The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™
Hi,

A very warm welcome to The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™ forum.

Please log in, or register to view all the forums, then settle in and start chatting with us!

Enjoy your day,

Jill Havern
Forum owner

NOTICE TO ABUSE OF POWER, MCCANNFILES, MCCANNEXPOSURE, STEEL MAGNOLIA, MARIACPOIS & MADELEINEFOUNDATION.BLOGSPOT to remove allegedly libellous articles about Brian Kennedy

View previous topic View next topic Go down

NOTICE TO ABUSE OF POWER, MCCANNFILES, MCCANNEXPOSURE, STEEL MAGNOLIA, MARIACPOIS & MADELEINEFOUNDATION.BLOGSPOT to remove allegedly libellous articles about Brian Kennedy

Post by Tony Bennett on 07.10.11 8:31

This post acts as a PUBLIC NOTICE to the owners of the following websites or blogs, asking them to remove the articles on the links below, because Carter-Ruck, on behalf of Brian Kennedy, say they are libellous of their client.

A letter from Carter-Ruck re Brian Kennedy dated 3 October declares, on pages 3 and 4 of the letter:

"We note that you have removed the articles complained of from your own website but...a number of the publications complained of continue to be published both on the 'Jill Havern' website, and on other websites.

These publications...continue to be published:

]http://gerrymccann-abuseofpower-humanrights.blogspot.com/2010/11/leicester-police-wont-investigate-brian.html

]http://gerrymccann-abuseofpower-humanrights.blogspot.com/2010/03/monsterman-how-kate-and-gerry-mccann.html

]http://mcccannfiles.com/id336.html

]http://mcccannfiles.com/id383.html

]]]http://mccannexposure.wordpress.com/2010/11/03/kevin-halligen-the-mccanns-clarence-mitchell-brian-kennedy-time-the-public-had-answers-to-some-questions

]http://steelmagnolia-steelmagnolia.blogspot.com/2011/07/mccanns-indepth-look-at-agenda-of-brian.html

http://mariacpois.blogspot.com/2010/10/ray-wire.html

http://madeleine-foundation.blogspot.com/2011/-1/bennett-on-ray-wyre-and-mccanns-link.html

It is clear that you have not made any real efforts to remove all the postings complained of from the 'Jill Havern' website...We must repeat our client's requirement that you do now use your best endeavours to remove this material from not only the 'Jill Havern' site but from the others to which we refer above".

I shall be writing today individually to the owners of all the above websites and blogs asking them to remove those articles on the grounds that Brian Kennedy considers that they libel him.

Tony Bennett
Researcher/Moderator

Posts : 13957
Reputation : 2141
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 69
Location : Harlow, Essex

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: NOTICE TO ABUSE OF POWER, MCCANNFILES, MCCANNEXPOSURE, STEEL MAGNOLIA, MARIACPOIS & MADELEINEFOUNDATION.BLOGSPOT to remove allegedly libellous articles about Brian Kennedy

Post by Get'emGonçalo on 07.10.11 8:42

I've just clicked on the links that refer to my blog and the posts aren't there. I didn't remove them so does that mean Carter Ruck have contacted the host?

The links to mccannfiles and mccann exposure aren't there either.

So why are Carter Ruck going to bother to write to us when the job is already done?

Surely they're not going to charge Brian Kennedy twice? shame on you

Get'emGonçalo


Posts : 7106
Reputation : 2493
Join date : 2009-11-25

View user profile http://gerrymccan-abuseofpower-humanrights.blogspot.co.uk/

Back to top Go down

Re: NOTICE TO ABUSE OF POWER, MCCANNFILES, MCCANNEXPOSURE, STEEL MAGNOLIA, MARIACPOIS & MADELEINEFOUNDATION.BLOGSPOT to remove allegedly libellous articles about Brian Kennedy

Post by pennylane on 07.10.11 9:29

Get 'em Gonçalo wrote:I've just clicked on the links that refer to my blog and the posts aren't there. I didn't remove them so does that mean Carter Ruck have contacted the host?

The links to mccannfiles and mccann exposure aren't there either.

So why are Carter Ruck going to bother to write to us when the job is already done?

