UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
Disappeared and Abducted Children and Young Adults => Madeleine McCann (3) disappeared from her parent's holiday apartment at Ocean Club, Praia da Luz, Portugal on 3 May 2007. No trace of her has ever been found. => Topic started by: Robittybob1 on January 19, 2018, 08:54:37 PM
-
Can we get the real definition of libel and then how it applies to this forum, for I am supposed to be able to judge what is libellous and what is not.
What can we say about the McCanns and the Tapas 7? Are we allowed to report quotes from articles in newspapers? Transcripts from videos, quotes from books, etc even quotes from the PJ file where one witness is describing what another person did is potentially libellous, for it could be wrong in fact.
Te classic would be Gerry's statement on the 4th "At about 22.00 it was his wife Kate who went to check on the children. She entered the apartment by the door using the key and saw immediately that the door to the children's bedroom was completely open, the window was also open, the blinds were raised and the curtains were drawn open."
We believe that is incorrect as to do that she would have had to pass by the open shutters before she got to the door to open it. It appear Gerry is telling a lie here. Am I allowed to say "he lied"? Am I allowed to quote this lie for he appears to be libelling Kate for her statement the same day states she came in through the sliding door not needing a key.
Dictionary Google definition of Libel:
"libel
noun
1.
LAW
a published false statement that is damaging to a person's reputation; a written defamation.
"he was found guilty of a libel on a Liverpool inspector of taxes"
synonyms: defamation, defamation of character, character assassination, calumny, misrepresentation, scandalmongering; More
2.
(in admiralty and ecclesiastical law) a plaintiff's written declaration.
verb
1.
LAW
defame (someone) by publishing a libel.
"the jury found that he was libelled by a newspaper"
synonyms: defame, malign, slander, give someone a bad name, blacken someone's name, sully someone's reputation, speak ill/evil of, write false reports about, traduce, smear, cast aspersions on, fling mud at, drag someone's name through the mud/mire, besmirch, tarnish, taint, do a hatchet job on, tell lies about, spread tales about, spread scandal about, stain, vilify, calumniate, denigrate, disparage, run down, derogate, stigmatize, discredit, slight; "
Consider:
"a published false statement that is damaging to a person's reputation; a written defamation." So does that mean we can say something good about a person knowing or unknowingly it was incorrect, for it can't damage his reputation? I suppose that still falls under "write false reports about".
Imagine if someone said "I'm going to sue you for you said something nice about me and I want to portray my evil reputation"!
But how is libel defined by the forum?
-
Is it true that claims of libel are only made by supporters? Do sceptics make claims that things are libelous?
-
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8979.msg441289#msg441289
I was concerned about libel when I wrote that post.
Quote: "A Mark Warner guest, a man, out on the streets just prior to 10:00 PM that knows Madeleine by name must be within rather a limited number of people.
Note: I'm not suggesting this person has done anything wrong or illegal."
For that subset must be such a limited number of people one could claim that is libel, but I'm saying "he wasn't doing anything wrong", but in the end he doesn't come forward either, and that could be damaging his reputation. But I didn't mention that aspect.
-
Is it true that claims of libel are only made by supporters? Do sceptics make claims that things are libelous?
I thought it was the other way around!
"Is it true that claims of libel are only made by sceptics? Do supporters make claims that things are libellous?"
Is our judgement of libel tainted by our own perception of the case?
-
I thought it was the other way around!
"Is it true that claims of libel are only made by sceptics? Do supporters make claims that things are libellous?"
Is our judgement of libel tainted by our own perception of the case?
Libel in uk law is extremely simple
-
I thought it was the other way around!
"Is it true that claims of libel are only made by sceptics? Do supporters make claims that things are libellous?"
Is our judgement of libel tainted by our own perception of the case?
I don't know. I've never claimed that anything is libel (as far as I can remember), as it's not something I get all het up and excited about.
-
Libel in uk law is extremely simple
So are you implying, without actually saying it, that the forum is applying the definition of libel as per the UK law?
And declaring it is simple?
