Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 79

Thread: mccanns case and censorship

  1. #1

    mccanns case and censorship

    http://m.youtube.com/index?desktop_u...?v=Tj1UvxIWnzk

    right or wrong?

    they also want a million pounds compensation on top!!

    when parents of a missing child alledgedly abducted go after money, well, that rings alarm bells to me

  2. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to saggymoon For This Useful Post:


  3. #2
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    1,476
    In the UK you can say what you want about someone so long as it is true or comes under fair comment or is not defamatory.
    If people choose to go around making accusations, then why should they not have to prove it. If their claims are true then there can be no censorship, they just go to court with their evidence and if it is true the court rules in their favour. If they have been telling a pack of lies then obviously the court will not rule in their favour. Why should people be able to make false accusations about people.
    I have not heard of the mccanss demanding compensation for themselves. If someone falsly accused me of being involved in a crime I would take them to court too. I am fairly certain if someone suggested Amaral was involved in covering up the abductions because he was involved in criminal activity, he would quite rightly sue for libel too. If Amarel has written things about the McCansn that are not true (I also heard he claimed a child's body had been found in the Jersey care home, but not sure if that is correct), then every single profit he makes should go to the McCanns or the find madeleine fund. Why should an ex-detective with a criminal record for giving false evidence be able to profit by lying about people and falsly accusing them?
    If someone leafleted your street with leaflets falsly suggesting you were a criminal would you be happy?

  4. The Following User Says Thank You to brit1981 For This Useful Post:


  5. #3
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    1,476
    Amaral has sued people for defamation, when he was accused of being involved in the torture of the mother of Joana Cipriano. So when he sues people for defamation it is OK, when others sue him it is censorhsip

  6. The Following User Says Thank You to brit1981 For This Useful Post:


  7. #4
    Perhaps you need to read up a bit. The mccanns are suing mr amaral for 1.2m quid for causing distress.

    Censorship refers to, obviouslyyou didnt watch the video, banning his book which detailed the facts in the case. They got a temporary ban which was overturned and held up by the highest court. And good. Last I heard it was the nazis burning books.

    As for him suing for defamation, it was true that he was defamed because that awful woman and her stupid lawyer said mr amaral tortured her and was there and egged others on. Its a fact he was never there so yes its libel. Mr Amaral and others in the police cant be sued for defamation if they in their police investigation came to conclusions that madeleine had died. Its really that simple. And I do foresee the mccanns losing the case lime every other one they have instigated all courtesy of the madeleine fund.

  8. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to saggymoon For This Useful Post:


  9. #5
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    1,476
    As far as I am aware Amaral has not written the book as part of his policewor, but as an individuel. And if he has made defamatory statements that are either not fair comment or he cannot prove then of course he should be sued for libel.
    Anf if people do not want to sell his book then why should they be forced to sell it?

    And what libel cases have the mccanns lost. They took Bennett to caught, and he was unable to prove his statements depsite claiming they were true and was banned from publishing them. Now he is facing a possible prison sentence not the McCanns. If it is not libel then why does he not show the evidence he has that it is true? The newspapers had to pay out and print front page apologies. It is amazing that considering so many people like bennett and Butler claim their statements are true, so far not one of these statements has been held up as true in court.

    And the ban being overturned has nothing to do with it being libelous or not. The courts said he had free speech so the book could not be banned. But this was not saying his statements were true or he could not be held liable - it was a "on his head be it" ruling i.e he can publish the book but if it turns out he had libeled someone then he is liable for it. If he can sue others for defamining him, then he cannot claim others should be denied that right. It is actually better for the Mccann case that he has sued Cipriano's lawyer, because now he cannot bleat that sueing for defamation is censorship when he gets taken to court. He has removed that defense for himself now.