Surely they're not going to charge Brian Kennedy twice? shame on you

I wondered why most of the links had been already whooshed! Probably someone with the dreaded disease 'stir-itis' (not mentioning any names) complained (again), and CR didn't bother to check it out first. I mean why bother investigating when your clients' have tons more money then sense. sarcastic

pennylane

Posts : 2529
Reputation : 1189
Join date : 2009-12-07

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: NOTICE TO ABUSE OF POWER, MCCANNFILES, MCCANNEXPOSURE, STEEL MAGNOLIA, MARIACPOIS & MADELEINEFOUNDATION.BLOGSPOT to remove allegedly libellous articles about Brian Kennedy

Post by Gillyspot on 07.10.11 11:12

Get em Gonçalo wrote: I've just clicked on the links that refer to my blog and the posts aren't there. I didn't remove them so does that mean Carter Ruck have contacted the host?

The links to mccannfiles and mccann exposure aren't there either.

So why are Carter Ruck going to bother to write to us when the job is already done?

Surely they're not going to charge Brian Kennedy twice?
Does your host service have the right to modify your blog and if so to do so without at least notifying you? If so that is worrying for free speech.

____________________
Kate McCann "I know that what happened is not due to the fact of us leaving the children asleep. I know it happened under other circumstances"

Gillyspot

Posts : 1470
Reputation : 3
Join date : 2011-06-13

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: NOTICE TO ABUSE OF POWER, MCCANNFILES, MCCANNEXPOSURE, STEEL MAGNOLIA, MARIACPOIS & MADELEINEFOUNDATION.BLOGSPOT to remove allegedly libellous articles about Brian Kennedy

Post by Me on 08.10.11 8:54

My two cents worth.

May i suggest Tony that in your work going forward you simply stick to the facts and leave out any kind of conclusions or summation. You can't libel someone with irrefutable facts.

Don't give them the opportunity to continuosly pick at the work you do by drawing conclusions which they can then scream libel on.

I thought i saw part of a letter from CR claiming that you accused the McCann's of lying and there was no proof of this. Am i imagining things or was that in one of your posts?

If it was i do hope you replied back to them quoting both the public prosecutor and the judge in the Amaral case which explicitly accused them of lying.

____________________
What is certain is that since the start of the investigation there were  incongruent and even contradictory situations concerning the witness statements; the telephone records of calls that were made and received on mobile phones that belonged to the couple and to the group of friends that were on holidays with them; the movements of people right after the disappearance of the little girl was noticed, concerning the state in which the bedroom from where the child disappeared from was found (closed window? open window? partially open window?) etc., and the mystery would only become even thicker due to the clues that were left by the already mentioned sniffer dogs. - The Words of a JUDGE in relation to the McCanns

Me

Posts : 683
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2011-05-22

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: NOTICE TO ABUSE OF POWER, MCCANNFILES, MCCANNEXPOSURE, STEEL MAGNOLIA, MARIACPOIS & MADELEINEFOUNDATION.BLOGSPOT to remove allegedly libellous articles about Brian Kennedy

Post by truthsoup on 08.10.11 11:27

It is libellous to call somebody ( a named person or persons) a liar. It is also libellous for Amaral to outright call a person a liar, which I do not believe he did. It is not libellous to say that the Madeleinefoundation is a liar because it is an anonymous group.

truthsoup

Posts : 24
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2011-09-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: NOTICE TO ABUSE OF POWER, MCCANNFILES, MCCANNEXPOSURE, STEEL MAGNOLIA, MARIACPOIS & MADELEINEFOUNDATION.BLOGSPOT to remove allegedly libellous articles about Brian Kennedy

Post by truthsoup on 08.10.11 12:07

The rules are heavily stacked in favour of the claimant: it is up to the defendant to demonstrate that there is no libel (e.g. that what they wrote was factually true: call someone a liar and you don't stand a chance, as you'll have to demonstrate that they knowingly spout falsehoods: you have to demonstrate their state of mind). I think Mr. Amaral stated that Jane may have been mistaken, which is not libellous.

truthsoup

Posts : 24
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2011-09-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: NOTICE TO ABUSE OF POWER, MCCANNFILES, MCCANNEXPOSURE, STEEL MAGNOLIA, MARIACPOIS & MADELEINEFOUNDATION.BLOGSPOT to remove allegedly libellous articles about Brian Kennedy

Post by Guest on 08.10.11 12:44

The trouble is truthsoup, when you take someone to court, you cannot control what will come out during that hearing. Just look at the McCann's taking Goncalo Amaral to court. Before they did, no one had ever heard of Lee Rainbow and what his conclusions were. Now everyone knows.

