Did Amaral's book really damage the search for Madeleine McCann?

[slartibartfast]

If Amaral had shut up, perhaps more information might have been forthcoming earlier... Just a thought.

If the McCanns had ignored Amaral's book it would have faded into obscurity.

[Alfie]

If the McCanns had ignored Amaral's book it would have faded into obscurity.

How do you know?  It might have been made into a movie, a sequel might have been written with even more scurrilous crap in it.  The case hasn't faded into obscurity, so I don't see why a determined wannabe celeb like Amaral would allow his profile to dip significantly in his home country at least.

[Benice]

Benice it always surprises me that supporters are not more angered that funds donated to further the search for a little girl they claim to care about are being diverted to pay for unnecessary litigation.

We are told that the case against Amaral was brought because his book was harming the search for Madeleine but what has really caused more harm, a book which most people would never have heard of if not for the litigation or having very little money in the fund to pay for the investigators needed to further the search?

IMO Amaral via his libelous book attempted to take away Madeleine's fundamental right to be considered alive (until there is evidence to prove otherwise) and her right to be searched for.    IMO a successful case brought by the McCanns would have gone a long way to restore her right in the public's eye to be regarded as a living child who could be found.

His book was not virtually unknown - it was a best-seller and so IMO the McCanns were left with no choice but to challenge it for Madeleine's sake.      As far as I am concerned to use money from the fund to try to achieve that aim is perfectly acceptable.

AIMHO

[stephen25000]

IMO Amaral via his libelous book attempted to take away Madeleine's fundamental right to be considered alive (until there is evidence to prove otherwise) and her right to be searched for.    IMO a successful case brought by the McCanns would have gone a long way to restore her right in the public's eye to be regarded as a living child who could be found.

His book was not virtually unknown - it was a best-seller and so IMO the McCanns were left with no choice but to challenge it for Madeleine's sake.      As far as I am concerned to use money from the fund to try to achieve that aim is perfectly acceptable.

AIMHO

'libelous book'.

Perhaps you can tell me which court case has confirmed it to be libelous ?

As to the Mccanns, their actions ensured through the court actions that Amaral's book received a much wider audience.

They are responsible for the books wider distribution. They should have left it alone.

IMHO of course.

[Robittybob1]

@Faithlilly, don't you accept the argument that Goncalo Amaral's book was damaging for the search for Madeleine?

[G-Unit]

@Faithlilly, don't you accept the argument that Goncalo Amaral's book was damaging for the search for Madeleine?

The judge in the lower court found it not proved. How could it be proved?

11. Because of the statements made by defendant Gonçalo Amaral in the book, in the documentary and in the interview to Correio da Manhã, the Polícia Judiciária stopped collecting information and investigating the disappearance of Madeleine McCann?

       Not proved.

22. The attention of the media and of people in general diminished when defendant Gonçalo Amaral’s book was published?

       Not proved.

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=5931.0

[faithlilly]

Don't you accept the argument that Goncalo Amaral's book was damaging for the search for Madeleine?

No I don't. It's a ridiculous argument roundly trashed by the trial judge and was used merely to justify the McCanns using the fund for their own private litigation. With so many different sightings of Madeleine even after the book was published the truth of my position is self-evident.

[Robittybob1]

The judge in the lower court found it not proved. How could it be proved?

11. Because of the statements made by defendant Gonçalo Amaral in the book, in the documentary and in the interview to Correio da Manhã, the Polícia Judiciária stopped collecting information and investigating the disappearance of Madeleine McCann?

       Not proved.

22. The attention of the media and of people in general diminished when defendant Gonçalo Amaral’s book was published?

       Not proved.

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=5931.0

I see what you mean, there needed to be some study to show people's perceptions had changed because of the claims in the book.  Maybe that was a mistake on the McCann's part for my gut feeling is that it could easily have been proven.  But since they hadn't done the study it wasn't proven.  There doesn't seem to be the appreciation of the inevitable. 

[Alfie]

No I don't. It's a ridiculous argument roundly trashed by the trial judge and was used merely to justify the McCanns using the fund for their own private litigation. With so many different sightings of Madeleine even after the book was published the truth of my position is self-evident.

"Not proven". What do you understand by this phrase? 

[ferryman]

No I don't. It's a ridiculous argument roundly trashed by the trial judge and was used merely to justify the McCanns using the fund for their own private litigation. With so many different sightings of Madeleine even after the book was published the truth of my position is self-evident.

If you are talking about the first-instance judge, she commented that the book did not harm the investigation into Madeleine's disappearance,

It didn't.

The book was published after the investigation was shelved.

Is that what you are referring to?

[faithlilly]

"Not proven". What do you understand by this phrase?

Which means that after looking at all the evidence the judge did not consider it proved the McCanns claim. Surely after 6 or so years of the case if the McCanns had such evidence they would have presented it? 

[Robittybob1]

No I don't. It's a ridiculous argument roundly trashed by the trial judge and was used merely to justify the McCanns using the fund for their own private litigation. With so many different sightings of Madeleine even after the book was published the truth of my position is self-evident.

Hundreds of false alarms don't help.  It is that insider information that they really needed. 

[Alfie]

Which means that after looking at all the evidence the judge did not consider it proved the McCanns claim. Surely after 6 or so years of the case if the McCanns had such evidence they would have presented it?

So, neither proven nor disproven in other words.  No firm evidence either way.  Maybe it did harm the search, maybe it didn't - who knows?

Did the judge not have the option to state firmly that the accusation was false?

[faithlilly]

Hundreds of false alarms don't help.  It is that insider information that they really needed.

If it was an insider who had come forward Amaral's book would have no bearing on that.

[faithlilly]

So, neither proven nor disproven in other words.  No firm evidence either way.  Maybe it did harm the search, maybe it didn't - who knows?

Did the judge not have the option to state firmly that the accusation was false?

But supporters and the McCanns strenuously claim Amaral's book harmed the search. They must base that claim on something.