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

Injunction maintained

Page 1 of 5 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Injunction maintained

Post by jmbd on 18.02.10 11:47

# #McCann vs #Amaral: the TVI, VC Films and #Amaral are going to appeal 3 minutes ago from web
# #McCann vs #Amaral: the injunction is maintained

jmbd

Posts : 557
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2010-02-04

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Injunction maintained

Post by bunny on 18.02.10 11:48

Well it was kind of a foregone conclusion.

bunny

Posts : 335
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2010-02-13

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Injunction maintained

Post by jmbd on 18.02.10 11:49

# #mccann Isabel Duarte happy with victory and now on her way to the major legal action after this confirmation half a minute ago from Echofon
# TVI channel cannot comment on GAmaral thesis, but other tv channels can... 5 minutes ago from Echofon
# The book still banned 7 minutes ago from Echofon

jmbd

Posts : 557
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2010-02-04

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Injunction maintained

Post by Autumn on 18.02.10 11:52

A sad day for Justice - the McCanns deserve to rot in hell.

Autumn

Posts : 2603
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2009-11-25

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Injunction maintained

Post by jmbd on 18.02.10 11:56

what a shocking thing to say autumn

jmbd

Posts : 557
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2010-02-04

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Injunction maintained

Post by bunny on 18.02.10 11:58

Oh Autumn....this is the portuguese justice system. You have to look at what he put in the book and what the prosecutor said. It was clearly libellous and he was never going to win.

You cant just dismiss justice.

bunny

Posts : 335
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2010-02-13

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Injunction maintained

Post by Autumn on 18.02.10 12:03

What happened today has nothing to do with justice. Those of you still supporting the McCanns should hang your heads in shame - you care nothing about what happened to Madeleine, only about protecting your idols.

Good Luck to Snr Amaral in his appeal.

Autumn

Posts : 2603
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2009-11-25

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Injunction maintained

Post by bunny on 18.02.10 12:16

It has everything to do with justice. This means that he cant influence people about Madeleine being dead. Which in turn hopefully means that someone may have information that they didnt bring forward before.

Surely Autumn that is everything to do with Madeleine? supporting the theory that she is dead even though the prosecutor said there was no evidence... is about harming Madeleine ...no ?

bunny

Posts : 335
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2010-02-13

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Injunction maintained

Post by jmbd on 18.02.10 12:22

It is a legal decision of a court after due legal process. However - it has done nothing to determine what happened to Madeleine.

jmbd

Posts : 557
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2010-02-04

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Injunction maintained

Post by Pascal on 18.02.10 12:23

This is naff all to do with Madeleine Bunny. Although I don't think Mr Amaral should have written his book in the first place, I think the verdict is a disgrace. On this basis very many books should be thrown into the street and burned.

I'm starting to wonder if the McCanns are made of teflon after all.

Pascal

Posts : 626
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2010-01-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Injunction maintained

Post by justagrannynow 1 on 18.02.10 12:25

Banning this, or any other book will not convince me that Madeleine was abducted.

justagrannynow 1

Posts : 966
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2009-11-26
Location : France

View user profile

Back to top Go down

A political, not a judicial, decision

Post by Tony Bennett on 18.02.10 12:26

I received the news by e-mail from a Madeleine Foundation supporter.

Here is her note, and following that my reply:

From: [withheld]
Subject: The verdict
To: "ANTHONY BENNETT" <ajsbennett@btinternet.com>
Date: Thursday, 18 February, 2010, 11:50

The injunction is maintained - TVI, VC Films and Amaral are going to appeal. I was hoping there'd be some justice left in this sorry world but I was wrong!


+++++++++++++++++++++

MY REPLY:

It is as I thought.

This is a political campaign against the one man most likely to expose what really happened to Madeleine McCann. He has also riled powerful drug-dealers with influential friends in the Portuguese establishment with his past successes against them.

This verdict was predetermined. All the witnesses and cross-examination were mere pantomime. The aim to is to punish Amaral with costly and lengthy legal procedures, to delay them for as long as possible, and generally to attempt to exhaust his financial resources and, beyond that, his spirit.

Sorry to be so blunt but this is very definitely how I see it.

Thanks for the update

Tony

Tony Bennett
Researcher/Moderator

Posts : 13973
Reputation : 2147
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 69
Location : Harlow, Essex

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Injunction maintained

Post by bunny on 18.02.10 12:30

@Pascal wrote:This is naff all to do with Madeleine Bunny. Although I don't think Mr Amaral should have written his book in the first place, I think the verdict is a disgrace. On this basis very many books should be thrown into the street and burned.