So if they want to take Tony Bennett to court, they had better be prepared for all eventualities, hadn't they !!

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: NOTICE TO ABUSE OF POWER, MCCANNFILES, MCCANNEXPOSURE, STEEL MAGNOLIA, MARIACPOIS & MADELEINEFOUNDATION.BLOGSPOT to remove allegedly libellous articles about Brian Kennedy

Post by truthsoup on 08.10.11 16:45

Hi, stella, My post was referring directly to Me's above mine wherein he stated

the public prosecutor and the judge in the Amaral case explicitly accused them (the Mccanns) of lying.

and that Tony could rely on this as evidence. Actually, no, calling somebody a liar in public is stand-alone evidence of libel and I doubt that those words were ever expressed by the public prosecutor and the judge in the Amaral case.

But Tony has admitted his evidence about Mr. Kennedy is flawed or he was mistaken otherwise he would not have removed it so readily. It takes a person of great character to admit his wrongs and put them right.

truthsoup

Posts : 24
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2011-09-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

A clear statement

Post by Tony Bennett on 08.10.11 18:29

@truthsoup wrote:But Tony has admitted his evidence about Mr. Kennedy is flawed or he was mistaken otherwise he would not have removed it so readily...
Let me make the following very clear.

In my correspondence with Carter-Ruck, I have made no admission whatsoever that my evidence about Mr Brian Kennedy is 'flawed' or 'mistaken'.

When a person is told by the country's top (and most expensive) libel lawyers, who are acting on behalf of one of the nation's wealthiest people, that some article or post may have libelled that person, it is a sensible precaution to remove the postings in question, as I have done. That has been done explictly (I won't be quoting from the actual correspondence) on the basis that I make no admission of liability for any alleged libel.

It is clear that Mr Kennedy believes that some of my material has libelled him, so for that reason I have publicly apologised to him if anyone has believed, as a result of reading any of my articles or postings that he has taken part in any cover-up of the true circumstances of Madeleine's disappearance.

Certain - indeed a great many - unarguable facts remain, e.g.

* One of the lead investigators employed by Metodo 3, who were paid for by the Find Madeleine Fund, was Antonio J(G)imenez, a corrupt senior police officer in Catalonia (Spain) who is now serving an 18-year jail term for stealing £25 million of cocaine together with a group of drug-dealers, and whilst employed as a police officer in 2004. Antonio J(G)imenez's actions on behalf of Metodo 3 are a matter of record

* Brian Kennedy was a member of the McCann Team who appointed Kevin Halligen, who has been in jail since November 2009, being wanted on a $2 million fraud charge in the U.S.

* The Managing Director of iJet went on the public record to say that the McCann Team had not followed up calls to their 'investigation hot line' for several months in 2008

* Brian Kennedy's current lead investigator, Dave Edgar, said in a much-televised press conference about a Victoria Beckham-lookalike seen in Barcelona that Jane Tanner might have seen a woman carrying a child at 9.15pm, not a man

* On 10 December 2007, Marcos Aragao Correia, a Portuguese lawyer from Madeira, says he met with Metodo 3 detectives at the Arade Dam. Marcos Aragao Correia has said that he was employed by and paid by Metodo 3 on behalf of Brian Kennedy and the McCanns. Seven weeks after the Arade Dam meeting, a very public search of the Arade Dam was carried out by a team of divers. Correia said he was funding this out of his own pocket (he lied) and said he was doing it because underworld sources had told him on Sunday 6 May that Madeleine had been abducted, raped, killed, and her body thrown into the Arade Dam (he lied again, changing his story to saying that he became involved in the Madeleine McCann case because he had a 'vision' of a very large man strangling a 4-year-old blonde girl).

People must make of these facts what they will; it seems that I must be confined to publishing facts and not commenting on them or analysing them.

In the face of the threat of overwhelming financial and legal muscle we have deemed it to be the wisest course to agree to Mr Kennedy's demands. The above facts and many more are in the articles we have decided to remove.

As 'Me' correctly said above, the publication of irrefutable facts can never be libel.

