Has support for the McCanns and Goncalo Amaral reached cult status?

[G-Unit]

You appear to have missed the point I was making.

My post was in reply to G-units post

Quote
At the moment I think it might be libelous to accuse Amaral of libel. He can, at the moment, prove that he did no such thing under the laws of his country.
Unquote

 

I pointed out that in the UK -  under our own laws -  'Innuendo' can be considered to be defamatory and IMO it is not libelous in this country for posters to point out the examples of such 'innuendo' in Amarals book.

If  - as G-unit believes  - it may be breaking the libel laws of this country to do that - then an explanation as to which part of our Libel law is being broken needs to be explained.

I am no 'legal eagle' and am quite happy to cease commenting on this subject if it is breaking our libel laws to do so.   At the moment I do not believe it is.

.
AIMHO

If you tell lies about someone that's defamation. If Amaral went to the trouble to track you down and sue you in this country it would be up to you to prove that you were writing the truth when you accused him of libel. It would be interesting to see how you think you could prove that.

[Benice]

If you tell lies about someone that's defamation. If Amaral went to the trouble to track you down and sue you in this country it would be up to you to prove that you were writing the truth when you accused him of libel. It would be interesting to see how you think you could prove that.

The proof is in his book for all to see  - which is why UK publishers won't touch it with a bargepole.

IMO

[xtina]

The proof is in his book for all to see  - which is why UK publishers won't touch it with a bargepole.

IMO

how do you know ......you will have to wait and see won't you

or has all the U K publishers told you personally ...they wont touch it with a barge pole....

[stephen25000]

The proof is in his book for all to see  - which is why UK publishers won't touch it with a bargepole.

IMO

It would be an interesting test case, bearing in mind the book is available around the world as is the content.

Also interesting in light of the recent Portuguese judgement.

[G-Unit]

The proof is in his book for all to see  - which is why UK publishers won't touch it with a bargepole.

IMO

It may be obvious to you, but it wasn't obvious to the Portuguese Courts. Your opinion of Amaral's book doesn't constitute proof, you would need to be able to prove that he libeled the McCanns. As his conclusions matched those of the investigation as at September 2007 that would be difficult imo.

[xtina]

It may be obvious to you, but it wasn't obvious to the Portuguese Courts. Your opinion of Amaral's book doesn't constitute proof, you would need to be able to prove that he libeled the McCanns. As his conclusions matched those of the investigation as at September 2007 that would be difficult imo.

he was within his rights ....it seems.even mentions the mccs promoting his book

The judges indicated that the McCanns had voluntarily limited their rights to privacy by making themselves available to the national and international media to which they had easy access. In effect they opened the way for anyone to debate and express opinions about the case, including opinions that contradicted their own.
In essence, the appeal judges ruled that the McCanns' rights had not been infringed and that Amaral’s book was a lawful example of freedom of expression.

Many observers would argue that the lawsuit instigated by the McCanns seven years ago is turning out to be more harmful and costly to them than the defendants. It has inadvertently generated publicity of a kind they least wanted and boosted book sales,

[Lace]

The leaving them alone had been investigated and sorted there was 'no intent'  eg they did not want anything to happen to Madeleine they thought she was safe.

they thought it safe.....like when she left the twins after maddie had gone ....she thought it safe ....

like when they put twins in creche ,,,they thought it safe ...

even going out the country and leaving twins ..she thought it safe ...

only difference ...according to her there was an abductor....[could have been one of the staff]

but she still thought it safe ....that is because ...it was....

This isn't the topic we were discussing but still.   Kate searched the apartment for Madeleine there was no abductor hiding there he was long gone,  so safe enough to leave and hurry to alert Gerry.

The crèche opened to all parents there weren't just the twins going,  they wanted to keep everything normal for them,  do you honestly think one of the nannies would abduct the twins from the crèche?   it would be a bit obvious wouldn't it?  twins gone,  nanny gone!!!

They left the twins with relatives when they left the country.

