Harmed or not harmed ...that is the question

[carlymichelle]

Nope.

The judge said the book had not hindered the search or had caused damage to the twins.

the twins  dont  remmeber maddie or anything about that night the part of the  brain that has memories etc  develops when a  child is about 4 or     5   clear memories anyway the twins only   remeber what they have been told

[mercury]

exactly most people dont need  books to  make up their minds about things  its called  free thinking

Seems the mccanns decided not only every person is gullible but that they should be compensated for said claim with no evidence and no proof

[ferryman]

that isn't what the court judgement said ..is it

Depends whose version (of the judgement) you read, Dave.

If you read Anne Guide's version, then then the book didn't harm the search for Madeleine.

But if you read the mainstream press, the book didn't harm the investigation into Madeleine's disappearance.

The version of the mainstream press would seem to have the truer ring of logic, because, of course, the book was published after the investigation was shelved.

But who knows ....

[carlymichelle]

Indeed!  and I keep asking the question.... who was looking for a child from the pictures we were being fed? it was a global search EVERYBODY was supposed to be looking. I know I wasn't and  I never read the book!

no one knows  what maddie   really looked like  remmeber gerry said confusion is  good?

[G-Unit]

that isn't what the court judgement said..is it

What court judgement and what did it say?

[mercury]

Indeed!  and I keep asking the question.... who was looking for a child from the pictures we were being fed? it was a global search EVERYBODY was supposed to be looking. I know I wasn't and  I never read the book!

Thats why the judge thought it was nonsense too

Who looks for a missing chld a year and later, there are others and other adults and all sorts of horrible happenings in the world whch engage people

[ferryman]

What court judgement and what did it say?

Read my post no.115 of this thread.

[Miss Taken Identity]

Depends whose version (of the judgement) you read, Dave.

If you read Anne Guide's version, then then the book didn't harm the search for Madeleine.

But if you read the mainstream press, the book didn't harm the investigation into Madeleine's disappearance.

The version of the mainstream press would seem to have the truer ring of logic, because, of course, the book was published after the investigation was shelved.

But who knows ....

Thing is... The judgement was the parents were naturally upset by reading the book BUT it did not harm the investigation for the search for Maddie Nor did it stop people searching for  her as was claimed by the parents.

And let us look at that, The parents make a claim their child was harmed by the book's contents even though they did not show any evidence- did they know if she were alive or dead? They were claiming financial compensation to this effect in her name. If she were dead they would be making a fraudulent claim. Just something to ponder...

[Admin]

Depends whose version (of the judgement) you read, Dave.

If you read Anne Guide's version, then then the book didn't harm the search for Madeleine.

But if you read the mainstream press, the book didn't harm the investigation into Madeleine's disappearance.

The version of the mainstream press would seem to have the truer ring of logic, because, of course, the book was published after the investigation was shelved.

But who knows ....

Difference being that Anne Guedes and the other translators produced a verbatim version of the court proceedings which they witnessed whereas the journalists produced a story based on secondhand infomation and added their own slant to it to attract the best price.  I know which version I would believe.

[ferryman]

Thing is... The judgement was the parents were naturally upset by reading the book BUT it did not harm the investigation for the search for Maddie Nor did it stop people searching for  her as was claimed by the parents.

And let us look at that, The parents make a claim their child was harmed by the book's contents even though they did not show any evidence- did they know if she were alive or dead? They were claiming financial compensation to this effect in her name. If she were dead they would be making a fraudulent claim. Just something to ponder...

It's not something to ponder at all.

A book sold to an audience (across countries of Europe) of hundreds of thousands (or possibly more) were told (in the book) that Madeleine was dead, that her parents were directly responsible for her death, covered up the (alleged) "fact" of her death and launched a (fraudulent) "fund" in their (dead) daughter's name.

How can that message, read and believed by hundreds of thousands across Europe, have done other than harm the search for Madeleine?

[ferryman]

Difference being that Anne Guedes and the other translators produced a verbatim versio of the court proceedings whereas the journalists produced a story based on what they were told.

Don't accept that as a difference, at all.

Anne Guides screwed up on the testimony of Alan Pike.

Journalists writing for mainstream newspapers are legally accountable for what they write (about court proceedings)

[Alice Purjorick]

It's not something to ponder at all.

A book sold to an audience (across countries of Europe) of hundreds of thousands (or possibly more) were told (in the book) that Madeleine was dead, that her parents were directly responsible for her death, covered up the (alleged) "fact" of her death and launched a (fraudulent) "fund" in their (dead) daughter's name.

How can that message, read and believed by hundreds of thousands across Europe, have done other than harm the search for Madeleine?

Maybe the line of thinking was that the official police investigation had been archived, one lot of PI's had been elbowed and another was in the departure lounge so no real searching going on.

[mercury]

Thing is... The judgement was the parents were naturally upset by reading the book BUT it did not harm the investigation for the search for Maddie Nor did it stop people searching for  her as was claimed by the parents.

And let us look at that, The parents make a claim their child was harmed by the book's contents even though they did not show any evidence- did they know if she were alive or dead? They were claiming financial compensation to this effect in her name. If she were dead they would be making a fraudulent claim. Just something to ponder...

The claims were dismissed anyway

See iv

Given the above, on balance of fact and law, the decision is to :

I. judge remedied the representation irregularity of the claimant MADELEINE BETH McCann in accordance with article 29, paragraph 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure and, therefore, to dismiss the objection raised by the defendant GONCALO AMARAL .

II. declare partly proceeding the claims made ​​in the main action by the claimants KATE MARIE HEALY MCCANN and GERALD PATRICK MCCANN against the defendant GONCALO AMARAL and, to that extent, condemn the second to pay to each of the first the indemnity amount of 250.000 € increased by default interests at the rate of civil interests, since January 5, 2010 until full payment.

III. dismiss the other requests, made in the same action by the claimants KATE MARIE HEALY MCCANN and GERALD PATRICK MCCANN against the defendant GONCALO AMARAL and of those claims acquit the defendant.

IV. fully dismiss the requests, made in the same action, by the claimants MADELEINE MCCANN, SEAN MICHAEL MCCANN and AMELIE EVE MCCANN against the defendant GONCALO AMARAL and of those claims acquit the defendant.

http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/v01.htm

[ferryman]

Maybe the line of thinking was that the official police investigation had been archived, one lot of PI's had been elbowed and another was in the departure lounge so no real searching going on.

What?

Whose line of thinking?

[Miss Taken Identity]

It's not something to ponder at all.

A book sold to an audience (across countries of Europe) of hundreds of thousands (or possibly more) were told (in the book) that Madeleine was dead, that her parents were directly responsible for her death, covered up the (alleged) "fact" of her death and launched a (fraudulent) "fund" in their (dead) daughter's name.

How can that message, read and believed by hundreds of thousands across Europe, have done other than harm the search for Madeleine?

You do not think it strange that parents would seek financial compensation on behalf of a child they did not know was dead or alive, or could prove the book caused her harm? ok then.

The book as far as I am aware does not accuse the parents of her death, it is about a thesis that the child had an accident of some kind.

And the truth is the parents did have a duty of care of their children which was found lacking and was seen to facilitate their daughters disappearance by some.

even the judge asked which was worse, can you guess the reply?