DAILY MAIL CLASSIC

This article is so accurate it is worthy of copying and pasting it in its entirty:


Kate and Gerry McCann may sue over Portuguese detective's 'nonsense' YouTube conspiracy video blaming them for Madeleine's disappearance 



Kate and Gerry McCann may sue Portuguese detective Goncalo Amaral over his 'nonsense' YouTube documentary about their daughter Madeleine's disappearance.
The couple have always claimed they were innocent of any wrongdoing, despite former police chief Amaral's allegations Maddie died in their holiday flat and her parents faked her abduction to cover up the tragedy.
The couple's spokesman, Clarence Mitchell, said today: 'Any potentially defamatory material found online will be reviewed and assessed by Kate and Gerry's lawyers. They will decide if it is appropriate to take any legal action



It is believed they have the country's top libel lawyers, London-based Carter Ruck, working with them on the case.
A close friend of Maddie's family added: 'YouTube videos with lunatic conspiracy theories against the McCanns have sadly been available on the website for years. 

'It's not just Amaral but all the anti's spouting their nonsense. Kate and Gerry can't silence them all but their lawyers will be looking at any they feel are potentially libellous and damaging.'


Mr Amaral's controversial documentary can be viewed on the web around the world. 
'It is based on the former Portuguese police chief's best-selling book The Truth of the Lie, which the McCanns complained was libellous but which Portugal's Supreme Court ruled on appeal was not.
For viewers in Britain is has been dubbed in English with a tribute saying 'Many thanks to Joana Morias in Portugal for translation.'
It opens with a bold statement: 'The documentary the McCanns don't want you to watch! Huge red letters than flash onto screen: 'BANNED'- emphasising: 'Banned by the McCanns in September 2016' followed by: 'Decision: Overturned on October 19th 2011 by a High Court judge.'
Earlier this month Portuguese Supreme Court judges ruled against the McCanns last-ditch appeal over Mr Amaral's 2008 book - and said the lifting of their status as 'arguidos' - or formal suspects - did not mean they were innocent.
The statement came in the court's 76-page ruling on the McCann's fight against another court's decision to reverse their 2015 libel win against the former detective.



The couple were left facing a huge legal bill and the prospect of being sued by Mr Amaral, who led the initial hunt for Madeleine when she vanished, after being told last week the Supreme Court had gone against them in a ruling which was not made fully public until yesterday.
Judges made it clear in their decision their job was not to decide whether the McCanns bore any criminal responsibility over their daughter's disappearance and it would be wrong for anyone to draw any inferences about the couple's guilt or innocence from their ruling.    


But they added: 'It should not be said that the appellants were cleared via the ruling announcing the archiving of the criminal case.
'In truth, that ruling was not made in virtue of Portugal's Public Prosecution Service having acquired the conviction that the appellants hadn't committed a crime.
'The archiving of the case was determined by the fact that public prosecutors hadn't managed to obtain sufficient evidence of the practice of crimes by the appellants.
'There is therefore a significant, and not merely a semantic difference, between the legally admissible foundations of the archive ruling.
'It doesn't therefore seem acceptable that the ruling, based on the insufficiency of evidence, should be equated to proof of innocence.' 
The McCanns were told their 'arguido' status had been lifted on July 21 2008 when the Portuguese probe into Maddie's disappearance was shelved, three days before the controversial book was published.
The former detective was ordered to pay the couple £430,000 by a Lisbon court in April 2015 after they won round one of their lengthy judicial battle.
Mr Amaral got that ruling - and a ban on selling his book - overturned on appeal in April last year.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4231674/Kate-Gerry-McCann-sue-nonsense-YouTube-video.html

WELL-DONE, DAILY MAIL. Credit where it is due!

"Kate and Gerry can't silence them all.........."

And that's their 'bugbear'!

But, oh how they 'tried'!

Using 'donations', from a group of handicapped kiddies who donated, to the 'search fund', to sue, 'all and sundry'

Once again, as with the Sun, the DM readers' comments are devastating, and well informed! This would have been unthinkable just a couple of months ago.

But the press is still pandering to them. Why, when it's obvious that Amaral has the courts and the truth on his side? They may let many interesting comments through but I should think 95% are not shown. BTW Carter Ruck (says Guido Fawkes) is also acting for Keith Vaz who is denying - against his own voice recording - that he slept with rent boys. CR will take on any hopeless case.

Reggiregg wrote:But the press is still pandering to them. Why,  when it's obvious that Amaral has the courts and the truth on his side?  They may let many interesting comments through but I should think 95% are not shown. BTW Carter Ruck (says Guido Fawkes) is also acting for Keith Vaz who is denying - against his own voice recording - that he slept with rent boys. CR will take on any hopeless case.

Wouldn't you at £500 per hour?

