Pick any sentence from Kate's book.

[Alice Purjorick]

Do not abuse Brietta.  Her brain is second to none

How are your brain cells?

Cite please as per forum rules.

[G-Unit]

On the basis of having read it I would imagine.  Where in the ruling does the judge state that the book does not defame the McCanns with unfounded and preposterous accusations?

No, Alfie.

The question is did the judge say that it did? She did not.
Was Amaral ruled against because of what he wrote? He was not.
Would she have ruled against him if he was an everyday Portuguese person instead of a retired police officer? She would not.
Why did she find against him? Because in her opinion he didn't enjoy full freedom of speech, his was restricted by his previous occupation.
The appeal court judges said it wasn't.

[Alfie]

No, Alfie.

The question is did the judge say that it did? She did not.
Was Amaral ruled against because of what he wrote? He was not.
Would she have ruled against him if he was an everyday Portuguese person instead of a retired police officer? She would not.
Why did she find against him? Because in her opinion he didn't enjoy full freedom of speech, his was restricted by his previous occupation.
The appeal court judges said it wasn't.

The judge wasn't asked to decide whether or not the book defamed the McCanns or was full of preposterous lies, therefore to say that Brietta is wrong about the book because of something the judge didn't pronounce upon is ridiculous IMO.

[G-Unit]

The judge wasn't asked to decide whether or not the book defamed the McCanns or was full of preposterous lies, therefore to say that Brietta is wrong about the book because of something the judge didn't pronounce upon is ridiculous IMO.

She may right in her opinion and in your opinion but how can opinions be objectively judged?

Some facts were objectively judged;

Does the documentary only contain facts that are also in the inquiry files?

       (Items 27 & 28) It is proved that the facts in the book and in the documentary, concerning the investigation, are mostly facts
       that took place in the investigation and are documented as such.

       The Judge does note that some of the facts in the book are not complete, and some facts that are in the book are not in the case files,
       including Jane Tanner's alleged "informal" recognition of Robert Murat.

[G-Unit]

You were right.  I was deliberately using faulty logic to show how previous posts seemed to be illogical as well.


What about the bits in the book where he claims the British removed the files?  The files are released and translated but some parts are removed before publication.  This not impossible. But it is impossible for us web sleuths to verify.
Is it possible sections were removed?  Is Amaral correct?

He is correct. Information was withheld at the request of the UK and some was withheld by the Portuguese;

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MISSING_PAGES.htm

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LAWYERS_UK_POLICE.htm

[Alfie]

She may right in her opinion and in your opinion but how can opinions be objectively judged?

Some facts were objectively judged;

Does the documentary only contain facts that are also in the inquiry files?

       (Items 27 & 28) It is proved that the facts in the book and in the documentary, concerning the investigation, are mostly facts
       that took place in the investigation and are documented as such.

       The Judge does note that some of the facts in the book are not complete, and some facts that are in the book are not in the case files,
       including Jane Tanner's alleged "informal" recognition of Robert Murat.

Well there you go then.  "mostly" facts - and any facts which cannot be verified or are incomplete aren't facts are they?  Amaral claims as fact that Madeleine died in the apartment - is that a fact in your view?

[G-Unit]

Well there you go then.  "mostly" facts - and any fact which cannot be verified or are incomplete aren't facts are they?  Amaral claims as fact that Madeleine died in the apartment - is that a fact in your view?

I thought we were discussing certain opinions, which I contended weren't facts. If you cannot demonstrate their factual nature then, as I said, they may be wrong.

As to the fact you mention, it's in the files;

The minor Madeleine McCann died in the apartment 5A of the Ocean Club resort, on the night of May 3rd of 2007;
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TAVARES_ALMEIDA.htm

[Alfie]

I thought we were discussing certain opinions, which I contended weren't facts. If you cannot demonstrate their factual nature then, as I said, they may be wrong.

As to the fact you mention, it's in the files;

The minor Madeleine McCann died in the apartment 5A of the Ocean Club resort, on the night of May 3rd of 2007;
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TAVARES_ALMEIDA.htm

Oh it must be true then.

[G-Unit]

Oh it must be true then.

It was tested to see if it tallied with the investigation and it did. You can take that to mean it's true if you wish, but that wasn't the question.

[Benice]

She may right in her opinion and in your opinion but how can opinions be objectively judged?

Some facts were objectively judged;

Does the documentary only contain facts that are also in the inquiry files?

       (Items 27 & 28) It is proved that the facts in the book and in the documentary, concerning the investigation, are mostly facts
       that took place in the investigation and are documented as such.

       The Judge does note that some of the facts in the book are not complete, and some facts that are in the book are not in the case files,   
including Jane Tanner's alleged "informal" recognition of Robert Murat

Not true.  In fact the complete opposite of the truth.

Quote from Amaral's book:

''JANE TANNER FORMALLY RECOGNISES ROBERT MURAT''.

[Alfie]

It was tested to see if it tallied with the investigation and it did. You can take that to mean it's true if you wish, but that wasn't the question.

It's either a fact or it isn't - which is it?

[Alice Purjorick]

Well there you go then.  "mostly" facts - and any facts which cannot be verified or are incomplete aren't facts are they?  Amaral claims as fact that Madeleine died in the apartment - is that a fact in your view?

From the structure of the sentence  there are two possible constructions that may be placed on it.
If one chooses "the other" construction your argument falls flat on its kite.
It's easy to appreciate why you chose the construction you did.......or maybe you didn't see there were two?

[G-Unit]

Not true.  In fact the complete opposite of the truth.

Quote from Amaral's book:

''JANE TANNER FORMALLY RECOGNISES ROBERT MURAT''.

OMG! Quick, tell the judge she missed something! Oh dear....it's too late.

[G-Unit]

It's either a fact or it isn't - which is it?

It what?

[Alfie]

It what?

Look, I know you don't like answering straight forward questions but could you please stop playing games - either answer them or go back to ignoring my questions like you did yesterday.