quote:Originally posted by Jenny:
I see the McCanns are going to sue Goncalo Amaral for his "unfounded and grossly defamatory claims".
Here
Good.
Can't say I blame them for doing that.
Can't say I blame them for doing that.
The court case will never happen imo.
For one it could potentially involve questions like these being asked...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7542939.stm
For one it could potentially involve questions like these being asked...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7542939.stm
I'm in complete agreement with the OP (as some of you will already know). There is NO definite proof that she was abducted (except that Kate McCann said so DUH). There seems to be SOME proof of a misdemeanor, maybe accidental death (could be ANYTHING - and they - the PERFECT parents dont want to be seen to have had a misdemeanor in their absense whilst up the Tapas...)
Anyhow - I dont see how they can sue the man without solid proof that he is wrong???
Anyhow - I dont see how they can sue the man without solid proof that he is wrong???
quote:Originally posted by BARMY BRUMMIE:
Anyhow - I dont see how they can sue the man without solid proof that he is wrong???
The measure, as I understand it anyway, isn't solid proof. He's authored and is publishing the material. Is he commenting fairly on a matter of public interest based on the facts? Is what he's saying a fair and accurate report on the legal proceedings? Is he intending to injure the reputation of the couple by publishing it? These are the sort of things that will be asked I expect.
That he was professionally involved in the investigation is probably quite pertinent. It gives him access to stuff but also puts him under other responsibilities.
Incidentally, all that first paragraph applies to what people publish here too. Most people couldn't defend a libel or defamation action simply because of the cost and may have to retract and offer compensation out of court to avoid an action. It's worth being careful what you write, especially as what you write is stored forever.
quote:Originally posted by BARMY BRUMMIE:
I'm in complete agreement with the OP (as some of you will already know). There is NO definite proof that she was abducted (except that Kate McCann said so DUH). There seems to be SOME proof of a misdemeanor, maybe accidental death (could be ANYTHING - and they - the PERFECT parents dont want to be seen to have had a misdemeanor in their absense whilst up the Tapas...)
Anyhow - I dont see how they can sue the man without solid proof that he is wrong???
No proof that she wasn't either. There are witnesses that say they saw a man carrying a child resembling Maddie.I know that's not proof, but something that should be looked into. What proof was there regarding an accidental death?
I feel very sorry for the McCannâs and their family, I imagine legal action is the last thing they want to endure. If Goncalo Amaral had ANY professional integrity (or indeed a shred of humanity) he would be keeping his mouth shut, his crusade against the McCannâs is blatantly personal, heâs a man scorned â itâs disgusting.
Theyâve already been through the worst scenario any parent can face, and instead of being allowed to come to terms and attempt to get answers they have been continually implicated by rabid conspiracy theorists who spare no thought, on a humane level, for the implications of their gossiping.
Theyâve already been through the worst scenario any parent can face, and instead of being allowed to come to terms and attempt to get answers they have been continually implicated by rabid conspiracy theorists who spare no thought, on a humane level, for the implications of their gossiping.
quote:Originally posted by JasmineJ:
I feel very sorry for the McCannâs and their family, I imagine legal action is the last thing they want to endure. If Goncalo Amaral had ANY professional integrity (or indeed a shred of humanity) he would be keeping his mouth shut, his crusade against the McCannâs is blatantly personal, heâs a man scorned â itâs disgusting.
Theyâve already been through the worst scenario any parent can face, and instead of being allowed to come to terms and attempt to get answers they have been continually implicated by rabid conspiracy theorists who spare no thought, on a humane level, for the implications of their gossiping.
I couldn't have put it better myself
quote:Originally posted by Daniel J*:
... replicating it in media, if so, outside of the investigation which didn't result in a court case. That sounds like defamation to me.
Of course it is.
Can you image being criminally investigated, no evidence thus no charges being brought against you, only for the chief of police to spill all the details of what is an unresolved case to The Sun (and whatever other scuzzy media outlet) that he thinks you are guilty?!?
There are those SO far gone (with zero awareness this is a real family, with young kids, and not soap opera characters) that they think thatâs an acceptable scenario! Itâs insanity.
quote:Originally posted by Comrade Ogilvy:
For one it could potentially involve questions like these being asked...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7542939.stm
From the link "The questioning came after Mrs McCann was declared an arguido, or suspect, in September 2007." Suspect, here, meaning more than it does in the UK.
