enhancing the scope of existing defences for website operators, public interest, and privileged publications, including peer reviewed scientific journals.[5] The 2013 law applies to causes of action occurring after its commencement on 1 January 2014;[6] old libel law will therefore still apply in many 2014–2015 defamation cases where the events complained of took place before commencement. Northern Ireland is not subject to the Defamation Act 2013 and has not passed a similar reform. This has already caused controversy regarding the publishing of the book and broadcasting of the documentary Going Clear.[7]

[Eleanor]

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.

The McCanns do not have to prove anything.

[Benice]

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

I was assuming that you would not be that type of dishonest person Stephen?    I was asking you whether (having reported  the theft of your TV from your home to the police) , you would accept their conclusion that as no evidence of a break in had been found - then no burglary could have taken place.

That is the principle you are applying to the McCanns isn't it? 

[stephen25000]

The McCanns do not have to prove anything.

It would have to be proved in court that someone carried out an abduction, and that looks rather unlikely .

Doesn't it.

[stephen25000]

I was assuming that you would not be that type of dishonest person Stephen?    I was asking you whether (having reported  the theft of your TV from your home to the police) , you would accept their conclusion that as no evidence of a break in had been found - then no burglary could have taken place.

That is the principle you are applying to the McCanns isn't it?

Why would I be dishonest Benice  ?

Any break-in needs evidence.

Otherwise no potential offender can be taken to court.

Secondly, as you well know, in cases of abduction the parents are automatically investigated.

Which means of course, the police would not assume automatically people were telling the truth.

[Brietta]

It would have to be proved in court that someone carried out an abduction, and that looks rather unlikely .

Doesn't it.

Better tell that to Scotland Yard and the Policia Judiciaria ... they believe an abduction occurred ... and have backed that up by looking for an abductor.
So in effect you could add them to the list of those who believe the McCann version of events.

[stephen25000]

Better tell that to Scotland Yard and the Policia Judiciaria ... they believe an abduction occurred ... and have backed that up by looking for an abductor.
So in effect you could add them to the list of those who believe the McCann version of events.

...and they have found ZIP.

Next.

[Eleanor]

It would have to be proved in court that someone carried out an abduction, and that looks rather unlikely .

Doesn't it.

Not necessarily.

[Brietta]

Why would I be dishonest Benice  ?

Any break-in needs evidence.

Otherwise no potential offender can be taken to court.

Secondly, as you well know, in cases of abduction the parents are automatically investigated.

Which means of course, the police would not assume automatically people were telling the truth.

Sigh ... when did anyone say the parents should not be investigated in a child abduction case ???  The problem arises when they have been exhaustively investigated.  Have been charged with no offence of any kind.  There are still people asking why people like themselves do not believe them?

I would imagine Stephen would have a far superior knowledge of the reasons why than many others would as he chooses to post his 'answers' many times each day.  So who needs to start a thread about it?

[Miss Taken Identity]

In the common law of libel, the claimant has the burden only of proving that the statement was made by the defendant, and that it was defamatory.

The Defamation Act 2013 substantially reformed English defamation law in recognition of these concerns, by strengthening the criteria (including geographical relevance criteria) for a successful claim, mandating evidence of actual or probable harm, curtailing sharply the scope for claims of continuing defamation (in which republication or continued visibility comprises ongoing renewed defamation), and enhancing the scope of existing defences for website operators, public interest, and privileged publications, including peer reviewed scientific journals.[5] The 2013 law applies to causes of action occurring after its commencement on 1 January 2014;[6] old libel law will therefore still apply in many 2014–2015 defamation cases where the events complained of took place before commencement. Northern Ireland is not subject to the Defamation Act 2013 and has not passed a similar reform. This has already caused controversy regarding the publishing of the book and broadcasting of the documentary Going Clear.[7]

"the claimant has the burden only of proving that the statement was made by the defendant, and that it was defamatory".

There you have it.  Thank you Alice.

So to claim my statement was defamatory i.e no evidence of any entry /exit- with abductor carryng a child- would be great to listen to in court.

[Brietta]

"the claimant has the burden only of proving that the statement was made by the defendant, and that it was defamatory".

There you have it.  Thank you Alice.

So to claim my statement was defamatory i.e no evidence of any entry /exit- with abductor carryng a child- would be great to listen to in court.

The problem you may have with that is that there is an eye witness statement to that effect.

Whoops! ... forgot you like to cherry pick the witnesses you choose to believe and those you choose not to believe. 

[Mr Gray]

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.

Don't need to provide anything
As in the Needhams case the police have decided the family are not involved
Please ask for a cite if you need one

[stephen25000]

Sigh ... when did anyone say the parents should not be investigated in a child abduction case ???  The problem arises when they have been exhaustively investigated.  Have been charged with no offence of any kind.  There are still people asking why people like themselves do not believe them?

I would imagine Stephen would have a far superior knowledge of the reasons why than many others would as he chooses to post his 'answers' many times each day.  So who needs to start a thread about it?

Sigh, sigh and sigh again.

No matter how much you want to bleat, no abductor has been found, or by what Madeleine disappeared from the apartment.

[stephen25000]

The problem you may have with that is that there is an eye witness statement to that effect.

Whoops! ... forgot you like to cherry pick the witnesses you choose to believe and those you choose not to believe.

Oh sigh again.

Someone standing outside a building and looking at it does not mean abduction.

[Miss Taken Identity]

The problem you may have with that is that there is an eye witness statement to that effect.

Whoops! ... forgot you like to cherry pick the witnesses you choose to believe and those you choose not to believe.

Independant eye witness? really  oh... I mean by that someone not related to the tapas group. And what per chance did this eye witness, witness exactly?

Window being jemmied ? intruder entering-then exiting with a child?  ANY or ALL of this?

 Sorry I missed all of that.Wonder why Amaral left that out of his book, and the investigation. &%+((£