Author Topic: Libel ....  (Read 47290 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Montclair

Re: Libel ....
« Reply #45 on: May 24, 2016, 06:39:14 PM »
This latest ruling in the McCann v Amaral libel trial (so far as I can judge) doesn't dispute that Amaral breached judicial secrecy in writing his book, but rather argues that because Amaral quit the PJ before he wrote it, he can't be held responsible (for breaching judicial secrecy).

However, if there is, in Portuguese law, a concept of accountability, then Amaral might be held accountable for the leaks on his watch (much shorter than Rebelo's watch, even though, under Rebelo, there was one leak, not particularly injurious to Kate and Gerry; even though media scrutiny of the investigation was just as intense, and even though Rebelo's tenure in charge was much longer than Amaral's).

If Rebelo could do it, why couldn't Amaral?

And if Amaral is accountable (for the leaks during his tenure in charge) even if he can't be held, personally and directly, responsible for them, sanity (and proper order) should be restored.

Why do insist on posting about this when you don't understand anything in the ruling?

Offline Alice Purjorick

Re: Libel ....
« Reply #46 on: May 24, 2016, 07:12:14 PM »
Why do insist on posting about this when you don't understand anything in the ruling?

Because it is in his/her/their script?
"Navigating the difference between weird but normal grief and truly suspicious behaviour is the key for any detective worth his salt.". ….Sarah Bailey

Alfie

  • Guest
Re: Libel ....
« Reply #47 on: May 24, 2016, 07:40:30 PM »
Because it is in his/her/their script?
What are you insinuating?

Offline Alice Purjorick

Re: Libel ....
« Reply #48 on: May 24, 2016, 07:51:04 PM »
What are you insinuating?

By "his/her/their" nothing other than I know not whether ferryman is male, female or a syndicate down a pub having a laugh.

By it is "in the script" merely a variation on the old "press this button here and that motor over there will fire up" comment.

Clear enough now?
"Navigating the difference between weird but normal grief and truly suspicious behaviour is the key for any detective worth his salt.". ….Sarah Bailey

stephen25000

  • Guest
Re: Libel ....
« Reply #49 on: May 24, 2016, 07:52:05 PM »
What are you insinuating?

You mean you don't know. &%+((£

Offline mercury

Re: Libel ....
« Reply #50 on: May 24, 2016, 09:23:40 PM »
This latest ruling in the McCann v Amaral libel trial (so far as I can judge) doesn't dispute that Amaral breached judicial secrecy in writing his book, but rather argues that because Amaral quit the PJ before he wrote it, he can't be held responsible (for breaching judicial secrecy).

However, if there is, in Portuguese law, a concept of accountability, then Amaral might be held accountable for the leaks on his watch (much shorter than Rebelo's watch, even though, under Rebelo, there was one leak, not particularly injurious to Kate and Gerry; even though media scrutiny of the investigation was just as intense, and even though Rebelo's tenure in charge was much longer than Amaral's).

If Rebelo could do it, why couldn't Amaral?

And if Amaral is accountable (for the leaks during his tenure in charge) even if he can't be held, personally and directly, responsible for them, sanity (and proper order) should be restored.

So what is the only "leak" attributable to Rebelo and are you really sure it was just the one?

ferryman

  • Guest
Re: Libel ....
« Reply #51 on: May 24, 2016, 09:31:18 PM »
So what is the only "leak" attributable to Rebelo and are you really sure it was just the one?

Careless wording.

Attributable to Rebelo's watch, I should have said.
« Last Edit: May 25, 2016, 12:53:39 PM by John »

Offline mercury

Re: Libel ....
« Reply #52 on: May 24, 2016, 10:23:29 PM »
Careless wording.

Attributable to Rebelo's watch, I should have said.

Ok so on his "watch" whch story was leaked whch was what i bleedin well asked in the first place

ferryman

  • Guest
Re: Libel ....
« Reply #53 on: May 24, 2016, 10:31:32 PM »

Offline mercury

Re: Libel ....
« Reply #54 on: May 24, 2016, 10:51:43 PM »
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/mccanns-launch-furious-counter-attack-on-portuguese-police-after-maddie-in-tears-leak-7302079.html

Oh!
Well, what can i say, there were loads of leaks post amaral departing, and that wasnt one i had n mind, loads of them, so your argument about only one is dud

Lets start with november 2007 and madeleines part dna beng found on a pair of jeans chucked outside airport


The list is looooong

ferryman

  • Guest
Re: Libel ....
« Reply #55 on: May 24, 2016, 10:52:29 PM »
Why do insist on posting about this when you don't understand anything in the ruling?

Care to expand?
« Last Edit: May 25, 2016, 12:54:57 PM by John »

Offline Miss Taken Identity

Re: Libel ....
« Reply #56 on: May 27, 2016, 08:12:02 PM »
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/mccanns-launch-furious-counter-attack-on-portuguese-police-after-maddie-in-tears-leak-7302079.html
"
Mr Mitchell told Sky News: "This is a blatant and timed attempt against Kate and Gerry to try to deflect attention in the headlines from the success they had at the European Parliament... to try to divert attention onto negative headlines questioning their suitability as parents."

So was this story not true or was their complaint that it was true, and should never have been told? and why not question their parenting- they attack everyone who challenges them on anything.

The Parents started the attack and leaks on the night  the parents claimed Maddie disappeared.
'Never underestimate the power of stupid people'... George Carlin

stephen25000

  • Guest
Re: Libel ....
« Reply #57 on: May 27, 2016, 08:18:48 PM »
"
Mr Mitchell told Sky News: "This is a blatant and timed attempt against Kate and Gerry to try to deflect attention in the headlines from the success they had at the European Parliament... to try to divert attention onto negative headlines questioning their suitability as parents."

So was this story not true or was their complaint that it was true, and should never have been told? and why not question their parenting- they attack everyone who challenges them on anything.

The Parents started the attack and leaks on the night  the parents claimed Maddie disappeared.

Precisely.

It is part of the orchestrated campaign to promote the mccanns.

Offline G-Unit

Re: Libel ....
« Reply #58 on: May 28, 2016, 09:42:25 AM »
"
Mr Mitchell told Sky News: "This is a blatant and timed attempt against Kate and Gerry to try to deflect attention in the headlines from the success they had at the European Parliament... to try to divert attention onto negative headlines questioning their suitability as parents."

So was this story not true or was their complaint that it was true, and should never have been told? and why not question their parenting- they attack everyone who challenges them on anything.

The Parents started the attack and leaks on the night  the parents claimed Maddie disappeared.

Is this anything to do with libel? It was true, after all.

They never seemed to grasp the irony of them campaigning for the Amber Alert system while still arguidos in respect of their daughter's disappearance. . Obviously someone did and decided to speak out. They also chose to ignore the fact that an alert would have been very unlikely to have been issued in their case.

It was also ironic the the MEP associated with them going to the European Parliament used the Shannon Matthews case to highlight the deficiencies in the system used at the time of her disappearance. As we know now, an alert wouldn't have helped her to be found.

Was this a leak by the PJ? Not proven.
Read and abide by the forum rules.
Result = happy posting.
Ignore and break the rules
Result = edits, deletions and unhappiness
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?board=2.0

ferryman

  • Guest
Re: Libel ....
« Reply #59 on: May 28, 2016, 09:49:35 AM »
I've no complaint with Rebelo (neither so far as I am aware, the McCanns).

The leaks on Amaral's watch traduced and maligned the McCanns.

If Amaral can be held accountable for the leaks on his watch (even if it can't be proved he was personally, and directly, (ir)resposonsible) then proper order in the libel trial should be restored.