According to Kate McCann the choice was accidental killng or homicide.

[ferryman]

Amaral quit the PJ so that he could 'restore his honour' after being booted off the enquiry for incompetence.

Amaral was feeling sore.

Amaral accused the McCanns of killing their daughter but not murdering her.

Amaral accused the McCanns of covering up the alleged 'fact' of their daughter's 'death' and conducting a fraudulent 'fund' in their (dead) daughter's name.

Given all the above, why is Amaral not guilty of libel (by the American, I think) link Mercury provides?

209

[John]

Libel is a lie that reduces someones reputation etc etc
Ergo you have to prove someone was deliberately lying when writing somethng

http://dictionary.law.com/default.aspx?selected=1153

Libel it seems has to be proven by the plantiff too

Lots of definitions in google so google it

In the UK someone who makes a defamatory claim has to prove it if sued but in Portugal it is the plaintiff who has to prove the alleged libel to be false.

[John]

Amaral quit the PJ so that he could 'restore his honour' after being booted off the enquiry for incompetence.

Amaral was feeling sore.

Amaral accused the McCanns of killing their daughter but not murdering her

Amaral accused the McCanns of covering up the alleged 'fact' of their daughter's 'death' and conducting a fraudulent 'fund' in their (dead) daughter's name.

Given all the above, why is Amaral not guilty of libel (by the American, I think) link Mercury provides?

Because none of it has yet been proved to be false or true.  As for Amaral, he wasn't 'booted off for incompetence' as you put it, he was reassigned because he spoke to the Press and criticised the English police involvement.  A Cardinal Sin for any police officer leading an investigation.

[stephen25000]

Amaral DID NOT ACCUSE the Mccanns of 'killing or murdering' Madeleine.

However, your falsehoods have to be dealt with.

[ferryman]

Because none of it has yet been proved to be false or true.  As for Amaral, he wasn't 'booted off for incompetence' as you put it, he was reassigned because he spoke to the Press and criticised the English police involvement.  A Cardinal Sin for any police officer leading an investigation.

1. The Portuguese prosecutors could find no basis of criminal charges against the McCanns.

Citing the Portuguese prosecutors ought to be all the McCanns have to do (in separate, civil, proceedings) to prove Amaral's allegations false.

Amaral accuses the McCanns of:

Killing their daughter (not murdering her, even though the investigation Amaral, initially, headed up did accuse the McCanns of murder).

Amaral accuses the McCanns of profiting from a fraudulent fund.

Amaral accuses the McCanns of hiding their (dead) daughter's body and launching a fraudulent fund in their dead daughter's name.

All these things can be proven untrue.

So why did Amaral win the appeal?

[John]

1. The Portuguese prosecutors could find no basis of criminal charges against the McCanns.

Citing the Portuguese prosecutors ought to be all the McCanns have to do (in separate, civil, proceedings) to prove Amaral's allegations false.

Amaral accuses the McCanns of:

Killing their daughter (not murdering her, even though the investigation Amaral, initially, headed up did accuse the McCanns of murder).

Amaral accuses the McCanns of profiting from a fraudulent fund.

Amaral accuses the McCanns of hiding their (dead) daughter's body and launching a fraudulent fund in their dead daughter's name.

All these things can be proven untrue.

So why did Amaral win the appeal?

1.  Could you please explain what you mean by "Amaral accuses the McCanns of Killing their daughter", is this a reference to the Calpol allegation? 

2.  Could you also please define how the Inquiry headed up by Amaral accused the parents of murder?

[ferryman]

I will leave your post until you clarify some of your repetitive comments.

1.  Could you please explain what you mean by killing her, is this a reference to the Calpol allegation? 

2.  Could you also please define how the Inquiry found that the parents murdered her?

On point 2, the enquiry accused Kate and Gerry of murdering Madeleine.

Mark Harrison says, in his report, that he was invited to investigate only and solely murder.

Mark Harrison offered to investigate other possibilities or scenarios (sic) on request.

There is no evidence Mark Harrison was invited to do so.

The culmination of a murder enquiry was that Kate and Gerry were both constituted arguidos.

Robert Murat's arguido status was imposed much earlier, before the arrival of the British.

[John]

On point 2, the enquiry accused Kate and Gerry of murdering Madeleine.

Mark Harrison says, in his report, that he was invited to investigate only and solely murder.

Mark Harrison offered to investigate other possibilities or scenarios (sic) on request.

There is no evidence Mark Harrison was invited to do so.

The culmination of a murder enquiry was that Kate and Gerry were both constituted arguidos.

Robert Murat's arguido status was imposed much earlier, before the arrival of the British.