[Lace]

It may be obvious to you, but it wasn't obvious to the Portuguese Courts. Your opinion of Amaral's book doesn't constitute proof, you would need to be able to prove that he libeled the McCanns. As his conclusions matched those of the investigation as at September 2007 that would be difficult imo.

His conclusions yes,  but that was only part of his book wasn't it?

[xtina]

This isn't the topic we were discussing but still.   Kate searched the apartment for Madeleine there was no abductor hiding there he was long gone,  so safe enough to leave and hurry to alert Gerry.

The crèche opened to all parents there weren't just the twins going,  they wanted to keep everything normal for them,  do you honestly think one of the nannies would abduct the twins from the crèche?   it would be a bit obvious wouldn't it?  twins gone,  nanny gone!!!

They left the twins with relatives when they left the country.

  Kate searched the apartment for Madeleine there was no abductor hiding there he was long gone,  so safe enough to leave and hurry to alert Gerry.



new the abductor was long gone .........how the hell did she know it was safe........

Ah....so r u saying ..she knew he had been gone about three quarters of an hour...like after the 9 15 check or what ...to know he was long gone

how could she know ...when maddie was suppose to have been taken .....

it could have been a couple of minutes before ....and he was returning for twins .....

[G-Unit]

His conclusions yes,  but that was only part of his book wasn't it?

On you go then. If his opinions were also shared by his colleagues they're not his, remember, they are the investigation's opinions. If his colleagues testified that they all agreed with him he was simply reporting the thoughts of the investigation, based on the clues and facts available to the investigators.

[Benice]

no you are wrong there ............G A ....didn't have to blacken there name they did that all by themselves

you seem to except things very easily regarding the mccs ...

to even think that anyone reading the book would be brain washed into stop looking for maddie...or not report any info they had ...

.the people reading the book i would say were doubters anyway...but can make up there own minds....

after all ....the only thing usually published is...abduction ...abduction sightings ....suspects ...etc etc....

and as for G A being an embarrassment ....what would you call below....a pic of maddie two and a half...and if you didn't know different you would think it was a lottery cheque ..they were holding up ......

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_lWXrpwC28yU/SyS0o5iTePI/AAAAAAAAHKU/X6PbCmsGNdQ/s1600/Gerry+McCann,+Kate+McCann+and+Brian+Ashton.jpg

Could you please provide a cite to confirm your claim that Madeleine was two and a half when that photo was taken.

[Benice]

how do you know ......you will have to wait and see won't you

or has all the U K publishers told you personally ...they wont touch it with a barge pole....

Have the UK publishers told you personally that they intend to publish the book?

Unless the version we have  has been completely wrongly translated from beginning to end - there is not a chance that a UK publisher will publish it -  because it breaks our country's libel laws.

IMO

[Benice]

It may be obvious to you, but it wasn't obvious to the Portuguese Courts. Your opinion of Amaral's book doesn't constitute proof, you would need to be able to prove that he libeled the McCanns. As his conclusions matched those of the investigation as at September 2007 that would be difficult imo.

IIRC you said you hadn't read the book a while back.  Is that still the case?

[faithlilly]

Have the UK publishers told you personally that they intend to publish the book?

Unless the version we have  has been completely wrongly translated from beginning to end - there is not a chance that a UK publisher will publish it -  because it breaks our country's libel laws.

IMO

I can't remember this gentleman being sued.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Rachel-Files-Keith-Pedder/dp/1904034306/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1465653300&sr=8-2&keywords=Keith+pedder

[Lace]

  Kate searched the apartment for Madeleine there was no abductor hiding there he was long gone,  so safe enough to leave and hurry to alert Gerry.



new the abductor was long gone .........how the hell did she know it was safe........

Ah....so r u saying ..she knew he had been gone about three quarters of an hour...like after the 9 15 check or what ...to know he was long gone

how could she know ...when maddie was suppose to have been taken .....

it could have been a couple of minutes before ....and he was returning for twins .....

So you think he would return for the twins when Kate was screaming in the road that Madeleine was gone do you,   Kate searched the apartment there was no abductor.