Were the McCanns innocent in the eyes of the law?

[Mr Gray]

Whatever you think SY have decided it isn't important because it isn't and never was their case. In the unlikely event they get enough evidence for a trial they will have to go cap in hand to the Portuguese and persuade them to proceed the matter. I suspect very strong evidence would be needed before that happened.

If they do find evidence then the Portuguese will have no choice but to assist them

[Alice Purjorick]

oh dear...your condition is deteriorating

I have been aware of that for quite sometime. It is terminal and that's a fact.

[G-Unit]

It's not annoying at all as it doesn't affect me in the slightest
Will it be annoying for you if SY confirm that the parents are not involved and they believe Maddie was abducted

It gives that impression when you keep repeating the same thing over and over. The book is in the past and it didn't offend anyone's rights so why keep on about it?

As the case doesn't and never did belong to SY they can believe and say what they like. They may look silly if they can't support their beliefs with evidence, but that's their problem. I don't expect to be annoyed, but I might be amused.

[Alice Purjorick]

If they do find evidence then the Portuguese will have no choice but to assist them

It will be interesting to see how that works and pans out.

[Mr Gray]

It gives that impression when you keep repeating the same thing over and over. The book is in the past and it didn't offend anyone's rights so why keep on about it?

As the case doesn't and never did belong to SY they can believe and say what they like. They may look silly if they can't support their beliefs with evidence, but that's their problem. I don't expect to be annoyed, but I might be amused.

You may think SY will look sill but as someone who has respect for Amaral then you look rather silly
The fact that the court ruled against the McCanns does not mean the book did not offend their rights
It means the court does not seem to understand the declaration of human rights which they should respect
It makes them look rather silly

[G-Unit]

If they do find evidence then the Portuguese will have no choice but to assist them

Assist them? The boot is on the other foot, my friend. The role of OG is to assist the Portuguese, not the other way round. Any evidence they offer will be assessed by the Portuguese and any prosecution will take place only if the Portuguese think the evidence is sufficient. The choice is theirs.

[stephen25000]

You may think SY will look sill but as someone who has respect for Amaral then you look rather silly
The fact that the court ruled against the McCanns does not mean the book did not offend their rights
It means the court does not seem to understand the declaration of human rights which they should respect
It makes them look rather silly

Pure drivel.

It is Madeleine's rights and her siblings which were impinged, by their parents, who did not protect them.

Don't try the 'poor me McCann parent act', that washed thin a long time ago.

[G-Unit]

You may think SY will look sill but as someone who has respect for Amaral then you look rather silly
The fact that the court ruled against the McCanns does not mean the book did not offend their rights
It means the court does not seem to understand the declaration of human rights which they should respect
It makes them look rather silly

Now you're looking silly unless you can identify the exact legal points the judges got wrong and why. 

[Mr Gray]

Now you're looking silly unless you can identify the exact legal points the judges got wrong and why. 

amarals book clearly breaches the mccanns right to a good name under european law

[stephen25000]

amarals book clearly breaches the mccanns right to a good name under european law

They have been through the court system and failed.

it is time they accepted that, and pay up what they owe.

[stephen25000]

DCI Redwood seemed to contradict himself - maybe it's catching LOL. "Primarily what we sought to do from the beginning is try and draw everything back to zero if you like. Try and take everything back to the beginning and re-analyse and reassess everything, accepting nothing."

That is exactly what the McCann's and their team don't want to hear.

[G-Unit]

amarals book clearly breaches the mccanns right to a good name under european law

I look forward to your explanation of which law or laws he breached and how. You might like to explain, while you're at it, why the first judge, after looking at all the applicable laws, chose to find against him only on the basis that he breached the 'duty of reserve' imposed upon him by his status as a retired policeman?

Page 44
the defendant Goncalo Amaral, although retired on 1st July 2008, did not enjoy, on the following July 24, in respect of the results of the criminal investigation released on the 21st of the same month and year, a large and full freedom of expression. This freedom was conditioned by the functions he had, functions that imposed him special duties that traverse the status of retirement, including the duty of reserve.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6307.0

The inference being, of course, that had he not been bound by the duty of reserve he would have done nothing wrong. The Appeal judges rejected her opinion.

Therefore, there is no duty of reserve that can be imposed to the defendant (R) about facts that were disseminated and made public, namely of all the inquiry process.

– Being that duty of reserve nonexistent, the freedom of expression of the defendant (R) is dominant (greater) in comparison with the invoked rights of the appealed, as the verdict agreed up to the point of inserting that unusual duty of reserve.
http://pjga.blogspot.co.uk/search?updated-min=2016-01-01T00:00:00Z&updated-max=2017-01-01T00:00:00Z&max-results=5

Note that the judges have drawn attention to the fact that the first judge also ruled that Amaral's freedom of expression was dominant. She used the 'duty of reserve' argument to restrict his freedom of speech and thus rule for the McCanns.

[Brietta]

That is exactly what the McCann's and their team don't want to hear.

The majority of sensible commentators have realised and welcomed the fact that Scotland Yard started with the bare bones of the inquiry into Madeleine's disappearance right from its genesis.

Their initial inquiries thus out of the way enabled them to progress to the next logical step which was the remit to pursue the abduction just as they would had it occurred in Britain.

Not a thing there which is not welcomed by any with Madeleine McCann's best interest at heart.

[stephen25000]

The majority of sensible commentators have realised and welcomed the fact that Scotland Yard started with the bare bones of the inquiry into Madeleine's disappearance right from its genesis.

Their initial inquiries thus out of the way enabled them to progress to the next logical step which was the remit to pursue the abduction just as they would had it occurred in Britain.

Not a thing there which is not welcomed by any with Madeleine McCann's best interest at heart.

In fact the majority of sensible people, that doesn't include a biased tabloid press, have noted, there is no conformation at all from SY, that they ever interviewed the McCann's or associates.

Please keep to the facts.

[barrier]

Their initial inquiries thus out of the way enabled them to progress to the next logical step which was the remit to pursue the abduction just as they would had it occurred in Britain.

By doing so they have totally failed in apprehending any one,tis a sod to work out why.