-
Uk libel law is, simple.. Have the mods here applied it fairly.... No.. Imo
Tell me about it then and let's see if we can get some consensus as to how to define libel for it confused me today.
is taking quotes from the following article libel? https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3428088/kate-mccann-scream-night-madeleine-went-missing/
especially the quote by Mr Paul Moyes as to what Kate was screaming. The quote was ""She was screaming 'the f***ing b******s have taken her'."
When that was claimed as libel I was wondering if the person/s who took her was being libelled? Was he really a f***ing b******s? Was that damaging his/their reputation/s?
-
Tell me about it then and let's see if we can get some consensus as to how to define libel for it confused me today.
is taking quotes from the following article libel? https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3428088/kate-mccann-scream-night-madeleine-went-missing/
especially the quote by Mr Paul Moyes as to what Kate was screaming. The quote was ""She was screaming 'the f***ing b******s have taken her'."
When that was claimed as libel I was wondering if the person/s who took her was being libelled? Was he really a f***ing b******s? Was that damaging his/their reputation/s?
An unnamed, unspecified person has no reputation to damage.
-
An unnamed, unspecified person has no reputation to damage.
I have seen the word "insinuation" being used. The person might not be named but the circumstance mean there is only one person who fits that role, do the rules apply then as if you had named him? How narrow can it become, 1, 2 , 3 ? If it was a group of 3 unnamed people can one those claim libel by insinuation?
-
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2013/26/section/2/enacted
-
Fairly striaght forward. You can say someone may have been mistaken or misremembered but not lied, you can point out anomalies and discrepancies to your hearts content. You can’t make accusations against a limited group of known people without evidence. To use spent convictions to damage someone’s reputation is defamation.
-
Fairly striaght forward. You can say someone may have been mistaken or misremembered but not lied, you can point out anomalies and discrepancies to your hearts content. You can’t make accusations against a limited group of known people without evidence. To use spent convictions to damage someone’s reputation is defamation.
So going back to the OP I would have to say Gerry was mistaken when he said Kate entered through the front door and used the key.
"The classic would be Gerry's statement on the 4th "At about 22.00 it was his wife Kate who went to check on the children. She entered the apartment by the door using the key and saw immediately that the door to the children's bedroom was completely open, the window was also open, the blinds were raised and the curtains were drawn open."
We believe that is incorrect as to do that she would have had to pass by the open shutters before she got to the door to open it. It appear Gerry is telling a lie here. Am I allowed to say "he lied"? Am I allowed to quote this lie for he appears to be libelling Kate for her statement the same day states she came in through the sliding door not needing a key.
-
So going back to the OP I would have to say Gerry was mistaken when he said Kate entered through the front door and used the key.
"The classic would be Gerry's statement on the 4th "At about 22.00 it was his wife Kate who went to check on the children. She entered the apartment by the door using the key and saw immediately that the door to the children's bedroom was completely open, the window was also open, the blinds were raised and the curtains were drawn open."
We believe that is incorrect as to do that she would have had to pass by the open shutters before she got to the door to open it. It appear Gerry is telling a lie here. Am I allowed to say "he lied"? Am I allowed to quote this lie for he appears to be libelling Kate for her statement the same day states she came in through the sliding door not needing a key.
To say someone is lying is suggesting they made a conscious decision to say something that they knew wasn’t true and is very difficult to prove unless you have other evidence of them believing the opposite.
-
So going back to the OP I would have to say Gerry was mistaken when he said Kate entered through the front door and used the key.
"The classic would be Gerry's statement on the 4th "At about 22.00 it was his wife Kate who went to check on the children. She entered the apartment by the door using the key and saw immediately that the door to the children's bedroom was completely open, the window was also open, the blinds were raised and the curtains were drawn open."
We believe that is incorrect as to do that she would have had to pass by the open shutters before she got to the door to open it. It appear Gerry is telling a lie here. Am I allowed to say "he lied"? Am I allowed to quote this lie for he appears to be libelling Kate for her statement the same day states she came in through the sliding door not needing a key.
Rob, you don't know if he was lying, nor even if he was mistaken. Or, if he was mistaken - in which way (that he actually forgot which door he used) or if he contributed to a general confusion over which was the front or back door). He may not have even made a mistake - the officer or the interpreter could have misunderstood.