  10. The Following User Says Thank You to brit1981 For This Useful Post:


  11. #6
    oh and for the record mr amaral was not writing as an individual he was writing about the conclusions of the whole police force who concluded before he was sacked off the case that madeleine had died and it was a cover up, so lessof the demonising one man its so frankly boring and untrue

    we also know the mccanns paid their detectives to dig up dirt on amaral, nice priorities for the parents of a missing child who did not cooperate with police and refused to answer questions


    http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TAVARES_ALMEIDA.htm

    enjoy
    Last edited by saggymoon; 06-30-2012 at 05:16 PM.

  12. The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to saggymoon For This Useful Post:


  13. #7
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    1,476
    So you think the book has been written and published by the PJ, and not by Amaral as an individuel? Even thought the Portuguese version of the CPS said there was no evidence against either Murat or the parents?
    And considering Amaral has a criminal conviction for lying about evidence in a case relating to a missing child he does not really need any one else to demonize him.

  14. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by brit1981 View Post
    No the judge did not say that. And the PJ have never come forward and put their name to the book, and it is being published solely under Amaral's name. That is why Amaral can be taken to court for libel.

    nothing todo with mr amaral, was his team and the team that

    worked with british detectives too

    http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TAVARES_ALMEIDA.htm

    Last edited by beach; 06-30-2012 at 10:05 PM. Reason: stop the personalization

  15. The Following User Says Thank You to saggymoon For This Useful Post:


  16. #9
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    1,476
    Quote Originally Posted by saggymoon View Post

    nothing todo with mr amaral, was his team and the team that

    worked with british detectives too

    http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TAVARES_ALMEIDA.htm

    I really do not mean to be rude, but I am not certain what you mean to say? Are you saying the book is nothing to do with Amaral, and it is written by the PJ and British police? If that is the case why are the courts allowing Amaral to be sued for libel?
    Last edited by beach; 06-30-2012 at 10:07 PM. Reason: edited quoted post

  17. The Following User Says Thank You to brit1981 For This Useful Post:


  18. #10
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Indy
    Posts
    20,301

    Reminder...

    We have a detailed, formal Terms of Service (TOS) posted separately, and that TOS is what you will be held to as a member here. It's long and detailed because it has to be in the world we live in, and you are expected to read it, understand it and abide by it. However, we can sum it up as follows:

    1) Be a decent human being;
    2) Treat your fellow posters as the decent human beings they are;
    3) Keep in mind that whatever you post will likely live on forever, so think before you press "Submit Reply".
    4) It's a big world. People will disagree with you. You will disagree with them. This can be done with respect, and that's what we expect.
    When your child goes missing: A Family Survival Guide
    Missing Adult Checklist
    Websleuth's Resource Center

    F.R.I.E.N.D.S.
    Fight for you

    Respect you
    Include you
    Encourage you
    Need you
    Deserve you
    Stand by you


  19. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to imamaze For This Useful Post:


  20. #11

    Smile

    Quote Originally Posted by brit1981 View Post
    I really do not mean to be rude, but I am not certain what you mean to say? Are you saying the book is nothing to do with Amaral, and it is written by the PJ and British police? If that is the case why are the courts allowing Amaral to be sued for libel?
    There is a myth going around that Mr Amaral and him alpne has come up with the accidental death and concealment theory when this just is not true. Its an attempt to scapegoat him when in fact the whole of the portuguese police dept involved came to that conclusion.

    the courts allow writs to be issued. normally after an application the trial goes ahead. Courts do not decide to accept or decline writs based on what they think the outcome might be or the merits of any case.

    Seeing as the supreme court in portugal has overturned the ban of his book, I dont see the libel trial as having a foot to stand on. Still, I guess the Mccanns hope all the money they have used from the fund to which people donated to find Madeleine but used to litigate against several people, will earn them a million. lets see hey?
    Catch you later.

