Daily Star-MADELEINE McCann’s parents hope to win a £1million libel payout this month from the ex-police chief who claimed they lied about their daughter’s disappearance.

[kweggie]

Anyone else know why they are suing him?

[Nigglenaggle]

They didnt lie? (as in that is the reason)

[janey68]

Erm...
I assume they are claiming that his publication is libellous? Youve kind of answered your own question in the title op!

[BoneyBackJefferson]

Probably due to the fact that you can read his book for free on th eweb.

[kweggie]

no,sorry, I mean what is he supposed to have lied about? I thought his book was based on the police files.......

[BoneyBackJefferson]

His view and there view of the nights events differ.

[EldritchCleavage]

He may have misrepresented the facts, or he may have added to the facts some comment and supposition that is libellous. As far as I can recall he effectively concludes that the McCanns were culpably involved in their daughter's disappearance. Problem is, if there were any good evidence to support THAT hypothesis, the McCanns would have been put on trial.

[PigletJohn]

it depends, of course, on how good the evidence was, and if it was admissible.

[JoshLyman]

His book alleges that they are involved in her disappearance and he appeared on numerous talk shows and the like, expounding this theory. Extremely damaging to the perception of them in Portugal and beyond and therefore disasterous to chances of the investigation ever being reopened or bearing fruit.

[kweggie]

but I thought the Mccanns went home when they were made suspects didn't they -so they could not be put on trial, could they? If there is no trial how can anyone say what is true?How can it be decided who is telling the truth and who isn't? Have you read his book?

[noddyholder]

His book is just a chatty version of the files re written in a 'story' format rather than factual reports iygwim. there was nothing 'new' in it so they probably won't win tbh.

[PigletJohn]

I would have thought police files were confidential, is an ex-cop allowed to make a fortune out of publishing them?

[noddyholder]

Well all the interviews etc are online and translated so not sure if Portugal different

[EdMcDunnough]

Christ. Not MORE legal wrangling from this lot.

It doesn't help their daughter.

[minceorotherwise]

They weren't ever formally charged with anything as far as I remember
They didn't skip the country because they were suspects avoiding trial!!
There was never sufficient evidence to charge them with anything. No one knows what happened do they?
But you can't go around accusing people without evidence, it's libel....

[lisaro]

Nobody knows who is telling the truth. The fact he's written a book for profit and talked on tv in a private capacity is deplorable, though. I'm guessing that's why they're suing.

[noddyholder]

He didn't accused them he relayed the conclusion that the police came to I think.

[minceorotherwise]

I haven't and won't read it
Pretty grim making money out of this, whichever way you look at it

[LynetteScavo]

FFS, they are not doing it to make money....the point is it's a liable case.

Any money, I would imagine would be put into the find Madeleine fund.

[minceorotherwise]

Sorry, that was unclear. I meant it's pretty grim that the police guy made money out of writing the book etc, NOT the Mcanns.
They are absolutely right to sue I think

[lisaro]

bobbledunk I see your valid views. The point here is that he is making money from his former professional position. Not just anecdotes or a diary, targeted accusations which can't be upheld. That's what is wrong here.

[kweggie]

lisaro if there's not been a trial how do we know if as you say 'they can't be upheld'? That is my point.
what is the difference between Kate writing her book to put her version of events and Amaral's book ( I haven't read either)which is what he has written from police files, which are publicly available?
I agree with bobbledunk in that I don't think Madeleine's parents have started from a very good place when they admit to leaving tiny children on their own at night while they went out.

[lisaro]

kweggie that's the whole point - the fact there has been no trial is the reason that it can't be upheld. FWIW I agree totally with bobbledunk.
As an aside I still feel this man is wrong to do this as, as this stands with no trial, it's conjecture, and he is being unbelievably unprofessional. I also felt extremely uncomfortable when the mother published a book, given the circumstances.
We do all need to remember though, that the tragedy here is the missing child.

[cat]

bobbledunk

That is sheer speculation and I have reported your post.

[PigletJohn]

I haven't read, and don't plan to read, either book.

But if one party publishes a book, which might be intended to put themselves in a good light, and might include lots of excuses, truths and half truths, and omit damaging information, would it be wrong for somebody else to subsequently publish another book which might include other information that might help the reader to form a different opinion? Provided of course that neither book ought to include anything that is a lie, but how can you be sure about either of them?