It probably wouldn't be libellous to state that he was mistaken (as opposed to lying), but I still don't see how you can state even that as fact.
The only thing that's fact is that the 4 May statement says he entered via a key. If there had been an audio recording of him actually saying that during that interview, then that would be a different matter. IMO.
-
Libel in uk law is extremely simple
G Archer made that simple mistake.
£1.5 million I believe.
-
G Archer made that simple mistake.
£1.5 million I believe.
And there's an expensive story behind the expression of someone being "tired and emotional". lol
-
The group were keen to get all the details recorded for the police so they got together and agreed a timeline which was given to the PJ on 10th May. It says;
2115: JT leaves table, and sees GM talking with fellow resident ("Jez" Wilkins) outside the patio gate of 5A. The two were standing just up the hill from the gate towards Rua A. da Silva Road. She did not speak to GM as she passed.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TIME_LINE_3_MAY_07.htm
On the same day Gerry tells the PJ;
After going through the side gate, and while on his way to the secondary reception entrance, less than 10 metres from the gate, he saw JEZ coming up the street on the opposite pavement bring with him a baby carriage with his youngest child. He crossed the road in JEZ's direction who would come up on the right-hand side [when viewed] from the ascending direction, both having chatted for 3 to 4 minutes,
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN-10MAY.htm
Clearly Jane and Gerry don't agree. Jez agrees with Jane, too;
I met him near the stairs of a ground floor. There was a gate leading up to some stairs
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JEREMY-WILKINS.htm
A person looking at all that might think that Gerry is lying, but it would be libellous to write it down because lying is a deliberate attempt to deceive, and that can't be demonstrated. In such cases the poster can present the evidence and readers can form their own opinions as to why Gerry seemed initially to accept Jane's version but then changed it.
-
They do the combined timeline before the next round of interviews and from then on it is sorted.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TIME_LINE_3_MAY_07.htm
"2105: GM returns to his flat (5A) and enters via the patio gate entrance. This and a child gate at the top of the stairs were closed at the time. He enters the flat via the patio door which is closed but unlocked."
-
They do the combined timeline before the next round of interviews and from then on it is sorted.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TIME_LINE_3_MAY_07.htm
"2105: GM returns to his flat (5A) and enters via the patio gate entrance. This and a child gate at the top of the stairs were closed at the time. He enters the flat via the patio door which is closed but unlocked."
I was using the anomaly as an example of what you can and cannot post, but as you've answered it I have to point out that 2 or 3 days after the group agreed to give their definitive written record to the police Gerry contradicted it in his next statement.
-
They do the combined timeline before the next round of interviews and from then on it is sorted.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TIME_LINE_3_MAY_07.htm
"2105: GM returns to his flat (5A) and enters via the patio gate entrance. This and a child gate at the top of the stairs were closed at the time. He enters the flat via the patio door which is closed but unlocked."
How does it compare with the hand-written done on the back of a colouring book?
-
How does it compare with the hand-written done on the back of a colouring book?
The first is the handwritten, the second the typed.
All at table 8.45 becomes 9 pm
Matthew listens at windows at 9 pm then 8.55.
Gerry's check 9.15 to 9.05
Jane's check 9.20 to 9.15
Russell in 5D 9.30 becomes 9.25
Kate's check 9.55 to 10.00.
The biggest changes are the 15 minute change to when everyone was seated and the 10 minute change in Gerry's checking time. It's peculiar that Jane checked at 9.20 and Russell was back there at 9.30.
-
The first is the handwritten, the second the typed.
All at table 8.45 becomes 9 pm
Matthew listens at windows at 9 pm then 8.55.
Gerry's check 9.15 to 9.05
Jane's check 9.20 to 9.15
Russell in 5D 9.30 becomes 9.25
Kate's check 9.55 to 10.00.
The biggest changes are the 15 minute change to when everyone was seated and the 10 minute change in Gerry's checking time. It's peculiar that Jane checked at 9.20 and Russell was back there at 9.30.
The typed one creates a bigger interval, though not at the time first suspected.
-
The first is the handwritten, the second the typed.