  21. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to saggymoon For This Useful Post:


  22. #12
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    1,476
    Quote Originally Posted by saggymoon View Post
    There is a myth going around that Mr Amaral and him alpne has come up with the accidental death and concealment theory when this just is not true. Its an attempt to scapegoat him when in fact the whole of the portuguese police dept involved came to that conclusion.

    the courts allow writs to be issued. normally after an application the trial goes ahead. Courts do not decide to accept or decline writs based on what they think the outcome might be or the merits of any case.

    Seeing as the supreme court in portugal has overturned the ban of his book, I dont see the libel trial as having a foot to stand on. Still, I guess the Mccanns hope all the money they have used from the fund to which people donated to find Madeleine but used to litigate against several people, will earn them a million. lets see hey?
    Catch you later.
    The overturning of the ban on the book has no influence on the libel trial. If amaral has made any assertions about anyone in his book that he cannot prove and are defamatory then he is committing libel. He could try the defence of fair comment and claim it is his opinion, but this is unlikely to work as accusing someone of a crime and tagging on a "in my opinion" or "this is just a theory" is unlikely to come under fair comment.

    In the UK, courts can reject cases on the basis of no merit or no case to answer. This is something Tony Bennett is well acquinted with as he has had his attempts to prosecute individuels thrown out at least twice.

    Also for their work with the mccanns, carter -ruck have worked on a no-win no fee basis. In the UK this works by the clients not paying anything at all, but if they win the losing party pays the lawyer fees.

  23. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by brit1981 View Post
    The overturning of the ban on the book has no influence on the libel trial. If amaral has made any assertions about anyone in his book that he cannot prove and are defamatory then he is committing libel. He could try the defence of fair comment and claim it is his opinion, but this is unlikely to work as accusing someone of a crime and tagging on a "in my opinion" or "this is just a theory" is unlikely to come under fair comment.

    In the UK, courts can reject cases on the basis of no merit or no case to answer. This is something Tony Bennett is well acquinted with as he has had his attempts to prosecute individuels thrown out at least twice.

    Also for their work with the mccanns, carter -ruck have worked on a no-win no fee basis. In the UK this works by the clients not paying anything at all, but if they win the losing party pays the lawyer fees.
    Who mentioned carter ruck? They have nothing to do with this at all. It remains a fact, borne out by their published accounts, that the fund has been used to sue people in Portugal. Fact.

    As to libel, police forces cannot be sued for doing their jobs and reaching certain conclusions. Supreme court ruled the book was nothing but a replication of the facts in the case, so, yes, no leg to stand on.

  24. The Following User Says Thank You to saggymoon For This Useful Post:


  25. #14
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    1,476
    He wrote the book as an individuel, not as a police report. he is protected in the police, although he can (and has been) be prosecuted for lying even in the course of police work. The supreme court did not rule the book was a replication of the facts. But we will have to see what the libel trial states. If Amaral is able to prove every single one of his defamatory statements then he is OK, if not then is has committed libel.
    remember bennetts books were banned because he could not prove its statements.

  26. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by brit1981 View Post
    He wrote the book as an individuel, not as a police report. he is protected in the police, although he can (and has been) be prosecuted for lying even in the course of police work. The supreme court did not rule the book was a replication of the facts. But we will have to see what the libel trial states. If Amaral is able to prove every single one of his defamatory statements then he is OK, if not then is has committed libel.
    remember bennetts books were banned because he could not prove its statements.
    The court certainly DID rule it was a replication of the police files. Seems you have decided ahead of the courts that any statement made was defamatory. Are you a judge? Lol

  27. #16
    for perusal, the appeal court judgement on Dr Amaral's book

    And to prove what i said was true

    http://www.mccannfiles.com/id344.html

  28. The Following User Says Thank You to saggymoon For This Useful Post:


  29. #17
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    1,476
    The Lisbon court of appeal, said their ruling was not a ruling on the factuality of his claims, nor was it a defamation or libel trial. they ruled that to ban the book at that stage would go against freedom of expression. However, a libel trial can, and is, going ahead. If Amaral loses the libel cases, there is a possibility that the book may be banned again as this time the court will have to take into account the fact that another court has rules the book libelous. At the appeal trial the book had obviously not been ruled libelous so the court could not make a judgement on whether or not it was true. If the book is ruled libelous it will also mean anyone who publishes or reproduces the book, or part, thereof, will be liable to libel charges too.