She was probably legally advised against answering the questions under that status. They're hardly damaging questions on their own but if the police are specifically trying to build a case against you and you have a right to silence and that right means that the silence cannot be used against you in court (I don't know if that's the case in Portugal) then it seems a reasonable approach to me to force the police to build their case against you elsewhere. It sounds to me like you want us to infer guilt or at least a reluctance to provide details on those specific points by her silence.
We used to have that right in the UK not that long ago.
Well, according to wikipedia, there is a right to silence under arguido status in Portugal:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arguido
It also explains a bit more about what that status means and how it changes the police's approach.
Might be wrong, of course, being wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arguido
It also explains a bit more about what that status means and how it changes the police's approach.
Might be wrong, of course, being wikipedia.
As I've said before Innocent Until Proven Guilty.
Can you imagine how you would feel if you were accused of murdering and disposing of your little girl when, apart from the awful fact that you left them unattended while you had a meal, you are not guilty of such a crime? Can you imagine? Honestly? Can you?
As the Portuguese public prosecutor outlined in his conclusions:
"No element of proof was found... as to the circumstances in which the child was taken from the apartment (whether alive, whether dead, whether the victim of negligent homicide or wilful homicide, whether the victim of kidnap-to-order or an opportunistic kidnap).
"We can't even make a consistent prognosis of her fate, including... whether she is alive or dead."
There is no proof of what happened to Madeleine.
Who are you, or anyone else, to judge the parents and find them guilty of anything but leaving their child alone?
If, in the future, conclusive evidence is found then, and ONLY then, is when anyone should be judged.
Can you imagine how you would feel if you were accused of murdering and disposing of your little girl when, apart from the awful fact that you left them unattended while you had a meal, you are not guilty of such a crime? Can you imagine? Honestly? Can you?
As the Portuguese public prosecutor outlined in his conclusions:
"No element of proof was found... as to the circumstances in which the child was taken from the apartment (whether alive, whether dead, whether the victim of negligent homicide or wilful homicide, whether the victim of kidnap-to-order or an opportunistic kidnap).
"We can't even make a consistent prognosis of her fate, including... whether she is alive or dead."
There is no proof of what happened to Madeleine.
Who are you, or anyone else, to judge the parents and find them guilty of anything but leaving their child alone?
If, in the future, conclusive evidence is found then, and ONLY then, is when anyone should be judged.
quote:Originally posted by Jenny:
As I've said before Innocent Until Proven Guilty.
Can you imagine how you would feel if you were accused of murdering and disposing of your little girl when, apart from the awful fact that you left them unattended while you had a meal, you are not guilty of such a crime? Can you imagine? Honestly? Can you?
As the Portuguese public prosecutor outlined in his conclusions:
"No element of proof was found... as to the circumstances in which the child was taken from the apartment (whether alive, whether dead, whether the victim of negligent homicide or wilful homicide, whether the victim of kidnap-to-order or an opportunistic kidnap).
"We can't even make a consistent prognosis of her fate, including... whether she is alive or dead."
There is no proof of what happened to Madeleine.
Who are you, or anyone else, to judge the parents and find them guilty of anything but leaving their child alone?
If, in the future, conclusive evidence is found then, and ONLY then, is when anyone should be judged.
Great post Jenny.
quote:Originally posted by Jenny:
Can you imagine how you would feel if you were accused of murdering and disposing of your little girl when, apart from the awful fact that you left them unattended while you had a meal, you are not guilty of such a crime? Can you imagine? Honestly? Can you?
That's the thing, isn't it? The people with all the current evidence, statements, investigatory powers, and so on, to hand couldn't convince the state to bring a case to court. What people have here is just a sense of the case and we're left with mere opinions and speculations. They're fine if they're couched in phrases like "I think", "I believe", and "I suspect" when chatting about the case. What is not fine is if people are trying to convince others in public of their guilt in the manner of a witchhunt. That's a different thing altogether. There's not just doubt here, there wasn't even a case brought before the courts. On that basis, they should be treated primarily as people who have lost a child rather than as people evading justice.
quote:Originally posted by Daniel J*:quote:Originally posted by Jenny:
Can you imagine how you would feel if you were accused of murdering and disposing of your little girl when, apart from the awful fact that you left them unattended while you had a meal, you are not guilty of such a crime? Can you imagine? Honestly? Can you?
