Were the media wrong to settle defamation actions out of court?

[G-Unit]

your claim makes no sense at all...a suspect does NOT need to be cleared to be entitled to the POI

I didn't say it, Duarte did.

[Mr Gray]

In my opinion you're doomed to disappointment. In a criminal case the prosecution has to prove guilt. In a defamation case the claimant has to prove the guilt of the defendant(s). The McCanns failed. The various transcripts show why they failed. In my opinion you are either misunderstanding or misrepresenting what was said and why. I wonder if you'll criticise the ECHR judges too if they reject a claim by the McCanns? Or will you finally accept that you got it wrong?

I think you are the one who has it totally wrong...certainly as regards the ECHr and defamation the mccanns do not have to prove anything....FRom what i have posted the mccanns merely requested the presumption of innocence and the SC denied it on the grounds that they had not been cleared...you have no cite whatsoever of what duarte claimed.....equally will you accept the ECHR judges if they rule against portugal...

I am not misrepresenting anything...everything I have posted has come from the amaral support website

[Vertigo Swirl]

So, if the McCanns had still been suspects they would have been entitled to the presumption of innocence and therefore won the case against Amaral, is this correct?

[Mr Gray]

So, if the McCanns had still been suspects they would have been entitled to the presumption of innocence and therefore won the case against Amaral, is this correct?

according to the sceptics thinkng...yes..imo

[Sunny]

so where is Duarte;s argument...in the request to overturn the SC judgement ....the argument was that the McCanns should benefit from the presumption of innocence.....its there in the original portugues.....the Sc said no

So you were wrong then Davel, again.

[Mr Gray]

So you were wrong then Davel, again.

in what way do you think im wrong..strange...are you following the debate

[Sunny]

in what way do you think im wrong..strange...are you following the debate

Actually yes I am Davel. I do wonder whether you are though. You made a claim in the name of Isabel Duarte regarding the McCanns case yet I have not seen your cite with her name on. I have seen a cite but without Duarte's quote it is irrelevant. All IMO of course.

[slartibartfast]

it is wrong....Ive provided a cite tonight from the SC judgement that shows its wrong

In the Allen vs UK case, the ECHR emphasised the importance of the presumption after the acquittal or dismissal of the criminal investigation, explaining that this principle prevents suspects or defendants in such cases are treated as if they were in fact responsible for the criminal offences of which they were accused and stressing that without this second level of protection – the level of full respect for acquittal or archiving – the presumption of innocence would remain illusory or merely ideal.

It says acquittal or dismissal, not archive.

[Mr Gray]

It says acquittal or dismissal, not archive.

so the mccanns have neither been acquitted or the investigation dismissed..read it again..it mentions archiving

[slartibartfast]

Please keep on topic. Innocence or presumption of innocence is fine, but we are discussing UK Papers not other cases.

[Mr Gray]

Please keep on topic. Innocence or presumption of innocence is fine, but we are discussing UK Papers not other cases.

on topic...the papers had to settle out of court because their claims were indefensible....thats a fact and the thraed can now be closed

[Robittybob1]

on topic...the papers had to settle out of court because their claims were indefensible....thats a fact and the thraed can now be closed

It worked in the UK but not in Portugal - why?

[G-Unit]

It worked in the UK but not in Portugal - why?

The 'facts' printed by the UK newspapers were not correct, they were rumours. Amaral's book used the facts from the investigation and reached the same conclusion as the investigation had reached when Amaral was taken off the case.

[Mr Gray]

The 'facts' printed by the UK newspapers were not correct, they were rumours. Amaral's book used the facts from the investigation and reached the same conclusion as the investigation had reached when Amaral was taken off the case.

That isn't true...amaral was told by grime that the dog alerts had to be confirmed to have any value as evidence...amaral ignored this and used them to support his ideas....the investigation had not come to a conclusion...death in the apartment was a possibility...amaral presented it as a fact

The SC misunderstood the ECHR re defamation... hopefully it will be corrected...all my opinion

[G-Unit]

I think you are the one who has it totally wrong...certainly as regards the ECHr and defamation the mccanns do not have to prove anything....FRom what i have posted the mccanns merely requested the presumption of innocence and the SC denied it on the grounds that they had not been cleared...you have no cite whatsoever of what duarte claimed.....equally will you accept the ECHR judges if they rule against portugal...

I am not misrepresenting anything...everything I have posted has come from the amaral support website

I have provided cites supporting my position. Obviously we disagree and will continue to do so. Once again time will tell who is right and who is wrong, as it has in the past.