    Incidently Amaral has lost a libel case he took to court, and has been ordered to pay not only the defence fees, but the court fees as well.

  30. #18
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    6,155
    Quote Originally Posted by brit1981 View Post
    The Lisbon court of appeal, said their ruling was not a ruling on the factuality of his claims, nor was it a defamation or libel trial. they ruled that to ban the book at that stage would go against freedom of expression. However, a libel trial can, and is, going ahead. If Amaral loses the libel cases, there is a possibility that the book may be banned again as this time the court will have to take into account the fact that another court has rules the book libelous. At the appeal trial the book had obviously not been ruled libelous so the court could not make a judgement on whether or not it was true. If the book is ruled libelous it will also mean anyone who publishes or reproduces the book, or part, thereof, will be liable to libel charges too.

    Incidently Amaral has lost a libel case he took to court, and has been ordered to pay not only the defence fees, but the court fees as well.
    I fail to see how a dry, factual book written by a senior detective who actually RAN an investigation can be considered libellous.

    What we have here is attempted censorship, no more, no less...and it has FAILED. The book is out there. Truth will almost always come out.

  31. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to SapphireSteel For This Useful Post:


  32. #19
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    London
    Posts
    765
    Amaral wouldnt know what the TRUTh was if it came up and bit him the bum.

    This is a policeman who was convicted of falsifying evidence - he has a suspended sentence . He was sacked from the original investigation for completely cocking up - he has other trials to face Is he complicent in the torture case ? - well let the portugese sytem run its course.

    The book is not banned in the UK or America - publishers are perfectly entitled to print and retailers sell it.

    hats of to the Mcanns for standing up to the lies and innuendos that have followed them - most people would have wilted .

    One day in this case we might find out what happened - how it happened and who took Madeleine - but it sure aint coming from the mouth of Amaral

  33. #20
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    6,155
    It remains a fact that Amaral and his team were originally investigating Madeleine's disappearance as an abduction.'

    It was British police who developed the evidence implicating the McCanns.

  34. The Following User Says Thank You to SapphireSteel For This Useful Post:


  35. #21
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    1,476
    Actually saphhire it is up to the courts to decide if it was fact or not, and that case is not until October. At this point no court has made any claim as to its factuality. If you have any other evidence it is a factual book, contact the defence and act as a witness in the trial. It is also not banned in the UK, so people could publish it if they wanted.

    Apparently in the book Amaral claims a body was found in the Jersey care home, which is not true. he is also a convicted criminal, and has a conviction for falsifying evidence in a criminal case. he is also facing another criminal trial for assault, and is being chased by the tax man. Interestingly his former co-accused who worked with him on several cases, is now faces charges (might have been convicted), for blackmail.

    It is misleading to state the british police developed the evidence against the mccanns. They provided the fss and the dog searches which the PJ incorrectly thought was evidence against the mccanns. At this time the british police were not actively investigating the case. The British police now working on the case have come out and said they believe it was an abudction.

  36. The Following User Says Thank You to brit1981 For This Useful Post:


  37. #22
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    6,155
    Quote Originally Posted by brit1981 View Post
    Actually saphhire it is up to the courts to decide if it was fact or not, and that case is not until October. At this point no court has made any claim as to its factuality. If you have any other evidence it is a factual book, contact the defence and act as a witness in the trial. It is also not banned in the UK, so people could publish it if they wanted.

