The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™
Hello!

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 help us get to the truth about what really happened to Madeleine Beth McCann. Please note that your username should be different from your email address!

When posting please be mindful that this forum is primarily about the death of a three year old girl.

(Please note: if you register with the sole intention of disrupting or spamming, please don't expect to be a member for too long.)

Many thanks,

Jill Havern
Forum owner

Libel trial discussion

Page 3 of 3 Previous  1, 2, 3

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: Libel trial discussion

Post by Pascal on 16.01.10 12:44

eta I see a the bottom of Mr Bennets letter, a request the Mr Amaral receive an apology. I would still like to know to what extent the Foundation act for Mr Amaral.

Thanks again.
avatar
Pascal

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Libel trial discussion

Post by vaguely1 on 16.01.10 12:48

I don't know Pascal. I just think the whole thing is between Mr Amaral and the BBC. There is obviously not a genuine attempt to discredit him. On the news report the reporter was visibly shocked, so if a mistake has been made, it is just that, a genuine mistake.

I don't understand why everyone is rushing in with different versions of what was possibly said, and why they don't just ask Mr Amaral directly. It's not rocket science. It is coming across as people making excuses for him. I don't imagine for one moment that that's necessary.
avatar
vaguely1

Posts : 1992
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2010-01-11

Back to top Go down

Re: Libel trial discussion

Post by Pascal on 16.01.10 13:53

I'm not so sure if there is not an attempt to discredit him Vaguely, thats the problem I have. My concern is that Mr Bennet may be doing Mr Amaral a disservice in his attempts to obtain an apology from the BBC.

Martin Brunt was present along with the Sky interpretor. Was Mr Bennet there? How does he know what exactly was said, when there was a bleep? .

If Mr Amaral says he said 'nothing' then the BBC ought to corroborate what they used the bleep for.
avatar
Pascal

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Libel trial discussion

Post by vaguely1 on 16.01.10 13:58

I definitely think that stating what was said isn't going to help. The BBC have the footage - if they listen to what was said and it in no ways fits what is being stated in the apology demand then it won't help at all.

I think Amaral is the only one that can answer this. Although at least Brunt was present.
avatar
vaguely1

Posts : 1992
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2010-01-11

Back to top Go down

Re: Libel trial discussion

Post by Cath on 16.01.10 14:07

Brunt says he was present. Perhaps he wants mr Amaral to give him an interview for free?
mr Amaral did say something.
Perhaps the BBC will broadcast what he's said without the bleep, so we can hear it ourselves. On the other hand, after all the fuss about what mr Amaral said, don't you think they analyzed that tape again and they would have issued an apology to mr Amaral?

Cath

Posts : 597
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2009-12-22

Back to top Go down

Re: Libel trial discussion

Post by vaguely1 on 16.01.10 14:13

I don't know how quickly that would materialise. But at the moment they're the only people who have a recording of his words, so I suppose they have an upper-hand when it comes to knowing what was said. Everyone else heard it once, or not at all. The BBC can listen at will.

I do know that if the BBC are found to be wrong that it will be righted.
avatar
vaguely1

Posts : 1992
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2010-01-11

Back to top Go down

Page 3 of 3 Previous  1, 2, 3

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
McCanns apt & hire car


Blood and cadaver alerts
dismissed by UK Government


Retired DCI Gonçalo Amaral: "The English can always present the conclusions to which they themselves arrived in 2007. Because they know, they have the evidence of what happened - they don't need to investigate anything. All this is now a mere 'show off'."

Retired murder DCI Colin Sutton: "I would also like to make the point that Operation Grange was so restricted from the start as to be destined to fail."

Assistant Commissioner Mark Rowley made public on national TV that Operation Grange is a complete fraud.

Ex-DCI Andy Redwood had a "revelation moment" on BBC's Crimewatch on 14th October 2013 when he announced that Operation Grange had eliminated the Tanner sighting - which opened up the 'window of opportunity', in accordance with their remit, to allow the fake abduction to happen.

Despite "irrelevant behaviour" from blood and cadaver dogs in the McCann's apartment, on Kate McCann's clothes, and in the car they hired three weeks after Maddie disappeared, Ex-Chief Inspector, Ian Horrocks, said: "The thought that Kate and Gerry McCann had anything to do with the death of their daughter is frankly preposterous."

Gerry McCann called for example to be made of 'trolls'. SKY News reporter Martin Brunt doorstepped Brenda Leyland on 2 October 2014. She was then found dead in a Leicester hotel room. Brenda paid the price. She paid with her life.

Ex-Deputy Chief Constable, Jim Gamble QPM, congratulated SKY reporter, Martin Brunt, on twitter for doorstepping Brenda Leyland on behalf of Gerry McCann.

Prime Minister Theresa May introduces Prime Suspect Kate McCann to Royalty: The Duchess of Gloucester.

Good Cop Down: The reality of being a police whistleblower
https://goodcopdown.wordpress.com/