I'm starting to wonder if the McCanns are made of teflon after all.

He was guilty of libelling the McCanns...saying that they were involved in her death. Net outcome is that some may believe she is dead. The Prosecutor and remember this was Amarals witness said there was a 50/50 chance that she was still alive. Tell me, if there was a 50/50 chance that your child was still alive and someone said otherwise...would you give up? or would you take the person to task?

its clearly libel.....the judge also thinks so and so did the previous judge as well.

bunny

Posts : 335
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2010-02-13

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Injunction maintained

Post by bunny on 18.02.10 12:31

@justagrannynow 1 wrote:Banning this, or any other book will not convince me that Madeleine was abducted.

I dont think this book is aimed at internet posters. They have already nailed their colours to the mast.

bunny

Posts : 335
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2010-02-13

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Injunction maintained

Post by jmbd on 18.02.10 12:35

Maybe people should have respect for the law and decisions of the courts - no, they are not always correct - but sometimes they are.

jmbd

Posts : 557
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2010-02-04

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Dr McCann can sue - but Eddie can't

Post by Tony Bennett on 18.02.10 12:40

@bunny wrote:
@Pascal wrote:This is naff all to do with Madeleine Bunny. Although I don't think Mr Amaral should have written his book in the first place, I think the verdict is a disgrace. On this basis very many books should be thrown into the street and burned.

I'm starting to wonder if the McCanns are made of teflon after all.

He was guilty of libelling the McCanns...saying that they were involved in her death. Net outcome is that some may believe she is dead. The Prosecutor and remember this was Amaral's witness said there was a 50/50 chance that she was still alive. Tell me, if there was a 50/50 chance that your child was still alive and someone said otherwise...would you give up? or would you take the person to task?

It's clearly libel...the judge also thinks so and so did the previous judge as well.
The dogs are more guilty than Amaral of libelling the McCanns. They should never have been sent to the Algarve in the first place. And we should henceforth ban all videos and records of their so-called 'evidence'. The only comments that should ever be permitted about those dogs are:

1) Martin Grime's admission that so far as evidence in a court of law goes, their so-called 'evidence' is utterly valueless unless it can be corroborated with forensic evidence, and

2) Dr Gerald McCann's statement that the dogs' evidence is 'incredibly unreliable'.

Remember also that Eddie does not have the legal power to sue Dr Gerald McCann for that last-quoted statement.

Tony Bennett
Researcher/Moderator

Posts : 13973
Reputation : 2147
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 69
Location : Harlow, Essex

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Injunction maintained

Post by Beth on 18.02.10 12:43

@Tony Bennett wrote:I received the news by e-mail from a Madeleine Foundation supporter.

Here is her note, and following that my reply:

From: [withheld]
Subject: The verdict
To: "ANTHONY BENNETT"
Date: Thursday, 18 February, 2010, 11:50

The injunction is maintained - TVI, VC Films and Amaral are going to appeal. I was hoping there'd be some justice left in this sorry world but I was wrong!


+++++++++++++++++++++

MY REPLY:

It is as I thought.

This is a political campaign against the one man most likely to expose what really happened to Madeleine McCann. He has also riled powerful drug-dealers with influential friends in the Portuguese establishment with his past successes against them.

This verdict was predetermined. All the witnesses and cross-examination were mere pantomime. The aim to is to punish Amaral with costly and lengthy legal procedures, to delay them for as long as possible, and generally to attempt to exhaust his financial resources and, beyond that, his spirit.

Sorry to be so blunt but this is very definitely how I see it.

Thanks for the update

Tony

So according to you Bennett, "powerful drug dealers with influential friends in the Portuguese establishment", influenced the case. In the light of this, dont you think you should refrain from discussing this case any further. If they can get to Mr Amaral, they certainly can get to you.

Beth

Posts : 16
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2010-02-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Injunction maintained

Post by bunny on 18.02.10 12:44

Libel......not only do the dogs not lie but now they write as well wow

bunny

Posts : 335
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2010-02-13

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Injunction maintained

Post by Beth on 18.02.10 12:47

@bunny wrote:Libel......not only do the dogs not lie but now they write as well wow
Maybe it was the drug dealers friends that taught them to write.