    Apparently in the book Amaral claims a body was found in the Jersey care home, which is not true. he is also a convicted criminal, and has a conviction for falsifying evidence in a criminal case. he is also facing another criminal trial for assault, and is being chased by the tax man. Interestingly his former co-accused who worked with him on several cases, is now faces charges (might have been convicted), for blackmail.

    It is misleading to state the british police developed the evidence against the mccanns. They provided the fss and the dog searches which the PJ incorrectly thought was evidence against the mccanns. At this time the british police were not actively investigating the case. The British police now working on the case have come out and said they believe it was an abudction.
    It was not I that stated it. It was the British Ambassador to the US.

  38. The Following User Says Thank You to SapphireSteel For This Useful Post:


  39. #23
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    London
    Posts
    765
    for goodness sake this is just semantics - Police forces across the world cooperate - This case was and still is a portugese case . Of course the british police would help in anyway and they did - they helped look at the DNA evidence and then gave it back to the PJ - what is so startling about that ? It would be entirely natural to treat everyone as suspects and the parents would be the first up. But that it is why in a modern democracy you dont just declare people guilty because they look dodgy or you think they are. Youy need cast iron evidence that will be held up in court . The mccaans were never charged with any crime - the evidence wasnt there - they were not charged in Portugal , they were not charged with anything in Britain either.

    So not sure what the point is on this -

  40. #24
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    6,155
    Quote Originally Posted by gord View Post
    for goodness sake this is just semantics - Police forces across the world cooperate - This case was and still is a portugese case . Of course the british police would help in anyway and they did - they helped look at the DNA evidence and then gave it back to the PJ - what is so startling about that ? It would be entirely natural to treat everyone as suspects and the parents would be the first up. But that it is why in a modern democracy you dont just declare people guilty because they look dodgy or you think they are. Youy need cast iron evidence that will be held up in court . The mccaans were never charged with any crime - the evidence wasnt there - they were not charged in Portugal , they were not charged with anything in Britain either.

    So not sure what the point is on this -
    This is a wildly inaccurate statement to make.

    The evidence was and is there. Thanks to Wikileaks, we now have PROOF of this, in black and white.

    The evidence includes Madeleine's DNA, and cadaverine.

    The British Police were the ones who first developed this evidence, and supplied the dogs.

    The British government were the ones who then did a back flip, and applied undue pressure to their own and the Portugese investigation, along with the US government.

    What remains unclear is WHY. Embarrasment would be my guess...and a wish for it all to go away.

    http://www.mccannfiles.com/id353.html
    Everything I post is my opinion only, can change at any time, and is not intended to replace fact.
    Critical Thinking is often criticised.
    KISS

  41. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to SapphireSteel For This Useful Post:


  42. #25
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    London
    Posts
    765
    Quote Originally Posted by SapphireSteel View Post
    This is a wildly inaccurate statement to make.

    The evidence was and is there. Thanks to Wikileaks, we now have PROOF of this, in black and white.

    The evidence includes Madeleine's DNA, and cadaverine.

    The British Police were the ones who first developed this evidence, and supplied the dogs.

    The British government were the ones who then did a back flip, and applied undue pressure to their own and the Portugese investigation, along with the US government.

    What remains unclear is WHY. Embarrasment would be my guess...and a wish for it all to go away.

    http://www.mccannfiles.com/id353.html
    I am really staggered sometimes by your statements my post above was not widly unaccurate -

    1. The mccaans were never charged by anyone ??

    2 The police from the UK assisted with case - normal but it was always a portugese case

    3 there was no conclusive evidence found either way on what happened to madeleine .


    Your continued claims that this was a cover up by the US and British goverment somehow instructed the Portugese Police to shut down the case is ludicrous - and that is also my opinion of course

Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. School Censorship
    By golfmom in forum Up to the Minute
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 05-29-2008, 02:36 PM
  2. Case Against The Mccanns Is Strong
    By poco in forum Madeleine McCann
    Replies: 90
    Last Post: 09-24-2007, 09:21 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •