Australian Ch7 documentary claims new lead in search for missing Madeleine McCann.

[John]

So in that case are we allowed to accuse the McCanns of over sedating Maddie and covering up her death

On here accusations are prohibited as you know.

[Mr Gray]

On here accusations are prohibited as you know.

Is that because they are libellous

[ferryman]

Cobblers.

The McCann's inflicted damage on themselves through what they failed to do.

Pleasing to note the (steadily more apparent) abandonment of discussion of (Amaral's) allegations of what they are (supposed!) to have done.

It's all about 'neglect', now, explicitly rejected by the Portuguese prosecutors, together with other, far more serious crimes, equally emphatically rejected by the Portuguese prosecutors.

And yet Amaral is accorded 'free speech' to make these baseless allegations.

[Brietta]

On here accusations are prohibited as you know.

What to do about constant repetition of opinion pieces such as this?
"The McCann's inflicted damage on themselves through what they failed to do."

[Eleanor]

We actually don't know who committed a crime, if anyone did.

As to police officers who have committed offenses, look that up as regards UK police.

What offense did Amaral commit in this case ?

Dear Stephen,  I don't have any great argument with you.  I understand perfectly, how The Supreme Court arrived at their decision, and how The Judge in The First Instance arrived at hers.

So, we have a Legal Difference of Opinion.  I think that this is the whole point.  Who won or lost is actually irrelevant.  And I have no doubt that The McCanns can see this as well.

[Eleanor]

According to the Portuguese legal system Amaral did not defame the McCanns. That's what counts, not the opinion of the McCanns, their lawyers or your opinion.

There are no experts on libel on this forum. I have had posts removed as 'libelous' and have re-posted them because they were not.

My opinions are based on what I have seen written and heard said. The McCanns have failed to convince me but that doesn't make me biased because I haven't dismissed any of the possibilities in the case. They may be completely innocent and just pretty bad at convincing people.

This is not true.  Amaral did Defame The McCanns.  But The Court said that he has a right to do this, over and above their right to a Reputation.

[Eleanor]

Is that because they are libellous

Of course.

[G-Unit]

This is not true.  Amaral did Defame The McCanns.  But The Court said that he has a right to do this, over and above their right to a Reputation.

I have read all of the Court documents and nowhere did they say Amaral had the right to defame the McCanns.

[stephen25000]

What to do about constant repetition of opinion pieces such as this?
"The McCann's inflicted damage on themselves through what they failed to do."

Tell me where that is incorrect Brietta ?

As to repetition, I and others find it innately irritating when abduction is typed as fact. 

[carlymichelle]

Tell me where that is incorrect Brietta ?

As to repetition, I and others find it innately irritating when abduction is typed as fact.

even new  and  old  police claim maddie likley wasnt abducted   ie she went looking for her parents etc

[Eleanor]

I have read all of the Court documents and nowhere did they say Amaral had the right to defame the McCanns.

So what do you think Amaral was doing?

[Mr Gray]

I have read all of the Court documents and nowhere did they say Amaral had the right to defame the McCanns.

Amaral has said Maddie died in the apartment and her parents covered it up
In legal terms that is libel per se
The court upheld his right to say it

[Eleanor]

even new  and  old  police claim maddie likley wasnt abducted   ie she went looking for her parents etc

Do you think The McCanns didn't harm their daughter.

[ferryman]

This is not true.  Amaral did Defame The McCanns.  But The Court said that he has a right to do this, over and above their right to a Reputation.

I would qualify that slightly.

At the point Amaral was removed from the investigation, the investigation was (more or less) at the point of the Almeida Interim Report, which is largely what Amaral's book is based on.

That is what's meant by the oft-repeated mantra that Amaral's book is 'based on the files'.

So whilst it is true that (much) of the content of Amaral's book is based on material that can be located in the files (albeit contradicted by much else, also located in the files) massive chunks (of the content of Amaral's book) are simply not in the files.

Nowhere is it written in the files that Amaral contradicted and corrected Stuart Prior on interpretation of the forensic results.

Nowhere is it written in the files that Stuart Prior rang the FSS to berate them on the PJ's powers of arrest.

Nowhere is it written in the files that Mark Harrison turned the investigation into one for a little girl assumed dead and buried somewhere close to apartment 5a

Nowhere is it written in the files that Harrison hinted that someone close to Madeleine, and maybe even her parents, might be behind Madeleine's disappearance.

Nowhere is it written in the files that English police officers wore 'find Madeleine' ribbons until they read the files and realised how compelling the case against the McCanns was.

Nowhere is it written in the files that Eddie 'scented death' all over the place.  (Slight correction, it is written in Almeida's report, but nowhere else, and Almeida is not the expert).

It is written in the files (the archiving dispatch) that neither Kate nor Gerry could reasonably have been expected to foresee an abduction of any of their children.

A second (joint) investigation is not remotely considering Kate, Gerry or any of their friends.

Yet Amaral stands to profit from his book.

Amazing!

[ferryman]

Amaral has said Maddie died in the apartment and her parents covered it up
In legal terms that is libel per se
The court upheld his right to say it

That's the summary

(And the scandal)