Tony Bennett
Researcher/Moderator

Posts : 13957
Reputation : 2141
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 69
Location : Harlow, Essex

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: NOTICE TO ABUSE OF POWER, MCCANNFILES, MCCANNEXPOSURE, STEEL MAGNOLIA, MARIACPOIS & MADELEINEFOUNDATION.BLOGSPOT to remove allegedly libellous articles about Brian Kennedy

Post by Shibboleth on 08.10.11 23:36

I do not quite understand, is Tony being made responsible for what other people have put in blogs and forums? How can he make people on the Mccannfiles and other places remove articles if he does not own those sites.

____________________
“Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have guns, why should we let them have ideas.” ~ Joseph Stalin, 1897-1953
"If Adolph Hitler flew in today, they'd send a limousine anyway." ~ Joe Strummer, 1952-2002

Shibboleth

Posts : 500
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2010-10-16
Location : Jaffa - Tel Aviv

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: NOTICE TO ABUSE OF POWER, MCCANNFILES, MCCANNEXPOSURE, STEEL MAGNOLIA, MARIACPOIS & MADELEINEFOUNDATION.BLOGSPOT to remove allegedly libellous articles about Brian Kennedy

Post by Me on 09.10.11 8:14

@truthsoup wrote:It is libellous to call somebody ( a named person or persons) a liar. It is also libellous for Amaral to outright call a person a liar, which I do not believe he did. It is not libellous to say that the Madeleinefoundation is a liar because it is an anonymous group.

You miss the point. It is not libellous to call someone a liar when a judge has already, in a ruling, called them (effectively) liars.

Furthermore it is not libel to call someone a liar when the evidence and statements provided show "contradictions" between the accounts given by people which have never been satisfactorily explained.

____________________
What is certain is that since the start of the investigation there were  incongruent and even contradictory situations concerning the witness statements; the telephone records of calls that were made and received on mobile phones that belonged to the couple and to the group of friends that were on holidays with them; the movements of people right after the disappearance of the little girl was noticed, concerning the state in which the bedroom from where the child disappeared from was found (closed window? open window? partially open window?) etc., and the mystery would only become even thicker due to the clues that were left by the already mentioned sniffer dogs. - The Words of a JUDGE in relation to the McCanns

Me

Posts : 683
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2011-05-22

View user profile

Back to top Go down

BIG DIFFERENCE BETWEEN EXPLICITLY AND EFFECTIVELY

Post by truthsoup on 10.10.11 18:00

ME – Your original post stated:



the public prosecutor and the judge in the Amaral case explicitly accused them (the Mccanns) of lying

YOU THEN CHANGED THAT SENTENCE TO:


It is not libellous to call someone a liar when a judge has already, in a ruling, called them (effectively) liars.



So which is it??? Please post the transcript wherein the public prosecutor and the judge EXPLICITLY called the Mccanns LIARS. I say it again. That source if you really have it, is stand alone evidence of libel because one cannot be sure that the McCanns had intent to deceive. INTENT is the crucial word here. Nobody can prove another person’s intent. Even if the McCanns had bad recall about events that alone would not raise eyebrows.

Who knows exactly what they were doing on a certain day, every minute of every day, especially on holiday. I do not even wear a watch on holiday, I just go by how much tan I am getting to move back indoors to cool off, but in retrospect I have no idea when I did so. I go to the tapas for something to eat when I feel hungry but I have no idea what time I would have done so.

truthsoup

Posts : 24
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2011-09-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: NOTICE TO ABUSE OF POWER, MCCANNFILES, MCCANNEXPOSURE, STEEL MAGNOLIA, MARIACPOIS & MADELEINEFOUNDATION.BLOGSPOT to remove allegedly libellous articles about Brian Kennedy

Post by Me on 10.10.11 18:29

@truthsoup wrote:ME – Your original post stated:



the public prosecutor and the judge in the Amaral case explicitly accused them (the Mccanns) of lying

YOU THEN CHANGED THAT SENTENCE TO:


It is not libellous to call someone a liar when a judge has already, in a ruling, called them (effectively) liars.



So which is it??? Please post the transcript wherein the public prosecutor and the judge EXPLICITLY called the Mccanns LIARS. I say it again. That source if you really have it, is stand alone evidence of libel because one cannot be sure that the McCanns had intent to deceive. INTENT is the crucial word here. Nobody can prove another person’s intent. Even if the McCanns had bad recall about events that alone would not raise eyebrows.