But you are making one huge inference here, Harrison's brief has nothing to do with Madeleine's parents, that refers to a third party murder.  There has never been any suggestion at any time by anyone that Madeleine was murdered by one or more parent.

[ferryman]

But you are making one huge step here, Harrison's brief has nothing to do with Madeleine's parents, that refers to a third party murder.

It has everything to do with Madeleine's parents.

Mark Harrison was invited to investigate that Madeleine had been murdered (sic):

This report considers solely the possibility that Madeleine McCann has been murdered and her body is concealed within the areas previously searched by Police in Zone 1 around Praia Da Luz. Other scenarios or possibilities may on request be considered and be subject of a further report.

(Mark Harrison)

The culmination of a murder enquiry was that Kate and Gerry were constituted arguido.

[ speculative comment deleted ]

[xtina]

1. The Portuguese prosecutors could find no basis of criminal charges against the McCanns.

Citing the Portuguese prosecutors ought to be all the McCanns have to do (in separate, civil, proceedings) to prove Amaral's allegations false.

Amaral accuses the McCanns of:

Killing their daughter (not murdering her, even though the investigation Amaral, initially, headed up did accuse the McCanns of murder).

Amaral accuses the McCanns of profiting from a fraudulent fund.

Amaral accuses the McCanns of hiding their (dead) daughter's body and launching a fraudulent fund in their dead daughter's name.

All these things can be proven untrue.

So why did Amaral win the appeal?

why i am explaining this to you ...i just don't know ...


G A ...believes maddie died in a accident...........not killed or murdered.....

as for winning the appeal..............seems no one is interested in there reputation etc etc.....but the mccs

and.....as for the pain G A is supposed to have caused ...wouldn't you have thought ...there is no pain suffering worse than what they are supposed to have gone through....

it seemed the libel trial on the mccs part .....was for revenge ........or there own gains

it obviously showed to the not one but three judges.....one of whom the mccs tried to get rid of .....

they can't have it all the own way .........and if you can't see that ...tough.....

[ferryman]

why i am explaining this to you ...i just don't know ...


G A ...believes maddie died in a accident...........not killed or murdered.....

as for winning the appeal..............seems no one is interested in there reputation etc etc.....but the mccs

and.....as for the pain G A is supposed to have caused ...wouldn't you have thought ...there is no pain suffering worse than what they are supposed to have gone through....

it seemed the libel trial on the mccs part .....was for revenge ........or there own gains

it obviously showed to the not one but three judges.....one of whom the mccs tried to get rid of .....

they can't have it all the own way .........and if you can't see that ...tough.....

A prerequisite of 'explaining' (anything) is that you actually have to have a semblance of a clue what you are talking about (before you can 'explain').

[stephen25000]

A prerequisite of 'explaining' (anything) is that you actually have to have a semblance of a clue what you are talking about (before you can 'explain').

Where in Amaral's book does it say 'killied or murdered'  ?

[ferryman]

Where in Amaral's book does it say 'killied or murdered'  ?

"killed" with an overdose of calpol.

[xtina]

A prerequisite of 'explaining' (anything) is that you actually have to have a semblance of a clue what you are talking about (before you can 'explain').

and you do .................



The McCanns sought €1.2m in damages from Amaral, saying they were “totally destroyed” and “depressed” by Amaral’s allegations, and felt “ashamed” that they might appear to have been to blame for their daughter’s disappearance.

Amaral had argued in his defence that his claims stemmed from the police investigation and that Portuguese media had already reported the possibility that the parents might have played a role in Madeleine’s disappearance.

The appeals court “decided that [Amaral] had the right to do what he did,” said Duarte. “It said he can write what he wants. It absolved him, said he didn’t have to pay anything.”

[ferryman]

and you do .................



The McCanns sought €1.2m in damages from Amaral, saying they were “totally destroyed” and “depressed” by Amaral’s allegations, and felt “ashamed” that they might appear to have been to blame for their daughter’s disappearance.

Amaral had argued in his defence that his claims stemmed from the police investigation and that Portuguese media had already reported the possibility that the parents might have played a role in Madeleine’s disappearance.

The appeals court “decided that [Amaral] had the right to do what he did,” said Duarte. “It said he can write what he wants. It absolved him, said he didn’t have to pay anything.”

The claims stemmed from Almeida's interim report, superseded by the final PJ report and by the archiving dispatch (even more so) which could find no basis, even for recommending that the McCanns be charged.

Certainly by English libel law (including as amended by the recent defence, to those accused of libel, of honest comment) it would be incumbent on Amaral to make all those things clear, or he would be guilty of libel.

That is why Amaral's book will never be commercially sold in England; neither his film.

Or, if it is, he will be sued for libel under English libel law, and will lose.