Wandering Off Topic

[G-Unit]

Could it suggest Fair Comment?

This Human Rights lark isn't a walk in the park, as we all know by now.

No.

[Eleanor]

No.

So how come Amaral got to say that The McCanns killed Madeleine?

And was it not Amaral who exposed the name of Brueckner?  Among other things.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Naming someone doesn't violate their human rights. A prosecutor saying someone is guilty before they're tried does.
Bild seems to have broken German law by printing the suspect's full name. The prosecutor is clearly discussing the same man, breaching his human rights under Article 6:2. 

https://www.bild.de/news/inland/news-inland/mutmasslicher-maddie-moerder-christian-brueckner-jammerbrief-ans-ministerium-79541602.bild.html

Like on this forum it's ok to say IMO person X committed a crime but not ok to say person X is guilty of a crime without providing proof of the claim.  Has HCW expressed the opinion of the investigation or has he stated without providing proof that CB is definitely guilty?

[Vertigo Swirl]

Brueckner is going to be akin to those murders who claim their human rights were breached and win oodles of money. You know that they are abhorrent reprobates but the law is blind and we can’t pick and chose when and where it’s applied.

What is stopping him from mounting the claim now?  It's been 2 years already....

[Eleanor]

It all comes back to the same old same Double Standards.

[faithlilly]

So how come Amaral got to say that The McCanns killed Madeleine?

And was it not Amaral who exposed the name of Brueckner?  Among other things.

Did Amaral say the parents killed Madeleine or that she died in an accident?

And no it wasn’t Amaral you exposed the name of Brueckner, that was the tabloids.

[Eleanor]

Did Amaral say the parents killed Madeleine or that she died in an accident?

And no it wasn’t Amaral you exposed the name of Brueckner, that was the tabloids.

A question mark, eh.  Was the non existent Calpol an accident?  Difficult to say since it didn't exist.

So Brueckner can sue The Tabloids.  Well, that's okay.  But it obviously wasn't Wolters.

And why did Amaral produce those photos with Brueckner having dread locks when it was patently untrue.  That was a deliberate attempt to Pervert the Course of Justice.

[G-Unit]

So how come Amaral got to say that The McCanns killed Madeleine?

And was it not Amaral who exposed the name of Brueckner?  Among other things.

1. Amaral didn't say that.
2. He was sued for defamation, for which 'fair comment' can be used as a defence.
3. No, Amaral didn't name Brueckner.

[Brietta]

1. Amaral didn't say that.
2. He was sued for defamation, for which 'fair comment' can be used as a defence.
3. No, Amaral didn't name Brueckner.

Then what is the rationale behind the sceptic movement which utilises the fantasies written about by Amaral to cast slurs every minute of every day against the parents of a missing child for over fifteen years.

[Eleanor]

1. Amaral didn't say that.
2. He was sued for defamation, for which 'fair comment' can be used as a defence.
3. No, Amaral didn't name Brueckner.

What is Defamation in this context, other than Libel? 

Was the photograph of Breuckner with dreadlocks enough to identify him, along with his camper van covered in cartoons?  Bearing in mind that Brueckner was resident in the area at the time.

For certain sure someone worked it out.  Wolters did not publish his name.

So Brueckner is going to have to find someone else to sue.

[Eleanor]

Then what is the rationale behind the sceptic movement which utilises the fantasies written about by Amaral to cast slurs every minute of every day against the parents of a missing child for over fifteen years.

I am still struggling with that.  But Amaral is a washed out old has been who never was anything else.

And Brueckner has got no chance against Wolters or The BKA, although I very much doubt he would even try.  Brueckner would have to drop himself in the doodoo in the process because he has No Alibi.

[G-Unit]

Then what is the rationale behind the sceptic movement which utilises the fantasies written about by Amaral to cast slurs every minute of every day against the parents of a missing child for over fifteen years.

The supporter's fantasy is that everyone who has doubts about the case or about the T9's story was influenced by Amaral.

[G-Unit]

What is Defamation in this context, other than Libel? 

Was the photograph of Breuckner with dreadlocks enough to identify him, along with his camper van covered in cartoons?  Bearing in mind that Brueckner was resident in the area at the time.

For certain sure someone worked it out.  Wolters did not publish his name.

So Brueckner is going to have to find someone else to sue.

A prosecutor wno says someone is guilty without a trial and conviction is breaching the European Convention on Human Rights. It's nothing to do with defamation or libel.

[Eleanor]

A prosecutor wno says someone is guilty without a trial and conviction is breaching the European Convention on Human Rights. It's nothing to do with defamation or libel.

So exactly whose Rights did Wolters breach?  And when did he mention any name in full?

[sadie]

How many Christian Bs does anyone think there might be in Germany.  Or even in prison?

And who actually first said that his name is Brueckner?

That's who violated Christian Brueckner's Human Rights.

Spot on Elli.

The man who first said his name is Brueckner is the one who violated his Human Rights.

Now who was that?