Who knows exactly what they were doing on a certain day, every minute of every day, especially on holiday. I do not even wear a watch on holiday, I just go by how much tan I am getting to move back indoors to cool off, but in retrospect I have no idea when I did so. I go to the tapas for something to eat when I feel hungry but I have no idea what time I would have done so.

I didn’t change any sentence. If you read you will note they are two different sentences alluding to the same conclusion.

Your defence appears to rely on word play, but that won’t wash.

Applying a degree of intelligence and logic you will note that the prosecutors and judges choice of word is “contradictions” rather than “lying” but applying said qualities one can determine that the words used in court mean the same as the word lying.

Can you explain the difference, in the context of the prosecutors report and the Judges summing up displayed in my signature the difference between "contradictions" and "lying".

What do you think the judge means by using the word contradictions to describe their statements? Do you think he means they're not telling the truth becuase they are contradictory? If that is the case what is another word for not telling the truth?

Let’s look at some other examples then:

In January 2010 in open court Mr Menezes stated "the couple lied to police about how long they had left Madeleine alone."

Furthermore in the archiving report Mr Menezes stated:

“It is extracted from the files that the McCanns and their friends checked to verify if all was well with their children, as can be concluded from what the members of this group declared, and also derives from the testimony of Jerónimo Tomás Rodrigues Salceda, a waiter at the Tapas, who stated that he "noticed, because it was evident, that some of the group's members sometimes went outside of the restaurant to do something, which by and by he realised was to "check" on the children. Nevertheless, he was always convinced that those children were in a space that belonged to the Luz Ocean Club…Nevertheless, it can also be concluded from the files that this surveillance with the periodicity that was mentioned above was not the one that is alleged in the files, which leaves unexplained why, on that night, the procedures were altered in the sense of reducing the checking intervals.”

And:

“Pamela Fenn, who resides on the residential block's first floor, above the apartment that was occupied by the McCann family, clarified that on the 1st of May 2007, two days before her disappearance, at around 10.30 p.m., she heard a child crying, which from the sound would be Madeleine and that she cried for an hour and fifteen minutes, until her parents arrived, at around 11.57 p.m.

This shows that the parents were not persistently worried about their children [and] that they didn't check on them like they afterwards declared they did, rather neglecting their duty to guard those same children, although not in a reckless or gross, manner.”

In the court case earlier this year, Mr Menezes repeated this statement from his report saying they had not been telling the truth about the frequency of their checks.

So if they aren’t telling the truth, they are, according to the prosecutor, lying, are they not?

Feel free to check yourself, then come back to me.

It boils down to the number and weight of “mistakes” and
“contradictions” you are prepared to accept as normal and acceptable
behaviour and when such behaviour should arouse suspicion. Clearly we know where you stand on the issue.

____________________
What is certain is that since the start of the investigation there were  incongruent and even contradictory situations concerning the witness statements; the telephone records of calls that were made and received on mobile phones that belonged to the couple and to the group of friends that were on holidays with them; the movements of people right after the disappearance of the little girl was noticed, concerning the state in which the bedroom from where the child disappeared from was found (closed window? open window? partially open window?) etc., and the mystery would only become even thicker due to the clues that were left by the already mentioned sniffer dogs. - The Words of a JUDGE in relation to the McCanns

Me

Posts : 683
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2011-05-22

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: NOTICE TO ABUSE OF POWER, MCCANNFILES, MCCANNEXPOSURE, STEEL MAGNOLIA, MARIACPOIS & MADELEINEFOUNDATION.BLOGSPOT to remove allegedly libellous articles about Brian Kennedy

Post by truthsoup on 10.10.11 20:00

Finally, a thesis about truth. A thesis about truth because Moita Flores came to this court to say that the absolute truth belongs only to God. The truth that belongs to men is a dynamic truth, a truth that is gradually obtained. This because when he was questioned several times about the legitimacy of discussing a thesis that the Public Prosecutor did not reach, he even said: "The Public Ministry had an opinion. That does not mean that there could not be another one". And Isabel Duarte told him, at the end: "But there are people here who have been absolutely murdered on the public square". And Moita Flores finalised by saying: "So was Gonçalo Amaral".


Public prosecutor Jose Cunha de Magalhaes e Meneses's testimony on Tuesday said that it was "50-50" whether the child is dead.