Here's the Keith Vaz/Guido Fawkes article https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t13576-keith-vaz-sets-carter-ruck-on-andrew-pierce

If Carter Ruck takes on cases like Vaz (who was recorded talking about what he would do and has done with the rent boys) they will surely be known as the solicitors for hopeless cases - as a laughing stock. Their reputation certainly hasn't been enhanced over their link to McCanns.

Apologies if this is the wrong thread but there are so many being initiated on much the same subject, I'm spoilt for choice.

The documentary broadcast by TVI-Televisio, was based on Goncalo Amaral's book and formed part of the McCanns litigation against Mr Amaral - what is this, double jeopardy?  Surely they wouldn't be so dumb as to take the same road again - do they think a Portuguese court decision would change their mind if given a chance to reconsider?

Do Carter Ruck have jurisdiction to take action against a corporation outside of the UK with no UK connection?  Or are they thinking of targeting the YouTube narrator or the documentary interpreter?  If so, they might like to consider hounding the translators of the Truth of the Lie book and/or all those people out there that dared to read the book!

This is either an empty threat or media nonsense - or a bit of both.  I smell desperation.

They're going to sue the owners of YouTube, then the company that hosts Their website, then the country that they're Based in.... Oh sod it!!!! We'll just sue everyone in the world.... :-)

No no noooooo! Think out of the box. Ok this is just an empty threat that could never be achieved. However, as I've suggested in other posts, it's another little drip-feed to the masses that there actually is another side to this coin, and what has been read on the front pages for year so may not be quite true.
Turning the worm by stealth.

Love this comment

"Cheers for the info DM , now I can make sure I watch the right video on YouTube " 

Leading on to other videos , Richard D Hall and more ! CMOMM !

More information getting out . Well done DM !

I wonder what desperation smells like ?

Seabass , sweaty sandals , dirty nappies , rotten meat.  

Yes! Daily Mail made it very easy for everyone to identify the video  by its thumbnail :)

We have had close to 4,000 in one day on that video compared to usually 300

It's funny, I'm sure there are people questioning the official version of events surrounding the fate of Ben Needham, yet I have no idea who they are. Why? Because Ben's mother isn't wasting her time suing everyone left right and centre, and in the process highlighting such people and creating interest in their interpretations. She has no need or desire, because she's innocent.

nglfi wrote:It's funny, I'm sure there are people questioning the official version of events surrounding the fate of Ben Needham, yet I have no idea who they are. Why? Because Ben's mother isn't wasting her time suing everyone left right and centre, and in the process highlighting such people and creating interest in their interpretations. She has no need or desire, because she's innocent.

There remains strong circumstantial evidence that Ben Needham died in a motorycle accident on his uncle Stephen's bike - and that Stephen Needham buried, or otherwise got rid of, his body.

It is very possible that Kerry Needham knows this and has covered it up.

She made a lot of money from public donations and media appearances.

Does Kerry Needham truly believe that Ben was run over by a digger-driver who has since died?

I doubt it.

But South Yorkshire Police - at great expense to the South Yorkshire taxpayer - have sort of bought her a form of 'closure'.

I don't believe the 'dead digger-driver killed Ben' story - and neither do several others here on CMOMM

Tony Bennett wrote:
I don't believe the 'dead digger-driver killed Ben' story - and neither do several others here on CMOMM

I don't believe it at all.

Ah ok. I hadn't seen that discussed here on the forum. Personally I do think she has nothing to do with it. Either way, guilty or innocent, she's clearly got the right idea about not drawing attention to those questioning her version of events!

nglfi wrote:Ah ok. I hadn't seen that discussed here on the forum. Personally I do think she has nothing to do with it. Either way, guilty or innocent, she's clearly got the right idea about not drawing attention to those questioning her version of events!

If you scroll down to the bottom of the forum there's a whole section about Ben Needham:

https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/f40-ben-needham

So, they are not in agreement with the SUPREME COURT!
Of which stated, 
'It should not be said that the appellants were cleared via the ruling announcing the archiving of the criminal case.
'In truth, that ruling was not made in virtue of Portugal's Public Prosecution Service having acquired the conviction that the appellants hadn't committed a crime.
'The archiving of the case was determined by the fact that public prosecutors hadn't managed to obtain sufficient evidence of the practice of crimes by the appellants.
'There is therefore a significant, and not merely a semantic difference, between the legally admissible foundations of the archive ruling.
'It doesn't therefore seem acceptable that the ruling, based on the insufficiency of evidence, should be equated to proof of innocence.' 



Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4231674/Kate-Gerry-McCann-sue-nonsense-YouTube-video.html#ixzz4Z2nRJoej 
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook


THEN GET BACK TO PORTUGAL, RECONSTRUCT AND PROVE YOUR LACK OF GUILT IN ANY FORM WHICH RESULTED IN YOUR DAUGHTER GOING MISSING!