A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?

[Mr Gray]

Absolutely, it simply libels the PJ and the MP who orientates it.

 And the pj are able to sue for libel if they wanted to..as they made such a mess of the investigation they would lose though IMO

[stephen25000]

And the pj are able to sue for libel if they wanted to..as they made such a mess of the investigation they would lose though IMO

What did the current Met chief say about the Portuguese investigation davel  ?

[Mr Gray]

What did the current Met chief say about the Portuguese investigation davel  ?

You mean what did  he say in public to ease the relationship between uk and sy

[stephen25000]

You mean what did  he say in public to ease the relationship between uk and sy

Is that your assumption or do you have proof of something else ?

[Mr Gray]

Is that your assumption or do you have proof of something else ?

if it walks like a duck.....

[stephen25000]

if it walks like a duck.....

i.e.No.

[Mr Gray]

i.e.No.

Stephen have you forgotten already you just made that statement to support your post  we don't need evidence any more..if it walks like a duck etc ..its true..you said so

[stephen25000]

Stephen have you forgotten already you just made that statement to support your post  we don't need evidence any more..if it walks like a duck etc ..its true..you said so

I am referring to the Met Chief.

Now what did he say davel ?

[Mr Gray]

I am referring to the Met Chief.

Now what did he say davel ?

 I have answered this already

[stephen25000]

I have answered this already

Diverting attention, is not answering the question.

[Mr Gray]

You mean what did  he say in public to ease the relationship between uk and sy

[Angelo222]

And the pj are able to sue for libel if they wanted to..as they made such a mess of the investigation they would lose though IMO

What evidence are you bringing to the table that they made a mess of the investigation Dave??   Very few people know what really happened to Madeleine and I do not count the McCanns among them.

The abduction from the bed theory is dead in the water according to all the evidence which only leaves the awoke and wandered alternative if abduction is to be believed.  If that is what happened it puts the parents firmly in the frame as far a culpability is concerned and that is not libel but fact!!

That is their real fear...that by their negligence they were directly responsible for facilitating an abduction.

[AnneGuedes]

What evidence are you bringing to the table that they made a mess of the investigation Dave??   Very few people know what really happened to Madeleine and I do not count the McCanns among them.

The abduction from the bed theory is dead in the water according to all the evidence which only leaves the awoke and wandered alternative if abduction is to be believed.  If that is what happened it puts the parents firmly in the frame as far a culpability is concerned and that is not libel but fact!!

That is their real fear...that by their negligence they were directly responsible for facilitating an abduction.

Facilitating an abduction isn't the worst. I really don't believe that a potential abductor, going through the car park, saw Madeleine and decided to abduct.
The unbearable is the reason why eventually Madeleine went out : she was scared, needed her parents and searched for them.
The reason for denying could be just this.

[Wonderfulspam]

What evidence are you bringing to the table that they made a mess of the investigation Dave??   Very few people know what really happened to Madeleine and I do not count the McCanns among them.

The abduction from the bed theory is dead in the water according to all the evidence which only leaves the awoke and wandered alternative if abduction is to be believed.  If that is what happened it puts the parents firmly in the frame as far a culpability is concerned and that is not libel but fact!!

That is their real fear...that by their negligence they were directly responsible for facilitating an abduction.

McCann v Gonçalo Amaral libel hearing witness Moita Flores.

SO – What reason did you have to comment on this case?

MF says that first it is his job.  He does it professionally because he has experience of being a police inspector and has connections with the police. In this particular case he says that very early he claimed that the police were making errors.

SO – Why?

MF Because they should have considered all the possible hypotheses instead of restricting the investigation to the prefabricated idea of abduction.

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=2765.0

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/portugal/6974917/Madeleine-McCanns-death-covered-up-by-parents-who-faked-kidnap-court-hears.html

Mr de Almeida also complained that Portuguese police efforts to investigate the McCanns had been frustrated by their British counterparts.

 “We were told that the UK would not accept any investigation of the McCanns – there was a lack of cooperation,”

[Mr Gray]

What evidence are you bringing to the table that they made a mess of the investigation Dave??   Very few people know what really happened to Madeleine and I do not count the McCanns among them.

The abduction from the bed theory is dead in the water according to all the evidence which only leaves the awoke and wandered alternative if abduction is to be believed.  If that is what happened it puts the parents firmly in the frame as far a culpability is concerned and that is not libel but fact!!

That is their real fear...that by their negligence they were directly responsible for facilitating an abduction.

 What evidence do you have top support that statement