Beth

Posts : 16
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2010-02-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Injunction maintained

Post by jmbd on 18.02.10 12:47

Madeleine McCann book appeal lost by detective
Kate McCann holding up pictures of her daughter
Kate McCann holds up a picture of her daughter as she reiterates her appeal

A Portuguese former detective has failed to overturn a ban on his book about missing Madeleine McCann, a spokeswoman for her parents has said.

Gerry and Kate McCann said Goncalo Amaral's book defamed them and hindered their continuing search for Madeleine.

The book suggests Madeleine, who went missing from an Algarve holiday flat on 3 May 2007, aged three, is dead.

The couple, of Rothley, Leicestershire, welcomed the decision by a Portuguese judge, saying they were "relieved".

Mr Amaral was the initial head of the police investigation into Madeleine's disappearance but was taken off the case in October 2007, following his apparent criticism of British police work on the inquiry.

His book, Maddie: The Truth Of The Lie, which was originally published in July 2008, also questions the couple's accounts of theur daughter's disappearance.

'No harm'

In September 2009, a Portuguese injunction temporarily banned sales and further publication of the book as well as a DVD version of it.

Mr Amaral launched a bid to overturn the ban last month, calling a series of witnesses to support his claims.

But Judge Maria Gabriela Cunha Rodrigues, sitting at Lisbon's main civil court, rejected his challenge.

Mr and Mrs McCann said in a statement: "The court case has demonstrated, once again, that there is no evidence that Madeleine has come to any harm.

"It has also clearly shown that no police force is actively looking for Madeleine, even, shockingly, when they are presented with new information and leads.

"The motives of those who have tried to convince the world that Madeleine is dead, and who've disgracefully and falsely tried to implicate us in her disappearance, need to be seriously questioned."

The couple also called on the British and Portuguese authorities to continue to search for their daughter.

Mr Amaral's lawyers said the material in his book came from official police files for the investigation, many of which were made public when the case was shelved in August 2008.

The McCanns are also seeking 1.2m euros (£1.08m) in compensation for defamation in separate civil proceedings against Mr Amaral in Portugal.

The former detective previously said if he lost the case he would take an appeal to the European Court of Human Rights.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8521940.stm

jmbd

Posts : 557
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2010-02-04

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Injunction maintained

Post by Pascal on 18.02.10 12:50

@bunny wrote:
@Pascal wrote:This is naff all to do with Madeleine Bunny. Although I don't think Mr Amaral should have written his book in the first place, I think the verdict is a disgrace. On this basis very many books should be thrown into the street and burned.

I'm starting to wonder if the McCanns are made of teflon after all.

He was guilty of libelling the McCanns...saying that they were involved in her death. Net outcome is that some may believe she is dead. The Prosecutor and remember this was Amarals witness said there was a 50/50 chance that she was still alive. Tell me, if there was a 50/50 chance that your child was still alive and someone said otherwise...would you give up? or would you take the person to task?

its clearly libel.....the judge also thinks so and so did the previous judge as well.




Oh well diddums for the McCanns then. People get libelled every day of the week and can do sweet fanny adam about it. They don't have the press and the world stage at their feet to help them along the way. The McCanns are not sainted, although by the hardcore support they receive, one would be forgiven for believing otherwise.

In short, I've had it upto my back teeth with this whole affair.

for over two years I've wondered in and out of the forums keeping my head down as much as possible - being in the middle often means a good kicking from both sides. I have never taken to the McCanns. Their arrogance astounds me. I have taken on board the hardcore pro supporters with their snidey comments and the rabids on the other side ranting for justice for Maddie. i'm impressed by neither, it has to be said.

for the miniscule chance that Madeleine may still be alive, I have kept my counsel. I was shocked when Mr Amaral wrote his book. I could understand his anger and still do, but to write his version of events was at the very least foolish and disrespectful to the little girl.

for the McCanns to be in a position to ban such a book sets big alarm bells ringing for me. They should be looking for their child instead of demanding that everyone else does.

banning books is wrong on so many levels. This speaks volumes about the McCanns and they may well have shot themselves in the foot, long term.

ETA No Bunny, I would never give up SEARCHING and CO OPERATING.

Please forgive my outburst. I am so very angry today, it hurts.

Pascal

Posts : 626
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2010-01-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

A jury which had no respect for the law

Post by Tony Bennett on 18.02.10 12:54

@jmbd wrote:Maybe people should have respect for the law and decisions of the courts - no, they are not always correct - but sometimes they are.
Once upon a time, way back in the seventeeenth century, a jury had no respect for the law.

If only juries were to decide issues in Amaral's various trials, not judges.