All at table 8.45 becomes 9 pm
Matthew listens at windows at 9 pm then 8.55.
Gerry's check 9.15 to 9.05
Jane's check 9.20 to 9.15
Russell in 5D 9.30 becomes 9.25
Kate's check 9.55 to 10.00.
The biggest changes are the 15 minute change to when everyone was seated and the 10 minute change in Gerry's checking time. It's peculiar that Jane checked at 9.20 and Russell was back there at 9.30.
Yes, I mentioned that earlier, either here or on another thread. No sensible explanation, only that he had a need to take a pee.
Somebody else taking the P, I think.
-
When did Russell make those first notes? In the middle of the night of 3-4 May, or am I mistaken about that?
If so, how many people would have been thinking clearly at that point?
On 4 May, lots of them had different impressions of time. They were on holiday and prior to the disappearance little reason to have a precise notion of time.
If K & G chose to do their checks according to time as opposed to pauses in the meals, then the others may have taken that as a guideline in the typed-up version.
Once they'd worked out who arrived in which order and who left for a check in which order and a rough estimation of time in between those "events", with the inevitable "no, I think you left a bit before / after" and any discussion around that, then a more accurate estimation of times could be made (from their point of view).
Unless, of course, everyone was "init" and they just hoped that none of the guests or staff, or even potential CCTVs could verifiably contradict them.
If that were the case, and nothing's impossible, what evidence is there that there was some kind of pre-planned or spontaneous cover-up? And why would they all agree to it? They'd already stated what their child-care arrangements were (whether one thinks that they were irresponsible or not).
I've reads loads of the conspiracy theories, but they all seem to start from the parentswhatdunnit theory, that Amaral was absolutely correct, "except for...". One was even that she'd never even gone to Portugal, another that she'd been cloned, yet another popular one seems to be that she was done away with almost as soon as she arrived and that anyone who'd seen her was unreliable.
What evidence supports these theories?
-
The typed one creates a bigger interval, though not at the time first suspected.
That is one of those IQ tests that I could easily fail. Where is the bigger interval and was it done intentionally?
"The first is the handwritten, the second the typed.
1. All at table 8.45 becomes 9 pm - that is correct as there was no way the statements aligned if they were all there at 8:45, yet Carpenter said they were all there earlier but did he count properly??
2. Matthew listens at windows at 9 pm then 8.55. Minor alteration.
3. Gerry's check 9.15 to 9.05 - Significant change, suspicious?
Jane's check 9.20 to 9.15 - I think this becomes important if they want to allow Jane to see Jez and Gerry talk If it was 9:20 she missed Jez and Gerry.
Russell in 5D 9.30 becomes 9.25 well relatively minor but what is the point?
Kate's check 9.55 to 10.00." I think there had to be enough time allowed to recook Russell's steak. The return of his steak coincides with Kate's check somehow. For he doesn't get to finish it.
-
That is one of those IQ tests that I could easily fail. Where is the bigger interval and was it done intentionally?
"The first is the handwritten, the second the typed.
1. All at table 8.45 becomes 9 pm - that is correct as there was no way the statements aligned if they were all there at 8:45, yet Carpenter said they were all there earlier but did he count properly??
2. Matthew listens at windows at 9 pm then 8.55. Minor alteration.
3. Gerry's check 9.15 to 9.05 - Significant change, suspicious?
Jane's check 9.20 to 9.15 - I think this becomes important if they want to allow Jane to see Jez and Gerry talk If it was 9:20 she missed Jez and Gerry.
Russell in 5D 9.30 becomes 9.25 well relatively minor but what is the point?
Kate's check 9.55 to 10.00." I think there had to be enough time allowed to recook Russell's steak. The return of his steak coincides with Kate's check somehow. For he doesn't get to finish it.
Russell's drafts on the back of a colouring book seem to have been just trying to jot down notes based on whoever was around. At least that's how I understand the situation at whatever time it was, when not everyone was necessarily around and not necessarily in a state of mind to concentrate.
The typed-up one may well have been done at a moment with fewer "headless chickens" in a state of panic.
Which is more likely to be accurate?