The Court was discussing Amaral's thesis, a thesis which belongs only to himself, a thesis which cannot be used as second hand evidence. I do not see ANY court transcript that calls the McCanns liars. In fact, Moita Flores goes further than that (above) when he states that the truth belongs to God.

truthsoup

Posts : 24
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2011-09-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: NOTICE TO ABUSE OF POWER, MCCANNFILES, MCCANNEXPOSURE, STEEL MAGNOLIA, MARIACPOIS & MADELEINEFOUNDATION.BLOGSPOT to remove allegedly libellous articles about Brian Kennedy

Post by Me on 10.10.11 23:57

@truthsoup wrote:Finally, a thesis about truth. A thesis about truth because Moita Flores came to this court to say that the absolute truth belongs only to God. The truth that belongs to men is a dynamic truth, a truth that is gradually obtained. This because when he was questioned several times about the legitimacy of discussing a thesis that the Public Prosecutor did not reach, he even said: "The Public Ministry had an opinion. That does not mean that there could not be another one". And Isabel Duarte told him, at the end: "But there are people here who have been absolutely murdered on the public square". And Moita Flores finalised by saying: "So was Gonçalo Amaral".


Public prosecutor Jose Cunha de Magalhaes e Meneses's testimony on Tuesday said that it was "50-50" whether the child is dead.

The Court was discussing Amaral's thesis, a thesis which belongs only to himself, a thesis which cannot be used as second hand evidence. I do not see ANY court transcript that calls the McCanns liars. In fact, Moita Flores goes further than that (above) when he states that the truth belongs to God.

The hapless prosecutor's theory on the likelihood of the child being alive has nothing whatsoever to do with whether the parents lied. I have quoted what he said in both his report and in court in relation to their lies and you've not been able to rebutt or disprove that.

"A thesis which belongs to himself"? Ha! Really? How about Rebelo and the entire team after Amaral? What were their conclusions? What's that? Exactly the same! Skip them then, how about the judge in the Amaral case, ruling on Amaral's thesis.

We've had this one before, but let's show it again so you can be in no doubt:

"What is certain is that since the start of the investigation, there were incongruent and even contradictory situations concerning the witness statements, the telephone records of calls that were made and received on mobile phones that belonged to the couple and to the group of friends that were on holidays with them, the movements of people immediately after the disappearance of the little girl was noticed, concerning the state in which the bedroom from where the child disappeared from was found (closed window? open window? partially open window?), etc., and the mystery would only become even thicker due to the clues that were left by the aforementioned sniffer dogs."

Note the judges comments "what is certain". Not maybe or perhaps but certain. The judges were certain the witness statements contained "contradictions" (clue - that means lies).

Next bit:

"Where Amaral differs from the Prosecutors who wrote the dispatch, is in the logical, police-work-related and investigative interpretation that he [Amaral] makes of those facts."

Finally:

"We need, to stress the following: the facts that led to the applicants' constitution as arguidos within the inquiry were later on not sufficiently valued by the Public Ministry's Prosecutors to lead to a criminal accusation, but those very same facts, seen from a different angle, may lead to a different conclusion from that of the prosecutors.

Suggestive data ("indications") that were deemed to be insufficient in terms of evidence in a criminal investigation, can be appreciated in a different way, in an interpretation that can legitimately be published as a book, as long as the interpretation does not offend any fundamental rights of anyone involved. In our view that said interpretation does not offend the applicants' rights."


So it wasn't a thesis which belonged only to Amaral. Judges, actual Judges in an actual court of law also agreed that his theory was a valid interpretation of the facts of the case.

I'm ignoring all the rubbish about the truth belonging to God becuase if that is what your argument relies on you're on real rocky ground.

____________________
What is certain is that since the start of the investigation there were  incongruent and even contradictory situations concerning the witness statements; the telephone records of calls that were made and received on mobile phones that belonged to the couple and to the group of friends that were on holidays with them; the movements of people right after the disappearance of the little girl was noticed, concerning the state in which the bedroom from where the child disappeared from was found (closed window? open window? partially open window?) etc., and the mystery would only become even thicker due to the clues that were left by the already mentioned sniffer dogs. - The Words of a JUDGE in relation to the McCanns

Me

Posts : 683
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2011-05-22

View user profile

Back to top Go down

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum