Harmed or not harmed ...that is the question

[mercury]

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?

Youd have to prove it was believed  by hundreds of thousands and anyone reading the book actively stopped looking.......its not possible, thats why it was NOT PROVEN and thats why at least half their claim was thrown out

[Eleanor]

The McCanns believed that the book harmed the search.  And I understand why.

[ferryman]

Youd have to prove it was believed  by hundreds of thousands and anyone reading the book actively stopped looking.......its not possible, thats why it was NOT PROVEN and thats why at least half their claim was thrown out

The judge said it was not proven that book harmed the investigation into Madeleine's disappearance.

That is because she disappeared before the book was written (or even conceived)

Common sense.

[carlymichelle]

The McCanns believed that the book harmed the search.  And I understand why.

of course  you  do

[Eleanor]

of course  you  do

Glad you understand.

[mercury]

The judge said it was not proven that book harmed the investigation into Madeleine's disappearance.

That is because she disappeared before the book was written (or even conceived)

Common sense.

Did she? Well, that scuppers arguments that it did. As for the search, as I said, no evidence proof, just a  belief and claim IMO for whch they wanted financial compensation....err, for something which could never be evidenced or proved...and thry also claimed it wasnt about the money, it was just to shut mr amaral up, well why didnt they sue for one euro? Instead of over a million? And please dont say it was for PIs....Im sure they had realised by then NO PI could help them having been through have a dozen already...and the rest of the help

[G-Unit]

Did she? Well, that scuppers arguments that it did. As for the search, as I said, no evidence proof, just a  belief and claim IMO for whch they wanted financial compensation....err, for something which could never be evidenced or proved...and thry also claimed it wasnt about the money, it was just to shut mr amaral up, well why didnt they sue for one euro? Instead of over a million? And please dont say it was for PIs....Im sure they had realised by then NO PI could help them having been through have a dozen already...and the rest of the help

We know what the judge said, We also know that a completely different impression of the ruling was given by the McCanns. They are being truthful - the action they brought was about the children and the damage to the search. They just didn't bother explaining that those parts of the action were dismissed and that the payout was purely based on the damage to themselves. No UK media explained the judgement properly either. No wonder people prefer using the internet if they wish to be properly informed.

"We want to emphasise that the action was never about money. It has always been focused on the effects of the libels on our other children and the damage that was done to the search for Madeleine," they said in a statement.
http://news.sky.com/story/1473806/mccanns-delighted-with-433k-libel-victory

[Mr Gray]

the judge was quite clera...she said it had not been proved that the book harmed the search...not that it did not harm the search.

[stephen25000]

the judge was quite clera...she said it had not been proved that the book harmed the search...not that it did not harm the search.

I said that last night and you denied it.

[Benice]

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

No I don't remember.   Please explain - otherwise you are perpetuating a myth.

[ferryman]

the judge was quite clera...she said it had not been proved that the book harmed the search...not that it did not harm the search.

She said it was not proved that the book harmed the investigation, which is quite different.

The book was published after the investigation was shelved .....

[stephen25000]

She said it was not proved that the book harmed the investigation, which is quite different.

The book was published after the investigation was shelved .....

NOT AT ALL.

They could not prove it damaged the search.

However, it does show the mccanns and backers operating procedure....

ALWAYS BLAME SOMEONE ELSE.

[Benice]

Nope.

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

No she didn't.

It was not possible to prove whether or not the book harmed the search - because there was no way of knowing what every person out of the thousands who read the book believed as a result of reading it.   So it could not be proved either way.

Therefore it was unproven - and that is a million miles away from your claim that it was proved in court that the book did no damage to the search or the twins.

[stephen25000]

No she didn't.

It was not possible to prove whether or not the book harmed the search - because there was no way of knowing what every person out of the thousands who read the book believed as a result of reading it.   So it could not be proved either way.

Therefore it was unproven - and that is a million miles away from your claim that it was proved in court that the book did no damage to the search or the twins.

Madeleine was searched for extensively well before the book came out.

There was and remains no trace of her.

The book was one man's view, but shared by others.


On the basis that Madeleine had been searched for already, it was a ludicrous assertion for the McCann's to say the book hindered the search, especially as they hadn't done it themselves, except for the brief 'search' the morning after she disappeared.

[Alice Purjorick]

Is the thread about "harm to Madeleine" or "harm to the search/investigation" call it what you will ?

What ever the judge was trying she did not find in favour for more than 50% of it (59 point something if you want to be picky).