That's the thing, isn't it? The people with all the current evidence, statements, investigatory powers, and so on, to hand couldn't convince the state to bring a case to court. What people have here is just a sense of the case and we're left with mere opinions and speculations. They're fine if they're couched in phrases like "I think", "I believe", and "I suspect" when chatting about the case. What is not fine is if people are trying to convince others in public of their guilt in the manner of a witchhunt. That's a different thing altogether. There's not just doubt here, there wasn't even a case brought before the courts. On that basis, they should be treated primarily as people who have lost a child rather than as people evading justice.
Whilst I can feel nothing but antipathy towards the McCanns, I have to say I agree with every word of this.
One reason the mods always pulled Maddy threads on the CH4 site,defamation.
I read what was posted on here..I think he is a nasty man trying to cover up his own incompetance and ther fact he was "removed" from the case. he is also trying to make fast buck out of this terrible tragidy at the cost of the Mccanns. shame on him.
Two facts I shall reapeat...
1) the bins in the area were emptyed the next day so the area was not sealed as the perhaps incompitent police man says.
2) the dog that smelled death is the same dog that identified the "childs scull" at the home on jersey that later turned out to be a coconut shell.
So that shoots down in flames its 100% record.
1) the bins in the area were emptyed the next day so the area was not sealed as the perhaps incompitent police man says.
2) the dog that smelled death is the same dog that identified the "childs scull" at the home on jersey that later turned out to be a coconut shell.
So that shoots down in flames its 100% record.
I see the Torygraph has the story too.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new...se-police-chief.html
I thought this bit at the end was interesting:
"After leaving the Policia Judiciaria he hired an agent who said interviews with the invesigator would cost 80,000 Euros (ÂĢ71,000)."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new...se-police-chief.html
I thought this bit at the end was interesting:
"After leaving the Policia Judiciaria he hired an agent who said interviews with the invesigator would cost 80,000 Euros (ÂĢ71,000)."
quote:Originally posted by Marguerita:
You cannot have a debate about this subject as nobody knows what happened ,and whatever your opinion may be you get verbally attacked by those who have a different opinion who think they know 100% what happened it is not worth the insults to be honest.
So true Marguerita.
I know this is a dead serious thing and I shouldn't laugh, but OMG!!!!!1111quote:Originally posted by The Singing Ringing Tree:
the dog that smelled death is the same dog that identified the "childs scull" at the home on jersey that later turned out to be a coconut shell.
poor we dog goes nuts if anyone gets out a bounty barquote:Originally posted by Penny Gabrielwise:I know this is a dead serious thing and I shouldn't laugh, but OMG!!!!!1111quote:Originally posted by The Singing Ringing Tree:
the dog that smelled death is the same dog that identified the "childs scull" at the home on jersey that later turned out to be a coconut shell.
Nobody knows the real truth... Mccains made a painful mistake and they are paying for it...
Both arguments seem convincing though...
Both arguments seem convincing though...
quote:Originally posted by pretty~cocoa~eyes:
Nobody knows the real truth... Mccains made a painful mistake and they are paying for it...
Both arguments seem convincing though...
very true cocoa, but most of it is the cts....conspiracy theory syndrome.....first of all you have a conclusion, the maccanns are guilty, then its simply a case of crow barring all the 'facts' in where they seem to fit.....voila!.......indisputable watertight case......
All parents have taken a calculated risk at sometime. I know that we have. Unfortunately on this occasion they were the one in a million unfortunates.
Unless someone can come up with some evidence to show otherwise, that's what Mrs Joe and I believe in this case.
Unless someone can come up with some evidence to show otherwise, that's what Mrs Joe and I believe in this case.
quote:Originally posted by Liverpoollass:quote:Originally posted by BARMY BRUMMIE:
I'm in complete agreement with the OP (as some of you will already know). There is NO definite proof that she was abducted (except that Kate McCann said so DUH). There seems to be SOME proof of a misdemeanor, maybe accidental death (could be ANYTHING - and they - the PERFECT parents dont want to be seen to have had a misdemeanor in their absense whilst up the Tapas...)
Anyhow - I dont see how they can sue the man without solid proof that he is wrong???
