What is libel on the Madeleine McCann board?

[Mr Gray]

Now that is a step too far.  That might be making me think in terms of libel at this level of bringing him down.

Yet its OK to call HCW a liar... You prove my point... The forum is biased

[Robittybob1]

You keep on avoiding my questions to ask questions of your own so until you start giving some direct answers I have nothing more to say to you.

You said "about providing the author’s words as a cite to prove something is true"  So I'm asking you to find something in her book ("the author’s words") and use it as "a cite to prove something is true".

[barrier]

Of course some cite Cat Baker as an independent witness to the window being open but she didn’t see the window until after Kate raised the alarm. A witness’s testimony would only be useful if they’d gone with Kate to do the check and saw the window open at that time.

A prosecution will be hard pressed to use that, no picture in crime scene photo's therefore its heresay.

[Vertigo Swirl]

It isn't fair but it's clear to me the forum is biased against the McCanns. For years it's been OK to criticise the McCanns and anyone who supports them

So basically its only libel when its about Grime or Amaral etc, otherwise it’s fair comment such as “Amaral solved the case in 2007”.  No need for cites or IMOs in that case, it even gets a mod stamp of approval.

[Robittybob1]

Yet its OK to call HCW a liar... You prove my point... The forum is biased

HCW = public figure
HCW  is sitting on unknown information.
Someone could call him a liar and it might not be libel for it is rather common for prosecutors to be called liars.

[barrier]

Do these Australian books blame the case on a specific suspect?  If the books in Australia damage a person's reputation and they seek legal advice they could claim damages from the author.    It was a civil case not a criminal case.
GA didn't commit a crime but he would have been accused of breaking a law related to protecting a person's reputation.

Did the book do more damage than (allegedly) actually leaving the children alone .

[Vertigo Swirl]

You said "about providing the author’s words as a cite to prove something is true"  So I'm asking you to find something in her book ("the author’s words") and use it as "a cite to prove something is true".

I’m citing the entire book as proof Madeleine was abducted.  In the same way G-Unit used an excerpt from Amaral’s book to prove he resigned for noble reasons.

[Vertigo Swirl]

More to the point should I have received a warning and points for saying Amaral resigned to cash in on the case when points awarded for calling a man a hustler who sold his story to the press and embellished the story (no evidence supplied to back it up) were removed and the post deemed not libellous?  This is really important and its a point all you mods are studiously avoiding - why?

Apply the ruled evenly and fairly or not at all!

Answer this one Rob.

[Vertigo Swirl]

A prosecution will be hard pressed to use that, no picture in crime scene photo's therefore its heresay.

Do courts no longer use witness testimony then?  The Smiths can rest easy in the case against Gerry McCann then!

[Mr Gray]

So basically its only libel when its about Grime or Amaral etc, otherwise it’s fair comment such as “Amaral solved the case in 2007”.  No need for cites or IMOs in that case, it even gets a mod stamp of approval.

I think there's a lot of panic because it's seems HCW may well have solved the case which will prove many posters have been wrong all along

[Robittybob1]

So basically its only libel when its about Grime or Amaral etc, otherwise it’s fair comment such as “Amaral solved the case in 2007”.  No need for cites or IMOs in that case, it even gets a mod stamp of approval.

Libel is damaging statements.  Saying “Amaral solved the case in 2007” isn't damaging to Amaral so it couldn't be libel IMO.

[Vertigo Swirl]

I think there's a lot of panic because it's seems HCW may well have solved the case which will prove many posters have been wrong all along

There’s a lot of something definitely.

[Mr Gray]

Libel is damaging statements.  Saying “Amaral solved the case in 2007” isn't damaging to Amaral so it couldn't be libel IMO.

Therefore saying HCW has solved the case isn't libel... You are so inconsistent

[barrier]

Do courts no longer use witness testimony then?  The Smiths can rest easy in the case against Gerry McCann then!

Remind us the answer KM gave to this .

 On May 3 2007, around 22:00, when you entered the apartment, what did you see? What did you do? Where did you look? What did you touch?

[Robittybob1]

Answer this one Rob.

I was thinking it would be interesting to see what admin would say if you PM'ed Admin.