Libel judge speaks

by Sceptic 21.01.15 21:32

Martin brunt on twitter

#Madeleine Believed judge ruled some McCann claims not proved, includes claim Port police stopped looking for Madeleine after book published

#Madeleine Lisbon judge rules ex-cop's book caused McCanns hurt and emotional distress. From private hearing ahead of libel judgement

by ultimaThule 21.01.15 21:47

Brunt's tweets, among others, are being debated here https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t6793-twitter-news-and-important-information-only-please#151898 and also in the 'McCanns v Amaral' and 'Amaral v McCanns' Libel/Damages topic, Sceptic.

by Kitti007 22.01.15 7:58

#Madeleine Lisbon judge rules ex-cop's book caused McCanns hurt and emotional distress. From private hearing ahead of libel judgement

WRONG Brunty.....get your facts right for a change.

The judge ruled that it wasn't the book that caused the distress....they were distressed before the book, obviously.

by **PeterMac** 26.01.15 12:23

I have stood in the Crown Court on several occasions and seen the defendant "Distressed" and "Hurt", and in some cases deemed "suicidal" by the decision of the jury.

And then further "Devastated", and "Destroyed" - both in their private and public lives and career - by the sentence handed down.

That doesn't make it wrong. That is how the truth often works against people who have denied the facts.

by ultimaThule 26.01.15 12:47

And the ones who confdently expect to be acquitted because they've hired the services of extremely expensive briefs tend to look stupefied when a guilty verdict is returned and the judge dons the modern day equivalent of a black cap and sentences them to a whole life term.

In the case of Madeleine McCann I can't imagine that anyone found guilty of her murder could expect to receive anything less than to be deprived of their liberty for the rest of their days and, to my mind, such a sentence would be humane in that it would be as much for their protection as that of society.

by Liz Eagles 26.01.15 13:03

ultimaThule wrote:And the ones who confdently expect to be acquitted because they've hired the services of extremely expensive briefs tend to look stupefied when a guilty verdict is returned and the judge dons the modern day equivalent of a black cap and sentences them to a whole life term.

In the case of Madeleine McCann I can't imagine that anyone found guilty of her murder could expect to receive anything less than to be deprived of their liberty for the rest of their days and, to my mind, such a sentence would be humane in that it would be as much for their protection as that of society.

It's a bit of a moot point for me. It depends on whether you have any faith in Operation Grange. I don't.

by Guest 26.01.15 16:15

aquila wrote:
ultimaThule wrote:And the ones who confdently expect to be acquitted because they've hired the services of extremely expensive briefs tend to look stupefied when a guilty verdict is returned and the judge dons the modern day equivalent of a black cap and sentences them to a whole life term.

In the case of Madeleine McCann I can't imagine that anyone found guilty of her murder could expect to receive anything less than to be deprived of their liberty for the rest of their days and, to my mind, such a sentence would be humane in that it would be as much for their protection as that of society.
It's a bit of a moot point for me. It depends on whether you have any faith in Operation Grange. I don't.

I do,they'll deliver what they were set out to do,nothing.
I'm beginning to think it will be quietly let go, the staff will slowly be moved and it will remain open with a phone line but no announcement will be made, some 9 months or so down the line this will only be found out through a FOI request.
The McCanns know this,there is no money in the fund to pay any litigation cost so why keep it open,to keep up the tale of still looking for Madeleine when they know SY won't be.They can't admit to knowing she is dead.IMO

by jeanmonroe 26.01.15 16:33

DISREGARDING, the 'facts' about book 'sales' etc, what ACTUAL 'facts and points', EXACTLY, were PROVEN to be in favour of the McCann's 'side' re: their ACTUAL 'claim/s' and 'included' IN THEIR LEGAL WRIT/DOCUMENT (important) against the 'defendents' by the Judge?

Equally, what 'facts' were PROVEN, in favour, of GA's 'side', ( ergo, UNPROVEN by the McCann's, as fact) and the other 'defendents' in his/their 'defence'......... by the Judge?

In laymen's 'terms' if possible.

ie: 6 'proven' for McCann's

15 'unproven' by McCann's.

Thx, in advance.

by ultimaThule 26.01.15 16:36

If that were the case, there would have been no need for Operation Grange to have continued beyond the time in late 2012/early 2013 when the initial review was completed, WMD.

If the purpose was to exonerate the McCanns it could have been announced that, after some 2 years of examining every aspect of the case, the Met were satisfied that Madeleine was the innocent victim of an abduction by person(s) unknown to her/her family/the Tapas 7 and that nothing further could be done unless new leads emerged at some future date.

Such an announcement would, of course, have rubbished the PJ's initial investigation but, as some would have it, that would simply be by way of a Brucie bonus for the pampered and protected pair.

by Guest 26.01.15 17:00

ultimaThule wrote:If that were the case, there would have been no need for Operation Grange to have continued beyond the time in late 2012/early 2013 when the initial review was completed, WMD.

If the purpose was to exonerate the McCanns it could have been announced that, after some 2 years of examining every aspect of the case, the Met were satisfied that Madeleine was the innocent victim of an abduction by person(s) unknown to her/her family/the Tapas 7 and that nothing further could be done unless new leads emerged at some future date.

Such an announcement would, of course, have rubbished the PJ's initial investigation but, as some would have it, that would simply be by way of a Brucie bonus for the pampered and protected pair.

Their brief was to treat the investigation as if the abduction took place in the UK,if they have fulfilled this requirement,then what is left.
Their job is done.
Its difficult to see why they should choose that route though,because sections 9/10 of the offences against the persons act only allows the trial of persons involved in murder/manslaughter abroad to be held in this country.

I believe the PJ have played a blinder in this,they know what happened,but with political interference as ably displayed by the words of Mr Amaral they were not allowed to continue,they have cocked a snook at the british by allowing them to run rough shod over the country side, landscaping,in the full glare of the press for what? there is no sign of an abductor never was,the body will never be found GM confirms this.
Its a stalemate where only some one telling the true story will it end.
All opinion though.