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

[Mr Gray]

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.

And I have provided cites...what you haven't provided is a direct cite from Duarte

[Mr Gray]

Why do you, over and over and over, miss out the important bit?

The argument was that the McCanns were entitled to the presumption of innocence BECAUSE THEY HAD BEEN CLEARED BY THE ARCHIVING DISPATCH.

In other words; because they were cleared they were entitled to be presumed innocent. But! If they weren't cleared the argument falls down.

this post of yours is obviously incorrect...the MCanns do NOT need the archiving despatch to entitle them to the presumption of innocence...think about it...that is patently wrong

[G-Unit]

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

It's what the Portuguese Courts said. Obviously you don't agree.

(Items 27 & 28) It is proved that the facts in the book and in the documentary, concerning the investigation, are mostly facts that took place in the investigation and are documented as such.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=5931.0

[Mr Gray]

It's what the Portuguese Courts said. Obviously you don't agree.

(Items 27 & 28) It is proved that the facts in the book and in the documentary, concerning the investigation, are mostly facts that took place in the investigation and are documented as such.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=5931.0

the statement said its mostly facts that took place...so they admit amaral added things that were not in the investigation...thats not my opinion thats fact

[slartibartfast]

this post of yours is obviously incorrect...the MCanns do NOT need the archiving despatch to entitle them to the presumption of innocence...think about it...that is patently wrong

The archiving dispatch said they never lost the presumption of innocence, however the investigation never cleared them. Two separate points.

[G-Unit]

the statement said its mostly facts that took place...so they admit amaral added things taht were not in the investigation...thats not my opinion tahts fact

Duly noted by the judge of the first instance;

The Judge does note that some of the facts in the book are not complete, and some facts that are in the book are not in the case files, including Jane Tanner's alleged "informal" recognition of Robert Murat.

[Mr Gray]

The archiving dispatch said they never lost the presumption of innocence, however the investigation never cleared them. Two separate points.

the SC said...

1. The McCanns have invoked the principle of presumption of innocence to justify the restrictions they want imposed on dr. Amaral's freedom of expression;

2. The Supreme Court stated, in its ruling, that the above is no argument because the McCanns were not considered innocent by the investigation and the case was archived because not enough evidence was found to charge them.

Thats why i think the SC are wrong......http://pjga.blogspot.com/?m=0

So the SC denied them the POI because they had not been cleared...barmy...imo

[slartibartfast]

the SC said...

1. The McCanns have invoked the principle of presumption of innocence to justify the restrictions they want imposed on dr. Amaral's freedom of expression;

2. The Supreme Court stated, in its ruling, that the above is no argument because the McCanns were not considered innocent by the investigation and the case was archived because not enough evidence was found to charge them.

Thats why i think the SC are wrong......http://pjga.blogspot.com/?m=0

So the SC denied them the POI because they had not been cleared...barmy...imo

The SC said that from the start of the case they had enjoyed presumption of innocence but that in the end presumption of innocence was not relevant as the McCanns were not on trial.

We consider, therefore, that the invocation of breach of the principle of presumption of innocence should not be upheld. That principle does not fall under the decision about the question that has to be resolved.

[Mr Gray]

The SC said that from the start of the case they had enjoyed presumption of innocence but that in the end presumption of innocence was not relevant as the McCanns were not on trial.

do you have a cite for that...that isnt what the final response from the SC was....and contradicts the SC judgeemnt which I have already posted

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.

[Robittybob1]

do you have a cite for that...that isnt what the final response from the SC was....and contradicts the SC judgeemnt which I have already posted

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.

I'm glad you have understood the situation.

[barrier]

I'm glad you have understood the situation.

As it stands no one understands the situation,the McCanns have applied to the ECHR what is not known is what for,if that application has been accepted,opinion is all that is given.

[Mr Gray]

As it stands no one understands the situation,the McCanns have applied to the ECHR what is not known is what for,if that application has been accepted,opinion is all that is given.

I would say clearly some understand it more than others

[barrier]

I would say clearly some understand it more than others

Some pretend to,world of difference.

[G-Unit]

I would say clearly some understand it more than others

Time will tell. Meanwhile, at this moment, no-one has been found guilty of defaming the McCanns in a court of law. 

[Mr Gray]

Time will tell. Meanwhile, at this moment, no-one has been found guilty of defaming the McCanns in a court of law.

But some have admitted it...libel actions are quite often settled out of court