No proof that she wasn't either. There are witnesses that say they saw a man carrying a child resembling Maddie.I know that's not proof, but something that should be looked into. What proof was there regarding an accidental death?
Are you refering to Martin Smith who identified the man he saw that night as being Gerry McCann ?
quote:Originally posted by Comrade Ogilvy:
Are you refering to Martin Smith who identified the man he saw that night as being Gerry McCann ?
Because he was carrying a child in the same way as Gerry did when he was coming off the plane?
Strange because I also carried my kids in the same way!
quote:Originally posted by Daniel J*:quote:Originally posted by Comrade Ogilvy:
For one it could potentially involve questions like these being asked...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7542939.stm
From the link "The questioning came after Mrs McCann was declared an arguido, or suspect, in September 2007." Suspect, here, meaning more than it does in the UK.
She was probably legally advised against answering the questions under that status. They're hardly damaging questions on their own but if the police are specifically trying to build a case against you and you have a right to silence and that right means that the silence cannot be used against you in court (I don't know if that's the case in Portugal) then it seems a reasonable approach to me to force the police to build their case against you elsewhere. It sounds to me like you want us to infer guilt or at least a reluctance to provide details on those specific points by her silence.
We used to have that right in the UK not that long ago.
So, any comment at all on this Comrade Ogilvy?
Do you accept that it was reasonable and legally sensible for Mrs McCann at the time to exercise her right of silence as an 'arguido' and may have done so under legal advice?
If so then would you like to withdraw your post up there in the interests of fairness?
quote:Originally posted by Blizzie:quote:Originally posted by Comrade Ogilvy:
Are you refering to Martin Smith who identified the man he saw that night as being Gerry McCann ?
Because he was carrying a child in the same way as Gerry did when he was coming off the plane?
Strange because I also carried my kids in the same way!
*Begins investigation of Lilibet*
quote:Originally posted by Garage Joe:
*Begins investigation of Lilibet*
I'm still waiting for an explanation of the seventy odd percent wrong, but a hundred percent correct doggies!
quote:Originally posted by Blizzie:
I'm still waiting for an explanation of the seventy odd percent wrong, but a hundred percent correct doggies!
Did you see my link on that thread to where it was plagarised verbatim from?
quote:Originally posted by Daniel J*:
Did you see my link on that thread to where it was plagarised verbatim from?
The DS one?
I had a look and got even more depressed!
*cough*
Interesting to see on the Tears, Lies and Videotape documentary last night that a journalist who had witnessed many of these cases at first hand firmly believes the McCanns are telling the truth.
*clears throat*
quote:Originally posted by Hotpants Helen:
Interesting to see on the Tears, Lies and Videotape documentary last night that a journalist who had witnessed many of these cases at first hand firmly believes the McCanns are telling the truth.
The police often bring in experts on body language to look at tapes of those nearest to either murdered or missing people. If the experts feels they're lying the police do more checking to see if they can link them to the crime, many have eventually been prosecuted when final proof has been found. As I've said before I've never believed the McCann's were involved in Madeleine's disappearance.
Can I just ask..without predujice, is Comrade Ogilvy doing a thesis on this subject? Otherwise I think it is bodering on the obsessive. (Just my opionion)
quote:Originally posted by Hollygolightly:
Can I just ask..without predujice, is Comrade Ogilvy doing a thesis on this subject? Otherwise I think it is bodering on the obsessive. (Just my opionion)
Awww. He just wants a 'rational debate' apparently. Only without having to answer any tough questions himself.
I've made my feelings about this case clear in that I believe the official investigation, I do of course hope the portugese police are wrong., I'd love to think there is some hope.
This is my last word about this matter as it is obvious by the amount of wind up posts by ignored FMs that rational debate is simply not possible on here.
I will perhaps post on trivial matters and on BB10 when it's on.
This is my last word about this matter as it is obvious by the amount of wind up posts by ignored FMs that rational debate is simply not possible on here.
I will perhaps post on trivial matters and on BB10 when it's on.
quote:Originally posted by Comrade Ogilvy:
This is my last word about this matter as it is obvious by the amount of wind up posts by ignored FMs that rational debate is simply not possible on here.
Does 'rational debate' mean 'post as many defamatory links about the McCanns as I can and ignore any questioning or probing responses' ? Looks very much like it.