Here's one account of this famous and wonderful precedent where 12 jurymen struck a powerful blow against bad law:

This right of the jurors to decide absolutely as they please became a part of English law a century before the Declaration of Independence. It was put there by the man who founded one of the original thirteen colonies, William Penn.

In 1670 Penn and William Mead, both members of the Society of Friends - that is, Quakers - were addressing an open-air gathering in Gracechurch Street, London, their meetinghouse having been closed by the authorities because a statute criminalized holding services anywhere but in a church of the established religion. Arrested for preaching to an unlawful assembly, Penn and Mead found themselves facing prosecution in the Court of Sessions at the Old Bailey before the Recorder of London, the Lord Mayor, several aldermen and sheriffs, and a jury. (Until well into the nineteenth century jury trials both here and in England often took place with a multijudge bench.)

Rex v. Penn and Mead hardly stands as a monument to due process. Harsh and vindictive, the Recorder and the Lord Mayor openly declared their belief in the defendants’ guilt and at one point virtually banished them from the courtroom. After the evidence ended—the defendants, in accordance with then current practice, not having been allowed to testify—the judges submitted the case to the jury with clear directions to convict.

Then as now, when rendering a verdict in a case like this, where the only issue was whether or not the defendants had committed a proscribed act, the jury was limited to three choices: guilty (of the offense alleged), not guilty of the charge but guilty of some lesser offense, or simply not guilty. The directions are explicit: “If he is guilty, you will say so. If he is not guilty, you will say so. And no more.”

The Penn-Mead jurors, however, speaking through the foreman, sought to return a different verdict: “Guilty of speaking in Gracechurch Street.” This, of course, evaded the essential question, which was simply whether the defendants had taken part in a public Quaker meeting and therefore been engaged in an unlawful assembly.

Despite verbal eructation from the bench and a repeated insistence that they reconsider the verdict, the jurors resisted, even after the judges had threatened to imprison them without food and indeed had them locked up “without any accommodation.” Finally, after two days without food, the jury capitulated, but only to return a straight not-guilty verdict for both defendants.

Furious, the judges took the unusual step of polling the jury (i.e., asking them individually to confirm the verdict), a procedure normally used only after a conviction. When the result remained the same, the irate Recorder fined them for acquitting against the judges’ direction (essentially for contempt of court) and ordered them sent to Newgate Prison until they paid. Eight did so, but four refused. Instead they obtained a habeas corpus, the great writ, which was then and is now the strongest procedure for determining the legality of an incarceration.

In a decision that three centuries later still remains the charter of jury independence, Chief Justice John Vaughan, speaking for the eleven-judge Court of Common Pleas, freed the hungry, thirsty, and angry jurymen. Modern lawyers regard Bushell’s case, named for one of the recalcitrant quartet, as the source of the rule that jurors need never explain their verdict, that they may in fact disregard the evidence, especially in a criminal trial, and (although it was not an issue in the Penn trial) that an acquittal is final, subject to no appeal by the unsuccessful prosecutor.

Bushell’s case thus has come to stand for the jury’s untrammeled right to return whatever verdict it pleases.

Tony Bennett
Researcher/Moderator

Posts : 13973
Reputation : 2147
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 69
Location : Harlow, Essex

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Injunction maintained

Post by bunny on 18.02.10 12:54

People get libelled every day of the week and can do sweet fanny adam about it

Pascal, very few people have a child missing though and a search going on for her.

Banning books is wrong....I understand your point here. However, you seem to believe that its okay to libel someone though? there is a very fine line and Amaral stepped over that line by miles.

Pascal, I do hope you don't think I have in anyway beenn snidey with you?

bunny

Posts : 335
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2010-02-13

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Injunction maintained

Post by jmbd on 18.02.10 13:01

Tony - fascinating.


I thought Amaral did have a jury at the trial when he was found guilty? Apparently non payment of the jury has held up the appeal.

(referring to what you said: If only juries were to decide issues in Amaral's various trials, not judges.)

jmbd

Posts : 557
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2010-02-04

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Injunction maintained

Post by bunny on 18.02.10 13:04

Freedom of speech as Amaral claims.....would that also cover copying other peoples work? would that also cover incitement to mass murder? incitement to racial hatred?

Would that same freedom of speech also cover the right of protestors at our soldiers home coming parade calling them child killers?

How far do you allow freedom of speech?

bunny

Posts : 335
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2010-02-13

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Page 1 of 5 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


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